87 FRANCISCI SCORSI PROŒEMIUM II. pus : the surname Keramites truly added to Philip, which in fact and meaning is the same as Kerameus, as I touched upon above, leads me to the opinion that this Philip was of the same house and family as our Theophanes Kerameus. For this name being that of a family seems to me more probable than that of a fatherland: a thing which I see pleases some of my learned and noble friends of Palermo: for these wish Theophanes Kerameus to be so called from a town which is today called Ceramis in Sicily, situated not far from Troina in the valley of the Lord: about which Fazellus has not uttered a single word, and has produced only the name, nothing besides; but I do not accede to their opinion for three reasons: first, because his fatherland is gathered to be elsewhere from those things which I shall say in the following section; second, because I see no mention of the town of Cerami made in the writers of Sicilian affairs before the year 1000 from the birth of Christ, whence it cannot be affirmed whether it existed or not in the time of Theophanes, that is, before the Saracen dominion; third, from the very usage of speech: for Theophanes is not called A Kerameus, as Dionysius is called Halicarnasseus, as Plutarch is called Chaeroneus, absolutely, in the way that the Greeks were accustomed to speak in surnames taken from a fatherland, but Theophanes is called by the surname Kerameus, as if by that word added as a surname the name of a kin or family is signaled, and that of the fatherland is excluded; for no one would say: Plutarch by the surname Chaeroneus. It remains, therefore, that if it is a name of family or kin—which will be rendered more probable to me by the fact that I find in some manuscript monuments which are kept in various libraries, whose elegant index P. Antonio Possevino describes in *Apparatus Sacer* vol. II, that there are kept in the Viennese library the addresses and homilies of a certain John Kerameus on the four Gospels; and in the same volume in the manuscript Constantinopolitan library of Nicephorus, surnamed Figulus, or Kerameus, [there are] explanations and sermons on the most holy Gospel. Indeed, the surname Figulus, which signifies the same as the Greek Kerameus, it is B evident was of an ancient Roman family, from Nigidius Figulus, a most lettered man in the times of Cicero, to whom are the epistles of Cicero himself. Whether the family of our Kerameus drew its origin from him, I have nothing that I can affirm, nor anything that I can deny; although I see that this pleases the most learned man P. Jacques Sirmond, in an epistle which he wrote back to me when I consulted him about this matter. One could judge that this surname is of the kind by which many bishops or writers of that century were affected, for in that way it should be said that Theophanes Kerameus was called just as Dionysius Exiguus and Peter, bishop of the Sardinians, was called by the surname Miserum; about whom Baronius writes in the year of Christ 837, who was together with Eulapius, bishop of Apamea, at the initiation of Photius; just as also Zacharias of the same faction, who was called by the surname Cophus: which C things, being added by some condition of birth, and habit of body or of his mind, or of his own, or even assumed from the voluntary descent and induction of the mind, can seem to have been used for that reason by which 89 among the Romans one was called Lentulus Spinther, Licinius Calvus, Aemilius Paulus, Cornelius Scipio, about which surnames and their origin Sigonius discourses at greater length in his book *De factis consularibus*, in his singular little treatise *De nominibus Romanorum*: but I do not wish to divine this, since I cannot affirm or conjecture [it]. Therefore, I conclude from this whole dissertation as certain: that this work is of one author, and that he is the Kerameus, archbishop of Tauromenium, accustomed to be inscribed now as Theophanes, now as Gregory, by his own proper name, which, from the faith of all manuscripts, as I have just said, must be held as ascertained; but I have judged that the name of Theophanes, which has been more celebrated and popularized by writers of the best mark who have taken testimonies from these sermons, or have inserted them complete into their printed books, should be more retained and celebrated.
§ III. Fatherland and upbringing of Theophanes. Where Theophanes was born and where he was educated would be clearly evident from his own words and confession, if it were sufficiently clear about the temple of Saint Andrew, in which he held a homily on the day of his feast (homil. L). Let us place therefore here first what he himself discloses in the proemium of that homily, so that from it as from a firm principle and foundation we may be able to reason and gather his fatherland and upbringing. Thus, therefore, he speaks: The sermon of today’s celebration will be a payment D of an old debt, not some display of wisdom: for I have not come here to be looked at adorned by my eloquence, nor to hunt for the honor of a fatherland by the charm of my tongue and the pomp of my oration: for rather I would wish my philosophy, whatever that might be, to be kept hidden, so that I may escape the breath of vainglory: but since this sacred house of the apostle, the first-called, has educated me like a nurse her child, and has offered me the breast of primal institutions and has instilled as milk the doctrine of the sacred scriptures (I will cut out some things which do not pertain to the matter), the remainder I pay to this church as the price owed for my upbringing, and, as is in the proverbs, I fulfill the Pelargic law: and together with you, o assembly beloved of God, I celebrate this solemn day, and looking upon my fatherland, the dear soil, so religiously celebrating the memory of the saints, I am carried away with joy and I exult. These things [says] Theophanes in the homily about St. Andrew. If therefore someone should show that that temple of St. Andrew where he was making a sermon to his fellow citizens had already pointed out his fatherland. But who could point a finger at that, and demonstrate it with certainty? Who, out of such great antiquity, after so many turns of tempests, after the slaughter of the Saracens and the demolition of temples and towns, could root it out? But come now, let us divine the matter not by a Delphic oracle, but, as I hope, by a heavenly one. Four things, however, upon which the whole reasoning hangs, must be put before: first, that the place where the sermon was held was the place of his birth and upbringing, which is evident of itself; the second, that Theophanes came with deliberate effort to honor it with his sermon, which is also not obscurely understood from the very words; the third, that it was such a place in which not
a few had been accustomed to read and discourse, for this is what those words seem to imply: "For I did not come here to be admired for my eloquence"; as it is a sign that those listeners had not previously admired Theophanes’ eloquence; the fourth, that before he was consecrated bishop, he had professed the monastic life: this last point is not gathered from the proemium of the homily, as the three preceding points are, but is shown from the custom of the Eastern Church, in which bishops were customarily chosen from among monks. A This I demonstrated above by the example of Photius himself, the pseudo-patriarch, which is also most openly shown by Pope Nicholas I in his letter to Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, where, refuting the calumny cast by Photius himself upon the Latins—that a deacon, before being ordained a presbyter, could not be promoted to the office of bishop—he speaks as follows: "And because, among us, a deacon is not ordained bishop without having received the office of the presbyterate, while they themselves do not fear to promote to the pinnacle of the episcopate, by imperial favor and power, even him whom they call their patriarch, though he was suddenly consecrated from a layman and made a monk." B But what necessity was there for him to attend first and be initiated as a monk, unless so that, even in such perversion and violence of the act, the custom might not appear to be overlooked, and that he might not seem to have been made bishop illegitimately? But besides this custom, I have also in my own collection, gathered by Fr. Octavius Caetanus, a letter of Photius himself sent to Theophanes the monk, written in Greek, copied by the hand of Fr. Jacobus Sirmundus and rendered into Latin by the same, taken, I believe, from the library of Cardinal Columna—which was previously Cardinal Sirlet’s, and is now called the Duke of Altemps’—from which Baronius extracted many and contributed them to his *Annals*, which he asserts exist there with many others in that library, in Tome X. C Therefore, since this letter is most pertinent to this discussion, and is adapted to many other matters of which I shall speak, I shall describe it in its entirety, in both Greek and Latin.
To Theophanes the Monk
. "If the letter from us, who are lowly, is pleasing to you," etc. See among the letters of Photius under number 202, in Volume II of our edition of the works of Photius, Patrologia CCII, col. 923. EDITOR’s NOTE. Many things persuade me that this letter was sent to our Theophanes: Sicily itself, of which mention is made in the letter; the fact that it is found together with those that were written to Gregory, Bishop of Syracuse, to Euthymius, Metropolitan of Catania, and to Mark the Sicilian; and the chronological relation, which I shall calculate more subtly below. For in the time of Photius, Zacharias was Bishop of Taormina, and in the same time as Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse and Euthymius of Catania. D Therefore, it strongly fits that at this time Theophanes was still leading a monastic life, from which he was raised to the episcopal dignity and became the successor of Zacharias; this is confirmed by both the praise of wisdom and doctrine attributed to him by Photius, which is also constantly read in the inscriptions of this work, and by the task given him of refuting that man who was disseminating heresy when he said that Christ was not to be depicted and adored in an image, which points to the piety and zeal for defending the faith that was seen in Theophanes even when he was still a monk: these, I say, all make it entirely certain that this letter was sent to him. Having therefore considered these points, let us proceed to the matter at hand. A There are two churches and monasteries of St. Andrew, concerning either one of which Theophanes might be able to speak in his homily. The first is that about which St. Gregory writes in Letter 57, Indiction XI, Book II, to Secundinus, Bishop of Taormina, in these words: "We have long since commanded that, because of the insolence of the monks of the monastery of St. Andrew which is above Mascalis, the baptistery should be removed, and an altar should be founded in the same place where the fonts are." Such are the words of St. Gregory, from which you have the most ancient monastery and church of St. Andrew, and indeed of the diocese of Taormina, before the incursion of the Saracens. But the town of Mascalis is not far from Taormina, specifically, eight miles away; for the field of Mascalis, which is still called so today, is contiguous with the territory of Taormina. B That town, however, was royal, and stood until the times of Frederick II, King of Sicily, certainly until the year 1296, when, during his reign, it was burned by the rebel Roger of Lauria, who brought an army there. But indeed, mention also exists of the church of St. Andrew at Mascalis in the same Thomas Fazellus: he writes, in Book IX, Chapter 5, that it was built by Joannes Dives, who fled there to escape a plague that was devastating all of Sicily, and yet he was overtaken by death, which pursues the fleeing man, in that same place; it is probable that this is the same church that stood in the time of St. Gregory, having been rebuilt by Joannes Dives after it had been destroyed by the Saracens. C Therefore, this conjecture seems to me to approach the truth most closely: that our Theophanes was educated in that monastery of St. Andrew of which St. Gregory writes to Secundinus; that he learned the sacred scriptures there as a boy from that old man of whom he speaks; and that, as time progressed, when he had already been created Bishop of Taormina, he brought himself to that church to honor it with his presence and his sermon on the day sacred to St. Andrew, since it was in his own diocese and was not so far from Taormina, with the desire of repaying the debt to his nursing fatherland. D The other church of St. Andrew, or rather the small shrine which we could draw into our conjecture, is at Taormina; for the sake of visiting it—having no other reason to make the journey—I went there, so that I might be able to discover something certain about this church, from which the fatherland of Theophanes could be shown. It is located on an elevated cliff that rises quite high above the sea, cut away on all sides, and clinging to the Taorminian ground toward the west by a narrow path; and the promontory itself is called St. Andrew’s from the church, and is two miles away from the town, as matters stand now. If you examine that church, you might suspect it is not attached to a monastery; nevertheless, the area is capable of holding a monastic building, and the place is deserted, and seems removed from the access of men, suitable to the monastic life.91 There exist also, even now, before the building, traces of an ancient edifice and of walls; some of them rise above the ground, while the foundations of others are seen leveled with the ground itself: furthermore, four columns stand there, corresponding to one another with square sides at a palm’s height. But yet, there is no one who might relay what manner of building this was. One might hazard a guess that there was a monastery there, joined to the temple of St. Andrew, which in those times was somewhat larger. The gathering of the people in that place, especially on the feast day of St. Andrew, customarily held by the people of Tauromenion, could suggest that it had been derived from those ancient times in which Theophanes boasts that the people of his fatherland are frequent in celebrating the feasts of the saints; but this is conjecture rather than based on any certain foundation. Therefore, since I have the foundation of the Mascalensian temple from the already recounted epistle of St. Gregory, my mind leans more towards the first conjecture. And from this I infer that Theophanes’ fatherland was either the town of Mascalis or Tauromenion. And indeed, I would rather opine for the latter. For it does not hinder the fact that a gathering was held on that day by the people of Tauromenion in that temple of St. Andrew, and that Theophanes also assembled there on account of his piety toward it. For since it is said by St. Gregory to be above Mascalas, it is easy to judge that it was situated between Mascalis and Tauromenion, and thus was not placed so far from Tauromenion as the town of Mascalis itself was.
92 Rocchus Pirrus, in the *Notitia Ecclesiae Tauromenitanae*, although he says that the year in which this author wrote cannot be established with certainty, nevertheless concludes that he lived after the year 842 as a necessary inference from the homily delivered on the feast day of the restoration of the Holy Images, which solemn memory was instituted in said year. And this is the opinion of the authors who wrote before me; which I, as I have said, do not so much follow as demonstrate to be true from other places in the homilies which they did not read, and I bring the matter into a narrower compass and designate a certain time. And assuredly I establish two terms of the intervening years, within which I deem it entirely certain that Theophanes lived. The first is the year 842 noted above, on the argument already mentioned; the other is the year in which Tauromenion was captured by the Saracens, which, as an author of the best faith—primarily Constantine Porphyrogenitus, son of Leo himself—relates in Book II of *De Thematibus Imperii Orientis*, occurred under the reign of Leo; recall the place already cited above in *Proemium I*. John Curopalates and, following him, Thomas Fazellus and Dom Rocchus Pirrus agree on this. But in which year of Leo the Wise Tauromenion was captured by the Saracens, I have learned from the history which John, deacon of the metropolitan church, wrote regarding Procopius the bishop and his companions who were most inhumanly slaughtered by those enemies of the Christian faith at the storming of Tauromenion, on an occasion which I shall mention. He wrote a booklet on the *Translation of St. Severinus from the Luculanum castle to the city of Naples*, which translation was made through fear of Brochinus (others name him Abrayan, but this was corrupted from that), the king of the Saracens, who, having received Panormus and captured Tauromenion, sent an army into Calabria, intending to raid that entire region even up to Rome. The writer therefore prefixed to his booklet the storming of Tauromenion and the slaughter of Bishop Procopius, concerning which we also wrote above in *Proemium I, § 2*. Octavius Caetanus, who was most diligent in seeking out such monuments of Sicilian affairs, and who, by his authority and courtesy among friends, was most effective, received the history from the manuscript membranes of the monastery of SS. Severinus and Sossius of the Order of St. Benedict in the city of Naples, copied by his dearest friend. To the point. This writer John notes here the 24th year of the reign of Leo and Alexander. Now Leo was crowned by his father Basil through the Patriarch St. Ignatius on the solemn day of the Theophany, in the third year of Basil himself, the year of Christ 870, and on the same day Alexander, the other son, was created Caesar. Anastasius the Librarian, who was present at that coronation, records this, and Curopalates agrees, and Baronius in the said year, as do they; and the aforementioned Caetanus counts in the same way, and proves it further from the *Life of St. Elias of Enna*, whom he establishes as having died in this year. From this year, therefore, by setting the calculation, the year of the storming of Tauromenion is made 893. Since therefore Procopius was bishop in this year (but we do not know how many years he governed the Tauromenitan church), it was necessary that Theophanes preceded him by at least one or two years, again, when Zacharias IV. [Century in which Theophanes flourished.] There is not, of all the matters discussed in these proems, one thing more certain and clearer than the century in which this author existed; for in the very obscurity of the century, he shines forth as some light when the others have been extinguished. Nor, indeed, is there in this proem any authority of a writer thinking otherwise for me to refute, but rather the affirmation of many who think rightly. For Jacobus Gretserus, of the Society of Jesus, well-deserving of Christian letters and all things, in Volume II, *De Cruce*, in notes to the two orations of Theophanes Kerameus, judges that he flourished at a time when Sicily had not yet been entirely subdued by the Saracens: which is circa the year 900, moved by the reason that toward the end of his second oration *On the Cross*, the author implores the aid and virtue of the Emperor against the impious Ishmaelites; which he does likewise in the oration *On the Advent of the Holy Spirit*, in his apostrophe to the Holy Spirit Himself: "Be a champion for our pious Emperor against the impious sons of Hagar! Preserve his empire in peace and tranquility!" The others who placed Theophanes in the same century, I believe, took it from Gretserus himself. For in the *Bibliotheca Patrum* edited in Cologne, in which those two orations on the cross are placed which were edited by Gretserus, this author is listed with the Fathers of the ninth century. And among the Fathers of the same century, Dominicus Gravina, of the Order of Preachers, numbers him in his book of *Catholic Prescriptions against the Heretics of our time*, where he makes a review of the Fathers of each individual century. Dom Roc-
etc. 93 as the bishop of that same Church may be found up to the first year of Basil, in which the eighth synod was celebrated, in which that impenitent man was deposed, just as were the other schismatics who were stubborn with Photius, as we have also discussed above; and it is certainly established that it will also be consistent within the scope of these years that Theophanes flourished as bishop of Tauromenium, indeed from the third year of Basil up to the sixteenth year of Leo; and it is clear to us that we must not overstep or wander beyond or within those boundaries.
But now let us demonstrate this calculation of time much more plainly from many other indications, deduced from the homilies themselves and their introductions. For besides those places already related above, where he prays to God for virtue for the Emperor against the impious Ishmaelites (and it is certain to those who read the histories that in the time of Basil and Leo there was a great conflict with the Saracens in Sicily), there is also a notable passage from the *Homily on the Parable of the Supper* (Hom. XI), in which, when he was speaking about the Gentiles who, before the Gospel was preached, were entirely involved in the pleasures of the body, he also brings up an example from the Saracens: *“Such as we see these neighbors of ours, the descendants of Ishmael, who are continually exchanging wives for others,”* etc. When he says “neighboring Ishmaelites,” it is necessary that they were not yet in Tauromenium, but in some town or fortress near there. Nor is it likely that the practice of the Christian religion could have flourished so well in a city already oppressed under the tyranny of the Saracens: and yet in these homilies, there is frequent mention of the celebrations and feast days of St. Pancratius, St. Philip, St. Andrew, St. Onuphrius, and others, in which he himself gave sermons to the people.
Furthermore, in the *Homily on the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul* (Hom. LV), in the very introduction, he magnificently adorns the temple built by the Emperor in the palace: *“I rejoice with you, O city, and with you for the sacred temple erected in the palace.”* But that this is the one which was most magnificently built by Basil the Macedonian in Constantinople, Joan. Curopalates indicates in these words, no one, I believe, will deny: *“He saw to the building of many other sacred temples in the palace in the name of the Prophet Elijah, and the martyr Clement, and of Christ the Savior, and the Apostle Peter, and the Prince of the Host; the beauty of which not even poetic grandiloquence could express.”* And whoever reads the introduction of that homily will clearly perceive how graphically Theophanes attempted to describe and adorn it with his eloquence. I shall show below in § 5 that some of these homilies were delivered in Constantinople. What is more, in these homilies he makes mention of the infirmity of his age and makes excuses for why he cannot deliver a longer sermon; which is a sign that he was in his seventies, or even eighties, in the time of Leo.
94 I shall conclude this paragraph with a supreme argument which clearly demonstrates the whole matter. Theophanes himself, although he does not name them, nevertheless describes the emperors for whom he prayed to God in his perorations, indeed in the *Homily on Palm Branches* (Hom. XXVI): *“Praying that the God-guarded power of our pious Emperor may remain unshaken for his sons, and that it may be extended and made to proceed prosperously by God, who has adorned him with wisdom and fortitude and with the imperial diadem.”* Which we translate thus: *“Let us also pray that the power of our most pious Emperor, guarded by the divine, may remain unshaken even for his sons; that it may be extended, and that through the guidance of God—who has adorned him with wisdom and fortitude and with the imperial diadem—it may proceed prosperously.”* And in the *Homily on the Holy Apostles* (Hom. XLVII): *“Ceaselessly praying throughout many cycles of years that the power of our pious Emperor be preserved, as he guides the rudder of the realm through piety, and while adorning the diadem with words, and being himself adorned with the goodness of his ways, he possesses true praise from virtue.”* This is: *“And let us ceaselessly pray to God that He may preserve the power for our pious Emperor throughout many long years, who, while he guides the rudder of the empire through piety, and is himself adorned with the probity of his character, also adorns his diadem with his teachings, and obtains true and noble praise.”* Who, I ask, is this other emperor who is adorned with wisdom and has adorned his diadem with his teachings, if not Leo, the son of Basil the Macedonian, who was surnamed “The Wise” or “The Philosopher” by all writers and is numbered among the ecclesiastical writers. Moreover, the mention of the sons of the Emperor, which is made by Theophanes, very much strengthens the conjecture: for Basil indeed had this Leo and Alexander, and Leo had Constantine.
I refrain from transcribing other things here from Baronius, lest I exceed the proper length in this paragraph. Let it be noted, however, in the meantime, from Bellarmine, that which contributes most to the recommendation of our Theophanes: the first century enlightened by Leo is obscure; that is, it was a time of a dearth of learned men and writers. Whence also Theophanes is rightly to be esteemed as the light of that century, as I have said above, and for that very reason is to be held in high regard.
§ V. In what century Symeon Metaphrastes lived is affirmed by the age of Theophanes, whose sentences the former uses. If it were not yet known to anyone in what age Symeon Metaphrastes lived, he could certainly now rightfully doubt concerning the century of our Theophanes (which has been established by us) and dismantle and overturn the whole dissertation woven above. Theophanes praises him as an author, sometimes describing him, sometimes pointing out his name, in the *Homily on the Raising of Lazarus* (Hom. XXV), and in the *Fourth Matins* (Hom. XXXI), he calls him *“a sweet compiler of translations”*; in the *Homily on the Fifth Matins* as well (Hom. XXX), Symeon—
95 the one who composed the translations very well. Therefore, it is necessary that Theophanes wrote after him. In what age, then, did Metaphrastes write? Gerard Vossius, in *De historicis Græcis*, lib. II, cap. 26, says that the dispute is still subject to judgment; but I declare that it can finally be decided from this work now brought to light; and indeed in such a way that the opinion of the most excellent writers and chroniclers prevails; whose group is led by the most eminent writer of Annals and calculator of times, Cardinal Baronius, who in vol. X, for the year of Christ 859, after having made mention of Michael Psellus, the teacher of Leo the Philosopher, from John Curopalates (this is not the same Leo the Philosopher who is called Leo the Wise, the son of Basil the Macedonian, who was associated with him in the empire in the year 870, but another, who flourished and taught under Michael III Porphyrogenitus around the year of Christ 859: thus, therefore, Baronius speaks of Michael Psellus, the teacher of this Leo: From these things you likewise have it, reader, in what time Psellus lived, who was the teacher of Leo the Philosopher; from which you will likewise learn in what time Metaphrastes lived, in whose praise Psellus himself delivered an oration, by which he showed that he had not long since died, when he says regarding his passing that those who saw his transit to God heard [of it]; these are his words: “For those who saw him did not say that he had been severed or divided; but he seemed to be freed as if from some bond, and to extend himself with a joyful nod, drawing the angels, and in a certain manner delivered himself into their hands, so that he might quickly emerge from the body.” Thus far Baronius: this oration of Psellus exists in Surius on November 29th (in Greek and Latin in Allatius, *De Symeonibus*). Then, when he had warned the reader about the Lives of the saints who lived after these times, that this was done by another's work, who collected the individual saints in their own days and months, and added them to those composed, or rather collected, by Metaphrastes, lest they seem to wander outside their class, he finally concludes thus: From the time of Psellus, therefore, you will better understand the times of Metaphrastes, for even if you should say that there were several Pselli, we have found none more famous or older than this one. This judgment of Baronius has been followed by other noble writers of our Society. Cardinal Bellarmine, another light of the Church and glory of the purple, in his book *De scriptor. eccles.*, says: Symeon Metaphrastes flourished a little before the year of our Lord 859, since Psellus, who lived in that year, is said to have delivered an oration at his funeral. Jacob Gretser, in a short work added to George Codinus, *De officiis Magnæ Ecclesiæ et aulæ Constantinop.*, discusses the age of Metaphrastes following the opinion of Baronius against the Calvinist Hospinian, who blathered that he was a modern writer; where he says this among other things, after having related the passage of Curopalates concerning Michael Psellus: There is nothing for the Calvinist to refuse to attribute the eulogy of Metaphrastes to this Psellus with Baronius, many years his senior, except his hatred of Metaphrastes, regarding the histories of the saints. 96 But do not be surprised that certain histories of saints who lived after Metaphrastes are found in the volumes of Metaphrastes: they were added by later authors, as is customary with writers and collectors of this kind. So says Gretser. Finally, Antonio Possevino in his *Apparatus sacer*: You will better know the times of Metaphrastes, says Baronius in vol. X, from the time of Psellus. Thus Possevino. Although he here did not sufficiently distinguish Leo the Philosopher, whose teacher the elder Psellus was, from Leo called the Wise, the emperor; but instead confused both of them: yet the former flourished in the time of Michael III and his mother Theodora, around the year 842, the latter began to reign in the year 870: just as he does not say there were two Michael Pselli, but that the same one was both the teacher of Leo the Wise and wrote the book *De fide* to the emperor Michael Ducas: but this man reigned one hundred and fifty years after Leo the Wise. Nor does Horatius Torsellinus differ much from them in *Epist. hist.*, lib. VII; for he holds that Symeon Metaphrastes lived before the year 900, peer to Regino, abbot of Prüm, and Ado of Vienne. Truly, now that mention has been made of the double Psellus, we have sown the seed of a controversy, which must, however, be entirely rooted out, as I hope. Gerard John Vossius argues against Baronius and Bellarmine on the count of error in lib. II, *De historicis Græcis*, cap. 26; for when he had related their opinion concerning Symeon Metaphrastes from the funeral oration of Michael Psellus: Both, he says, beyond controversy place Michael Psellus as having flourished under Michael III, as I said before. Nor can I deny that a certain Michael Psellus lived in those times or a little before (for John Curopalates clearly testifies to this), but I deny that this is that noble philosopher of whom many works survive to this day. Nor will I rashly, so as not to disagree with these great men, make it plain shortly, when I shall speak about the age of Psellus. This is Vossius, who then wishes Michael Psellus to have flourished in the times of Michael VI Stratioticus, the son of Isaac Comnenus, Constantine XII Ducas, his wife Eudocia, Romanus Diogenes, and Michael VII Ducas. But indeed, these things concerning the age of the two Michael Pselli having been granted; I still do not see what sufficiently just cause Vossius has for departing from the opinion of Baronius and Bellarmine; and why he prefers to attribute the oration on Metaphrastes to the younger rather than the older Psellus. For from what little letter of the Encomium did he carve this out, to speak well against the Calvinist-worshipper Hospinian, or could he carve it out? By what evidence, I ask, does he make the later Psellus the author of that Encomium rather than the older? I truly see no other evidence than the mere judgment of Vossius himself, and therefore he says this very thing rashly, not that he disagrees with the judgment of Baronius and Bellarmine rashly. Truly, even if we cannot bring forward any reason for either judgment, nor can it be gathered from any passage of that Encomium which Michael Psellus is its author—
97 Was it (for I do not believe Vossius will ever demonstrate this from the works of the younger Psellus, for he would have brought it forward had he possessed it), and if the matter therefore still hangs in the balance, and this knot seems to require a deliverer, there now approaches, as if A *ex machina*, God himself—this Theophanes, who might settle the dispute for Baronius and Bellarmine and add so much weight to their judgment that it would no longer be right to doubt it or the truth of the matter. For since in the preceding § IV it was most openly shown that this Theophanes Kerameus, Archbishop of Tauromenium, flourished under Basil the Macedonian and his son Leo, who, as I have said, began to reign with his father in the year 870, it is also most plainly evident that Symeon Metaphrastes flourished before him, and that the Michael Psellus who was his encomiast was the elder, not the younger one, as Baronius and Bellarmine and other most learned writers have judged. Nor do I now see by what reasoning the age of Theophanes can be called into doubt, let alone, that being sufficiently and more than sufficiently affirmed, by what reasoning the age of Metaphrastes can any longer be controverted. For already, from the light which we cast upon Theophanes, the same lamp seems to have been brought to shine, by the same effort, upon the great obscurity of Symeon Metaphrastes. Nor should the judgment of Gilbert Genebrard in his *Chronology* move us now; he wishes Metaphrastes to have lived around the year 700. For this is likewise merely his own judgment; he brings forward no argument for the matter. This judgment is refuted in the same way as that of Vossius—much less should the railing and delirium of that Calvinist Hospinian against Metaphrastes count for more than a sound judgment, who claims that he was a common schoolmaster in Constantinople, that he wrote legends of lies, and that he did not live more than two hundred and twenty years ago. Gretser, in the short work mentioned, sufficiently refuted and ridiculed him, especially from the fact that in the Council of Florence, sess. vi, Symeon Metaphrastes is praised twice with great honor. For thus Andreas, Bishop of Rhodes, addressing the Greeks, said: "First, therefore, let Symeon Metaphrastes, most celebrated in your churches, approach." And in the same session, the same: "Let that be read which is read daily by you in the churches, Symeon Metaphrastes." The passage to be read was from the *Life of St. Dionysius the Areopagite*, in which Metaphrastes openly says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Furthermore, Joseph, Bishop of Methone, against Marcus of Ephesus: "Symeon the New Theologian, who is also Metaphrastes." From these authorities, Gretser argued against Hospinian that one who was most celebrated in the churches of the Greeks, and who attained so much authority, could not have been a schoolmaster from the streets, nor could he have lived only two hundred years ago, even if Hospinian were allowing that, since the Council of Florence was celebrated in the year 1439, that is, one hundred and eighty-three years ago, and it seems incredible that Metaphrastes could have acquired such authority in so short a time, such that he was opposed to the Greeks in the œcumenical council along with the ancient Fathers. Read more against Hospinian in Gretser himself. Neither do I read of any other who has written against the age of Symeon as we have set it forth. For what Theodore Balsamon says in canon 63 of the Council in Trullo, where it is decreed that the apocryphal histories and acts of the saints are to be separated from the true: *Gratia itaque B. Metaphrastae habenda, quod res martyrum tanquam veritatis fossas non sine laboribus et sudoribus repurgavit et exornavit ad Dei laudem et SS. martyrum perennem gloriam.* (Gratitude, therefore, is owed to the blessed Metaphrastes, because he, as if cleaning out the ditches of truth, cleansed and adorned with many labors and sweats the matters of the martyrs for the praise of God and the everlasting glory of the holy martyrs). This, I say, does not obstruct our now illuminated opinion, although this passage was objected to me in a private letter by a most learned man of our Society, when we were debating this matter by letter; for it seems to him that Balsamon speaks of Metaphrastes as a recent writer. Now, Balsamon wrote—that schismatic and enemy of the Roman Church—in the time of George Xiphilinus, Patriarch of Constantinople, to whom he dedicated his work; this Xiphilinus began his tenure in the year 1191. For as to those words, what prevents us from understanding them as referring to Metaphrastes, even if he lived more than three hundred years earlier? For what else does Balsamon intend than to commend the work of him who brought the acts of the saints from fables to the truth? And it is right that the gratitude for this should be everlasting and remain, to say nothing of it perishing three hundred years after Metaphrastes.
§ VI. The inscription of the homily called for Palm Sunday is explained.
B The opinion concerning the age of Theophanes Kerameus is further confirmed.
Among so many lights that shine to show in what age Theophanes wrote, one wall seems to block us and to cast shadows upon an eye less acute for discerning. For where one might read in the homily *On the Branches of the Palms* (homil. xxvi) that note added: "It was spoken before King Rogo (so the Greek in the preceding inscription sounds, so that I may say it once), in the time of King Roger, who was the first of the Normans, having defeated and driven out the Saracens, to impose upon himself in Sicily the royal name and crown," he will think it was spoken then, and that *Ῥόγου* was placed by the writer for *Ῥογερίου* for the sake of abbreviation. And I frankly confess that this inscription gave me great trouble at the beginning; and it did not indeed remove the prevailing opinion about the age of Theophanes, but it obscured it; and this doubt was increased by the authority of Father Jacques Sirmond, a man of remarkable erudition, who answered my inquiry by letter saying that he read it so and that it seemed altogether likely that Kerameus flourished in the time of Roger. But, in fact, once the matter was long and studiously discussed and examined, this nail that had long remained fixed was, for both me and Father Sirmond, driven out by the following...
epistolary exchange; but now let us examine the matter more closely. 99 Indeed, if *Rhou* (which appears thus in most library manuscripts) had not been written down, but rather the full name *Rogerios* had been inscribed at the head of the homily, I would not immediately be cast down from my opinion, but would consider it the error of a copyist of some later age who, when he saw mention made in the homily's proemium of the *basileus*, and knew that the author had delivered sermons in Sicily, could easily have surmised that *ho basileus* was none other than Roger, and—as those who look to few things are wont to do—have confidently ascribed it as a fact. By this reasoning, I could reject and disparage that inscription as spurious and supposititious, especially since it is not read in all manuscripts without exception, but is absent from two Gallican ones, as Father James Sirmond, whom I mentioned briefly above, wrote to me.
But let it be accepted as ancient, since it is found in very many manuscripts—two Vatican, one Gallican, and one Escurial: and I demand that due faith be accorded to manuscripts in other matters as well. However, let it be accepted as it is written: *Rhou*, not *Rogerios*. How much less weight will that barbaric and utterly unknown "King Rhous" have in dislodging me from my opinion, given that no historical writer has ever reported him, and even "Roger" himself, as I have said, would not suffice, especially since one cannot discern anywhere a added mark that might signify a compendium or abbreviation—that is, *Rhou* for *Rogerios*.
But now let us tear down that inscription from its foundations and bring up our engines of war. The first argument is the reasoning of the preceding paragraph, which seems to conclude with sufficient clarity that Theophanes lived in the ninth century, and thus in that obscure time under the emperors Basil and Leo. The second is the very dignity of the Archbishop of Taormina, with which this author—the author of the sermons—was adorned at the time he delivered them to the people and the prince. But who among those even slightly versed in the reading of histories, and especially of Sicilian affairs, could say or has ever read or heard it reported that a Bishop of Taormina flourished or even existed in Sicily during the time of King Roger?
Let it suffice to refute this by citing the authority of the monk Geoffrey Malaterra, an eye-witness of the events that took place in Sicily under the Normans, who, at the command of Matilda, Roger's sister, compiled the history of these events that is extant, written in the rough and barbaric style of those times, and printed in Volume III of *Hispania Illustrata* (a). "Duke Robert," he says, "and Count Roger, having taken Palermo, with great devotion re-consecrate and enrich with endowments and ecclesiastical ornaments the church of the most holy Mother of God, Mary, which had been an archbishopric in ancient times, but had at that time been violated by the impious Saracens and turned into a temple of their superstition. The archbishop, who had been cast out by the impious and had been living in the poor church of Saint Cyriacus—timorous though he was, yet Greek by nation—maintaining the worship of the Christian religion as best he could, they recall and restore." 100 These are Malaterra's words. Since he describes the events of those times so diligently, he surely would not have failed to mention it if any other bishop had escaped unscathed from that disaster. Thomas Fazellus, a studious writer of Sicilian affairs, would also have remembered it; indeed, Lord Rocco Pirro, whose very enterprise it was to investigate and bring to light the knowledge of all the bishops of every age and of all Sicily, would have published it if he had found written anywhere that a Bishop of Taormina had survived to the times of King Roger. When I asked him by word of mouth for his opinion on this matter, apart from what he had set forth in writing, he replied that to believe this was a delusion.
But someone might say: "If a Bishop of Taormina did not survive until Sicily was recovered from the Saracens, he could certainly have been reinstated by Count or King Roger himself." And I ask whence they get this. For we read in the accounts of Geoffrey himself, Maurolico, Fazellus, and other writers, which episcopal sees were restored or established by Duke Robert and Count and King Roger; for we read that Nicodemus (the nameless archbishop mentioned by Geoffrey above) was restored to the Church of Palermo by the Norman brothers to the great rejoicing of the people; that Robert was appointed by Count Roger himself to the Church of Troina, whom he later transferred from there to Menana; that Gerard, an Allobrogian by birth, was given to the Church of Agrigento; Stephen, of Rouen, to Mazara; Angerius to Catania; Stephen to Syracuse; and Geoffrey to Malta. We know that the remaining thrones were erected by subsequent kings: that of Cefalù by King Roger, of Monreale by William II, and that of Patti much later, in the time of Boniface VIII, and that Lipari was also created. And these thrones remain in Sicily to this present time. Therefore, if the Taormina see had been restored by King Roger, some writer would have committed that to memory. Or if anyone pertinaciously contends this, they must show at what time, for what cause, and by what event the Bishop of Taormina ceased to exist; about which there is a remarkable silence among all. It must therefore be confessed that it fell along with liberty and imperial power in eastern Sicily, and was never again erected. Hence it is clearer than the midday sun that Archbishop Theophanes presided in Taormina under Basil and Leo and immediately after them, and that, owing to the disturbed state of Sicily thereafter, no one else was appointed until these present times.
I proceed to the third argument, although anyone could be content with what has already been said. How does the inscription *tou rēgos* (of the king) fit with what is said in the homily itself, in which he is called "Baccheus," at whose presence—"which," he says, "I now fear and tremble at, sprinkled with sweat, seized with terror, held by reverence, with trembling soul, wavering mind, and leaping heart, with even the sound of my voice cut off, which..."
[THE FOLLOWING IS A NEW TRANSLATION OF THIS PAGE]
101 A I serve up to imperial ears, as it were, with a dash of salt. For such submissiveness and such trembling on the part of the archbishop, a most grave man, seem to be capable of being aroused by nothing less than imperial majesty. But let it be that this could even apply to the *riga*; who will be able to apply the name *basileus* to him? Indeed, I find that only the emperors were called *basileis* in Greek monuments, at least from the time of Michael until the Council of Florence, held three hundred years after Roger's time, in which I read these words, *basileus* (although one of these is Greek by origin and the other Latin, yet it was granted by law with a certain Greek inflection). For in the year of Christ 868, in the 26th year of Michael III, Nicetas, in the *Life of St. Ignatius the Patriarch*, writes thus concerning Photius, who was burning with the most bitter hatred against Pope Nicholas I: "For by offering great gifts, he especially courted the King of Francia, Lothair, and his wife, Gerberga, and promised to proclaim them *basileis* in Constantinople, if they would help him in this absurd and unlawful desire, and would violently expel that righteous man from his Church." Photius promised such things for the reason that the Eastern emperors did not accept that the Western ones should be called *basileis*. This Baronius states while explaining the passage of Nicetas. Therefore, if the Greeks did not endure that the Western emperors be called *basileis*, but only wanted them to be *reges* [rhigas], how much less the lesser kings? And the thing is most certain from the fact that the following emperor, Basil the Macedonian, upon the letters of Adrian II brought to Constantinople by legates, ordered the title of emperor bestowed upon Louis to be erased, and sent a legation to the same, and exhorted him by letters to abstain from the name of *basileus*; and when he had called him *riga* [king], Louis wrote back to him: "Finally, I know that he who calls anyone *riga* does not even know what he is saying. For even if you speak in all languages, like the apostles or rather the angels, you will not be able to translate of what language *riga* is, or to what dignity that barbarian tone, which is called king, corresponds. For perhaps you will not be able to show that *riga*, drawn from your own language, signifies a king. But if it is so, because it is not barbarian, but Latin, it is necessary that when it reaches your hands, it be translated into your language by a faithful version. But if that is done, what else will it translate as but this name *basileus*?" To which not only the interpreters of the Old but also of the New Testament testify. Whence, if you detest this word in the persons of others, strive to erase the name of either king or *basileus* from all books, both Latin and Greek. From which it clearly appears how ambitious the Greek emperors were of this name, *basileus*, and they bestowed it only upon their own emperors, since they did not want it attributed even to the emperors of the West. Furthermore, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the son of Leo the Wise, grandson of Basil, heir to his grandfather's ambition and envy, in the eleventh [chapter of the] *De Administrando Imperio*, calls the same Louis *riga* of Francia, although he was not ignorant that he had been crowned emperor at Rome by Pope Sergius in the year 841, and hailed as emperor and Augustus; and wherever he deals with the Greek emperor, he calls him *basileus* and his affairs *basilikas*. See his said work and the notes of Federic Morel, from which we excerpted that fragment of the letter. Likewise, from Joannes Meursius we could bring forth many things: who in the *Glossarium Graecobarbarum*, under the word "Rigâs," after citing many testimonies of writers, concludes thus: "Therefore *rigâs* was used only for the Western emperor and any other king by a common name, with the sole exception of the Bulgarian, who was styled *basileus* just like the Constantinopolitan." He cites Nicetas in *Manuel Comnenus*, lib. I and lib. VII, Codinus, Suidas, Constantine Manasses in his *Annals*, and adds that the prince of Sicily received this name *rigâs* as a hereditary title from Constantine the Great, of which we [will speak] a little below from Gregoras. Such things, then, he has concerning this distinction of names observed throughout the whole time of Theophanes Kerameus, from which is incidentally refuted the claim that that inscription *tou rēgos Rogou* could pertain to some magistrate or prefect of Sicily, who [as] Dom Rocco Pirri shows in his *Notes on the Church of Palermo* (an. Chr. 819), was distinguished by the title of king during those same times, from a certain passage especially of Nicephorus Gregoras: which—and other similar reasons and conjectures—see in his own work, even though I do not refute them here: but however much they prove that this title of king, *rhigas*, was attributed to the prefects of Sicily, I have shown that this homily cannot pertain to any of them due to the title of *basileus* which is given there; and from the mention of the diadem and the greatness of the things gloriously accomplished in war, it seems sufficiently certain. But as for the times of King Roger, it appears from all the monuments and privileges written in Greek on parchment in his time, and from the minted coins, the imprint of which Dom Antoninus Amicus, my very dear friend, showed me, that he was never called *basilea*, [i.e.,] emperor, but always *rhigas*, [i.e.,] king: *Rogerios krataios Sikelias rēx*. That is, "Roger, powerful King of Sicily." Now, indeed, I see this distinction between *basilea* and *rhiga* preserved not only up to King Roger, but even up to the Council of Florence, held nearly three hundred years after him. For in that same council, written in Greek, the emperors of the East and West are called *basileis* and their empires *basileiai*, [while] the others are called *rhiges*, where the Patriarch of Constantinople says: "Likewise we say, and the..."
PROEMIUM III OF FRANCISCUS SCORSUS
I have received twenty complete [homilies]; to which if you add the eleven *eothina* and not a few others from the saints, if not all [of them], you can certainly recognize that the greatest part of the homilies are drawn from the Vatican library; to which they agree—those which are in both exemplars, both the Panormitan and the Gallic (for the sake of distinguishing them, I call them this)—that it is prudent to treat the others as if they had all been collated together, and as if they had been translated and published from the Vatican library in good faith. I will note one other thing to confirm the reliability of this work: with the exception of the homily, *On the lawyer questioning the Lord* (homil. XI), I have collated and presented all the remaining ones from two [different] three-volume exemplars. I have noted this in the individual entries; where also, if the reading varies, if anything seems correct and restored by conjecture, if anything seems more correct and true than in all the readings—this, I warn, is of some importance.
§ III. The order of the homilies.
There is no other series of these homilies than that which contains the gospels for the Sundays and feast days of the saints throughout the year according to the Greek rite. It is evident, however, not only from the *Evangelistarium*—that is, the book in which the gospels are written for recitation in the Liturgies—and not only from the *Menaea*, in which the prayers and hymns of the saints are arranged by the months, but also from our *Theophanes* in the homily whose beginning is: *Since it has received the beginning today* (homil. V), in what order the gospels are distributed. For the ecclesiastical [year] begins in September; and from the Sunday of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, one reads in St. Luke up to Quadragesima; from which time [one reads] from Mark until Easter; from then until Pentecost, from John; and from there, [the cycle] concludes with St. Matthew in August. This is also noted in the Vatican codex after the homily *On St. John the Baptist* (homil. LXI), which begins, *The order has rightly assumed* [its place], with these words: *Note that until the fulfillment of the menologion beginning from September, as it were at the end of August, it is completed.* It is to be known that [the menologion] ends in late August, and is completed at the end of August. And this order usually consists in all the manuscript codices, which all begin with the homily *For the Indiction*, that is, the beginning of the new year, which is in the month of September, and end, as regards the Sunday gospels, in that which is for *The lawyer questioning the Lord* (homil. XLV); but that which pertains to the feasts, in that which is for *The beheading of St. John the Baptist* (homil. LXI), in the proemium of which Theophanes turns to that which he said in the precursor’s own [day], as rightly ending and then beginning anew, as if he himself were the middle between the old law and the new. We deemed it equitable to retain in our book this order of the gospels, namely, that the authority of the Father and the ancient Greek [custom] should keep its own place. For even if we had wished to arrange the gospels in the order customary for the Roman rite, we could not have displayed all the [Sunday] homilies for the Lord’s feasts, and others would have had to wander outside the Lord’s feasts. For even if, with our rite, some [things] agree, more differ, yet it seemed to us of no great importance for the utility of the readers whether they were arranged in our order or their own, since it is enough for them that we described an index of the gospels specific to the Roman Church, in which the exposition of this Father can be had. Nevertheless, it also seemed the best course to separate the homilies on the Sunday gospels from those which are for the feasts of the saints, so that the *akolouthia* for each might be more convenient and clearer. For although the homilies on the gospels of the saints are interspersed with the Lord’s days, with the course of the same year preserved, yet the codices vary in the order among themselves, in that in some one precedes, another follows. For which reason, neither could the status of the codices be preserved, nor would it be a religious duty to abandon their *akolouthia*, provided some convenient and consistent [method] were established, rather than tearing them apart from one another; and we thought it better, as if by a second volume, to make a new beginning from the homily *On St. Demetrius* (homil. XLVI). Although that which is at the beginning of the year, since the chapter has a stable place for not only the feasts but also the Sundays in all the codices, we placed [it] in the same location, that it might be drawn from all the choirs; furthermore, [we placed] the homily, or rather the oration, *On the Exaltation of the Holy Cross*, which is indeed a feast day, but which all codices seem to have in a set position before this feast [as it falls on a] Sunday, and we connect that which pertains to the Cross with the one of the feast, and the one which is for the Sunday; [as for] all the rest, we set them aside, as I said. The homilies for the *eothina*, that is, the eleven matins gospels, although they could be recited on Sundays, are nevertheless described as the last of all in the codices. The Greeks do not use them in the Liturgy, but in the Matins Office, in this order, so that they recite [them] individually on each Sunday, beginning from the first until the eleventh, at which point those [remaining] return to the cycle, and thus on each Sunday they read one of these gospels, as it falls. Therefore, these homilies, since they contain one argument about the Resurrection of Christ, [and] it seemed right to place them after the homily *On the Passion*, for this very reason, that after the Resurrection follow the homilies of the Ascension and of Pentecost, even though between them and these [the homily] of the Samaritan woman intervenes, which is read from the Gospel of St. John the Sunday after Easter. To this, the homily on the Ascension of the Lord has the same gospel as that which is in the sixth matins [gospel]; which is the reason why this one of the eleven homilies is absent, preserved however in the subsequent ones by reason of the number; because, as the proemium contains, it was to be placed in the same order as the feast of the Ascension.
PROEMIUM II BY FRANCISCUS SCORSUS
A ...I proffer this discourse to imperial ears, seasoned as it were with salt. For such great humility and such great tremor on the part of an archbishop who is speaking—a most serious man—would seem able to be aroused by nothing other than imperial majesty. But let it be that this could also apply to a ῥῆγα (riga), yet how could it apply to the same name of βασιλέως (basileōs)? Indeed, I find that in Greek monuments—in which these terms, as well as Basileus (though the one is Greek by nationality, the other Latin, yet one granted the right by a certain Greek inflection), are read—only emperors were called Basileis, at least from the time of Michael I down to the Council of Florence, celebrated three hundred years after the time of Roger. For in the year of Christ 868, the 26th of Michael III, Nicetas, in his *Life of St. Ignatius the Patriarch*, writes thus concerning Photius, who was burning with most bitter hatred against Pope Nicholas I: *Δώροις γὰρ λαμπροῖς ὅτι μάλιστα τὸν ῥῆγα Φραγγίας Λοδύηχον, καὶ γιβεργὰν δὲ τὴν αὐτοῦ γαμετὴν ὑποποιούμενος, βασιλεῖς τούτους ἀνευφημεῖν ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει ἐπηγγέλλετο, εἴχε συνεργήσειν αὐτῷ πρὸς τὴν ἄτοπον ταύτην καὶ ἄθεσμον ἐπιθυμίαν, καὶ τὸν δίκαιον ἄνδρα τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτὸν Ἐκκλησίας βιαίως ὤσειν*. By means of great gifts, especially rendering the King (riga) of Francia, Lodoechus (thus the Greeks call Louis), and his wife Engilberga favorable to himself, he promised that he would proclaim them as emperors (βασιλεῖς) in the city of Constantinople, if they would assist him in this matter, so absurd and unjust, that they would violently cast out that holy bishop, Nicholas, from the Church. Photius promised such things for the reason that the Eastern emperors did not accept that the Western ones should be called βασιλεῖς. This is what Baronius says in explanation of the passage from Nicetas.
Therefore, if the Greeks could not bear for the Western emperors to be called βασιλεῖς, but wanted them called only ῥῆγας (reges), how much less could lesser kings? And the matter is most certain from the fact that Basil the Macedonian, the following emperor, upon hearing of the letter brought to Constantinople by the legates of Hadrian II, ordered the name of *Imperator* granted to Louis to be scraped away, and sent a legation back to the same, and exhorted him by letter to refrain from the name of βασιλέως; and when he had called him ῥῆγα, Louis wrote back to him: "Finally, know that he who calls anyone a *riga*, does not himself know what he is saying. For even if you speak in all tongues, in the manner of the apostles, nay, even of the angels, you will not be able to translate of what tongue *riga* is, or to what dignity that barbarian sound which is called *rex* is appropriate. For perhaps you will not show that *riga*, derived from the idiom of your own tongue, signifies a king. But if it is so, because it is not a barbarian word but a Latin one, it must be that when it reaches your hands, it is turned into your tongue by a faithful translation. If that were done, what else would it be translated as but *Basileus*?" This is attested to by all interpreters of not only the Old but also the New Testament. Whence, if you loathe this word in the persons of others, strive to erase this name from all books, both Latin and Greek, whether it be that of king or βασιλέως.
B From which it appears manifestly how ambitious the Greek emperors were of this name, βασιλέως, and did not grant it except to their own emperors, since they did not even wish it granted to the emperors of the West. Furthermore, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, son of Leo the Wise, grandson of Basil, heir to his grandfather's ambition and envy, in the eleventh theme calls the same Louis "riga of Francia," though he was not ignorant that he had been crowned emperor in Rome by Pope Sergius in the year 841, and saluted as emperor and Augustus; and wherever he treats of the Greek emperor, he calls him βασιλέα, and his affairs βασιλικάς. See his *Theme* mentioned and the notes of Federicus Morellus, from which we have excerpted that fragment of the letter. Likewise, we could bring much from Joannes Meursius, who in his *Glossarium Graecobarbarum*, under the word *Ῥήξ*, after having introduced many testimonies of writers, concludes thus: Thus, only the Western emperor and any other king was called *riga* by a common name, except only the Bulgarian, who was designated as *basileus* just as the Constantinopolitan one was. He cites Nicetas in *Manuel Comnenus*, book I and book VI, Codinus, Suidas, and Constantine Manasses in his *Annals*, and adds that the prince of Sicily had received this name *riga* hereditarily from Constantine the Great, of which we shall speak a little below from Gregoras. Such, therefore, is what he has regarding this distinction of names observed throughout the entire time of Theophanes Kerameus: from which, incidentally, the argument is refuted that this inscription *τοῦ ῥηγὸς Ῥόγου* could not pertain to some magistrate or prefect of Sicily, whom Dom Rocchus Pirri, in his *Notes on the Church of Palermo* for the year of Christ 819, shows to have been distinguished by the title of king during those same times, especially from a certain passage of Nicephorus Gregoras—whose other reasons and conjectures see in his own work, which I do not indeed refute here. But however much they may prove that this title of king, *ῥήγος*, was attributed to the prefects of Sicily, I have shown that, because of the title *βασιλέως* which is given there, this homily cannot pertain to any of them in an inscription; and from the mention of a diadem and the greatness of the things accomplished splendidly in war, it seems sufficiently certain.
As for the times of King Roger, it appears from all the monuments and privileges written in Greek on parchment in his time, and from coins that were minted—an imprint of which, expressed on paper, Dom Antoninus Amicus, a man most friendly to me, showed me: *Ῥογέριος κραταιὸς Σικελῆς ῥήξ* (Rogerius potens Siciliae rex)—that he was also never called *βασιλέα* (emperor), but always *ῥῆγα* (king). Indeed, I now see this distinction between *Basileus* and *riga* maintained not only down to King Roger, but even down to the Council of Florence, celebrated nearly three hundred years after him. For in that council, written in Greek, the emperors of the East and West are called *βασιλεῖς* and their empires *βασιλείαι*, and the others are called *ῥῆγες*, where the Patriarch of Constantinople says: "Likewise we say, and the..."
*μεγάλοι αὐθένται, καὶ ῥηγάδες, καὶ δουκάδες, ἵνα ἔλθωσι, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀπὸ ὁρισμοῦ τοῦ πάπα, καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τῆς συνόδου ἦν*, etc. That is to say: We say the same concerning the great princes, kings, and dukes; that they too ought to assemble by the command of the Pope, the Emperor, and the Synod, in obedience; or indeed that they themselves should write in the same manner. From this you see that the Emperor alone is called *βασιλεύς*, while other lesser kings are called *ῥηγάδες*.
But what of the epithet *γαληνότατος* and *γαληνότης*? These words can be translated into Latin as "serenissimus" (most serene) and "serenitas" (serenity) or "tranquillitas" (tranquillity). Does one not find them applied everywhere to the Emperor of Constantinople in the writers? Thus, Meursius, mentioned a little above in his *Glossarium*, reports that the word *γαληνότατος* is translated into Latin as "serenitas" and "tranquillitas," and that it is numbered among the imperial titles; he brings forward several passages from Harmenopulus, Leo, Arcadius, and Honorius, and at the end notes that the title of "Serenitas" was given to the Urban Prefect. Since, therefore, it is clearer than light that it cannot be demonstrated that this inscription fits King Roger, so that to look for another argument would be "to light a lamp in the middle of the day," let us see what that inscription means and how it should be explained.
Indeed, even as it is certain that some of these homilies were delivered at Tauromenium by the bishop, as is the case for the one on Saint Pancras (Homily LVII), in which mention is made of that very island and the city in which he was then staying, and furthermore where mention is made of the Blessed Virgin "Acheiropoietos," which we have proven to be at Tauromenium; and as others are known from other conjectures—and indeed it is most probable that even those for which no sign contradicts this were delivered there—so too it must be equally certain that some were delivered outside of Tauromenium. Specifically, in the royal city of Constantinople itself, which I shall proceed to prove below: I am persuaded that Homily XXVI is among these, due to the presence and the title *τοῦ ῥηγός*, and indeed of one who is crowned, and due to the gathering and the arrival of the bishops; which things seem to occur more appropriately in the city of Constantinople itself than anywhere else.
Now, in the more celebrated homilies, besides the inscription of the title, I notice some other detail marked, as in Homily I, or the oration on the Holy Cross: *Ἐλέχθη δὲ ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι*, "It was spoken in the ambo," that is, the pulpit; and in this one: *Ἐλέχθη δὲ ἐνώπιον*, etc. Now, there was a custom of this kind in Constantinople, about which Balsamon speaks in his commentary on Codinus, citing Jacob Gretser’s book: who says in chapter 5 that on the day of *ῥόγα* (the distribution of gold), the Emperors of old and the Patriarchs distributed to their subjects *ῥόγας*, that is, stipends and gifts; and that this practice lasted until the times of Constantine Monomachus, and ceased afterward. Now, *rogæ* are also military stipends, so called from *erogando* (the act of paying out), and thus, by the Latin language, the word—if I may say—is rendered as *ῥόγα*, and there is frequent mention of this name not only in Greek as *ῥόγαι*, but also in Latin as "roga." Lacerda, our own scholar, teaches this in his *Adversaria*, chapter 120, using the little book of Rigaltius, *De verborum significationibus*. Gregory the Great uses this word in book 11, letter 32. Hence also "rogales dies" were named, the days on which *rogæ* were given by the Emperor and the Patriarch, according to Codinus and Cedrenus. The word *ῥόγαι* itself, and the word formed from it, *ῥογάτορες*, refers to the soldiers who earn their stipends. Likewise, largesses, distributions, favors, and gifts customarily distributed by princes are contained under the same name. Luitprand of Cremona describes a *roga* of this kind which he saw, in book V.
With this set down, I think I can perhaps conjecture *εὐστόχως* (well-aimed) that at the beginning of the homily was noted the solemn day and the frequent gathering of the godly and the magistrates of the imperial court before whom it was delivered, who were obliged to gather frequently on that day for the *roga*. Thus, it was written *ἐλέχθη δὲ ἐν τῇ ῥόγᾳ*, or perhaps *ἐνώπιον τῆς ῥόγας*, with the term taken from the actual occurrence and the distribution of gifts, a common manner of speaking. Later, those who transcribed that homily corrupted the inscription, and I believe *τοῦ ῥόγου* was written instead of *ῥόγας*, or *λόγου*; then, those who did not know what *ἐν τῇ ῥόγᾳ* or *λόγου* meant, and who guessed that this name was written abbreviated for "Rogerii," added the title itself, *τοῦ ῥηγός*.
This, our dissertation, is confirmed or approved by the fact that the most ancient exemplar of all, from the Vatican library, is known to have been transcribed according to the time-note appended to the year 1448—that is, almost three hundred years after King Roger, and almost five hundred after the time of Theophanes. Thus, that celebration of the *ῥόγα* could well have been abolished and forgotten not only from the usage of the imperial court, as has already been said, but much more from the knowledge of the Greeks themselves, who might not have read their histories; whereas, on the contrary, the name of Roger still flourishes in Sicily. From this, the one who was writing the homily could have fallen into the opinion that it was delivered in the time of Roger and in his presence, not only from the inscription *τῆς ῥόγας* or *ῥόγου*, but also from those things which are said in the Prooemium itself concerning the presence of the *βασιλεύς*. And these are the things I have brought forth regarding this entire inscription, not indeed as if from a tripod, or the fortune-telling Delphic oracle, but drawn from the curtain of deeper learning and antiquity. I should wish, however, that these things be accepted by the readers in such a way that I profess to know from them that this homily is not to be referred to the times of Roger; the rest concerning the epigraph is to be taken as conceived and opined by me, not as explored and discovered. But if a more potent opinion should occur to anyone, and should sit well in his mind, I would most willingly subscribe to it myself.
§ VII. By whom Theophanes was consecrated Archbishop.
Having now established and settled with many arguments the time at which Theophanes presided over the Church of Tauromenium—namely, from the year of Basil the Macedonian, that is, in the year of Christ 812, up to the time of Leo V—it becomes evident to me that he was legitimately consecrated Archbishop after Saint Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, was restored to his see (from which he had been driven by force by Photius) by the authority of Pope Adrian II and the Eighth Synod, which was celebrated under him while dealing with this cause, and into the place of Zacharias.
105 FRANCISCI SCORSI PROŒMIUM II. as having been deposed and removed from office already in that very council. But from whom he received that consecration—whether from the Roman Pontiff, by whom the bishops of Sicily had been accustomed to be ordained from the beginning of the Church, as being of the Roman diocese, or from Constantinople—it seems that it can be called into doubt by those who have been engaged with ancient history and especially with the monuments and synods held at Constantinople of that time. For, to start from the eighth [synod] out of order, in that synod, Zacharias, bishop of Taormina, is openly said to have received the *cheirotonia*, that is, the consecration, from the holy Patriarch Methodius of Constantinople, who succeeded St. Ignatius when the iconoclast John had been ejected. I cited the passage from the acts of this very synod in Proem I, § iv. In the seventh [synod], however, there is a sign of the subjection of this same bishop of Taormina to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the subscription of John, in which he professes his patriarch, Tarasius, who was presiding over the synod at that time, with these words: "John, most holy bishop of Taormina, said: Since the letters which have been sent by Hadrian, Pope of senior Rome, to our pious emperors and also to Tarasius, our universal patriarch, are as it were a divine boundary of orthodoxy, so I profess, accepting the holy icons, etc." You see how he calls the emperors and the Patriarch of Constantinople his own. Similarly, all the bishops of Sicily who are read to have been present at that synod subscribe in the synodal acts. From this evidence, even Lord Rocchus Pirri admits in *Not. Eccl. Syrac.*, vol. III, that by these times the bishops of Sicily began to adhere to the see of Constantinople. Then, it also seems to be gathered from the fact that Nicholas I, in epistle 9, calls the audacity of the prelate Gregory of Syracuse into judgment, because he had exercised the darts of impiety against Ignatius, his own patriarch. Then there is the condemnation of the same Gregory and the sentence passed by St. Ignatius the patriarch; which, unless he had possessed some power certainly regarding first causes, one would never think he would have passed: although, in order for it to be ratified, legates were sent to Pope Leo II; and the rest happened duly and legitimately, as is held in the history and the synod. Concerning this right claimed by the Patriarch of Constantinople over the churches of Sicily, the most eminent Cardinal Baronius writes thus for the year 854: "You have heard that the synodal acts, the sentences of the patriarchs, and the episcopal judgments needed the confirmation of the first see of the Pontiff. But because the island of Sicily was still under the rights of the Emperor of the Orient, although it had been occupied by the Saracens, the Bishop of Constantinople had usurped the first causes for himself, yet so that he was not unaware that his acts needed the confirmation of the Apostolic See." So far Baronius; and James Gordonius writes the same in his *Chron.* for the same year, cited by Octavius Caetanos in *Isagoges* chapter 38, and finally this seems to become manifest from the novella construction of Leo, surnamed the Wise, whose inscription is thus: "The disposition made by Emperor Leo the Wise, what rank the thrones of the Churches subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople hold." In the end, however, after the review of those [churches], there are added "the metropolitans who were torn away from the Roman diocese, and now count under the throne of Constantinople, and the bishops under them," torn away from the Roman diocese and subject to the throne of Constantinople. Then the Bishop of Syracuse, the Bishop of Thessalonica, and several other metropolitans are enumerated: the Bishop of Taormina, the Bishop of Messina, the Bishop of Agrigento, and others are subject to the Syracusan, and so on for as many as were the bishops of Sicily at that time. These are the testimonies, drawn from the synods and the history of that age, which can sufficiently demonstrate that the Churches of Sicily were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople during that same tempest. Whence one might conjecture that our Theophanes was also ordained by St. Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, once the disturbances of that Church had been calmed by the synod. And if anyone should wish to opine this, he would certainly have imposed no mark of schism on our Theophanes, since he does not say he was consecrated by Photius the pseudo-patriarch, the author of the schism, but by St. Ignatius, the legitimate one, who had been restored to his own see; nor [would he believe it was done] illegitimately by this holy patriarch, and without any power at least peculiar [to him] permitted by the Roman see. For on the occasion that Theophanes was lingering there after a pilgrimage undertaken to Jerusalem, about which we shall speak in the following §, or for another reason, it could have been done legitimately, as I have said. But yet, when one could conjecture this from a certain gratuitous conjecture and reasoning, [and] not prove it by a certain argument, let it be permitted rather to conjecture the opposite, and that he was consecrated by the Roman Pontiff rather than by the Patriarch of Constantinople; which I may be permitted to believe with respect to our Theophanes, because I see that in these his sermons, held to the people and his flock, he holds views concerning the primacy of St. Peter and his successors [that are] excellent, and [as] becomes a Catholic writer, and frequently testifies to it, especially indeed in his homily *On the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul*. From which Franciscus Turrianus also brought forth testimony against the Magdeburg innovators, as is to be seen in the eulogies placed at the end of these Proems, and elsewhere. Furthermore, concerning the whole Sicilian Church, I shall affirm as a certain and explored fact that it was subject to the Roman Pontiff not only as he is Pontiff and universal prelate, but also by peculiar right, as Patriarch of the West, [and that] the Church of Sicily, which belongs to the West, was immediately subject to him, as being that which was instituted by St. Peter. Regarding which, see the brilliant dissertation of Jacques Sirmond in his *Protreptic against Salmasius' Eucharisticon*, *On the Suburbicarian Regions*, book II, chapter 10. Which Innocent I, Pope, says was manifest, writing to Decentius: "No one founded churches in all Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Sicily, and the intermediate islands, except those whom the venerable Apostle Peter or his successors constituted as priests." But I would be doing what has been done, and retelling a fable, if I were to show this by other most certain arguments [regarding] the Sicilian Church.
FRANCIS SCORSUS PROEMIUM II.
107 Whether the see of the Roman pontiff existed from its very beginning, and from it received the consecrations of bishops and other rights: since, apart from Sirmond already cited, Octavius Caetamus treats of this in his *Isagoge*, in the chapter already cited, and Dom Rocchus Pirri in several places in his *Notitia*, and it is sufficiently proved by them from many letters of Pope Leo I and Gregory the Great. But after Sicily was recovered from the Goths—which occurred under the empire of Justinian—it pertained in political administration to the empire of the East, especially from the time of the seventh synod, which we mentioned above, and even more so under the empire of Michael and the pseudo-patriarch Photius, by reason of the power of the emperors and the synods that were celebrated there, the bishop of Constantinople began little by little to draw the ecclesiastical governance of Sicily to himself. Yet it can never be shown that he acquired a legitimate right over the entire Church of Sicily; but on the contrary, it is shown that he usurped that power for himself, while the Roman pontiff resisted, by the epistle of Adrian I [written] to Constantine and Irene, under whom that seventh synod against the Iconoclasts was held, as I have said; in which the pontiff demands that the consecrations of bishops and archbishops be restored canonically in their entirety to our Holy Roman Church, as the custom established from old maintains, [they being] of our diocese; and from the epistle of Nicholas I to the aforementioned emperor Michael: "We wish that the consecration [of] the Syracusan bishop be provided by our see, so that the tradition established by the apostles may in no way be violated in your times"; and in later centuries also from the epistle of Alexander III to William, King of Sicily, who had contended to the pontiff that Walter, Archbishop of Palermo, should not be compelled to go to Rome for the sake of consecration, but should receive it from three bishops, as is the custom, at Palermo; to whose petition Alexander writes back: "Although it does not exist in our memory that any of the predecessors of the aforementioned elect Walter was ever consecrated by anyone other than the Roman pontiff, nevertheless, considering, etc., we grant [that he be] consecrated, yet so that this ought not to be taken as a precedent in the future." This Alexander says, who, since he testifies concerning the Church of Palermo that none of its superior prelates had been initiated by any other than the Roman pontiff, it may be allowed for us to surmise the same regarding other bishops of Sicily as well; and thus not all were subject to the patriarchs of Constantinople, as one might argue from that arrangement of Leo, nor did all receive consecration from him. Nor does it hinder [our argument] that we read that Zacharias received it from St. Methodius, as I said above from the 7th synod, act 5, which certainly cannot be denied: for we can say that this was done by some peculiar concession and privilege. 108 Finally, I say that I cannot be persuaded that that severance of the Sicilian Church, which is said to have been effected under Leo, could have been done by him; for while he was emperor, all of Sicily had already been occupied by the Saracens, which is clear from the chroniclers Baronius, Curopalates, our own countryman Fazello, and others, and Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the son of Leo himself, explicitly [states] in book II, *De thematibus*, concerning the theme of Sicily—which passage we cited in Proemium I, § 1—who testifies that after other cities were captured, Syracuse was stormed under Basil, Leo’s father, and Tauromenium under Leo, his parent. Therefore, by that time, even political dominion had ceased, or rather the thrones of the bishops had been overturned. I would rather believe that in it [Sicily] a new arrangement and order of bishops, who were subject to the patriarch of Constantinople, was constituted only in [their] novel [status], [concerning] how one should precede another in the assembly. But that severance was made in the time of the Emperor Michael and the Photian schism, when he [Photius], in order to show favor to Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse, wished and endeavored—by what right or what injury—to create his church a metropolis and subject the other Sicilian [churches] to it, relying on imperial power; to which [power] the Greeks also attributed more than enough in the disposition of ecclesiastical matters: of which our Gretser complains in *Codinus De officiis aulae Constant.*, and so the Church of Sicily was brought rather into a certain contention than into the possession of the patriarch of Constantinople, in much the same way as the controversy arose in those same times of the Emperor Basil between the patriarch Ignatius and the Roman pontiff, especially John VIII, concerning the Bulgarian province recently converted to the faith, as is known to those who read the history of that same age. But I will not set high value on these matters, which are more obscure than they can be illuminated and argued by us or by anyone from the light of other histories, however they may be considered, provided that this one thing is clear: that I wish to be persuaded of it by all, and I can attest with the best faith, that in these homilies there appears no trace of any schism regarding subjection to the Roman see, but rather many manifest arguments of communion with it, as I have also said above; and so, as far as this matter is concerned, they can be read with unoffending foot. Nor indeed from that epistle which I mentioned above, conjectured to have been sent by Photius to Theophanes the monk, can anything be elicited against Theophanes, as if he were privy to the Photian schism and studious of its party; for nothing is transacted in it that relates to a faction of this kind: that which, however, seems to be transacted in other epistles to Euthymius and Gregory; but it is only concerning the defense of the dogma pertaining to the sacred images, and especially whether Christ was to be depicted, as can be clear to one reading it. Then, no one would affirm that that epistle was sent by Photius when he was already excommunicated and deposed; but rather one will judge by a more probable conjecture, since it was written to Theophanes while he was still leading a monastic life, that it was written at the time when the cause of Photius had not yet been well perceived and condemned by the Roman see and later by the eighth synod. But after this synod, and the schism composed through it, and tranquility restored to the Oriental Church, that Theophanes was promoted to the archiepiscopal see appears to me certain, as I said at the beginning.
§ VIII. The pilgrimages undertaken by Theophanes. It now remains for us to [discuss] what [we have] regarding the deeds of Theophanes
FRANCIS SCORSUS’S PREFACE II
109 A traces of these remain in these sermons, so that we may follow them to outline some form of his life. Regarding his deeds, it can be established that he did not reside permanently at Tauromenium while he was bishop, but that he was away from it either to transact the business of his Church or for the sake of piety and religion. For he speaks of a land journey through Sicily himself in the *Homily on Saint Pancratius* (Homily 57), where he says that he did not come *κατόπιν τῆς ἑορτῆς* (after the feast), as the proverb goes, although he was afraid that this might happen; but rather that he hurried his journey so that he might arrive in time for his church and to celebrate the solemn feast day of St. Pancratius along with his people. And indeed, he shows that he was coming then from Palermo with these words: "Coming from a land journey from Palermo, we are broken in body; but strength must be exerted against the weakness of the body." For what reason he betook himself to Palermo, cannot be gathered from any place. Certainly, it might seem likely that he came there by public trust during a truce, perhaps to ransom captives, since at that time not only Palermo but almost all of Sicily—except for Tauromenium and perhaps Syracuse, which were finally captured under Basil the Macedonian—was already in the power of the Saracens. Nor would I hide from the reader that in some manuscripts it is not read *Πανορμῆθεν ὁδοιπορίας* (a journey from Palermo), but *ὁρμηθείσης ὁδοιπορίας* (a journey having been begun). It could easily have been changed by the flair of a scribe to whom *Πανορμῆθεν* perhaps seemed obscure or unusual. But *Πανορμῆθεν* is said adverbially according to the usage of the Greek language; just as it is said by Homer *Σιδωνῆθεν* (from Sidon), and anyone might find many others of that kind in authors. Now, therefore, you will collect from this place that he arrived at Tauromenium from abroad, and indeed by land.
That he also traveled by sea outside of Sicily and crossed the Strait of Messina is beyond controversy, nor is it obscured by the ambiguity of the text. For it is clear from his *Homily on Saint Nicholas* (Homily 2), where he teaches that he and the other passengers were delivered from a great storm that had arisen in that strait by the help of the same Saint Nicholas. Read that passage; from which we also conjecture not obscurely that this homily was not delivered at Tauromenium: for he speaks so about the Strait of Messina and describes it in such a way, as something not known and almost placed before the eyes—as it is for the people of Tauromenium—but as something remote from his hearers and not known at all; for thus he says: *Πλέοντι γάρ μοί ποτε περὶ δύσιν Πληϊάδων τὸν Σικελικὸν πορθμόν, ὃς μεταξὺ τοῦ Ῥηγίου καὶ Σικελίας ῥευματωδῶς καταφέρεται*—which I translated thus: "For when I was sailing once about the setting of the Pleiades through the Sicilian Strait, which flows like a river between Rhegium and Sicily." What need was there for that designation of the place and the description of the flow of the strait, if he had said it at Tauromenium? What is better known to the inhabitants of Tauromenium? Therefore, he was outside of Sicily when he said this. 110 When, on the other hand, it was shown above that he delivered his homily *εἰς τὰ Βάϊα* (on the Palms) (Homily 26) at Constantinople, I would not deny that this one might have been delivered there as well; although, if anyone should wish for it to be said elsewhere, there is no disagreement, since I have neither anything to affirm in which city it was said, nor anything to deny.
Now it is also certain and established that he was at Jerusalem and that he traversed the holy places; I, for my part, would believe that this was to satisfy a sense of piety. For he confesses this explicitly in his *Homily on the Passion* (Homily 27), where he describes the Cenacle: *Ἐν ᾧ τῷ μετεώρῳ τῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἀνῳκοδόμητο εὐκραεῖ ἀέρι πανταχόθεν χεόμενος, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐταῖς ὄψεσι ἱστορήκαμεν.* Which you have in Latin thus: "For it was situated in an elevated place of Jerusalem, drenched on all sides by temperate air, just as we ourselves have witnessed with our own eyes." Since, therefore, he made a pilgrimage to Palestine, who could doubt that he at least incidentally visited Constantinople, the royal city where the seat of the emperor was, to whom Sicily at that time was subject?
Finally, his return from that pilgrimage to his own Church at Tauromenium is clearly understood from two homilies. The first is *On the Lawyer Questioning the Lord* (Homily 10), from the preface of which both this truth, and the bishop's remarkable paternal charity toward his flock, and his piety toward the *acheiropoieton* (not made by human hands) Blessed Virgin of Tauromenium arise. For he does not say that it is the parched earth, dry from a long drought, that thirsts for rain as much as his own desire to see his people again. Let that preface be read, which is concluded finally: *Ἀλλ’ ἐπείπερ ἡμᾶς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ μητρόθεος Δέσποινα εἰς ἣν αὖθις συνήγαγε, καὶ προσκυνῆσαι ἠξίωσε τὸ ἀχειροποίητον αὐτῆς ἀπεικόνισμα, καὶ δείκνυσι πατέρα ἐπὶ τέκνοις ἐπευφραινόμενον· φέρε τὰς τῆς ἀπουσίας ῥυτίδας ἀποβαλόντες καὶ συνήθους διδασκαλίας ἁψόμεθα.* "But since the Holy Spirit and our Lady, the Mother of God, have brought us together again into one spot and deemed us worthy to venerate her image not made by human hands, and show a father rejoicing over his children; come, let us now cast off the wrinkles of absence and set ourselves to our customary teaching." What is more illustrious than this preface, not only for showing his return but also for showing his sanctity? What tender love for his children, what a desire to see them, what piety toward the Blessed Virgin it shows! But of these things in the following section. Now let us finish this by gathering the same return from another homily, which is *εἰς τὴν συγκύπτουσαν* (on the woman who was bent over) (Homily 12); where he says that certain evil and factious men formed cabals while he was away; but when he returned, they, fearing and dreading his presence and the force of his words and the keenness of his tongue, fled afar and did not come to the gathering: where he clearly shows that he had been away from his Church. We shall state elsewhere the remaining conjectures derived from that sermon. And these things about his journeys are indeed as certain as if they were a most true history of his life.
§ IX. His zeal and care for his Church: his labors in advanced age and health: persecutions endured for its sake
Of the virtues of which Theophanes left express examples in these homilies, I will first describe those that concern his public, and afterwards those that concern his private, character; since according to the doctrine of the Philosopher, between a man…
and a good man there is some difference, and each has its own virtues, yet in a single person it is the highest praise for them to be combined.
And first, indeed, that daily pressure and anxiety for all the churches, which Paul, that preacher to the Gentiles, enumerated among his sufferings; the zeal and ardor with which he burned when anyone was caused to stumble; the love for his own, whom he called his glory; the joy if they prospered, whom he likewise called his joy and crown; the pain when they wandered from the straight and true path of truth; the severity and acrimony in his rebukes, whence his epistles were grave and severe; finally, the persecutions which he mentions in many places; these, I say, may be understood by no obscure signs to have been present in Theophanes toward his own single Church.
For the pressure and assiduity of supplying the divine word, and of gathering his people to the assembly, appears from the preface to the homily on the Centurion (Homil. XLV), where he says that the devil throws obstacles and delays in the way of good works, because, a judicial controversy having been presented at the time when the sermon was to be held, it had already nearly deprived him of the opportunity: regarding which he shows that he was anxious, and that he had resolved the matter, so that he would not fail in the divine word. And in the same homily, toward the end, he apologizes for having omitted something in explaining the previous text, because his mental attention was obstructed by the concern for ecclesiastical affairs; and in the homily on Saint Pancratius (Homil. LVII), where, though he was weary and broken from travel, he says he wishes to force his body, despite his infirmity, so that he would not fail in his sermon: and that such infirmity ought never prevail to the extent that it hinders works of charity.
Excellent also, to show this, are the things he says in the homily on the Passion (Homil. XXVII). For when the people were exhausted by night vigils and services, lest he seem bothersome and burdensome by adding such a long sermon, he excuses himself with these words: "But forgive me, because I cannot be satisfied by your progress, and as you make greater profit, direct the study of your mind." Nor should that be considered the last argument of pastoral solicitude, that when he was old and infirm in body, he did not cease from the duty of preaching. "And if, therefore," he says in the homily on the holy images, "bodily weakness does not permit me to perform the office of speaking as much as is sufficient, it will not be irksome to say a little; lest, by remaining altogether silent, we afflict with sadness those who have gathered." And in the homily for the third Matins (Homil. XXX), he signifies that he had labored under sickness in such a way that he was forced to interrupt the labor of speaking, to which, however, returning, he says thus: "But truly, the torrent of our mind, devoid of moisture and dried up, has for some time been silent, conforming to the laboring body; but now, irrigated by the fountain of evangelical considerations, it hastens to pour out their explanation."
But nothing declares this study of teaching the people and his charity toward them more than the preface to the homily on the demoniac having a legion (Homil. IX). For thus it begins: "An adverse state of health checks my tongue, but the desire for the perfection of the Church loosens it; I have forced my pains to be silent, love urges me to speak; and indeed for me, the consolation of my disease is to converse with you." Such is sincere charity; it despises what happens externally; it delights in that which is emitted from within. "But when you cannot comply with the desire due to age, and..." In the homily on the parable of the ten thousand talents (Homil. LI), he hints at his old age, saying: "In my old age, and as I conclude your progress in divine matters, dear listeners, you judge that I am less apt for bodily labors, and perhaps you are pulling me back, because your own study excites you to learn."
Now, indeed, he shows his zeal and ardor of mind, so that they would not be scandalized, and so that they would not drink in errors concerning the true doctrine of the faith and the Gospel, in the homily on the woman who was bowed down (Homil. XII), where he compares wicked and seditious men in the Church to dregs, which consume food, and then flee upon their arrival and meeting. "Such are," he says, "the devourers and robbers in the Church; they observe our dissension: they bring damage upon ecclesiastical affairs by making an attack; but fearing the edge of our tongue, they are compelled, by a band of factionists, to attempt to assault us through traps; now making a council in the hall of Coirka, now establishing a wicked conventicle in the oratory of the Precursor, and making the baptistery a receptacle for traps. For what cause? So that Isaac may be expelled and Ishmael introduced. But they, indeed, flee, as you see, when they perceive guards, and turning their ears from the mouths of those holding them, they shut their ears like an asp to the sermon. But we, O my band of clergy, avoiding their attack, etc."
I have transcribed this whole passage because it contains illustrious examples both of the zeal of which we spoke, so that the sheep would not be averted from the straight path, and of his severity in rebuking, and also of the traps and persecution which we proposed at the beginning. For what is it to strive so that Isaac may be expelled and Ishmael introduced, except to extrude a good and legitimate bishop and pastor from his Church, and to intrude a perverse and illegitimate one? What is gathered from this except the piety and zeal of a good pastor, whence he incurred hatred among the impious and wicked? For all, says the Apostle, who wish to live piously, will suffer persecution. And in another copy it is read: "So that Jacob may be expelled and Esau introduced"; which signifies the same thing, namely, a pastor chosen by God and a reprobate one excluded. From the end of this same homily is known his zeal in rebuking vices, when he inveighs sharply against the perjured. "How long, at last," he says, "shall we persist in contentions, and quarrels, and perjuries? Horror and trembling seize me, considering how frequent in the tribunals are oaths, etc." The same is held from homily XXIII: "Some," he says, "stung by rebukes, flee the exhortations, as those afflicted with phrensy flee the doctors"; and from homily XLV, On the rich man questioning the Lord, the same zeal and force in rebuking the wicked is gathered. For when he had made them similar to vultures and scarabs, which turn away from the odors of healthy doctrine, just as good people are similar to doves and turtledoves, who rejoice in the good odor and take strength from it, he thus subjoins: "Wherefore..."
113 FRANCISCI SCORSI PROŒMIUM II. To what, then, does this example look? It looks to the fact that the castigation which we applied yesterday to all without distinction served as a correction to the prudent and those who think rightly; but those whose morals are depraved and who are difficult to correct have fallen into even greater impudence, let alone having become any better. But we, with God’s help, shall treat their illness with sharper medicines, and with more austere rebukes we shall stir up their numbness so that they may at last be capable of feeling; as for you, however, who have chosen what is better by a healthier counsel and have gathered for the assembly, hear the evangelical sermon." The zeal for defending the Catholic faith and for refuting heresies is most clearly discerned in many homilies, in which he never speaks so sharply and gravely, never so tightens and sharpens his style, than when he is refuting the calumnies, mockeries, and errors of Julian the Apostate or others, whether pagans or heretics, which were cast against the sayings of the Gospel, or even the old wives' tales and empty inventions (Hom. V, IX, XXIII, XXX, XLI, XLV).
Truly, his paternal love for his own appears sufficiently from that proem to the homily *On the Expert of the Law* (Hom. XI), which we cited above, where he signifies that he had become inflamed by such a great desire to visit his people while he was away, using this similitude: "The earth, parched and rough and dried up, does not long so much for the celestial rain, as I longed to see your faces, O assembly most acceptable to God." Let what follows be read, which he concludes thus: "But since the Holy Spirit and our Lady, the Mother of God, have led us back together into one place, and have willed that we should again venerate her image not made by hands, which makes the father rejoice in his children, come now, relaxing the wrinkles contracted by the cause of absence, let us touch upon our accustomed sermon."
The same love is declared in the homily *On the Paralytic Healed* (Hom. XXI): "I speak," he says, "stung by love for you and by an ardent desire for your utility, and, as the divine Jeremiah says, with the sensors of my heart torn asunder." Let you therefore feel what is fitting; and if up to this day you have strayed from your duty, amend your folly with repentance; thence it will also come to pass that we shall exhort you with a more eager spirit. Furthermore, from love is born joy at the progress of one’s children, and sorrow at their failure; he shows both in these homilies, and especially in the homily *On the Transfiguration* (Hom. LIX), where he compares himself to a shepherd looking down from an elevated rock at his own flock, multiplied and grazing in the meadows, and rejoicing accordingly: "The same happens to me," he says, "in this present celebration. For seeing my people, a flock beloved by God, hastening with such religion to this sacred temple, in which the uncreated image of our most pure Lady is placed, I rejoice greatly, and for joy I seem to struggle, and I feel myself incited to deliver a sermon, etc."
He expresses the same sense of the spirit in the homily *On the Holy Pentecost* (Hom. XL) on account of the same gathering of the people; likewise the same in Homily XXIII, where he compares himself to a noble horse exulting in a wide field and running its course; and to a teacher who hands down doctrine the more eagerly, the more attentive he sees his disciples: "This also," he says, "excites me and makes me more eager, that with ears pricked up and a present mind you pant for the sermon and receive the seeds that have been cast like a rich and fertile field." Whence also good hopes nourish me that this agriculture shall bring forth fruit worthy of the heavenly barns.
Conversely, however, his sorrow and indignation when things proceeded otherwise is conspicuous from the homily mentioned just above, *On the Paralytic Healed in Capharnaum*: "To me," he says, "attempting to approach my accustomed sermon, and dwelling between indignation and grief, my voice is cut off. For the same thing happens to me as to a farmer who, when he has poured forth much sweat in cultivating the land, harvests few ears of grain in the time of summer"; and the rest that follows makes greatly to the point, to which I refer the reader, so that all things need not be brought back here. And from these places, from the whole progress of the homilies, in the perorations where he most gathers moral and mystical maxims for the instruction of the audience; but especially in the homilies on the saints, where he briefly narrates the histories of the saints themselves, and explains and turns the names of these and others falling into history piously and subtly toward the informing of his flock in good morals—from these, I say, I seem to be able to discern those marks of a good bishop which the holy Paul enumerates to Timothy, to whom he writes: "Proposing these things to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nurtured in the words of faith, and of the good doctrine which you have followed: but avoid foolish and old wives' fables; and exercise yourself unto piety."
And to Titus he wants a bishop to be "embracing him who is according to doctrine, a faithful saying, so that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to argue with those who contradict"; and finally, Theophanes seems to perform that command of the same holy Paul: "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and doctrine." If anyone well considers both the aforementioned places and other sayings sprinkled among these sermons, I believe he will think with me, and he will see the form of a good pastor of the Church not only adumbrated by these lines, but plainly expressed to the living. But let us proceed to the other virtues which perfect a private man.
§ X. Other virtues, especially proper to Christian perfection.
There are also many traces left in these sermons of other virtues which perfect a private man: and truly, if the histories written about the greatest men are expressed not as images of bodies but of souls, from which we know what the internal kind of each person may have been, or what the lineaments of his virtues, and we have faith in them, so that that image described by Xenophon, Agesilaus indeed preferred to all painted, fashioned, and sculpted likenesses of all men, certainly the speech itself is to be held as a truer and clearer image of the soul, which, since it was fashioned by nature itself for expressing the hidden senses of the soul and mind, perfectly and more certainly expresses and represents what kind of person each one is. And so not alone did that philosopher say truly the common saying, "Speak, so that..."
I may see you," but also eternal Wisdom, reproving the Pharisees: "How can you speak good things, when you are evil? The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good, and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil; for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." This saying of Christ is accepted in such a way that it usually comes to pass, and experience teaches that it is impossible for anyone to feign their countenance and speech for so long without their hidden malice being detected at some point, and without the poison residing in the depths finally being vomited forth.
Therefore, since I see that in these sermons Theophanes Kerameus performs nothing else, aims at nothing else, than to instruct his hearers in virtue and to inflame them; since he deliberately directs and accommodates every explanation of the Gospel to the exercise of virtue and the benefit of his hearers; and since there is nothing of moral doctrine which is not consonant with the doctrine and characters of the holy Fathers, nothing which does not not only condemn vices and commend virtue, but even gaze upon the highest peak of perfect virtue—and I observe that he inculcates this often and gravely with great zeal, feeling, and ardor of mind—I am surely enabled to believe that he exercised these virtues in himself, and that he performed them before he taught them. And since all his homilies breathe Christian and religious piety and holiness, he himself was likewise a pious and religious man.
But although such judgment may be passed concerning every kind of virtue, there certainly exist the greatest testimonies concerning humility, which is in the highest degree "Christ-mimicking," to use the author's own word, concerning the contempt of bodily pleasures, and concerning the ultimate victory over the perturbations of the mind, which the holy ones call mortification, and which Theophanes, like Climacus, calls by more than one name. In the Homily on Zacchaeus (Hom. XV) he commends humility thus: "Zacchaeus, making haste, descend. In an anagogical sense Christ teaches us that there is no other more suitable beginning for repentance than descent." This, indeed, is that *he makaria tapeinōsis*, that blessed humility, placed over against the pride of the devil. "Do you wish to begin repentance? Place humility as the foundation and the unshakable base of repentance. Descend, that you may be lifted up, raised on the wings of virtues." You have the same commendation and height of humility in the Homily on the Publican and the Pharisee (Hom. XVI).
And in these places he indeed extols this virtue most of all, while in others he speaks most humbly about himself. In the Homily on the Daughter of the Archisynagogue and the Woman with an Issue of Blood (Hom. X), when he had explained the history in an allegorical sense, turning his speech to tropology: "But why do I go," he says, "to the calling of the Gentiles and the remnants of Israel, and, looking about at external things, do I not see myself described in this narrative? Come, let us fix the gaze of our mind upon the history as in a mirror, and let each one of us notice the miserable condition of his own soul," etc. And in the homily concerning him who fell among robbers (Hom. XI): "Blessed, therefore, is that doctor who will increase the denarii of doctrine, indeed when he has spent both word and a life consistent with his word, as if from his own domestic provision; but unhappy and miserable, even as I, are all those who, clanging in the air like a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal, perform only half of the good work, and remain destitute of that which is more excellent." He has similar things in the Homily on St. Philip (Hom. XLIX): "For my part, I would desire to propose life before words for exhortation; for this would be a more suitable manner of teaching, if life harmonized with words; but since I present a life marked with all the stains of sins, lest I seem nevertheless to have been useless to this celebration, come now, relying on the Apostle as intercessor," etc.
From these words, surely, even without my pointing it out, every reader—unless he wishes to judge it as simulation and the peddling of virtue, as one might think of the ancient philosophers—must recognize how great is the virtue of the speaker, how great his humility; and that point especially which we are discussing, that a good doctor must join a good life with sound doctrine; and since he so teaches and thinks, it is consistent to judge that he also achieved this in deed. Now, in the Homily on Zacchaeus (Hom. XV) he speaks thus: "And those who are pure in heart, whose minds are illuminated by the Divine Spirit on account of the abundance of their virtues, could indeed investigate a deeper anagogical sense. We, however, sticking in the mire of sins, shall proceed through moderate understandings." A And let these proofs of humility be sufficient.
Concerning the mortification of the passions, there is not just one place where he speaks of it. "Be present here," he says in the Homily on him who had a legion of demons (Hom. IX), "as many of us as are pressed by a tyrannical dominion of the passions, just as if by demons; and let us accommodate this history to ourselves: for truly he is possessed by a legion of demons who is pressed by a multitude of sins," and let the rest be read, in which he most vividly depicts and detests the deformity of each passion, especially that of anger. Anyone, even without my enumeration, will notice other indications of his other virtues, if not expressed, at least shadowed forth, which indeed indicate that the author of this work was endowed with them.
However, that which alone is lacking for us to confirm these conjectures of ours is a death consistent with his life and doctrine, concerning which, since it fell in those turbulent times, we have been unable to obtain anything certain from histories or traditions. And what wonder that this is missing in our Theophanes, when an obscure century followed the latter part of his life and his death, as I have already warned the readers in the proemium; for in that century, even down to Pope Clement II, the deeds of the popes are also in the dark and uncertain, as they do not have a continuous writer, and have lost the greater part of their writers, and have times so obscure and uncertain that it is not sufficiently clear at what time, or in what place, or in what order some of the names of the Roman pontiffs are to be found: a fact which Ciacconius laments in his *Lives of the Pontiffs* in the latest edition, in the Life of Nicholas I, who sat at Rome at the time when our Theophanes was living.
THIRD PROEM
INTRODUCTORY, CONTAINING MATTERS PERTAINING TO
THE WRITING OF THE AUTHOR AND THE TRANSLATOR
§ 1. The utility of the doctrine: the method and character of the discourse. A In every speech, it teaches that two things are to be contained and observed: moral character (ἦθος) and thought (διάνοια). And indeed, it defines character thus: “It is that which reveals the preference, or what sort of disposition there is in those matters in which it is not manifest whether the speaker chooses or avoids.” Hence, there are some speeches that lack moral character. But it defines thought as: “In those things wherein they demonstrate that something is, or is not, or determine something universally.” Since, therefore, in the previous Proem we have ferreted out the character of the speaker from his own discourse, it is fitting that in this paragraph we propose what he himself believes—that is, his doctrine—in a kind of synopsis. And first, I will say this generally: that his doctrine and opinions for the most part harmonize with the sayings and sentiments of the ancient and holy Fathers; and he himself professes to be their follower; and sometimes he calls them by their own names, and at other times he describes them antonomastically. B Above all, he uses two Gregories—the Nazianzen and the Nyssen—then Cyril, Basil, and the holy martyr Maximus; and he not only uses their authorities, but also plucks whole verses and passages from them, a practice which we have found that authors older than him, as well as those later, were accustomed to do. St. Damascus, in his books *On the Orthodox Faith* and in others, freely gathers much from Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and other Fathers of the same order, and often borrows entire texts and even whole periods. What shall I say of Theophylact, Euthymius, and OEcumenius, who are known as not merely followers of St. Chrysostom, but even as his epitomizers; whose commentaries on Holy Scripture are nevertheless held in high value? St. Ambrose—to touch upon something from the Latins—as Sixtus of Siena is the authority, compiled his works from Origen, Basil, and other Greek Fathers. The Venerable Bede also filled his books with the sayings of St. Augustine. C And indeed, these later Fathers are rightly praised for being imitators of the former, for the very reason that they followed the ancient doctrine; for they seemed to subscribe to them, and to approve the Catholic doctrine with many votes. For this reason, and indeed deservedly, our Theophanes is also enumerated among those Fathers of the ninth century by Dominic Gravina in Volume III of his *Catholic Prescriptions Against the Heretics of Our Time*, p. 1, who fashioned golden shields from the gold of the apostolic Fathers and brought them into the temple of the Lord, so that a thousand shields might hang upon it, all the armor of the valiant. But to touch briefly upon the sum of it, there is almost no one of those twelve Catholic truths—which Gualterius, a most learned writer of our Society, confirms in his *Chronology* against the Calvinists from Scripture, the holy Fathers, and ancient writers—whose testimonies could not be sought from this Theophanes and applied to his own century. D Concerning the most holy sacrifice of the Mass, concerning the honor and invocation of the saints, concerning the adoration of images, and especially of the holy cross, concerning free will, concerning the joining of faith with good works, concerning those same works which, supported by divine grace, merit eternal life, concerning ecclesiastical fasting—especially the Holy Quadragesima—concerning the sacrament of penance and auricular confession, concerning the primacy of St. Peter and the Roman Church, concerning its authority in its own decisions—concerning these, I say, you have in this work either entire homilies, such as on the Holy Cross (homily V) and the Holy Images (homily XX), or illustrious passages as the occasion requires; and very much on the last point, namely the primacy of St. Peter, and especially the homily on SS. Peter and Paul (homily LV), all of which testimonies we observe and illustrate in their proper places. Furthermore, he often inveighs and sharpens his stylus against the older heretics—Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Nestorius, Eutyches and his followers the Acephali, and the Armenians—and, most especially against the most impious Julian the Apostate by name, he destroys their errors and defends the Catholic doctrine. Regarding the two errors of the Greeks already condemned at the Council of Florence—concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and concerning the blessedness of souls before the day of judgment—there is nothing in these homilies of Theophanes that explicitly contains them, nor anything that can be openly led to defend those errors. Indeed, there are even some statements from which Catholic dogmas might be confirmed, which we demonstrate at greater length in our notes to those passages where some doubt concerning these subjects might occur due to Theophanes’s manner of speaking for those times, in which these things had not yet been defined and explained. Now, as regards his private sentiments in explaining the Gospel, they are indeed in their nature
not rarely literal, but for the most part mystical, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical, elicited from the words of the Gospel, which he adapts primarily to form the audience in pious virtues and Christian perfection. Therefore, these will be useful both to sacred preachers, for what they may bring to the people, and adapted to the utility of every private spiritual soul. If, however, there are any—and such are indeed very few—singular views of this author that appear more worthy of admiration than reception, or not to be brought into public view, they are annotated by us in the notes, so that no one may use them rashly and without discernment.
The method of preaching that is familiar to him is this: he puts forward a brief prologue, derived either from the very argument and evangelical history, or, which is not rare, from the place, time, events, and surrounding circumstances; and it is so legitimate for him to use a prologue that in his homily on the Samaritan woman (Homily xxxvii), when, contrary to custom, he wished to begin from the matter and history itself, he anticipates the expectation of the auditors and [ἀπροοιμιάστως]—without a prologue—warns that he must begin. Then, having recited the first words of the Gospel read that day, he sets before their eyes, as it were in a second introduction, or rather a summary exposition, how they have a succession and indeed cohere with the events previously done by Christ and narrated by the Evangelists. Then he proceeds to elucidate the words themselves, in which, as I have said, the literal and historical sense having been explained, he willingly glides into mystical and moral senses. He scatters these even in the course of his discourse, and especially in his peroration, he transfers the whole evangelical history, or the life of that saint on whose feast day the homily is delivered, having briefly touched upon it, skillfully, usefully, and at once piously and ingeniously to allegory or tropology: in which he has no other aim than to help and instruct the souls of his auditors. To a reader not seriously considering his intent, this might perhaps appear to be something far-fetched, and not so much the pure milk of doctrine as blood elicited therefrom. He will judge his etymologies and subtle calculations of numbers to be forced and precariously sought, rather than naturally born. But anyone who reads will find many things of this kind in other Fathers, both Greek and Latin; which, indeed, are not to be rejected with disdain, but to be received with that sense of piety with which they were spoken, and revered as proceeding from a pious mind and a heart imbued with heavenly wisdom.
Nor indeed should those things which were handed down by the ancient Fathers, when Christian doctrine had not yet proceeded to such an amplitude of clarity, be measured by the standards of our own age; in which we see everything explained and illustrated as in a golden age, when it has been brought into scholastic disputes and agitated, and spread abroad and celebrated in sacred sermons, of which there is now a much greater abundance for the Christian people. At that time, many things were held in higher esteem, and were as it were exotic sentiments, which now are born at home and, by the very assiduity of speaking, are not worth as much. But they laid the raw foundations and the debris itself; we have built upon them squared and polished stones, Corinthian and Ionian ornaments, and cornices. This can also be judged from the form and character of his speech, how simple it is and decent in its native color and cultivation, how unadorned and unpretentious. But one may notice in Theophanes that ancient manner. His style of speaking in this orator is fluid and spontaneously poured forth, flowing with a certain equable gentleness, entirely such as befits [ἀπροοιμιάστως]. For these are didactic homilies which a good and pious bishop gave to teach and instruct the people, yet they are not pedestrian or unlearned, nor loose; for they are not lacking in gravity, grace, and concentration of numbers, nor in moderate oratorical colors, but they seem to be innate in a body well constituted by nature, not induced, existing in the very juice and blood, not summoned or adventitious. Nor is he lacking in figures or flashes of thought. He sometimes has [σωρούς], heaps of words and things. He loves [παρονομασίας], [ἰσόκωλα], [ὁμοιοτέλευτα], and [ὁμοιόπτωτα], which are called figures by the Latins, alliterations, equal members, similar ending and similar falling; but he seems to delight in nothing more than comparison, which is a kind of ornament that is a product of wit and of extraordinary utility for the grasp of the rude populace. He also sprinkles in wit, but with salt from the histories of the ancients, from the fables and maxims of the poets, sacred and profane, and many doctrines from the dialectical, mathematical, philosophical, and theological storehouse; so that he appears highly instructed in all these arts and doctrines and in the reading of ancient writers; yet he uses these—and especially external doctrines and oratorical colors—according to the matter and the time, and not without preparation, and this more for power than for pleasure or vanity; and he does not seem to pour them out from the whole bag, as they say, but to scatter them with a sparing hand.
Not rashly, therefore, was he called [σοφώτατος καὶ ῥητορικώτατος] by his own people, who transcribed his sermons to hand them down to posterity, and inscribed them with the author's own name. I shall conclude this whole dissertation briefly, and explain my judgment in three words. The homilies of this Kerameus, bishop of Taormina, seemed to me pious, learned, and elegant, and therefore worthy to be both brought forth and read through for the common benefit.
§ II. The status of the manuscript codices from which the homilies were derived: and some of their earlier interpreters.
So that it may be known with what fidelity I have edited these homilies from the manuscripts for public use, and by what example of learned men I have accomplished what they began, I shall explain briefly in this prologue: both concerning the manuscripts and those who before me published some of these sermons in Latin and in print. The first to bring this Theophanes to light, as far as I have been able to learn by considering everything, was Francis Turrianus, of the Society of Jesus. He, in his manuscript library...
121 of these homilies of Theophanes Kerameus, possessed one from which he brought forth testimony against the Magdeburg Centuriators concerning the primacy of St. Peter and the Roman Pontiff. From this same storehouse, Cardinal Baronius inserted into volume IX of his Annals a homily accepted concerning the Holy Images, rendered into Latin by Turrianus himself and perfected in certain places by Jacques Sirmond; we shall likewise relate the entire testimony of this in its own place. Jacques Gretser inserted that same homily in volume II of his work *De cruce*, in the second edition, as an addendum after the homily of the Patriarch Germanus, and he testifies concerning where he had obtained it and by what authority he was moved to publish it, using these words which pertain most to the matter: "Among other papers of the literary effects of Francis Turrianus, which Father Antonio Possevino sent to me some years ago, I found this homily translated by Turrianus and written in his own hand, which I did not want to remain hidden any longer, both on account of Turrianus, a most learned man, and on account of the subject matter, which, harmonizing entirely with the homily of Germanus, is rightly appended to it." Thus writes Gretser; from which you see how highly these ancient monuments of the Holy Fathers are valued by most learned men. The same Gretser, in volume II *De cruce*, published two homilies of Theophanes Kerameus in Greek and Latin together from his own interpretation. Where he obtained them, he did not leave recorded in the notes, but for my part I believe it was from the codex of Margunius, of which he makes mention there on the occasion of passages which were corrupt and corrected by him. But now, from the notes of the same Gretser, you will understand that these homilies are preserved as manuscripts in Venice. For he expresses it thus: "Concerning Theophanes Kerameus, this Epitome of the Gesnerian Library: *The homilies of Theophanes Kerameus on the Sunday Gospels and on certain feasts.* A manuscript book in Venice." The same is held in the library of the Holy Fathers of the 9th Century; but since I did not have the Gesnerian Epitome with me, I consulted the one which is kept in the library of the Lord Aloysius La Farina, Baron of Aspromonte, a man noble both in lineage and in the pursuit of learning, whose brother, Lord Martinus, I mentioned above in Proem I. I found in that epitome not only the Greek words which Gretser faithfully reported, but also another note, from which Gesner—falling into the same error as the others, of whom I spoke above in Proem II—sets forth as different persons Theophanes and Gregory, both Keramei, both Archbishops of Tauromenium; but I have already exposed this error of those who wrote before me in the aforementioned Proem II, § 11. Thus, therefore, Gesner: "The homilies on the Gospels of Gregory, Archbishop of the Sicilian Church of Tauromenium, called Kerameus, and fifty-seven others exist in manuscript form in Italian libraries." That these homilies inscribed to Gregory are the same as these which we are presenting under the name of Theophanes has already been shown above in Proem I, § 11. And I have obtained knowledge of these libraries from books published thus far. But now, that they are also preserved in three distinguished libraries of France, Father Jacques Sirmond of the Society of Jesus wrote to me upon being asked 122 about this matter, and from all of them he likewise transmitted indexes written in his own hand, so that I might understand which ones I was lacking: from the Royal Library, from that of the monks of St. Bernard in the Faubourg, and from that which belongs to the college of the Society of Jesus in Paris, which was formerly that of Cardinal Joyeuse. Furthermore, in the Royal Library of Spain, in the monastery of St. Lawrence which they call the Escorial: *The homilies of Gregory, Bishop of Sicily, starting from the chief tax-collector*, and in another codex: *Homilies of the whole year. Homilies of Gregory, Bishop of Sicily, initiated by the chief of the tax-collectors, homilies of the whole year.* That these are indeed the same as those which we are publishing, faith was provided by Lord Marianus Vulguarnera of Palermo, a man no less distinguished by his knowledge of Greek letters than by his birth; to him, while he was residing in Madrid at the court of Philip IV, I entrusted the task in this literary matter to inquire about these homilies and their author, and from the index of those which I had with me, which I sent to him, to compare the arguments, the inscriptions, and the opening words of each; these having been compared, he discovered them to be the same which he understood were in my possession. And in that same library, he found a singular small work appended to the codex, which I have not yet heard of being found in other libraries: *Lexicon of the homilies*, or a Glossarium of the unique and difficult words of the author, with their explanation; when I had at last obtained a transcript of this lexicon—using the help of many friends and men of letters, and finally through the diligence of Laurentius Cocchi, a learned man and very studious in the preparation of the history of St. Demetrius the martyr—I took care to have it printed at the end of this work (a) so that this testimony and trace of antiquity might also exist. But more on that in its proper place. In the Vatican Library there are two codices of these homilies, concerning which indexes have been sent to me, most diligently written out by the work of friends, and especially by the efforts of Lord Constantine Caetani, the Abbot; in one codex the same homilies are contained under the name of Theophanes Kerameus, in the other under the name of Gregory; the inscriptions are of this kind: in one codex, *The Sunday homilies for the whole year of Theophanes, surnamed Kerameus, Archbishop of Tauromenium in Sicily*; in the other: *Of the most blessed, most wise, and most rhetorical lord Gregory, Archbishop of Tauromenium in Sicily, surnamed Kerameus.* That these two names, Gregory and Theophanes, belong to one author is clear. Then the homilies follow in order, at the end of which the year 1448 is designated, from which the antiquity of the codex is understood. Finally, Father Octavius Caetanus of the Society of Jesus, to whose study and labor this work of ours is to be referred, when he was most diligently searching for and preparing what might pertain to the founding and illustrating of the history of the Sicilian saints, took care to have copies of these homilies transcribed. And indeed from two codices, as he himself in his notes, which
we received as yet unpublished from the Reverend Father Jacobus Sirmundus, a most learned man, who, because he frequently importuned us for the publication of these, and that I might satisfy him in some part, we put these forth as a kind of specimen on the occasion of the indictions. Thus Dionysius. I, therefore, having undertaken the work, since I could not be content with that one sole copy of mine, nor did I see how I could sufficiently establish the truth and authority of the work to the readers with that one witness, I set my mind to obtaining certain and explored trust regarding them. And first, I discovered from the very title, namely *On the Sunday Gospels, and the Feasts of the whole year* (εἰς τὰ εὐαγγέλια Κυριακά, καὶ ἑορτές τοῦ ὅλου ἐνιαυτοῦ), that these were indeed the same homilies which were said and received by our ancestors as those of Theophanes Kerameus, prelate of Tauromenium. This is certainly confirmed by all the testimonies which I shall gather regarding this author below. Then, I compared my manuscripts with those printed by Gretserus, Baronius, and Dionysius, and I saw that the senses and words indeed corresponded; although a few fragments were missing either in my copy or in the printed ones, which I noticed could have happened through the fault or error of the scribes; and that from two, one complete one could be restored. Concerning the rest, I continuously sent letters to friends and learned men in Rome, to Gaul, to Spain, to Germany, so that, having explored the libraries, they might inform me regarding these homilies. And indeed, from Gaul, Father Sirmundus not only [sent] back the indices from the three libraries which I spoke of, but also one transcribed by his own hand on the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and several proems of those which were missing or uncertain to me at that time; and furthermore, those things which humanity and study in so great a man persist in me, he left witnessed, the other [from the] Vatican, and another from Meletius, an Athenian monk from the Holy Mountain, of the family of S. Basil, who, having arrived from the Orient at Messina and there being made prefect of the monastery of St. Catherine, very benignly shared with him a book of these homilies written by hand; in it, however, many homilies were contained inscribed with the names of both Theophanes and Philippus Keramitas, regarding which diversity of names, however, it has been discussed and defined by us above in Proem II, § 11; and indeed that [it is] certain that the Meletian book was transcribed from an autograph, which once was preserved in the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul of Itala; but nevertheless that autograph does not exist today. That monastery of the Basilians is situated between Messina and Tauromenium: to which I sent a certain man, who might more diligently seek out some notice or tradition regarding it, nor could anything be known from those few monks who live there. The homilies, however, on the Resurrection, and many others on the saints, having already been described before from the Vatican codex, were in the same book, but were not transcribed from it, lest a superfluous work and expense be made. Therefore, one of these copies was left here at Palermo and, among the remaining literary equipment, was handed over at death to Father Alfonsus Caetanus, his brother, a man of respected religion, who, as heir of piety and study toward the holy men of Sicily, brought it to me: that I might see if it were worth the effort to endow [it] with Latinity and light; and if, from my daily occupations, I could spend the space, I would undertake the task. It pleased [me] to steal at least the spare hours from my daily duty and task. The other one, however, the same Reverend Father Octavius, as one who desired most, and had one thing in mind, that these homilies might finally see the light, which seemed most worthy of light to him, whence the Sicilian Church was to receive no small splendor, sent into Gaul to Jacobus Sirmundus, of the Society of Jesus, whose works, brought to light in many and illustrious ways, proclaim, without my speech, through themselves how great a man he is, though silent, to whom Father Octavius had been familiarly accustomed in Rome, so that he might either translate it himself or see to the translation into Latin. He handed the torch to Father Dionysius Petavius, of our society, who, having undertaken the matter, made the first, *On the beginning of the Indiction* (εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς Ἰνδίκτου), into Latin; afterwards, overcome by weariness, or by the obscurity of the codex which he had, he desisted from the undertaking, and substituted for himself an outside man who not only did not start the work, but barely finally restored that copy. But Father Dionysius, lest that study of his perish, published that homily under the name of Gregory in Greek and Latin together with the history of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople; which indeed, Father Sirmundus wrote to me in his letter, was so, as did Father Dionysius himself in writing and memory in that little book of his, where, in the chronological notes when he treats of the indiction, he writes thus: "Which later, to omit others, Gregory Kerameus, archbishop of Tauromenium, indicates in the homily *On the beginning of the Indiction, or of the new year* (εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς Ἰνδίκτου, ἤτοι τοῦ νέου ἐνιαυτοῦ), which we, along with many others of the same, have recovered." That copy, which was already thought to be lost, he recovered and transmitted to me from Gaul safe and sound. Although this bore no title of an author, perhaps because the first page had been translated into many hands and places and had perished worn away, nevertheless I compared it with my copy, so that when I had discovered they were the same homilies, I was confirmed more in the faith of the copies: nay, I even gained from it many homilies which were missing in mine, and saw that very many places which were likewise cut, depraved, [or] obscured in mine could be supplied, amended, [and] illustrated: and since in that one the senses were more integral and full than in mine, but in this one the writing itself or the orthography [was] more amended and clear than in that one, I restored and healed from both what was torn and mutilated, I corrected what was depraved, I illustrated what was obscure; and thus I took care that the complete and perfect homilies be described and published. Moreover, Father Sirmundus added that he had transcribed in Rome from an ancient copy eleven homilies *On the Resurrection* (εἰς τὰ ἑωθινά), which I also found to be the same, with God aspiring to the work, in the monuments left by Father Octavius and handed over to me. From which, compared with just as many others of my copy, I received no small amount of light and faith. In Rome, I not only took care to compare the index of arguments and beginnings, but also to have many transcribed, both those which I did not have, and of those which I did have. And indeed, two of the
twenty complete ones I received; to which if you add the eleven for the morning gospels and others not a few concerning the saints, you may recognize that if not all, certainly the greatest part of the homilies are drawn from the Vatican library. Since those [homilies] which are in both the Panormitan and Gallican exemplars—for so I name them for the sake of distinction—agree with these, you may prudently judge the same for the rest, and consider all to be held as if they had been entirely collated and brought forward and published by me upon the authority of the Vatican library. I would also note, to confirm the reliability of this work, that with one exception—the homily concerning the lawyer questioning the Lord (homil. XI)—all the rest are proposed by me from two or three exemplars collated with one another. I will note this in the remarks for each one; where even if the reading varies, if anything has been corrected or restored by my conjecture, or if anything from all the readings appears more right and true, which nevertheless is of some moment, I will advise.
§ III. The Order of the Homilies. There is no other series of these homilies than that in which the gospels are arranged throughout the days of the Sundays and the feasts of the saints throughout the year according to the rite of the Greeks. It consists not only from the *Evangelistarium*—that is, the book in which the gospels are described to be recited in the Liturgies—nor only from the *Menaea*, in which the prayers and hymns of the saints are arranged by months, but also from our Theophanes in the homily whose beginning is: "Since it has taken its beginning today" (homil. V), in which order the gospels are distributed. For they begin the ecclesiastical year from September; and on the Sunday after the Exaltation of the Holy Cross they begin to read from St. Luke, until Lent; at which time they [read] from Mark until Easter; from there until Pentecost from John; and thereafter from St. Matthew, with which they close the annual cycle in August. This is also noted in the Vatican codex after the homily On Saint John the Baptist (homil. LXI) which begins, "Beautiful and holy," with these words: "It is to be known that up to this point the menologion is completed, starting from September and finished at the end of August." It is to be known that here the menologion begins from September and is completed at the end of August. And this order for the most part consists in all the manuscript codices, which all begin with the homily "On the Indiction, that is, the beginning of the new year," which is concerning the month of September, and end, as far as the Sunday gospels pertain, with that which is concerning the rich man questioning the Lord (homil. XLV); but as far as the feasts go, with that which is concerning the Beheading of St. John the Baptist (homil. LXI), in the prooemium of which Theophanes himself notes that it is right for the year to be finished in the Forerunner himself, and for a new one to begin from there, because he was the mediator between the old law and the new. It seemed just to retain this order and rite of the gospels also in our book, so that place might be given to the antiquity of the Father and the authority of the codices and the old Greek rite. For even if [we considered] the rite of the Roman Church and the saints, so that the *akolouthia* of both might be more convenient and evident. For although the homilies on the gospels of the saints are interspersed among the Sundays, with the same course of the year preserved, nevertheless the codices vary wonderfully in ordering them among themselves, such that in some copies one precedes and another follows. Wherefore, since neither a certain order can be established from the codices, nor would it be a religious duty to abandon their *akolouthia*, provided some convenient and consistent [method] were instituted, we deemed it better to separate some from others, and to make, as it were, a second volume and a new beginning from the homily on Saint Demetrius (homil. XLVI). Although that which is for the beginning of the year, since it is the head not only of the feasts but also of the Sundays, and has a stable seat in all the codices, we placed in the first place just the same, so that it might lead the choir of all; furthermore, the homily or rather oration on the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, which is indeed concerning the feast—when it appears likewise to have a certain seat in all the codices after the Sunday preceding this feast—and so that both homilies pertaining to the Holy Cross might follow each other, we annexed that which is on the feast to that which is on the Sunday; we set aside all the rest, as I said. The homilies *eis ta heothina*, that is, on the eleven matutinal gospels, although they could be recounted among the Sunday ones, are nevertheless described last of all in the codd. The Greeks use these not in the Liturgy, like the others, but in the morning Office, in this order: that they recite them one by one on individual Sundays, beginning from the first until the eleventh; once these are finished, they return into the cycle, and thus on every Sunday they read one of these gospels, as it occurs. Those homilies, therefore, since they contain one subject, that of the Resurrection of Christ, it seemed right to place after the homily on the Passion, for this very reason, that they are about the Resurrection; which are then conveniently followed by the homilies on the Ascension and Pentecost, although between these and those on the Resurrection there intervenes the homily on the Samaritan woman, which is from the Gospel of St. John and is read on the Sunday after Easter. To these, the homily on the Ascension of the Lord has the same gospel as that which is for the sixth matutinal [gospel], which is the reason why this one is absent from the number of the eleven homilies, the reason of the number being nevertheless preserved in what follows; but because that one contains a prooemium concerning the feast day of the Ascension, it had to be placed in the same order.
C III. In this paragraph, I have wished to give a final admonition: that one should not suppose that all the homilies we have published (these are sixty-two that we were able to find in libraries through our own study and diligence and the help of friends) fill out the number and place of the Sunday gospels, any more than those for the saints; but it is manifest that many are missing. And indeed, the homilies on the Gospels of St. Luke seem to be more numerous than the rest, although the homily for the second Sunday, which is, *As you wish them to do to you*, etc., from chapter vi of St. Luke as it is placed in the Evangeliary, is without doubt missing. And lest an examination be held of every single one to the letter, which would be a long task and is not worth the effort, certainly among the homilies on St. John, which are read after Easter, only that which is on the Samaritan woman survives, and among the homilies on the Gospels of St. Matthew, which are more numerous after Pentecost, very few are extant. Whether this happened because they were not delivered, either due to the summer heats or because of the absence of the bishop; or because they were indeed delivered, but not written down, or certainly written down but have perished, or lie still hidden in some library and have not reached our notice, I have nothing certain to say. It seemed good to insert the homilies on those words, *The lamp of the body is the eye*, and on the rest of that same Gospel, into the Sundays after Pentecost, since they are from the Gospel of St. Matthew, even though in many codices they are found among those which are on St. Luke. But, as I have said, while the order of the year in which the gospels are arranged is fixed, the *eutaxia* (orderly arrangement) of the individual items is not apparent in the codices: wherefore we have used our own righteous reason and judgment; unless perhaps—a thing which remains hidden from me—there is a *mysterioteron* (a more mystical approach) established in the rite and custom of the Greeks. This, however, I do not consider a matter of religious obligation, since, as I have said, this order is not a thing of great moment, and only the doctrine and the explanation of the Gospels are of use and to be highly esteemed. We have relegated the homily *On the drought that occurred* to the last place, since it has no fixed day or time of the year, and we have placed it extra ordinem rather than in the order. And let these things be said as they may concerning the series of homilies, which we will display to view according to how it stands in this book of ours. IV. The method of interpreting. He who handles this task and turns this stone knows best of all how difficult and laborious a business it is to translate the writings of the ancients from one language into another. Let Jerome be the most eloquent witness of all these things, as he is most learned in all languages, who translated both the sacred monuments from the Hebrew and many things of others from the Greek. It is difficult, he says in the Preface to Eusebius’ Chronicle, for one following alien letters not to slip somewhere; and it is arduous that things which have been well said in another language should preserve the same decorum in translation. Something has been signified by the property of a single word; I do not have my own which might express it; and while I seek to fulfill the thought, I consume the space of a brief life with a long circuit. There are added the twistings of hyperbata, the dissimilarity of cases, the varieties of figures; finally, that which is one’s own and, if I may say so, the vernacular type of a language. If I interpret word-for-word, it sounds absurd; if I have changed something in the order or in the speech out of necessity, I shall seem to have departed from the office of an interpreter. These things [are by] St. Jerome, than whom nothing can be said more plainly or more fully concerning the difficulties of interpreting; nay, Tully himself, most eloquent of speakers, to whom it is a wonder that words could ever be lacking: when he himself, if any man did, enriched his native speech, does he not seem to be needy in his own eyes in expressing the force and energy of Greek words? For those things which the Stoics call *proēgmena* and *apoproēgmena*, he sometimes translates as *praemata* and *apopraemata*, sometimes as *praeposita* or *praecipua* and *rejecta*, sometimes as *promote* and *remota*; as at the beginning of Book III *De finibus* under the persona of Cato: For my part, I am accustomed even to explain with many words, if I cannot otherwise, that which the Greeks say with one; and yet I think it ought to be granted to us that we use a Greek word if a Latin one less frequently occurs, lest this be rather conceded to saddles and wine-vessels than to *praegmena* and *apopraegmena*, although it will be right to call these *praeposita* and *rejecta*. And a little later in the same book, speaking about the same things: But those things, he says, which hold the second place, *proēgmena*, that is to say *producta*, are named; and whether we call them by that name—that will be word for word—or *promota* and *remota*, or, as we said a while ago, *praeposita* or *praecipua* and that *rejecta*. These things [are by] Tully. I wished to bring forth these testimonies of two supreme men so that, if I confess that the same has happened to me in composing this translation, I might confess it without shame. Wherefore, since I was enclosed between those two modes, or rather extreme ends, into either of which if I were to lean I would fall into vice: namely, that I would either render the Greek word for word, with the decorum of the Latin speech neglected; or look only to the sense, with no regard for the Greek words—either of which would have been easier and more proclivous—I have followed such a temperance that the translation would neither turn out inept by being word-for-word; and yet I would turn the senses with Latin phrasing, or rather composition, in such a way that words would answer to words to the extent that it could be done. In which, indeed, I seem to myself to have labored; let others judge whether I have succeeded. I could truly say that if it had been permitted to explain some sentences in my own manner and custom, and in that style of the Latin language to which I am accustomed, they could have been uttered more elegantly and harmoniously; but because I considered myself bound by the office and faith of an interpreter, I have made them Latin not as I would have liked, but as I ought. Moreover, I also wished to observe this: that this translation, since I believed that sacred orators would use it even from the pulpit, should not so pass over into the parts of Cicero as to depart from religion; and while I seek to appear too Ciceronian, I might appear less Christian. If any diction savored of the ecclesiastical, I considered that it should be ascribed to my praise rather than to my fault. Therefore, with many of the holy Latin Fathers,
129 not only have I seen that rhythmical speech has pleased the Greeks, since it is driven forward with a certain greater force and intensity of the numbers, as if a javelin were cast by a thong, but I have also bound my own periodic sentences with numbers; otherwise, I would not shrink from ecclesiastical nouns and verbs, and those which by the right of Latium have been given to us—not by ancient assemblies, but by the Roman Church—although there are times when I define them so that it might be thought I am able to do so, even if I do not think it necessary to do so perpetually. For, just as circumlocution seems sometimes not only convenient but also necessary, so when repeated too often, it loses dignity and breeds satiety: it seemed childish to me to use what they call "baptize" and "baptism" with one mouth alongside the Latins and Greeks, and to say "to cleanse with holy fount" and "cleansing water" always and persistently; so that from many similar examples—spiritual, sensible, passions, and others of that kind—this one example may be understood. Finally, since a good translator ought to perform those three things: religion, fidelity, and character—religion in words, fidelity in sentiments, and character in the dignity, majesty, and emotion of speech—I acknowledge that I have exhibited the first, as far as it was in agreement with Latin and Christian discourse; that I have preserved the second most religiously and holily; and that I have striven, according to my ability, to attain the third, and altogether, to hit every point and to perform that office of a translator to the best of my manhood—not that I might appear eloquent myself, as St. Jerome says in Epistle 133, but that I might make the one who is to read understand as he himself understood who wrote.
130 THE PREFACE OF THE SAME FRANCISCUS SCORSUS placed before his notes, which we have retrieved from the bottom of the volume and placed under the text.
Although I could have seemed to have discharged my duty as a translator sufficiently and to have obtained a sufficiently great fruit of my labor if I had faithfully and clearly converted Theophanes Kerameus from Greek into Latin discourse; yet, since from the very beginning of the work undertaken, my mind inclined to add to the translation notes or explanations of my own, I could never bring myself to be content with the duty and name of a translator. The desire of my own mind persuaded me that this was right and that it should be followed.
First, the very condition of the manuscript codices seemed to demand some notes. This, while it has always been a burden to most editors of ancient monuments, has also caused me no small trouble; for I obtained copies not entirely corrected, nor complete, but disfigured in many places—and not only in words, but even disjointed and mutilated in their meanings. Since these were healed and purged of errors by my consultation and help of two, three, or sometimes four copies, and restored to their luster and integrity, I judged that the reason for these corrections and variant readings should be rendered in the notes, and my own judgment revealed; so that it would be known to all not only with what fidelity and diligence I proposed these homilies to be read, but also that I might leave to each—as if handing them a list—their own decision regarding them.
Nor did I think it enough to provide the reason merely for those uncertain places which variant readings of Scripture produced, but not infrequently for my own interpretation as well, when the ambiguity or obscurity of a Greek word made it doubtful; and so, to elucidate its force and origin, so that it might be plain why I rendered the sentiment with this Latin word and expression rather than with another. And these causes were perhaps common to me with other translators as to why I should do this in the notes.
But those causes which are sought intrinsically—because in these sermons there are many mixtures drawn from a storehouse of all kinds of learning: allusions, alliterations, various figures of speech, proverbs, fables, histories, and the mystical reasons of numbers—which, although they might perhaps not at all escape most erudite men, yet, since I did not believe they would be known to all whom I was to have as readers of this work, I decided to provide for these through these annotations, lest the reader pass over things untasted or think little of them because they were not understood, so that from these, the understanding of recondite matters might be drawn.
Furthermore, there are contained many explanations either of the Gospels—which this bishop himself, being also an ecclesiast, used to expound in public according to ancient custom—or of other places of both Testaments which he brings to his subject, whether they obtain their own force and beauty in the Greek text of the Seventy interpreters and the evangelists themselves, or whether they are singular and admirable coming from him, and on that account perhaps rather harsh and less acceptable to anyone—which I deemed fair to soften by examining and explaining in these my notes or commentaries, and to confirm by the consensus of other Fathers and interpreters, whether ancient or recent, if there were any [homotropoi]; so that nothing might be believed to have been said by this author gratuitously and rashly, or remain as an ambiguity in the minds of the readers.
But as to the sayings of earlier Fathers—especially of both Gregories, the Nazianzen and the Nyssen, and St. Maximus the Confessor, whom he uses more familiarly—which Theophanes sometimes reports in a longer tract of speech, but more often briefly (either with the author's name expressed, or suppressed, or signaled by an elegant antonomasia), I thought it necessary to indicate where they existed by designating the places themselves, and to transcribe them into the notes where the matter required, so that both the certain fidelity of the witness might be manifest, and also in what words they were set forth by both of them. And if any of these places contained some signal doctrine or theological question that created obscurity and difficulty not so much in our Theophanes as in the sources themselves from which they were drawn, it was my intention to be detained in discussing them more copiously and subtly, and thus to bring light to both authors and [duo toichou, adeleiphein].
This I did and elaborated with all the more intensity if any doctrine pertained to the dogmas of the faith, of which this Kerameus is certainly both an eminent doctor and a most sharp defender—those, certainly, which had already been sanctioned and defined in the Church in his own or in preceding centuries; but I did not wish this Greek writer to differ from those—I say—about which there had been much and long-argued debate between Greeks and Latins, and which were finally decreed and defined at the Council of Florence some centuries after Theophanes wrote, lest he dissent in any place with one or another word...
FRANCISCUS SCORSUS' PROOEMIUM II.
love persuades me to speak; and indeed for me it is a consolation for my ailments to confer words with you. Such is sincere charity; it despises the things that happen from without, but looking upon that which is loved, it takes delight. But when it is not permitted to satisfy desire to the full, let the rest be read. In his homily [i]On the Parable of the Ten Thousand Talents[/i] (homily 11), he hints at an age affected by old age, saying: "Thus indeed I also conjecture your progress in divine matters, dear listeners, since the eagerness of your mind excites me to teach, as I am less fit for bodily labors and shrink from them." Now indeed, he shows his zeal and the ardor of his spirit, lest they be scandalized and drink in errors concerning the true doctrine of the faith and the Gospel, in the homily [i]On the Bent Woman[/i] (homily X), where he compares wicked and seditious men in the Church to drones that are lazy and consume the labors of bees, and then flee upon the arrival and encounter of the bees. Such, he says, are the eaters and spoilers in the Church; they watch for our dissension: then, making an attack, they bring harm to ecclesiastical affairs; but truly, fearing the edge of our tongue, they attempt to attack us through snares with a gathered band of factionaries; at one time holding a council in the hall of Caiaphas, at another time establishing an evil conventicle in the oratory of the Forerunner, and making the baptistery a receptacle for their snares. What is the cause of this matter? That Isaac might be expelled and Ishmael introduced. But they indeed flee, as you see, when they notice the guards, and turning away the weaker of the sheep, they close their ears to the discourse like an asp. But we, O my assembly of clergy, declining their attack, etc. I have transcribed this whole passage because it contains illustrious examples both of the zeal of which we spoke, lest the sheep be turned away from the right path, and of his acrimony in rebuking, and also of the snares and persecution, which we proposed at the beginning. For what is it to attempt that Isaac be expelled and Ishmael introduced, if not to extrude a good and legitimate bishop and pastor from his Church, and to intrude a perverse and illegitimate one? What is gathered from this, if not the piety and zeal of a good pastor, whence he brought upon himself hatred among the impious and wicked? For all, says the Apostle, who wish to live piously, will suffer persecution. And in another copy it is read, "That Jacob might be expelled and Esau introduced"; which signifies the same thing, namely, a pastor chosen by God and a reprobate rejected. From the end of this same homily, his zeal in reprehending vices is recognized, when he inveighs sharply against the perjured. "How long, finally," he says, "shall we persist in contentions, and quarrels, and perjuries? Horror and trembling seize me, considering how frequent are the oaths in the tribunals, etc." The same is held from homily XX: "Some," he says, "stung by rebukes flee from exhortations, as the frenzied flee from doctors"; and from homily XLV, [i]On the Rich Man Questioning the Lord[/i], the same zeal and force in rebuking the wicked is gathered. For when he had made them similar to vultures and beetles, who turn away from the sweet odor of sound doctrine, just as the good, who rejoice in a good odor and gain strength, [turn away] from doves and turtledoves, he thus subjoins: "How much a scholar and a good man may differ, and although there may be other individual virtues, it is the highest praise that they are joined in one person." And first, indeed, that daily urgency and solicitude for all the Churches, which Paul, the common doctor of the nations, enumerates among his own torments; the zeal and ardor with which, when someone was scandalized, he was burned; the love for his own, whom he called little children; the joy when they proceeded well, whom he also called his joy and crown; the pain when they wandered from the right path of truth and faith; the severity and acrimony in rebuking, whence his letters are heavy and severe; finally, the persecutions which he commemorates in many places; those, I say, were in Theophanes toward his single Church, as is understood by no obscure indications. For the urgency and assiduity of supplying the divine word, and of gathering his people to the synaxis, appears from the proem of the homily [i]On the Centurion[/i] (homily XLV), where he says that the devil places delays and impediments to good works, because a judicial controversy having been offered, at the time when a sermon should have been delivered, he had already almost taken away the opportunity: of which he shows he was solicitous, and that he had resolved the matter, so that he would not be lacking to the divine word. And in the same homily, toward the end, he excuses himself that he omitted something in explaining the previous text, because his mental attention was impeded by the solicitude of ecclesiastical matters: and the homily [i]On Saint Pancratius[/i] (homily LVII), where, although he was weary and broken from a journey, he says he wished to force himself to infirmity of body, so as not to be lacking to the sermon: and that it ought never to be so strong as to impede works of charity. Excellent also for showing this are the things which he says in the homily [i]On the Passion[/i] (homily XXVII). For when the people were fatigued by nocturnal vigils and services, lest he seem troublesome and heavy by adding such a long sermon, he excuses himself with these words: "But forgive me, because I cannot be sated by your progress, and as much more gain as you make, extend the eagerness of your mind." Now let that last argument of pastoral solicitude be, that although he was infirm in body and an old man, he nevertheless did not desist from the office of preaching. "And if therefore," he says in the homily [i]On the Holy Images[/i], "the infirmity of the body does not permit one to discharge the office of speech as much as is sufficient, nevertheless it will not be irksome to say a few things; lest, if we are altogether silent, we afflict with sadness those who have gathered." And in the homily in the third Matins (homily XXX), he signifies that he had labored under a disease in such a way that he was forced to interrupt the labor of speaking, to which, however, returning, he says thus: "But indeed the torrent of our mind, void of moisture and dried up, was silent for a long time in the past period, complying with the laboring body, now however, irrigated by the fountain of evangelical considerations, it hastens to pour forth their explanation." But nothing declares this eagerness to teach the people and charity toward them more than the proem of the homily on the demoniac having a legion (homily IX). For thus it begins: "An adverse state of body restrains my tongue, but the desire for the perfection of the Church loosens it; the pains command to be silent..."
but charity constrains me to speak."
FRANCISCI SCORSI PROOEMIUM II.
113 But to what, truly, does this example point? It is this: that the correction which was administered by us yesterday to all without distinction served as a rebuke to the prudent and those who think rightly; but those whose morals are depraved, and who are corrected with difficulty, have descended into even greater impudence, so far from emerging any better. But we shall heal their disease with sharper medicines, God helping us, and with more austere reproofs we shall rouse them from their stupor, that they may at some time be able to feel; but you, who have chosen what is better by adopting a sounder counsel, hear the evangelical sermon. A The zeal for preserving the Catholic faith and for refuting heresies is seen most clearly in many homilies, in which he never speaks so sharply and gravely, never so pierces and whets his pen, as when he refutes the calumnies, mockeries, and errors regarding the Gospel's teachings—whether of Julian the Apostate or of other pagans or heretics—or even old-wives' tales and empty inventions (Hom. V, IX, XXIII, XXX, XLI, XLV).
His paternal love for his own clearly appears from that proem to the homily B *On the Lawyer* (Hom. XI), which I mentioned above, where he signifies that he burned with such a desire to revisit his people when he was absent, using this simile: "The parched, rough, and dried-up earth does not desire the heavenly rain as much as I longed to see your faces, O congregation most acceptable to God." Let the things that follow be read, which he concludes thus: "But since the Holy Spirit and our Lady, the Mother of God, have once again brought us to the same place, and willed that we should again venerate her image—not made by hands—and makes the father rejoice in his children, C come now, casting aside the wrinkles contracted by reason of absence, let us touch upon the customary discourse." The same love is declared in the homily *On the Healed Paralytic* (Hom. XXI): "I say these things," he says, "stimulated by your love and by the burning desire for your benefit, and, as the divine Jeremiah says, with the sensors of my heart torn asunder. Feel, therefore, what is fitting; and if up to this day you have strayed from your duty, amend your folly with repentance; thence it will also come about that we shall exhort you with a more cheerful mind."
Moreover, joy at the progress of one's children, and sorrow at their failure, is born from love; he shows both in these homilies, and especially in the homily *On the Transfiguration* (Hom. LIX), D where he compares himself to a shepherd who from a high cliff contemplates his flock, multiplied and grazing the meadows, and celebrates with joy: "The same happens to me," he says, "in this present celebration. For seeing my people, a flock beloved of God, hastening with such religion to this sacred temple, in which the uncreated image of our most pure Lady is placed, I rejoice greatly, and for joy I seem to revel and feel myself incited to deliver a sermon, etc." He expresses the same feeling of mind in the homily *On the Holy Pentecost* (Hom. XL) on account of the same concourse of people; likewise in Homily XXIII, where he compares himself to a noble horse exulting in a wide field and running a course; and to a teacher who hands on doctrine more 114 cheerily the more attentive he sees his disciples: "This also," he says, "excites me and renders me more cheerful, that you gape at the sermon with ears pricked up and a present mind, and receive the seeds cast as a rich and fertile field." Hence also good hopes nourish me that this agriculture will bring forth fruit worthy of the heavenly barns.
But, on the other hand, his sorrow and indignation when things proceeded otherwise is evident from the homily I mentioned a little above, *On the Paralytic Healed in Capharnaum*: "As I attempt," he says, "to embark upon the customary sermon, and am in the midst of indignation and mourning, my voice is interrupted. For the same thing happens to me as to a farmer who, although he has lavished many sweats in tilling the earth, reaps but few ears in the time of summer"; and the rest that follows is very much to the point, to which I refer the reader, lest everything be repeated here. And from these passages, from the whole progress of the homilies, in the perorations where he especially gathers moral and mystical maxims for the instruction of his hearers; and especially in the homilies *On the Saints*, where he explains and converts the histories of the saints themselves—narrated briefly—and the names of them and others falling into the history, piously and subtly, to inform his flock in good morals; from these, I say, I seem to discern in him those marks of a good bishop which Saint Paul enumerates to Timothy, to whom he writes: "Proposing these things to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed; but avoid foolish and old-wives' tales; and exercise yourself unto godliness." And to Titus, he wills the bishop to be "holding fast that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince those who gainsay"; and finally, Theophanes seems to perform that command of the same Saint Paul: "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and doctrine." If anyone well considers both the aforementioned places and other sayings interspersed in these sermons, I believe he will feel with me, and will see the form of the Good Shepherd of the Church not only outlined by these lines, but plainly expressed to the life. But let us proceed to other virtues which perfect a private man.
§ X. Other virtues, mostly proper to Christian perfection.
There are also many traces left in these sermons of other virtues which perfect a private man; and assuredly, if the histories written about the greatest men are expressions, not of their bodies but of the images of their souls, from which we know what the internal nature of each was, and what the lineaments of his virtues, and we have faith in them—even as that Agesilaus had surpassed all the painted, molded, and sculpted likenesses of all men by the image described by Xenophon—certainly the oration itself must be held to be a truer and clearer image of the soul; for since it is provided by nature itself for expressing the secret sensations of the soul and mind, it expresses and represents more perfectly and more surely what each person is. Therefore, that philosopher did not alone say that widely known thing: "Speak, that I may see you..."
FRANCIS SCORSUS' PROOEMIUM II
...see: but eternal Wisdom also, rebuking the Pharisees, says: "How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil." This is understood to have been spoken by Christ in such a way that it usually comes to pass, and experience teaches that no one can feign their countenance and speech for so long without their hidden malice being detected in something, and without the poison finally residing in the depths being vomited forth. Therefore, since I see that the author, Theophanes Kerameus, in these sermons, does nothing else and strives for nothing else than to instruct and inflame his hearers toward virtue; since he deliberately confers and adapts every explanation of the Gospel to the exercise of virtues and the utility of the hearers; and since there is no moral doctrine that is not consonant with the doctrine and characters of the holy Fathers, and nothing that does not not only condemn vices and commend virtue, but also look toward the highest pinnacle of perfect virtue, which I observe being inculcated often and gravely with great study of mind, feeling, and ardor, it is indeed permitted for me to believe that he practiced those virtues himself and did them before he taught them. And since all the homilies breathe Christian and religious piety and holiness, he was likewise a pious and religious man.
But while such a judgment may be made about every kind of virtue, there certainly exist the greatest proofs regarding humility—which is especially *Christomimetos* (Christ-imitating), to use the author's own word—regarding the contempt for bodily pleasures, and regarding the supreme victory over the disturbances of the soul, which the saints call mortification, and which Theophanes, like Climacus, calls *pale* (struggle) in more than one place. In the Homily on Zacchaeus (homily xv), he thus commends humility: "Zacchaeus, making haste, come down. In an anagogical sense Christ teaches us that no other beginning of repentance is more suitable than descent. This, indeed, is *hē makaria tapeinōsis*, that blessed humility, opposed to the pride of the devil. Do you wish to start repentance? Lay humility as the foundation and unshakable base of repentance. Come down, so that you may be raised up, lifted by the wings of virtues." You have the same commendation and height of humility in the Homily on the Publican and the Pharisee (homily xvi).
And while in these places he greatly exalts this virtue, in others he speaks of himself most humbly. In the Homily on the Daughter of the Archisynagogue and the Woman with the Issue of Blood (homily x), when he had explained the history in an allegorical sense, turning his speech to tropology, he says: "But why do I go off to the calling of the Gentiles and the remnants of Israel, and while looking around at external things, do I not see myself described in this narrative? Come, let us fix the gaze of our mind upon the history as in a mirror, and let each one of us notice the miserable condition of his own soul, etc." And in the homily on him who fell among the robbers (homily xi): "Happy, therefore, is that doctor who will increase the denarii of doctrine, indeed when he has spent upon his own household sound speech and a life consistent with his speech; but all the unhappy and miserable ones, just as I am, who make a noise in the air in vain, like a sounding bell or a clanging cymbal, perform half of a good work and remain destitute of that which is more excellent." He has similar words in the Homily on St. Philip (homily xlix): "For my part, I would prefer to propose life before words for exhortation; for this would be a more suitable mode of teaching, if life were to harmonize with words; but since I prefer a life stained with all the spots of sins, lest I nevertheless seem to have been useless to this celebration, come now, relying on the Apostle as my intercessor, etc."
From these words, even if I do not notice it, every reader—unless he wishes to believe in simulation and the selling of virtue, as one might regarding the ancient philosophers—should recognize how great is the speaker's virtue, how great his humility; and that point especially which we occupy: that a good doctor ought to unite a good life with sound speech; and since he teaches and thinks this, it is consistent to judge that he also performed it in reality. Now, in the homily on Zacchaeus, he speaks thus (homily xv): "And indeed, those who are pure in heart, whose minds are illuminated by the divine Spirit on account of the abundance of their virtues, were able to investigate a higher anagogical sense. We, however, clinging to the mud of sins, will enter through moderate meanings." And let these be sufficient proofs of humility. As for the mortification of passions, there is not just one place where he speaks of it. "Be present here," he says in the homily on him who had a legion of demons (homily ix), "all you who are pressed by the tyrannical rule of passions as if by demons; and let us adapt this history to ourselves: for he is truly possessed by a legion of demons who is pressed by a multitude of sins," and let the rest be read, in which he depicts and detests the deformity of each passion, especially of anger.
Any person, even without this enumeration of mine, will notice other proofs of other virtues, if not expressed, at least adumbrated, which indicate that the author of this work was endowed with them. But that which is alone missing for us to seal these conjectures of ours is a death consistent with his life and doctrine; since he fell into those troubled times, we have been able to have nothing certain from histories or traditions. And what wonder is it that this is missing in our Theophanes, when an obscure age received the last part of his life and his death, as I already warned in the proemium to the readers, in which age, even up to Clement I, Pope, even the deeds of the pontiffs are in obscurity and uncertainty, since they do not have a continuous historian, and they have lost the greater part of their archives, having times so obscure and uncertain that it is not sufficiently clear at what time, in what place, or in what order some names of the Roman pontiffs are found: which Ciacconius deplores in the *Lives of the Pontiffs* of the latest edition, in the Life of Nicholas I, who sat at Rome at the time when our Theophanes lived.
FRANCIS SCORSUS'S THIRD PROLOGUE
THIRD PROLOGUE, INTRODUCTORY, CONTAINING SUCH MATTERS AS PERTAIN TO THE WRITING OF THE AUTHOR AND THE INTERPRETER.
In every speech, as Aristotle teaches in his *Rhetoric*, there are two things to be observed. And indeed he defines *ethos* thus: "It is that which shows what the nature of the choice or disposition is in those matters in which it is not manifest whether the speaker chooses or avoids them." Whence some speeches lack moral character. And *dianoia* (thought) he defines thus: "In those things in which they prove that something is or is not, or they universally define something." Since, therefore, in the previous Prologue we have fished out the *ethos* of the speaker from his own speech, it is consonant that in this paragraph we propose what he himself believes—that is, his doctrine—in a kind of synopsis.
And first, I will say generally that his doctrine and opinions for the most part harmonize with the sayings and sentiments of the ancient and holy Fathers; he himself professes to follow them, and sometimes he calls them by their proper names, and sometimes he describes them *antonomastically*. He uses the authorities first of the two Gregories, Nazianzen and Nyssen, then Cyril, Basil, and St. Maximus the Martyr; from whom Theophanes not only uses their authorities, but also plucks out verses and entire passages—a practice we find earlier writers and later ones to have done. St. John Damascene, in his books *On the Orthodox Faith* and others, freely gathers many things from Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and other Fathers of that same order, and often borrows entire texts and even whole periods. What shall I say of Theophylact, Euthymius, and Oecumenius, who are known not only as followers but even as epitomizers of St. Chrysostom; whose commentaries on the Holy Scriptures are nevertheless held in high value? St. Ambrose, to touch on something regarding the Latins, as Sixtus Senensis acts as witness, compiled his works from Origen, Basil, and other Greek Fathers. The Venerable Bede also filled his books with the sayings of St. Augustine.
And these Fathers of a later age are rightly praised as imitators of the former, precisely because they followed the ancient doctrine; for they seemed themselves to subscribe to them, and to approve the Catholic doctrine with many votes. For which reason, and indeed deservedly, Dominic Gravina also numbers our Theophanes among these Fathers of the ninth century—in volume III of his *Catholic Prescriptions against the Heretics of Our Time*, p. 1—who fashioned golden shields from the gold of the apostolic Fathers and brought them into the temple of the Lord, so that a thousand shields might hang upon it, all the armor of the mighty.
But to summarize some points: there is almost no one of those twelve Catholic truths which Gualterius, a most learned writer of our Society, confirms in his *Chronology* against the Calvinists from Scripture, the Holy Fathers, and ancient writers, for which evidence could not be sought from this Theophanes and applied to his own century. Concerning the most holy sacrifice of the Mass, concerning the honor and invocation of the saints, concerning the adoration of images and especially the holy Cross, concerning free will, concerning faith to be joined with good works, concerning those same works which, supported by divine grace, merit eternal life, concerning ecclesiastical fasting, especially of the Holy Quadragesima, concerning the sacrament of penance and auricular confession, concerning the primacy of St. Peter and the Roman Church, and concerning its authority in its decisions—concerning these, I say, in this work you have either entire homilies, as on the Holy Cross (Homily V) and the Holy Images (Homily XX), or illustrious passages as the occasion requires. And there are many things regarding the last point, namely the primacy of St. Peter, especially the homily on SS. Peter and Paul (Homily LV), all of which testimonies we observe and illustrate in their proper places.
Furthermore, he inveighs against the more ancient heretics—Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Nestor, Eutyches and his followers the Acephali, and the Armenians—and especially against the most impious Julian the Apostate—often even by name, and he sharpens his style and stabs through their errors and defends Catholic doctrine.
Now, as concerns the two errors of the Greeks already condemned at the Council of Florence—regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and regarding the beatitude of souls before the day of judgment—there is nothing in these homilies of Theophanes that contains them manifestly, nor anything that can be openly deduced to defend those errors. Indeed, there are some sayings from which Catholic dogmas can be confirmed, which we demonstrate at greater length in the notes to those passages where some doubt regarding these matters might arise from the mode of speaking Theophanes used for those times, in which these questions were not yet defined and explained. Now, as regards his private sentiments in explaining the Gospel, they are indeed...
119 FRANCISCI SCORSI PROCEMIUM III. 120 A they cast the very rubble, we have built up upon it squared and polished stones, and Corinthian and Ionic ornaments and cornices. This can also be judged from the form and character of his style, how simple it is and decent in its native color and refinement; how unvarnished and unadorned. But one may observe in Theophanes that ancient custom. The style of speaking in this orator is liquid and flows spontaneously, and it proceeds with a certain equable gentleness, entirely as is becoming to an *aproismiastos* (an unprefaced discourse). For these are didactic discourses which a good and pious bishop delivered in order to teach and instruct the people, yet they are not pedestrian or unlearned, nor loose; for they lack neither gravity, concinnity, harmony of numbers, and moderate oratorical colors, but they are such as seem innate in a body well-constituted by nature, not assumed, existing by their very juice and blood, rather than being sought after or adventitious. Nor does it lack figures or the lights of imagery. Sometimes it has *soroi*, heaps of words and things. It has frequent paronomasias, isocola, homoeoteleuta, and homoeoptota, which are called figures by the Latins—alliterations, equal members, similar endings, and similar cadences; but he seems to delight in nothing more than comparison, which is a class of ornament that is a mark of genius and of extraordinary utility for the grasp of the unrefined multitude. He also sprinkles in wit, but with salt from the histories of the ancients, from the fables and maxims of the sacred and profane poets, and from the treasury of dialectic, mathematics, philosophy, and theology he produces not a few doctrines; so that through all these arts and doctrines, and through his reading of the ancient writers, he appears to be preeminently instructed: yet he uses these—and especially the external doctrines and oratorical colors—according to the subject and the occasion, nor without forewarning, and this out of power rather than out of pleasure or vanity; nor does he seem to pour them forth from the whole wallet, as they say, but to scatter them with a sparing hand. Not rashly, therefore, was he called *sophotatos* and *rhetorikotatos* (most wise and most rhetorical) by his own people, who transcribed his sermons to hand them down to posterity and inscribed them with the author’s own name. B I will close this whole dissertation briefly, and explain my judgment in three words. The homilies of this Ceramean bishop of Tauromenium have seemed to me learned and elegant, and truly worthy to be both put forward and read through for the common good. Not rarely are the literal senses, but for the most part the mystical, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical ones, elicited from the words of the Gospel, which he adapts primarily to informing his listeners with pious morals and Christian perfection. These will therefore be useful to sacred preachers, for them to bring to the people, and adapted to the private spiritual utility of every soul. If, however, there are any (and they are indeed quite few) singular opinions of this author that appear more to be admired than accepted, and not to be referred to the public, they are remarked upon by us in the notes, so that no one may use them rashly and without selection. This is the method of preaching familiar to him: he puts forth a brief proem, taken either from the argument itself and the evangelical history, or, as is not rare, from the place, time, events, and surrounding circumstances; and it is so customary for him to use a proem that in the homily on the Samaritan Woman (homily xxxvii), when he wanted to begin, contrary to custom, from the thing and history itself, he anticipates the expectation of the listeners and warns that he must begin without a preface. Then, having recited the first words of the Gospel read that day, he often sets before their eyes in summary fashion—as if in a second exordium, or rather an exposition—what connection they have with the things previously managed by Christ and narrated by the evangelists; then he proceeds to clarify the very words themselves, in which, as I have said, having explained the literal and historical sense, he gladly glides into the mystical and moral ones, and he sprinkles these throughout the very course of the sermon, and especially in the peroration he transfers the entire evangelical history—or the life of that saint on whose feast day the homily was delivered—briefly touched upon, into allegory or tropology, no less subtly than usefully, and piously as well as ingeniously: in which he has no other intention than to help and instruct the minds of his listeners. C Because of this purpose of his, to a less attentive reader it might perhaps seem that the milk of doctrine was not so much milked out as blood drawn, far-fetched. Likewise, he will consider his etymologies and calculations of numbers to be too subtle, and the senses derived from them by force to be sought out precariously rather than born spontaneously. But one who reads will find many such things in other Fathers, both Greek and Latin; things which, certainly, should not be rejected with disgust, but accepted with that sense of piety with which they were spoken, and as having proceeded from a pious mind and a breast imbued with heavenly wisdom, they are to be venerated. Nor ought he who is a wise and just estimator of things measure what were handed down by the ancient Fathers—when Christian doctrine had not yet proceeded to such an amplitude and clarity—by our own age: in which we certainly see all things explained and illustrated, since they have been led into scholastic disputes, agitated, and spread and celebrated in sacred sermons, of which there is now a much greater abundance for the Christian people; at that time most were of higher value, and were as it were foreign sentences, which now are born at home, and by the very assiduity of speaking are not of such great account. But they are the rough foundations and pious, D § 11. The account of the manuscript codices from which the homilies were extracted: and some of their previous interpreters. So that it may be discovered with what good faith I have edited these homilies from manuscripts to be read for the public utility, and by what example of learned men I have accomplished what they began, I will briefly explain in this proem: both concerning the manuscripts and concerning those who before me published some of these sermons in Latin and in print. The first light was brought to this Theophanes, as far as I have been able to discover from all that has been written, by Franciscus Turrianus of the Society of Jesus. He, in his manuscript library, had a codex.
191 of these homilies of Theophanes Kerameus, from which he brought forward testimony against the Magdeburg Centuriators regarding the primacy of St. Peter and the Roman pontiff. From this same repository, Cardinal Baronius inserted into volume IX of his *Annals* a homily concerning the holy images, which had been rendered into Latin by Turrianus himself and perfected in certain places by Jacobus Sirmondus; the complete testimony of this we shall likewise relate in its proper place. This same homily, Jacobus Gretserus, in volume II of his *De cruce* (second edition), added as an appendix after the homily of the patriarch Germanus, and he testifies—in words most pertinent to the matter—concerning whence he obtained it and by what authority he was moved to publish it: "Among other papers of the literary collection of Franciscus Turrianus, which the Reverend Father Antonius Possevinus sent to me several years ago, I found this homily, translated by Turrianus and written in his own hand; I did not wish to let it lie hidden any longer, both on account of Turrianus, a most learned man, and on account of the subject matter, which, being in complete harmony with the homily of Germanus, deservedly is annexed to it." Thus Gretserus; from which you see how highly these ancient monuments of the Holy Fathers are esteemed by men of the greatest learning. The same Gretserus, in volume II of *De cruce*, published two homilies of Theophanes Kerameus in both Greek and Latin from his own interpretation. He did not leave behind in his notes testimony as to where he obtained them, but I indeed judge them to be from the codex of Margunius, of which he makes mention there on the occasion of passages that were corrupt and corrected by him. Now, moreover, from the notes of this same Gretserus, you will understand that these homilies are preserved in manuscript at Venice. For he himself says: "Regarding Theophanes Kerameus, this Epitome of Gesner’s Library: *Theophanis Keramei homiliae in Evangelia dominicalia, et in quasdam festa.* A manuscript book at Venice." The same is held in the *Bibliotheca SS. Patrum* of the 9th century; but since I did not have Gesner's Epitome with me, I consulted the one held in the library of Lord Aloisius La Farina, Baron of Aspromonte, a man noble both in lineage and in the pursuit of learning, of whose brother, Lord Marlinus, I made mention above in Proem I. I found, however, in that epitome not only the Greek words which Gretserus faithfully reported, but also another note, from which Gesner—with the same error as the others, regarding whom I spoke above in Proem II—sets forth Theophanes and Gregory as distinct persons, both Keramei, both archbishops of Tauromenium; but I have already detected this error of those who wrote before me in that second Proem, § 11. Thus, therefore, Gesner: "The homilies on the Gospels of Gregory, archbishop of the Tauromenitan Church of Sicily, called Kerameus, and fifty-seven other unpublished [works] exist in the libraries of Italy." That these homilies inscribed to Gregory are the same as these which we present under the name of Theophanes has already been shown above in Proem II, § 11. And this knowledge of the libraries I accepted from books printed up to now. Furthermore, that they are also preserved in three distinguished libraries of France, Father Jacobus Sirmondus, of the Society of Jesus, wrote to me when asked about this matter, and from all of them he likewise transmitted indices written by his own hand, from which I might understand what I lacked: from the Royal Library, from that of the monks of Saint-Bernard of the Feuillants, and from that which is of the college of the Society of Jesus in Paris, which was once the library of Cardinal Joyeuse. Furthermore, in the Royal Spanish Library in the monastery of Saint Lawrence, which they call the Escurial, [there is] *Γρηγορίου ἐπισκόπου τῆς Σικελίας ὁμιλίαι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχιτελώνου*, and in another codex: *Ὁμιλίαι τοῦ ὅλου ἐνιαυτοῦ*—Homilies of Gregory, bishop of Sicily, beginning from the prince of the publicans, homilies of the whole year. That these are surely the same as those which we are publishing, Lord Marianus Valguarnera, a Panormitan, no less famous for his erudition in Greek letters than for his lineage, has provided assurance; to him, while he was residing at Madrid at the court of Philip IV, I gave the task regarding this literary matter, that he should look into these homilies and their author, and that he should compare the arguments, inscriptions, and the opening words of each, which were transmitted to him from the index of those which I had in my own possession; having compared these, he discovered them to be the same as those which he understood were in my possession. And in the same library, attached to the codex, he found a certain unique work, which I have not yet heard is to be found in other libraries: *Λεξικὸν τῶν ὁμιλιῶν*, or a Glossary of exceptional and difficult words of the author with their explanation; a transcript of this lexicon, when—having employed the help of many friends and learned men—I had finally obtained it through the diligence of Laurentius Cocchi, a learned man and one very studious in the apparatus of the History of St. Demetrius the Martyr, I saw to it that it be printed at the end of this work, so that this testimony and trace of antiquity might also exist. But more on that in its proper place. In the Vatican Library there are two codices of these homilies, for which three indices were sent to me, most diligently written out by the work of friends, and especially of Lord Constantinus Caetani, abbot, partly in Greek and partly in Latin; in the one codex the same homilies are contained under the name of Theophanes Kerameus, in the other under the name of Gregory; the inscriptions are of this sort: in one codex, *Θεοφάνους, τοῦ ἐπίκλην Κεραμέως, ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ταυρομενείας τῆς Σικελίας, ὁμιλίαι αἱ κυριακαὶ τοῦ ὅλου χρόνου*; in the other: *Τοῦ μακαριωτάτου, σοφωτάτου τε καὶ ῥητορικωτάτου κυρίου Γρηγορίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ταυρομενείας τῆς Σικελίας, τοῦ ἐπίκλην Κεραμέως*. That these two names, Gregory and Theophanes, are of one author is evident. Then the homilies follow in order, at the end of which the year 1448 is designated, whence the antiquity of the codex is understood. Lastly, Father Octavius Caetanus, of the Society of Jesus, to whose study and labor this our work must be referred as owing its existence, when he was most diligently seeking out and preparing what would serve for the founding and illustrating of the history of the Sicilian saints, took care to have copies of these homilies transcribed. And indeed from two codices, as he himself in his adversaria, which [alt-version omitted]
I keep with me, has left attested—the one Vatican, the other belonging to the monk Meletius, an Athenian from the Holy Mountain, of the family of St. Basil, who upon arriving in Messina from the East was made prefect of the monastery of St. Catherine and most kindly shared with him a book of these homilies written by hand; in that book, however, were contained several homilies inscribed with the names of both Theophanes and Philip Cerameus, concerning which variety of names we have already debated and determined above in Proem II, § 11; and indeed that that Meletian book was copied from an autograph which was once preserved in the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul of Itala, but that this autograph does not exist today. That monastery of the Basilians is situated between Messina and Taormina, to which I sent a reliable man to inquire more diligently about some knowledge or tradition concerning it, nor could anything be learned from those few monks who live there. However, the homilies on the Resurrection and many others on the saints, having already been described from the Vatican codex, were in the same book, but were not transcribed from it, so that redundant work and expense might not be incurred. Therefore, one of these copies was left here in Palermo and, upon his death, was handed down to his brother, Father Alfonsus Caetanus, a man of respected religion and the heir of his piety and zeal for the holy men of Sicily, who brought it to me. He asked that I see whether it would be worth the labor to favor it with Latinity and light, and if I could dedicate space from my daily occupations, I would undertake the task. It pleased me to steal away at least the spare hours from my daily duty and burden. The other copy was sent by the same R. P. Octavius—as one who desired most of all, and with this one goal in mind, that these homilies might finally see the light, as they seemed to him most worthy of light and from whence the Sicilian Church was to receive no small splendor—to France to Jacques Sirmond of the Society of Jesus, whose many and illustrious works brought to light proclaim, without my own speech, how great a man he is, though they remain silent. Father Octavius had used him familiarly in Rome, in order that he might either translate them himself or take care that they be translated into Latin. He passed the torch to Father Dionysius Petavius of our society, who embarked upon the matter and made the first [homily], *On the Beginning of the Indiction*, Latin; later, overcome by boredom or by the obscurity of the codex he possessed, he desisted from the undertaking and substituted for himself an outsider who not only did not start the work, but barely returned that copy at last. But Father Dionysius, so that his own labor might not perish, published that homily under the name of Gregory in Greek and Latin together with the history of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople; matters which Father Sirmond wrote to me were thus, and which Father Dionysius himself recorded in his own notes and memory in that little book of his, where, in his chronological notes, he treats of the [New] Indiction, writing as follows: "Which latter, to omit others, Gregory Kerameus, Archbishop of Taormina, indicates in his homily *On the Beginning of the Indiction, that is, of the New Year*, which we have received, together with many others of the same writer not yet published, from the R. P. Jacques Sirmond, a very learned man, who, because he frequently urges us as to their edition, in order that he might be satisfied in some part, we have set forth as a kind of specimen on the occasion of the indictions." These are the words of Dionysius. I, therefore, having undertaken the work, since I could not be content with that single copy of mine, and since I saw that I could not satisfy the readers as to the integrity or authority of the work with that one testimony, I applied my mind to having certain and verified assurance of them. And first, I discovered that these were the same homilies which were said to be and accepted as those of Theophanes Cerameus, Bishop of Taormina, by the ancients, from the inscription itself, namely *On the Sunday Gospels, and the Feasts of the Whole Year*. This is certainly clear from all the testimonies which I shall gather below regarding this author. Next, I compared my manuscripts with those printed by Gretser, Baronius, and Dionysius, and indeed I saw that the sense and the words were consistent; although some fragments were missing either in my copy or in the printed versions, which I realized could have happened by the fault or error of the scribes; and that from two [sources], one complete [set] could be restored; regarding the rest, I immediately sent letters to friends and learned men in Rome, in France, in Spain, and in Germany, so that, by exploring libraries, they might inform me regarding these homilies. And indeed, from France, Father Sirmond not only [provided] the indices from the three libraries which I mentioned, but also one transcribed by his own hand *On the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul*, and some prefaces to those which were then missing or uncertain to me; and further, with the humanity which was in such a great man and the zeal for completing the work, he recovered the copy that was already thought to be lost and transmitted it to me, unharmed, from France. Although this one bore no title of the author, perhaps because the first page had been handled by many hands and moved to many places and had perished, worn away, I nevertheless compared it with my copy, and when I discovered that they were the same homilies, I was confirmed more strongly in the reliability of the copies: indeed, I gained from it many homilies that were missing in mine, and observed that very many places which were cut up, depraved, or obscured in mine could be supplemented, amended, and illustrated; and since the senses were more whole and full in that one than in mine, but in mine the writing itself, or orthography, was more corrected and clearer than in that one, I restored and healed from both what was torn and mutilated, corrected what was depraved, and illustrated what was obscure; and thus I took care that the complete and perfect homilies be described and published. Father Sirmond added further that he had copied in Rome from an ancient copy eleven homilies *On the Morning [Gospels]*, which I also found—with God inspiring the work—in the records left by Father Octavius and handed over to me. From the comparison of which with as many others from my copy, I received no small amount of light and reliability. From Rome, I not only took care to compare the index of arguments and incipits, but also to have many of them transcribed, both those which I did not have, and those of which I already possessed examples. And indeed two... [index: entries preserved]
125 whole sets I have received; to which if you add the eleven [ἐωθινά] (matins) [homilies] and not a few others concerning the saints—if not all—you may certainly recognize by far the greatest part of the homilies extracted from the Vatican library. Since those which are in both copies, the Panormitan and the Gallican (this is how I refer to them for the sake of distinction), agree with these, you can make the same prudent judgment regarding the rest, and consider them all just as if they had all been compared and translated and published by me, relying on the guarantee of the Vatican library. Furthermore, I would advise, in order to confirm the reliability of this work, that with one exception—the homily on the lawyer questioning the Lord (homily XI)—all the remaining ones are presented by me from two or three copies compared with one another. I shall note this in the remarks for each one; where even if there is any variation in the reading, or if anything has been corrected and restored by my own conjecture, or if any reading appears more correct and true out of all of them, I shall give notice, provided it is of any importance.
§ III. The order of the homilies. There is no other series of these homilies than the one by which the Gospels are arranged according to the Greeks' rite for the Sundays and festivals of the saints throughout the year. It consists not only of the [Εὐαγγελισάριον], that is, the book in which the Gospels are written out to be recited in the Liturgies, nor only of the Menaia, in which the prayers and hymns of the saints are arranged by the months, but also [is confirmed] by our Theophanes in the homily whose beginning is: [Ἐπειδήπερ ἀρχὴν εἰλήφει σήμερον] (homily V), by which order the Gospels are distributed. For they begin the ecclesiastical year from September; and on the Sunday after the Exaltation of the Holy Cross they begin reading from St. Luke, up to Lent: at which time they use Mark until Easter; from then on until Pentecost, [they read] from John; thereafter from St. Matthew, by which they close the annual cycle in August. This is also noted in the Vatican codex after the homily On Saint John the Baptist (homily LXI), which begins [Καλῶς εἰρμηνεύηται...] in these words: Ἰστέον ὅτι ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται τὸ μηνολόγιον ἀπὸ τοῦ Σεπτεμβρίου ἀρχόμενον οἱονεὶ καὶ τὸ τέλος τοῦ Αὐγούστου τελειούμενον. That is to say: Know that here ends the menologium beginning from September and completed at the end of August. And this order for the most part remains consistent in all the manuscript codices, all of which begin with the homily [εἰς τὴν Ἴνδικτον, ἤτοι ἀρχὴν τοῦ νέου ἔτους], which concerns the month of September, and they end, as far as the [κυριακά] (Sunday) Gospels are concerned, with that which is about the rich man questioning the Lord (homily XLV); but as for the festivals, with that which is about the Decollation of St. John the Baptist (homily LX), in the preface of which Theophanes himself notes that it is right to finish the year at the Forerunner himself, and from there to begin a new one, because he himself was the mediator between the old law and the new. It seemed just to retain this order and ritual of the Gospels also in our book, in order that a place might be given to the antiquity of the Father, to the authority of the codices, and to the old Greek rite. For even if we had wanted to arrange them according to the rite of the Roman Church 126 and the position of the Gospels customary therein, neither could they have filled all the Sunday and festival days, and some would have had to wander outside the Sundays and festivals. For just as some things agree with our rite, so many more differ; however, it did not seem to be of great importance to the utility of the readers whether they were arranged in their order or ours, since it was sufficiently provided for if we described a special index of the Gospels of the Roman Church, in which the exposition by this Father can be found.
Nevertheless, it also seemed that the best thing to do was to separate the homilies on the Sunday Gospels from those which are on the festivals of the saints, so that the [ἀκολουθία] (sequence) of both might be more convenient and clearer. For although the homilies on the Gospels of the saints are interspersed with the Sundays, observing the same course of the year, the codices vary wondrously in ranking these among themselves, so that in others one precedes and another follows. Therefore, since a certain order cannot be established from the codices, and it was not a matter of religion to abandon their [ἀκολουθία], provided that some convenient and consistent arrangement was instituted, we thought it better to separate some from the others, and to make a kind of second volume and a new beginning from the homily on Saint Demetrius (homily XLVI). Although that which is at the beginning of the year, since it is the head not only of the festivals but also of the Sundays, and has a stable seat in all the codices, we placed it in the first position as well, so that it might lead the chorus of them all; furthermore, the homily, or rather the oration, on the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, which is indeed a festival one, since it likewise appears to have a certain seat in all the codices after the Sunday preceding this festival, and in order that both homilies pertaining to the Holy Cross might follow one another, we attached that which is about the festival to the one which is about the Sunday; the rest we set aside, as I said.
The homilies [εἰς τὰ ἑωθινά], that is, on the eleven matins Gospels, although they can be counted among the Sunday [Gospels], are nevertheless described last of all in the codices. The Greeks use them not in the Liturgy, like the others, but in the morning Office, in this order: that they recite one on each Sunday, beginning from the first up to the eleventh, and having completed them, they return to the loop, and thus on every Sunday they read one of these Gospels, as it happens. Those homilies, therefore, since they contain one argument—the Resurrection of Christ—it seemed right to place after the homily on the Passion, for this very reason, because they are about the Resurrection; which are then conveniently followed by the homilies on the Ascension and Pentecost, although between these and those on the Resurrection there intervenes the homily on the Samaritan woman, which is from the Gospel of St. John and is read on the Sunday after Easter. To these, the homily on the Ascension of the Lord has the same Gospel as that which is for the sixth matins, which is the reason why this one is absent from the number of eleven homilies, although the count is preserved in what follows; but because that one contains a preface about the festival day of the Ascension, it had to be placed in the same order.
FRANCIS SCORSI'S PROEM III.
...wherein the Ascension precedes Pentecost. One last thing I would like to admonish the reader about in this paragraph: do not suppose that all the homilies we have published (which are sixty-two, being those we have been able to find so far in libraries through our own study and diligence and the help of friends) cover the full number and place of the Sundays, just as they do not for the saints; for it is manifest that many are missing. And indeed, the homilies on the Gospels of St. Luke appear to be more numerous than the rest, although the homily for the second Sunday, which is “As you would that they should do to you,” etc. (from chapter vi of St. Luke as it is placed in the Evangeliary), is undoubtedly missing. And lest an examination be made of each one precisely, which would be long and is not worth so much, certainly among the homilies from St. John, which are read after Easter, only the one concerning the Samaritan woman remains; and of the homilies on the Gospels of St. Matthew, which are more numerous after Pentecost, very few survive. Whether this happened because they were not delivered, for reasons of summer heat or the absence of the bishop; or because they were indeed delivered but not transcribed, or perhaps were transcribed but have perished, or lie hidden until now in some library and have not reached our notice, I have nothing certain to say. It seemed right to include the homilies on the words “The lamp of the body is the eye,” and the rest of that same Gospel, among the Sundays after Pentecost, since they are from the Gospel of St. Matthew, even though in many codices they are found among those on St. Luke. But, as I said, while the order of the year in which the Gospels are arranged is constant, yet the *eutaxia* (proper sequence) of the individual items does not appear in the codices: wherefore we have used our own direct judgment and discretion; unless, which I am ignorant of, there is something in the rite and usage of the Greeks that is *proti-choteron* (more preferred). I do not, however, consider this a matter of conscience, since, as I said, this order is not a matter of great importance; the doctrine alone and the explanation of the Gospels are of use and to be highly regarded. The homilies *On the Drought that Occurred* (“εις τὸν γενόμενον αὐχμόν”), since they have no certain day or time of year, we have moved to the final place, and have put them rather out of order than in order. And these things, however they may be, should be said regarding the series of homilies, which we shall lay before your eyes as it stands in this book of ours.
IV. The Method of Interpretation
How difficult and laborious a task it is to translate the writings of the ancients from one language into another, he knows best of all who deals with such a task and turns this stone. Let St. Jerome be the brightest witness of all these things, as one most learned in all languages, for he translated both the sacred monuments from the Hebrew and many things of others from the Greek. “It is difficult,” he says in his *Preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius*, “when following another's writing, not to deviate somewhere; and it is arduous that things which have been well said in another language should preserve the same grace in translation.” Something is signified by the propriety of a single word, and I do not have a word of my own to express it; and while I seek to fulfill the meaning, I consume the space of a short path with a long detour. There are added the convolutions of hyperbatons, the dissimilarities of cases, the varieties of figures; and finally the language's own, and, if I may say so, vernacular, kind of speech. If I interpret word for word, it sounds absurd; if I have changed something in the order or in the speech out of necessity, I will appear to have departed from the duty of an interpreter. These are the words of St. Jerome, than which nothing can be said more clearly or fully about the difficulties of interpreting. Nay, even Tully himself, the most eloquent of speakers, to whom it is a wonder that words could ever have been lacking—since he himself enriched the native speech if anyone ever did—does he not appear destitute to himself in expressing the force and energy of Greek words? For those things which the Stoics call *proēgmena* and *apoproēgmena*, he sometimes translated as *praemata* and *apopraegmata*, sometimes as *prepositive* or *chief* and *rejected*, sometimes *promoted* and *removed*; as at the beginning of his book *De finibus*, in the person of Cato: “For my part, I am accustomed even to explain what the Greeks do in one word with more words, if I cannot do otherwise; and yet I think it must be conceded to us that we use a Greek word if a Latin one does not occur, lest this be conceded to saddles and wine-vessels rather than to *praegmena* and *apopragmena*, although it will indeed be right to call these *prepositive* and *rejected*.” And a little later in the same book, speaking of the same things, he says: “But those things which hold the second place, *proēgmena*, that is, are called *producta*—which we might either call thus, which would be word for word, or *promota* and *remota*, or, as we said a while ago, *prepositive* or *chief*, and those *rejected*.” These are the words of Tully. I wanted to bring forward these testimonies of two supreme men so that, if I confess the same thing to have happened to me in composing this translation, I might be able to confess it without shame. Wherefore, since I was enclosed between those two modes or rather extreme ends, into either of which I would fall into fault if I inclined—namely, either to render Greek word for word, neglecting the grace of the Latin speech; or to look only to the sense, with no regard for the Greek words, either of which would have been easier and more prone—I followed such a temperance that the translation would not turn out inept by being done word for word; and yet I would translate the senses in Latin phrasing or rather construction, so that individual words would answer to words as far as it could be done. In this, indeed, I seem to myself to have labored; whether I have succeeded, let others judge. I would certainly truly say that some sentences could have been expressed more elegantly and harmoniously if I had been allowed to explain them in my own way and manner and in that style of Latin speech to which I am accustomed; but because I felt bound by the office and fidelity of an interpreter, I made them Latin not as I would have liked, but as I ought to have. Furthermore, I also wanted to maintain this, that this translation—since I believed that sacred orators would use it even from the pulpit—should not so pass into the camp of Cicero that it would depart from religion; and while I desire to appear too Ciceronian, I might appear less Christian. If the diction tasted of anything ecclesiastical, I considered that this should be ascribed to my praise rather than to my fault. Therefore, with many of the holy Latin Fathers,
I observed that a rhythmical style pleased not only the Greeks—because, when it is turned with some greater force and vigor, it is hurled like a weapon slung from a thong, and I have bound my periods with numbers (rhythms)—but I also did not shrink from ecclesiastical titles and verbs, and those which by the right of Latium have been bestowed not by ancient assemblies, but by the Roman Church. Although there is a time when I circumscribe them, so that I might be thought to be able to do this, yet not to think it ought to be done perpetually. For as a circumlocution at times seems not only convenient but also necessary, so when repeated too often it loses its dignity and produces satiety: it seemed childish to me that the Latins, with one voice with the Greeks, should say "to baptize" and "baptism," but then insist on saying "to lustrate with a sacred font" and "lustral water," persistently and perversely; which, regarding many similar things—spiritual, sensible, passions, and others of that kind—is to be understood by this one example. Finally, since a good interpreter ought to provide those three things: religion, faithfulness, and character—religion in words, faithfulness in the thoughts, and character in the dignity, majesty, and affect of speaking—I admit that I have exhibited the first insofar as it might agree with the Latin and Christian language; I have guarded the second most religiously and holily; I have striven to attain the third according to my talent, and have attempted to hit every mark, and to perform that duty of an interpreter with all my might, not so that I myself might appear eloquent—to speak as St. Jerome does in Epistle 133—but that I might make the one who is to read understand it, in the same way that he who wrote it understood it.
THE PREFACE OF THE SAME FRANCISCUS SCORSUS, prefixed to his notes, which we have brought back from the bottom of the volume and placed below the text.
Although I could have seemed to have fulfilled the duty of an interpreter sufficiently, and to have derived a sufficiently great fruit from my labor, if I had faithfully and clearly converted Theophanes Kerameus from Greek into the Latin language; yet, since from the very beginning of the work undertaken, my mind inclined that I should also add notes or explanations of my own to the interpretation, I could never command myself to be content with the duty and the name of an interpreter. This eagerness of my mind, as it seemed to me to be right and thus worthy of being followed, persisted. First, the very condition of the manuscript codices seemed to demand some notes. This, while it always provides work for most editors of ancient monuments, also caused me no small trouble; for I obtained copies that were not consistently corrected, nor complete, but deformed in many places throughout; and not only in words, but even in their meanings, they were damaged and mutilated. Since these were healed by me through the application of the consultation of two, three, or sometimes four copies, and were cleansed of errors and restored to their luster and integrity, I deemed it my duty to render the rationale of those corrections and variant readings in the notes, and to open my judgment; so that it might be known to all not only with what faith and diligence I proposed these homilies to be read, but also that I might leave to each his own decision regarding them, as if by given ballots. Nor did I think that the rationale of uncertain passages, which variant Scripture readings might produce, was alone to be brought forward, but often also the rationale of my interpretation, whenever the ambiguity or obscurity of a Greek word made it doubtful; and so the force and origin of it were to be elucidated, so that it might be clear why I translated it with this Latin word and thought rather than another. And these causes were perhaps common to me with other interpreters, why I did these things in the notes. [index: entries preserved]
If, after the sense was sufficiently weighed, it could seem to have been carried along too much at first, or even thought to be favored, I have endeavored to explain his sound mind in many ways. And these most just and useful causes brought about a certain necessity for me, so that I might bring forth into the open not just this bare translation of mine, but one clothed with commentaries. But indeed, just as necessity first introduced the use of clothing and houses into the custom of men, and then luxury also transferred them to ornament: so truly, compelled by those new necessities which I instituted [in my notes], I have also abused them for the sake of adorning this province which had fallen to me. Therefore, some opinions, which might have appeared upright and beautiful by themselves as they had come out of the workshop of Theophanes, where they had been turned; I thought it both useful and distinguished to polish them even more and more, and to illustrate them by comparing the sayings of other Fathers. For besides the fact that it seemed to conduce to the commendation of our author (since it is surely glorious to have praised men who think and agree with you), I also judged that it would be for the public benefit; namely, so that those who wished to produce the testimonies of this author, whether in their own commentaries or in sermons, might have them both strengthened by the suffrages of others and enriched by the multitude of testimonies.
In which genre, since work had been excellently expended by many men most cultivated in every genre of literature, both from another class of men, and especially from our Society, many of whom I praised in my first Proem to the readers, and all of whom are already in the knowledge and speech of men through their own illustrious works—and not only in the monuments of the ancient Fathers, in which, for the sake of the sublimity and gravity of the doctrine, greater rewards of labor are made, but also in the lighter studies of poets and ethnic orators—why should I not grant myself the right to illustrate this writer with light gathered from wherever I could, since he has dared to claim for himself a light in the darkness of his own century, and is the unique ornament of our Sicily? But if anyone should argue that I have sometimes indulged my own ingenuity, he will also surely admit that I have done it temperately, and that I have used such moderation in writing that neither satiety from the abundance nor a desire for the things from their scarcity would arise in the readers. For there are certain things that it is truly better not to touch if one intends to discourse upon them, lest the desire for knowledge be whetted in vain; certain things ingested beyond what is just cause queasiness.
And from this mediocrity which I held, I noticed that this opusculum nevertheless grew little by little, beyond what I imagined in my mind, so that I might promise myself (if the love of the work undertaken does not deceive me) that it will be useful not only for illuminating Theophanes, but also for enriching one's literary store. And [I promise] that it is composed with such a variety of things gathered from every genre of learning that, not with Minerva unwilling, I seem to have woven together a kind of *stroma* distinct with various colors and figured with images. In reading which, if I feel the eyebrow of the critics being relaxed and [see them] nodding to me, I hope it will never be that I shall be ashamed of my *philologias* and *philoponias*.
Explanation of the letters by which the manuscript codices, whose varied readings are weighed, are signified in the notes.
F. G. V. C. P. R. or R, P. G. F. E. C. or S. E. Panormitanus: this is the one found in Palermo, as is explained in the Proem. Gallicanus: this is the one sent from Gaul to Palermo, although it was written earlier in Sicily, and named thus so that it might be distinguished from the former. Vaticanus. The Parisian codex, or that of the Parisian college. Regii Parisiensis: this is the Royal Library of Paris. The codex of the Feuillants, who are religious of the order of Saint Bernard in Paris. Escuriale: the codex, or glossary, of the Escorial.ELOGIA AND TESTIMONIES OF LEARNED MEN CONCERNING THEOPHANE KERAMEUS.
Father Francis Turrianus of the Society of Jesus, Book 1 against the Magdeburg Centuriators on the Apostles' Canons, ch. 6, where he shows by the testimonies of the ancient Greek and Latin Fathers that the Church was built upon Peter. "Theophanes, by nickname Kerameus [the Potter], archbishop of Taormina in Sicily, an author very exercised and learned in the Scriptures, in his sermon on the Holy Apostles, says thus: 'But I,' he says, 'say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church;' you, I say, who are the rock, you will become the rock of the faith, the foundation of the word and of the established Church, and the first approach to spiritual edification: for upon this confession the foundation of the Church shall stand; for with such a rock and cliff placed, the remaining dogmas will be firmly and safely placed."Cardinal Baronius, volume IX, in the year of the Lord 842, published the homily of Theophanes Kerameus on the Holy Images, to which he prefaces this: "Hitherto the sermon accustomed to be recited in church on this day every year; to which we subjoin another [sermon] on the same subject, spoken to the people on the same day by Theophanes, the archbishop of Taormina."
Father Jacob Gretser of the Society of Jesus, in his Notes to two homilies of Theophanes Kerameus on the Cross, which he produced in volume II *On the Cross* along with many others of the Greek Fathers: "Theophanes Kerameus lived at the time when Sicily, or at least a part of Sicily, still obeyed the Constantinopolitan emperor. This is clear from the end of his oration on the cross, where, invoking the cross, he asks that it might be a protection for the emperor against the impious Ishmaelites who despise the adoration of the cross." The same, Volume 1, Book 1, ch. 11, *On the Brazen Serpent as a Figure of the Cross*. "Furthermore, that the sign in which that serpent was suspended was a type of the Lord's cross is clear. But how the serpent was a figure of Christ, the authors explain in more than one way. Some say that the serpent was not so much a figure of Christ as of sin suspended on the cross."
A for the bites of the serpent are not yet entirely ceased. For the desire which is set against the Spirit in the flesh has not yet been perfectly subdued. And since in those who are most excellent in virtue, the bites of lust often rise up: yet he who, having been exalted upon the cross, looks upon Him, casts off that passion, as though he sprinkled upon the poison a certain drug, namely the fear of God. To look upon the cross, indeed, is naught else but to order one's life as dead to the world and crucified, and to remain unmoved in the face of all sin, and to fix one's own flesh with the fear of God, according to the prayer of the Psalmist: B "Fasten with nails my flesh with fear of thee" (Ps. CXVIII, 20). Nails, then, would be self-restraint, acting as a binder of the flesh.
The serpent is, moreover, a symbol of the mystery on the cross in another way, and history also shows this. For when it was sent by God to Moses, so that he might deliver the Israelite people from Egyptian servitude, he said to the Lord: "If they do not believe me and heed my voice, what shall I say to them?" The Lord said: "What is that in thy hand?" He replied, "A rod." The Lord said: "Cast it upon the ground." He cast it, and it became a serpent. The Lord said to Moses: "Extend thy hand, and lay hold of its tail, and it became a rod again in his hand" (Exod. IV, 1-4). C Mark, therefore, this place: since by nature he is truly the Son of God, He is like a certain rod of the Father, and a token of power is the rod; whence David says: "The rod of direction, the rod of thy kingdom" (Ps. XLIV, 7). But when he assumed our nature and was wrapped in our earthly body, then he bore the likeness of our iniquity. The likeness of iniquity, indeed, is the serpent. And just as the rod of Moses, turned into a form, swallowed up the fallacious rods of the Egyptian magi, and then, taken back into his hands, returned to what it had been: so also the rod of God and the Father, that is D the Son, through whom all things are ruled and ordered, although He became like us as a serpent (so that those who fell under the grasp of the intelligent serpents might be delivered, and no longer be the gods of the gentiles, that is, demons), yet, having fulfilled all that was ordained, he returned up to heaven, and has become again, as he was in the hand of the Father, a rod of direction and kingdom, seated at the right hand of the One who begat him, and clothed with flesh.
In another way also, and by a different manner, did the serpent represent the Saviour. For just as that serpent seemed indeed to be a serpent, yet in truth was not, so also the Lord, by nature good, did not partake of evil. He seemed, however, to foolish sinners to be a sinner; and so they said to the blind man who was healed: "Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner" (John IX, 24). And "Behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber" (Matt. XI, 19), they called him, slandering him. And further, in another way was the Saviour compared to the serpent; for the serpent is not purely deadly poison, but has a remedy powerful enough to expel deadly poison — the physicians' children...
[make] an antidote. So from Adam's mortal nature A His own body was constituted by the Word of God, which would destroy death. Gregory the Theologian, however, says that the serpent was not a type of the Lord, but an antitype, saying this: "The bronze serpent is suspended against the biting of serpents, not as a type of Him who suffered for us, but as an antitype." Since that bronze serpent blunted the poison of serpents of like kind for those who were of a different nature, it saved [them]. But our Saviour, lifted up on the cross, having destroyed the strength of those who were of a different nature—that is, the demons—and having saved those who were of like nature—that is, the human race—the Father rightly considered Him to be accepted as the antitype. But from the opinion of the B most wise Maximus, the serpent suspended was a symbol of death, of which the serpent was the author and procurer; but if that sign is raised up, it signifies the cross; moreover, the confession of those who believe is [the sign] of those who are saved. Whoever, therefore, as becomes the majesty of God, confesses the death of Christ, possesses eternal life.
"So it behooves the Son of man to be lifted up." This saying implies a twofold meaning. For it indicates both that high lifting up which He endured for our sake, and that He needed to be lifted up by his immaculate feet through walking [on the] earth, and by the sea, by walking upon the waves, to be sanctified, and that the air, too, should be sanctified by the exaltation on the cross. It indicates also the glory which was glorified through the cross towards man. C For in the very act of being judged, He appeared stronger than the passions by which man was overcome; he condemned the prince of this world, [having been] superior to all those affections to which man had been subject. He was shown to be greater than the tempter in the mountain, as he neither turned stones into bread, nor was persuaded by the other temptations. He was shown to be greater than the adversary who had waged war against Him with all his might. The disciple is a betrayer, the disciples are fugitives; Peter is one who denies, the sword is a weapon, jaws are struck, the face is spat upon, the back is subjected to lashes, there are false witnesses, an unholy tribunal, a ruthless sentence, soldiers mocking with grim D expressions and irony, [and] with insults, lashes, nails, gall, [and] vinegar, and finally the cross. What is the defense against those who do these things? "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Thus, even by long-suffering, He defeats the adversary and demonstrates for us the way of conquering him. For by fasting from pleasures, and by meekness toward those who annoy us, [we conquer].
THE MOST WISE AND MOST ELOQUENT THEOPHANES, SURNAMED CERAMEUS, ARCHBISHOP OF TAUROMENIUM IN SICILY, HOMILIES ON THE GOSPELS FOR SUNDAYS AND FEASTS OF THE WHOLE YEAR. HOMILY IV. On the beginning of the Indiction, that is, of the New Year.
Blessed is God, who has deemed us worthy to run through the circular period of the year, and to the [end/summit of the year]. [index: entries preserved]
Coming, therefore, as if sent forth from the barriers into the stadium, we begin again the curriculum of life, traversing the same circle as long as we live, until that endless age receives us, which is measured by no interval of time and no revolution of the sun. The present day, therefore—let this be set before the discourse as a pleasure for you who love beauty—according to the truth of what has historically occurred and is celebrated, is the beginning of the recurring cycle of time, the 1st of the Indiction, that is, of the new year. B It must be known, therefore, that the Church of God celebrates the Indiction, having received this from the ancients, because it is thought among the Romans that the beginning of the year is from this Indiction. For "Indiction" is called among the Romans a "termination."
Homily IV
On the Exaltation of the Precious and Life-Giving Cross
I see today, in the light of this great and sacred temple, the heavenly vault imitated, and the most holy pavement decorated as a meadow painted with a multitude of flowers, in the variety of the assembled people; and the order of the clergy in the midst, like the clouds acting as an escort, holding the life-giving Cross, that wood of life, the royal scepter, which overturns demons, destroys sin, and is the cause of salvation for all. We are gathered together to celebrate its venerable exaltation; for this is clearly a symbol of the exaltation of men, who are raised from earth to heaven by the lifting up of the Cross. D And since the first standing of the Cross at Golgotha seemed ignominious to the scoffers, it becomes a foreshadowing of the future glory of that time, when the Cross will be seen escorted by angels. "For then shall appear the sign of the Son of man," as the holy Gospel predicts. Therefore, the Cross is raised by the hands of the ministers of grace, giving sanctification to the four quarters of the world. Since the existence of all things, both those above and those below, is governed by the beginning of the Indiction... [index: entries preserved][139] 2 which the Romans call ‘diction’, for this is how they term the definition. And indeed, the Hebrews begin their counting of time from the month that is called Nisan among them, as being the beginning of the vernal equinox and of the creation of the world, as the budding of herbs, shrubs, and trees demonstrates. The Romans, however, anciently used January as the beginning of the year; but since Augustus Caesar defeated Antonius in the month of September, it was ordained that the year should begin from that time. D
Notes of Franciscus Scorus
. [index: entries preserved]Homily I
A...desired to change the Roman custom and bestowed the primacy upon the month, just as... Franciscus Scorus’ notes. The fixed method of the year existed only among the Egyptians. I omit other nations, about whom Pliny speaks, some of whom determined the year by summer, another by winter; others by four-part seasons, as the Arcadians, whose years were trimestrial; and the Acarnanians, whose were semestrial, as Macrobius cites in that place. I omit also those who began the year from the rising or setting of some star, such as the Pleiades or others, about which Censorinus writes. I come to the Greeks and Latins, on whose account this somewhat longer discussion has been undertaken. Indeed, many writers hand down that the Athenians began the year from the summer solstice, among whom is Jacobus Gordonius of the Society of Jesus, who writes that the first month for the Attics was Hecatombaion. This, however, is our June, or falls into June and July. See also in that same author more on the varying year of the Greeks according to the variety of the seasons. See also Lilius Gyraldus in his opuscule *On the Year*. The Asians, however, and other Greeks likewise, started the year from the autumnal equinox. And since they wished the year to run concurrently with the Olympiads, hence it is that some surmise the Olympiads arose from the summer solstice, which was the beginning among the older Greeks; or from the equinox. Now, from the time when the Olympiads were outdated and the Fathers of the Nicene Council decreed that the number of years should be computed from the Indiction, the Oriental Greeks and all who obeyed the Constantinopolitan Empire began the year from September, from which also the Indictions [began], a practice which was in usage even in the age of our Theophanes, and is proven by this very homily, and by the Menaion related above in note 2, and by other authors to be cited shortly. B But the Romans, before Numa, indeed started the year from the vernal equinox and the month of March; and the Albans, from whom the Romans were descended and taught. But truly, from Numa Pompilius onwards, they had the beginning of the year from January, since January and February were added by him to the year of Romulus, which was lunar: which indeed is more certain, and is proven more by the testimonies of several writers, even if Plutarch, in *Numa* and *Roman Questions*, disagrees about the number of Romulus’s months; yet not about the beginning instituted by Numa. Macrobius writes of this in *Saturnalia* Book I, ch. 12; Livy, Book I. And it is evident from the consular Fasti, which begin from the Kalends of January, by which the consuls were already being designated and inaugurated beforehand. And these indeed seem to begin the year best of all, as Plutarch says in *Roman Questions*, who says that they begin it with the new sun, that is, when the sun reaches the solstice and proceeds no further, but begins to return to us again; for this is a natural beginning, and so the beginning of the civil year nicely accords with it; but this custom, even after the first reformation of the year made by Julius Caesar, and the other by Augustus in the year D after xxxvi, of which Macrobius speaks in the aforementioned place, C from the first of whom the years were called Julian, and from the second Augustan, observed to be unchanged at no time, or at least translated into September, unless I read it in this our author—everywhere else I read that the beginning of the Roman year is January. It is helpful to transcribe the words of Simplicius the philosopher, interpreter of Aristotle, who flourished long after Augustus, in the sixth century, which confirm what has already been said and prepare for what is to be said: "We," he says, "make the beginning of the year at the summer solstice, like the Athenians: or at the autumn equinox, as those who inhabit what is now called Asia (he himself, moreover, was born in the region of Asia Minor) or after the solstice as the Romans, or in the vernal equinox, as the Arabs and Damascenes." By what reasoning, therefore, does our author here assert that the custom of the Romans was changed by Augustus by deducing the beginning of the year from September? Or must the word Ῥωμαίων be understood here, and in the Menaion, only as the Romans of the Eastern Empire? By which it could perhaps be better defended than those of the West, as will be shown from those things which will be said below. And indeed, you may read that Greeks subject to the Constantinopolitan Empire were also called 'Romans' everywhere among the writers of Byzantine history: Curopalates, Cedrenus, Zonaras, Glycas, Manasses, Nicetas, Nicephorus, Gregoras, and Callistus; among these, I say, the Ῥωμαῖοι are often those who are ἀπὸ τῆς νέας Ῥώμης, that is, from new Rome, Constantinople, not ἀπὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς, from the old Rome. D But two things hinder us from referring the appellation of the Ῥωμαίων solely to the peoples of the new Rome: First, because in the Menæon and in Theophanes, shortly after, the Latins themselves are called Ῥωμαῖοι, when it is said: Ινδικτιών γὰρ λέγεται παρὰ Ρωμαίοις Ινδικτιών; for the Indiction is called Indiction among the Romans. Secondly, because Theophanes openly asserts that the custom of beginning the year from January was changed by Caesar: but this was the custom of the Romans who were in Latium, not those who were in Greece, who, as we mentioned above, began the year from a month other than January. Truth, this very *aporia* provides me a sword by which I may, if not resolve the proposed knot, at least cut it; and so I shall explain what was said by Theophanes, so that if it does not seem entirely true, it certainly shall not seem said rashly. For just as the name Ῥωμαίων is used confusedly and indistinctly by him, and in the Menæon, and other Greeks, so they truly confuse not only the name but also the custom; and they boast that what was the custom in Greece was also established among the Romans. For the Greeks, as was said above, begin the Indiction and the year from the same month; but it is certain that the Constantinopolitan Indiction began from September: and that, too, was an opinion held among most Greek writers, and indeed even among not a few Latins, that the beginning of the Indiction was established by Augustus Caesar in September. And indeed this history of the origin of the Indiction has always been held to be very obscure, as the writer of the Annals asserts (vol. III, in the year of Christ 311), and it was not investigated more subtly except by writers of the recent age, and it was debated by us with such light as we could obtain, and the discussion which will be relegated to the end of all the notes; so that in the age of Theophanes his own fiction about the Indiction could have been considered certain and commonly known. I shall now give the authors of that opinion, partly preceding the age of Theophanes, whom he could have seemed to follow, and partly subsequent to him. And first, indeed, in the Menæon related above in note 1, it is handed down by the ancients that September is the beginning of the Indiction, and it is to be noted that it is not asserted so much as a certainty as it is brought forward as an estimate: Διὰ τό νομίζεσθαι, he says, παρὰ Ρωμαίοις ἀρχὴν εἶναι τοῦ ἔτους ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς Ἰνδικτιῶνος. Because it is estimated that the beginning of the year is from this indiction among the Romans. Now St. Maximus, a Constantinopolitan monk and excellent martyr, flourished in the year 660, nearly two centuries before Theophanes, whom he himself adheres to in many opinions, as can be seen quite recently in this homily, and subsequently in others, in the computation of the Indictions, which Father Dionysius Petavius of the Society of Jesus relates (vol. II, *On the Doctrine of Time*, book II, ch. 39), says that the Indiction began in the year of Augustus, which he thinks is 5460 of the world, which divided by 15 gives the 15th Indiction. But Augustus ordered that it be the first. St. Maximus is followed by George the Monk, who wrote after Theophanes; these are his words related by the same Petavius: "In the 5467th year of the world, it was the second full year of Augustus Caesar,..."wherein also the Indiction was decreed by him, or 'stipend-allocation,' as the blessed Maximus bears witness in his work On the Pascha." [143] A Our good Master, therefore, having appeared to us in the flesh and having brought us into one fold B
Notes by Franciscus Scorus
And the beginning of the 3rd [year] in which also the Indiction, or assessment, was determined by him, as the blessed Maximus bears witness in his book Concerning the Pascha. This monument also exists in the Vatican manuscript codex, in which it is expressly affirmed, "From the local histories of Constantinople" (this is, from the local affairs or origins of Constantinople, in the manner in which the book of Codinus Curopalates is also inscribed, which contains excerpts from the book of the Chronicle concerning the local origins of Constantinople): "Augustus, son of Octavia, reigned in the month of August and honored October, previously called Sextilis, by naming it 'August'; and he also died on the 19th of that month; but he was born on the 23rd of September. And on the second of September he conquered Antony, and he began his monarchy, and he honored the beginning of the Indiction, having honored it, and the beginning of the year from which September is ordered." If you were to translate this into Latin: Augustus, son of Octavia, achieved mastery during the month of August, and he called the month previously named Sextilis 'August' for the sake of honor. On the 19th day of the same month he departed this life; he was born, however, on the 23rd of September. On the 2nd day, moreover, he conquered Antony, and inaugurated the monarchy, and he dignified it with the beginning of the Indiction, and established September as the beginning of the year. I had this monument from the manuscript notes of Octavius Caetani of the Society of Jesus, who most diligently sought out whatever things might pertain to the lives of the Sicilian saints, which he himself had written as notes to be published for this homily of Theophanes, together with the lives of the Saints Hermogenes, Evodius, and Callista, of whom mention is made by Theophanes in this same work. C I return to the matter. The same opinion is held by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, son of Leo the Wise—a writer almost contemporary with Theophanes—who in book II of *The Themes* [affirms] the same; and likewise Hesychius the Illustrious, brought forth by him; who also invented a false etymology for the Indiction, consistent with their own opinion. For the Indiction, they say, is so called as if from *Inaktion* after the Actian victory, *apo de tou akroteriou tou kaloumenou Aktiou*, "and those called Indictions he calls," says the same Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the same place, and continues: "For thus writes Hesychius of Miletus: Indiction, that is to say *Inakto* [signifying] the victory around Actium." For this reason, the Indiction indeed begins from the first, and ends at the fifteenth, and returns again, and begins from the first, because Antony had been the colleague of Augustus Caesar until the 15th year; afterwards, however, Augustus ruled alone. You see how those Greeks agree concerning the origin of the Indiction? Among the Latins, moreover, is Federicus Morellius in his notes to book II of *The Themes* of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who, although he mocks the etymology of "Indiction" invented by the Greeks, and says that it could excite laughter even in Heraclitus, nevertheless traces the Indictions themselves back to the age of Augustus. Lilius Gyraldus, who was much earlier than Morellius himself (for he lived at Rome, as he himself revealed in his opuscule *On the Year*, where [he wrote] some things also about the Indiction, and in the chapter *On the Jubilee*, in the year 1525, wherein the Jubilee was celebrated under Clement VII and the Emperor Charles V), writes thus: "There are those who write that Augustus Caesar first instituted the Indictions, and from D and again turns back, and begins from the first because Antony had been the colleague of Augustus Caesar until the 15th year; afterwards, however, etc. Which Federicus Morellius translates thus: "Now indeed from the mentioned promontory Actium it is also called Indictions: so Hesychius the Illustrious writes. Indiction, that is to say *Inaktio*, meaning victory, surely, around Actium. Hence certainly it begins from the first, and ends in the fifteenth, and turns back, and begins from the first; because Antony had been the colleague of Augustus Caesar until the fifteenth year, but afterwards Augustus ruled alone." You see how those Greeks harmonize concerning the origin of the Indiction? [index: entries preserved]HOMILY I.
gathering Jews, and Romans, and Greeks, and brought them into one fold, in order to impart a certain holiness to this day, he comes into Nazareth (8); and having entered the synagogue, as the elegant Luke declares, having taken the book into his hands, he read the oracles which had been given concerning him: from this, therefore, the Church received this day to be celebrated as a solemn feast consecrated by God. Verily, let the things spoken thus far be as the body, to use the words of St. Maximus (9), for the discourse instituted on this feast. Come, therefore, let us imbue it with the consideration of interior things, as if with a soul.† Luke iv, 16.
Notes of Franciscus Scorus.
(8) Nazareth. He came to Nazareth, and having entered the synagogue, as the elegant Luke declares: having received the book into his hands, he read the oracles which had been given concerning him: from this, therefore, the Church received this day to be celebrated as a solemn feast consecrated by God. But let the things spoken thus far be as the body, to use the words of holy Maximus (9), for the discourse instituted on this festival. Come, therefore, let us imbue it with the considerations of the interior, as if with a soul.
(9) St. Maximus the Confessor, monk of Constantinople, abbot and martyr, was an immense scourge to the Monothelite heretics; his writings, enumerated in great number, you may read in Baronius in the year 657, n. 51. Which are indeed in the library... [alt-version omitted]
147 THEOPHANES KERAMEUS. Now, first of all, this month—Gorpiæus A (10) among the Greeks, Thoth (11) among the Egyptians, Eval (12) among the Hebrews, and called September among us in the Roman tongue—bears the image and type of both the old law and the new, and of this transient life, and of that immutable status in the future. God, wishing to insinuate this to us through a riddle, enjoined that the three celebrations (13)—that is, of Trumpets, of Atonement, and of Tabernacles—take place in this one month. For he thus spoke to Moses: On the fifteenth day of the seventh month, there is a feast of Tabernacles to the Lord; and you shall offer holocausts and sacrifices for seven days.* And indeed, this Eval is numbered as the seventh month from Nisan (14). B 148 This month, which among the Greeks is Gorpiæus, among the Egyptians Thoth, among the Hebrews Eval, and among us in the Roman language September, bears the image and type of the old and the new, and of this transitory life, and of the state in the future. And showing this by way of an enigma, God commanded that the three feasts—of trumpets, and of atonement, and of tabernacles—should occur in this month, speaking thus to Moses: On the fifteenth of the seventh month, a feast of tabernacles to the Lord; and you shall bring holocausts and sacrifices for seven days. But this Eval is the seventh month from Nisan. And moreover, to sound the trumpet...
A commanded that both the first and the seventh day be held as a calling and a rest. And the Law prescribes that one must also take spatulas of palm and branches of dense trees, and of willow, and of agnus castus, and thus rejoice in the feast. B Now, the feast of trumpets is a type of the Law and the Prophets and of the knowledge proclaimed by them. The Atonement is a symbol of God's reconciliation with man. For God set forth him who took upon himself the condemned nature to be the propitiation, as Paul says. But the feast of Tabernacles signifies the time of the resurrection that we so desire, being rightly celebrated in the seventh month. For after the weekly period of time, the resurrection is hoped for, in which man shall be made to dwell in tents through incorruption, of the C ... which He appointed for this, having led the Hebrews out of Egypt; this also held for Him regarding all honors paid to the Divine; however, regarding buying and selling and the rest of the administration, the first world. "And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, spatulas of palms, and branches of dense wood, and of willow, and of agnus castus." Hence the seven-day removal of leaven. For this most mystical of numbers, and one in correspondence with this world—the number of days of the old and the acidic—indicates to you this transitory time which is revolved through weeks. It indicates through Solomon the age D which is revolved in itself weekly, of the lower destiny.
A Since the immortal soul is being united to the body that has flowed away, just as those who celebrate the festival used to mingle the leaves that fall with those that are ever-green—for I, for my part, think that the command to sound the trumpet looks to this. For on the last day, he says, it shall sound, and the dead shall rise. One might perhaps ask in perplexity: and for what reason was this month chosen to bear so many images? Because it is truly most fitting for this imagery; not only because it is the seventh from Nisan, as the discourse has shown, but because it is the decay of the fruits that blossomed in the spring. You understand, of course, that the life we await is the end of those things which exist in generation and decay, having blossomed at the creation of the world. Moreover, as the sun, traversing the zodiacal B sphere, enters in this month into the twelfth segment, which they call Libra, it perhaps signifies the fact of the just compensation of God’s judgment, which exists in that equilibrium. And just as this same month is the seventh according to the Hebrews, yet the first according to us—being both—so it is also the fading of the fruits and the beginning of the vintage. When we understand this, that this seventh age is an end and a stabilization of generation and decay, but an inception of the intelligible vintage. And the winepress that is to come awaits us; and as here, if a noble and ripe cluster be placed into the winepress, it is sweet and C says that seven ages of this world are spoken of; that is to say, from the creation of the heaven and the world until the common consummation and resurrection of mankind. But the eighth age is that which is to come... D [alt-version omitted]
and to set a limit to these; it is also the beginning of the spiritual vintage; for this press of the future life awaits us. For just as here, when a generous and beautiful cluster has been cast into the press, the sweet and fragrant wine flows out, to which the passage of time afterwards contributes beauty and fragrance: but if that cluster has been pressed from rotten and bitter grapes, it turns into vinegar, and becomes unfit to drink, inasmuch as it either contracts a stench or sours, or by some other corruption is changed into a substance for the generation of worms: so, indeed, in the regeneration, when our works shall have been cast into that testing fire as if into a press, the nature of everyone’s husbandry will be made manifest. B Believe now how great mysteries this day’s celebration—which appears small—contains. And also observe this, so that this month might not be named September by the Latins without Divine Providence: not only because it is called the seventh among them, which is the seventh number among the Greeks; but also because it is religious, and worthy to be venerated. Furthermore, it is to be considered that on this day, which is both the beginning and the crown of the year, the celebrations of many saints coincide, who are our helpers for passing this life’s time with virtue. For on this day we recall the memory of that reading of the Lord in the Synagogue, and we venerate the sacrosanct image of the Mother of God: indeed, we also venerate the memory of Jesus Nave, and of the seven C unbloody martyrs in Ephesus, and of the forty virgin women, of Callista, and Evodus, and Hermogenes, who were siblings by nature and by faith. But also Symeon... The seventh is religious, indeed religious—not made by human hands; on the first: the beginning of the Indiction, that is, of the new year. And the memory of our holy Father Symeon the Stylite, and the assembly of the most holy Theotokos of Miasena, and of the holy martyr Aeithalas, and of the holy martyrs... women, and Ammon the deacon and instructor of them, and of Hermogenes, the siblings; and the memory of the righteous Jesus, son of Nave; of the holy seven youths in Ephesus, and of the holy martyr Eudocia. Of the holy seven youths in Ephesus. D [alt-version omitted]
The beginning of the year consecrates the A memory of the saints.
Our Saviour Jesus “blesses the crown of the year,” and the all-pure Lady, who is honoured through her venerable icon, becomes our mediator with God. Jesus, son of Nave, teaches us to follow in the footsteps of the true Jesus, if we would overthrow the walls of sin with haste, as he did the walls of Jericho. The seven youths consecrate the time numbered by the week, showing the mystery of the resurrection, from which they themselves arose after sleeping for a long time. The great Simeon, by pointing to his own pillar, bids us be lightened of earthly things through virtue and to set our minds on things above. We shall by no means separate Calliste, Evodus, and Hermogenes. For neither nature, nor intent, nor fellowship, nor the union of their contest separated them. And these shall indeed guide us most beautifully, keeping the harmony toward God, “whose offspring we are,” according to the wise man who spoke. The Stylite lights the festival. All of these you have heard the Evangelist Luke saying today, how Christ came into his own country, Nazareth, and read: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.” Come also yourself to your own intelligible country, Nazareth, which is interpreted in the Greek tongue as purity. Come to the purity of life. This is truly the country and the world of the soul. If you come to this, the Spirit of the Lord is upon you; let the beginning of the year be for you the beginning of a purer life. Were you a slave until now to some sin? Let it also meet its end with the end of the year. Let the indictions be for you the beginning of a godly way of life. Let us emulate the deeds of the saints, of the others as well as of the divine and holy Simeon himself, whose life we all hear and admire. But not for the sake of being admired merely, for the source of our line is—(this is the first page of the chain)
The lives of the saints have been written, but so that you may admire them, and become imitators of them. How then, one might say, is it possible to emulate him who practiced a life transcending nature? I shall demonstrate this to you in a few words, first running quickly through his history. This great man, even from his childhood, became a shepherd of sheep; he did not live among swine like that unruly young man who departed from his father’s estate and became a swineherd; nor did he herd mules like the Idumaean Doeg; he was not trained to tame colts, but oversaw a flock of sheep like Moses, and Jacob, and David, and Amos. When he happened to go inside the church and heard the words of the Gospel, upon the counsel of a certain old man, he disregarded all the cares of this life, and instead of brute beasts, he gathered together with the rational flock. And at first, he girded his body with a rough rope. Then, having become known, he lowered himself into a pit and became an underground dweller. Drawn up from there, he was the first of all to choose the stylite life, increasing the height of the column by small advances. A At first he raised it to six cubits, then magnifying the same until it reached thirty-six cubits. Thus lifted on high, and having become a worker of many signs, both putting demons to flight, and taming the untamed character of the Barbarians, and turning many to God, he departed to the eternal mansions, leaving behind the column as a kind of monument of his manner of life.
The holy Simeon therefore instructs us by his own example, that as long as we are children...
A in the spiritual life, we should not mix ourselves with men who are beasts, either delighting in the mud of debauchery or pasturing sin like barren mules. For wickedness did not receive its proliferation from God, just as the lineage of mules does not come from themselves. Nor should we be mingled with those who are mad for women, like horses; but withdrawing from all these, let us live with those who think the same as we do and have the same mind, being pastured by those whom we ourselves pastor. When all the thoughts within us, like sheep, are pastured by the will of the presiding reason, and we live thus in gentleness, the preaching of the Gospel shall shine forth in our souls, taught by those who excel in virtue and rousing us to a more perfect life of virtue; so that we become far removed from worldly passions, and walk the narrow and constricted way, girded with the rough and severe life of self-restraint, tying up with temperate reason, as with a rope, the irrational burnings arising from the deadened flesh. When, therefore, this has been accomplished by us, and we are known by all, and we are admired as virtuous, let us cast ourselves into the pit of humility. Imitating this great man, let us flee this empty and light vainglory. «For everyone who humbles himself shall be exalted,» as the divine Scripture says. He was not raised on high to the column if he had not first let himself down into the dry pit, filled with much stench; and we would not be led to the height of virtue if we did not embrace humility. But even if we remain hidden by humility and do not go unnoticed (for in truth, as much as virtue strives to be hidden, so much is it proclaimed) and they shall raise us up from the pit—that is to say, those who admire virtue will make us manifest—let us embrace a more laborious life, being led up to the column of virtues by small additions. Let us first arrive at the height of the ascent by six cubits, setting down the six commandments as the foundation of the ascent, through which the just inherit the kingdom of heaven. For the King, sitting upon the throne of glory, grants to those on His right the reward of the six commandments they have kept, namely the kingdom of heaven. B When, therefore, we have corporally fed the Lord who is hungry through the poor, and given drink to the thirsty, and offered hospitality, and clothed Him, and looked upon Him while held by sickness or chains, then we have stepped onto the six-cubit column. But if we should multiply the virtues—as a mina or a talent—by increasing them through our labors, then the circle of virtues is perfected for us, and by being multiplied—
A the number of the six precepts reaches six and thirty. For I believe that to be the reason why the pillar of the great Simeon, even as it grew to such a height according to the history, since this number is a circle, and a triangle, and a square, it signified the perfection of the man’s virtue—in how stable he was toward piety into the Trinity, and how he was crowned with the circle of virtues. If, therefore, making use of such ascents, we might climb to this height, and put to flight the demons that plot against our salvation, and tame the passions that trouble us as if they were barbarians, we shall be saviors both to ourselves and to many others, and we shall enjoy the incorruptible and eternal goods in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
HOMILY II. On the Parable of the Ten Thousand Talents.
Gymnasiarchs and teachers of the young judge that the children are making progress in their lessons whenever they come to the school willingly, awaiting neither the threats of their tutors nor the lashes of the pedagogues, but making the acquisition of learning continuously and with haste. In this way, I judge your progress in God, beloved audience, because when I am often exhausted by the labors of the body, your eagerness rouses me to teaching. Come, therefore, let us begin to attain the threshold of the divine parable read today. For there is set before us for explanation the most evident proof of God’s philanthropy; and God’s wisdom sets before us a basin of teaching, having mixed the water of the parable with the wine of theory, so that we might neither gain nothing by attending only to the fiction, nor be intoxicated in our mind by the bare theory, as if by unmixed wine; but let us hear what the rationale of the parable is. The Lord spoke this parable: “The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that is a king, who desired to make a reckoning with his servants.” It must be asked by us why the Savior does not set forth the intent of his teaching unveiled, but discusses most things B parabolically. It is fitting, therefore, to understand that he speaks openly with the holy disciples, using the parabolic mode rarely. But since some foolish people were gathering with them, who were in no way [fit] for the instruction.
A And since they were not only not going to be profited, but were even accustomed to finding fault with what was said out of extreme stupidity, he wisely hid the intention of his instruction in the covering of a parable, so that the prudent, being led by the hand through the visible, might be introduced to the things perceived, while the envious and malicious, seeing may not see, and hearing may not understand; for of these Isaiah prophesies these things. B According to another reason, since he was addressing his words to beginners and those dull of understanding, for whom teaching fashioned in the manner of a narrative is more appropriate, just as fables are appropriate for young children, for this cause he discourses to them in parables, doing so very sweetly. For indeed, the most beautiful of flowers are clothed outwardly with attractive leaves. Besides, by these means he also makes us more attentive, urging us toward the understanding of Scriptures, not to cleave entirely to the letter, but to translate also the enigmas of the Old [Testament] into spiritual meanings. Perhaps he also fulfills the prophecy sung on the Psalmist’s harp about him in the seventy-seventh Psalm: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter problems from the beginning." Solomon also exhorts us somewhere to perceive "a parable, and a dark saying, the words of the wise, and enigmas." These things having been thus distinguished for us, come, let us again call to mind the reading of the Gospel: "The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that is a king, who would make a reckoning with his servants. And when he had begun to make a reckoning." The beginning of this parable signifies more secretly the two natures in Christ. For the kingdom of heaven, and the man who is a king, is he himself who speaks these things, Jesus; who, being King of heaven, and as God having had the right of reigning innate before all ages, as man is anointed King by the Father, and is likened to us by a way of condescension, and the Lord makes a reckoning with [his] servants, and is justified, and is judged with us; not doing what seems good by sovereign authority, but being philanthropic and just, he shows both. Since just as the most beautiful of flowers are clothed outwardly with attractive leaves, so the meanings of holy Scripture are hidden by coverings. C D
A II. HOMILY. He shows both: manifesting mercy in the present time, but justice in the future. "And when he began to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents" (Matt. XVIII, 24). Perhaps the whole nature of men is liable for so great a debt. For since we enjoy many benefits from God, we owe him a certain restitution, the keeping of the commandments. He, therefore, who is negligent concerning these, and performs nothing, is a debtor of ten thousand talents. For by this number, and by this weight, the divine discourse adumbrates one who is guilty of every kind of wickedness. For since every number B is either discrete or continuous, he set down the highest of each. For there is no number that exceeds ten thousand in the discrete, nor any that exceeds the talent in the continuous. Most fitly indeed is sin signified by the weight of the talent. For wickedness, as one of the prophets says, is something heavy and downward-tending, sitting upon a talent of lead (Zach. V, 7). Consider, then, a terrifying tribunal. The King sits in terror, and requires from each an account of what has been entrusted. But the indebted servant stood trembling; and when he could not pay such a great debt, the King ordered him, and his wife, and his children to be sold. C Here, it seems to me, one should not pass over this thought without consideration; for the discourse appears alien to the divine sense. The servant acts unjustly, and for this, his newly born children are sold, who, owing to the imperfection of their age, have no discernment between good and evil; and the innocent pay the penalty for the father's debt. Where is justice? Where is piety?
Notes of Francesco Scorsi.
(36) *Instead of restitution ... in the G[reek] codex. And this is the true reading, not as P. has it, which how faulty it is, no one fails to see. The Escurial manuscript correctly interprets according to the mind of the author. But incorrectly even in that codex it is written ... which word D no Onomasticon contains.* (37) *In discrete and continuous... Aristotle in Categories, ch. "On Amount," and Metaphysics, and wherever he speaks of quantity, he teaches, and with him philosophers generally... that one form of quantity is discrete, the other continuous. Theophanes understands this very thing when he says that every number is either discrete or continuous. For since both quantities are subject to number and dimension, and discrete number by its units, while continuous—as some magnitude is counted by palms, or as some weight is counted by pounds; hence Theophanes attributes to the number itself what is true of the thing numbered, when he calls it either discrete or continuous, that is, when it is of discrete or continuous magnitude.* (38) *But this seems more wonderful, by what reasoning he says a discrete number does not exceed ten thousand, nor [does it] exceed the continuous talent. But the matter is explained more easily than it is spoken. The talent, although it signifies a pound, and the weight itself balanced, and indeed indeterminate, is however also used to signify a certain weight of money... And this is the highest weight of money that is contained by a single name. The rest are below the talent: mina, drachma, obolus, libra, and whatever is spoken of concerning weights, of which our John Baptist Villalpandus in 'Apparatus Urbis et Templi Hierosol.', vol. III, and Burlaeus on 23.3 dispute. This which is more clearly understood concerning the talent, will open a clearer understanding of the number ten thousand. For the Greeks have no greater number that is contained by a single name, and by one sum, than this, ten thousand; nor do they move further in cardinal numeral names. And indeed they move further than the Latins, who when they have reached a thousand, have no other number-word that signifies a collection; but [they say] two thousand, three thousand, and when they have reached ten, ten thousand; but the Greeks [have] this one word... Nor is anything else contained in this saying of Theophanes, unless it escapes me, than that which is sufficient for him to elicit a pious sense concerning the number. That sense is also acknowledged by St. Augustine concerning the words of the Lord: 'Therefore,' he says, 'it must be said that because the law is commended in ten commandments, he owes ten thousand talents, through which he signifies all sins that are committed according to the law.' Petrus Bongus, 'De signif. myst. numerorum', lib. II, thus concerning this number: 'Under the number of ten thousand talents which the servant owed the Lord, our Savior Christ shows that all sins ought to be forgiven.'*' A Where, then, is honesty? Where is godliness? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel crying out: 'The soul that sins, it shall die, and the son shall not receive the iniquity of the father'? We may conclude, therefore, that a higher dogma is taught in the Gospel by this passage. For when some lead an abominable life, detested by God, diseases and deaths of their most beloved ones are inflicted upon them as a kind of scourge; and this does not happen without providence, nor without sure judgment. But since it was going to come to pass that the children would emulate the wickedness of their parents, they too are restrained from malice through diseases or deaths, and the stubbornness of the parents is softened. Nevertheless, that He ordered the servant to be sold with his whole house, He did for the sake of striking terror, and in order to draw the debtor toward tears and supplication. For although He thought of selling him, and indeed he was as one already sold, yet He does not desire the death of the sinner, but seeks his conversion B and waits for his repentance. And He stretches the bow of the threat, but checks the arrow of punishment against those who, if they have fallen and been wounded, nevertheless take refuge in remedies; but He sells him who despairs of salvation and refuses correction; for the selling of the servant, together with his own house, signifies the deprivation of many good things and alienation from God. 'The servant falling down was praying to Him, saying: Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.' What, then, of the servant? Instead of the payment of money, he offers supplication, beseeching the Master to be patient. And He, as soon as He saw the servant cast down at His feet and his eyes shedding tears, shows a merciful and easily placated disposition; and He granted favor not according to how much the servant asked, but according to how much His own kindness could contain. For He forgives C the whole debt to the debtor, at once showing the immense ocean of His own kindness, and teaching the servant to forgive those who sin against him, as he had been forgiven. Such a good Master do we have, so accustomed is supplication and a single tear to bend Him, so munificent does He show Himself toward the penitent that He exceeds the request with His gifts. Manasseh, covered and burdened with so many crimes, having barely turned, sought only remission from God, saying: (39) 'Have mercy on me, O Lord, have mercy'; and he obtained pardon, and was delivered from his enemies, and regained his kingdom. That tax collector, the publican, when he had asked God to be propitious to him, obtained righteousness. That nocturnal marauder and thief, already put upon the cross and breathing his last, when he had sought only to be remembered, received the whole paradise. And to the young man who, departing D from his father’s house, had cast himself away to the life of beasts, and who later sought to be reckoned among the hired servants, He grants back his former nobility; and the present servant had asked only for patience, and
he obtained the remission of his entire debt. A Do you see an infinite ocean of mercies? Who is so sluggish, and more fearful than is fitting, that he would not run to such a Master with—as the saying goes—swift feet, even if he were branded with ten thousand marks of sins, or were burdened with many talents of iniquities? Take courage, all you who have lived a slothful life like mine. Only let us not emulate this ungrateful runaway, who, having obtained the remission of such a great debt, lost the grace through his own folly.
"And that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and laying hold of him, he choked him, saying, 'Pay me what you owe.'" B It was proper to grant to his fellow servant a measure of that grace which he himself had enjoyed to the full; it was proper to be kind to his fellow servant and equal in fortune. But, as the saying goes, "no sooner pitied than the grace died"; for at that very hour, the wretch choked his fellow debtor, affording him no relief, even though his fellow servant had used the same words that he himself had used toward the king. But he did not obtain the same grace as the other, since they did not have similar creditors. The discourse rightly adds the word "went out," showing that he went out from justice and propriety.
"And his fellow servants, seeing what had been done, were grieved, and they came and reported to their master all that had happened." C His fellow servants, who hate evil, are disgusted by his cruelty. It is proper to understand these fellow servants as the angels, who exist as fellow servants according to the reason of creation, and who are the observers of our deeds. Just as there is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, so, on the contrary, the purest spirits are said to be greatly grieved when we sin. And so they have revealed the forgetfulness and cruelty of this man to the master, not as if to one who was ignorant, but demonstrating their just indignation against one who did not observe the love of our neighbor toward his fellow man. D "Then his master called him and said to him, 'You wicked servant, I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me; should you not also have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?'" Consider for me here the balanced justice of the king’s philanthropy. And he exercises this not without judgment, but having brought the scoundrel to trial, and having convicted him, and shown him to be without excuse, and being “justified in his words, and prevailing when he is judged,” as David says, he brings forth the just sentence.
...judge, and weighing correctly the faults of each one, uncovering vice, he puts the charges in evidence and is judged together with us. So also with the Jews he pleads his case and is judged, sometimes saying through Isaiah: "And now, you who dwell in Jerusalem, and the man of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard"; B sometimes through Micah: "My people, what have I done to you, or wherein have I troubled you, or wherein have I annoyed you?" But he who thinks correctly sings with David: "Enter not into judgment with your servant." For the one who knows all things will certainly prevail; and no one will boast of having a pure heart. But let us hear the Lord's defense toward his servant: "You wicked servant, I forgave you all that debt because you entreated me." You offered nothing of equal value to the debt, only your entreaty, and yet you enjoyed such philanthropy. Was it not right for you also to imitate the master's compassion? Or rather, what equality can there be, when both the persons and the matters are so different? The one is the Lord, the other draws the same yoke of servitude as you; and you are a debtor of ten thousand talents, while to him the debt is a sum of ten denarii. Since, therefore, you have been such toward your fellow-servant, be also held liable to your own laws. For lest anyone should think [God] to be harsh, he adds: "And he delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was owed." The tormentors are the unmerciful angels appointed for punishment; however, "until he should pay all that was owed" does not signify a temporal duration according to the mythical restitution of Origen, C but rather denotes the indefinite and unending nature of the punishment. For since it is impossible for the one being punished to pay back everything that is owed, it is necessary that he be punished eternally. Let us fear, beloved, this example; let us be compassionate toward our fellow-servants who sin against us, so that in this way we may draw down the Lord's mercy upon ourselves. For truly the debts of our brothers are insignificant and moderate denarii.
HOMILY VI. On the son of the widow.
Driven by another theme to compose a preface for the discourse, I turned my mind elsewhere, O assembly gathered for the service of God! For having cast my eye toward the D left side of the choir of the Church, and seeing the place of our brother empty, whom a short while ago death had snatched away with its sickle, I was filled with a flood of tears. For I am not brave enough to struggle against the separation of friends by death; but I am, strictly speaking, devoid of philosophy, and [my weakness] is immediately exposed by my...
sins against us—sins that are but a few denarii and of little moment, if compared to the myriads of talents of our own sins against God. A An injury is merely a slight, inflicted perhaps by someone, or even an attempt against the bodily life, and whatever others of this kind are distressing to the senses; for one man cannot harm another in his soul. And yet, your blood suddenly boils around your heart, and it arouses you to the desire for retaliation, and you do not look at yourself, [nor consider] the nature of your conduct towards the Master who created you, and brought you forth through birth, and gave [you] the heaven, the stars, the sun, the moon, and the B earth for your enjoyment, and made you king over all that the earth contains. Do you not act, speak, and think of things that are not fitting, while God is your witness, present everywhere and seeing all? With what conscience will you ask Him for forgiveness, when you either oppress your own debtor, or beat a negligent servant, or take revenge upon one who has insulted or injured you? "For with what measure we measure, it shall be measured back to us," according to the truthful voice of the Lord. Therefore, that we might be able to ask for mercy from God with a confident conscience, let us show ourselves compassionate to those who share our nature. C For thus we may receive the forgiveness of our own sins against God, and become heirs of the kingdom of heaven in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.
Homily III. On the Sunday before the Exaltation of the Precious and Life-Giving Cross.
Come today, O most God-loving assembly, let us celebrate the forefeast D of the elevation of the life-bearing Cross. For the divine voice of the Gospels echoes in my ears, proclaiming the mystery of the Cross, and presenting the bronze serpent hung [on a pole] as its image. The readings become to me prognostications and proclamations of the adoration of the Cross. Therefore, like some vanguard…
A of the royal scepter, arranging these evangelical revelations, let us look upon them attentively and explain them distinctly. The Lord said: "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven."
It is necessary to examine first what prompted the Lord to say these things. For the present passage of the evangelical reading mentions only those things contributing to the purpose of the day, having passed over in silence what preceded. When, therefore, that nocturnal disciple arrived at the Lord (for you certainly understand the Pharisee Nicodemus), while the Savior was teaching about the birth from above, he—still partaking of Jewish obtuseness—was dragged in his thoughts toward the womb of the mother, imagining a fleshly birth. Seeing, therefore, that he did not readily assent to the sublimity of the doctrine, the Savior said: "No one," he says, "has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven." B It is as if He were saying: You, Nicodemus, are incapable of heavenly initiation, perhaps seeking human testimony for what is said; but "No one has ascended into heaven" so as to be initiated into these things, "but He who descended from heaven" and who clearly dogmatizes on what is there, "the Son of Man, who is in heaven."
And yet someone might say: He had not yet returned to the heavens with the assumption [of human nature] when He spoke these words, for even after He rose from the dead, He prevented the God-bearing Magdalene from touching Him and, sending her as an apostle to the Apostles, said thus: "For I have not yet ascended to My Father." How, then, does He say here that no one has ascended into heaven, except that very One who had come from heaven to earth? He points here to the dogma of the ineffable union C of the Word of God with us, whereby, the two natures having been united without confusion into one hypostasis, one has participated in the other, so that the properties of the natures are spoken of in common. When, therefore, you hear "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven," understand the divinity of the Word; for this reason He added very swiftly, "who is in heaven." For it is foolish to think of this regarding the flesh—as if it were in heaven and at the same time speaking to Nicodemus, since it naturally possesses triple-dimension and circumscription in place. But to believe this of the divinity which is without beginning, which is wholly in all things and above all things, is firmly in accordance with piety. The statement, however, made to the myrrh-bearing woman: "For I have not yet ascended to My Father," signified the corporal ascension. D Therefore, He proceeds to foretell the matters concerning the Passion and the Cross: "Just as," He says, "Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up." The narrative is clear, I think, to the many. But as for the account regarding the super-essential divinity, so that the history may be more easily grasped by us in its description...
I will abridge it and run through it in a few words, as far as I am able. A When the Israelite people were being led by Moses through the desert, because servile pleasure had excited in them the craving of gluttony, and they were dreaming of Egyptian abundance, they were disciplined—like the unbridled among the young—with more severe scourges, with serpents sent into the camp, which infused a deadly bite into those they stung. But as the fall from the beasts occurred one after another, Moses, stirred by divine counsel, having cast bronze in the likeness of a serpent, blunted the power of the real serpents. For having hung the bronze serpent on a certain height, so that it might be seen by all, he stayed the destruction from the beasts for the people. For he who looked toward the image of the serpent feared not the bite of the true serpent, since the sight itself, through some secret antipathy, blunted the force of the venom. But that the bronze-cast serpent was a type of Christ himself, the Gospel proclaims explicitly; yet let it not disturb the Christ-loving to have the concept of the mystery adapted to such a repulsive animal. For if the serpent was called the father of sin by the Holy Scripture, then that which is born of the serpent—I mean sin—is altogether a serpent, being synonymous with that which begot it. But furthermore, the Apostle testifies that the Lord became sin for our sake, inasmuch as he assumed our sinful nature. "For," he says, "him who did not commit sin, he made to be sin for us." The riddle is therefore adapted to the Lord by analogy. For since those most wicked B serpents, having crept upon the whole human race, put our nature to death with the stings of sin, for this reason God assumes the likeness of the serpent, having become "in the likeness of sinful flesh," as Paul says, and thus man is liberated from sin through him who underwent the form of sin, and who became like us toward the serpent to which we had defected; through him, death originating from the bites is checked, and the serpents themselves are destroyed by the passion on the cross. And indeed the pleasure which is servile, that is, intemperance, has been destroyed. Nor does it seem to have been transferred inadvisedly; for it is necessary to chastise that which desires shameful things and possesses great growth. Such above all is desire, and the child; for children live according to desire, and especially in these is the craving for the pleasant. (Intemperance): of unruly youth.
A but their bites have not yet entirely ceased. For that desire which dwells in the flesh against the Spirit has not perished utterly; indeed, even in those who are most virtuous, the bites of desire are often active. But he who looks toward Him who was lifted up on the wood casts off the passion, having diluted the venom with the fear of God as with a certain antidote. To look toward the cross is nothing other than so to fashion one’s own life as to be dead and crucified to the world, remaining immovable toward every sin, and fastening one’s own flesh with the fear of God, according to the Psalmist; but continence shall be the nail that restrains the flesh. A Now, that the serpent is a symbol of the mystery perfected on the cross is shown by another history. For when Moses was sent by God to lead Israel out of its servitude to the Egyptians, he said to God, "If they do not believe me and do not hearken to my voice, what shall I say to them?" And God said to him, "What is this that is in thy hand?" And he said, "A rod." And He said, "Cast it upon the ground." And he cast it, and it became a serpent. And the Lord said to Moses, "Stretch forth thy hand, and take hold of its tail." And it became a rod in his hand. B Observe, then, in this place, how He who is by nature truly the Son from God is like a certain rod of the Father, for the rod is a sign of royalty and power; hence David says, "A rod of uprightness is the rod of thy kingdom." But when He cast it down through the incarnation and clothed Himself in a terrestrial body, then He became in the likeness of our own wickednesses—for the serpent is a sign of wickedness. And just as the rod of Moses, having become beast-like, devoured the sorcerous rods of the Egyptian magicians, and then, being taken up again, became what it was before, so too the rod of God and the Father, that is, the Son, through whom He governs and directs all things, although He became like us in form in order to annihilate those intellectual serpents, so that the demons might no longer be the gods of the nations, yet after He had brought the dispensation to its end, He returned to heaven and became again, as in the hand of the Father, a rod of uprightness and a kingdom, sitting even with the flesh at the right hand of the One who begat Him. C In another way, and by another manner, the serpent was an image of the Savior. For just as that serpent appeared to be a serpent but in truth was not a serpent, so too the Lord did not commit sin, for it was not right that He who is good by nature should gain experience of evil. Nevertheless, He appeared to the wicked as a sinner; hence they said to the blind man who had been healed, "Give glory to God; this man is a sinner." They even slandered Him, calling Him a glutton and a wine-bibber. And in yet another way was the Savior likened to the serpent; for the serpent not only possesses lethal venom, but also a medicine D capable of expelling the lethal venom; for the children of physicians
A produce an antidote from the flesh of serpents. Thus, the Word of God fashioned for Himself a body out of the mortal nature of Adam, which would be capable of destroying death. Gregory the Theologian, however, says that the serpent should not be taken as a type of the Lord, but as an antitype, saying in this manner: “The bronze serpent is hung as a defense against the biting serpents, yet not as a type of the One who suffered for us, but as an antitype.” Since that ancient bronze serpent, by dulling the sting of snakes of the same species, saved men of a different species, while our Savior, raised upon the Cross, broke the power of demons, which are of a different species, and saved men, His own kin and of the same species, the Father rightly states that He is to be taken as an antitype. According to the most wise Maximus, the suspended serpent was a symbol of death, of which the serpent was the procurer; but the standard upon which it was raised signified the Cross; and the sight of those who were being bitten is the confession of believers. Therefore, he who confesses the death of Christ in a manner worthy of God has eternal life. “Thus must the Son of man be lifted up.” The phrase “must be lifted up” admits of a twofold meaning: the crucifixion on high, which He accepted for our sake—for it was necessary, the earth having been sanctified by His immaculate feet through His walking, and the sea having been sanctified through His walking upon the waves, that the air too should be sanctified through the lifting up on the Cross—; and it also indicates the glory which He obtained according to His humanity through the Cross. For in the very person in which He seemed to be condemned, in that same He condemns the ruler of the world, having shown Himself superior to the passions by which man had been mastered; and these were sorrow and pleasure. Pleasure He had overcome on the mount, neither turning stones into bread nor yielding to the tempter in his other suggestions; but He appeared even more a conqueror of sorrow at the time of the passion, when His adversary stirred up all things against Him: a disciple as traitor, disciples as fugitives, the denial of Peter, swords, torches, and blades; cheeks struck with blows, a face spat upon, a back given over to scourging, false witnesses, a wicked tribunal, a cruel sentence, soldiers taking delight in the grim verdict with mockings, ironies, and insults, blows from a reed, nails, gall, vinegar, and finally, the Cross. What then was the defense against those who did these things? “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Thus, having conquered sorrow by long-suffering, He vanquishes the adversary and makes clear for us the path of victory over him. For through the abstaining from pleasures, and through gentleness towards those who cause sorrow, and through long-suffering, we become imitators of the Master, and we reap the prize of the victory over the wicked one.
May it be the lot of all to attain this, by the grace of the Trinity which is above all light, to whom belongs all glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
HOMILY IV. On the Exaltation of the precious and life-giving Cross.
A I behold today the venerable roof of this great temple imitating the celestial vault; the most holy floor, like a meadow blooming with many flowers, decorated with the variety of the assembled people; and the sacred order of the clergy like a drizzling cloud, which stands round and guards the life-bearing Cross, that wood of life, the royal scepter, the destroyer of demons, the overthrower of sin, the cause of the salvation of all, whose venerable exaltation we have come to celebrate. This is, in truth, an evident symbol of the exaltation of men, who are raised up from the earth to the heavens through the Cross. B And since the first erection of the Cross on Golgotha seemed ignominious to the scoffers, the exaltation now taking place is a prefiguration of the glory to come, in which the Cross shall be seen surrounded by an obsequious choir of angels. For then shall appear the sign of the Son of man, as the holy Gospel proclaims. The Cross, therefore, is held aloft by the hands of the ministers of celestial grace, bestowing sanctification upon the fourfold world. Since the existence of all things that are, whether above or below... C ...it is rather that which encompasses all things, and sustains them, and precedes them, passing through all essences without defilement, and is beyond all things, and removed from every essence, being super-essential and above the things that are, super-divine, super-good, super-full, defining all origins and ranks, and established above every origin and rank, a super-essence. And likewise a most sweet union of both is formed, such as super-essential essence, super-divine deity, a beginning above every beginning, and things of this kind. There are also certain things which, though said affirmatively of God, have the force of a pre-eminent negation; of this kind is the case where we call God darkness—not that God is darkness, but that He is not light, being rather above all light. D Hekathen... the super-perfect or pre-perfect... super-splendid Trinity... super-abundance... most pure, or all-most pure, super-immaculate, super-blessed, super-holy. ...said in the ambo (that is, the pulpit) of the episcopate.HOMILY IV.
A ...is understood, or towards the sides as extremities; for this is the partition of celestial, terrestrial, and infernal things: therefore the Cross, being raised by four arms extending from the center, embraces the whole creation and fills it with its own glory. Assuredly, that nature which exists before all rule, foreseeing the mystery that was to be managed by the Cross at the appointed times, in many parts and in many ways, to use the words of the Apostle, signified its power beforehand to those who are in any way able to be led by the hand, through things seen, to things understood. Therefore, when God had planted a paradise in Eden towards the east at the beginning of the world, as the scriptures teach, He planted the tree of life in its very center, as if proclaiming to all from above, that in the center of the earth the life-bearing Cross would be planted, carrying the Giver of life hanging upon it. And what did Moses mean when he called it not a plant or a tree, but a tree of life? For it is customary to be called a tree after it is cut; but clearly, it is shown, or rather, as the four extremities of the Cross are held and tightened by the middle center, so through the power of God the height and depth, length and breadth, that is, the whole visible and invisible creation, is contained.
At the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, a ladder made of wood is set up in the triclinium, which they also cover with crimson cloth. The patriarch, therefore, coming upon it, if he is present, or whoever of the patriarchs happens to be residing there, performs the elevation of the Cross. If none of these are found, the protopapa does it. The word of the Cross is the power of God, or because the power of God, that is, the victory over death, is declared to us through it.
B ...power. This honorable Cross was prefigured by the tree of life that was planted by God in Paradise. For since death came through wood, it was necessary that life and resurrection be granted through wood.
C ...the power of God is the word of the Cross; or because the power of God, that is, the victory over death, is manifested to us through it: or because as the four extreme parts of the Cross cohere and are bound together through the middle center, so through the power of God the height and depth, and the length and width, that is, all creation both visible and invisible, is contained.
...The rites of the elevation itself of the Cross, which was raised by the hands of the pontiff or the primary priest, so that this passage of Theophanes might be understood more clearly, some things must be added. This rite is described by Codinus Curopalates, *De Officiis Ecclesiae et aulae Constantinop.*, cap. 1: Which our Gretser translates: "On the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, a wooden platform is erected in the Triclinium, which they also adorn with crimson cloth, upon which the patriarch ascending, if he is present, or another of the patriarchs if he happens to be in Constantinople at that time, performs the exaltation of the Cross. If none of these are present, then the protopapa does this." But Andreas of Crete, archbishop, in the oration which he gave to the people on this very feast day concerning the exalted Cross, which you may read in Surius, September 14, explains this rite in these words: "Since it was necessary that that hidden and life-giving wood be brought into the open, and raised on high as a city set upon a hill, or a lamp upon a lampstand, be shown to the whole world: for that reason, when the first Christians from the beginning had received the first scepters of the kingdom (he speaks of the empress Helena and her son Constantine), with the triumph of the whole Church together, as if from a high watchtower, they ordered it to be lifted on high and shown to the whole assembly. And this is what those who have received the pontifical office now do. Ascending to the high place of the church, and lifting this most glorious and most admirable Cross on high, and often extending it sublimely, they show it to the people, almost crying out: Behold, the treasure of salvation, which had been hidden, is found."
D ...The symbols of the Cross and the oracles from the holy histories and prophets brought together and unfolded in this oration by Theophanes are recognized also by other Holy Fathers, both Greek and Latin. I wished to illustrate each point by the sayings of other Fathers, at most by two: both so that their consensus in explaining the mysteries of the Old Testament might appear; and so that this minute diligence of our writer might not seem tedious to anyone, more than was proper. As concerns the tree of Paradise, as a figure of the Cross, Damascene speaks, *lib. IV De fide*, c. 12: "Indeed, that tree of life, which was planted by God in Paradise, bore the excellent figure of the Cross. For since death came through wood, it was necessary that life and resurrection be granted through wood." Which figure the Roman Church also indicates when it sings concerning the holy Cross: "This is the most worthy tree situated in the middle of Paradise, on which the author of salvation overcame the death of all by his own death."
A Since our forefather had stumbled, and the tyrant had gained the upper hand, and the whole human race had begun to rush toward evil, and God wished to blot out sin by the flood of waters, Noah with his entire household was saved through wood, as the remnant of nature; this was a type of future things. For the water figured the baptism that washes away sin, but the ark figured the wood of the Cross, through which we who believe obtain salvation. The dove, through the olive branch it carried, indicating that the wrath had now ceased, signified the same thing, which spiritually came to pass. The great Abraham, commanded to offer that dreadful sacrifice, and to make a whole burnt offering of Isaac, his only-begotten and beloved son, seeing with the clear light of prophecy that the immolation of Jesus was typified by Isaac, ordered him, who was to be sacrificed, to carry the wood for the whole burnt offering. This he indeed did most appropriately. For Jesus also, when led to the sacrifice for our sake, went forth carrying his own cross. Thus also the ram is sacrificed, Isaac is released, and on the third day is restored to his mother Sarah. By this history it is clearly shown that the flesh of our Lord was led as a sheep to the slaughter, as Isaias prophesied, and was immolated, but the divinity was void of passion; and after three days the revived Lord appeared to the Virgin Mother. The holy Jacob, having gone forth from his father's house and having served Laban, and having received no recompense, devised this scheme against him: he placed rods of three types, stripped of their bark in patches, by the trough where the flocks were accustomed to drink. And from this, that Laban, the worshiper of a multitude of gods, became poor, while Jacob became wealthy and rich in many flocks. For after the three-day Cross and the baptism, Christ took the whole herd of Satan, making them one fold. But also for Jacob, who came to Charran and, after the setting of the sun, rested his head upon a stone and slept, B he saw a ladder. C D
as the Holy Scriptures testify, reaching from earth to the heavenly vaults, with God set upon it. Once again, therefore, let your mind be raised from the history to contemplation. For Jacob’s sleeping signified his being taken out of the things of sense, B closing the senses of the body, and with his ruling faculty hinted at through his head resting upon the stone. And you certainly understand the stone that was rejected by those who were building the things of the law, and which was made the corner-stone for the joining together of the two peoples. The patriarch Jacob, resting his mind upon this, saw the ladder as a prefiguring of the Cross, which for us became the ladder of the ascent into heaven; for this reason he also says the sun set: for the Sun of Justice set upon the Cross by death, having granted firmament C and power to it. But also, as Jacob worshiped the tip of Joseph’s staff, he prefigured the power of the kingdom that would come through the Cross, blessing also his grandsons, and by placing his hands in a cross-wise, alternating manner, he inscribed the blessing of the sign of the Cross. And the wooden ark certainly saved Moses, as if from another deluge—he, who having become great in virtue and having been entrusted with the protection of the people, performed signs and portents by the type of the Cross, at one time changing his rod into a serpent, so as to show the Cross through the rod and, through the figure of the serpent, the one D who hung upon it in the likeness of a serpent; another time, by the cross-like extension of his hands, giving a cessation to the plagues with which he was lashing Egypt. For there was no other way for the disgusting corruption of the frogs to be wiped out, than by the sign of the Cross. For those who consider the extension of the hands of the lawgiver—you will certainly understand that the enigma speaks to you—are able to perceive through the lawgiver the true Lawgiver, and through the extension of the hands, him who extended his hands upon the Cross. Those, therefore, who for a short time live with these filthy and frog-like thoughts, if they were to see him who extended his hands for our sake, are delivered from their wicked cohabitation, with the passion having been mortified and destroyed.
A it was that the tangible could be dissolved, had not Moses stretched out his hands. Just as, indeed, the foul stench of sin could not have been wiped away, and the darkness of impiety could not have been dissolved, had not Christ, the Lawgiver, stretched out his hands upon the cross. But also, by commanding Moses to smear the doorpost and the side-posts on either side with the blood of the lamb, so that they might be able to escape the destroyer, he prefigured the threefold cross, anointed with the blood of the Lamb who was sacrificed for us, through whom we have escaped the destroyer. And what of the crossing of the Red Sea, and the double holding-back of the water by the rod, occurring in a straight line in the dividing of the wave, but crosswise in the restoration of the water? Did it not clearly manifest the cross and the baptism, through which the Israelite people are saved, while the Egyptian army of sin is submerged? And indeed, the wood cast by B Moses into Marah, which made the undrinkable water sweet, was the cross, through which the Law, according to the most holy Cyril, has become potable and sweet: "For the letter kills," says the Apostle, "being bitter, unless it be transformed into the sweetness of the Spirit." And the foreigner Amalek would have routed Israel, had not Moses shaped himself according to the cross. And the intelligible Amalek was powerful over our nature until the Master stretched out his palms upon the cross. But also the rod of Aaron itself, having blossomed, manifested the holy cross, which blossomed with our salvation. And hearing of Phinehas with one stroke of the spear striking the Midianitish woman—
A Mosaic rod, striking the sea in the likeness of a cross,
Saving Israel, while drowning Pharaoh.
O Christ the King, who by your pure palms once lifted,
In the likeness of a cross, through your servant Moses upon the mountain,
Subdued Amalek with all his might.
C D [index: entries preserved]
A Indeed, if Moses had not fashioned himself in the likeness of a cross, he would not have prevailed. And in a similar way, that intelligible Amalek oppressed our nature with his power until the Lord stretched out his hands upon the cross. Furthermore, the burgeoning rod of Aaron, which also brought forth fruit, foreshadowed the cross, which brought us salvation through its bud. B And when we hear from Phinehas that with a single thrust of a spear (69) a Midianitish woman was pierced together with the lascivious Hebrew, we observe the cross being depicted. For a spear consists of wood and the iron with which it is armed, through which two, together with the nails, the cross is figured, which did away with sin together with its author. But that the devil should be likened to an Israelite, let no one wonder; for he too was created as a mind contemplating God, but having sprited away from the angelic station C of his own accord, clinging to the inclination toward evil, he became a rebel against himself (71). But how should I pass over in silence that which clearly contains the mystery? I speak of the cluster and the wood in which it was suspended. D For when Moses sent out spies to view the land of promise, he also sent with them the boy Jesus, Joshua, who was leading the scouting. But when Jesus returned, reporting good news concerning that land, he made the cluster which he carried a sign of his report. Do you understand to what the enigma is looking? For a cluster hanging on wood, what else is it but the cluster in the end of days hung upon the wood, whose blood becomes a saving draught to those who believe? This has been foretold to us by Moses through an enigma, for he said the blood of the grape, through which the saving passion is manifested.
A And that this was also signified by the bronze serpent note: the Latin text here refers to the serpent suspended from a column, though the Greek text mentions the rod/pole, that dispeller of the destruction caused by venomous bites, we have learned from the sublime voice of the Gospel: "For as," it says, "Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up." And the Gibeonites, whom Joshua the son of Nun appointed as wood-gatherers for the divine tabernacle, depicted the portion of the Gentiles approaching the true inheritor of divine promises, Jesus, by whom they were saved and taught to carry wood—that is, to bear the saving word of the Cross upon the shoulders of the virtues and to minister to the tabernacle of faith. B If you wish to examine the historical accounts of the Scriptures and advance from the bodily to the spiritual, and transfer the letter to the hidden meaning, you will find that women also symbolically demonstrated the power of the Cross. For Tamar, that foreigner, having lived with two brothers and remaining childless, tricked her father-in-law through an artifice, stealing the nobility of the Israelite seed. Having made her father-in-law her lover, she took his staff as a pledge, which later became her deliverer from death. For had she not displayed the staff of Judah, she would not have been released from slaughter. Tamar, therefore, typified the Church from the Gentiles, which, having previously lived as it were with two evil brothers—atheism and polytheism—since it brought forth no fruit of piety, seized the fruit from Judah; I mean the Lord who rose from the tribe of Judah, and received the Cross as a staff, through which it has been redeemed from the death of the soul. Moreover, the admirable Jael among the judges, having transfixed the enemy Sisera with a stake, prefigured the destruction of the devil through the Cross. And Elijah, the zealot of the prophets, sent to a widow woman in Sidonia to be fed, C sees his hostess outside the gate of the city. She confirmed with an oath that there was nothing with her except a handful of flour and a little oil in a jar. "And behold," she says, "I am collecting two pieces of wood, so that I may prepare D [the meal]... [index: entries preserved]
A for myself and my son." Since therefore the Sun of Justice has ascended, the sun of injustice does not burn you, for you have the "Song of Degrees": "The sun shall not burn you by day," and from the Bride of the Song of Songs: "Do not look upon me, because I am blackened, because the sun has looked down upon me." Thus, he who performs the opposites of the Sun of Justice lacks the power to illuminate, and least of all does he know how to give life; rather, he blackens and dries up, bringing upon one the heat of sin. For this reason the great Isaiah covers the heads of the faithful with sunshades, B warding off the blackening scorching heat of such a sun.
"And another [seed] fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up together and choked it." Perhaps the earth brought forth such thorns after the transgression of the first-created one, when the divine voice declared: "Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth for you." For there, Scripture called the flesh of Adam the earth, overgrown with many thorns, by which it is lacerated and beset with prickles. Woe is me, for he who sowed bastard tares over the good fruits, as was revealed in another parable, brought these thorns upon us. For there too the householder sowed the good seed, but the enemy, watching for the time when men were held by sleep, sowed the useless[seed] into the good, and cast the tares right in the middle of the wheat, which he here called thorns. For the divine utterances hold together among themselves, and agree in the same meanings, even if they differ in their words. By the thorns, therefore, which choke the spiritual seed, let the motley collection of six hundred evils be understood, which sprout from anger and concupiscence; C cares, anxieties, sorrows, calamities, and the many kinds of passions which arise from these, through which good deeds, even if they begin to sprout in the soul, remain without reaching maturity and do not advance to the height of perfection.
"And another fell into good ground, and having sprung up, it produced fruit a hundredfold." Do you see the same seed scattered by the same farmer, and yet not showing the same fruit-bearing? What then? Is this the fault of the farmer? And who would descend to such perversity of mind as to entertain these thoughts and blather about this? But just as the same water, poured into one and the same meadow, nourishes diverse kinds of plants, and the power that waters each individual plant is one and the same, yet the peculiar condition of those things which are watered changes the moisture into different qualities: for the same water becomes bitter in the wormwood, and in the bean it changes into a corrupting juice D, and in the rose it turns red, while in the lily it turns white, and here it is warmed, there it cools; and as many things as may be seen in the earth germinating from one and the same moisture.
So too, the same Word of God, being cast like a seed into the souls of men, advances according to the condition of those who receive it, and either bears fruit, or fails to bring fruit to maturity. Since, however, the holy Matthew has written more accurately regarding the fruitfulness of the good earth, stating that it yielded a hundredfold, sixtyfold, and thirtyfold, it is worth inquiring what this threefold difference in agriculture means.
A Those, therefore, who have undergone the contests of athletes and have been tested like gold in the furnace of torments, whether by suffering such things from a tyrant, like the martyrs who won the prize, or by being delivered by God to the enemy and avenger for trial — in order that their virtue might be set forth, like Job who was renowned for his many struggles, B or who have "melted away their own souls," to speak in the words of the Psalm, "like a spider," and have perpetually "fastened their flesh" with the fear of God, or who have served God blamelessly, and have shone forth with the holiness of chastity—all these indeed have cultivated the first and best agriculture, the hundredfold. For the number one hundred, having the perfect decad multiplied by itself, becomes entirely perfect, indicating the perfection of virtue.
Those who have turned away from fleeting and quickly withering pleasures, yet have not appeared as those who attained the highest, are said to have borne sixtyfold fruit, as having multiplied the six of the divine commandments tenfold, and having been observers of them C as to both what is seen and what is understood. Those, however, who have engaged in marriage and become entangled in worldly affairs, yet have not neglected the activities of virtue, have produced thirtyfold, as though having observed the six of the commandments by an external work. For the number thirty, containing the six five times, signifies through the five the senses, and through the six the commandments, through which the righteous become heirs of the kingdom of heaven, just as the Judge seated upon the throne has enumerated them. Whoever, therefore, has fed the hungry, given drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked, brought the stranger under a roof, and shown the expected visitation to the sick and to those in prison—if he does these things as they appear to the senses, he is said to have cultivated the thirtyfold; but if, in addition to what is apparent, he also performs them spiritually, feeding the needy with the bread of charity D and giving them to drink with the word of doctrine, and clothing him who is naked of virtue with the honesty of character, and bringing back to the heavenly fatherland him who is an exile,
A by the ascending line from the middle upwards signifying the cross; by the lowering motion, that which reaches from the middle downwards; and by the extremities of the sea, those parts extending sideways after the connection on both sides. And Solomon’s wisdom, when speaking about true wisdom, that it is a tree of life, manifested the cross itself. Isaiah, hinting at this, said: "He shall lift up a sign for the nations," and explaining the power of the sign, he says, "He will gather the dispersed of Israel from the four wings of the earth," B hinting at the four projections of the cross. But even the very types of wood from which the composition of the cross was made heralded the glory of the Only-Begotten within it, saying, "With the cypress, and the pine, and the cedar together, I will glorify my holy place." Jeremiah, the most passionate of the prophets, describes the Christ-killers exhorting each other: "Come, let us cast the wood into his bread," indicating the cross by the wood, and the saving flesh by the bread. For He Himself is the bread that came down from heaven. Zechariah, having been placed in a vision of the saving passion, and thinking he clearly saw the Savior nailed to the cross, asks in this way: "What are these wounds in the midst of thy hands?" And he receives the response to the questioning: "With which I was wounded in the house of my beloved." Since, therefore, the mystery concerning the cross is observed in the Law and the Prophets, the Gospel reasonably says that not one iota or one tittle shall pass away from the Law, but it is more stable than heaven and earth: signifying through these words the line that is horizontal and that which is vertical, by which the figure of the cross is inscribed. For it was necessary, it was necessary not only for nature to be led by the hand through hearing to the understanding of the Divinity, but also for sight to become a teacher of higher thoughts, so that the cross might become a theologian to those who are more perceptive, as it displays the whole of creation B in cypress, and pine, and cedar together, to glorify my holy place.
HOMILY IV
[GREEK COLUMN] τῷ σχήματι. Ὅθεν καὶ ὁ μέγας Ἀπόστολος ὁρμη- B θεὶς ἐπεύχεται μυσταγωγηθῆναι τὸν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ λαόν, τί τὸ βάθος, καὶ ὕψος, καὶ μῆκος, καὶ πλάτος, ἑκάστην τοῦ σταυροῦ προβολὴν ἰδίῳ σημάνας ὀνό- ματι. Ἀλλ', ὦ τρισόλβιον ξύλον, τῆς παλαιᾶς κατάρας λυτήριον. Ὦ θεῖε σταυρὲ καὶ μακάριε, ὡς γὰρ ἐμ- ψύχω σοι διαλέγομαι! ὦ σκήπτρον οὐράνιον βασι- λέων ὅπλον ἄμαχον, ἱερέων εὐπρέπεια, Χριστιανῶν κράτος, νηπίων φύλαξ, σωφροσύνη νεότητος, βακτη- ρία γήρως, καὶ κόσμου ἀσφάλεια· κράτυνον τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου τοὺς πιστοὺς ἡμῶν βασιλεῖς· ἐνίσχυσον αὐτοὺς κατὰ τῶν ἀθέων Ἰσμαηλιτῶν τὴν σὴν ἀθετούντων προσκύνησιν· ἡμᾶς δὲ τοὺς ἐν τῇ θείᾳ σου ἀνυψώ- σει συναθροισθέντας, τὴν σήμερον, τῇ θείᾳ σου προσ- ψαύσει ἁγίασον, καὶ διατήρησον ἀσινεῖς ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ἀντιπάλου ἐπιβουλῆς καὶ ποιμένα καὶ ποίμνιον, λατρεύοντας τῷ ἐν σοὶ ἑκουσίως παγέντι Χριστῷ τῷ ἀληθινῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν, τῷ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Πνεύματι δοξαζομένῳ, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ, καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.
ΟΜΙΛΙΑ Ε'.
Ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν Κυριακῇ πρώτῃ εἰς τὸ • Ἑστὼς ὁ Ἰησοῦς παρὰ τὴν λίμνην Γενη- σαρέτ, εἶδε δύο πλοῖα, καὶ τὰ λοιπά. Ἐπειδήπερ ἀρχὴν εἰλήφει σήμερον ὑπαναγινώ- σκεσθαι τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν Εὐαγγέλιον πολλὰ ἔτη, πολυχρόνιον, Ἀδιαλείπτως εὔχομαι ἐν πολλαῖς ἐτῶν περιό- δοις τὸ κράτος διαφυλάττεσθαι τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς βασιλέως ἡμῶν. εὐχόμενον ἐν βαθεῖ γήρᾳ τὴν τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείαν τῆς ἐπὶ γῆς ἀνταλλάξεσθαι συνελεύσεως πολλὰ ἔτη πολυχρόνιον Τὴν ἴσην δὲ ὑμῖν πλουσίαν ἄγω παρά- κλησιν, ἵνα ἐκτενῆ ποιεῖσθε, καὶ ἅπαυστον τὴν πρὸς Θεὸν ἱκετησίαν, καὶ δέησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν φιλοχρίστων καὶ γαληνοτάτων ἡμῶν βασιλέων τῶν θεόθεν τῆς βασιλείας λαχόντων τοὺς οἴακας, ὅπως αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεὸς ἐτῶν μὲν πληθὺν πολλὴν προσχαρίσηται, νίκας τε παίδων παισὶ αὐτοὺς στεφανώσειε, καὶ εἰρήνῃ θεϊκῇ χαρακώσειε, καὶ σκήπτρα μάλιστα δὲ Σαρακηνῶν ὀφρὺν καταβράττοντα.[LATIN COLUMN] cius optat, ut Ephesi populus edoceatur, quid sit A profunditas et altitudo et longitudo et latitudo, quodlibet crucis extremum proprio signans nomine. At o ter felix lignum, antiquae maledictionis vindex! o divina et beata crux! tecum enim, ut cum re animata colloquar, o coeleste sceptrum, regum inexpugnabilis armatura, sacerdotum decus, Christianorum robur, infantium custos, temperantia ju- ventutis, baculus senectutis, mundique tutamen: corrobora virtute tua fideles nostros imperato- res, eosque contra impios Ismaelitas tuam adorationem contemptui habentes confirma: nos autem ad celebrandam tuam sanctam exaltationem hodie congregatos tuo contactu sanctifica, et pa- storem simul et gregem ab adversarii incursu incolu- mes praesta, servientes ei qui in te voluntarie fixus est, Christo vero Deo nostro, qui cum Patre, et Spiritu glorificatur nunc et semper, et in saecula sae- culorum. Amen.
HOMILY V.
Ex Evangelio secundum Lucam, Dominica prima, in illa verba: ‹Stans Jesus secundum sta- gnum Genesaret vidit duas naves,› et reliqua. Quoniam hodie in Ecclesia Evangelium ex Luca coeptum est recitari (sic enim faciendum B [omitted: see note 84] ...ut per multos annorum circuitus pio impera- tori nostro conservet imperium. Et hom. De ramis Palmarum, precantes ut in summa senectute regnum hoc terrenum cum coelesti commutet. Ex quibus locis habemus hoc in concionibus factitatum; nihil vero solemnius ac tritius in conciliis oecumenicis, quam in fine cujusque imperatoribus una voce C acclamare. Sicut et in epistolis synodicis hunc animadverti usum. Placet huc transcribere verba S. Sophronii patriarchae Hierosolymit., quae maxime con- gruunt huic Theophanis loco; orat siquidem ille Etiam contra Saracenos virtutem a Deo impera- tori corroborari; sedit enim S. Sophronius anno 635, quo jam eruperat ex Arabia colluvies Sara- cenorum, a quibus cum capta fuisset Hierosolyma, sanctus Sophronius moerore confectus obit. Sic itaque in extremo epistolae S. Sophronius : Equalem autem vobis lentam postulationem offero, ut instantem ad Deum obsecrationem ac deprecationem faciatis pro aman- tibus Christi serenissimis nostris imperatoribus, qui a Deo clavum imperii acceperunt, ut illis Deus plurimos largiatur annos et de Barbaris victorias multas, et trophaea concedat, et ipsos in filiorum filiis coronet, et pace divina circumdet, et sceptra fortia atque potentia praebeat, quae Barbarorum quidem D omnium maxime vero Saracenorum confringant arrogantiam.A (thus indeed the Fathers from above devised, that the Gospel according to John should be proclaimed from that very bright day of the Resurrection until the feast on which the descent of the Holy Spirit is celebrated; and that the divine Matthew should have written that which begins from thence, to conclude at the end of the year; and that from then on the Church should be instructed in the mysteries by the great Luke, leaving Mark the divine herald for the time of the fasts), come let us inquire what a Gospel is, and to what the four Gospels correspond, and why there are four. The Gospel, therefore, is a pre-delineation of the life stemming from the resurrection, fashioning us toward the life to come through a virtuous manner of living. And let us say to what they correspond, following the discourse of Maximus, who was wise in divine matters. Since the holy formation of the Gospels has been given to humanity, and man is a small world: B What the ether is, that is to say the fiery element, in the sensible world, this in the world of the intellect is prudence, as an illuminating habit, and one receptive of the spiritual accounts proper to each of the things that exist, revealing through them the cause in all things without error, and drawing the desire of the soul toward the divine; and what the air is in the sensible world, this in the world of the intellect is fortitude, as a habit that is moving and at once preservative and active of the innate life according to the Spirit, and toning the soul's perpetual motion toward the divine; and what water is in the sensible world, this in the world of the intellect is temperance, being a habit generative of the vital fruitfulness in the Spirit, and the producer of the ever-gushing erotic enchantment of the desire toward the divine; and what the earth is in the sensible world, this in the world of the intellect is justice, being a habit generative according to species of all the accounts in existing things, and the distributor of the vital partition in the Spirit according to equality for each; and the immovable foundation of its own base in what is good according to the proposition. It is said by the wise that man is a certain small world containing within him these elements with which the all is completed; Adam C D [alt-version omitted]
A is acknowledged by those outside, and by our own, as possessing that which belongs to the sensible world and that which belongs to the intelligible world, and accordingly the Gospels have not exceeded the number four. Four are the elements that fill up this sensible world; four are the general virtues that adorn the intelligent part within us. And whatever the ether is in the sensible world, such is prudence in the world of the mind; a habit having the power of illuminating, and of suggesting the spiritual reasons for things in each of the beings. With the ether, therefore, and with prudence, the sacred Gospel according to John holds a mystical proportion, as being the highest of all, and introducing, in a mystical way, a simple faith and understanding regarding God. And whatever air is, such is fortitude, as a motive habit, and one that preserves the life innate according to the spirit. Therefore, the Gospel according to Luke [holds a proportion] with air and fortitude, as being more circular and adorned with more histories. B And whatever water is among sensible things, such is temperance among virtues, a habit productive of fruitfulness in the spirit. The Gospel according to Mark holds a proportion with water and temperance, as [it goes from the east, to the north, and by the south]. As it were a certain second world, great in small things, he sets man upon the earth C as a manifestation of spiritual discourses. That in each of the beings there is strength, and a noble thing it is to die. According to worth, and as he suffers, and the brave man acts. He cast in anger; a motive habit, D and one preserving the life innate according to the spirit.
and to starting from the baptism of John and the repentance preached by him, according to which temperance is established. And as is the earth, so is justice: a habit of the foundation in the good, which is immovable and an unchangeable installation. The Gospel according to Matthew therefore corresponds to the earth and justice, as it forms the discourse more naturally.
These things having been thus clarified for us, come now, let us handle the words that have been read: "At that time, Jesus standing by the lake of Gennesaret saw two boats standing by the lake."
Homily V
He began to gather disciples from Galilee; for from there Peter, and Andrew, and Philip, and the sons of Zebedee are brought. Perhaps He was honoring the land that nourished Him, or perhaps He was setting this as a sign, that it was from this unstable life and the rot of revolving affairs that He collected the apostles. For Galilee is interpreted as "revolving." And furthermore, that He saw them in the lake and caught them from there leads to this thought, that the discourse signifies the flowing and turbulent zeal of life. He sees, therefore, two boats standing by the lake. For the fishermen who presided over both boats, having labored through the whole night— And "The streams of the ocean, just as generation to all things serves."[Translator's note: The Latin column provided for this specific page contains different content—a commentary on the symbols of the Evangelists—which the provided OCR indicates is a "Homily V" whereas the Greek text here transitions into the Gospel of Luke. Per instructions to translate the content ONCE working from both witnesses, and noting the Greek and Latin texts here are divergent, I have rendered the primary Greek sequence provided for the opening of this page segment.]
they having caught nothing, leaving the boats, rested, washing the nets, as having caught nothing. The Master therefore comes, and he A enters into the boat of Simon, and asked him to put out a little, and sitting, he taught the crowds from the boat. Why, wishing to speak to them from the boat? Because the assembly was a great multitude, so that the crowds not running around in a circle, the teaching might become unheard to the many, he entered into the small boat and set them all before his face. Having ceased from speaking, he commands those around Simon to lead out into the deep, and to let down the net for a catch. They, however, say: "Throughout the whole night we having labored, we took nothing, but upon thy word we shall let down the net," and having done this they enclosed a great multitude of fishes. This, then, is the paradox of the history. But we, having drawn back the scriptural curtain, let us fix our mind upon the contemplation. For the Word exhorts us also to lead back the history upon the depth of the meanings, and to let down the net of the Word for a catch of contemplation. What, then, does our weak net catch? The lake of Gennesaret is the turbulent life of men, the suburb of the ruler of this world. For Gennesaret is interpreted as "garden of rulers," since the demons who ruled the world claimed this for themselves as their own property. B In this, then, the life-lake, the two boats were sailing, the people from the nations, and those from the Jews. And the natural law stood over those from the nations, while the written law over those from Israel. But both having transgressed each, and having achieved nothing, they caused the laws to be ineffectual. And the lawgivers (indeed) washed the nets, as having been able to catch nothing. For the Savior also commanded the disciples to shake off the dust from their feet of the city that had not received the preaching. But the phrase, "Through the whole night working we took nothing," is to be understood thus: It was the night of the ignorance of God throughout the whole time before the *oikonomia* (dispensation/incarnation), during which the prophets, having labored much, did not persuade anyone to enter inside the nets of the knowledge of God. But that it was night...
before the presence of Christ, Paul cries out: "The night is far spent, the day is at hand." A Since, therefore, the Sun of Righteousness rising brought about morning, then indeed, then the apostolic net that was cast—the Gospel preaching, I say—gathered the rational catch. But how were those in the other boat taken along, so that the net might not be rent? "For the net was being broken," he says, "so as not to be able to draw it up, and they beckoned to their partners who were in the other boat, to come and help them." What, then, does this hint at? Many have attempted to break the Gospel net, such as was the most impious Arius, who rent the tunic of the Only-Begotten, according to the manifestation that happened to the primate of Alexandria; who dared shamelessly to divide Him from the Father's essence and count Him among the creatures. Such as after him became Eunomius, and Macedonius, and Apollinarius, and the rest of the list of heresiarchs, by whom the net of doctrine was in danger of being rent. But there arrived helpers from the other boat, those from the Gentiles, clearly, who refuted the absurdities of the heretics and their persuasiveness with the wisdom of words. Of this sort was the great Dionysius, B the wise Hierotheus, Justin and Clement, preeminently C D
Notes of Franciscus Scorus
in his annotations to John Cyparissiota, chapter 1, which indeed adheres most to the force of the word that pertains to family affairs. But we have taken it in the most ample sense, relying on the authority of ancient writers, even profane ones. But others besides the Greeks have called this mystery by this Greek word or by some Latin one corresponding to it. Thus, you will often read it called *oikonomia* in the Council of Florence when the subject is under discussion. St. Leo the Great, when in his sermons and letters he repeatedly calls that [mystery] the dispensation of the Incarnation undertaken, refers to the Greek *oikonomia*. St. Hilary expressly refers to it in book XII of *De Trinitate*: "But as we have taught in the preceding books, the heretics seize upon the dispensation of the assumed body to the contumely of the Divinity." St. Jerome, in his letter to Oceanus and Pammachius, made this word Latin, writing of Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea: "He introduced a half-measure economy of Christ"; naturally, since he gave us only half of Christ—namely, the flesh—while he denied that He had assumed a soul, and asserted that the Word was in its place; he was condemned by Pope Damasus and often refuted by Gregory Nazianzen. Therefore, we will be thought to have rightly rendered *oikonomia* as the Incarnation of Christ. And if in other places we have rendered the same word as "economy" or "disposition of divine counsel," or for the sake of varying the expression in a similar way, we will not differ from the usage of the Holy Fathers, whether Greek or Latin. It will be helpful to explain the usage of this word or its primary origin exactly as the most learned Franciscus Turrianus provides. That explanation will lead to the understanding of the six hundred places in the Holy Fathers. Therefore, *oikonomia* properly and by the reason of the voice signifies the dispensation and administration of family affairs; it is also extended to the government of cities, and sometimes to oratorical and poetic disposition itself, and to the order of speaking, and generally to any human business. But the sacred writers, especially the Greeks, used it also to signify divine business and the divine disposition or providence; and this usage seems to me to be derived from St. Paul, who uses the word in the Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 1, verse 10: "Which he proposed in him in the dispensation” (εἰς οἰκονομίαν), "of the fullness of times to re-establish all things in Christ," that is, after the times were finished and completed which he himself had disposed, in which he was to re-establish all things through Christ. And chapter 3, verse 2: "If yet you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward," where *oikonomia* signifies the very administration of preaching the Gospel and of dispensing the grace of Christ entrusted to St. Paul, according to that to the Corinthians (1): "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." And Ephesians 3, 9: "To enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things"; where it should be read *oikonomia*, not *koinonia*, with the Latin interpreter and the Greek Fathers, and from the Royal Bibles, as Cornelius a Lapide notes on this place; so that the dispensation of the mystery signifies the admirable disposition and providence of God, who decreed to call the Gentiles to the true worship and to save the entire human race through the incarnation, birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. This disposition, therefore, by way of excellence, the Holy Fathers simply call *oikonomia*. And this explanation of ours does not differ much from that of those who, by the order of Maximinus, were beheaded as martyrs. Regarding this appearance offered to him in a vision, see Baronius in the year of Christ 310, and other ecclesiastical writers. If anyone is ignorant of something regarding the holiest Fathers and desires to know it, let him read the writers of ecclesiastical history: butA they who shone forth in their time, who assisted in the preaching, and filled the Church. But if it pleases you, let us resume the thread of the history. B "And when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." For amazement seized him. Peter, indeed, when he saw such a great catch of fish, being struck with fear, out of great reverence for Him, begged the Lord to depart from the boat. And he heard in answer: "Do not be afraid; from henceforth thou shalt be catching men." But having reached this point, I have remembered a certain delirium of the Greeks. For those who raved against the Church, and attempted to tear apart this holy net, among other blasphemies which they belched forth from their foul soul, added this also. If the disciples, they say, are commanded to catch men after the manner of fish, as here: "Thou shalt be catching men," and elsewhere: "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men," and fishers lead fish from life into death—for water is life to those that live in the water, but air is death, just as the opposite is true for those on the land—if this is true, they say, then the disciples of Jesus, by catching men through preaching, deliver them to destruction and death, as they do fish. These things the impure, rash, and mocking tongue of the renegade Julian says, under whose lips C is the poison of asps, and whose teeth are weapons and arrows, as the Psalm says. Such sophisms are merely the barking of rabid dogs and the hissing of venomous serpents, with which they tear to pieces the truth with foolish paralogisms. For it was necessary to perceive... D [index: entries preserved]
for one who prides himself on dialectic, that goods are sometimes set forth in symbols and names similar to those of evil things, though they do not admit the same manner of action. For he who violates a strange bed and he who joins in lawful wedlock both engage in the same intercourse; yet the lawful union is not on that account subject to the same condemnation as adultery. The thief kills the wayfarer, and the judge kills the robber; both have performed a killing, but as much as the one is unjust, so much does the other partake of the justice of the judge. Thus, therefore, both [the command] “You shall be catching men” and [the promise] “I will make you fishers of men,” insofar as the fishing is concerned, share the same name; but after the fishing, they differ in the matter itself. For the catch of fish ends in death, but [the catch] of men ends in life. If you wish, let us not even change the example, but just as in the fishing of fish that irrational creature dies, but the rational nature of men is nourished by it, so too the evangelical catch ordains that the irrational impulses within us should die, but that the reason should be brought to life through the mortification of the earthly mind. Thus it works both ways: both death and life. And perhaps this is what was said in Deuteronomy from the person of God: “I will kill and I will make alive;” I will abolish the old lodging of sin, and I will bring to life the new image of piety. But also a certain Hebrew prophetess says: “The Lord kills and makes alive.” May it be granted to us also to kill the law of the flesh within us, which wars against the law of the spirit, and may our souls be brought to life through the manner of life according to God in Christ our God, to whom belongs all glory forever. Amen.
HOMILY VI. Concerning the widow’s son.
While I was meditating on making a different subject the proemium of this discourse, my mind turned to something else, O assembly gathered for God! For when I cast my eye toward the left choir of the Church, and saw the place empty of our brother, whom the sickle of death recently cut down, I was overcome and filled with tears. For I am not strong enough to struggle against the separation brought about by the death of friends; but I am truly unphilosophical, and this immediately convicts me of being outside our philosophy A, for just as the same orator (for he also celebrated the funeral procession with orations for his sister Gorgonia, and for his father, and for his dearest Basil) declares this to be alien to our philosophy. For the memory of the just, he continues in the oration concerning his brother Caesarius, [is to be treated] with praises; and "weep for the dead, and begin to mourn as if having suffered terrible things," equally setting us apart, specifically, from both insensibility and immoderate grief. B C But as Theophanes himself testifies, he pursues the mourning of his deceased brother in the exordium, whom St. Bernard in Sermon 26 on the Canticles, and St. Ambrose in a work, have followed—the former on account of the death of his brother Gerard, the latter of Satyrus—both of whom were most dear to each. For it is not contrary to Christian philosophy to express natural feeling for the separation of those most conjoined in death, especially with tears and words. For, as Gregory Nazianzen says, D this is alien to our philosophy. [alt-version omitted]A And the tears flow. And the inward parts are turned, and the heart is torn asunder, considering the fleeting nature of our life. For are human things not more powerless than a shadow? Do they not vanish away like deceptive dreams? Where is that priestly countenance? Where the firmness of age? Where the brightness of the eyes, shimmering with a mild light-blue color? Where the slight aquiline shape of the nose, and royal, according to Plato? Where the comely gray hair, and the sweetness of speech, and the charm? Why do I not say what is greater? Where the varied melody of the psalmody? For whom did he not charm when he mingled graces into the psalmic songs? Have not all these things passed by, like one awaking from a dream, and faded away, and gone? But may God grant him the eternal tabernacles, and the rest owed to the just; but we shall lay hold of the customary instruction. "At that time, Jesus went into a city called B Naim." (Luke vii, 11 sqq.) Since the subject of the youth in the city of Naim who had risen again is set before us today for instruction (for this the holy Luke recounted), come, O assembly gathered by God, let us first ask what the resurrection of the dead signifies in the Savior. For if it is believed that death transfers man from perishable and earthly things to a life free from passion (for the punishment of death has become a philanthropy according to the voice of the Theologian, washing away the nature of irrational creatures attached to the soul), what benefit, then, is it to bring back to this life full of passions one who has once been freed from the bonds of this laborious life? C We say that it is a natural and moral [philosophy], a training and exercise. Philosophy is the correction of character, with the true perception of the knowledge of what is. Or does one not act thus toward the beautiful? He who is called snub-nosed will be termed charming by us, while you say that his aquiline nose is royal. "If we are thus-minded, O mother, we shall neither be puffed up about life, nor be excessively grieved at death. What then have we suffered that is terrible, if we have migrated from here to the true life, if, freed from toils, and dizzies, and surfeits, and from that shameful exaction of tribute, we shall be with the stable, and not with the falling, to be small lights dancing around the great Light?" Furthermore, one gains something in this: the death, and the D cessation of sin, so that evil may not be immortal; and the punishment becomes philanthropy. For thus I am persuaded that God punishes: by cleansing away the nature of the irrational creatures attached to the soul.
HOMILY VI
A We say, therefore, following the voices of the Fathers, that this was done by the dispensation and sure counsel of God and the Savior, in order to confirm the resurrection by works, and to show it not only through words but also through deeds. Since the miracle of the resurrection is great and beyond belief, starting from lesser things, He gradually incites human faith toward greater things. Just as those who teach children, leading their pupils by a certain path and congruent method, at first teach them the simple elements, and when they have been excited by these, they instruct them in syllables, and thus thereafter advance them to words and discourse; in this manner also the Lord first heals diseases and puts demons to flight; then He restores to the maimed and weak their integrity of senses; then, to those whose diseases were desperate and who were already neighbor to death, He graciously brings salvation—which He accomplished in the case of Peter’s mother-in-law and the centurion’s boy. And having thus paved the way for the mystery of the resurrection, He manifests it more clearly through the present miracle. B There was a city in Judea called Naim; and in it there was an only son to a certain widow. Truly, if I were to exchange the words of the Nyssen A in this place, I would be downright insane. The boy was no longer of the company of children, but one who had already passed out of the stage of youths and was approaching manly age. Sacred history calls him a young man; and it embraces many things in few words, and the narrative is almost a lamentation. The widow, he says, was the mother of this dead boy. What then…
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus
In these notes, I have used "Salvatoris" instead of "Servatoris" throughout, moved especially by the exhortation of Father Julius Nigronius of the Society of Jesus, who in the booklet in which he explains the Rules of our Society, has a brilliant dissertation on this matter. He not only takes away the scruple from those who think their writings are deformed by the name of Savior as being less Latin, but also instills piety into them, so that they might not appear less pious and grateful toward the Savior Himself. Primarily, he proves that the word *Salvator* is not altogether abhorrent to the Latin tongue, since it is read on a certain ancient stone. Secondarily, he shows that even if it savored less of Latinity, the word should nevertheless be used, because the name *Servator* expresses less of the power of the benefit received from Christ the Lord. Beyond the arguments adduced by him, which I do not gather here, it becomes clear by the authority of M. Tullius [Cicero], who was the father and patron of the Latin tongue, who in his *Orationes in Verrem* (Actio II, Book 2) says thus: "I saw that he was inscribed at Syracuse not only as a patron of that island, but even as a *Soter*." C How great this is! So great that it cannot be expressed by one Latin word. For he is the *Soter* who has given salvation. Paul Manutius said on this passage: "It is established by the interpreter Cicero himself that *Soter* is a Greek name, and that it signifies one who has given salvation; whence it is clear that the error is common among those who call Jesus Christ, whose immortal merits cannot be expressed in Latin by the one word *salvator*, by the name *Servator*; for to save is one thing, to give salvation is another. He saves who, by some means, ensures that salvation is not lost; he gives salvation who restores it once lost." I thought this note should be devoted to the cult and the right, pious usage of the name Jesus, that is, Savior. Theophanes professes that he wishes to do just this, as you will read in the book *On the Creation of Man*, chapter 26, from those words: "Ην οὖν" up to those: "πάντα". Since you read the same things in this of ours, D you will recognize the description of the dead young man and the sorrowful mother by the Nyssen, as if Theophanes had expanded, in his own fashion, what was begun by the Nyssen, and with a truly tragic hypotyposis, with many prosopopoeias inserted, had submitted the calamity of the widowed mother to his listeners. I would not have this thought to have been done by a serious ecclesiast merely for the display of eloquence and the captivation of the listeners’ delight, but so that it might be understood by being clearly set forth with how great reason Christ, moved to mercy, raised the dead young man even though not asked. John Maldonatus, the most brilliant interpreter of the Gospels of our Society, well notes that this was also the intention of St. Luke; for the Evangelist himself described the same calamity in few but all-encompassing words, and touched upon four circumstances by which it might seem huge that the young man had died while still in the flower of his age, that he was the only son of his mother (for if she had had other children, the death of one would not have brought her so much pain), that the mother was a widow who, bereft of both husband and children, was being left deserted, and that she was a wealthy and leading woman whom a great crowd of people was following at the son's funeral; thus she had no one to appoint as heir after her death—which is usually a great consolation for the rich at the time of death. "These things," says Maldonatus, "are not narrated so minutely by the evangelist to teach us by what causes Christ approached him of His own accord to recall him from death." I interpret that our Theophanes also used this intention in this oratorical amplification, which he himself shows well enough in those words which he added after the mother's grief had been amplified: "And when He (Jesus) saw the widow, half-naked, covered in blood and tears, His bowels were moved, as one who was by nature merciful, because of the kindness that was in Him toward man."
B There, He described the tragedy of the suffering. For what is the meaning of what is said? There was no hope of child-bearing for her to heal the calamity concerning the one who had departed; for the woman was a widow. She had no one else to look to in place of the one who had passed away; for her offspring was an only child. How great the evil is in this case, it is easy to perceive for anyone not alienated from nature. In travail alone she acknowledged him; to him alone she had offered the breast; he alone made her table cheerful; he alone was the object of the merriment in the house, playing, being earnest, practicing, beaming in processions, in wrestling schools, in the gatherings of youth. Whatever was sweet and precious to the eyes of a mother, he alone was that. He was already reaching the season of marriage—the shoot of the lineage, the branch of succession, the support of old age. But even the addition of his age is another lament. For by saying "a young man," He spoke of the flower of the withered season. He, just now becoming downy with the first beard, not yet filled out to the depth of the chin, still gleaming with beauty on his cheeks. Beloved was the boy, and desired by all. The virgins prayed to become spouses of such a bridegroom; the married ones [prayed] to have such sons. The elders looked upon the young man as their own child. But the widowed mother rejoiced, embracing her son repeatedly, and kissing the flower on his lip and the flush on his cheek, and the curls—now binding them up, now letting them loose for the winds to shake. Perhaps the wretch was even imagining bringing a bride for the handsome youth, and was looking around for virgins, choosing the best one, and dreaming of the crown, and the bridal chamber, and the wedding song. Why, even in the uncertainties of her speech, the boy was her oath: "May I enjoy my only son, may I kiss his crown, may I become the nurse of his children, may I die happily in the hands of my son." But if the mother lived thus, only breathing for her son—her sweet consolation—nevertheless, the violent death rushing upon him cuts short her better hopes, snatching him from life in his very youth. A heavy and tragic passion befell the mother. For with what soul do you think that wretched mother was possessed—if indeed she still had a soul—when she saw her dearest one flickering out, breathing his last, and scarcely able to entrust his final words and farewells to the mother? How shall I represent in my discourse how the young man was, little by little, wasting away in the fierce fever, and the mother stood there, fearful, and the procession of the crowning, the farewell, C D [Francisci Scorsi nota: ...the order, or rite of the coronation of the bridegroom and bride. In the Euchologion of the Greeks, this is long. ...that it was permitted to me to die with a surviving son. Hence the complaint in the old inscription is solemn: "That which it pleased the son to perform for the buried father, this the parent himself performed for none."]
[LATIN COLUMN] the youth might be consumed by a violent fever; the mother meanwhile stood by, lifeless and trembling, with parched vitals, dry lips, dishevelled hair, uncovered breast, tossing between hope and fear; fixed in her gaze upon her son, who was motionless and gasping, and—as it were—failing in soul together with him, until, as the state of his body slipped away by degrees and the natural vigor was exhausted, the spirit being now spent, the youth expired. Who saw this? Who endured it? Who did not depart along with the dying son? As for me, the reflection of this event has raised me up on wings, as it were, so that I seem to be present in that place and to be witnessing the drama. For the whole city of Naim had poured out for the funeral of that youth, and there was a great tumult and a confused sound of lamentation; the groaning of men, the wailing of women, the crying of virgins, the weeping of children; all things were filled with tears. The corpse, moreover, lay stretched out upon the bier, like some tall pine or cypress, struck by the violence of the winds, and uprooted from its very foundations.
A It spread itself out—a pitiable spectacle, and a source of tears—having just changed the rose of its cheeks into paleness, yet even so displaying the remnants of its beauty. The wretched mother, by what she did and what she said, drew forth even more tears from those who looked toward her, just as a bird, seeing its brood being plundered by a snake that has crept in, flies around the nest, mourning, and has no power to defend them. And perhaps the words of Micah were being fulfilled in her: “She shall wail and howl, she shall go stripped and naked, she shall make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the daughters of sirens.” B For, having become frantic from her grief, and as if maddened by this unexpected disaster, she wandered through the streets, tearing at her gray hair, rending her cheeks, striking her breast and head with stones, showing the breasts that had nourished him, and turning to the crowd of people: "Where," she says, "you who are present, have you gathered to see the wedding of my son? Have you come to dance the hymeneal, and have you been eager to share the joy with me? I am grateful for your zeal; but the bridegroom sleeps, rejecting the marriage." She said these things, and tearing her cheeks with her fingernails, she shed a fountain of blood and tears together, and circling the bier of the one lying there, she addressed the dead one as if he were alive: "What path, my son, what long and irreversible path are you traveling? What is such great haste regarding this departure? I was deceived, my child, in imagining for you not a bridal chamber, but a death; and in thinking to kindle not a wedding torch, oh me, but a funeral one. C In vain did I dream of garlands, and a bride, and to see a child as quickly as possible; and I who expected to become a mother-in-law am now not even called a mother. Oh me! Oh me! That I have seen your death, I who ought to have expired in your hands, and to have been honored by your funeral processions. How blessed are the women whose children survive them! Why was I kept for this sight? When will you return to me, oh my vitals? When shall I see you again?" As she said these things, every mother wept, and the fathers lamented. But when they had gone outside the gates of the city, with the multitude following the funeral procession, she saw from afar those who were digging the grave; she rushed, beside herself, toward the bier; and throwing herself upon the corpse, and limb with limb,
fitting her own to the limbs of the boy, she clung to him tightly and kissed him with wailing laments; saying to him: "Such is the bridal chamber, my child, that is being prepared for you! Is this the sort of couch being adorned for you? Arise, dearest one, and listen to your aged mother. Shake off this heavy sleep that has come upon you untimely. Have pity on your mother’s gray hairs and her scorched womb. Woe is me! You are silent; and your sweet mouth is constrained by silence, and darkness is poured over the lamps of your eyes! And will you dwell beneath a rough stone and in deep darkness, while I look upon the sun? Certainly not; it is not fitting. I shall build my hut beside your tomb, and perhaps you will appear to me, and I shall hear you speaking; or rather, I shall be buried with you, my darling, and my aged flesh shall waste away together with your young bones." A Thus she acted out this tragedy, not allowing the funeral of the dead to be hastened, but, wishing to be satiated by her suffering, she extended her wailings over him to a great length. But since I see your eyes moistened with tears from a compassionate mind, and the tone of my own voice is broken by the memory of her words, come, let us wipe away the tears from our eyes and turn to that which is most delightful in the history. B The soul of this youth, then, had passed through the places of Hades, that dark and joyless region, and was wandering about on the earth whose bars are eternal shackles, as the fugitive prophet said. C But the Savior was coming from Capernaum, having just healed the centurion’s servant who was at the sunset of life. He was coming on foot, as was his custom, and was making the journey at a measured pace—simultaneously teaching us not to treat the solemnity of one’s station with insult through a disordered gait, and at the same time confiding that even if they should conceal the dead in a tomb, he would raise him up like Lazarus. And having seen the widow thus half-naked, stained with blood and tears, the One who is by nature a lover of mankind was moved with compassion; D "I went down to the land, whose bars are eternal shackles."
A His pity for man being inherent in him, he utters a word to the woman that is truly full of divine grace: "Do not weep." O divine voice, which lightened such a burden of grief! For if any other person had ordered her not to weep, would she not have rejected the admonition and brushed aside the one who was advising her as an enemy? For grief that is at its peak is incapable of accepting words of consolation, just as the more malignant types of rheumatic diseases only grow worse if one attempts to heal them before they have ripened. For she might perhaps have answered, looking at him with a bitter and gloomy gaze: "O man, how untimely you are! Do you see what beauty death has withered away in a moment, and that I am going to bury my light, the anchor of my life, in the earth, and you command me to philosophize as if in a moderate affliction, and say 'Do not weep'?" B Your heart seems to have been forged from adamant or iron. But the woman suffered no such thing; for as soon as she heard "Do not weep," she ceased her weeping. For what reason? Because, along with the Lord's utterance, a certain sweet consolation was instilled into her soul, stirring her mind toward good hope. She stood, therefore, suspended in expectation of the outcome.
But why do I delay to append the sweet and marvelous part of the narrative? The Author of life arrives, and with his divine hand touches the bier; and those who were carrying it stood still, thinking perhaps that he wished to embrace the dead youth. And he, with a sovereign voice, calls the dead man: "Young man, I say to you, arise." C And immediately, O what a miracle! The bars of the underworld were undone, and the soul leaped forth from the dead, and the corpse sat up, and it leaped from the bier, and all things became new and marvelous. The Charonian tomb remained a cenotaph; those who were digging, throwing down the spade and the mattock, were struck with amazement at such a sight.
Francisci Scorsi's Notes
(20) Consolationum verba non capit: Seneca expressed this force in *Troades*: "Though it lacks reason, and refuses to be bent, deep grief sometimes hates the companions of its own mourning." And the things preceding this in the unique G manuscript: this entire woman's prosopopoeia—the following—has been inserted; yet if these were missing, the sequence of the sentence would hold together so that no one could suspect they are missing, but rather a critic might imagine they were inserted by the ingenuity of another. I, however, because both the prosopopoeia is elegant and is not unlike others to be found here in a serious place, have judged that it was composed by the same genius of the author and came from the same workshop. And finally, because the discourse introduced for the woman demonstrates the force and power inherent in Christ's words, which is the author's scope, I have decided they should be interpolated and edited.
(21) Non tam verbis quam rebus: Opposing that horrid tomb, the future receptacle of a stinking corpse (for this is contained in these two words), to this honorary tomb—that is, it is gathered from Laertius in the *Life of Zeno*, book vi, where according to Zeno's own dogma he says [that a wise man should admire nothing that seems wonderful, such as Charon's gates, the recess of tides, or fountains of springs]. Which words the interpreter renders thus: "Furthermore, that a wise man should admire nothing of those things which appear wonderful, such as Charon’s gates, the recess of tides, and the fountains of water." But what are these "Charon's gates" among the wonders mentioned by Laertius, or Zeno, which he nevertheless forbids the wise man to admire? Now I will open these dark gates, and I will illuminate them, if I first produce what I have read about the word among the grammarians. For in Pollux, book viii, ch. 9, and Phavorinus, and Hesychius, and Suidas, the following is read on the word in almost these same words: "One door of the nomophylakion (that is, the prison, over which the nomophylaces presided) from which those condemned to death are led out to execution." Suidas adds to the words of others a verse from Aristophanes' *Plutus*: "But Charon gives the symbol/token for this reason: you are fated to die." Driven by these words, Thomas Aldobrandinus in his Annotations on those words of Laertius thinks that by "Charon's gates" death is meant in that place, as if to say "the gates of death"; for it is explained this way in Suidas also. But these gates are not yet open; nor do I see how the mention of death fits with the other wonders that follow. Therefore, among Laertius they are pits, or caverns, or chasms exhaling mephitic vapors: such as those in the Puteoli region, which was called by the ancients the Vulcanian Forum and the Phlegraean Fields, where Lake Avernus is, and especially the cave...
where the cadaver was to be brought, he calls the sepulcher by way of likeness. A And the grave is well and signally called Charonian, commonly the "Dog's Grotto," from the experiment made on dogs: for if any living animal falls into that trench and stays for a little while, it expires; but if it is taken out immediately and sprinkled with the water of the lake, it receives back the vital spirits. You will read many other things about this lake and the sulfurous springs, with which that whole plain boils, narrated and described in the *Theatre of the Cities of the Whole World*, book IV, volume II, presented by Georg Braun of Cologne. It would be a wonder, therefore, if these very marvelous places were not noted by Laertius, which, since they can produce wonder, ought not to be wondered at by a wise man, according to Zeno. Certainly, unless he denotes this one, he must be speaking of others of the same kind; and these gates of death, so to speak, are what are meant. With good reason also—since the death of his brother Satyrus—does Ambrose say: "The poor wept; and what is much more precious and much more abundant, they washed away their offenses with their tears." These are the redeeming tears; these are the groans that sever the pain of death; this is the sorrow that, with a perpetual abundance of joy, covers over the sense of former grief. And St. Gregory Nazianzen, in his third oration against Julian, magnificently calls tears the "piamentum," or propitiation, for the deluge of the first sin.
Homily VI
C As the tears flowed, they were turned into joy and wonder. Fear and astonishment seized those who had come together, and some, I believe, of the lighter-minded were wiping their own eyes, imagining that they were seeing these things in a dream. But that blessed mother, both prostrating herself at the feet of the Lord and with her other hand clinging to her child, could scarcely believe that she held him; and through everything, she exchanged her mourning for exultant joy. And, to sum up the whole, the sun saw then that Davidic prophecy fulfilled: a mother rejoicing over her son, and the Giver of life and our God, Jesus, being glorified. D This [Ps. cxii, 9. 3 Reg. xvii; IV Reg. iv.] paradoxical miracle, therefore, ended here, having greatly benefited our souls, and even more so those of you who, pricked with compunction, shed the tear of sympathy, which we believe to be cleansing for the stains of the soul. Nor perhaps is it unpleasing to translate history into moral contemplation; for thus shall we harvest the benefit from both sides. Let each one think of himself as the widow's son, that is to say, of a state widowed of righteous thought, being carried out pitiably to the tomb of inaction by the filth-loving demons and the passions of the flesh that carry the soul to its destruction. What then could be a handle for salvation? It is the tear from the eyes born of repentance, which, as we shed it in torrents, let us beseech the Lord that He may touch the bier with a spiritual touch. The bier is the body, subject to many sufferings, a heavy and burdensome weight; and thus those who carry the remains will stand still, and they will be stopped in the course of the death-bearing evil. And when their impetus, incited toward evil, has been checked, the mind will rise again, and will be restored as to a mother, the Jerusalem above. Nor must that be passed over without consideration, which happened historically but revealed something spiritual. For the Thesbite prophet [Reg. xvii] and his disciple [IV Reg. iv] raised up dead children who were yet immature, the one the son of the Sarephtan widow, the other the son of the Shunammite. But the Lord and Master Jesus raised neither infants nor those already grown old with length of time; for the Gospel calls the widow's son a young man, and the daughter of Jairus was a maiden of twelve years.
...pervaded by the understanding of the good. It will reach her, this instructive discourse, and it will raise her up from the bed of iniquity and prepare her to partake of the eternal goods, of which may it be granted to us all to attain by the grace of the Lord and God and Savior of us all, Jesus Christ, to whom belongs all glory and honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY VII. On the Parable of the Sower.
C Those who embark upon long journeys for the sake of acquiring wealth, when they wish to set out on the road, make prayer the prologue to their journey, beseeching God to become their guide and companion on the way. Since we too, for the sake of the merchandise of the Master’s wealth—both divine and spiritual—are embarking upon the road of the evangelical expositions, let us pray that the grace of the Spirit be bestowed upon all: enlightening our tongue and directing our speech, and awakening your ears in anticipation of listening, so that we may depart from here having gathered the harvest of the spiritual seed—that seed of which the Gospel parable speaking today says: D "The Lord spoke this parable: A sower went out to sow his seed." The decision foreordained by God from ancient times, and the emptying of the Word of God down to the very extremity of our condition, and the inexpressible union with man, the great voice of the Gospel calls a "going out." For so it says also in other places: "Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he came forth from God, and goes to God." D [This portion preserved by annotation: it is the human condition into which He entered in one of His hypostases, calling us back to Himself and elevating our human extremity.]
Homily VII.
A In the instructions which the Savior gave to His disciples at the time of His departure, He says: "I came forth from God; I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; again I am going to the Father." And conversing with the Father as His equal regarding His students, He said: "And they have known that I came forth from You." And now, composing the parable about Himself, He says: "The sower went forth to sow his seed." But the God-inspired Paul, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, calls the presence of Christ according to the flesh an "introduction," saying: "And when He again introduces the Firstborn into the world." B Are, then, the divine voices in opposition to each other? And who could be led into such a coarseness of logical reasoning as to think or say that the Apostle speaks things contrary to the evangelical declaration? But just as in the ladder mystically seen by Jacob long ago, the same angels were ascending and descending, the underlying subject being one, so the only-begotten Son of God might be said to enter and to go forth according to one meaning or another, to those who understand the divine manifestations in a manner worthy of God. For when the nature of man was led astray and slipped, it became outside of God. Therefore He Himself C went forth, like an ambassador, so that He might introduce us back into that from which we had poorly fallen. And the divine Apostle speaks of the entry into the inheritance, according to which He is introduced as the heir of the nations, as the divine oracle foretold: "Ask of Me, and I will give You the nations as Your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as Your possession." For before the economy of the incarnation, there was nothing common between God and the creation; for what communion could He who is beyond all matter, uncreated, and untouchable have with the sensible creation? But having D communicated with us through the taking of our nature, He appears—according to the apostolic saying—to have been introduced to the creation.
Homily on the Sower
A “The sower went forth.” If, then, a “going forth” be asserted of God, let us cast away every suspicion of a local change, and let that mode of reasoning prevail which attributes what is most fitting to the nature of God. For He did not go forth in location, but by a relationship He became near to us, having become man; for being God and having become mortal, He appears, as it were, to have undergone movement, although He knows no place, but remains established in His own nature. This very thing, then, Micah also prophesied: “Behold,” he says, “the Lord goes forth from His place.” “The sower went forth to sow his seed.” What the seed is, He Himself, proceeding, declared—that it is the word of God, or, by all means, the evangelical proclamation. The sower, moreover, of this good seed is Jesus Himself, who speaks these things; He Himself is the sower of every good thing, and from Him is every spiritual fruit-bearing. And his earth and farm are the souls of men. He said “his seed,” because it is not from another that He borrows the word, being Himself the subsistent Word of God. But why does the breaking of the ground not precede the seed? For those who apply themselves to agriculture, having first broken the earth with the plow, thus also cast the seeds. But it is fitting to know now that here, too, the prophets, having broken up the souls of men with the plow of the Law through the commandments, rendered them2 more receptive to the evangelical seed. But He who arrived for the benefit of the whole world, who gives the heat of the sun equally to the just and the base, and commands the clouds to rain upon the wicked and the good, He Himself also spread forth the word of teaching equally to all, scattering those things which were cast without distinction, so that there might be no less goodness in him who chose to bear fruit than in Him who provided the seeds.
B “And some fell by the wayside, and it was trampled, and the birds of the heaven ate it.” Even those who declined that great feast were indeed three types: he who had bought the yokes of oxen, and he who had purchased the field, and he who had married the wife. And here, too, the seed is delivered in three ways: that which fell upon unsuitable ground and ruined the hopes of the sower: that which fell beside the trodden path, and that which fell upon the dry and rugged rock, and that which was choked by the thorns. What, then, do we learn from the parables? That there are three who have received the evangelical seed and have not brought it to perfection. Those who followed the wisdom of the world and the distractions of the Greeks; and those who, in the shadowy Law... [text breaks off due to page end]
remained, and the nations, which like grain among thorns are stifled by pleasures. For the first group, having made themselves a path of perdition, as those who did not admit the furrow of the Law—these, having heard the word of the mystery, break out into laughter. For immediately evil thoughts descend like flying birds, and by indicating that the word is absurd, they scatter the intellectual seed from the soul. But if we understand the aerial spirits as the birds of the sky, by which this noble seed is carried off, we shall not fall wide of the mark. Perhaps, moreover, by saying "beside the way," he points to something else more hidden. For if he were speaking simply of a road, he would perhaps have said, "another fell in the way," or "upon the way," as he says in the following, "and another fell upon the rock, and another in the midst of the thorns, and another into the good ground." But here, by saying "beside the way," he has allowed for the contemplation of something more sublime and more theoretical. I was led to this meaning, furthermore, because I saw that all three evangelists said in harmony, "beside the way." Since, therefore, we have learned that Christ is the way, who said, "I am the way," it is right to understand that what is sown outside of this way is snatched away by demons as if by birds.
"And another fell upon the rock; and when it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture." Consider, therefore, the difference between those who received the evangelical word. The first group, indeed, who are compared to the well-trodden public paths, received no seed at all: for as soon as it was sown, it was carelessly snatched away by the birds. For they were held so fast by unbelief that they could in no way admit the preaching, being a hard and uncultivated path. Whence also the Lord commanded the disciples not to walk in such a path of the nations. But these whom he named "the rocky" were not indeed without a share of faith, but were otherwise weak and fleeting. And the discourse implies those who have received the preaching of the Gospel and have begun to bring forth [fruit] through their works, but because of some temptation or affliction that occurred, have become deserters of the rank and cast away their shields. For just as if one sows in rocky ground, because of the dust lying on the surface, it becomes a crop for a while by taking root; yet when the sun strikes it more ardently, and from below no corresponding moisture contests [the dryness], it withers: thus they who have not admitted the word into the depth of a burning faith remain unfruitful. For they are immediately exposed when the opposing sun strikes more vehemently. And you surely know who this sun is, which harms those born of the Spirit and their growth, having learned from the ode [of the ascents: "The sun shall not burn thee by day," and from the Bride of the Song...]
"Do not look upon me, because I am blackened, for the sun has looked upon me." Thus, he who performs A actions opposite to the Sun of Justice is devoid of the power to illuminate; he knows not at all how to bring to life, but blackens and dries up, bringing on the scorching heat of sin. For this reason, the great Isaiah covers the heads of the faithful with veils to ward off the blackening conflagration of such a sun. "And other fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it." Perhaps after the transgression of the first-formed, the earth brought forth such thorns, the divine voice declaring: "It shall bring forth thorns and thistles for thee." For there, the Scripture calls the flesh of Adam the earth, overgrown with the many prickings of thorns, which, alas, he who sowed the bastard tares among the good food has introduced to us, just as another parable has clarified. For there, too, the Master of the house sowed good seed; but the enemy, watching for when men were sleeping, sowed the useless among the good grain, placing the tare in the midst of the wheat itself, which here it called thorns. For the divine voices hang together B and are woven with the same meanings, even if they differ in words. And thorns would also be the multitude of various evils that spring from anger and desire and choke the spiritual seed: anxieties, cares, sorrows, desires, mourning, calamities, and the manifold passions arising from these, through which good deeds, even if they begin to sprout in the soul, remain unfulfilled and do not advance to the height of progress. "And other fell upon the good ground, and it grew and brought forth fruit a hundredfold." Do you see the same seed being scattered by the same farmer, and not showing the same fruitfulness? What then? Is this the fault of the farmer? And who would proceed to such a perversity of mind as to admit such nonsense to himself? But just as the same water, poured into one field, nourishes different types of plants—and the power that waters each individual thing is one, but the property of those receiving it changes the moisture into different qualities; for the same water C becomes bitter in the wormwood, changes into a corrupting juice in the bean, reddens in the rose, and whitens in the lily, and here it is warmed, there it is cooled; and into as many things as can be seen upon the earth to be germinating from one and the same moisture
is cooled, and all things whatsoever that exist upon the earth to be seen, sprout from one and the same moisture, yet are distinguished into so many differences according to the nature of the recipient; so too the Word of God, cast as a seed into the souls of men, proceeds according to the habit of the recipients, either yielding fruit or remaining ineffective. Since, however, the holy Matthew has written A more precisely about the fruitfulness of the good earth, saying that it proceeded to a hundred, sixty, and thirty, it is fitting to inquire what this threefold difference in the agriculture signifies. Those who have undergone athletic struggles and have been proven like gold in the furnace of tortures, either by suffering this from a tyrant, like the victorious martyrs, or by being delivered to the enemy and the avenger by God unto various temptations, that they might be seen as approved, as was Job, the man of many struggles; or who,—to speak in the language of the Psalms—having caused their souls to B "waste away like a spider," and having bound their flesh through fear of God at all times, or who have performed their priestly service to God without blame, and are illumined by sanctifying temperance, all these truly have cultivated the first and best crop, the hundredfold. For the number one hundred, containing the perfect decad multiplied by itself, becomes entirely perfect, showing the most perfect degree of virtue. Those, however, who have turned away from fleeting pleasures, yet have been seen to be lesser than those at the height of virtue, these are said to have borne fruit to the sixty, as those who have multiplied the number six—the number of the divine commandments—tenfold, and have been seen to be keepers of these in both that which is apparent and that which is understood. But those who have entered into marriage and are embroiled in worldly affairs, yet have not neglected the practice of virtue, having, as it were, kept the number six of the commandments in outward act, have cultivated the thirty. For the number thirty, containing the six five times, indicates through the five the senses, and through the six the commandments, through which the righteous become heirs of the kingdom of heaven, as the Judge sitting upon the throne enumerated them. Whosoever, therefore, C has fed the hungry, and given drink to the thirsty, and clothed the naked, and brought the stranger under a roof, and shown the fitting visitation to the sick and to those in prison—if he does this according to what is apparent and to the senses, he is said to cultivate the thirty; but if, in addition to that which is apparent, he also accomplishes them spiritually, feeding the needy with the bread of charity and giving them drink with the word of doctrine, and clothing the naked with moral decorum, and D bringing him who is an exile from the heavenly fatherland to the divine kinship…
and taking up him who is weak in faith, and visiting him who is locked away in sins, then he is said to till the sixty-fold fruit. Marvel, therefore, at the husbandry and philanthropy of the Tilling Master, and be astonished at how he does not demand the same measure from all, but crowns him who has brought forth much, and does not turn away from him who has brought forth little. He clarifies this more plainly in the God-spoken parable of the laborers, where he grants the penny of the wages to the first and to the last alike. B "And his disciples asked him what this parable might be." Being kindly disposed toward the multitude, and seeing the obscurity of what had been said, the disciples were inquisitive to learn what was spoken, so that the crowds, too, might learn the explanation of them. What, then, does the Savior say? "To you it is given to know the mysteries of God, but to the rest in parables." By saying, "It is given," he shows that the thing is a gift; but not everyone is able to receive this divine gift. For some are still infants in faith; others have the senses of the soul more thickened, and are not fit for the hearing of more mystical things, to whom, as to infants, the parabolic word is accommodated. "But you," he says, "who by a very laudable zeal have made yourselves worthy of higher things, are able to learn even the more mystical things." He adds that prophetic utterance: "That seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand." For when power had been given to them from God to be able to choose the best things, because their minds were thickened by base practices, they hear with the senses, but do not understand mentally, and while seeing with bodily eyes, they close the eyes of the soul. The word "that" C is used here not causally, but according to the outcome. For he did not speak in parables so that they might not see and might not hear, but because it had so turned out because of their wickedness. Just as if one were to say of a person with damaged and dim-sighted eyes, and suffering more than the affliction itself, that he fixed his gaze upon the solar rays so that he might receive greater damage. Then, teaching that we should not simply receive what is said, but through them be led up to more subtle meanings, he adds: "He that has ears to hear, let him hear," that is, he who knows how to reason spiritually about higher things, and to leap from the visible phenomena to the things said parabolically. For mere hearing of the admonitions, not having the works of hearing as an accompaniment, does not suffice for salvation. Knowing these things, therefore, brothers, let us not simply and rashly D lend our ears to the words of teaching...
so as to receive the word but bring forth no fruit from the hearing; lest we be considered as barren ground and a trodden path; nor, having begun to do good, should the onslaught of temptations from him who envies our progress suddenly fall upon us, let us, like rock lacking moisture, dry up the spiritual field of virtue; nor, by being occupied with untimely cares—which profit us nothing at the time of our departure—should we stifle the excellent harvest as if among thorns. Rather, let us imitate the good ground through diligence, and by the zeal of our Master who cultivates us, let us produce fruit worthy of that blessed storehouse, the kingdom of heaven; which may we all be granted to attain, by the grace of the Lord and God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who is glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY VIII. On the Rich Man and Lazarus.
A Again, the self-subsistent wisdom and power of God, the unmoved seal of the prototype, the radiance of the Father, His image in all things equivalent, the consubstantial Son of God the Father, our Master Jesus, sets before us the cup of mystical doctrine. For, making a comparison of virtue and vice, He sets side by side merciless luxury and patient poverty, concluding the discourse where the affairs of both ended. Come then, let us hear His well-spoken words. The Lord said: “There was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, feasting sumptuously every day.” If you have attentively observed the entire holy Scripture, you will find it rarely using the name of “rich man” in a good sense, but it is applied as an epithet, for the most part, to the wicked. For we have learned of a just man as being wealthy, and one who has multiplied in slaves and cattle—just as Abraham, and Jacob, and Job, whose threshing floors and herds the Scripture enumerates—but it did not call them “rich.” And if Matthew did call that man from Arimathea “rich,” he did not do so because of an abundance of money, but because he had acquired the precious pearl B with boldness, and having dared, he entered in to Pilate.Notes by Franciscus Scorsus.
Abraham was indeed rich in cattle, and in silver and gold. Observe, therefore, that Theophanes says that, for the most part, this epithet of “rich” is usually attributed to evil men; for it is certainly rarely read of good men, and this title is not used of Jacob and Job. ... For the praise of the divine Word, read Nazianzen’s oration on the Nativity, which Billius translates thus: “That fountain of life and immortality, that expression of the archetype, that unmoved seal, that image in all things equivalent, that boundary and reason of the Father.” But the interpretation of the last word, *horos*, is discussed by us in Homily 17, n. 28, where our author speaks similarly to Gregory Nazianzen. I note now only concerning the word *apharallaktos* (unmoved/equivalent): it is in use among sacred writers when they call the Word of the Father [the image]; for they add [it] just as when they say “similar.” They add “in all things,” which Consalvus Ponce also notes in his epistle on Theophanes here from the Scholia of Nazianzen. Concerning Abraham it is said: “And he was very rich in the flock.” In the Evangelist St. Matthew, ch. 27, it is added of Joseph from Arimathea that he was rich, which interpreters, and especially our Maldonatus, say is mentioned in order to hint why he had easy access to Pilate and obtained the body of Christ which he requested; for indeed the rich and powerful are for the most part acceptable to princes, which Aristotle teaches in Rhetoric, book II. St. Mark seems to have touched upon the same reason when he said: “He entered boldly to Pilate.” Therefore, our Theophanes seems to understand the rich man from C
A that parable of his. But in the case of the wicked, he sets down the title of "rich" as a sort of mark of their wickedness. For when the Psalmist keenly accuses this, exhorting the righteous not to be afraid: “Be not afraid when a man becomes rich.” And: “If riches flow, do not set your heart upon them.” And: “The rich have become poor,” B lacking the wealth of virtue, “and have hungered,” having no bread of life. And: “Because he hoped in the abundance of his riches.” And the Savior, speaking about a certain foolish man: “The land,” he says, “of a certain rich man brought forth bountifully.” He declares also that it is difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And he says that the Gospel was grieved on account of the man who asked about eternal life, and was commanded to sell all that he had and give to the poor, and went away sorrowful at that saying, for he was very rich. Indeed, he says it is more difficult for a rich man to attain the heavenly kingdom than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. And at one time, speaking to the rich: “Woe to you rich,” he says, “for you have received your consolation.” Isaiah also says somewhere: “The glory of Moab shall be dishonored in all his wealth.” Therefore, he prefixes the title of "rich" as a prologue to the man's perversity. For just as Scripture, even though blessed Job was extremely wealthy, did not call him rich, but rather, as if defining his virtue, names him just, and blameless, and God-fearing, abstaining from every evil and wicked thing—describing the sort of person a true human being should be—so too does it define the wicked man as "rich" in place of all his wickedness, and very reasonably so. For if, according to the voice of the Lord, the poor are blessed, then clearly the rich are wretched. Nevertheless, wealth and poverty are known not by money, but by the intention of the will. C “And he was clothed in purple and fine linen.” The difference in garments signifies both the void and useless superfluity of sloth, which a soul given to delicacies and puffed up with varied dyes is wont to devise. It indicates also a diverse and illiberal character. For the ancient ordinances do not permit one to wear a garment woven of two substances, averting as they do the duplicity of character. D This man, however, regarding the Sardanapalian luxury, to which he clung day by day, had as it were a covering for his... [index: entries preserved]
illiberality; and although this vice might perhaps be excusable in a needy man, it is a detestable disgrace in one abounding in riches. A *And he was clothed in purple and fine linen.* It is absolutely necessary that those who indulge in luxurious banquets and drunkenness become slaves to lust and anger. The difference in his garments shows both these things. For by the purple he indicated the seething of the blood about the heart, which is the definition of anger given by those skilled in such matters; and by the fine linen, the softness of pleasure. Or, since he was addicted to luxury and extravagance, and was frenzied by sensuality regarding things that delight the palate and the throat—things which increase blood and fat—he indicated both these states through the fine linen and the purple. B *And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who lay at his gate full of sores.* Why is it that, when He had not assigned a proper name in any of the parables, He here calls the beggar Lazarus? Because there was a certain poor man and beggar in Jerusalem at that time, who gained his daily sustenance by begging, and was named Lazarus; the Savior, taking the occasion from him, composed the present parable, weaving together a dramatic narrative with things that had occurred historically. Perhaps also every poor man is a Lazarus, as he stands in need of help from those who have; for this name is interpreted as "helped." C *Who lay at his gate full of sores.* This is a greater condemnation of the loathsome soul of the rich man, that he should see every day the beggar cast at his gate, in need of food and clothing, desiring to share in the crumbs that fell from his banquet table, which was overflowing with luxuries. That he was full of sores is an addition of another, greater calamity. For what does this mean? He had no strength to move from door to door... D
For he was ulcerated. A You know, indeed, how burdensome and disgusting it is to touch bodies that are ulcerated and rotting. For most people are accustomed to averting their eyes from these, and casting a grim and intense gaze. Being hemmed in on all sides by lack of resources, his unfeigned poverty exhausted all his care. "But even the dogs came and licked his sores." Oh, how much more humane were the dogs than the rational beings, and the unclean than those who were supposedly pure! For the one would not even share crumbs with the poor man, while the others consoled his wounds by wagging their tongues over the raw places. Perhaps some such thing can be seen even now among many. For while we often overlook the poor, those who are outside the mystery of faith—whom he called dogs because of their uncleanness—deem them worthy of care, obeying the law of nature. "It came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom." B Accordingly, that athlete of patience, having reached the sunset of his life, departed from the life here and was led into the Abrahamic bosoms. This is the reward of patience, this is the fruit of suffering, this is the crown of praised poverty: to become the bosom-friend of the patriarch. But let no one among those assembled here be so thick in his understanding as to imagine the bosom of Abraham bodily, and that the righteous are seated in it as infants are in the bosoms of nurses; for it is an utterly foolish thing to conceive of it in this way. Rather, he called the good state of the soul, in which the Word refreshes and recreates the righteous, the bosom of Abraham. For there, this patriarch, first by his own merit of faith, C D Francisci Scorsi's notes (92) *Exiens protulit duos denarios.* In our Latin Vulgate edition it is only had: *Et altera die exiens protulit duos denarios; et in Graeca: καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον ἐξελθὼν*. Since, therefore, the word *exiens*, which is not there, is to be rendered as we have it in the Vulgate edition, still, since I have added it, as it appears that the mystical sense of the author—who has departed from the sepulcher as Christ—is extracted from the text, as for the rest, I always follow the Vulgate edition.
(93) *Praeceptorum legis.* This place gave me much trouble, since the Greek Scripture is corrupted and lacks the exemplar itself, and always, in interpreting, I hesitated. Yet, I have annotated this passage as the reader—with nothing changed or moved—would have it from the text which that single codex exhibits, which delivered this homily from destruction. And indeed, this interpretation is most plausible; it coheres with the preceding words in which Theophanes wants to signify allegorically the two Testaments by the denarii: so that [the one] carries the single image of the Holy Trinity; the other [denarius] is viewed under the same principle as the Law, the precepts that have to be observed, which [one] Testament the other maintains, not that it is to be abrogated, but rather that it retains the other; for these precepts pertain to the understanding of the Decalogue, and not to ceremonies, which is confirmed in the Gospel, that it continues perpetually, so that, I say, if these precepts are viewed, the two denarii can also signify the two Testaments; not only that which pertains to faith in the Trinity, which is that of contemplation, but also that which consists of the precepts which are to be performed. And this seems to me to be the mind of the author: would that it were apparent to you, reader.
but he called the good state of the soul, in which the Word gives rest to the righteous, the bosom of Abraham. For this patriarch was the first to obtain, through faith, the inheritance hoped for after much affliction. Thus, the demonstration of immeasurable goods is contained in the name of the bosom, to which all who complete the navigation of this life with virtue direct their souls after they have departed from here, as if to a tranquil harbor. It is consistent for us also to ask this: since nothing involuntary is worthy of blessedness, how did it happen that Lazarus, who was oppressed by poverty against his will, attained the blessed enjoyment? For it is not the case that all who labor in need are about to receive the same reward as he. We say, therefore, that voluntary poverty is worthy of praise, which the Lord proclaims blessed; yet a prudent mind can transfer even an involuntary good into virtue, combining voluntary endurance with the chance event that occurred against one's will. For there are many who are poor in fortune but are most greedy in their intention, for whom no reward of poverty awaits. But whence, he says, is Lazarus's intention known? For the evangelical account signifies nothing to us concerning this. Yet, nevertheless, it is easy to understand this from the very words of the Gospel; for while he was afflicted with ulcers, nakedness, and hunger, and saw the luxury of the rich man daily, he neither coveted byssus and purple, nor does he appear to have yearned for the variety of foods, but he desired only to pay the necessary debt of nature from the crumbs. "And the rich man also died, and was buried." He departed from life and perished, that splendid and delicate one, he who was adorned in byssus and purple, he who "ate kids from the flock and suckling calves from the midst of the herds." These are indeed the words of the prophet: "He who drank refined wine and was anointed with the finest ointments." Observe, however, that when [Scripture] spoke of the beggar, it made no mention of burial, but when it spoke of the rich man, it immediately added it, doing so consistently. For it is probable that Lazarus lacked the customary funeral rites and was cast aside somewhere unburied. For who would consider him worthy of the proper honors who was not even deemed worthy of crumbs? As for the rich man, many followed his funeral procession, and many mourning women were present, intensifying the grief with their dirges; the coffin concealed the corpse, and the funeral was splendid, and that of David was fulfilled: "Their graves are their houses forever." "And in hell, lifting up his eyes, being in torments, he sees Abraham from afar, and Lazarus in his bosom," and crying out he said: "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip..."
of his finger in water, and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame." B
Having arrived at this point in the discourse, I see, as if from some high watchtower, a vast ocean of doctrines, which I dread to swim across, fearing lest our unsteady mind be submerged by the immensity of the thoughts. I say this while considering: who is this Hades, harped upon both by divine Scripture and by those outside? And how was the rich man in torments before the common resurrection? And what is that drop of water of which he, being tormented, becomes in need? And what eyes does the rich man lift up in Hades, or what tongue did he desire to be cooled by the instillation of a drop, while the members of his flesh were perishing in the tomb? And how did he who is without a body perceive the flame? And why, says Abraham, did you say: "You received your good things in your life, and Lazarus likewise bad things," as if good and bad things were owed to us? And what is that great chasm separating the good from the worse, and possessing the power to prevent the crossing of bodiless souls? These are the things at which the mind, looking, stands as if seized by dizziness C and condemns its own ignorance.
Nevertheless, entrusting the rudder of our discourse to God the pilot, and taking your prayers as fellow-workers, let us dare to launch into the deep. We say, therefore, following the opinion of those Fathers who have previously examined these things, that the Savior sets forth the narrative in a more bodily manner, but sows many occasions for high doctrines for those who investigate more searchingly. Hades, then, is said D to be the [place] where souls… and men condemned for capital crimes are confined and tormented, and [that] it is one for all and is corporeal is certain from Catholic doctrine and all theologians, as Suarez, in his book *On the Angels*, ch. 14, and Bellarmine, in his *Controversies*, vol. I, book III of *Purgatory*, ch. 6, demonstrate from very many places in Scripture and the Fathers. Indeed, where that place is, [the same writers teach] that it is not so certain, because it is not so expressed in Scripture. But it is not to be doubted that it is under the earth, because of the common consensus of the Fathers who understand the Scriptures in this way, which always speak of that dungeon as a subterranean place existing in this visible manner. That this Father whom we are elucidating is of this correct opinion cannot be doubted, certainly from other things said in other homilies, although in this place, which we now note and examine, he seems to assert something different. But certainly this perplexing place…
… is to be resolved by the clear things which I am now relating. For in homily 6, on the widow's son, he speaks thus: A *The soul of this young man was traversing that dark region of Hades and was wandering in a land whose bars are everlasting, as the fugitive of the prophets said.* He alludes, furthermore, to those words of Jonah cap. 2, which we have already explained in his homily 6, note 18. Although that place should be understood as referring to limbo rather than to the hell of the damned, yet as far as the question concerns it, the reason for both is the same; for it is a matter of the place where souls separated from the body are detained, and otherwise Hades is sometimes accepted insofar as it embraces all the recesses, whether of purgatory, of limbo, or of hell. When, therefore, he calls *en hadē*, that is, hell, a *dark place and a land*, and one barred with bolts, he seems to speak of some corporeal and subterranean prison. B But more clearly in hom. 9, where he explains those words of Luke 8 concerning the demoniac who was vexed by a legion of demons: *And they prayed him that he would not command them to go out into the abyss.* *For they knew,* he says, *that other demons cast out by the omnipotent Word were sent into the abyss* (the barathrum is translated there). Where, without doubt, besides this dark air in which it is now certain that very many demons wander, he recognizes another place of punishments, which when he calls it *abyssos*, the abyss, or barathrum, he acknowledges some most profound place under the earth. And indeed, from this place in Luke 8, Suarez argues with many of the Fathers whom he brings forward, that demons, although they are now detained in this air, yet do not ignore that on the day of the supreme judgment they are to be thrust down to the lowest place of hell, and exist in the constant fear of this day and punishment. C Furthermore, in the homily *De judicio*, Theophanes calls the places of hell, *the formidable torments, the effervescent fire*: which certainly are to be understood properly of a corporeal place and fire. But in the homily *De Centurione*, he speaks thus concerning fire: *The future punishment of sinners is called outer darkness; for it will be that the twofold operation of fire will be divided at that time, and to the just indeed pure light shall be restored, void of scorching quality, and to the wicked shall be distributed the scorching, which is void of the illuminating.* Furthermore, by the name of *outer darkness* the future penalty of sinners is signified, because it is to be that the twofold operation of fire is then divided; and to the just indeed light, pure and devoid of the scorching quality, is returned: but to the wicked whatever has the power of burning, and is void of light, is allotted. D This partition of the qualities of fire, which is also of Basil on Ps. 27, and Damasc. lib. 2 Parall., cap. 52, and Greg. lib. 9 Moral. *That fire,* he says, *which tortures the reprobate, if it could have light, that which is repelled would by no means be said to be sent into darkness;* and Petri Dam. epist. ad Blancam, cap. 12: *The avenging flame has heat, it does not have light at all;* these, I say, this partition cannot fit unless it is a corporeal fire. Therefore, as Suarez argues from these and other places of the Fathers, in the book *De angelis* mentioned above, if the fire of hell is corporeal, it is a consequence that it must be said that it was prepared and established in some certain place of hell for the torment of the guilty, and therefore this place of corporeal fire will be corporeal. But if anyone should say that these two latter places of Theophanes concerning a corporeal place and fire pertain to the day of judgment, when bodies are to be resumed, and therefore are to be understood concerning souls coupled with bodies, not about separated ones; I will meet him and say that there is no other fire by which men are tortured even after the day of judgment than that by which demons are tortured, according to that of Christ in Matthew 25: *Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels:* which place Theophanes also, weighing in the homily *De judicio*, says that that fire was not destined from the beginning for men, but for the devil and his angels as his followers, and that afterward men who sin, and who do not amend their sins, have converted it to themselves. If, therefore, even from the sense of Theophanes, it is the same fire of men and of demons, and it has already been shown that this is corporeal, a spiritual substance can be tortured by corporeal fire; and therefore even a soul, as theologians rightly reason from this: therefore even now the same fire tortures before the day of judgment, and indeed in some certain and corporeal place, as has been said. Wherefore it is so far from the case that those two sayings of Theophanes pertain to the seeking of his sense concerning a corporeal place and fire, as has been objected, that it is even deduced more and confirmed more from them. And thus far indeed, from the marked and open places of this author, we have shown what he himself thinks about the proposed matter; now we begin to bring light to this place in which we labor, which is obscure and ambiguous; which, in bringing forward the testimonies of the holy Fathers, is wont to happen, both in others, and especially in this question, in which they do not always speak in the same way. But here, as I have warned above, not so much the sense of our Theophanes, as that of Gregory of Nyssa, from whom he takes both the sentiment and the words, is to be inquired into. And indeed I think I will do a service if, by occasion, I explain Gregory himself, and at the same time both Fathers. For in truth the opinion of Gregory of Nyssa concerning the place of hell, if not openly false, is certainly seen to be ambiguous: and it is a wonder that most learned writers accept and report it in one way or another, although they derive it from one and the same little work *De anima et resurrectione*. Joannes Maldonatus on this chapter 16 of Luke, and Benedictus Justinianus on chapter 4 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, write that a spiritual hell was posited by Nyssen; but indeed Franciscus Suarius in the book *De angelis*, lib. 8, cap. 16, n. 16, and Bellarmine in lib. 2 *De purgatorio*, cap. 6, say that this dark air, where demons wander, was thought by him to be the place of all punishments, and in this opinion the same Bellarm. says that Chrysostom was, in the homily *De præmiis beatorum*, and the author of the *Opus imperfectum* in Matthew, hom. 55. Read Bellarmine himself, who reports furthermore the history of St. Furseus from lib. Hist. Anglorum, cap. 19, of the venerable Bede, which seems to agree with an opinion of this kind. But before I express what I think about the opinion of Gregor. Nyssen, I premise this here, which Suarius wisely teaches should be noted in examining the sayings of the saints, that their explanation should not be "grammatic," that is, that one or another sentiment cut off from the context should not be taken absolutely, but as joined to others which they bring forward in the context of the discourse, from the connection of which both the sense of each and the mind of the author is to be elicited, otherwise some limb would be posited for the whole body. If anyone, therefore, should read through and examine that whole dialogue of Nyssen *De anima et resurrectione*, which I confess I have done diligently, he will clearly find Gregory doing this, so as to show that the soul, a spiritual essence, is both incorporeal and immortal, and when it is with the body constituted from the same elements
and from the divine Scripture, it signifies this name, in which they say the soul comes to be once it has been released from the body. But by what follows in the text, the Gospel seems to point out a great doctrine; for...
HOMILY VIII
for when the patriarch had said to the rich man, “You received your good things in your life, and Lazarus likewise his evil things,” and then added concerning the chasm that separates them, as if it were some wall dividing them, he seemed to describe by this word that, since man had fallen away from that blessed and equal life which is seen in that which alone is good, and had gorged himself upon the composite tree, and because death followed upon his gluttony, and our life became dual—namely, this short life and that eternal one—it is logical that we should be participants in what brings sorrow and, in turn, in what brings joy.Therefore, as many as govern their own lives with a discerning and prudent judgment, choosing the toil of virtue in this brief course of life, store up the good for the age to come. But they who have chosen pleasure in this transitory life, and have not healed their imprudence and folly through repentance, close off the approach for themselves to the communion of goods, having opened up for themselves a kind of immense and impassable abyss. This is the chasm which is brought about not by the earth splitting open, but by the judgment, which, throughout the life, has been divided into opposite intentions. For this reason, the rich man, begging to obtain a few drops of mercy, is not heard—not because one drop would bring detriment to the great fountain of paradise, but because a drop of virtue cannot be commingled with a leaning toward vice. “For what partnership has light with darkness?” A Thus, the flame that scourges the rich man is to be understood; for the deprivation of the goods in which the righteous find delight B is a chasm; and for the rest, the deprivation of the goods that appeared to them during their life becomes a flame scouring the soul, desiring for consolation a single drop from the ocean of goods that bathe the holy, and not obtaining it.
Since he mentions eyes, and tongue, and finger, because the soul is destined in the proper time to receive its own body (and each soul is said to recognize even now its own body as being dissolved into the elements of which it is composed), that which is by potentiality [a body], but by act is generative... [Francisci Scorsi annotations omitted] B they consider themselves deprived in the infernal places and are tormented as if by some flame. But our Theophanes, who transferred that sentiment into this homily of his, speaks openly of the goods of which the just enjoy, in the privation of which the damned are tormented. Thus, for me, Theophanes would be a better interpreter of Gregory than Laurentius is; and indeed, to me, weighing the preceding context, there did not seem to be any doubt that Gregory speaks of the privation of eternal goods; which same thing will seem so to one reading and examining the *akolouthia* (sequence) of the discourse. But whether the discourse is about either, certainly St. Thomas agrees—in IV, dist. 1, quæst. 2, art. 2, at the end of the body of the question—that those responsible for eternal punishment are tormented by the privation of both sets of goods. And indeed, concerning the consideration of past goods, he says in the aforementioned question: "For they will consider both the evils they committed, by which they are damned, and the beloved goods which they lost; and they will be tormented by both." Regarding the consideration of eternal goods of which they are deprived, he says in the same article, ad 3: "The damned before the day of judgment will see the blessed in glory; not in this way, that they know what their glory is like, but only knowing them to be in a certain inestimable glory, and they will be troubled from this, both on account of envy, grieving at the happiness of the good, and on account of this, that they themselves have lost such glory." Whence it is said in Wisdom VIII: "Seeing, they shall be troubled with a horrible fear." Such is St. Thomas, from whom these Fathers are to be explained—both Gregory and his follower Theophanes—when they say that the apprehension of lost C goods becomes a flame for the damned; for they do not seem by these words to deny an exterior and corporeal flame, but only, insofar as it relates to this passage, to explain metaphorically the flame of which the rich man speaks. Furthermore, from other passages, the true opinion of our Theophanes has already been demonstrated above, in note 54. But why do both here accept the flame metaphorically? Surely because of the *akolouthia*, that is, in order to add an explanation of the flame consistent with other explanations. For since they have accepted the tongue, and fingers, and eyes by metaphor, in which same way all agree they must be accepted, consequently they also accept the flame metaphorically; for even on account of this connection of things, Augustine doubted in this place concerning a corporeal flame (Lib. XXI De civit. Dei, cap. 16): "I would say," he says, "that that flame is corporeal, if it could be conveniently answered that that flame is such as the eyes are, such as the tongue is, such as the finger is, where they were without bodies of the soul." This is Augustine. Moreover, Suarez, doctor of theology and an excellent writer, in Lib. III De angelis, mentioned above, where he establishes his opinion concerning corporeal fire, when he had objected to himself that the voices which are placed in this parable cannot be taken in a corporal way, and thus neither can the fire, and had further added those words of St. Augustine just commemorated by us to confirm the argued objection, he answers and admits that by that argument one concludes at most that from this parable taken in isolation, it is not proven that the fire of hell is corporeal, which is what Augustine appears maximally to have intended in the place already cited. This, therefore, is the reasoning of Suarez, which also supports our commentary D on these passages of Gregory and Theophanes; for we say that the opinion of these Fathers concerning the fire of hell is not to be conjectured from this passage alone. For although through the flame they may understand something spiritual, nevertheless in other places they admit corporeal fire. And indeed we warned above, in note 54, when we were discussing the very place of hell and the opinion of both, that the mind of Gregory of Nyssa is to be watched from that entire dialogue *De anima et resurrectione*, where these things are held; for Gregory has the purpose there of establishing this truth, that the soul is spiritual and incorporeal, and that after the body is dissolved it still remains. When, therefore, he who acts as the student in that dialogue had objected to those things which are said in this parable about the soul of the rich man, from which it could seem to be concluded that it is corporeal, and had asked how it was necessary to meet the adversaries, he declares that all those things must be understood spiritually, both because that would serve to solve the opposing argumentation, and seemed sufficient; and because there are many things in that parable which cannot conveniently be adapted to a body, and thus must be taken metaphorically: "It would be an absurdity," he says, "to apply the structure of the narrative, according to what is understood at first glance, to the truth, unless one translates each single part into mental speculation." And thus far I have attempted to draw these words of both Fathers into the correct sense. Moreover, this dogma concerning the fire of hell, that it is corporeal, has not been defined by the Church. For in the Council of Florence the Greeks openly professed that they do not posit fire in Purgatory (and the same reasoning, however, holds for the fire of hell), and yet in the definition made in the last session it is defined that Purgatory exists, without any mention of fire being made. Although indeed this opinion is not of the faith, nevertheless it is judged by theologians to be erroneous, on account of the more common consensus of the Fathers and scholastics, from which you would not depart except rashly, as Bellarmine says (Lib. II De purgatorio, cap. 2). But as pertains to the Fathers, I will subscribe here the annotation of Benedict Justiniani the Genoan, who, to me reading his *Explanations on the Epistles of St. Paul and other Catholic ones*, appears to have been very well versed in the reading of the Holy Fathers. Thus, therefore, he in his explanation of the Epistle to the Corinthians, where he treats of the fire of purgatory: "First, I persuade myself that in no way are they to be heard who think it must be believed with such certain faith that that fire will be corporeal that they do not doubt that one who feels otherwise is guilty of impiety and perfidy; for the sacred letters indeed name fire; but for the same reason they also add the worm, which since all explain metaphorically, why is it not permitted for the same reason to interpret the fire? Add that there is nothing defined yet by sacred authority in either direction. The ancient Fathers made a departure, as those who seem to assert that corporeal fire speak obscurely and for the most part popularly, and he who disputed most on this matter, Augustine, seems hesitant and doubting, and in Lib. VIII *De Genesi ad litteram*, cap. 3 and elsewhere, he judges the whole history which is in Luke, of the rich man and Lazarus, to be explained metaphorically." This is the judgment of Justiniani. Which I have added as a corollary, lest it seem strange that our Theophanes has spoken here of the fire of hell in a different manner than in other homilies, as we said.
HOMILY VIII
A ...any soul—even if it has been dissolved into the elements of which it was constituted—is, indeed, potential at present, but will be actual in the future. It remains for us, then, to inquire how he who is scorched by such a calamity should care for those who are related to him by birth on earth. For he says to the patriarch: "I ask you, Father, that you send him to my father’s house; for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, so that they too may not come into this place of torment." And when Abraham said that the guidance from the law and the prophets was sufficient for them—"For they have," he says, "Moses and the prophets"—he still continued to insist, saying that it would be more persuasive for them if someone were to rise from the dead. B What dogma, then, do we learn in this? Since Lazarus, having anchored in a harbor, as it were, was busy with nothing at all, being turned away from everything on earth—for what could he have remembered, having enjoyed none of the pleasant things of this life? But the rich man, having died in his luxury, was still held fast after death as if by glue to the carnal life; for the pleasure of the flesh and of the blood was still something he cared for. For by the fact that he remembered those who were joined to him by blood, it was clear that he was not yet freed from the carnal affection. And for this reason he says that there are five who share in his lineage, because the sense is divided into five parts. C The Lord shows, therefore, through all this, that if someone should be entirely stripped of the flesh in his intellect, he nonetheless occupies every movement and action of the soul in the desires of the flesh; such a person, not emerging outside the flesh through death, is not separated from its passions, but is held fast as if in birdlime by the habit of sensual pleasure. Being taught by these things, therefore, beloved, let us strive through a life of virtue to be separated in some way, and to be released from the attachment to earthly things, D so that after death we may not carry the remnants of the carnal life like some slimy and sticky clay; but, having broken the bonds of the body as if they were nothing, may the soul's journey toward the Good be light and unencumbered, with no carnal burden pulling it back to itself; and thus it will be through everything—I mean especially for those living in the flesh—through the... potential at present, but to be actual in the future. From these narratives we think the Lord defines this: that one must, while living according to virtue, be in some way separated and released from the attachment to it, so that after death we may not again require another death to purge away the remnants of the carnal glue.
perpetually conjoined with the good God, to whom belongs glory and praise for ever and ever. Amen.
HOMILY IX
On the text: "When Jesus had come into the country of the Gadarenes, there met him a certain man from the city, who had demons for a long time."
My bodily infirmity constrains my tongue, but the desire for the fullness of the Church loosens it. My pains force me to keep silence, but love persuades me to speak; and it is a certain consolation for my malady to hold converse with you. Such is sincere love: it disdains what happens externally, but looking toward the one who is loved, it finds delight. But since it is not possible to satisfy desire to the full, nor to delight in speech with you as much as my eagerness desires, let us at least utter a few things, granting something both to my infirmity and to love, neither wearing out the former with a prolix discourse, nor blunting the latter with a longer silence. A Let the word of the Gospel read today be the handle for our discourse with you. "At that time, when Jesus had come into the country of the Gadarenes, there met him a certain man from the city, who had demons for a long time." The divine Mark and Matthew both recorded this miracle, but they appear to differ from each other. Mark and Luke, however, agree entirely. Matthew says that this miracle took place in the country of the Gergesenes, and that there were two men possessed by madness. Mark and Luke speak of the Gadarenes, and mention only one man who was driven out of his mind by demons. But let not this seeming discrepancy disturb the listener at all. For the country of the Gergesenes and that of the Gadarenes is the same, as from [the text] concerning him who had the legion, the list of the Gergesenes, the Gadarenes...
signification of these words we learn. For both denote a suburban dwelling, if the Hebrew is changed into the Greek language. That Matthew said there were two demoniacs, while the others say one, implies no contradiction; for he indeed distinguished the persons of the sufferers, while the others, gathering into one those who were of the same nature, did not concern themselves with the precision of the number. Thus also with regard to the blind men healed in Jericho: Matthew says there were two blind men, but Mark and Luke say one; and this is nothing new, nor is it a problem. For the common turn of speech often has the custom of signifying a multitude by the singular number. For we say, "God came to save man," and "He sought the lost sheep," signifying through the singular expression the whole nature of men. B The wretched man had the demons for many years, and he did not clothe himself in a garment, and he did not live in a house, but in the tombs. Consider, however, how great was the intensity of the evil. For one demon would have sufficed to trouble the miserable man, but for many to dwell in him, as swarms of bees in a hive, what calamity does this not exceed? And the saying that there was a legion is another addition of evil; for a legion is called a select army; it indicates the most savage and utterly wicked demons. Therefore, surrounding him, they drove the wretched man from the city into the deserts and into the haunts of the dead, stripping him of his clothing and breaking his bonds, using his own hands as instruments against him. But why the demons, surveying [the scene], drive the men into the tombs, it is necessary to see. Those who have become, as it were, intoxicated with the wisdom of error and the nonsense arising from it, did not even shrink from saying this: that the souls of those who have died become demons. Therefore, this impious opinion... [index: entries preserved]
as the souls of those who have departed become demons. These demons, therefore, hastening to confirm this unholy opinion, drive those who are possessed by them A into the tombs. ‹ And when he saw Jesus, he cried out with a loud voice and said: What have I to do with thee, Jesus, Son of the most high God? I beseech thee, do not torment me. › It is worth pondering whence this foreknowledge came to the demons; for one must not believe that they possess it by their own nature, having fallen away from the divine glory and having been named darkness instead of light. Or perhaps it is entirely according to some wise and ingenious dispensation, so that even from the testimony of his enemies the greatness of God’s glory might be manifest; for some divine power was invisibly subduing those tormentors, which also compelled them to say these things. ‹ And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the abyss. › For they knew that those demons whom he expelled from others, he had sent away into the abyss by his all-powerful word. Since, therefore, others had already been sent away beforehand, they shuddered at the event and, being unwilling, predicted the torment that was prepared for them, and chose the entry into the swine over that. ‹ For there was, he says, a herd of swine feeding, and they besought him that he might suffer them to enter into them; and he suffered them. › They requested a habitation worthy of their nature; for as they were foul, they loved the animal that delights in foulness. It is, therefore, also useful to note that it is not possible for these, B even to have power over irrational animals without God granting it.
[Note: The remaining text in the Latin column consists of the supplementary notes of Franciscus Scorsus, which are excluded from the translation as per the instructions concerning the apparatus.]
A power to hold the ground. But those who have rotted in vain wisdom, and have sharpened their tongues against us like a sword, and by their own eloquence act as advocates for falsehood, and embellish deception, attempting to overturn this miracle, have endeavored to cast the history into an absurdity. For they say: How did Jesus fulfill the request of the demons, who were His enemies, by permitting them the entry into the swine? And where did a herd of swine exist in Judæa, since the Mosaic Law commands one not to touch swine even with the hand, as they are unclean? And even if we grant that swine-herding was carried on in Palestine, moving the objection to a counter-plea, how was it not unjust for the masters to be deprived of their own property? Truly, the difficulties raised are laughable.
For this reason, defending against this calumny with very sound sense, we say this: that if He had not permitted the demons to enter into the swine, it would have been unclear to the multitude whither they had departed, and it would have been granted to the detractors of the truth to say that they had not gone into the abyss, but perhaps into another man, and there would be no benefit from the miracle. B And just as if a thief, having been driven from a place of ambush, departs and displays his thievery in a different spot. Thus, He makes it clear from these events that they are not able to resist His command. That there were herds of swine in Judæa is clear from the fact that the whole of Palestine was tributary to the Romans. For Caesar had entrusted the principality of Judæa to both Herods—the son and the grandson of Antipater the Idumæan.
For an objection is a violent thing. For it will say that it is not permitted. But the counter-plea prepares the ground, that even if it is permitted, it is not so in this manner, nor for these reasons. Objection, counter-plea, counter-plea. The rhetor, a most skilled orator, holds objection, counter-plea, counter-plea, and plea as a side point; counter-plea.
A Caesar committed the rule of Judea, and he sent the Gentile Pilate as governor and judge. It is consistent, therefore, to think that those herds of swine belonged to the Roman army, which was not at all in accordance with Jewish customs. But he did not even harm the owners of the swine; rather, he punished the injustice, teaching by deed that Judea should not be defiled by unclean animals, the touching of which the law also forbade. For he honored what was ancient for a time, so that he might not appear to be contrary to Moses. B "And the demons, when they had gone out of the man, entered into the swine, and the herd rushed down the steep into the lake and was choked." The herd, then, stimulated to a frenzy and tumbling down the precipice, became submerged; and the swineherds departed to the city, destined to be the self-messengers of the drama. But we, having sufficiently narrated the story, let us enter within its inner chambers. The narrative of the story thus outlines the transgression of the first-created man, and his fall into sin, and the destruction of the demons along with wickedness. For that man, having readily accepted the counsel of the demon, was driven out—just as this demoniac from the blessed city of Eden—and he was stripped of the garment of immortality, and he was dwelling in the tombs, having clearly become mortal. He also broke the bonds of the chains, disregarding them; for the man who broke the law of God and the commandments given at different times for the training of nature, so that it might not leap toward disorderly impulses, wandered into the deserts of impiety, where the swinish nutriments were. But that supremely good nature, out of its innate serenity, pitied the fall arising from neglect, having shown mercy to the change of the rational nature toward the worse, and, having assumed our poverty, it effaced the madness caused by the demons, so that the demons might no longer be considered gods. And the foul-smelling sin, of which the swine that delight in the mire are a symbol, is choked in the water of baptism together with its creators, the demons. But the nature that had been driven to madness by them, returning to its senses, purely recovers its original blessedness. But why do I walk toward the things common to nature? Come, let each one of us, as many as are tyrannized by the passions as if by demons, draw this story to ourselves. For truly, the one who is weighed down by a multitude of sins is held by a legion of demons; and indeed, being driven by the habit of evil deeds, he is led out of the city of virtues, and he leaps over our house—I mean the Church—and, like one casting off chains, he casts off the commandments of God, divesting himself of the garments of temperance; and naked, woe is me, he leaps indecently away from good deeds, living in inaction as in a tomb, dead to the life lived according to God. That the passions C... D [alt-version omitted]
drive a man to Bacchic frenzy and make him mad, consider those who are consumed by envy, or those who suffer the bitter and maddening desires for another’s bed. But the passion of anger B and the unseemliness of those who are enraged differ in no way from those who are possessed (75). I once saw a man angry beyond measure, and I lamented our nature. For his eyes were thrust out beyond the boundary of his eyelids, staring with a bloodshot and serpent-like gaze at the one who had caused his grief; his chest was constricted with quick panting; the veins of his neck were seen to swell; his tongue was terribly thickened; his voice, strangled by the tightened throat, grew shrill; and his lips, purpled by the suffusion of bile, were drawn tight, so that he could not even hold the saliva in his mouth but spewed foam along with his insults. His hands and feet were unsteady, and his whole body was in a tremor. Are these not common to those who are possessed and those who are enraged? Let us therefore beseech God, who is all-powerful, to deliver us from these passions, just as He delivers us from demons, and to deem us worthy of the good things promised to the righteous—may we all attain these in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
HOMILY X. Concerning the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, and concerning the woman with an issue of blood.
A double narrative of miracles has been presented to us today in the holy Gospel; or rather, this is far more wonderful than the miracles that have previously occurred through Christ, inasmuch as the resurrection from the dead is more marvelous than the healing of a stutterer, a paralytic, a blind man, or a maniac. For now, He performs the miracle of resurrection from the dead for the first time, beginning with the daughter of Jairus; and, as He begins to hold Hades captive, He takes this virgin as the first-fruits, doing so very fittingly; since— C D
A the entry of death took place through the virgin Eve. But let us open the holy scroll and hear the very words: *At that time, a certain man came to Jesus, by name Jairus, and he himself was a ruler of the Synagogue, and falling at the feet of Jesus, he besought Him to enter into his house, because he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying.* B It is a source of wonder to me, at the very beginning of the explanation, how far those from the nations who had believed surpassed the Jews from the start. For that centurion had such great confidence after believing, that he believed the Savior was able—even while absent—to heal the sick child by His word; for which reason he also said: *Speak the word, and my servant shall be healed.* But this ruler of the Synagogue, Jairus, who was present, requests the Lord to enter into his house, thinking that He could not bring about healing for the girl in any other way. For Jairus had a daughter who was very beautiful, bearing the flower of virginity unstained, as if it were preserved untouched within a calyx. The evangelist has embraced many things in few words, weaving lamentation into the narrative: *She was an only child, he says.* C You see the gravity of the calamity, and how the speech describes the tragedy of the event in few words? For what did he indicate by these words? That when she was dead, there was no other child for the parents to look upon, so as to stay their tears; for the child was an only one. But by also designating the girl as twelve years old, he reveals the most delightful time of life, when the maidens imagine the wedding song, and a handsome bridegroom, and the bridal chamber; and many, vying in form, add certain cosmetics to their natural beauty so that they may appear beautiful to those who look upon them. D Perhaps many suitors also visited her, and there was among them a noble rivalry as to who might be preferred as the husband of the virgin; and the marriage-makers went in by turns, and one, extolling one bridegroom, and another another, hastened the match. But the sickness took the place of the hopes for the girl, threatening a death that would follow shortly. Therefore, the father comes with his inward parts scorched by the suffering, and with an ardent heart, he offers his prayer to the Savior. He who had come for the salvation of the world accepts the entreaty. Yet, in order to correct the unbelief of the ruler of the Synagogue by actual deed, He gives Himself space on the way for the healing of the woman with the flow of blood, so that, once death had taken hold of the girl, the miracle might be the more astonishing. *And as He was going, the crowds pressed Him; and a woman being in a flow of blood for twelve years, who had spent all her substance on physicians, could not be cured by anyone.* Consider how great a crowd followed Him, so that they even pressed Him because the streets were constricted. Among them was also a woman afflicted by an immeasurable flow of blood, who had spent all she possessed on physicians and had found no profit.
A For the malady was of such a kind that it could be cured by no human art. Having despaired of all remedies, she consults with herself on a wise plan: to flee with haste to the physician who heals without a fee, bringing faith as a very great reward. For she was saying—as another evangelist says—that "If I but touch his garment, I shall be saved." But for what reason does she not approach openly, as the Canaanite woman did, or the woman who was bent over? She was a woman of note and known to all; yet, according to the Law, the woman held by a flow of blood was considered unclean, and it was not lawful for her to touch anything sacred. For the Law says: "If a woman has a flow of blood for many days, all the days of her flow are of uncleanness; whoever touches her shall be unclean." Fearing, therefore, to touch his immaculate feet, and at the same time wishing to hide that which modest women are embarrassed to reveal, she devised how to steal her salvation. B "And approaching from behind, she touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately the flow of her blood stopped." O, the miracle! This is a new kind of miracle which the Lord manifests, neither touching the sick woman nor dispelling the ailment with a word, but measuring out mercy according to faith. The woman approached with faith and was not disappointed in her hope. How great a good is faith, which prepares the God-given grace within us; but doubting is injurious. For even if the most holy fringe of his immaculate tunic was sacred, as something brushing against the flesh of God, nonetheless it was the woman’s faith that became the procurer of the grace. For the soldiers touched the garments of the Lord at the time of the Passion, distributing them by lot, but that contact did them no good. C But the holy Mark, explaining the narrative more precisely, says, "He perceived in his body that he was healed of the plague." What does he mean by this? That the afflictions and diseases of the body are, as it were, certain scourges and plagues, which are for the most part brought upon intemperate souls. That these things are true, our discourse will show without labor; for to him who was healed in the five-porticoed porch of Solomon, Christ spoke thus: "Behold, you have been made sound; sin no more, lest something worse happen to you." And to those who received the holy things with a defiled conscience, the Apostle says: "For this reason, many among you are weak and infirm, and many are asleep." "And Jesus said, 'Who is it who touched me?' And while all were denying it, Peter and those with him said, 'Master, the crowds surround you and press upon you, and you say, "Who touched me?"'" He, who searches hearts and reins, was not unaware of the woman’s praiseworthy theft, nor does he hide it in silence.
A How then, when healing others, did He command them to keep silent and tell no one, yet here He brings the event to public triumph? He does this most appropriately; for at once He shows the woman that she had not escaped the notice of Him from whom she had received her health, and at the same time He makes the fervent nature of her faith manifest to those who were following Him. But observe the imperfection of the disciples for me. For the one asked, "Who is it that approached and touched me in faith?" while the others conjectured a physical touch. And what is the meaning of: "I perceive that power has gone out of me"? Was there any diminution in those who were being healed, as His power was dispersed? Far from it! Just as if from a single lamp you were to light ten thousand others, it remains complete while giving light to all, so the tireless power of God, while bestowing the grace of healing upon all, remained entire. Or if you prefer, just as sciences, when imparted to those being taught, remain complete with the teachers, so the grace of God, when distributed to those receiving it, suffers not the slightest reduction. B "And the woman, seeing that she had not escaped notice, came trembling, and falling down before Him, declared for what reason she had touched Him before all the people, and how she was healed immediately." She, then, being afraid and trembling, lest perhaps this theft had not turned out well, fell at His feet and confessed the secret; but Christ praises her faith and calls her "daughter," having made her His own through faith. How blessed is this renowned woman, both for having obtained health without labor and for having been brought into the kinship of God, in being called a daughter of Jesus! Blessed also is that soul which follows behind Jesus like her, and touches the hem of His garment; for the Spirit teaches us through this history that, as much as anyone shall follow behind Christ through imitation—as far as is possible for man—and shall approach God through virtue, he has as yet touched only the hem, due to the infinite and unbounded nature of virtue. C "While He was still speaking, someone came from the ruler of the synagogue, saying to him, 'Your daughter is dead; do not weary the Teacher.'" Such an amount of time having been consumed during the journey, death has overcome the maiden, and it is announced to the girl’s father not to provide useless labor for the Teacher; for they supposed His power to be effective only as long as the soul was present with the body. This is also what Martha seemed to think from the words she spoke: "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died..."
D
Notes of Franciscus Scorsi
...the very true voice of all the saints, that one must always progress and advance in virtue, never stopping. Thus St. Maximus, whom our author frequently uses, in the second century of his *Chapters on Economy*: "He who recognizes the infinite measure of virtue never ceases to run according to it." And so clearly from the teaching of St. Thomas (2a 2ae, q. 24, a. 2) and the theologians who teach that charity—and with it all other virtues—can always be increased infinitely. But see, pray, Cornelius a Lapide, of our Society, an excellent and copious interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures, on that passage of Paul to the Philippians: "Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God." Where he collects many things said and examples of the ancient Fathers pertinent here; indeed, he teaches many reasons and causes for always progressing in virtue. Our Theophanes, by explaining this passage and many others in his homilies tropologically, repeats and inculcates the deeds and sayings of the Gospel, as things highly useful and to be applied for the study of a more perfect life.A Mārtha appears to be thinking of this from what she says: "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." Thus it seemed difficult for a dead person to be brought to life. What, then, does the Savior say to her? "Do not fear; only believe, and he shall be saved." Perhaps He reminds her of the miracle previously performed, as one that had been accomplished by faith alone. The maiden, then, had died, and those around the house were weeping, as is customary, and beating their breasts, and there was a confused din, a gathering of kinsmen, the wailing of servants, the shrieking of women, the lamentation of men—everything filled with dirges and tears. But for what reason, after casting the others out of the house, does He introduce only the parents of the girl and the three disciples? So that no one might think she had been seized by the noise of the mourners, but had not actually died. Having cast out those who were making a disturbance, therefore, He introduces only those who would be witnesses of the miracle: among the disciples, the cream of those who followed Him; among the multitude, those who were closest to the maiden. And Jesus said, "Do not weep; for she is not dead, but sleeps." And they laughed at Him, knowing that she had died. Since He knew of her resurrection to take place shortly, "She is sleeping," He says, "she is not dead"; showing at the same time that what is bruited about by us as death is a sleep. He touches, then, the hand of the maiden, and by His lordly word awakes the girl back to life, as if from sleep. He touches the child, B showing that His divine and immaculate flesh, created from her, participated conceptually in the tokens of the Godhead, having become capable of conferring life. The historical part of the account is finished thus; come now, let us contemplate also what is signified by these things. The story of this two-fold narrative was a prefiguration of the Synagogue and of the Church from the nations. For the Lord came primarily to the daughter of the archisynagogus, but the healing of the woman with the flux of blood was effected in passing, the event showing, I think, that He did not primarily dwell among the nations, but among Israel, as He Himself says: "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But because Israel was faithless, salvation came to the nations who followed the preaching and grasped the evangelical voice and teaching as if they were the Lord’s garments; and thus a cessation occurred of the flow of blood, the flow of the sanguine sin that prepared men to worship demons. And that also is surely consistent with the theory: that she had exhausted everything on physicians and had been helped in no way, the woman who was suffering. Since, indeed, the nature of men, held fast by the disease of impiety, having exhausted all the power naturally within it in the wise men of the world, was not in the least delivered from superstition. And an equal amount of time...
A seeing the life of the maiden and the disease of the woman measured by twelve years, we are not astonished, seeing the consequence. For during the time that the Synagogue lived, the Church of the nations was held by the disease of sin; when that one had behaved wantonly toward Emmanuel and died in unbelief, this one was delivered from the disease. But also the number of the years concerns that which is sensible and signifies time, during which the disease of impiety prevailed over nature; for time is heptadic, while the senses are pentadic. And if, after the cleansing of the unclean, the one who was dead is raised, not even this is inconsistent with the theory of what has been examined. “And the remnant shall be saved,” according to the Apostle, “when the fullness of the nations has entered in.” But why do I move toward the calling of the nations and the Israelite remnant? And by looking at exterior things, do I not see myself depicted in the narrative? Come, then, let us gaze into the history as into a mirror, that each of us may find the wretchedness of his own soul; for the same soul is both the woman with an issue of blood and the maiden. As the woman with an issue of blood, because it has badly diverted the power given to it for the generation of pious words and good deeds into the flowing matter of the passions, making it barren of virtue, and has carried only the defilement of sin; but the same soul is a maiden on account of B virginity and purity and its likeness to the incorruptible good, being perfect for the immaculate marriage and the union with the intelligible Bridegroom. This one, by its swerving toward evil, had become bedridden in the house of the body, raging with the sickness of sinners; and the evil having prevailed, it was deprived of the life that is according to virtue. What hope of salvation, then, is there? Let the mind lament, as the father of the maiden; let the sense grieve, as a dweller with the mind, so that the Physician of souls may raise it from the fall, and the heavenly hosts will rejoice at this. For “there is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents” and turns to God, to whom is due all glory, honor, and worship unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XIV. Concerning the expert in the Law who questioned the Lord, and concerning him who fell among the robbers.
The parched, rough, and dried-up earth does not so much crave the heavenly showers as I, blessed congregation of God, was craving to see your faces. For when I was here with you, I did not feel the yearning so much; for that which is close at hand and seen is slow to arouse desire. But when I was separated from you, I recognized that love is a violent tyrant, so that it is close to the truth what the outsiders C say D
that those who desire are aged by their absence. B But since the Holy Spirit and our Lady the Mother of God have brought us together again into the same place and have deemed us worthy to venerate her uncreated image, and show us a father rejoicing over his children, come, let us cast off the wrinkles of absence and lay hold of our customary instruction. “At that time a certain lawyer approached Jesus testing him, and saying: Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” This cunning lawyer was plotting to deceive the Lord with his feigned questioning, hoping to be tutored by him in some new doctrine contrary to the Law, so that, having grasped some reasonable pretext, he might set his accusing tongue in motion. Therefore he approaches with a composed appearance and grave speech, C but with a crooked mind, conversing not straightforwardly but, to speak prophetically, walking in a circle. He failed, however, in his endeavor and was caught in the very snare he had hidden. For He who catches the wise in their cunning caught this man in the very precepts in which he was boasting. For he asked, “Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” But He shows him that, even though he was a Scribe, he did not know the intention of the Law. For in that he was ignorant of who his neighbor was, he is shown to be lacking in the precise education of the Law. Therefore, the one who is of the Trinity D performs three things here: he escapes the traps of the tempter, he empties the Scribe of the puffing up of his conceit by showing him to be lacking in the learning of the commandments, and he subtly imparts in his parable the mystery of the Economy. But so that our discourse may be easier to grasp, let us examine these sayings word by word. Jesus says to him: “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” It was the Lord’s custom to convince those who test him for the most part by means of a counter-question. He did this to those who proposed the dilemma of whether it is lawful to give tribute to Caesar, and to those who with a similar intent said to him: “You came, dear boy, with the third night and day; but those who desire age in a single day.” But know that you have consumed me in these three days, if the Sicilian poet speaks the truth, saying that those who desire age in a single day; but if these things are so, as indeed they are, you have tripled our old age.
A But what is this triple division of the legal commandment? For it says: «You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your strength, and with all your mind.» Perhaps the word has taught us the entire constitution of man. For the perfect soul is seen in these three things. And external philosophy also imagined this, though it did not perceive it clearly. For when it speaks first of the germination of plants, then of the generation of irrational animals, and after these of the production of man, it philosophizes upon the power of the vital soul in three differences. For of living bodies, some are devoid of sensation, others, though governed by sensation, are destitute of reason; but the perfect life in a body is in man, who is nourished as are plants, and feels as do other animals, and is a participant of reason; just as we have learned these things from the Apostle, in the passage where he prays that the entirely perfect grace of body, and soul, and spirit be preserved for the Ephesians. B And here, therefore, the commandment interprets the same difference; calling the more bodily state the heart, strength the sensation, and mind the higher intellectual nature. And consequent to this holy commandment is love for one's neighbor. For he who loves God will certainly, of course, also love His image, man. And he who loves the image, [loves] the prototype much more. But how must one love one's neighbor? The commandment says: «As yourself.» But the evangelical voice defines perfect love in this: «to lay down His soul for His friends.» What, then, does the Lord say to the scribe? «Do this, and you shall live,» by means of the continuous signification indicating the indeterminate extension of the love toward God and toward one's neighbor. For he who from a duller... A ...authority do you do these things?» By a counter-interrogation He stopped their mouths. But what is this triple distinction in the precept of the law? For it says: «You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your strength, and with all your mind.» B Perhaps this word declares the entire constitution of man. For in these three the perfect soul is discerned. Of which, certainly, external philosophy had a certain informed opinion, yet it did not clearly discern the matter. For since it disserts first on the germination of plants, then on the generation of animals, and afterwards on the production of man, it philosophizes that the whole power of the life-giving soul exists in these three differences. For of living bodies, some are devoid of sense; others, indeed, which are governed by sense, lack reason. But the perfect life, which exists in a body, is that of man, which is nourished in the manner of plants, and senses in the mode of other living things, and is a participant of reason. Just as we learn these things also from the Apostle, who, in the Epistle which is to the Ephesians (86), desires that perfect grace be preserved both of body and of spirit. And in this place also the same difference is signified in the precept; for that which is more concrete in the body he calls heart, the faculty of sensing he calls strength, and the more sublime intellectual nature he calls mind. But to this divine precept adheres love toward one's neighbor. For he who loves God, will also, of course, entirely love man, His image; but he who loves the image will much more love the prototype. But in what manner one ought to love one's neighbor, the precept itself indeed defines: «As yourself.» But the evangelical word determines perfect charity in this: «that one lay down his soul for his friends.» But what does the Lord say to the lawyer? «Do this, and you shall live»: by the extensive signification (87) C ... [at this point, the Latin continues with commentary/notes from Francisci Scorsi] ... D
...and we shall praise Him with the angels and the shepherds, offering faith in place of gold, deeds in place of frankincense, and the mortification of the body and the mystical table in place of myrrh, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be worship now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XV
On the man who was chief of the publicans, Zacchaeus.
That mystical and divine ladder, which the patriarch Jacob beheld in his wandering while he was falling asleep B, the Lord raised up, bringing the one climbing upward a little off the ground; the other steps, one after another, gradually lifting him up even to the highest point and the ultimate summit, upon which the Lord was leaning. The angels were ascending and descending, becoming guides for those being led on high. What was it that I intended by using the example of the patriarch's ladder? I infer the season of repentance and of fasts from the evangelical voice and from what has been read, that it draws near.
D
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus.
...erudite, who translated all the works of John Climacus into Latin and published them in Greek and Latin simultaneously. The passage, however, which he reports here, is from the seventh step. The Greek words are these: "Expel the dog, who is approaching in the deepest sorrow of repentance, and opposing God by his lack of mercy and his hardness of heart." Therefore, the Climacus does not call it despair here. Nevertheless, in this passage, he seems to express his own opinion; he also teaches that this is taught by Gregory of Nyssa, who openly teaches by the metaphor of the staff in his Life of Moses: "The defensive staff of these beasts is the doctrine of hope, whereby we sustain the soul that is weary, and repel the dog who is attacking, and drive away [the passion of] dejection." *Baculus vero, quo feras repellimus, spes est: quo labores, et molestias animi sustentamus, et latratum canum arcemus.*And this [body] which is a burdensome appendage, this fleshy sack which we put on like a leather tunic A after the fall, we put off again through death; and it indeed decays, as each element returns by a certain natural force to its own place; but the soul remains immortal (for how could that which is simple, impartible, and incomposite be dissolved?), as man, dying by half, is said to be left half-dead. B "And by chance a certain priest was going down that road, and having seen him, he passed by; likewise also a Levite having come to the place, and having seen him, passed by." He who had fallen among the robbers and had been left thus wounded lay upon the road, along which—it says—it happened that a priest was passing, who, having run past the sufferer without care, passed by. But also the Levite, having come to the place, showed the same numbness toward him who was in a bad state as the priest had. You understand, I suppose, that the road signifies this life which is lived in passing; the priest signifies the Law, which adorned the priesthood; and the Levite signifies the gathering of the prophets, who, having profited human nature little or nothing, departed. Consider also the exactness of the word; for he did not say, "Having seen him, he passed by," but "he passed by on the other side." What does he mean by this? Since man passed by the Law by not keeping it soundly, the Law passed by on the other side of him, leaving him without help. And this is that which God says through Hosea: "You have forgotten the law of your God, and I will forget you." C "But a certain Samaritan, as he was traveling, came near him, and having seen him, was moved with compassion." The Lord of him who was suffering therefore comes; He felt pity for the nature of which He was the Father; He sympathized in the ways that the all-good nature, which is incapable of suffering, knows how to grieve, and He becomes what the one suffering was, without the wounds of sin, and is called Samaritan, meaning He kept the marks of both natures, remaining what He was and becoming what He was not. D "And having approached, he bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine." He binds the wound of impiety, having applied the bond of piety. He cleanses the ulcer of intemperance, having drizzled on the astringent wine of sobriety. He wipes away the appetite of greed, pouring out the oil of mercy. Thus, through the commandments, He binds up the wounds; and through teaching, He constrains wickedness, and soothes the faint-hearted with the hope of things to come; for wine comes to constrain, and is of the nature to restrain, while oil softens and brings happiness.
And just as in instruction, whatever is meant for refutation and rebuke corresponds to wine, while whatever is meant for consolation is likened to oil; or perhaps, since impulses toward evil flow from two sources, namely anger and desire, he softens the inflammation of anger with the oil’s smoothness, and constricts the dissipation of desire with the astringency of wine. A *And setting him upon his own beast, he brought him to an inn.* He called his own body his own beast; for he took on the entire human nature through the assumption of flesh, and he himself, to use the Prophet’s words, *bore our sins and healed our infirmities.* And bringing him from the wide and spacious road, he led him to the inn—I mean the Church—and through the whole economy of God for our sake, he demonstrated his care for transferring us to heaven. B *On the morrow, he says, when he took his journey, he took out two denarii* (92), *and gave to the host, and said: Take care of him, and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I return, I will repay thee.* What then is the morrow? The time which dawned after grace, making another day, possessing the light of knowledge. The morrow, that is, after his resurrection from the dead, from which, like the sun, having set in the tomb, he leaped forth again as if from the east. *Taking his journey, then, on the morrow.* Whence journeying? From the corruption of death; he gave to the disciples, and to all the heralds of the mystery, the two Testaments as the two denarii, which possess as one the inscription of the Trinity, just as, indeed, the denarii also bore one image *. And even if it chanced to entail the passing of the legal precepts, according to which the Gospel C had those two in number. He says, therefore, to the teachers that they must take care of the flock most soberly, and whatever they might expend out of their own resources in uncovering the riddles of Scripture and increasing the teachings, when he returns according to the age to come, ...
each will receive his own reward. Happy, then, is the teacher who will increase the denarii of his teaching, having expended from his own store a sound word and a life consistent with the word. A But wretched and miserable are all those like me, who sound into the air in vain, like clanging brass or a tinkling cymbal, accomplishing the good only by half and remaining lacking in what is better. The parable, therefore, has demonstrated the fall of men and the mercy of God toward us. Perhaps it also describes me and those like me, who have neglected their own salvation. For I am he who, having been cast out, as it were, from Jerusalem, the city of virtues, and having of my own accord slunk away toward the Jericho of sin, and having fallen as if among thieves upon the highway of life—that is, my own wicked thoughts—by which I was stripped, woe is me, of the decorous life of virtuous deeds, appeared naked, bearing many weals inflicted by sins. I have become half-dead and halved, moving about with only hope alive. The priest and the Levite passed me by; for both the natural and the written law had, because of my disobedience, become ineffectual. But be present, O Savior himself, compassionately dripping onto me the fair compound, the oil and the wine, B correcting me with long-suffering and instructing me with mercy; scourging me with temptations because of my disobedience, and pitying me with long-suffering because of my weakness, bring me into the inn of the virtues. Charge the holy angel who guards me to care for my salvation, and as two denarii, supply me with love toward you and my neighbor. For you are he who has healed our infirmities and cured our wounds with your own wounds, who are glorified with the Father and the Spirit, to whom all honor is due unto the ages. Amen.
Homily XII. Concerning the woman who possessed a spirit of infirmity.
Drones are a kind of bee that is idle and useless. These fellows, then, whenever they see the bees flying away from the hives and heading toward meadows and gathering the fine and downy substance shaken from the middle of the bloom—from which they fashion the sweetness of the honey in the wax—at that moment, these drones, in the manner of brigands, or rather of thieves, leaping in and approaching the hives, greedily consume the labor of the bees. C When they sense the bees returning, they take flight without looking back, D for those drones, being idle, sluggish, and stingless, cannot come to a defense, and flee from the bees as they return. But they, remaining within the hives, store up another's labor into their own belly.
When they perceive the bees returning, they flee without looking back, unable to come to a defense. Such are the ravagers of the Church, and the plunderers of its affairs; they watch for our withdrawal, and then, darting in, they ravage ecclesiastical matters. Fearing our front-line defense, they attempt to outmaneuver us with words and snares, sometimes making the courtyard of Caiaphas a council, sometimes forming a terrible council in the oratory of the Forerunner, and turning the baptistery into a place of intrigue. To what end? That Isaac may be expelled, and Ishmael introduced. But those men are fleeing, as you see, watching the mountain peaks, and dragging away the weaker of the sheep, stopping their ears like an asp against the admonition. But we, O my clergy, turning aside their onslaughts, let us again hear the sacred words of the Gospel: “At that time Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, and behold, there was a woman who had a spirit of infirmity for eighteen years; and she was bent over.”
HOMILY XII
A...that they are unable to come to a struggle against them. Such are the eaters and raptors in the Church; they watch for our departure, and then, having made an attack, they bring ruin upon ecclesiastical affairs; but truly fearing the edge of the tongue, with a gathered band of factious men, they attempt to oppose us through snares, sometimes making the hall of Caiaphas a council, sometimes constituting an improper conciliabulum in the oratory of the Forerunner, and making the baptistery a place of reception for snares. For the sake of effecting what thing? That Isaac may be expelled, and Ismael introduced. But they indeed flee, as you see, when they observe the guard, and turning away the weaker from the sheep, they close their ears, in the manner of adders, to the exhortation. We, however, O company of my clergy, turning aside their impulses, B age, let us again hear the sacred words of the Gospel: “In that time Jesus was teaching in their synagogue on the Sabbath: and behold a woman, who had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years; and she was bowing down.” C D [alt-version omitted]
A Since it was customary for the Savior to perform most of his divine signs on the Sabbath, and to pour forth the honey-sweet stream of his teaching in the synagogues, for it was in these that the people were especially gathered, he healed—to be sure—the man with the withered hand, and the paralytic in Solomon’s porch, and the man blind from birth, and this woman who was bowing down, on the Sabbath. He was indeed interpreting the very name of the Sabbath by his deed, providing a "sabbatism" to diseases, that is, bestowing rest upon those who were troubled by them, and while he was strengthening their souls with his excellent teaching, he was also ridding their bodies of the passions that afflicted them. Truly, he also shows that the Pharisees and Scribes, the interpreters of the Law, were observing the precision of the Sabbath without understanding. B You will know this more clearly if you fix your mind on the end of this reading, where the Savior engaged in a dispute with the ruler of the synagogue.
But now, let us take up the discourse from the beginning: “And behold a woman who had a spirit of infirmity.” Where are those who attribute the causes of the disturbances caused by demons to the periods of the moon, and to fever, and to the superabundance of blood, and to the excess of material, and who for this reason lacerate the words of truth? Behold, the Gospel calls the fact that the woman was bowed down, and inclined toward the earth, as having happened through demonic energy, a “spirit of infirmity.” For this great evangelist Luke, because he had engaged with medical books and was not ignorant of the opinion of naturalists, corrects their assumption, so that those who do not apply their attention beyond what is perceived by the senses might not be able to blame the numbness of nerves, the loosening of the vertebrae, and whatever else it is their custom to treat according to the laws of nature. C I say these things not while abolishing the cause of nature. For nature does indeed often err; or whence come those extra fingers, or the lack of limbs, or the blindness of eyes from the very birth? Therefore, the cause of the infirmity of those who are born is often to be blamed on the parents, who by drunkenness and debauchery make what is sown degenerate. Hence, even Moses stoned to death the father of one who was maimed, because, due to intemperance, he did not await the purification of the woman. Yet, these things also have not fallen outside of the providence that directs all things, which often prevents future wickedness through some privation. For not only in the body, but also in the souls, the cure for contrary things is found in their opposites. And to those whose future wickedness is not restrained, other burning irons are applied, or D
the Word, and he who is truth itself makes the promise; to whom befits all praise and majesty for ever and ever. Amen.
HOMILY XVI. On the Publican and Pharisee.
The evangelical voice now sets before us a second step leading to the patriarchal height; for on the past Sunday, having opened to us the way of repentance through the history of Zacchaeus, and having gently insinuated the counsel by the words, "Make haste and come down," it now explains this even more clearly today. It shows how happily matters are conducted through that counsel, how badly they fall through pride, and how great is the profit of righteousness in one, and what the loss is in the other. For since the business of the Publican—to use the term—is the very lowest of all evils, because it is full of rapacity, extortion, and greed—which the Apostle calls idolatry—it remained for the Pharisee to seem the most glorious of all, since he parades the most exact observance of the law and purity from all defilement (for the Pharisee is interpreted as "pure"). Therefore, the Savior places this at the end as the pinnacle of virtue in the parable he composes. For it is customary for an example to be brought forward from that which is best in each case, to incite souls toward imitation. But it is better to have received this parable from the beginning, and to explain it to your divine-word-loving ears.
"And Jesus spoke this parable: Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a Publican." Why the Lord discourses so much in parables, has been discussed by us in other places. But now it must be noted that as often as He chooses to instruct in parables about God or the singular, divine nature, He substitutes just one person: e.g., "A certain man made a great supper," and, "The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that is a king." Or, when He proposes only wickedness to be disparaged, or virtue to be praised, He uses the singular number: as with the rich man, "whose field brought forth fruits," and the unjust judge. Concerning virtue, however, He tells of the merchant who, having found the precious pearl, redeems it for all he has, and of the good man bringing forth from the treasure of his heart A the evidence of malice, though he has failed to notice that he has stirred up an examination against himself. For why...
does the Saviour say to him? "Hypocrite, does not each of you on the Sabbath release his ox or his ass from the manger, and lead it away to water?" A He shows that the man is, as it were, rabid with envy; but He reveals the truth by clarifying the intention of the Law, and persuading [him] to be guided by the spirit rather than the letter. For the Law indeed forbade working with one's hands on the Sabbath, but it by no means forbade doing good; indeed, the very cessation of customary works was a caution to those who understood the implications. And that these things are true, the argument will show without effort. The Law commands that on the Sabbath one should not carry a load, nor kindle a fire, nor go out from one's place. B Therefore, he who accepts these things carnally becomes subject to the curse of the Law. For not moving from one's place is impossible; and everything that is lifted up is a load, even if it be bread or a garment. But the Law legislates through the "sabbatism" a cessation from evil. Let there be no being burdened by the weight of sin—for this is what it means "not to carry a load"; let there be no departing from one's standing in God—which is what it means "not to go out from one's place"; let there be no kindling the fire of anger and of vile desire. Furthermore, the stoning of the one who was gathering C sticks on the Sabbath, it is fitting to understand in such a way that those who are destructive and [act] against the miracle set forth the evidence of their own envy, whereas they failed to notice that they had stirred up an examination against themselves. Rightly and carefully— D [alt-version omitted]
A that we must cast the logs of malice against him who collects the dried branches of sin—which the Apostle called wood, and hay, and stubble. But the Jews, not correctly nor thoughtfully, but bodily keeping the Sabbath, and honoring the Sabbath through inaction, render service to the creature; just as the prophetic voice denounces those who bodily observe the Sabbath, saying: "Woe to you who touch false Sabbaths!" For the Law teaches that even on the Sabbath the ox or the ass should not be left neglected, but that one should pity the souls of beasts, according to the scriptural passage. But since God cares not for oxen, as seems to be the opinion of Paul, the accurate expounder of the Law: "Those who draw near to the evil day, those who play and touch false Sabbaths."
Besides—for I consider that I ought to speak of the more necessary things concerning these matters—the Sabbaths of the Jews are false; since the Law is a shadow, and a type according to truth, as are the things that came through Moses. But the type is not the truth; rather, it introduces a manifestation of the truth. Therefore, Paul also writes to the Hebrews and says concerning the ancients: "There remains a Sabbath-rest for the people of God." For Jesus did not cause them to rest, nor did they enter into the rest of God. But we sabbath spiritually in Christ, putting an end to and abandoning sin, and desisting from every corruptible and earthly preoccupation. The righteous man feels pity for the souls of his beasts.
B
HOMILY XII
C God once commanded the observation of the Sabbath to the Hebrews, and that in memory of the favor of the created universe, from which God rested on the seventh day. And so, through the keeping of the Sabbath, He enjoined the observation of the whole Law, as Cornelius a Lapide noted in his commentary on the seventeenth chapter of Jeremiah; and this is gathered from Isaiah, chapter 56, verse 2, where the Lord says: "Blessed is the man who does this, keeping the Sabbath, that he may not pollute it; keeping his hands, that he may not perform any evil." And likewise from verse 4. For he who kept the Sabbath, by this very fact tacitly professed that God is the Creator and Governor of heaven and earth; but he who would despise the Sabbath appeared to deny that God is the Creator of the world: just as if someone today refused to celebrate the Lord's Day, he would appear to deny that Christ has risen, in whose memory that day was established. Since, therefore, the observation of the Sabbath was referred entirely to the honor of God, so that it even embraced the keeping of the entire Law: those who observed the Sabbath only with exterior worship, but neglected spiritual worship and abstention from sins, appeared to render worship to the creature rather than to the Creator, as if the day of the Sabbath were to be observed for its own sake, and not in honor of God. And this is the meaning of Theophanes in this place, speaking against the Jews who accused Christ of a violation of the Sabbath. D And St. Cyril and St. Maximus agree in the same sense with Theophanes, and one is to be explained by the other in this way. For the former, in the *Collectanea*, ch. 23, speaks thus: "God did not command the Sabbaths, and the days of the new moon, and the feasts to be honored because He wished the days themselves to be honored by men—for He would not have permitted them to worship the creature more than the Creator—but He ordained that He Himself be honored symbolically through such days; and He Himself is the Sabbath, that is, the rest of the labors of the soul, etc." The latter, in *Economica*, cent. 5, ch. 46: "God commanded the Sabbath, New Moons, and feasts to be held in honor, not because He wished the days to be honored by men; for in this way, he would command them to worship the creature more than the Creator, against the mandate of the Law, to those who think that days are to be venerated by nature and therefore to be adored. But through the days, He declared that He Himself should be honored figuratively." This is St. Maximus, who in many other chapters of the fourth *Century* and in the *Economica* teaches that in the old law the spiritual sense must be most closely attended to.
...verse 3, for where our edition has: "You who are separated unto an evil day, and draw near to the throne of iniquity," the LXX have: "You who draw near to the evil day, approaching, and touching false Sabbaths." Our Ribera noted this variety: and he adds that it arose from the fact that, according to the diversity of the points, it signifies both "Sabbath" and "throne." But in him, the word *shavat* is poorly printed to mean "to desist," which has nothing to do with our matter; for *shabbat* indeed means "Sabbath" from the root "to rest, to cease," but it does not differ only in the points from *shévet*, which word signifies "rod" and "dominion" or "throne"; but, as now appears from Scripture, by one letter, and that the last one. I judge, therefore, that St. Jerome read that word in his book with a *t*, and so translated "throne"; but the LXX, just as we also have it today in the Hebrew Scripture, with a *t*, whence they translated "Sabbath." Moreover, the literal sense of these words from our edition can be read in Ribera himself and in Cornelius a Lapide, who, however, do not say a word about this double reading; but the tropological sense, even according to the version of the LXX, is brought forward beautifully by Ribera himself as the others are, but clearly, and is expressed according to the mind of our Theophanes by St. Cyril of Alexandria, whose exegesis on the minor prophets was recently published by our James Pontanus, translated into Latin by him from the Bavarian and Vatican libraries. It is useful, therefore, both to illustrate the place of the prophet and the place of Theophanes, to write down here the interpretation itself from that work of Cyril, which is not sufficiently common, and which says as follows: "Furthermore (for I think that something more distinguished must be said by me about these things), the 'false Sabbaths' are a matter of the Jews. Since the Law and the things that were done through Moses are a type and an adumbration. But the type is not the truth, but rather a figure and an image of the truth. Wherefore also Paul writes to the Hebrews, and says concerning the ancients: 'There remains a Sabbath-rest for the people of God.' For Jesus did not cause them to rest, nor did they enter into the rest of God. But we sabbath spiritually in Christ, omitting and indeed abandoning sins, and desisting from every corruptible and earthly business." What could be brought forward more illustrious than these to the mind of our author? See likewise the next note 8.
...v. 10: "The righteous man knows the souls of his beasts." The LXX, however, have: "The righteous man pities the souls of his beasts." The true and genuine meaning of which passage is that which St. Chrysostom delivers in his *Homily on the Epistle to the Romans*, and which Salazar reports and follows in...
his commentary upon this place: "For the souls of the saints are exceedingly mild and loving toward men, not only toward their own, but even toward strangers; so that they extend this, their own mildness, even to brute animals: for which reason the wise man also said: 'The righteous man showeth mercy to the souls of his beasts.' If, therefore, to beasts, how much more to men." Thus Chrysostom. And St. Paul, A in chapter 9 of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he treats of the remuneration not to be withheld from the laborers of the Lord’s vineyard, and brings forward to that end the words of Deuteronomy chapter 25: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," subjoins: "Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written." By which words St. Paul teaches that it was a greater care to God to instruct men by that precept than to command the feeding of oxen; and that, therefore, the moral sense of those words is to be looked to more than the literal, as being more intended by God. Neither, therefore, does St. Paul deny the providence of God concerning oxen, nor the literal and primary force of the precept concerning not muzzling the ox that treadeth out the corn, so that it might be refreshed from those things in which it labors. Theophanes is to be understood here in this same sense, in which he has been explained by us hitherto, and as interpreted by all in common with St. Paul. B "If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee,
A they who have accused this law. The healing which occurred in passing of the Church of the Gentiles, which was being brought into confusion, imaged forth its restoration from the fall into idolatry. But also the time of the infirmity clearly shows the things in which the nations were infirm before the advent of Christ. For the number eighteen is a symbol of action and contemplation; for the ten signifies the practical commandments, while the eight is an image of the all-wise theology. On both sides, therefore, the nations were lame; in regard to religion, having suffered the disease of atheism and polytheism; and in regard to action, doing the things opposite to the praiseworthy decade. And thus they were bent down to the earth, fixed in the matter of lowly evils, and bowing toward the beastly and the humble. But God came, moved by His own tender mercies, and having become man, and remaining God, He looses the nations from the bonds of impiety, and restores them to the divine knowledge. And this the spirit-harp fore-psalmed: B "The Lord raiseth up them that are bowed down: the Lord looseth the prisoners." The healing of the suffering woman by both word and touch was indicative of the two natures in Christ. But if the ruler of the synagogue is also envious of her who was healed, this too is consistent with the allegory. For the Jews, seeing the abundance of good things given by God to the nations, are envious, and this God foretells through Moses: "They have provoked me to jealousy with that which is not God; and I will provoke them to jealousy with a foolish nation." Let us, therefore, recover from the fall toward earthly things. Let us lift up our soul's eye to the heavens; let us come to a sense of what is becoming; let us shake off the mist that blinds our ruling faculty; how long shall we have leisure for contentions, and fights, and perjuries? I, at least, am seized by horror and fear because of the constant oaths taken in the courts, and how the Gospel, worthy of all reverence, lies despised in the chair of the pestilent; for it exhorts us not to swear at all, but the extortioners take it as an assistant to their avarice; thus also of the unbelievers C thus, therefore, with both hams, with both their hams the nations were all lame ... eight nations. They exhort to take advantage of the avarice,
HOMILY XII
Sabbath and dissolve the law. But the health restored to the bent woman signifies the salvation of the Church of the Gentiles, which was erected, having been previously bent in the adoration of idols. The time of the infirmity, however, clearly demonstrates with what diseases the nations were ailing before the advent of Christ. For the number eight is a symbol of action and contemplation; for ten signifies the practical commandments; but the eight is a sign of perfect knowledge of God. Therefore, the nations were limping on both legs. For as far as religion is concerned, they were suffering from the disease of atheism and idolatry; but as far as action, they were doing the opposite of what the praiseworthy decade commands. And thus, like sows prone to the earth, they were addicted and fixed to the mire of earthly vices, and bent toward the most abject things and whatever is proper to beasts. But God came, inclined by His own bowels toward us, and being made man, and remaining God, He releases the nations from the chains of impiety and raises them to the knowledge of God: and this the harp struck by the Holy Spirit fore-sang: "The Lord looseth the prisoners: the Lord raiseth up them that are bowed down." That she was cured both by word and by touch signified the two natures in Christ. But if the archisynagogue also envied her restored health, this is also consistent with our allegory. For the Jews, seeing the abundance of good things which were being bountifully given to the nations by God, were envious: and God predicted this through Moses: "They have provoked me to jealousy in that which was not a god, and I will provoke them to jealousy with a foolish nation." Let us, therefore, come to our senses, nor be inclined toward earthly things: let us lift up our eyes to heaven, and perceive some sense of what is honest; let us shake off the darkness which obscures the leading part of the soul: how long, at last, shall we incline toward contentions, and quarrels, and perjuries? I am indeed seized with horror and trembling when I consider how frequent are the oaths taken in the tribunals: and in what way the Gospel, worthy of all veneration, is slighted in the chair of the pestilence. For this commands D not to swear at all: but the extortioners take it as a partner of their greed; thus also of the unbelieving.
They are much worse than the Gentiles who are devoid of faith. A certain Clinias, a Greek man, preferred to suffer the loss of three talents rather than to swear. And he gave the talents to his accuser, and did not swear; and this, even though he was not intending to commit perjury. Are we not, therefore, more wretched than the Greeks themselves? When someone, being your adversary, wishes to put you under an oath, and sets before you the venerable volume of the Gospels, instead of swearing, open it, and read what the Lord commands: «But I say to you, do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne, nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king; nor shall you swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.» A Tremble at the word, fear the command. Enter into the precise intent of the Gospel. For He does not simply forbid swearing by heaven; nor does He speak of this Jerusalem, which many armies of Persians, Medes, and Romans often laid waste; but by heaven He calls His intelligible Cherubic throne, and by Jerusalem the heavenly metropolis of God, concerning which glorious things have been spoken, as the Prophet says. And as for the head, by which He forbade us to swear, it is not fitting to conceive of it as anything else at all than the head of us all, Christ, who legislates these things. For the hairs of this head neither grow white nor black. For the divine nature is unalterable, neither growing black nor aging. «Let your word be, He says, Yes, yes, and No, no.» But the one who is contending with me, he says, does not believe me when I confirm [the truth] by [saying] only 'Yes'. But consider how great a thing it is to transgress the commandment, even if you should lose all your wealth; you shall receive a hundredfold in return B by escaping from the consequence. The one who is contending with me, I shall enjoy.
A But do not understand this simply; rather, know that by this double "Yes," both our right faith and our life are indicated. For if faith is sincerely preserved in dogmas, and our life is pure from all injustice and filth, then the evangelical "Yes, yes" is rightly practiced by us, and thus he who swears by Him shall be praised. If we train ourselves in this way, seasoning our speech with the salt of truth, we shall not need an oath in order to be believed, but rather our life itself will be in agreement with our words, and our Master and Lord will be glorified through us, because to Him belong all honor and glory unto the ages of ages. Amen.
Homily XIII. On the Parable of the Supper.
The God-called voice of the Gospel sets before us today a mystical supper, not as a cause of bodily nourishment, but as a provider of spiritual delight. Let us, therefore, beloved, prepare ourselves for this feast, consuming the concepts greedily, as if they were dishes, so that we may each depart satiated with the heavenly food, which does not weigh down the body with surfeit, but lightens the wing of the mind for its ascent to the heights, leading it up from earthly and groveling things toward heavenly ones. Let us not imitate those who refused the supper with foolish judgment, preferring the inspection of fields, and agriculture, and marriage to the Lord’s invitation; rather, let us become guests worthy of the Host, bringing a pure mind to the hearing of the parabolic words, which we shall explain to your God-loving ears. B "The Lord said this parable: A certain man made a great supper, and invited many." The great Matthew, in making mention of the present parable, says not "supper," but "marriage," thus...
A saying: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son." Let not the mind of any of the hearers hesitate at this, unless some be captious or given to complaining. For the evangelists are not at variance with one another, even if this should seem to be the case, but rather do they agree most strongly. For the Gospel calls the same event both "marriage" and "supper," since both signify the mystery of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, inasmuch as He led the Church unto the conjunction of the intelligible marriage, which Solomon in the *Canticles* and David in the *Psalms* adorn as bride with their words. The one, exhorting the bride to forget the former people and the man of false name, and to depart to the King and Bridegroom: "Hearken, O daughter," he says, "and see, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house; and the King shall greatly desire thy beauty." For the Church gathered from the nations, having forgotten the people of impiety and the bastard father—the devil, I mean—inclined her ear to the hearing of Christ. But the bride in the *Canticles*, calling the souls that have believed unto these spiritual nuptials: "Go forth," she says, "and see, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, in King Solomon, in the crown wherewith his mother crowned him in the day of his espousals." And indeed through Solomon she signifies Him who derives His origin from Solomon, but through the mother, the nature of God and the Father, the cause of all things that are; who, since He is by His own nature neither male nor female, can be called both Father and Mother—Father indeed by nature of the Son, and Mother by grace of us. This marriage the Saviour, alluding to it, urges us to have our loins girt and our lamps burning, and to be like unto men waiting for when their Lord shall return from the wedding. For B by these things He wishes us to have the loins girt with the belt of temperance, and the lamp of the conscience illuminating our own life; and to become like unto the holy angels, who, sitting at the heavenly gates, awaited the Lord’s return from the earth, when He should return, having betrothed us through baptism, to adorn the bride. I have become the joiner of this marriage, I have become the bride-dresser, the bride-dresser, the bride-leader, the bride-groomer, the groomsman.
and settled in the heavenly bridal chamber. To this, A he was delivered up to the killers. Thus the supper at the marriage is reasonably called the calling to Christ. Paul, the bringer of the bride, joining the disciples, said: "I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." And John, the great herald, also named the Lord Christ the Bridegroom. For he says: "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom rejoiceth with joy because of the bridegroom's voice." Do you see how the economy of the Word of God and the ineffable emptying are a wedding? They are called a wedding because of God's love for us, and the harmony and conjunction. The same is called a supper, because it was fulfilled at the end of the ages, just as supper is set out at the end of the day: "For when the fullness of the time was come," says the Apostle, "God sent forth his Son." And in the evening B the Lord, preparing the mystical supper, gave Himself as food to the disciples; and Moses, hinting at this, commanded the Passover to be eaten in the evening and by lamplight. For it was in the evening that He who was sacrificed for us was handed over to his killers. Therefore, the calling to Christ has been called a supper. And at the hour of the supper He sent his servant to say to them that were bidden: "Come; for all things are now ready." He sent that very Firstborn and Only-begotten; but when you hear "servant," do not suffer any faint-heartedness, imagining old wives' terrors, fearing that the divine nature might suffer some harm from being called a servant, when He fashioned Himself according to us and, in the form of a servant, C took upon Himself our shame. For He truly became a servant so that He might set free those who had enslaved themselves to the tyrant. Thus, therefore, He calls all to this spiritual supper, and shouts, sounding the trumpet in our ears: "Come unto me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you." He says that all things are ready; for the preaching of the Gospel is spread out, ready for all, promising to those who are called the putting away of sins, participation in the Holy Spirit, the nobility of adoption, and the enjoyment of the kingdom of heaven. But those who were strengthened in deception, like birds with birdlime, depriving themselves of the participation in these goods, rejected the enjoyment of the divine supper. D "For they began," he says, "all at once to make excuse. The first said: I have bought a field, and I must needs go out and see it: I pray thee have me excused. And another said: I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused. And another said: I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come." There are three who refused the wedding: the one who bought the field, the one who bought the yoke of oxen, and the one who joined himself to a wife. Therefore, it is given to understand through these, that there are three types of men.
who have refused the evangelical preaching: Greeks, Jews, and the lawless nations. For the Greeks, clinging to vain wisdom and occupying themselves in the contemplation of the world, did not receive the true wisdom, entrusting the whole of things to human reasonings. A Scripture has often named the world “field” figuratively, and the Savior has clarified this in the parable of the tares, calling the world a field. But also that field which has a treasure hidden in it is the world, in which the bride of the Song of Songs adjures the daughters of Jerusalem: “I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the powers and by the strengths of the field.” The Greek wisdom, therefore, having exhausted all its strength in the natural understanding of this field, renounced the saving preaching.
The Jews, on the other hand, having received the decalogue of the Lord as five yokes, and perceiving this only sensibly, and attempting to keep the commandments bodily, fell away from the grace in Christ. He likened the decalogue to yokes, because the commandments issue forth from one another, being as it were joined together. For this: “You shall love the Lord your God, and your neighbor as yourself,” are indeed two commandments, but one is the yoke of the love of both. Thus also, “You shall not steal,” “You shall not commit adultery,” are different from each other, but one bond ties both together: continence. For he is a thief who steals the property of others, and he who lies in wait for the nuptials of others. The matter subjected is twofold; but that which effects or prohibits is single. Do you see how most wisely he called the commandments “yokes” according to [their] coupling? He likens these to oxen, as they are sacred and covered over by symbolic sharpness. For the ox is a clean animal and a tiller of the earth, having a somewhat duller sense. The Jews, therefore, seeming to be keepers of these, refused the yoke of Christ. And one must surely consider this also: for he did not say, “I have bought five yokes of oxen, and I am going to plow,” but, “I am going to prove them.” What then is this? Since the Jews are only examiners of the commandments, they are not keepers, even if they might think they are guarding the law. By sensory means, they are caught in the things of the law. B C D
and are, reasonably, called only examiners, not workers. He who married a woman hinted at the nations enslaved to pleasures and gaping at them intemperately. Such are those we see dwelling in our borders, the descendants of Ishmael, who frequently exchange one wife for another, as if born for copulation after the manner of quadrupeds; they are subject to the belly and the passions that come after the belly, wallowing indiscriminately in pleasures, and they shut the senses of their minds to the evangelical proclamation. The speaker was satisfied to signify the variety of pleasures through the single mention of a wife. But observe the unseen wisdom hidden in the words, which, if we pass over, would be no small loss for us. For he who bought the field and he who purchased the yoke both made their refusal with an entreaty: "I pray thee," he says, "have me excused"; but he who married the wife said it was impossible to come to the supper. For he says: "I have married a wife, and cannot come." For those who are attached to the wisdom of this world could not receive the evangelical word; for both the natural and moral philosophy of the Greeks might rather become a guide to faith in Christ, and those from among the Jews will then truly be keepers of the legal commandments when they become disciples of Christ. For having known Him who is preached by the law and the prophets, they will be taught to plow the furrow of faith with the yokes; but now they only examine, as has been said. He who is senselessly enslaved to pleasures cannot receive the Gospel of continence and temperance. For into a soul without understanding, wisdom will not enter; and the pearls of the proclamation are not given to swinish men. For this reason, those men ask to be excused, but he, knowing it is impossible to serve God and pleasures, said: "I cannot come." For the supper receives both the possessor of the field and the buyer of the yokes, but not the one who is not clothed in the garment of incorruptibility. Thus, then, it has been shown how in these three instances those who do not accept the Lord’s incarnation stumble; therefore, let us also examine what follows: "Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant: 'Go out into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the feeble, and the blind, and the lame.'" Hearing "streets and lanes," you have understood, I believe, the broad and spacious way of destruction, through which wander those who are destitute of all virtue, who are famishing by the lack of the heavenly bread, those who have maimed senses of the soul, those who limp on the path of virtue, and those who are enclosed by the hedge of sin. The evangelical word calls all these to the mystical supper
A but since our nature was honored with free will, and possesses an untrammeled impulse toward virtue or vice, how does it mandate that he compel the invited? For he says: "Go out into the roads and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." By "necessity" in this place, it is not fitting to understand violence, but rather an affliction which has often proven to be a mediator of salvation for many. For many who have fallen into temptations have through them come to an awareness of the better, and the involuntary temptation has become for them the cause of salvation. May it happen that we too enjoy the delights of that future supper more clearly and more perfectly, when God in the midst of the gods bestows the blessed enjoyment upon the worthy, which is nothing other than the true knowledge of the holy and life-originating Trinity, to whom belong all glory, honor, and adoration now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. B
HOMILY XIV. On the Sunday before the Nativity of Christ. On the text: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David."
As the sun that falls under the senses rises above the horizon, the starry splendors are hidden, being crowded out by greater radiance; and as the Sun of Righteousness rises as if from the east of the Virginal womb, the catalogue of the fathers, like a chorus of stars, shines forth, illuminated by intellectual beams. Since, then, the holy Matthew, beginning his Gospel today, has numbered them as if in a harbor, come, let us examine the goal of the genealogy. For he, the first of the other evangelists, eight years C after the D [Christ] was taken up...into A heaven, wrote the Gospel in Hebrew for those who had believed from among the Jews; this he did through the prompting of the divine Spirit. Since the whole scope of the Gospel suggests to us that we should look towards the eighth [day], that is to say, the future state, the Apostle rightly took heart and set his hand to this writing after the space of eight years had passed from the time that he had received the divine light in Zion. Therefore, writing to the Jews, he preserved the custom familiar and customary to them, beginning from the genealogy. Moses also, writing divinely concerning the creation of the world and the formation of man, says, “The book of the B generation of heaven and earth,” and, “The book of the generation of man.” This evangelist, then, likewise counting the generations, entitles it “The book of generation,” as if one were to say, “The book of genealogy.” But I will briefly explain why he began from Abraham. Abraham was the head of two peoples, since he had believed while in uncircumcision and had remained in faith after circumcision. He himself had also received the divine oracles concerning the calling of the nations and the Incarnation of the Word. For God said to him, “In thy seed shall all the nations be blessed.” But why did he place David before Abraham? It would perhaps have been more consequential to say, “The book of the C generation of Jesus Christ, the son of Abraham, the son of David.” Both were indeed prophets and ancestors of God; but David excelled in royal dignity. Therefore, the anointing and the dignity were to be preferred. And that he pursues the genealogy through the men, he follows the Mosaic custom; for since the woman is a portion of the man, and the man is her head, he makes the list according to the more excellent gender. Someone might perhaps inquire, doubting, why he passed over holy Sarah and Rebecca, making no mention of them, as well as Leah, or Rachel, or any other illustrious woman; but he remembered only four women—two indeed from D among the Gentiles, and two who lived a blamable life. For he inserts into the catalogue the Gentile Thamar, and the harlot Richa, who is also called by the double name Rhaab, and Ruth the Moabitess, and Bersabee, the wife of Uriah. Who among those versed in the sacred Books does not know that Thamar and Ruth were brought into the Jewish tribe from the Gentiles? Rhaab was a harlot, having a workshop of lasciviousness in Jericho by the city gate, selling herself to those who wished. Bersabee was the wife of an excellent man, but David became the robber of her marriage, and the killer of Uriah, and the author of an illegitimate child.
A Ah, the prophet, alas, is also a king. Now he has made mention of the Gentile women, since the child born to us and given, Emmanuel, has brought into his own courtyard not only those from Israel, but those from the nations as well. He also names those whose life was blameworthy, that you might shudder at the humility of the Master, who deigns to have his genealogy traced even from harlots and adulteresses for your sake. By this, he also shrinks your arrogance, so that if you happen to be of noble birth and proud of the statue and the clay of your body, you may not lift up a great eyebrow against those who have received a base birth, seeing the Master tracing his genealogy from such as these. Perhaps also Tamar and Ruth, and the union of the other two, were images and premonitions of ones yet to come; for they clearly signified the Church from the nations. And how this is so, come, let us clarify, being guided from sensible things to the thoughts concerning them. But first, summarizing the discourse as much as I am able, I will run through the initial history in few words; then by it I will make clear what is signified, for it will be instruction to those who do not know, and a reminder to those who do. Just when the temperate Joseph had been sold by his kin and led away into Egypt, Judah takes for himself a wife from the Canaanites; B Sava is her name; from whom three sons are born to him, Er, Aunan, and Selem. To the first of these sons, the father gives Tamar as a wife, she also being from the Gentiles, fair of stature, and exceeding all others in beauty. But Er, who had taken her, being seen as evil in the sight of God, ends his life childless and untimely, having enjoyed little of the maiden’s beauty. Now according to a custom prevailing at that time, Aunan, the second son of the defunct, is introduced to the marriage bed of the maiden to raise up seed for his brother. Who, indeed, reasoning that if Tamar should bear children [from the seed], C ... and adulteresses, from harlots and adulteresses, a harlot and an adulteress. D ... the statue and the clay of the body. ... and the clay of the body. ... For it will be instruction to those who do not know, and a reminder to those who know. ... Er and Aunan. ... Aunan, likely, the second of the defunct, to raise up seed. ... But according to a custom then prevailing, Aunan, [the son] of the defunct, is introduced to the marriage bed of the maiden,
A for he, deeming that if Thamar were to bring forth, her beauty would wither from the pains of childbirth, and whatever she might bear would be ascribed to the former husband, devised a wicked counsel. But how shall I relate with honorable words what is dishonorable? Nevertheless, the Holy Scriptures do not blush to say this: that while the base man was accomplishing what was for pleasure, he was not providing to the furrows of the womb that through which conception is effected. Wherefore that Justice which hates iniquity abhors him, and he himself also dies. Thus Thamar, afflicted with a double widowhood, and joined as if in a dream to a marriage, being destitute of both husband and child, cast her eyes upon the third son of Judah, Selom, who was still a young lad, watching for him to mature for marriage, not out of a desire for pleasure, but out of a zeal to bring forth from the seed of Abraham. But Judah, suspecting what was not the case—that his sons had been taken away so prematurely by the fault of Thamar—and fearing lest he also be bereaved of the third, decided to cast out Thamar with false promises; and so encouraged her to return meanwhile to the village in which her parents dwelt, and there to lament her widowhood until Selom should be grown. These things came to pass; and she, wearing black, sat mourning at home, and time dragged on, and Selom grew, but the marriage was nowhere in sight. Thamar therefore perceived that she had been tricked, and devised B a counsel befitting a woman of malice. Just as those who are clever in military matters, when they see the battle line arrayed against them and realize that their own forces are powerless to withstand the enemy, outmaneuver the adversary through ambushes and snares; so Thamar thought to oppose the deceiver with deceit. Nor did her cunning fail her; and how this turned out shall now be related. Sava, the wife of Judah, had died. It was the time of the shearing of the sheep, and it behooved Judah to travel through that village to his flocks. As soon as Thamar learned this, she put off her mourning garments, put on those of a bride, feigned the behavior of a harlot, and transformed herself into a prostitute, adding cosmetics to enhance her beauty, and sitting by the public highway, she awaited the passage of her father-in-law. When it was already evening, Judah came, accompanied by his household servant, a shepherd. (Eras was the name of the shepherd, if you care even for this name). Therefore, when Thamar saw them approaching, she began the act, feigning everything that is common to women who, by an excess of licentiousness, have wiped away all modesty, exciting her father-in-law to desire with nods, laughter, and swaying. Revealing her shawl a little C just enough to show off her beauty, then hiding her form, meanwhile concealing who she might be and provoking D the desire of the observer. But that I may not delay with these words, I cut short the account.
HOMILY XVII
Accordingly, the adversaries of God are arrayed against those who are contrary, just as one is found to be the demon of anger, another of vainglory, another of avarice, another of envy, and others of other [sins], each possessing a demon of hatred, of debauchery, of listlessness, and of the passions, each having invented his own evil counselor, and to the people, those who are the builders of these passions are spoken of as citizens. When, therefore, you hear that such a young man has attached himself to one of these citizens, understand this to be that he has become a worshiper and a subject of one of the demonic passions. And if you wish to learn the city, whose guardian and ruler is the one who has taken on the new teacher of villainy, B the Psalm will teach you, calling that city one composed of evil practices: "I saw iniquity and contradiction and injustice and labor in the midst of it, and deceit in its streets." [Ps. LIV, 10, 11, 12.] He who held this city, therefore, sent the man into his field to tend the swine. Perhaps through the swine, the shameful and rabid passion of lust is implied: in which, like swine, they wallow who obey this filthy demon. You will understand that the fields of this shameful demon are the philosophers and those who love pleasure. For he has aptly likened the passion of debauchery to swine; for pleasure, having poured out its own mixture like in the bowl of a Circe, C and having changed the minds of the foolish toward a swinish life, makes them its own worshipers. And just as the eyes of swine are turned downwards by nature and have no admiration for nor perception of heavenly things, so the soul, dragged down by the passions, is insensible to intelligible beauty. For when there are many passions that oppose human reason, no other passion truly has such power against us as does this one, which makes men truly like swine, performing vile acts, so that they always desire to be sated with the filth. D "For he longed," he says, "to fill his belly with the husks that the swine were eating, and no one gave to him." He, therefore, being a young man in age and sense, far from benefiting by his ministry to the swine, and as his reputation grew, he was struck by the fodder of the swine. These are the rewards of lovers of wickedness: pleasure rewards its followers; such is the custom of demons. For he who temperately [index: entries preserved]A considers love, but that I may not linger on these words, I will cut the discourse short. The excellent Judah is caught by her beauty, and thinking her to be one of those who sell their pleasures, he uses his servant as a procurer, and indicates that he will visit her in the night, promising to send her a kid. She gladly seizes the suggestion. When the night joined them, and Tamar held her prey within the nets, by flattering him and inflaming him again with her coyness, she seeks the staff, the signet, and the ring as pledges for the sending of the kid. He, having become utterly dissolute through his desire for her, ungirdles his belt, immediately throws down the staff, and swiftly gives her the ring in addition. And as for what follows, I will pass over the deeds of the night in silence, saying only this: that the roles of both were exchanged, and Tamar became the wife, and the father-in-law the lover. When morning came, Judah leaped from the bed and stole away in flight, that the deed might remain hidden in the darkness. Tamar knew she had conceived the seed. As the day broke, she went home, bearing the pledges as miserable trophies of victory. Not much time passed, and her stomach swelled, and her womb gave proof of what had happened; she is accused before Judah of having played the harlot; he therefore sentences her to death. But as she was being led to slaughter, she sent the pledges to Judah, her father-in-law, so that the one who had played the harlot with her might be recognized by them. Struck by the sight, he recognized that he had been justly deceived, and became a repentant judge: "Tamar is justified," he says, "but I am condemned, for I did not give her my son Shelah." And thus Tamar, from one labor, brings forth Perez and Zerah. B
Theorist/Commentator on the Text
Opening up the veil, as much as to show her beauty, but hiding the form so as neither to be recognized for who she was, nor yet to cease from inflaming the desire of those who saw her. But that I may not linger on such words, I will cut the discourse short. The excellent Judah is caught by her beauty, and, thinking her one of those who make a trade of pleasure, he uses his servant as a procurer. Through him, he signifies that he will give her the night, and promises to send a kid. She seizes the remark most joyfully, and when night brought them together and she held her prey within the nets, Tamar, by emolliating him with flatteries and inflaming him again with feigned tergiversations, asks for the pledges—the staff, the armlet, and the ring—for the kid that was to be sent; he, however, completely weakening from desire for her, unbinds his girdle, and immediately throws down the staff, and also gives the ring without delay. And from there, I will cover the night's deeds with silence. I will only say that the titles of both were exchanged, and Tamar became the wife, and the father-in-law the lover. When it grew light, Judah leaped from the bed, having gained silence by flight, so that the act might be shrouded in darkness itself. Tamar therefore knew that she had become pregnant from the seed, and as the day cleared, she went home, bringing back the pledges as trophies of her victory. Nor did much time pass before she was seen to be with child, and by that very swelling she revealed what had been done. Thus, she is accused of whoredom before Judah, who sentenced her to death. But when she was being led to punishment, she sent the pledges to Judah, the father-in-law, that by them he might recognize with whom he had lain. He, struck with amazement at the sight of them, understood he had been justly deluded, and with a changed judgment said: "Tamar is just," C DA I for my part am condemned, for I did not give my son Serom to her." Thus did Thamar bring forth at one birth Phares and Zaram. It is therefore clear that the Church of the nations was foreshadowed by her. For the nations, having been affected in part by atheism and in part by the malady of idolatry, had left the Church unplowed, scattering the seed of faith and the justice according to it into the land of error and their own passions, as into an uncultivated field. But after the Church plucked no fruit from these, she seized the fruit that is from Judah; for you know by all means that the Lord has sprung from the tribe of Judah. When we hear that Judah, while traveling to the sheepfold, by chance had intercourse with Thamar, let us not be surprised; for from this the logical order of the allegory is rather gathered. For Christ, who was born from Judah, was indeed sent primarily to the sheep of the house of Israel, as He Himself said; but He wrought the salvation of the nations in passing. Do you see how the allegory sounds in harmony with the history? The Church therefore receives, as a ring, the pledge B of faith, and the renewal of the obscured image, which the engraving in the bezel of the ring signifies, and the girdle which girds it, which is the power of the Gospel of grace; and the rod, I mean the Cross, by which we are supported that we may stand in the faith, and ward off the dogs barking at us; and she brings forth in one womb of the soul twin children: right faith and the consciousness of good works. But if there is a need to shift the history to a moral consideration, we are clearly taught this: that the beautiful Thamar—since she is interpreted as "Bitterness"—signifies pleasure, which is beautiful to the sight and sweet to the taste, but has a bitter digestion afterwards; for the lips of malice drip honey, yet it ends in the bitterness of gall. This pleasure, then, at first insinuates itself into the concupiscible and irascible faculties that are under the power of the reason, C and, living with them as Thamar with Er and Onan, destroys and buries them, by leading them into irrationality. Then, it makes war against the mind itself, and by fawning with a false beauty, uses the servant as a pander. Now, the servant of the mind would be the sense, through which it is entangled with sin, having first surrendered the rod, and the girdle, and the ring, which wickedness seeks from us; for it leads us into slavery as it wishes, once it has stripped us of these. The girdle, indeed, since it binds the loins and holds in the tunic that is flowing down upon the hips, signifies the temperate thought, through which the luxury of the life of pleasure is restrained, and the unseemly burning of the loins is compressed. Pleasure, by taking away this temperate thought, makes the manliness of the mind degenerate, so that it even betrays the nobility of the conscience, D which the ring hints at, and loses the sign and representation of the image, which is expressed by the sculpture made in the bezel of the ring.
A The rod that drives away the dogs is the principle of hope, by which we support the weary part of the soul and ward off the barking feeling of despair. That the rod signifies good hope is testified to by the author of the *Ascetic Ladder* when he says: "He who has fallen is shattered, and with praiseworthy insolence prays, supported by the rod of hope, with which he pursues and drives away the dog of despair." When, therefore, sin deprives us even of this rod, it makes us easily captured by whatever it wishes. Knowing these things, beloved, let us take heed to ourselves; for these things were written for our admonition. Let us flee from the alluring pleasure, let us shun its first beginnings, for it steals in through the windows of the soul, entering unexpectedly. Let us not be despoiled of the belt of chastity which makes us holy, nor let us lose the image within us, like a ring. But if it happens to anyone to be deprived of these things, let not despair snatch the rod of hope from us. Thus we shall contemplate the holy birth of Christ in purity, and we shall glorify Him with the angels and praise Him with the shepherds, offering faith as gold, our actions as incense, and the mortification of the body as myrrh; and so we shall partake fully of the mystical table in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be worship, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XV. On Zacchaeus the Chief Publican.
Of that mystical and divine ladder which God showed to the patriarch as he fell asleep on his journey, the first step raised the climber a little from the earth; the steps that followed, by degrees lightening his load, led him to the highest and perfect peak, upon which God was supported. Angels were ascending and descending, becoming the guides of those who were being raised. But why did I wish to use the example of the patriarchal ladder? The evangelical voice rings in my ears, and from the readings I conjecture that the time for repentance and the fasts are approaching. B C D
As the evangelical ladder sets before us, as it were, a first step—an excellent entry-way to elevation—it is repentance, teaching us through the story of Zacchaeus how much the repentance of sins avails. For it does not speak of a human being who had simply sinned; rather, it sets before us a tax collector, the uttermost extreme of all sins. For the practice of tax collecting is something abominable, and one of those things most loathed by the all-good God. For this reason, whenever the Savior wishes to reproach someone excessively, He uses this name: at one time He says, "Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector," and at another, "The tax collectors will precede you into the kingdom of God."
Sometimes, too, when reproving those who lend money in the hope of receiving it back with interest, He says, "Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" For when He names a tax collector, He simultaneously includes the greedy man, the unjust man, the extortioner, and the lover of money—which is the same as saying one who serves idols, since Paul called avarice idolatry. And the evangelist, by calling Zacchaeus not merely a tax collector, but a chief tax collector, indicated the magnitude of the evil. For it is the custom, when someone has reached the height of some form of vice or virtue, to add the title of "chief" to the profession: thus one is called a chief bandit, a chief cook, or a chief architect. If, therefore, the tax collector, having practiced to such a degree, and having so followed an infamous and impure way of life that he became a teacher of evil to others, nevertheless rendered the Lord propitious through repentance, who would not flee with all possible haste and zeal to this medicine of repentance given by God?
But if it seems good, let us take up the narrative from the beginning. "At that time Jesus was passing through Jericho, and behold, a man called by name Zacchaeus, and he himself was a chief tax collector, and this man was rich, and he sought to see the Lord." The Savior was returning from Galilee to Jerusalem, and although He could have taken another path (for the return to Jerusalem from Samaria is easy), He nevertheless, by a divine plan, made His journey through Jericho. Insofar as the reason that appears to all is concerned, it was so that He might heal Bartimaeus of his blindness, and draw the chief tax collector Zacchaeus to repentance. But insofar as the more mystical account is concerned, since He had previously spoken parabolically A regarding Adam, that, descending from Jerusalem to Jericho, he fell among thieves and was stripped of his garment and became wounded; and because it was necessary for the healing of the one who had been struck to come about through contraries (for contraries are the medicines for contraries); for this reason the Savior goes up, in reverse, from Jericho to Jerusalem, bringing back through Himself the wounded man to where he had fallen from. For Jericho is interpreted as "descent," and it denotes the ruin into which the human race fell when it slipped. But let us resume the historical account. "Jesus," he says, "was passing through." And the multitude of the people, part of them preceding, part of them following, were drawn away by the tension of His teaching. For there was divine grace, and an unspeakable grace, accompanying the words of the Savior, and drawing in the souls B of those who heard them.
and drawing in the souls of those who heard them. A Thus it is written that "all wondered at the words of grace that proceeded from his mouth." Captured by this, Zacchaeus abandons the toll-booth; and because he was small in stature (for the narrative itself points this out), he climbs up into a sycamore tree, so that he might catch a glimpse of the Lord from there. Oh, how much the history reveals in few words to those who are lovers of learning, to those who do not read divine words in passing. Therefore, having learned the matters of history, let us make a step toward contemplation, as if stripping away the shell on the outside and unveiling the wisdom hidden within. Why does history record that Zacchaeus was small in stature? What was it that prevented him from seeing Jesus while standing on the ground? And furthermore, why does he climb a sycamore tree rather than another tree? And certainly, those who are pure in heart, whose minds are clearly illuminated by the divine Spirit due to the abundance of their virtues, would be able to explore the higher anagogy; we, however, stuck in the mud of our sins, shall enter into the moderate meanings. Zacchaeus was small in stature—truly small—he who wallowed in small and worthless things, who had not yet reached the perfection of virtues, who had diminished his spiritual stature through passions. How, then, was it possible for a soul that was still imperfect in the practice of virtue to see God, who is perfect in every way? For this reason, since Zacchaeus was on the low earth, with sin obscuring his vision, he did not see Jesus until he was lifted up from earthly things and raised above the sycamore. You surely understand, from the composition of the name, what the sycamore signifies: namely, that plant which became the cause of our fall. For as that was the knowledge of good and evil—and it indicated sin, which seems good according to the mistaken judgment of the good, but is evil in truth—so also does the plant, the sycamore, B seem to be a fig tree, yet in truth it is not a fig tree. Therefore, as long as one is below the sycamore—that is, C below sin—he cannot see God; but if he rises above sin, he becomes stronger than that. D
κλῖναι· A μὴ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὸν Θεόν· εἰ δὲ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑπεραρθῇ, καὶ κρείττων ταύτης ὀφθῇ, ὁρᾷ τὸν φωτοδότην Ἰησοῦν, τὴν ὄντως σωτηρίαν ἐκφωνοῦσαν αὐτῷ· « Σήμερον σωτηρία τῷ οἴκῳ σου. » B Μακαρία ταπείνωσις, ἡ ἐναντία τῆς δαιμονιώδους. Ἀναβλέψας γάρ, φησίν, ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶδεν αὐτόν, καὶ εἶπε· « Ζακχαῖε, σπεύσας κατάβηθι· σήμερον γὰρ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου δεῖ με μεῖναι. » Ὢ μακαρίας φωνῆς, ἧς ὁ Ζακχαῖος ὑπήκουσεν! Ὢ θεϊκῆς φιλανθρωπίας φθασάσης τῇ ταχύτητι τοῦ τελώνου τὴν πίστιν! Ὁμοῦ γὰρ εἶδεν αὐτὸν μικρὸν τῶν γηίνων ὑπεραρθέντα, καὶ προσκαλεῖται τὸν ἀπολωλότα, καὶ μεταδίδωσι θάρσους τῷ ἀπαρρησιάστῳ· οὕτω καὶ τῷ ἀσώτῳ ποιεῖ. Ὁμοῦ τε εἶδε τὸν χοιρώδη βίον ἀποσεισάμενον, καὶ πρὸς τὴν πατρικὴν ἑστίαν παλινδρομήσαντα, καὶ μακρόθεν δραμὼν περιεπλάκη, φιλήσας τὸν τράχηλον. Τοιοῦτος ὁ ἡμέτερος Δεσπότης· κἂν μυρίαις κηλῖσι κατεστιγμένοι ἐσμέν, κἂν βορβορώδης ἐστὶν ὁ βίος ἡμῶν, εἰ προθυμίαν μόνην ἐπιδειξαίμεθα, καὶ δάκρυον μεταγνώσεως ἐπιστάξαιμεν, εὐθὺς ἐναγκαλίζεται, τὴν ἵλεω φύσιν ἐνδείκνυται, πάντων τῶν προτέρων ἐπιλανθάνεται. Ἀλλ' ἐπαντέον ὅθεν ἐξέβημεν. « Ζακχαῖε, σπεύσας κατάβηθι. » Νῦν ὄντως Ζακχαῖος γέγονας· νῦν τῇ κλήσει κατάλληλον ἐπέδειξας τὴν ἐνέργειαν. Ζακχαῖος γὰρ νικητὴς ἑρμηνεύεται· νῦν οὖν νικητὴς τῶν παθῶν ἐχρημάτισας. « Ζακχαῖε, σπεύσας κατάβηθι. » Διὰ τί καὶ τὴν σπουδὴν προστίθησιν; Ἵνα μάθῃς, ὡς οὐ χρὴ ῥᾳθύμως καὶ ἀμελῶς μετιέναι τὴν ἀρετήν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ προθύμου σπουδῆς. Ἐπειδὴ παροδική ἐστιν ἡμῶν ἡ ζωή, καὶ χρὴ σπεύδειν ἡμᾶς εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἕστ' ἂν περιβεβλήμεθα τὸ σάρκινον τοῦτο περισκήνιον. Ἀλλὰ δοκεῖ πως τὸ ῥητὸν ἐναντίον πρὸς τὸν ἀποδοθέντα σκοπόν. Εἰ γὰρ καλὴ τοῦ Ζακχαίου ἡ πρὸς τὴν συκομοραίαν ἀνάβασις (ὑπερήρθη γὰρ τῶν γηίνων, καὶ ἄνω τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἐγένετο), πῶς κατελθεῖν ἐγκελεύεται· « Ζακχαῖε, σπεύσας κατάβηθι »; Πῶς τὸν καλῶς ἀνελθόντα ἐπισπεύδει πρὸς τὴν κατάβασιν; Ἱστορικῶς μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ φυτοῦ ὁ Σωτὴρ κατελθεῖν κελεύει· ἀναγωγικῶς δὲ διδάσκει ἡμᾶς, ὡς ἀρχὴ μετανοίας τῷ ἁμαρτήσαντι οὐκ ἄλλη τις ἁρμοδίω εἴη, ὡς ἡ κατάβασις. Αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ C ἐπάρσεως (sic). « Ζακχαῖε, σπεύσας κατάβηθι, » βούλει μετανοῆσαι; ὑποβάθραν τῆς μετανοίας, καὶ ἄσειστον κρηπίδα θὲς τὴν ταπείνωσιν· κατάβηθι ἵνα ὑψωθῇς τοῖς πτεροῖς τῶν ἀρετῶν ἀνυψούμενος. Ἀλλὰ τίς ἡ τοῦ ἀρχιτελώνου ἐπαγγελία; ἀκούσωμεν, μετὰ τὸ τὸν Κύριον ὑποδέξασθαι οἴκοι. δοκεῖ μὲν εἶναι συκῆ, οὐ μὴν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ἐστι συκῆ.
συκῆ. A « Behold, the half of my possessions, Lord, I give to the poor. » How beautiful is the foundation of repentance laid by the tax collector! Through good works toward the needy, he prepares a smooth path of salvation for himself. « Behold, the half of my possessions, Lord, I give to the poor. » He had learned that by nothing is God so well appeased as by mercy, and that he seeks mercy, not sacrifice. He had been instructed by Daniel: « Break off your sins by your alms, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor »; for this reason, he promised to give half of his possessions to the needy, and as for those things acquired by him through greed, he promised to pay them back fourfold. « If I have defrauded anyone of anything, » he says, « I restore it fourfold. » He honors the decree of the Law. For the divine Moses decreed this repayment for a robber, and you may learn this if you have attended to his sacred laws. Since, therefore, he promised to give half of what he had to the poor, and most clearly knew that those things obtained through injustice are not accepted by God unless the acts of greed against those who were wronged are first resolved, he promised to do this with due disposition. For it is of the utmost insanity, and by no means pleasing to the pure God, to perform almsgiving out of accursed greed and robbery, and to imagine that this appeases God.
Having been instructed in these things, therefore, beloved, let us imitate this Zacchaeus; let us not fall short of the tax collector's repentance. For we are, in truth, also in Jericho, in the descent of this world, into which we have been cast, and the Savior passes through each day by way of the evangelical teachings, bringing the good news. Let us abandon the earthly mindset; let us rise above the sycamore tree, that is to say, above sin. For it is not possible to see Christ otherwise than by transcending the shadow of sin that obscures us. Let us also give half of our possessions to the poor. Make the needy partners in your wealth. Unload the excess from the ship, so that you may sail more lightly, the Theologian Gregory advises. Perhaps enemies will inherit what you have acquired; why, by anticipating them, do you not give these things to God? Say with Zacchaeus: « Behold, the half of my possessions I give to the poor. » But consider your own actions, and as for those that are base and evil, let them be given to the demons who are destitute of all good; and for every one act of injustice, pay back fourfold. In place of the one soul which you defrauded by yielding to the desires of the flesh, pay back fourfold by dedicating the four-element body to the labors of repentance, B that you may hear that desirable and blessed... Why do you not give to God before the plunderer? Why do you not anticipate him and give to God himself?
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus
C This day of the judgment preceding the appearance of the pseudo-Christ is so great that it might lead even the elect into error, if that were possible. Regarding the variation in the codices, there is this reading: « As also their (the nature) ... through the very events [occurring], to disbelieve what is hidden in the future, and this, with the universe of mankind gathered before the throne of Christ, speaks of [it] below with the pronouncement of the sentence in the second place. » But the reading in the manuscripts is the same in both D and consistent, and I suspected it might refer to being omitted by the writer in one place, or neglected, and was restored in both as they are in [Migne's] Patrologia.
voice: "I must abide in thy house." For truly the soul of one who repents and turns to God, and by repentance sweeps clean the house of his conscience, becomes the house of God. For to those who are purified, the God of truth promises to dwell and walk within us, to whom is due all praise and magnificence unto the ages. Amen.
HOMILY XIV. On the Publican and the Pharisee.
Again, the Gospel voice, leading us up to the patriarchal ladder, presents the second rung. For whereas on the past Sunday it opened to us the way of repentance through the history of Zacchaeus, and gently intimated the precept of humility by saying, "Make haste and come down," today it clarifies this more brightly, and demonstrates more clearly the achievement of this, and the lapse caused by vainglory, and how much justice belongs to the one, and how much defect to the other. Since the office of the publican is the lowest of all evils, as it is composed of extortion, greed, and the love of money, which the Apostle has called idolatry, while the boast of the Pharisees was considered better than all others, as keeping the precision of the Law and being free from every stain (for "Pharisee" is translated as "pure"), for this reason the Saviour places in the parable that which is last in injustices and that which is supposedly perfect in virtue. For it is customary to stir [the soul] toward imitation by a pattern that holds the greater [merit]. But it is better to take the parable from the beginning and explain it to your God-loving ears. "The Lord spoke this parable: Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a publican."
What a parable is, and why the Saviour spoke most things in parables, has been discussed by us in other places. But now it is necessary to note this also: that whenever He wishes to theologize in parables, and to discourse concerning the singular and divine nature, He then posits one man, as in, "A certain man made a great supper," and, "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that is a king." But also, whenever He wishes to censure wickedness or praise virtue, He employs the singular number, as with the rich man whose land brought forth fruit, and the unjust judge. But regarding virtue, [He uses the example] of that merchant who, in exchange for all things, acquired the precious pearl, and of the good man who brings forth from the treasure of the heart 60 new and old things. But whenever he makes a comparison of virtue and vice, and...
he sets before us two men who are of contrary opinion, such as the rich man and Lazarus, A and the two sons commanded by their father to go into the field, and the two women in the mill, of whom one is taken and the other is left. But also the two sons, of whom the one remained with the Father, and the other became a swineherd, were a pattern of virtue and vice. And here, setting them parallel, he took as examples conceit and humility, the Pharisee and the publican. "Two men went up into the temple to pray." From the fact of his saying "went up," it is evident that the temple was higher than the city. For porticoes from the foundations below, and arches supporting the temple in their turn, raised it to a height. Outside, stone steps rose from the lower ground even to the very gates of the temple; so that everyone wishing to enter the temple would find the ascent uphill. For this reason he says: "Two men went up into the temple to pray." Now, while the explanation of the place according to the history is good, as it interprets the site, yet to the lover of learning the mere learning of the history is not enough; rather, the mind, stepping toward contemplation, is illuminated by the light of the anagogical sense. B What then is the meaning to be understood from these words: "Two men went up into the temple to pray"? He revealed the strength of prayer by saying "went up." Both having gone up to the temple was for a good purpose; for they went up for the sake of prayer. But prayer raises the one praying from earth to the ether and unites man with the angels, and prepares him to reach those who are incorporeal. Then, through them, the mind, being illuminated, is guided, as far as is feasible, toward the understanding of God. If any of you has studiously read the Ascetic Ladder, C concerning the holy, and mother of virtues, the blessed prayer: The beginning of prayer is to drive away the intrusions (of thoughts) singly at their very outset; the middle is for the intellect to dwell only in the things spoken or thought; but its end is a perfect rapture toward the Lord. D
A and what is this, *I was in prison, and you came to me*? Let us observe who defines the division of this commandment from the beginning, and how the mode of charity is defined as being neither *more* nor *less*. For perhaps we may learn the perfection of virtue from this very place. For since the number that proceeds from units, and is composed of its own parts without either lacking anything in itself or exceeding—I speak of two times three, and three times two, and six—is constituted of these parts (that is, of those three, and those two, and that one), it is perfect; for everything which is of necessity what it is, and has nothing excessive and lacks nothing for its completion, is perfect. But the other numbers, which are superabundant, like the twelfth, whose parts when added together exceed the twelve; and those which are imperfect, like the eight, whose parts when added together require a unit to become eight; this perfect number, therefore, having logically included the perfection of the commandment, *must* be. This number also has its triple dimension, length, and depth, and breadth, being composed of triangles; and from all these, the body.
B Whence the creation of the world avoided the *imperfect* harmony of six. For on the sixth day the Creator finished all that is seen. In five He created all the sensible nature, and since it was *pentadical*, on the sixth day He fashioned man as the one set over these, and reigning, from the beginning legislating over those things which are sensible by his intellect, as if through them, by means of C the six commandments, he were bringing in practical charity.
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus
(19) *From these parts.* This ratio of the perfection of the senary number of those parts which in arithmetic are called *aliquot*, is understood. But take it more fully from Peter Bongo, who considers and explains the same thing: *For the number*, he says, *which arises from unity, this first of all perfect numbers, because it is equal to its parts, and is fully filled by them, consisting as it does of the ternary, namely, that which is of the binary, and of the binary, which is the tertiary, and finally from the unity, which is six, the parts of which all brought into a sum, make six.* But this thought is to be understood in those numbers which are called *aliquot* in that they make up the whole, and what the *quota* is, is possible: as a half, a third, a fourth, and so on, by any named number. For it cannot be said, for example, that in the number nine, the four is any part of it, and therefore it can be said what its *quota* part is; but those two parts of it, namely the tertiary, that is the three; for the third parts are these. Conjoined, these two parts of its, namely the third and the ninth, are distant from the whole sum of it, which is nine; and they are four. Thus far Bongo. But by way of example, as the thing itself shows, in the number eight, you collect the same ratio as eighty, which example our man uses to show the opposite of the perfection of six: for the parts which are of the number eight are the one, which is the eighth, and the four, which is half the part; and the two, which is the fourth; but because these parts taken together make seven, as is evident. Of the twelves, you have another extreme; it exceeds the example. For Bongo himself: *The number twelve, which is one; it has a sixth, which is two, and a fourth, which is three, and a third, which is four; and I have a half, which is six: but the parts of this larger sum collect, which are twelve.* This Bongo again. From which he has the entire ratio explained; and he understands our intellect to be true in every matter of discipline. Moreover, this explanation of the numbers is too concise and confused, which the aforesaid Gallic codex has, although it is open, so that I refer the reader to the things described.
(20) *Has also this number a triple dimension.* By which reason the six is said to be composed of triangles, and therefore to consist of triple dimension, and will be in the sixteenth sermon. In the meantime, I refer the reader to that place.
(21) *It lacked the harmony of six.* Peter Bongo pursues this mystery at length. *Since, therefore,* he says, *to the building of this visible world neither, nor could a perfect number be found, than six, in which supreme artificer God could perfect his work, by the same law let Him do it. I will only excerpt the place of Bongo, which is named by St. Victor, in which book he speaks of natural things in scripture, this manner, which most especially conforms to the consideration of Theophanes: 'Six, because it is made of its parts, a sign of perfection; and therefore God wished to complete his works in six days, so that He might extend, in these which He made, that nothing superfluous might be placed, nor any imperfection remain.'*
HOMILY XVIII
On the fugitive prophet, let us listen to one who says: "I will perform to thee the vows which my lips have uttered." And concerning Jephthah offering his daughter, the Scripture says, "as he had finished his vow." But why do you look at one another and knit your brows? I think you seem to be ignorant of the history; but although the narrative is incidental to the subject before us, nevertheless, summarizing the words, I will relate it to you cursorily.
Jephthah was a man of Gilead, born of a mother who was a harlot, but he was pious and great in strength. He was appointed judge of all the people; and at that time, Ammon the foreigner was defeating Israel, and the affairs of the Hebrews were in very straitened circumstances, while the foreigner was elated by victory and was insolent. Jephthah, therefore, having gathered a great army, out-generals his adversary; but as he was going out to battle, he made a vow to God, not having fully considered the word—that if he should become master of the enemies, upon his return from the war, whoever should come out of the house first and meet him, he would offer as a whole burnt offering to God, the author of the victory.
Ammon, therefore, is defeated; Israel prevails, and having pursued the foreigners, gathers plunder; and the general returns, as is likely, made brilliant by the victory and the spoils. And the city, having received the good news of the trophy, poured itself out in its entirety to meet him, with dances and timbrels, celebrating the general. But the narrative from this point contains something mournful. Jephthah had a little daughter, an only child, and very beautiful, already at the age for marriage. Upon her alone the father let his hopes drift, thinking he would have this one as a successor to his lineage and an heir; and perhaps, going to the temple, he would begin his prayers from his daughter. She, having received the good news of her father’s trophies and being filled with joy, rises up very quickly, and having adorned herself in a bridal fashion, she goes out of the chamber, drawing everyone's eyes to herself by her beauty.
Having hastened her pace, she unfortunately meets her father first, and throwing her arms around his neck with modesty and warm affection, she kissed him, uttering words of thanksgiving. At this, Jephthah groaned and said, "Woe is me, daughter, because I vowed to God to sacrifice you." But—hear the voice of the noble virgin; but watch with me here the noble spirit of the fair virgin. Having been a little saddened by the absurdity of the report, she regained her composure, and casting away all cowardice from herself, she becomes entirely of her father's will. And restraining the tears arising in her eyes, like some nightingale in spring lamenting a mournful song, she spoke placidly to her father: "Father, if you have opened your mouth to the Lord against me, perform as you have vowed."
A The rod that wards off dogs is the principle of hope, by which we support the ailing soul and ward off the barking passion of despair. That the rod signifies good hope is testified to by the author of the *Ascetic Ladder*, when he says: "He who has fallen is crushed, and prays with a praiseworthy boldness, supported by the rod of hope, pursuing and driving away the dog of despair with it." When, therefore, sin deprives us even of this rod, it holds us subject to its every whim. Having learned these things, then, beloved, let us pay attention to ourselves; for these things were written for our admonition. Let us flee from the alluring pleasure; let us turn aside from its beginnings, for it steals in through the windows of the soul, entering unexpectedly; let us not be despoiled of the belt of self-control that sanctifies us, nor let us surrender [that which is] after the image, like a ring. But if it happens to anyone to be deprived of one of these things, let not despair snatch away from us the rod of hope. Thus we shall behold the holy birth of Christ in purity, and we shall glorify Him with the angels, and we shall praise Him with the shepherds, offering faith as gold, our deeds as incense, and the mortification of the body as myrrh; and we shall enjoy the mystical table in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be worship, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
Homily XV. On Zacchaeus the Chief Publican.
Of that mystical and divine ladder which God manifested to the patriarch while he slept on his journey, the first step raised the climber a little from the earth; and those which followed in order, lifting him up by degrees, led him to the highest and perfect end, upon which God stood. Angels were ascending and descending, becoming guides to those being raised to the heights. B Why then did I wish to use the example of the patriarchal ladder? The evangelical voice resounds in my ears, and from the readings I infer that the time of repentance and the [time] of the fasts draws near.
...for being law-abiding? A For as they entered, the tax-collector was heavily laden, bearing a pack of evil deeds; the Pharisee, however, was full of the observance of the commandments. Yet both were unburdened in the temple, and he who appeared to excel in virtue was seen to be last. Consider here the highest elevation of humility and the deep dejection of pride. It seems to me that the great David, in his psalmic hymns, likens those who are haughty and high-necked to the waves, where he says: "They mount up to the heavens, and they go down to the depths" (Ps. CVI, 26). Where, indeed, could one find waves rising to the heavens, if we were to take the saying according to its literal meaning? But the Word alluded to those who, out of conceit, judge themselves worthy of the heavens and are lifted up like waves. "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself." The arrogant and proud Pharisee, as if he had schooled himself in the legal commandments, drew near to the inner sanctuaries of the temple, emitting the voices of his conceit, praying not to God, but to himself. For the Savior made this clear by saying that "he prayed thus with himself." For it was not right for an impure prayer to ascend to God; and that it was impure, the Scripture showed, saying: "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination before the Lord" (Prov. XVI, 5). Let us also look at the very words of his boasting: "God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax-collector." B Stay, O miserable one, quietly in your bedding, someone from the outside might say to him; for you do not clearly see what you think you see. How is it that you are not as the rest of men? Were you not fashioned from the same dust according to the common birth of men? Did not the same filth of conception bring you forth into this life? How then do you say, "That I am not as the rest of men?" But perhaps someone might say, in perplexity: Yet he did not speak falsely when he said that he fasted twice in the week and gave tithes of all that he acquired. What then was his sin in giving thanks to God that he was a keeper of the law?
Francisci Scorsi Notae
Supercilium (eyebrow) in Latin, and in Greek also, is used for disdain and pride, although this is known to those somewhat more learned; C yet it is pleasing here, for the sake of adorning this spark that we have obtained, to contribute this token. Pliny says: "The eyebrows are movable in man, both together and alternately; and in them is a part of the mind; these most of all indicate disdain; pride is in some place a vessel, but here it has its seat in the heart; it is born, it rises to here, it hangs from here; it finds nothing higher or more abrupt in the body where it might be solitary." Thus far he, and excellently. Hence by proverb we say, "the eyebrow is raised," signifying an arrogant person; "the eyebrow is brought down," indicating disgust. Hence we also call philosophical disdain "philosophical pride." Juvenal, Satire V: "If with great virtues you bring a great eyebrow." Cicero, in Pro Sestio, even more wittily: "There was such weight in that eye, that by that eyebrow, as if by an Atlas, the republic seemed to be supported like the heavens." See more in Dionysius Lambinus on that verse of Horace, Epistle 2, Book 1: "De me supercilio nubem." Where he gathers many things to this effect of the adage, and other things consistent with it. As for "Mane, o infelich, atrema soi en demniois," I have published it as I found that old text in both codices, considering it sufficient to have here noted a corruption which changes nothing of the sense.
A We see, however, also that long-suffering Job in the discussion held with the kings, that although he boasted much, he is not censured; yet this man is condemned. The reason for this is that while the holy and just Job, having performed many right acts that were pleasing and glorious to God, was never seen to proclaim them with glory, but kept his prerogatives hidden. But when those who seemed to be his friends were reproaching him like enemies, and were slandering him without any mercy, breaking the crushed reed, and lacerating with their words one who was half-dead, he then began most valiantly to refute the accusations and to rebuke their untimely assault, so that if there was any fault in boasting, those who had undeservedly maligned him were more guilty of it. B The Pharisee, however, with no one provoking him, acted insolently, setting himself above all, nor did he acknowledge what he was by nature. For if he had considered that he was born a man, he would have fully understood the misery of nature; that it cannot be that a man is pure from filth, even if his life is but of one day, as the sacred Scriptures teach: "For who is so lofty and high-minded and gifted by nature such that, either in thought or in action, he is free from every stain of fault?" But what cast the man more deeply into the pit was the fact that he said pointedly: "Or even like this publican"—for having lifted himself above all the world on the wing of pride, he even adds the publican. C "The publican, however, standing afar off, would not even lift his eyes to heaven." Observe the humility of the publican; he stood at a distance, not daring to approach the sacred sanctuaries of the temple. He was afraid to tread the most holy floor of the temple with unclean feet, nor did he judge himself worthy of it. He was afraid also to lift his eyes to heaven, as one who had provoked God who dwells in heaven; for he had learned from Job that "the Lord shall save those with eyes cast down," and therefore he turned them toward the earth, so that his humility might be shown by his very bodily posture, by the place, and by his petition. It also signifies something else, that it is said: "Standing afar off"—he stood far from the pernicious pride of the Pharisee, having entered upon a path contrary to his. For the one was inflating himself with words like a bubble; the other, struck by his conscience, was compressing himself, and being contrite on account of his sin, and leaning on the staff of hope...
prayed with what a certain Father calls commendable audacity. He stood therefore afar off, weeping and beating his breast with his palms, as the theological Muse says. But why did he not strike his head, or his knees, or some other part of his body, but the breast? He struck, he says, his breast, saying: "God, be merciful to me a sinner." Since it was from the heart that the thoughts inciting him to covetousness had erupted, and his hands had been used for wicked gains, and the local position of the heart is in the breast, he A justly beats the workshop of wickedness with the very hands he had employed for covetousness. "God, be merciful to me a sinner." He does not ask to be justified—for he knew himself unworthy to receive this—but implores God to be propitious to him. And following this, things were reversed. For the Pharisee, like a tree flourishing with the fruit of the observance of the commandments, suddenly, as if by a violent gale, was seen stripped by the wind of vainglory, like a terebinth having cast its leaves, to use the expression of Isaiah. But he, B weighed down by the lead of avarice, by one wise word and a humble posture, lays down the burden of his sins. I am struck with giddiness when I reflect how the wretched Pharisee, carrying his soul like a ship laden with ten thousand cargoes, yet having reached the port of the temple, and having neglected the rudders of the mind, was seen to have wretchedly suffered shipwreck. For what reason? "For everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, and he who humbles himself shall be exalted." It seems to me that the Lord is here making a kind of description of pride and humility; and perhaps someone, following this lead, might define vainglory as a descent toward the depths. This, indeed, C even ancient history symbolically hinted at. For Abiron and Dathan, raising themselves arrogantly above everyone else, and impudently judging themselves worthy of the priesthood, plunged into the chasm when the earth opened up, and having been exalted in their intellect, they were humbled. Considering these things, beloved, let us be taught to be moderate, and not to be unreasonably puffed up; nor, if we have achieved something righteous, should we on that account think ourselves superior to others. But when we have achieved [something], let us learn to sing with David: "Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory," for "My praise is with you D in the great church," that is, of the future age. For truly "a contrite and humbled heart God will not despise," but "In our humility the Lord was mindful of us." It is also pleasant and graceful to add this: just as farmers judge those ears of corn that bend downward and are heavy to bear much fruit, while they call those that are upright and airy "haughty" and "empty." And so among men, some...
are proud and stiff-necked, devoid of all virtue and prudence, while those who are of a humble spirit bring forth many fruits of prudence. We find that the other passions are indeed characteristic of beasts and foreign to reason; for which reason the human nature has been compared to senseless animals and has been made like them. For whether one is predatory, he behaves like a lion; or if he is angry, like a bull; or if he is crazed with lust, like a horse; or if he is retentive of injuries, like a camel; or if he wallows in the dung of pleasures, like a beetle. But the vice of pride makes us like the devil; for he was cast down because of his exaltation. If, then, pride makes demons out of angels, it follows that humility can turn us from demons into angels. And that [pride] is the property of demons, while this [humility] is truly a Christ-like quality, following the footsteps of Him who "humbled Himself even unto death" (Phil. ii, 8). Whosoever, therefore, with a pure eye of the mind, considers these things and governs himself with a disposition of humility, shall easily acquire the habit of the subsequent virtues; and like the publican, ascending into the temple of humility, he shall descend justified, saying to him who, after the manner of the Pharisee, boasts greatly of himself, that old saying: "Come, ascend below; for now you have descended above." For "upon the humble and the quiet, God looks" (Isa. lxvi, 1), to whom is due all glory for ever and ever. Amen.
HOMILY XVII. On the Prodigal Son.
The evangelical philosophy has now begun to lead us from the lower and particular things to the universal and more perfect. Having previously set before us the repentance of Zacchaeus and the humility of the publican, it now describes the misery of the human race in its entirety, which it has undergone from the beginning of the world; for it fled with a youthful impetus from the divine commandment and of its own accord passed over to the life of swine, and [it describes] how the clemency of God and the Father, arriving from afar, embraced it through the Incarnation of the Son and the Word, and restored it to its former nobility. Let us, therefore, hear this divine parable with an attentive ear and mind. "The Lord spoke this parable: A certain man had two sons" (Luc. xv, 11). The most wise and divine Chrysostom, treating of the things pertaining to this parable accurately, says that by these two sons are understood the just and the sinners: the former remaining firmly in the commandments of God, the latter having of their own accord passed over to a shameful and inglorious life.
A We, however, respect the explanation of the Father, as is fitting, and we do not refuse to follow other Fathers. For the manifold wisdom of God has been pleased that the mysteries of the Scriptures be understood in various ways. We say, therefore, that through the present young man, the falling away of the entire human nature from God is shown, and that its subsequent recall is veiled by this parabolic curtain.
This is what the Savior also fashioned in the parables before this one, sometimes speaking of a drachma buried in the filth B of pleasures, the finding of which occurred once it was purged; other times of a sheep departing from the sacred hundred, having become mountain-lost, sought by the good shepherd, and found. At another time, He describes man departing from the Jerusalem above, falling among robbers, being stripped of his raiment, and becoming wounded, receiving no help at all from the Law and the prophets (for the blood of bulls and goats could not save), but was healed by Christ alone. And through the parable now spoken, He proposes the same things: "A certain man had two sons." By "man," God is understood, according to the sense provided to us in another parable; and by the "two sons" by grace, the entire rational creation is encompassed, both that which is intellectual and that which is endowed with sense. And the one is older by nature. For He first conceives of the angelic orders, producing them by His intellect; [and the human race was produced] later, after the creation of sensing beings.
C It is necessary to know this too, that it seems to some that through the duality of the sons, both the holy angels are signified, and we who are upon the earth. For first He conceives of the angelic and heavenly orders; and the human [race...] For first He conceives of the angelic orders, having produced them by His intellect. Some, therefore, say that before all creation, as the Theologian Gregory says, He first conceived of the angelic and heavenly powers, and that thought was the work.
HOMILY XVI. On the Publican and the Pharisee.
Again, the Gospel voice, lifting us toward the patriarchal ladder, presents the second rung; for on the past Sunday, having opened to us the way of repentance through the story of Zacchaeus, and having gently intimated the command of humility by saying, "Make haste and come down," today it makes this clearer, and shows more brightly the achievement resulting from this, and the fall resulting from vainglory, and how much is the righteousness of the former, and how much the shortcoming of the latter. Since, indeed, being a publican is absolutely the lowest of all evils—insofar as it is a container of rapacity, greed, and the love of money, which the Apostle called idolatry—while the boasting of the Pharisees was considered better than all others, as it kept the precision of the Law and would purify from every defilement (for "Pharisee" is interpreted as "pure"), for this reason the Savior contrasts the lowest in injustices with that which was supposedly the perfection of virtue in the parable. For the example drawn from the better things is accustomed to spur toward imitation. But it is better to take the parable from the beginning and explain it to your God-loving ears.
"The Lord spoke this parable: Two men went up into the temple to pray; one a Pharisee, and the other a Publican." Now, what a parable is, and why the Savior spoke for the most part in parables, has been discussed by us elsewhere. But now it is necessary to note this, that whenever He wishes to theologize in parables and discourse concerning the singular and divine nature, He then posits one man, as in, "A certain man made a great dinner," and, "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that is a king." But also, whenever He wishes to denounce only wickedness or praise virtue, He makes use of the singular number, as in the case of the rich man whose land produced much, and the judge of injustice. Regarding virtue, [He speaks] of that merchant who, in place of all else, acquired the precious pearl, and of the good man who brings forth from the...
A treasures of his heart [what is good]. But consider: who among men is so exalted or great-souled in intellect as to have become, in both sense and thought, outside the defilement of evil? Who shall boast, according to the proverb, to have a holy heart? Who is pure from stain, as Job bears witness? For the righteous do not know how to say: "Never have I transgressed Your commandment." But Abraham says: "I am but earth and ashes." David says: "My iniquities have gone over my head." Isaiah says: "Woe is me, for I have polluted lips." The holy children with Azariah say: "We have neither kept nor done as You commanded us." And John, the virgin and the theologian, who so excels in purity and in the rest of virtue, cries out expressly in this way: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." That he says these things not only of himself, and not just out of humility, but as a matter of truth, the holy Council of Carthage showed, subjecting to anathema those who do not interpret the voices of the saints in this way, but imagine that they speak these things out of humility alone. B But this voice—for who is so strong and unyielding as to be kept unpolluted in both sense and thought? The three holy children [say]: "We have neither kept [nor done] what You commanded us." And Daniel the great [says]: "I have sinned in your iniquities." That this voice of the saints is not only humble, but also true: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." Likewise, it pleased [the Council] that what the holy apostle John said: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us," whoever should think that it must be taken in such a way as to say that we ought to say we have no sin out of humility, not because it is truly so, let him be anathema. C D [alt-version omitted]
[Beginning of page from previous anchor]
A “Never have I passed by your commandment”—this is fitting only for the angelic order, which has been kept untouched by evil. But what might they say regarding the first robe, in which the Father clothed the younger son through the hand of his servants, which clearly depicts baptism? Is it not the case that both the righteous and sinners are cloaked with it? Yet within the discourse of the parable, the younger alone puts it on, as though the elder had never been stripped of it. Let us understand the same concerning the ring and the sandals.
Furthermore, the calf brought forth for us as a sacrifice was slaughtered not only for sinners, but also for the righteous, having become a ransom for the whole of nature. How, then, was the righteous one indignant at the slaughter of the calf, by which he himself had also been redeemed? And how does the Father say to him, “You are always with me”? For the righteous were not always with God. For if, as the Apostle says, in Adam we all die, and all are made alive in Christ, then all who partake of the nature of Adam have also shared in that man’s fall, and in the redemption through Christ. Therefore, it is not the righteous who were always with God, but the intellectual essences of the angels, which were never separated from God; for their sake not even a kid was ever sacrificed. For the sake of angels, not even a sinner has been given over to death; but for the sake of the salvation of humans, the Son of God himself has been sacrificed.
But we have wandered far from the straight path. Come, then, let us turn back the discourse, as one might turn a horse that has broken away from the racecourse. “A certain man had two sons; and the younger said to him, ‘Father, give me the portion of the substance that falls to me.’” B Since, he says, I have been created with free will, I do not wish to serve by necessity; permit me to use my allotment as I wish; for how could I appear to be my own master, bound by commandments and laws? “And he divided to them his living”—to the incorporeal beings he assigned the heavenly region, but to humans the terrestrial one. For these two are the elements in the creation of all things for the conduct of a rational nature: heaven and earth. The earth is the place for those who have obtained their life in the flesh; but the heaven belongs to the incorporeal beings, in which the most holy minds wander, neighboring the all-blessed and divine beatitude. Man, therefore, as the younger son, having received as an allotment this sensible world and paradise for his dwelling, as an element different from the four, pure and divine—
he played, being loosened, and was led along by desires, A and succumbed to pleasure, and having been separated from the holy commandment given to him, he lost the wealth of temperance, was deprived of the silver of knowledge, was despoiled of the abundance of virtues, and thus migrated far from God by a great and infinite interval. For by the sharing in the worse and by closeness to wickedness we become far from God; he who embraces injustice recedes far from righteousness; he who is defiled by the filth of pleasures departs far from temperance; he who is overwhelmed by the burden of passions is ostracized from prudence; he who yields to the affections is cast away from fortitude. Thus he went away into a far country, he who was enslaved by sins, having consumed all the powers of the soul and the senses of the body in the pleasures of the flesh. “For your sins,” says God, “separate between me and you.” B “When he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that country, and he began to be in want.” A famine did not happen from the beginning, but when the young man had trampled down his entire wealth. For the total deprivation of virtues becomes a mighty famine for the soul, by which, being dried up as if by some drought, it hungers for every rain of righteousness. For, as the divine Maximus says, famine is truly the absence and lack of the good things known by experience itself, and a want of the spiritual foods of the soul. Thus hungry from afar was Adam looking toward Eden, and through him our whole nature, being hungry, chose to be a slave to the demons; and having hungered, it turns toward despair. For what does the word of the parable say? “And having gone, he joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.” C Do you see the evil being healed as it were by a worse evil? It was necessary indeed, when the famine happened, to come at once to an awareness of the former abundance and to hasten to return to the blessed feast. But he, like an unruly foal that has broken its bonds, progressed toward worse things. “For having gone,” it says, “he joined himself to one of the citizens of that country.” Here the Lord seems to reveal something hidden, which, according to my own account, is as follows: the devil, the ruler of this world, lifted up by pride and cast down together with the apostate powers under him, assigned the types of multi-faceted sin to each demon; and just as in the charisms of the Holy Spirit one might find many differences—for there is a spirit of wisdom, a spirit of power, of adoption, and of sanctification, and what / the great Isaiah has listed—in this way the rivals of God, contrary to the D [index: entries preserved]
things, so that one daemon is of wrath, another of vainglory, another of avarice, and another of envy, and one of another—hatred, intemperance, insolence, despondency—and each has acquired its own inventor of passions and an evil counselor for men, so that those who create these things are called citizens of the passions. When, therefore, you hear that that young man, having broken away, was joined to one of the citizens, understand that this is meant: that he has become a worshiper of and subject to one of the daemonic passions. But if you also seek to learn of the city, whose overseer was the one who hired the young man to tend swine, the Psalm will teach you, calling that city the one settled by evil practices: "I have seen iniquity and contradiction in the city, and iniquity and labor in the midst of it, and injustice, and usury, and deceit in its streets." He, then, who inhabits such a city sent him into his field to feed swine. Perhaps through the swine he alluded to the passion of abominable and rabid intemperance, in which those who obey the impure daemon wallow like swine. By the fields of this abominable daemon, you are to understand those who are fond of rule and fond of pleasure. The passion of intemperance was most fittingly likened to swine; for pleasure, having mixed its own brewing as in a Circean cup and having transformed the mind of the foolish toward a swinish life, makes them its own worshipers; and just as the eyes of swine, turned downward by nature, have no awareness of heavenly wonders, so the soul that has been dragged down to the passions is insensible to intelligible beauty. While there are many passions that contend against the reason of men, no other passion has such power against us as to be equaled to the sickness of pleasure. For it truly makes men into beasts of burden, parading themselves by their dishonor in the manner of swine, so that they always desire to be sated with [their own] defilement. "For he longed," it says, "to fill his belly with the husks that the swine were eating, and no one would give any to him." The younger one, therefore, according to birth and understanding, profited from being a swineherd only to the extent of being choked by hunger and desiring to be filled with the swinish food. Such are the rewards for the lovers of wickedness; with such gifts does pleasure welcome those who follow it; such are the honors of the daemons. For he who keeps temperately...
and by noble reasoning masters his passions, they bring upon him a violent war, setting traps on every side, seasoning the poison with honey, and pouring out death in golden vials. A But when they have enclosed their prey within the net, and have enslaved the soul to the habit of evil, then, and only then, they make the enjoyment of these evils difficult, so that, stung by the gadfly of desire, men may pursue them most ardently; just like terrible harlots who, until that moment, hunt the young men with nods, and graceful movements, and laughter, and signals, until they kindle the fire of desire. Then, changing their behavior, they play coy, teasing their lovers. And why did he mention only husks, and no other fruit? Perhaps the word indicated the local custom of those who live in Phoenicia. For just as with us pigs are fed on acorns, so among them they are nourished on husks. Moreover, this fruit also has a resemblance to lewd pleasure. For other fruit-bearing plants produce their blossom and fruit on recently sprouted branches and on the tips of the shoots; but this tree produces the growth of its fruit on the very trunk itself, carrying a small amount of sweetness, but having much that is fibrous and devoid of nourishment. Clear, then, is the comparison of these things to unbridled pleasure, as the Apostle says: "Every sin is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against his own body." B For the irritations directed toward frantic intercourse extract from the body itself all the reproductive and marrowy substance of the blood, and thus the fruit of the tree of sin is brought forth.
Notes of Franciscus Scorus
(96) *They play coy*. What this is, and what the origin of this proverb is, Paulus Manutius explains clearly in his *Adagia*; M. Tullius used it in his *Letters to Atticus*, Book I: "I think we are certain that all is lost, for what is the use of *accizing*?" that is, why do we dissemble? From which you may understand that when Theophanes says of harlots that they "play coy," he signifies that they reject their lovers with a feigned haughtiness or disdain, in order to lead them further into love and inflame them. The daemon uses this custom when he has enticed and ensnared the soul of men into the lust for evil pleasures; he makes the enjoyment of them difficult, and does not grant the means of satisfaction.
(97) *Husks*. The term signifies the pod, follicle, or covering in which the grains of legumes are enclosed; but it is also the property of that tree which the Greeks call *ceratonia*, the fruit of which is called in the same way. Moreover, that St. Luke in this chapter (xv), when he mentions those things on which the prodigal son was feeding, is dealing with fruits of this kind—which the Latin translator calls "husks"—our Maldonatus most steadfastly affirms; for they are given to pigs to eat, and are of use not only to men, especially in warmer regions where they are found in great abundance, just as acorns are elsewhere. C This is also attested by Ricillius in his *History of Plants* regarding Nicaea and the inhabitants of the Ligurian Sea. Of these, therefore, our author also understands, and in them, he pursues the tropological meaning. For what he brings forward concerning their nature is consistent with what the writers of natural history teach; which we will not regret, nor will it repent us, to have briefly annotated for the sake of clarifying this learned Father. See the following notes.
(98) *Branches*. *Akremon* properly signifies a large branch, although it sometimes signifies a sprout, as Phavorinus indicates when he marks the parts of a tree. What could be clearer? For *klados* is called the more tender branch or the terminal whip-like shoot, because it is more easily broken; it is indeed more fragile than the others.
(99) *Trunk*. The *Ceratonia* (the Greek word he expressed as *trunco* [trunk], and itself fertile; but I set "husk"). The Ceratonia is of a drying and astringent quality, just as its fruit is, which they call *ceratia*; it also contains a bit of sweetness. The *ceratia* is a food of bad juice and is woody. Pliny: "While seeds are pleasing in many, they are condemned in husks." The same elsewhere: "In husks, what is eaten other than wood?" The same: "The very sweet husks do not seem far removed from this, except that the rind is eaten in them; D they are the length of a man's finger, sometimes curved, with the width of a thumb."
A
Homily XX
Furthermore, let us consider that much-enduring Job in his dialogue with the kings, that although he boasted much, he is not condemned, whereas this man is held accountable. B The reason is that the holy and just Job, while he succeeded in many noble deeds that were pleasing to God, was never seen to boast of them, but rather hid his own superior merits. But because those who seemed to be his friends were reproaching him in an unfriendly manner and accusing him without sympathy—breaking the bruised reed, as it were, and tormenting with their words one who was already half-dead—only then did he proceed to ward off the accusations most bravely, and he checked their untimely aggression, so that if any blame lay in the boasting, those who had accused him so unfairly were rather to be held guilty. C The Pharisee, however, with no one provoking him, behaved insolently, setting himself above everyone, nor did he recognize what he was by nature. For if he had known that he was a man, he would certainly have known also the misery of human nature, that it is impossible for a man to be clean from defilement, even if his life were but one day long, as the Scriptures teach. For who is so lofty and great of spirit as to be, both in thought and in deed, entirely outside of the stain of wickedness? D But what dragged him down into the abyss even more was that he also spoke of the tax-collector with a gesture: “Or even like this tax-collector.” For having lifted himself above the whole world on the wings of arrogance, he adds the tax-collector as well. “And the tax-collector, standing afar off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven.” Observe the humility of the tax-collector; he stood far away, not daring to approach the divine palace. He was afraid to tread upon the most holy floor of the temple with his impure feet, and he did not judge himself worthy. He was afraid even to look toward heaven, inasmuch as he had provoked God, who dwells in heaven. He had learned from Job that the Lord will save the downcast of eyes; therefore he was looking toward the earth, so that his humility might be made manifest by his posture, by the place, and by his petition. "Standing afar off" also signifies something else; he stood far from the harmful pride of the Pharisee, having walked the road opposite to his. The one was swelling himself up with words like a bubble, but the other, struck by his conscience, was shrinking; and being crushed by his sin, he leaned upon the staff of hope. For who shall be clean from filth? But no one, even if his life upon the earth be but one day.
HOMILY XVII.
He had believed [the kingdom] to be his. For this is what the Judge, sitting on the throne of glory, is about to say: "Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you." Since, therefore, he was convinced that heaven was his inheritance, and that by abandoning it he had acted wrongly, he said that he had sinned against heaven. A "And the father said to his servants: Bring forth the first robe, and clothe him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet." The servants are the heralds and ministers of the mystery of grace, who, through holy baptism, cast upon us the robe—not any other, but that first one of which man was despoiled through disobedience, when, as soon as he tasted of the forbidden food, he knew himself to be naked. And he places the ring upon his hand, delivering him from the servitude of that citizen, that is, of sin, and by the engraving inscribed in the bezel of the ring, he signifies the restoration of that image which he had hidden in the dung—I mean in the filth of the flesh. He fortifies the feet also with shoes, so that he may not be liable again, with a naked heel, to the head of the serpent. The shoes B may signify the life of evangelical conduct, continent and rigorous, which by itself bends and breaks the points of the thorn, and prevents sin from slipping into the soul from some unseen and slight beginning. "And he sacrifices the fatted calf," that truly undefiled and pure one, whom the immaculate young maiden brought forth; that meek and gentle calf, not goading with its horn the bulls and dogs that were killing it: the Father gives this for a sacrifice. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son as a ransom for many." "And they began to be merry." This is that joy which the Gospel elsewhere calls a supper and a marriage. For the salvation of men was truly a cause of joy for God; for our nature had been deadened by sin, C but in Christ it has revived. "For this son of mine," He says, "was dead, and is alive again; and he was lost, and is found." He clearly indicated this even in the parable of the man who fell among thieves; for He brought him back to life, even when he had become half-dead from the blows. But what he says, "He was lost, and is found," harmonizes with the parable of the lost sheep, and the drachma, at the finding of which the divine Wisdom shows joy and gladness.
[alt-version omitted]
A Having spoken demonstratively, "This son of mine," he showed that the other son had been neither dead at any time, nor lost. "Now his elder son was in the field; and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing, and he was angry, and would not go in." Scripture in many places calls the world the field, in which the Bride in the Song of Songs, adjuring the daughters of Jerusalem, said: "I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the powers and the strengths of the field." And conversing with the Bridegroom, she says: "Come, my beloved, let us go out into the field." But also the great voice of the Gospel figuratively called the world a field. For when the Savior was explaining the parable of the tares to the disciples, he interpreted the field as the world. And indeed, this world is the field that has the two grinding at the mill, of whom the one is taken and the other is left; and the field which the man who declined the invitation to the great supper says he has bought, leads to this same understanding. B Since, therefore, the angels "are ministering spirits," as the Apostle says, "sent forth to minister," and some of them are set over the nations, while others are attendants upon each one of the human beings, it is consequently to be understood that the elder brother came from the field—that is, he who came from the nations being provided for, from the individual humans, from the things of the field, that is, from the providences and administrations of this present life. For they are sent into the world. It is reasonable, therefore, that he is said to have come from the field, the elder brother. But that he "was angry, and would not go in," we should not understand as signifying anger born of jealousy, nor should we slide into that state of mental deficiency; rather, let us understand it as signifying his astonishment mixed with wonder. For the angelic powers were indeed struck with amazement, contemplating the kindness of God toward man. For this reason, the dramatic action of the parable introduces a discourse indicative of such astonishment. I have, however, another secret matter to set forth, by which it is said that the elder brother was angry, and said to the father: "Lo, these many years I serve you, and I never transgressed your commandment, and you never gave me..."
a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. But when this son of yours, who devoured your living with harlots, came, you killed for him the fatted calf." By these and the following words, the Lord reveals that when the first-created Adam transgressed the commandment, the heaven was severed from the earth, and the angels were at enmity with men, seeing the Master being insulted by them. But when the terminus and Word of the Father A took up the man who was an enemy to them and hated by them, and led him up into the heavens, he dissolved such enmity. And this, the apostolic theology clearly sets forth, saying: "Having made peace through the blood of his Son, both the things in heaven and the things on earth." Thus, the fact that there is said to be joy in heaven over penitent sinners occurred after the Lord's incarnation, and the reconciliation between angels and men.
When, therefore, you hear that the elder brother was angry, and said to the father whatever he uttered, understand it as the former enmity of the angels against men; but when, again, you hear the father soothing him with words and preparing him to be well-disposed toward his brother, understand it as signifying the dissolution of that enmity. But let us resume the text again: "Lo, these many years I serve you, and I never transgressed your commandment." The utterance is full of boldness and truth. For by serving God for so many ages, the intellectual nature of the angels never transgressed a commandment of God, although that nature was capable of turning toward the worse, as we learn from the fallen Lucifer. "And you never gave me a kid." The Gospel calls sinners kids. He says, therefore, that never did he B [regard] any of the impious and profane men, from whom I was averted, by my grace...
Francisci Scorsi's notes.
He calls the Word "terminus" [ὅρος] by the same words as Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration *On the Nativity*, from whom I am certain our author has taken these, as he is most studious of Gregory. Thus, therefore, Nazianzen on the Word: which Billius interprets thus: "That immovable seal, that image similar in all things, that terminus and Reason [Ratio] of the Father." What Gregory, and with him Theophanes, signifies when he calls Him "Word" [Verbum], the Theologian himself explains in Oration 36, which is *On Theology*, where, bringing forward many reasons why the Son of God is called "Word," he says—which the same excellent interpreter of Gregory, Billius, translates thus: "Perhaps also because He stands in the same relation to the Father as a definition [definitio] to the thing defined; for a definition is also called 'terminus'. For he who has known the Son, he says—for this is what 'He who has seen' signifies—has known the Father also: so that the Son is a brief, compendious, and easy declaration of the Father's nature. For everything that is begotten defines its begetter by a silent voice." Thus Gregory. And what more clear and illustrious [proof] can he show us, who wants to know what the same Gregory signifies in that other oration where he calls Him the Word of God? Certainly nothing else but that the Word is the definition and comprehensive expression of the Father; for He expresses the whole of Him in Himself; and stands in the same relation as a definition to the thing defined, as Gregory speaks. This same way does Didacus Ruiz of our society understand Gregory, *Disputations* 55, *On the Trinity*, sect. 3, where, refuting Origen, who said that the signification of "Word" regarding the Son was metaphorical, he brings forward the testimonies of the Fathers which seem to favor that opinion; among which are those words cited by us from Oration 36 of Nazianzen, and besides C Basil in his oration on that text: "In the beginning was the Word," where he says it is the Word because it is the image of the Begetter, showing the Begetter entirely in Himself; and Gregory of Nyssa, *Catechetical Oration*, cap. 1, where he says the Word brings the mind forth into the open. Ruiz, therefore, explains these places with these words: "But these Fathers do not treat of a temporal manifestation handed down to men through teaching, but of the quidditative and eternal reason of the image, which is contained in the reason of the Word, insofar as He expresses the whole God." These are the words of Ruiz. And this is also what Billius signifies, and our interpretation agrees with him in this, since he rendered the word ὅρος as "terminus"; for in both ways it is translated from Aristotle: it is called both "definition" and "terminus," because it terminates and comprehends, or circumscribes, the whole nature and reason of a thing.
A of dead men and detestable ones, those whom I loathed, you have yielded your grace for the sake of man's salvation, you have sacrificed the Only-begotten himself. What then does the common Father and Creator say? "Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But it was necessary to be glad and to rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead, and has returned to life; and was lost, and has been found." Do you see how he makes peace, and dissolves the partition wall of enmity, joining into one what the first enmity had split apart? What he accomplished in deeds, this he portrayed through the words of the parable; showing at the same time both the former enmity between the angels and men, and the reconciliation which afterward took place through him who by his own blood joined the heavenly to the earthly, Christ our true God, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit is glorified now and always and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XVIII
On the text: "When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and the rest."What those who gaze down from some high mountain peak into the vast sea experience, the same I felt when the words of the Lord were read; and I was all lifted up, as if raising my mind from some watchtower to that fearful judgment-seat. And somehow I imagine the land of weeping, and the multitude of men from the beginning of time, and his terrible distribution, the standing at the right hand, the lot at the left; the myriads of angelic hosts, the tremendous King, and the incorruptible One toward the judgment, sitting B like a judge in the middle of both, weighing our deeds in a level scale; the contrariety of the rewards: on this side the kingdom of the heavens, the blessed Eden, the land of the meek, the dwellings of the righteous; on that side the fearful prisons, the bubbling fire, the outer darkness, the gnashing of teeth, the undying worm of conscience, which forever sucks at the soul through shame, and renews the pangs by the memory of things lived ill. Considering these things in my mind, I grow dizzy and tremble. For the Gospel has clearly portrayed everything for us. But let us unfold the discourse by taking it up. "The Lord said: When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon a throne." Since the first coming of Christ appeared humble according to the appearance—for he was thought to be the son of a carpenter, and he lived a poor life, as his walking on foot indicated, and the barley loaves, and having no place to lay his head; C D [index: entries preserved]
διὰ τοῦτό φησιν, οὐχ ὁμοίαν ἔσεσθαι τὴν δευτέραν ἐκείνην καὶ μέλλουσαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπίδοξον ὄντως καὶ φοβεράν· οὐδ᾽ ἄλλον τὸν τότε μετὰ δόξης ἐλευσόμενον, ἀλλ' αὐτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, τὸν νῦν ἐν εὐτελεῖ φαινόμενον σχήματι· ἀμφοτέρας δὲ τῆς θείας παρουσίας Χριστοῦ οἱ θεῖοι χρησμοὶ προηγόρευσαν. Περὶ μὲν γὰρ τῆς πρώτης ὁ Ἠσαΐας φησίν • « Εἴδομεν αὐτὸν, καὶ οὔτε εἶδος, οὔτε κάλλος εἶχεν· ἀλλὰ τὸ εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἄτιμον· » καί, « Ἰδοὺ ὁ παῖς μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ ηὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου, οὐκ ἐρίσει οὐδὲ κραυγάσει ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις· » περὶ δὲ τῆς ἐσχάτης ἐκείνης ὁ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ἀνὴρ οὕτω φησίν· « Εἶδον ὡς Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον διὰ νεφελῶν. » Ἡ δὲ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου φωνή, « Ὡς ἀστραπὴ, φησὶν, ἐκβαίνει ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, καὶ φαίνεται ἕως δυσμῶν, οὕτως ἔσται ἡ παρουσία τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. » Καὶ Παῦλος δὲ ὁ μέγας τὸ ἔνδοξον αὐτῆς ἐμφαίνων, « Ἐν κελεύσματι, φησὶ, Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβήσεται. » Ἥξει γοῦν, ἥξει οὐ μεθ' ὁμοίας λιτότητας, ἀλλὰ μυριοπληθεῖ τάξει ἀγγέλων δορυφορούμενος, καὶ καθιεῖται ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτῷ καὶ μόνῳ πρεπωδεστάτων θρόνων, ἐξ ὧν ῥεῖθρα φλογώδη ποταμηδὲν προχεόμενα δέους ἀπλέτου καὶ ταράχου πάντα πληροῖ. Ἡ δὲ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀνέκαθεν γεγονυῖα φύσις ἐν ταὐτῷ συναγείρεται, τῇ τῶν προσδοκωμένων ἐκβάσει κραδαινομένων, ὡς καὶ αὐτῶν δὴ τῶν ἐναρέτως βιωσάντων ἀπιστεῖν τῷ ἀδήλῳ τοῦ μέλλοντος.
A For this reason, he says, that second and future [coming] will not be like the first, but truly glorious and terrible; nor will another come then with glory, but the Son of Man himself, who now appears in humble form; and the divine oracles have foretold both of the divine comings of Christ. For concerning the first, Isaiah says: "We saw him, and he had no form or beauty; but his form was dishonored." And: "Behold my child, the beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased; he will not contend nor will he cry out in the streets." B And concerning that last one, the man of desires speaks thus: "I saw as it were the Son of Man coming upon the clouds." The voice of the Gospel says: "As lightning goes out from the east and appears unto the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be." And the great Paul also, manifesting its glory, says: "At the command of God, and with the voice of the archangel, he shall descend from heaven." Come indeed he shall, he shall come not with similar simplicity, but surrounded by a ten-thousand-fold order of angels, and he shall sit upon those thrones which are most fitting for him alone, from which fiery streams flowing like a river fill everything with immense fear and confusion. C And the nature of men, which has existed from the beginning, is gathered together at the same time, trembling at the outcome of those things being awaited, so that even those who have lived virtuously scarcely dare to trust in the uncertainty of the future. D [alt-version omitted]
Homily XXI
AAnd He will separate them from one another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. Why does He desire to do this? To deliver the elect, I think, from fear and trembling, and at the same time to provide a prelude to the future glory or ignominy through their separation. He likens the just to sheep because of their gentleness and mildness, and because of their wool, with which not only the animals themselves but human beings also are protected; they also yield nourishing milk. Now, the nature of milk is known to all: it is sweet to the taste and possesses the power to nourish; it is white in appearance and pure; it is the only one among all liquid kinds that does not reflect back shadows and images to those who look into it, which is the nature of other fluids; and sheep graze not on mountain-heights and precipices, as do the goats, but in level and flat places, being nourished by pure grass. The similarity between these and the just is therefore entirely clear. For even they, as it were, bring forth the fruit of almsgiving as their wool, by which those who are naked are covered. And the milk is the true and sincere doctrine of the faith, containing nothing shadowy, nothing unstable, and nothing fleeting within itself, which flows from the breast of the heart. For the location of the breasts, from which the streams of milk start, is in the heart, from which the milk of doctrine flows forth—sweet and suitable for food, white and pure, and unadulterated by any falsehood. The goat, on the contrary, leaps about in precipitous places, but jumps even upon plants, bringing damage to the shrubs and spoiling the beauty of the buds and blossoms; nor does it yield milk, nor does it bring forth B usable wool. Such are those who, by the wantonness of their wickedness, have rendered themselves like goats, and in the manner of goats leaping about on the precipices of sin, are harmful to the marriages and affairs of others; they are sterile and barren of the wool of virtue and of the milk-like word of piety, and for this reason they are deservedly driven to the left. Since this distinction has been made, the whole human race will stand in suspense, trembling at the outcome of both parties being awaited, so that even those who have lived with a good conscience, regarding what will happen as still unknown, might scarcely seem to be secure in themselves, until that King speaks that sweet voice to the just: As also their very (nature), of those who have lived virtuously, is to be in doubt about the uncertainty of the future. C
Notes of Francesco Scorsi
...the great events to come, such that they might lead into error, if possible, even the elect. Regarding the variety of manuscripts: in P this sentiment is found twice: here, when he speaks of the whole human race gathered before the throne of Christ, and further below, when he speaks of the pronouncement of the sentence. In G, however, it is found only in the second place. But because in both places the words are coherent with the discourse, and I suspected that they might have been cut by the writer in one place, or negligently omitted, I have restored them in both places as they are in P. See the note above. And indeed, these words seem to allude to that of the divine Peter, 1 Epistle, ch. 4: "If the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" However, consult the interpreters regarding the exact and true understanding of this passage. For I define nothing here; it is enough to have intimated it. Furthermore, the same point pertains to what is said below by our orator, that Christ separates the wicked from the just D so that he might deliver them from fear and trembling. Fear cannot fall upon those who have already been established in the end and gifted with glory. But he says this rhetorically; just as if he were saying that Christ conducts Himself in that separation just as if He wished to deliver the just from fear; that the terror of that day is such, that even the just themselves could be led into doubt regarding their own salvation, if they were capable of it. And this condition must be thought to be involved in these words: "Namely, if they held the future outcome as uncertain, although they were just, they would scarcely seem to be secure in themselves." With which condition having been expressed, Christ the Lord signifies and proclaims, etc., by the cutting of which the sentence was rendered incomplete, and therefore obscure. See above note 12, where it is placed first.
HOMILY XVIII.
A "Come, you blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Observe how he makes those on his right hand rejoice in every way: by the very separation, by the setting of the place [assigned to them], and by the address; for in order to brush away their fear and drive off their agitation, he first speaks to them with his customary greeting, saying: "Come." For he had uttered this to them even in this present life: "Come to me, all you that labor, and are burdened, and I will refresh you." B But seeing here a broad field of contemplations opening up, I am in doubt what I should pursue in my discourse first, what second, and what thereafter. For how, when there are, according to the Lord's word, many mansions in the Father's house, does he now grant one kingdom to all the just? And how, in the catalog of the beatitudes, does he give the kingdom as a reward to the poor in spirit and those who are persecuted for justice's sake, saying thus: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"? C Yet here he confers the same reward, not upon the poor in spirit, nor upon those who have endured persecutions, but upon those who have acquired liberality, compassion, and love for their fellow men. And yet, according to the consideration that first presents itself, what agreement have poverty and the enduring of persecutions with the effects of loving compassion? For he who shows mercy is a healer of others' calamities, whereas he who is poor and pressed by persecutions stands in need of one who shows mercy; D yet the pinnacle of the gift is equal in all cases: for the poverty of spirit, the endurance of persecutions, and the show of compassion toward one's fellow man lead us to the kingdom in the same way. What then shall we say to these things? That the commandments take hold of one another, tending toward one end, and, as it were, breathing together. And just as in a necklace of pearls, or a golden chain, each pearl or link holds fast to the next for the completion of a single work, so are the virtues interconnected and, as it were, sequential. He, therefore, who has nourished the needy, and clothed the naked, and hospitably received the traveler under his roof, and provided the fitting care for the sick and the prisoner, has embraced every virtue—gentleness, patience, poverty of spirit, and whatever other thing among our acts is blessed. For if it is acknowledged that love is the most excellent among all the pursuits of this life, and mercy is the intensity of love, [it comprises] every virtue.
Hitherto regarding this matter. Now let us return to the sequence of the discourse.
As the great Isaiah enumerated his [the demon’s] powers of knowledge, so too are the opponents of God arranged against their opposites, in such a way that one is the demon of anger, another of vainglory, another of avarice, another of envy, and one of this, another of that—of hatred, of intemperance, of insolence, of listlessness—and each person possesses his own inventor of his particular passion and an evil counselor to men, so that the creators of these passions are spoken of as citizens [of the soul]. Therefore, when you hear that that young man, having broken away, was attached to one of the citizens, understand this to be signified: that he became a servant and subordinate to one of the demonic passions. And if you also seek to learn the city, of which the one who commissioned the youth to feed swine was the overlord, the Psalm will teach you of that city, calling it the habitation of wicked pursuits: B “I saw iniquity and contradiction in the city, and iniquity and labor in the midst of it; and injustice, and usury, and deceit in its streets.” He, then, who dwelt in such a city sent him into his field to feed swine. Perhaps by the swine the passion of abominable and rabid intemperance is hinted at, in which those who obey the filthy demon wallow like swine. You will understand the fields of this filthy demon to be those who are lovers of the flesh and lovers of pleasure. It is most excellent that he likened the passion of intemperance to swine; for pleasure, having mixed its own mess like a Circean cup, and transforming the mind of the foolish toward a swinish life, makes them its own servants. And just as the eyes of swine, turned toward the ground by nature, have no understanding of heavenly wonders, so the soul dragged down toward the passions is insensible to intelligible beauty. C Since there are many passions that contend against the reason of men, no other passion has such power against us as to be equaled to the sickness of pleasure. For it truly makes men into beasts, parading them in their disgrace like swine, so that they always desire to be sated with the filth. “For he desired,” he says, “to fill his belly with the husks that the swine were eating, and no one gave to him.” He, then, younger in birth and in intelligence, profited so much from becoming a swineherd that he was choked by hunger and desired to be filled with the swinish fodder. Such are the rewards of the lovers of wickedness; with such gifts does pleasure reward those who follow her; such D are the honors of the demons. For he who is temperate
[alt-version omitted]
Notes by Franciscus Scorus.
(95) *Have their ministries divided by reason of persons and nations to whose attacking they are appointed* is probable to the scholastic theologians with the Master in I, dist. 6; and St. Thomas implies this in part I, quest. 106, art. 1, with these words: “They appoint for themselves ministers for the attacking of men, just as the angels minister to God for the salvation of men.” That they also have divided vices and sins to which they solicit men, so that one demon might be the instigator of one and another of another, this also is not without probability and rests upon the grave authority of the Fathers, as Suarez says, book VIII *De angelis*, chap. 21, no. 28. Furthermore, he himself cites the Fathers Origen, Abbot Serenus in Cassian, Jerome asserting this in many places, Master William of Paris, and others whom you may read in Suarez himself, into whose number our Theophanes comes, who says that the demon endeavors to do this out of an eagerness to emulate God.
A Such is the nature of the demons’ honors. For against the man who is temperate and prevails over the passions with a noble mind, they bring a violent war, surrounding him on every side with allurements, seasoning the poison with honey, and pouring out death from golden chalices. But when they have pulled the prey inside the trap and have enslaved the soul in the habit of evil, then, and only then, do they make the enjoyment of these evils difficult, so that the victim may be consumed with desire for them, pricked by the goad of concupiscence, just as the cruel courtesans who, until that moment, catch the young men with nods, and swaying, and laughter, and signs, until they have kindled the fire of desire. Then, changing their demeanor, they act coy, teasing and stinging their lovers. But why did he make mention of the carob-pods B alone, and not of some other fruit? Perhaps the word indicates the local custom of the companies in Phoenicia; for as with us swine are fed on acorns, so among them they are raised on carob-pods. Yet this fruit also has a kinship with detestable pleasure. For other fruit-bearing plants sprout their blossom and fruit on the newly-grown shoots of the branches and on the extremities; but this tree produces the growth of the fruit upon the very trunk itself, carrying little sweetness, while having much that is fibrous and devoid of nourishment. Clear, certainly, is the comparison of these things to intemperate pleasure, as the Apostle said: "Every sin is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against his own body" (I Cor. vi, 18). For the incitements to rabid sexual union draw out from the body itself all the reproductive and marrow-like quality of the blood; and thus the fruit of the tree of sin germinates as if from a trunk C of the body, and offers indeed little pleasure, but much that is hollow and unnourishing—which brings forth from the trunk of a certain body, having indeed little pleasure, but much of that which is...
chaff-like, which is stored for the unquenchable fire. A “Coming then to himself, he said: How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!” Such was his condition, appropriate for one who lived among and together with swine: instead of the incorruptible and blessed robe, he was clothed in a tattered and ragged one, the kind that a drunkard and a fornicator—as the proverb says—puts on; and instead of the bountiful table, he could scarcely satisfy himself with the food of beasts. Yet, he barely sobered up from his drunkenness, barely began to perceive what an evil he was enslaved to, barely recognized what kind of life he had exchanged for what other. He pondered his departure from the paternal hearth, his intimacy with the foul life of the swine, the difference regarding his precious wealth, and the destitution in which he lived, and he rehearsed the words of repentance. Conveniently, it was said, “coming to himself”; for he had not been in himself, but was agape toward sin, so that it is manifest that he who sins is outside of himself and deranged, like those who are sodden with wine. B Returning, therefore, to himself, and drawing a mournful sigh from the depths: “How many of my father’s hired servants,” he says, “have bread enough and to spare, and I am perishing with hunger!” he cried out wretchedly. A good beginning of repentance is to know both what we were before and what we have become. He, having therefore pondered what he should say to the father, set out on the return journey. “And arising, he came to his father.” Arising from where? From his fall, clearly, and from the seat of pestilence. He came by his own choice, by repentance, by the amendment of life, by flight from sin, by the aversion of pleasures. What then did God and the Father, the lover of his children, do? As soon as he saw his son remove himself from the service of that abominable citizen and return to the paternal hearth, he did not thrust away the runaway, he did not banish the fugitive; he did not loathe the man who possessed no fatherland, nor did he shrink from him who gave off the stench of swinishness, but ran to meet him. For the philanthropy of God anticipates our own faculty of thought. And running, and holding him fast in his embrace, he kissed his neck. C You see how clearly he describes the mystery of the Economy and the goodness of God toward man. Being far from Him, by reason of his proximity to the passions, He emptied Himself and, running down from the heavenly arches, embraced and kissed—not another member, but the neck—which had cast off the yoke of the first commandment in paradise, and like a heifer, had been goaded toward following the counsel of the dragon. But through the kiss, He places upon his neck the yoke of the evangelical commandments. And the son said to him: “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.” For what reason does he say that he sinned against heaven? He knew that the enjoyment of the heavens was his fatherland; he was convinced that if he had not transgressed the commandment, he would have come into a share of the heavenly goods; for the kingdom of the heavens is prepared for man; thus...
A the Judge sitting upon the throne of glory is to say: "Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you." Since, therefore, he was convinced that heaven was his inheritance, and that by abandoning it he had acted wrongly, he said that he had sinned "against heaven." "And the father said to his servants: Bring out the first robe, and clothe him, and give a ring for his hand, and sandals for his feet." The servants are the heralds and ministers of the mystery of grace, who, through holy baptism, cause us to put on a robe—not another, but that very first one of which man was stripped through disobedience, when, as soon as he had tasted of the fruit, he saw himself to be naked. And he places the ring on his hand, freeing him from the servitude of that citizen of sin, and through the carving on the signet ring, he signifies the restoration of that image which he had hidden in the mire—I mean in the filth of the flesh. He also protects his feet with sandals, so that he might not again be vulnerable to the head of the serpent with a bare heel. The sandals might represent a life of continence and austerity according to the Gospel, which by itself breaks and bends the points of the thorn, and prevents sin from creeping into the soul from a hidden and slight beginning. "And he sacrifices the fatted calf," that truly undefiled and pure one, whom the immaculate heifer bore, the mild and gentle calf, which did not gore with its horns the bulls and dogs that were killing it: this the Father gives as a sacrifice. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son as a redemption for many." "And they began to be merry." This was the mirth which the Gospel elsewhere calls a banquet and a wedding. For the salvation of men truly became B a cause of joy for God; for our nature had been deadened by sin, but it has been made alive again in Christ. "For this son of mine," he says, "was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found." He demonstrated this most clearly also in the parable of the man who fell among thieves; for him too, left half-dead from his wounds, he brought back to life. But the phrase, "He was lost, and is found," harmonizes with the parable of the lost sheep and the lost drachma, upon the finding of which the Wisdom of God rejoices and exults. For C as to the...
indicative to say, "This, my son," he showed that the other son had neither ever been dead, nor lost. "Now his elder son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing; and he was angry, and would not go in." B Scripture in many places calls the world a field, in which the Bride in the Song of Songs, adjuring the daughters of Jerusalem, says: "I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the powers and by the strengths of the field." And addressing the Bridegroom, she says: "Come, my beloved, let us go out into the field." But also the great voice of the Gospel figuratively called the world a field; for when the Savior was explaining the parable of the tares to the disciples, he interpreted the field as the world; and indeed this world is that field which has two women grinding, of whom one is taken and the other is left. And that field which he who refused the invitation to the great supper says he has bought, leads to the same understanding. Since, therefore, the angels "are ministering spirits," as the Apostle says, "sent forth to minister," and some of them preside over nations, while others are assigned as companions to each of the individual humans, it is logical, then, to understand it in such a way that the elder brother came from the field, as one who came from the gentiles committed to his care, from the individual humans, and from the affairs of the field—that is, from the cares and administrations of this life; for they are sent into the world. Justly, therefore, is the elder son said to have come from the field. However, in that he was "angry, and would not go in," let us not understand this as signifying anger born of envy; nor let us fall into that poverty of judgment. But let us understand it as denoting the astonishment that follows from a miracle. For the angelic powers were beside themselves, considering the goodness of God toward humanity. For this reason, the very drama of the parable introduces a discourse indicative of such astonishment. I have, in truth, something else recondite to set forth, by which it is said that the elder brother was angry, and said to the father: "Lo, these many years I serve thee, and I never disobeyed thy command, and thou never gavest me..."
a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. But when this son of thine, who hath devoured thy living with harlots, came, thou didst kill for him the fatted calf." A For by these and the following words the Lord signifies that when the first-created Adam transgressed the commandment, there was a splitting asunder between heaven and earth, and the angels were hostile toward men, seeing the Master being treated with injury by them. But when that 'terminus' (ὅρος) and Word of the Father recovered the man who was an enemy and an object of hatred to them, and brought him up into the heavens, he dissolved such enmity. And this, the divine Apostolic utterance clearly sets forth, saying: B "Reconciling by the blood of his Son things in heaven and things upon the earth." (Coloss. i, 20). Therefore, the fact that there is said to be joy in heaven over penitent sinners came about after the Lord's incarnation and the reconciliation made between angels and men.
When, therefore, you hear that the elder brother was angry, and said to the father whatever he uttered, understand the former hostility of the angels against men; but when you hear him again being pacified by the father's words and prepared to have goodwill towards his brother, understand the dissolution of that enmity. But let us take up the text again: "Lo, so many years do I serve thee, and I never disobeyed thy commandment." The speech is full of confidence and truth. For in so many ages the intellectual nature of the angels, serving God, never disobeyed C God's commandment, even though that nature was susceptible of turning toward the worse, as we learn from the falling Lucifer. "And thou never gavest me a kid." The Gospel calls sinners 'kids.' He says, therefore, that never from those impious and polluted men, from whom I was averted, didst thou give me anyone...
Francisci Scorsi's Notes
D He calls by the same words the divine Word, Gregory Nazianzen, in the oration *On the Nativity*, from whom I am certain our author derived these things, since he is a most studious follower of Gregory. Thus Nazianzen [speaks] of the Word, which Billius translates thus: "That unmoved seal, that image in all things similar, that terminus and Reason of the Father." But what Gregory signifies, and with him Theophanes, when he calls him the Word, the Theologian himself explains in oration 36, which is *On Theology*, where, bringing many reasons why the Son is called the Word of God, he says—which Billius, that same illustrious interpreter of Gregory, renders thus: "Perhaps also because he relates to the Father in the same way as a definition does to the thing defined; for it is also called a definition (ὁρισμός). For he who has known the Son, says Christ (for this is what 'He who has seen' signifies), has known the Father also: so that the Son is a short, compendious, and easy declaration of the Father's nature; for everything that is begotten defines its begetter with a kind of silent voice." Thus Gregory. What can be clearer and more illustrious show us, than what that same Gregory intends in another oration where he calls him the Word of God? Surely nothing else than that the Word is the definition and comprehensive expression of the Father; for it expresses him entirely within itself; and it relates in the same way as a definition does to the thing defined, as Gregory speaks. In this same way Didacus Ruiz of our society understands Gregory in *Disputations on the Trinity*, sect. 5, where, refuting Origen, who said the signification of 'Word' regarding the Son was metaphorical, he brings forth passages of the Fathers which seem to favor that opinion; among which [he cites] those words quoted by us from oration 36 of Nazianzen, and in addition Basil in the oration on "[In the beginning] was the Word," where he says the Word is so called because it is the image of the Begetter, showing the Begetter entirely in itself; and Gregory of Nyssa in *Catechetical Oration*, ch. 1, where he says the Word brings the mind out into the open. Ruiz therefore explains these passages with these words: "But these Fathers are not dealing with a temporal manifestation through doctrine handed down to men, but with the quidditative and eternal reason of the image, which is contained in the reason of the Word, insofar as it expresses the whole of God." Thus Ruiz. And this is also what Billius signifies, and our interpretation agrees with him when it rendered the word ὅρος as 'terminus'; for ὅρος is translated in both ways in Aristotle—it is called both 'definition' and 'terminus'—because it terminates and comprehends, or circumscribes, the whole nature and reason of a thing.
A or of B impious and abominable men, to whom I was an object of hatred, have I been handed over? For my sake? But you have sacrificed the Only-begotten Himself for the salvation of humanity. What, then, does the common Father and Creator say? "Child, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to make merry and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life, and was lost and has been found." Do you see how He brings peace and dissolves the dividing wall of enmity, uniting into one those things which the first enmity had split apart? What He accomplished by the deeds themselves, this He depicted through the words of the parable, at the same time revealing both the hostility that formerly existed between the angels and men, and the reconciliation that occurred later through Him who reconciled the heavenly things with the earthly by His own blood, Christ our true God, who is glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XVIII
On the text: "When the Son of Man shall come in His glory," and so forth.What happens to those who look down from some high mountain peak into a vast ocean, this I have now experienced, having become dizzy at the words of the Lord that were read, and having become altogether rapt in spirit. For just as if from some watchtower, I have lifted up my mind toward that terrifying bench of judgment. And I am somehow imagining the land of weeping, and the multitude of men from all ages, and His terrifying distribution: the station on the right, the lot on the left, the myriads of angelic ranks, the terrifying King, and the impartial Judge, sitting in the middle as if in a balance between the two, and weighing our deeds in an accurate scale. On one side are the contrarieties of the rewards: from this side the kingdom of heaven, the blessed Eden, the earth of the meek, the dwellings of the just; from that side the terrifying dungeons, the bubbling fire, the outer darkness, the gnashing of teeth, the undying worm of conscience, which forever consumes the soul with shame and keeps the torments renewed by the memory of deeds poorly lived. Pondering these things in my mind, I grow dizzy and tremble. For clearly the Gospel has depicted all these things for us. But let us unfold the discourse by taking it up from the beginning. "The Lord said: When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His throne." Since the first coming of Christ seemed lowly according to that which was apparent—for He was thought to be the son of a carpenter, and He led a life of poverty, as His wandering on foot made clear, and the barley loaves, and His not having where to lay His head—therefore C
He says that that second and future coming will not be similar to the first, but truly glorious and terrible; nor will another come then with glory, but the selfsame Son of man, who now appears in a lowly form. Both divine advents of Christ were foretold by the divine oracles. For regarding the first, Isaiah says: “We saw him, and he had no form, nor beauty; but his form was unhonored.” A And, “Behold my beloved child, in whom my soul is well pleased; he shall not contend, nor shall he cry out in the streets.” But regarding that final coming, the man of desires says thus: “I saw as it were the Son of man coming with the clouds.” The voice of the Gospel says: “As the lightning comes out from the east, and appears even to the west, so shall be the coming of the Son of man.” And the great Paul also, indicating its glorious nature, says: “At the command of God, and at the voice of the archangel, he shall descend from heaven.” He will come, then—he will come not with similar simplicity, but surrounded by ten thousand gathered ranks of angels; and He will sit upon the throne which is most fitting for Him, and Him alone. From it, vortices of flames—rivers of fire—will pour forth, filling all things with dread and consternation. All the nations of men, as many as have existed from the beginning, will be gathered in the same place, trembling at the outcome of those things being expected, so that even those who have lived virtuously, B having the outcome of the matter uncertain, scarcely take confidence.
Notes by Franciscus Scorus
(10) Cf. Dan. VII, 9-10: *A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him; and his throne was flames of fire; his wheels were burning fire.* By this fire, St. Jerome and other more recent theologians wish the power and severity of the divine judgment to be signified. See Bellarmine, Vol. I, *De Purgatorio*, ch. 4.
(11) ... C ...
(12) ... In the homily *On the Widow’s Son*: she held him with a hand entwined with her son’s, and could scarcely believe she held him. He speaks of the widow who had obtained her son, now resurrected. And so, in truth, the matter itself demands this: for it is spoken according to the sense of those who suddenly attain some unexpected good, so that they scarcely believe they have obtained it. Hence that [usage] among the poets: Catullus: *Vix mihi ipsi credens Thyniam atque Bithynos liquisse campos.* And Terence: *Teneon' ego te, Antiphila?* Virgil: *Verane te facies? Verus mihi nuntius offers, Nate Dea?* Thus, therefore, I have observed in that homily. In that one also, concerning Lazarus recalled from the dead, when he was speaking of the weak faith of Martha indicated by those words of John XI: *Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died*, he uses the same word [ἀπιστεῖν] and the same signification. Ammonius employs it in the Greek Catena on John, which Sebastian Cordelius of the Society of Jesus recently brought to light: *Which words its interpreter also understands thus: On account of the magnitude of the miracle, Martha was in some way again distrusting.* But in this [present] case, the truth itself suggests that it be explained [differently]; for otherwise, how can all the just, rising again with bodies endowed with glory and placed at the right hand of Christ the Judge, fear and distrust, already enjoying their reward? But, as I have said, these things are to be taken by way of hyperbole, which sacred orators use to move the people and to represent the severity of the divine judgment; D which we noted above in a similar matter regarding the homily from Sixtus Senensis, who warns that the words of the Church’s preachers are very often not to be understood in their strict, literal sense. But indeed, the Church herself uses this same hyperbole when, in the Mass celebrated for the faithful departed, she sings: *Quantus tremor est futurus, Quando judex est venturus, Cuncta stricte discussurus, Ut vix justus sit securus.*
And He shall separate them from one another, as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats
. Why does He wish to do this? To deliver the elect, I think, from fear and trembling, and at the same time to provide a prelude to the future glory or ignominy through this separation. He likens the righteous to sheep on account of their gentleness and mildness, and because they are generative of wool, by which not only the animals themselves but also humans are kept warm; moreover, they exude nutritious milk. Furthermore, the nature of milk, as everyone knows, is pleasant to the taste and possesses the power of nourishment; it is white in appearance and pure, being the only one among all liquids that does not show shadows or images of those looking into it, as is the nature of other fluids to do. This flock grazes not on hills and crags, like goats, but in level and flat places, feeding on pure grass. The comparison, therefore, between these and the righteous is perfectly clear. For the wool is to these people the fruit of almsgiving, by which the naked are clothed; and the milk is the true and sincere doctrine of the faith, which contains nothing in itself that is shadowy or unsubstantial, which flows from the nipple of the heart. For the location of the nipples, from which the streams of milk originate, is in the heart, from which wells up the milk of doctrine, sweet and suitable for nourishment, white and pure, and unmixed with any falsehood. The goat, on the other hand, jumps in precipitous places and leaps upon plants, causing damage to the hanging foliage and destroying the beauty of the flowers and shoots; nor does it exude milk, nor does it bear useful wool. Such are those who, by the disorder of their wickedness, have made themselves like goats, leaping goat-like upon the precipices of sin, and who are harmful to the marriages and affairs of others; being sterile and fruitless as to the wool of virtue and the milk-like word of piety, they are for this reason rightly driven into the left-hand position. Such a division having been made, all the human race shall stand in suspense, trembling in anticipation of the outcome for either side, so that even those who have lived with a good conscience, being in doubt of the future, seem scarcely secure until the King speaks that sweet word to the righteous. A B C DHOMILY XVIII
"Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Observe how he makes those on the right joyful in every way: by the separation itself, by the constitution of the place, and by the address. For that he may wipe away their fear and drive away their confusion, he first addresses them with the customary greeting, saying, "Come." For he had addressed this to them also in this life: "Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." But seeing a wide field of insights opening up here, I am at a loss as to what I should treat first, what second, and what thereafter in my discourse. For how, since there are many mansions in the house of the Father, according to the word of the Lord, does he now grant only the kingdom to all the righteous? And how does he grant the kingdom as a reward in the catalogue of the beatitudes to the poor in spirit and to those who have suffered persecution for the sake of justice, saying: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," whereas here he provides the same prize, not to the poor in spirit and those who have endured persecution, but to those who have acquired the quality of generosity, sympathy, and brotherly love? A And yet, what agreement does the state of being poor and the endurance of persecutions have, according to an immediate consideration of the mind, with the results of sympathetic love? For the merciful person is a healer of the misfortunes of others, but he who is poor and pressed by persecutions is in need of one who shows mercy; yet the sum of the reward is equal in all cases, for the state of poverty in spirit, the endurance of persecution, and the affection of sympathy toward one’s fellow man lead us to the kingdom in the same way. What then do we say to these things? This, certainly: that the commandments are connected to one another, B all aiming at one goal and as it were breathing together. And just as in a string of pearls or a gold chain, one pearl or link is connected to the next for the completion of one work, so also the virtues are contained in mutual connection and are, as it were, followers of one another. Therefore, he who has fed the needy, clothed the naked, welcomed the traveler under his roof, and provided the appropriate care to the invalid and the prisoner, has embraced every virtue: meekness, patience, poverty of spirit, and whatever else among our works is worthy of being called blessed. For if among all the pursuits of this life it is acknowledged that love is the most excellent, and mercy is the intensity of love, then it is clear that C mercy surely embraces every virtue. If indeed one must be persuaded by Paul and by Christ himself that love is the first and greatest of the commandments, as the head of the law and the prophets, then charity is surely the intensification of all virtue. D
For this reason, in calling the just into the kingdom and bearing witness to their well-doing, He indicated that they had brought to perfection every other virtue. Thus it is fitting to understand, also, that by the one reward of the kingdom of heaven, every honor owed to the just is signified. For since the kingdom seems to excel all things in this life, He chose to make the declaration from that which is most precious to us. For it is not possible to find a word capable of representing clearly the magnitude of those ineffable goods. For how could language represent things that are beyond perception, invisible to the eyes, unheard by the ears, and inaccessible to human reasoning? But, as I said, He adopted that which seems greatest for the purpose of the explanation, indicating by the kingdom every enjoyment that can be conceived. For the same thing is the kingdom of heaven, and the delight of paradise, and the eternal tabernacle, and the dwelling with the Father, and the bosom of Abraham, and the land of the living, and the earth of the meek, and the water of rest, and the Jerusalem above, and the prize of the calling, and the crown of graces, and the joy at the table, and the sitting with God. For the Lord becomes all these things to the saints, and just as here the same One has become for us a physician, and a shepherd, and bread, and wine, and the vine, and the way, and the door, and the rock, and the water, and the fountain, and as many other things as are said about Him, so in the future life He becomes for those who are worthy complete joy. And since He Himself was set forth here as the subject for the saints—"For as much," He says, "as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me"—so He Himself provides Himself as the prize and reward of virtue, saying: "Come, inherit the kingdom prepared for you," since it is Christ who says these things. "For I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick A ... to consider, among all these I find the most excellent to be love for the poor, and the compassion and sympathy for one's kin. For God is not propitiated by anything in the world as He is by mercy. And was this kingliest of virtues, mercy, and hospitality, not a matter of care to Him? The most kingly B C D
in the Latin column, which I also find elsewhere, but let us now return to the thread of the homily.
Homilia XXIII.
Homily XXIII
In illud, « Accessit ad eum homo genibus provolutus, dicens : Domine, miserere filii, quia lunaticus est. »
It surely spurs on a high-spirited horse when the plain is opened up and stretched out to a very great distance, A where the rider, relaxing the reins to the mettlesome eyes of the beast, allows him to gallop across the field. Moreover, it also excites the teacher to deliver his doctrine when the multitude of the audience is attentive. For as much as the hearing is stretched, so much is the tongue of the teacher sharpened. This also excites me and shows me to be more eager, because the attentive ears and the mind present to the discourse, having cast the seeds as if into rich and fertile soil, receive them. Whence also there are good hopes that this agriculture will bring forth fruits worthy of the heavenly barns. Therefore, again 145 explaining the tablets of the New Testament, I mean the sacred Gospel, we commence the accustomed discourse.
In illo tempore : « Homo quidam accessit ad Jesum genibus provolutus aute eum dicens : Domine, miserere filio meo, quia lunaticus est. » The Lord begins to produce divine signs, as an excellent physician, purging first the cause of the disease, and he intends a scourge against the demons, and he pursues them; and by his invisible power and authority, in which the Lord excels, he drives them out, not only causing those men to be carried off into madness, B as we understand of those who were vexed in the country of the Gergesenes, from whom when the demons were driven out, a herd of swine, urged on by their impulse, went headlong into the sea. But since the Savior himself, moved by the bowels of his own mercy, came of his own accord; and concerning this present lunatic child, about whom the evangelical voice speaks today, the father who brought him reminds the Lord, sick himself, it seems, in faith. For he gives us to understand by this, that the disciples were not able to inflict terror upon the demon, and that which the Lord said to him: « O faithless and perverse generation! » But, if it pleases, let us repeat the text again.
« Domine, miserere filio meo, quia lunaticus est, et male patitur : nam saepe cadit in ignem, et crebro in aquam; et obtuli eum discipulis tuis, et non potuerunt curare eum. » Well now, in a most becoming assembly, at the very first sight he falls on his knees, and calls him Lord, and prays that he may obtain mercy. But who, C as I have begun to say, who at the very beginning of this command—that is, the division of the six—let us understand who it is. And how the manner of neighborly love is defined, not towards more or less, but as the perfect thing itself. For since the number that proceeds from the six units—being composed of its own parts—is complete, so that nothing is lacking in it, nor does anything abound—for being resolved into parts, I mean into three twos, and two threes, and six ones—it is perfect. For everything that is perfect is of necessity that which neither abounds in itself at any time, nor is in need of anything else for its completion. D [alt-version omitted]
A Having thus achieved wisdom, he might rise up toward the kingdom prepared for him. Moses intimated this in the ancient ordinances, when he commanded that a Hebrew boy who had served for six years should be sent away free to his own kindred. For he signifies that the mind which has served well in the keeping of the set of six commandments becomes free from the passions, and walks rejoicing toward the blessed fatherland and the intelligible kindred. Since man is twofold—visible and interior—as B seems correct to Paul and to Truth itself, the keeping of the commandments will certainly be twofold. For he who is illuminated by the light of charity will not stop at visible things, nor will he only feed the hungry bodily, but he will advance further within the visible and devise the fitting healing for the soul's infirmity; and he will cause to dwell in a place of pasture and by the water of rest not the one hungering for bread nor thirsting for water, but the one hungering to hear the word of the Lord, and he will lead back to his own home by good counsels the one who has become a fugitive from the fatherland above and a stranger through evil deeds; and another who has been stripped of the fatherly substance, like the prodigal, and has put off the garment of a temperate life, he will clothe through teaching in the garment of virtue; and to the one confined in the darkness of ignorance he will show the light of knowledge; and the one weak in faith he will take to himself, according to the exhortation of the Apostle. Having done thus, he will multiply the commandments, and will increase the six into a multitude. And it seems to me that the mystic Song C contemplates this when it says: "There are sixty queens," as if the six commandments were multiplied tenfold through practice, and becoming sixty, they are deservedly called queens, as those who introduce one into the inheritance of the kingdom: "Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." From these words it is proper to reckon that the kingdom of God was prepared for men from the beginning, but the eternal fire not for men, but for the devil and his rebels; but those who have been pricked by the stings of sin, and have not corrected their ill-counsel by repentance, being alienated from the kingdom prepared for them, are handed over to the eternal fire, hearing: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Observe, however, how in the case of the just he says: "Blessed of my Father," but those on the left he called cursed without qualification—not by the Father, but through their own works D having…
drawn it upon themselves. A Nor is it right to pass over this point unexamined: why is it that, when speaking to the just, he calls the poor his "brothers"—"As long as you did it to one of these my least brothers, you did it to me"—while, when checking the sinners for their lack of sympathy, he calls the needy not "brothers," but only "least"—"As long as you did it not to one of these least, you did it not to me"? Perhaps he weaves his discourse according to the notion each of them held. For the just in this life looked upon the poor as brothers of Christ, whereas the wicked turned away from them as being mere "least" persons and wretches. The discourse suggests yet another thing: among those who are poor, some bear the evils of indigence with great fortitude and endurance—like that ulcerated Lazarus—without uttering blasphemous cries regarding the things they suffered. These, having obtained a place on the right, are justly called brothers of Christ. But those who, in addition to bodily poverty, were also poor in the riches of virtue, these, being driven to the left, are alienated from the kinship of Christ. B Since, therefore, all those who have acted well are receiving their reward, he uses the demonstrative mode of speech to both sides, as if pointing with a finger to identify the subject; he calls the poor on the right "brothers," but those on the left he deprives of this title. "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the just into eternal life." Just as with the just, the kingdom was the reward given, yet many things are encompassed by the name of that kingdom, so too, by the "eternal fire," he sets forth every idea of punishment: the fire, the darkness, the worm, the gnashing of teeth, the tartarus, the gehenna. For the divine sentence falls befittingly upon the sins committed; to some it becomes as a coal, to others as a worm, and to others as gehenna, devouring them for eternity, itself neither being destroyed nor destroying, because their nature has become incapable of corruption. C But who can have a sense of that final and fearful sentence? What speech can represent that bitter separation, and the useless repentance from the conscience of sinners? How will they see themselves naked and exposed, having their sins engraved as if they were letters; and whatever foul deeds were done here in night and darkness, will all be brought into the open then? And how, seeing the just in that ineffable brilliance, will they reproach themselves for their folly? Who will… D [the rest of the page consists of the *Francisci Scorsi notæ* apparatus, which is skipped per instructions]
the uncomforted one, and the voices with which each is lamented? O the bitter sentence! O the most wretched exchange! On account of a fleeting enjoyment, I am alienated from God; on account of the pleasures of the flesh, I am delivered to the eternal fire; on account of bodily luxury, I become food for the quenchless flame. Just is the judgment of God: I did not open my bowels to the poor, nor is God moved by my laments. I did not pity the needy, nor do I find anyone to pity me. I appeared hard toward those who sinned against me; I hardened the goodness of God against myself. In this way, bewailing without gain or benefit, and driven away by the merciless angels, they are delivered to the unending punishments. Calling that day to mind, beloved, and reflecting upon that dreadful sentence, let us strive through acts of kindness toward the poor to become fulfillers of the sacred hexad of the commandments, and to attain that station on the right and that desirable voice: “Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you,” by the grace of the life-giving and blessed Trinity, known and glorified in Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XIX. On the words: “If you forgive men their trespasses,” and so forth.
Those who contend in equestrian games, as soon as the sign for the race is given them, when the starting gates are thrown open, frequently lashing their horses, drive toward the turning post, carried by frequent and light leaps; nor is the labor for them finished upon reaching the turning post, but they hasten to complete a seven-fold circuit; for this declares the victor. But today, the starting gate of repentance has brought us to the very beginning of the turning post. For us, the first step of this course of repentance was the case of the chief tax collector Zacchaeus, who with most noble zeal piously scattered what he had impiously gathered. Then came the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee, which showed us the strength of that humility which imitates Christ. After this, that young man who had wickedly deserted to the life of swine—
[notæ Francisci Scorsi omitted.]
A and had wretchedly cast himself away of his own accord, willed subsequently to return laudably to the house of his Father. Finally, that great and formidable tribunal was set before the eyes of the mind. By these things, I say, as if practicing beforehand and having learned the strength of virtue, we have arrived at the first week of the fasts, and from here we strive to run as if a circular course up to the seventh week.
But in the equestrian games it is not possible for all the competitors to win the victory, since only the one who has taken the lead carries off the crown; our athlete-trainer, however, grants to all who desire it, in equal measure, the power to be filled with victory. And for each he sets up this four-element body as it were a four-horse chariot, and orders the reason to stand over it like a charioteer; instead of a whip, he uses the conscience which goads each one for their misdeeds, and as a bridle, continence. He also makes the stadium B smooth by the ease of the commandment, rendering the course of the charioteer easy-trodden. But let us consider what this ease of virtue is.
The Lord said: "If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." Who then is so lofty in mind as to be able to attain to the magnitude of this thought? For this is the pinnacle of the virtues, this is the sum of goods, making you divine; this word raises you from the earth and makes the image like to its prototype. "If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive your trespasses." To forgive sins belongs to God alone; for it is written: "No one can forgive sins but God alone." But now, through the present utterance, He shares this grace with mortals, so that the word appears in a way to carry this meaning: You have been made master of the forgiveness C of your own sin; it is permitted to you, if you wish, to reap the forgiveness of trespasses with little effort. I do not ask, He says, for things above nature, I do not demand things above your strength, I do not force you to cross the Scythian snows, or to pass over the Caucasian mountains, or to leap over the torrid zone, or to sail beyond the oceans—
mountains, and jumping over the scorched earth, and sailing across the oceans beyond, things which are impossible; yet the command is small: “If you forgive men their trespasses, your Father will also forgive you.” Forgive, and you shall be forgiven; release your neighbor from the outrage committed against you, and you shall be released from the trespass committed against God. And just as we are commanded to imitate Christ—being urged to follow Him through the gospel voice—so too, by way of condescension, He also imitates our ways, becoming toward us such as we show ourselves to be toward our neighbor. And the Lord indicated this parabolically in other places as well, having presented a certain king sitting in judgment, to whom a debtor owing ten thousand talents was brought; and having supplicated the king and obtained a full pardon, because he appeared harsh toward his fellow servant regarding a small debt, he stirred the king’s philanthropy to anger, such that he surrendered the ungrateful servant to the torturers to be punished in proportion to the debt. For there, too, this very same thing is proclaimed parabolically: “If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” B But let us look also at what follows these words: “When you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, disfigured; for they disfigure their faces so that they may appear to men to be fasting.” Here He attacks the priests, and the Pharisees, and the Scribes; for He called these people hypocrites in other places as well: “Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.” For these people, focusing extravagantly on empty glory, while they performed other acts of justice with a feigned disposition, especially in fasting displayed great gloominess, deceiving those who saw them through their outward appearance and the artificial pallor of their faces. One might find many such people even in the Christian society, who, nourishing the pride of conceit, prefer to seem righteous rather than to be so; although even external philosophy says that he is the most unjust of all who C is not what he seems. Therefore, it is well said that those who practice a life in hypocrisy “disfigure their faces.” For the face of the soul consists of the virtues that characterize the true human being: the meek, the patient, the God-fearing, the man who loves his fellow man, the brave, the just, and the blameless; and the other qualities through which the image of God is characterized. For that man is hateful to me equally as the gates of Hades who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another.
A He, then, who practices hypocrisy instead of these things, destroys the characteristic features of his face. But he did well to add also this: "That they may appear to men to be fasting." For "man looks to the face, but God looks to the heart," according to Scripture. "Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward." For he who practices virtue and seeks human glory for what he does, having received the reward he sought, has fallen away from the true reward, having become dishonored before God by being glorified by men, not pursuing virtue, but hunting for the glory that follows it, and pursuing what is good through a phantom of earthly rewards and ephemeral glory. Therefore Isaiah also, attacking such people, said: "The glory of Moab will be dishonored in three years of a hireling." For whoever practices virtue for a reward, as much as he derives here from human opinion, so much fruit of shame will he reap after our hidden things have been revealed. "But you, when you fast, anoint your head, and wash your face." By these words, he indicated that he who fasts should appear joyful and cheerful, so as not even to seem to men to be fasting. Nevertheless, it is suggested to us B that we understand something else by the head and the face. For since Christ is our head, as the Gospel hinted elsewhere, and the Apostle declared, the enigma legislates that through the oil of beneficence we should make the head of us all, Christ, propitious to ourselves; for God is appeased by nothing else as he is by mercy. That mercy toward the poor is signified by oil, we have learned in the parable of the ten virgins, in which the oil-fed lamps are said to be the cause of their entering into the bridal chamber. And by the washing of the face, he commands us to cleanse the senses from psychical defilement—that is, from the stain of the soul—which the mind uses for the ministration of actions and for declaring the disposition of the soul, C which is understood as hidden, in which the... [index: entries preserved] D
A characters of the virtues exist. This face must be brightened by the practice of good deeds, scouring it with the water of purity and that which gushes from our eyes.
«Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.» By these words it is shown that one must not be anxious about present things, nor store up treasures on the earth. For our life is transitory and ephemeral, and only the present moment is the property of each one; the hope of the future lies in uncertainty. Why then do you store up here, when your end is unknown to you? Why do you labor for things whose enjoyment is doubtful? You do not know what the coming day will bring forth. Why do you prepare food and clothing for many years and bury wealth in the earth, and do you not fear that you act out the part of that foolish rich man and hear the same voice: «You fool, this night your soul is required of you, and the things which you have prepared, whose will they be?» For what did he gain, having B expanded his storehouses and gathered much enjoyment for himself, only to be snatched away in a single night like a captive? And what of that rich man, who prided himself on fine linen, purple, and luxury, and received fire in exchange for these things? You are a guest and a sojourner; your fatherland is elsewhere; transfer your wealth to that place. You are a traveler; prepare the provisions for the city toward which you are hastening. No one traveling a road from which it is impossible to return builds houses and buries gold in the ground; everything stored here is ruined by moths, and for the one who stores it, it begets an undying worm. Who does not know that the enigma of ancient history clearly brings this thought to those who do not C store up here, regarding things whose enjoyment is doubtful? Why then do you store up here when your end is uncertain to you? Why do you labor for things [concerning which, Matt. vi, 20]: «For you do not know what the coming day will bring forth.» We do not know what the coming day will bring forth. The present day is my concern; but who knows the morrow? ... [Your] fatherland is elsewhere. Prepare yourself for the city toward which you are going. Transfer your wealth to that place. You are a traveler toward which you are hastening,
for you are reading it intently? A When God rained manna in the desert for the sons of Israel, whoever gathered it for the day did not put it aside for the following one. For anyone who, through some deceit, stored it up for the next day, it proved useless as food, being turned into the generation of worms; only on the Preparation day, because of the resting from work on the Sabbath, did what was stored remain incorrupt, appearing in no way staler than what was fresh.
The history, therefore, cries out through this to the covetous, that everything held beyond necessity by covetousness becomes a worm in the following day—that is, in the anticipated life—for the one who stored it. You certainly understand through this worm the unceasing worm which is brought to life by covetousness; and that the stored portion lasting without providing any decay in the Sabbath alone seems to advise you that the covetous inclination should then be used when what is collected does not invite corruption; it becomes useful then, when, clearly, having passed through the preparation of this life, we reach the rest of the life to come.
For this life is a preparation for the sabbatism that is there, in which we provide for ourselves the provisions for that life. For when we have arrived there, living in rest from all the things striven for in this life, we receive the fruits of the seeds we have now cast down: incorruptible ones, if through almsgiving we have stored treasure there, sending the wealth forward to the eternal mansions through the hand of the poor, where neither rust nor blight will be present, and no clothes-thief or wall-breaker creeps in; but corruptible ones, whenever we have remained inactive in this good commerce.
Thus, then, the Gospel chimes in with the ancient history, B since we store up for ourselves not only wealth through money, but also wealth through virtue or wickedness. And the word "treasure" must be understood in another way. Let us, therefore, first repeat the saying: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where rust and blight destroy, and where thieves break through and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven."
"Earth" is indeed the flesh of man, as the wise Maximus said, which bristles with the thorns of the curse.
and of unrestrained passions; but the wealth that is stored up consists of the deeds of each one, which, if they are dear to God and pleasing to Him, are stored up in heaven. But if they are stained and abominable, they are buried in the flesh as in the earth. "For he who sows to the Spirit," says the Apostle, "shall from the Spirit reap eternal life; but he who sows to the flesh, shall from the flesh reap corruption." Rust, and moth, and the thief is he who, for the destruction of our souls, manifests his own wickedness in manifold ways, who, being born like a moth in the thoughts of men, corrupts the part in which he grows through his destructive and consuming power, and ruins what lies nearby. But if the inner parts be securely held, then he demonstrates his thieving craftiness, lying in wait through external circumstances. For either through pleasure he has broken through the wall of the heart's treasure, or through another passion he has rendered the soul's receptacle empty of virtue, having stolen away the reason through anger, or grief, or some other such passion. In that life above, however, the Lord says that neither rust nor moth arises, and that the intent of the thief is rendered ineffective. Therefore, the merchandise should rather be transferred there, where that which is stored up remains incorruptible and undiminished forever, and like seeds, it results in a multiple increase, so that it does not merely return the deposit to those who have entrusted it, but the recompense is greatly magnified. Let us therefore give, beloved, according to one's own ability, contributing to the treasures above, and waiting, according to the Lord’s promise, to exchange great things for small, heavenly for earthly, and eternal for those that pass away quickly; concerning which the divinely inspired Scripture teaches, that "What eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him." A May we all come to participate in these things through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion with the Father and the Holy Spirit unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XX
On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, concerning the holy icons.
A A brilliant feast and solemn assembly is present for you today, O lovers of the feast—the inauguration of the veneration of the venerable icons. Therefore, the whole multitude of the Christ-named people has gathered here, enjoying spiritual gladness. Even if bodily infirmity does not allow us to discharge the office of teaching as sufficiently as it ought, we shall not be reluctant to speak at least in moderation, so that we may not grieve those who have assembled by maintaining absolute silence. The word will be narrative, explaining in a simple and extemporary account from what handle the beginning of this feast was established. Although the Church of Christ has also chosen to celebrate Orthodoxy on the first Sunday of the Fasts—that is, the restoration of the venerable and holy icons which took place under the Emperor Michael and Theodora his mother, the blessed empress, and the holy Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople, along with the holy trees of the Cross—and concerning the things pertaining to the Cheesefaring week—in addition to these, since we have come to the time of the holy fasts, let us all run to confession. Thus let us pass through the time of the fast without stumbling, and thus may we be deemed worthy to see the life-giving resurrection of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. On the Sunday of the Synaxis of Orthodoxy concerning the holy and venerable icons; acephalous and incomplete. The ordering of the first Sunday of the holy fasts, namely of Orthodoxy; on the Sunday of Orthodoxy.
Notes by Franciscus Scorsus.
B Regarding the statement, "on this Sunday," that the Church of Christ is accustomed to celebrate Orthodoxy, or the restoration of the venerable and holy icons, on the first Sunday of the Fasts, which was accomplished by the Emperor Michael and Theodora his mother, the blessed empress, and S. Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople—this is from Philotheus. You have the same rite for this feast day from the Typicon of S. Sabas. "We institute a common supplication," he says in the aforementioned chapter, "with the life-creating woods of the Cross and the venerable icons." On the same day, the decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, concerning the repairing, retaining, and honoring of images, was read, while the Emperor stood by, as I mentioned a little above, from the same Typicon and Gretserus in the aforementioned place.
Further, from this our edition of the homily, that Calvinist scholiast of the *Curopalates*, whom our Gretserus refutes so brilliantly, will rightfully be held in derision more and more; for he babbles that the Sunday of Orthodoxy is either joined to or certainly near to Pentecost. Pure nonsense and trifles! For it is evident not only from the very order of the homilies—in which this Sunday is listed in absolutely all manuscripts after the second Sunday of the Quadragesima, as appears from the preceding and following homily—but also from the end of this very homily, where the bishop, having taken the opportunity from the season, thus exhorts his own: "Furthermore, since the time of the holy Fast is present, let us all hasten to confession." But even if it is objected that the Greeks institute a minor Quadragesima after the first Sunday after Pentecost, a fast up until the feast of the Holy Apostles, it accomplishes nothing; he will be slaughtered by the sharpest weapon, or rather, crushed by the heel of this very homily: etc. "Thus without offense may we pass the time of the fast, and so we shall be worthy and fit to see the life-giving resurrection of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." That the subject of this homily is the fast is most certain.
C And having said these things against the impious Calvinist, let us proceed to the homily itself, which is found in two manuscripts of the Vatican, three of the Greek, and one of the Parisian. In the one which is preserved in the monastery of the Folientini in France, it is the same, but the inscription is a little fuller: "Sunday of the Synaxis of Orthodoxy concerning the holy and venerable icons." This Sunday is so named because on it was instituted the celebration of the memory of the restored veneration of the holy icons by the Sixth General Council. You have this from Baronius in the year of Christ 842. It is not enough for the Eastern Church to celebrate once, for so many and such great benefits obtained from God in the restoration of the holy icons, the immensity of the thanksgiving that it owes. Wherefore, by order of the holy prelate Methodius, along with his fellow bishops, it was decreed that on the annual day, the same first Sunday of the Quadragesima, the memory of so great a benefit should be cherished and observed with huge thanksgiving, with the holy worship of icons restored in the East—a celebration of piety which has hitherto happily persevered among them.
D Thus Baronius, who, after two sacred canticles and a sermon recited in the same Church of the Greeks from that time, appended this second one of our Theophanes with these words: "Hitherto the sermon accustomed to be recited in the church on the said day each year: to which we append another on the same subject, spoken to the people on the same day by Theophanes, Archbishop of Tauromenium, etc." Baronius obtained this sermon from the library of the manuscripts of Franciscus Turrianus of the Society of Jesus, who made it Latin, except that he left a few Greek words here and there and two or three periods intact: but Jacobus Sirmundus, a professor of the same society, perfected it when he applied the final hand. The same writer of the Annals testifies to the same in that place. But both were without a prologue and peroration, as if in the manner of the Areopagites, content only with the argument or the body of the sermon. We, as we received it from our P. and G. manuscripts, have edited it complete in all respects. And indeed, whatever of this sermon exists in print anywhere, I have studiously compared it with our exemplars. From which collation, if there is anything varying, I will note it in its proper places. Now I return to the inscription, which is held to be the same in the Typicon of S. Sabas, chapter 42; whose title is: "Dispositio, or the order of the first Sunday of the holy fasts, or Orthodoxa." The first words of the chapter are these: "On this Sunday..." From this formula of inscription, because it was legitimate, I did not wish to depart, not only in the Greek, but not even in the Latin language; in which I placed the word "Orthodoxy" itself, which I observe to have been done both here and in other places by Gretserus, a man of great learning, in his *Commentary on Codinus Curopolates*, chapter 10, book 1, from which I have extracted these things also to the notes. Let us observe these words concerning Theophanes, Prooem. H.
HOMILY XXIV. ON THE SAME SUBJECT.
A Since, through the ineffable incarnation of the divine Word and the preaching of the Apostles, the worship of idols has been abolished, the ancient enemy of the Church, unable to bear his defeat, stirred up from the beginning against her the ringleaders of heresies who would distort the dogmas of the right faith. But after these too had been subjected to anathema by the God-bearing Fathers in various synods, the wretched enemy sowed another weed in the Church; under the guise, forsooth, of piety, he suggested that the veneration of the holy icons should be considered as idolatry. Therefore, he finds for this purpose a suitable instrument in Leo the Isaurian, who had previously been a private citizen. Having once encountered some Hebrew magicians by chance, he is taught by them that he would be the master of the Roman empire if he would affirm to them with oaths that he would cause the foundations of the venerable icons to vanish. Having done this, and not long after the tyrant had ascended the throne of the empire, as if he feared that he might be seen to have sinned by perjury, he hastens to perform his promise with speed and stirs up a most grievous war against the Church, banishing Germanus, who was most holy among patriarchs, because he would not submit to the impious dogma; and he scrapes away all the sacred depictions in the divine temples, and in their place commanded the forms of irrational animals and beasts to be painted. When he had breathed out his defiled soul, his son Constantine Copronymus becomes the successor of his empire and his impiety; so that one might aptly say, a serpent from a dragon. And he, having strengthened the heresy to a great extent, departed to the tribunals of the other world, Leo his son inheriting the empire and the impiety—a bad egg from a bad crow. B C D
A He who emulated the impiety of his grandfather, strove to appear a yet more fervent supporter of it. But when Constantine and Irene B assumed the empire, the Church once again recovered the proper adornment of the holy icons, and the impiety was cast out by an ecumenical synod C of the Fathers and subjected to anathema. Yet a few remained—those who, like a stubborn dye, hid the impiety within their own souls. Three emperors followed after the orthodox Irene: Nicephorus, Stauracius, and Michael surnamed Rangabe; and the heresy began again. And indeed, the one who bore a beastly name, sharing it with the former, was destined to renew the impiety; and so Leo the Armenian seized the tyranny, D and unworthily donned the imperial purple. Having been deceived by a certain pseudo-abbot who lived in a small cell, living in the darkness of error like a bat, and who practiced the rites of the iconoclasts—a man who told him that if he did not utterly destroy the sacred portrayals he would soon lose both his life and his empire—he yielded to the impious counsel and fanned back into flame the smoldering fire of the heresy. And indeed he condemned the most holy patriarch Nicephorus to exile for standing firmly for piety, and filled the entire Church with confusion. In the eighth year of his tyranny, he was slain by Michael, called the Stammerer, within the very inner sanctum of the divine [temple].
Homily XXIV
A The tyrant indeed perished, but the heresy flourished. For Michael, striving to outdo the base victory of his predecessors, became even more fervent in that impiety. He himself, too, died, leaving behind his impiety, his superstition, and his empire to his son Theophilus. Yet he, too—even if he clung, as much as anyone else, to justice—was a blazing lover of his father's impiety; however, he took a pious wife. This was Theodora, she who is truly worthy of being celebrated by fame. She shared in the life of the emperor by the law of nature, yet she did not share in his heresy but indeed dissembled because of the emperor's cruelty; having holy images enclosed in a certain chest, she secretly venerated and saluted them. And it happened once that something occurred which may be told for the sake of pleasant discourse. There was a certain foolish man being raised in the palace, deformed and of despicable appearance, such a man as Homer describes Thersites to be. Furthermore, he was empty-headed and stammered with his tongue, speaking mangled words. Royal courts foster such men, as a great relief from sorrow and as a delight at banquets; they called him Bender, I believe, if you are also interested in the name. This man, since he was accustomed to enter the royal chambers without caution, entered on a certain day with a stealthy step and caught the Augusta Theodora holding holy images in her hands, kissing them with much reverence and fervent zeal. So, when that wretch fixed his eyes upon the holy depictions, he asked the queen what it was that she held in her hands and was kissing. She, however, simply and playfully said, "These are my beautiful dolls." The deformed man immediately left the chamber B and reported these things to the emperor.
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus
He killed the emperor as he was chanting holy hymns in the inner sanctum of the temple where he was trying to hide, joined by those who were carrying daggers while pretending to be monks. C In the edition of Baronius, the words by which the author touches upon this manner of Leo's slaughter by Michael are missing: but when I found them in both my copies which I used, I restored them. Moreover, this Michael is called in Greek *Traulos*, to which the Latin cognomen *Balbus* (the Stammerer) corresponds, so named from his obstructed and hesitating tongue; but he was not only a stammerer, but also a simpleton, since he thought it honorable to know the temperaments and characters of beasts of burden, while he himself possessed a very slow wit, and being utterly unlettered, just so that he might not see his own children more learned than himself, he forbade them to be educated in letters. Having held the empire for nine years and eight months. D In the codex P., these things are missing, which everyone sees to be necessary for the continuity of the sentence, which, however, the edition of Gretser and also Curopalates render whole. "He was," he says, "a terror to all the wicked, but to the good he was an object of admiration; to the former because he seemed to hate the wicked, and to the latter because he was very grave and austere." Yet it was not permitted for him to be pure of all evils whatsoever; for he retained his faith in God, but was much more given to the wicked sect of Iconoclasts handed down by his father, and he hounded the pious and most holy people, never granting them rest throughout the whole time of his empire. These things are from Curopalates, which agree with our Theophanes. You will read more in that historian. Baronius, in volume IX, in the year [842], calls her an ornament of holy women, having deserved very well of the Catholic faith, a unique example of outstanding holiness in the East, long refined and tested in the furnace of tribulation, and rendered the purest gold. To her, having been cast out of the empire by the impious Theophilus, her son, and thrust into a monastery, Pope Nicholas I wrote; which letter Baronius records. Her feast day is celebrated by the Greeks on February 11, as the Martyrology edited by the order of Emperor Basil has it. This was through the discipline and example of Theoctiste, a most pious and constant woman, who, taking the images deposited in the chest, would present them to her grandsons, the children of Theodora, pressing them to their mouths and hands repeatedly, and provoking them to the love of them, and beseeching them not to become effeminate, nor to remain what they were, but to show themselves as men and to think thoughts worthy of their maternal education, execrating the heresy of their father. These are from Curopalates. Likewise Curopalates and Cedrenus, and from both, Baronius in the year 831, among whom this man is called a dwarf; he is also called Danderus, but the easy change and [the name] Theodora is absent from both Latin editions of this homily, both that which is printed in Baronius and that which is in Gretser, at the places already cited above, perhaps [missing] from their Greek copy.
HOMILY XX.
A ...and at once he rushed from the bedroom, deformed as he was; and she reported this to the emperor. And he, having immediately suspected what the case was (for he had already long ago entertained the opinion that the blessed one worshipped holy images), rushed from his throne, breathing heavily and in anger, and went to her. Encountering her as she was coming out of her chamber, he heaped many reproaches upon her, calling her most impious and a handmaid of idols—he who was in reality an impious and nefarious man. But consider for me the prudence of that blessed empress, and how ready she was with her reply. For she said to him, sharply and at the same time prudently, B "You are angry out of season and in vain, emperor. For I was accustomed to gazing into a mirror, and I was binding the headband of my head more decorously." Having cast his eyes into the mirror, this impure man also imagined that he saw the forms of images. In this way did that blessed woman repel the emperor's suspicion. But Theophilus, having been seized by a dysentery, departed from this life. His son Michael succeeded to the empire, having his mother Theodora as consort in the rule. She, indeed, gathered a council of divinely-inspired Fathers, by whom the heresy of the Iconoclasts was rejected and subjected to anathema. And the Church, which had been spoiled of its sacred images as if of a certain ornament, seemed to lament, and to stir up the sighs of the prophets for her own commiseration. C For that bride of the king seemed to deplore in a piteous manner those things which are said concerning the Bride in the Canticles: "They struck me, they wounded me; those who guard the city took away my shawl from me"—the kings and archpriests who ought to have been the guardians of the faith.
Notes of Franciscus Scorus.
The imperial girl said my pretty things in a rustic manner, and I love these things much. For the word *ninia*, Cedrenus has *paidia* (children), and dolls. For such is the sense of the words which Theodora Augusta demanded as her reply. The words subjoined by Cedrenus are not read in my copies. Indeed, that which Cedrenus expressed with these two, Theophanes has with one; but the sense of both writers is the same. It is written in the Gallican edition *est* for *quod* which I have received; for it holds another sense than *habeat*, yet both come to the same thing. In these matters, therefore, placed in order, this answer was a certain one: I was keeping my eyes fixed upon my mirror together with my handmaids, and, having looked [in], he inconsiderately reported to you these forms which were produced from it. From which our [text] is more clearly understood. D ...the error brought upon him intense grief on account of Amorium, his most famous native city, having been overturned by the Saracens. Struck by that calamity, the emperor Theophilus, says Curopalates, scorning all food and drink, and being almost affected by fasts, and desiring nothing else save water pressed from snow, was seized by a disease of dysentery, and at length was consumed by it, having moderated the empire for twelve years and three months. A council having been held, when Methodius had been substituted into the see of Constantinople after the ejection of Joannicius, Baronius speaks of it in the year of Christ 842, and weaves into it the history of Theophanes the presbyter, a writer of this time, whom see.
OF THEOPHANES CERAMEUS
A ...vulneraverunt me, abstulerunt theristrium meum a me, qui custodiebant civitatem: [*] kings and priests, who ought to have been the guardians of the faith. Thus, therefore, since the Church had been badly affected, it is restored again to its former glory. We celebrate this festival [(75)] today, abhorring and anathematizing the leaders and followers of impiety; but we honor and kiss in a relative sense [(76)] the venerable images of God, and of our Savior, and of the Virgin Mother who gave birth to Him, and of all the saints, not because we adhere to them as gods, nor do we offer the worship of latria [(77)] to images fashioned with colors, but...
Francisci Scorsi's notes on this homily.
B I will only add here, to commend the piety of the Empress Theodora, that on this day she gave a banquet to the assembly of the Church to heighten the joy. As Curopalates shows, our author makes use [of this], especially appropriate in this matter for explaining the difference between the adoration of holy images, which Christians rightly worship, and the adoration of idols, which the nations superstitiously worshiped. For in idols, they thought a divinity resided, and so they adored them by themselves and absolutely; but true religion acknowledges nothing in images except a relation and habit to the saints, whose images they are, and in this way it offers them worship. This difference is explained by these opposing terms, *latreutikos* or *schetikos*, in the first epistle of Pope Gregory II to Leo the Isaurian, by which the holy pontiff labored to lead that royal iconoclast away from his error; because they were dogmatic and weighty, the Eastern Fathers themselves preserved them translated into the Greek language. And indeed, with the Latin copies lost, these remained surviving: and they have been restored to the Latin language by Fronto Ducæus of the Society of Jesus and printed in Baronius, Annals, vol. IX, and in the beginning of the sixth [sic: seventh] Council, Nicaea II. C Thus, therefore, the Greek texts of that epistle have: *And having seen by word the faces of the martyrs who poured out their blood for Christ, they painted them. And having seen them, thereafter in the whole world, men having abandoned the adorations of the devil, adored these, not with latria, but with relative honor.* This is from the translation of Fronto: *And to say in one word, when they had seen the faces of the martyrs who poured out their blood for Christ, they painted them, and having seen these, thereafter in the whole world men having abandoned the adorations of the devil, displayed these [acts of worship] not by latria, but by relation.*
The same matter, and this word *schetikos*, is explained more clearly by Franciscus Turrianus, book I *Pro canonibus apostolicis*, c. 25, where he cites a passage of Nicephorus of Constantinople from his *Orthodoxia*: When, he says, Christ was preached in the beginning, with that preaching was joined *schetikos*, that is, by relation, the preaching of His image; and as the image is not adored for itself, but for the prototype, so it is not to be said to be adored absolutely, but *schetikos*, that is, relatively, even as purple garments; and the emperor and he who is clothed in them make one by habit, so the image and its prototype make one by *schetikos*, that is, by relation. Thus Turrianus. Among the sentences of the Holy Fathers concerning images, which G. Morelius published at Paris, volume I, *SS. Patrum Græco-Lat.*, the same thing is explained by these and other words pertaining to the same subject: *In the case of Christ, the adoration is of latria and natural. In the case of the image of Christ, the adoration is relative and equivocal.* Which are rendered thus by the interpreter of Euthymius Panoplia, tit. 19: *In Christ Himself there is the adoration of latria, and it is natural, but in the image of Christ there is relative and equivocal [adoration].*
D This is not only in agreement with the definition of the seventh council, but almost with its very words. For thus it defines in Act VII, where, having defined the figure of the precious and life-giving cross, and the images as well of our Savior Jesus Christ as of the Blessed Virgin and the angels, and of all the saints, to be set forth in the Church, it adds: *And to these, [we decree] to assign an embrace and honorific adoration, not however the true latria which is according to our faith, and which is befitting only the divine nature.* And after a few words intervened: *The honor of the image passes to the prototype. And he who adores the image adores in it the subsistence of the one being depicted.* The Latin version of Anastasius: *And that an embrace and honorific adoration is to be assigned to them, not, however, to be bestowed upon a true latria, which is according to faith, and which befits the divine nature alone. For the honor of the image passes to the primitive, and he who adores the image adores in it the subsistence of the one depicted.* These things from the council, from which is to be noted the phrase *not, however, a true latria*, which our Theophanes expressed with one word, saying *not as gods, nor... to images fashioned with colors [offering] latria*. Here it must be noted that the opinion of St. Thomas, part I, qu. 25, and the scholastics following him, does not disagree with this definition of the council when they say that the image and the cross of Christ are to be venerated with the cult of latria. Indeed, also, Jacobus Gretserus, vol. II, *De cruce*, book I, cap. 57, copiously and rightly proves against the most impious Luther that the holy cross is to be worshiped with the cult of latria. Not, I say, is this a discrepancy, except in the mode of speaking: for the council speaks of the absolute adoration of latria which might be bestowed of itself; which indeed befits nothing except the divine nature, and it denies this to the cross of Christ and to images—which it seems to me the council implied when it placed the word *true* latria, as if it were saying that a true latria, that is, an absolute one, is not to be exhibited except to the divine nature. Moreover, it does not deny another relative latria, which is bestowed by reason of the prototype which is to be adored with the cult of latria, and this theologians bestow both upon the true cross and upon the image of that true cross, and upon the image of Christ, for the very reason that the same cult is owed to the image as to that of which it is an image, as St. Thomas reasons in the aforementioned question, art. 3; and therefore since the adoration of latria is owed to Christ, the same is owed to the cross and to His image. Not, however, absolute, but of the kind that is referred by reason to its own prototype. This is the sum of the conciliation which Gretserus mentions in the cited place, and Baronius in the year of Christ 747, who also adds that later theologians would never have been at odds with the definition of the council even in their mode of speaking, if that opinion of the later Nicene council had been known to them: For even if they perceived something concerning the same council through some light reading of histories, when they had understood that it was disapproved in the Synod of Frankfurt, they thought no account should be taken of it; or if, as I think more true, they knew it to be ecumenical and approved by the Roman...
pontiff, but thought that in it the adversaries had lied, namely, that it had been defined that the cult of latria was to be rendered to the sacred images of Christ; they believed this to be true, and not understanding that they were arguing against the council itself, they thought they were acting for the cause of the council itself if, by any impropriety of words whatsoever, they defended the cult of latria towards the sacred images of Christ; and thus it is understood that this diversity of speaking happened from ignorance of the matters that had taken place. These are the words of Baronius, which had to be brought forward by me, so that this difference in the manner of speaking might not seem to have arisen without cause. For otherwise, one should not depart even a fingernail’s breadth from the opinion and the words by which it was defined and expressed by the ecumenical council confirmed by the authority of the Roman pontiff, of which kind it is certain that this Seventh Council of Nicaea, which we have been treating, was. Suarius likewise disputes this question in Part 1, Tome I, Disputation 54, where, in reporting the second opinion, he says it is founded on the authority of the Nicene Synod, in which it is asserted in many places, and especially in Act 7, cited by us above; and he adds that many think that if D. Thomas had read this definition of the council, he would have spoken differently about the adoration of images; and that he did not see it is a great argument, in that in such a great matter he made no mention of that council, and the cause could have been that perhaps at that time it had not yet been translated into Latin. So much for Suarius there. But as for what is said last regarding the Latin version of the council, since three were made, I think it should be understood of the third, which perhaps had not been published in the time of St. Thomas; for otherwise, the translation of that council had already been made before by Anastasius the Librarian, who lived in the time of John VIII, which exists even today. A Many before Theophanes used the same in this matter. Pope Gregory II, in the letter written to Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople: "For whoever," he says, "venerates it thus, without doubt returns great honor to these. Since the veneration of the image returns to the archetype, according to the great Basil." St. Damascene, in the Disputation in the Life of SS. Barlaam and Josaphat: "Since the honor of the image, as has been handed down by the holy man, is referred to the archetype." The Menologium restored by the command of the Emperor Basil, on the day of October, on which the commemoration of the holy Seventh Synod of three hundred and sixty-seven Fathers is read: "Not to adore the holy images," he says, "is alien to the orthodox faith, and the honor of the image, as the great Basil said, refers to the primitive." See how famous this authority of Basil is! Moreover, this statement of Basil exists in his book *On the Holy Spirit*, Chapter 18. B That images are for exciting the piety and faith of the beholding faithful of Christ, and how this ancient custom of exhibiting sacred histories on the walls of the temple existed, you also have from the epistle of Pope Gregory II written to Leo the Isaurian, who reproves him regarding the experiment requested by himself: etc. These Greek words I have extracted from the beginning of the Sixth Synod, where Gregory’s epistle is rendered in Greek; in Latin, however, it stands thus: "The love of Christ knows it. We ourselves, when we enter into the church, and contemplate the pictures of the miracles of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of His holy Mother having the Lord and our God in her arms being suckled, and the angels standing in a circle, and chanting the thrice-holy hymn, we depart not without compunction. And who indeed is not moved to compunction and does not weep likewise, looking at the baptismal fonts, and the priests standing in a circle, and the rest,"—he enumerates the mysteries of the life of Christ, almost the same as Theophanes does here. The same Gregory has the same in his first epistle written to Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople. C These pertain to Homily 28, note 11. They express the two Greek words ἄνωθεν, of which the first is variously expounded: "from above" in the edition of Baronius in the text itself, but in the margin "superne" (from on high); "cœlitus" (from heaven) in the edition of Grets., from the translation of Franciscus Turrianus, but they all express the same sense of this author, that is, that the cult and use of images were sanctioned by God Himself from the beginning, that is, from the Old Law, about which see the following note. From this version of our human and learned men, I did not wish to recede; although D
A formerly to Moses, the beholder of God, so that he might erect two Cherubim above the tabernacle (82). And the Lord Himself impressed His own form upon a linen cloth without the work of human hands, and sent it to Abgar, the toparch of Edessa (83). He would never have done this, had He not wished for images to be venerated. And that woman of Edessa (84), who had suffered from an issue of blood and was healed by the Lord, in order to return thanks to the author of her benefit, erected a statue in the likeness of the Savior. It pleased the Savior, who approved of her faith, that an herb should grow from the feet of the statue, which was a remedy for every ailment. Moreover, Luke, the elegant evangelist, painted an image of the Mother of God with wax and colors (85), holding the Lord in her sacred arms, which is preserved to this day in Constantinople (86). Every image, therefore,
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus
B I might see that those two names, *anothen* and *ex arches*, could simply be translated from antiquity, and from the beginning; for so they are translated in the Epistle of Gregory, translated from the Greek into Latin by Fronton Du Duc: "Since these things were handed down from above and from the beginning for the preservation of human life." But, as I said, the understanding of the earlier interpreters pleased me. Theophanes is also Gregory II, in the Roman synod; convened at the time and occasion of the heresy that had arisen, a fragment of which Baronius reports, inserted by Pope Adrian I in his Epistle to Charlemagne. And he uses not only the example of Moses, who established two Cherubim on the ark, but also of Solomon, who carved them in the oracle. "Behold," says the pontiff, "dearest brothers, let us consider what Moses did at God's command, and what Solomon, the wisest of men, constructed by divine order." Adrian I, Gregory's successor, uses the same in his Epistle to Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople. Someone desiring a brief note, such as ours, or a bright and copious commentary on this passage, should approach the bright and copious opusculum of Jacob Gretser concerning images not made by human hand or labor (the Greeks call these *acheiropoietous* or *acheiroteuktous* by one name), in which he disputes sharply and learnedly against Casaubon especially concerning this image sent by Christ to Abgar, and shows of what faith and authority it is. If I were to bring forth anything here from my own store, those things extracted from that work might be seen: it will therefore have been enough to have pointed a finger at the source. C He uses this even as Pope Gregory II in his Epistle to Germanus (the patriarch of Constantinople mentioned above): "Nor," he says, "does this savor of pagan tradition. For even in the city of Paneas, the image of the woman with the issue of blood is transmitted in memory of the miracle, that the herbs growing forth might be helpful against all ailments, and that by the highest goodness of God toward us." Eusebius relates the history of this image more fully, *Hist.* lib. v, cap. 14, and Sozomenus, and Baronius reports it. That the images of the Mother of God were painted, and in what places they are preserved and venerated, and how this is attested in the Church, is shown and taught against the Magdeburg Centuriators, those heretics, in the *Opusculum on Images Not Made by Hand* added to his *Commentary on the Code* by Jac. Gretser, where he indeed says he marvels that, although it has been written by the consensus of Greek historians that St. Luke painted images of the Mother of God on a tablet, nevertheless, let one read in the *Menaion*, the day of October 18, and in our Theophanes, whose own words he transcribes from this homily, that the images are said to have been made of wax D by him, and that for this reason he should rather be called a *plastes* (molder), he says, than a painter; but perhaps Gretser’s admiration would have been less, had he not overlooked that this very thing was said by Simeon Metaphrastes in the *Life of St. Luke*, where his words are: "He first handed down [the art of] painting with wax and lines (images of Christ and the Mother of God, of which a little before) so that they might be honored in the image unto these times." What, therefore, shall we say to Metaphrastes? For I am persuaded that our Theophanes adhered to him, as in many other things pertaining to the lives of the Saints, which I also argued in *Proem. xi, § 5*. I have absolutely nothing that I can bring forward or affirm with certainty; I say only this, that it is not repugnant that St. Luke performed both: that he fashioned the image of the Mother of God from wax and painted it with colors: although those images that remain and are seen even today are only those which were depicted on a panel with colors. Furthermore, Vincentius Richardus, a Regular Clerk, adduced this passage of Theophanes in his *Commentary on Oration 18 of St. Proclus*; but he touched upon nothing of this difficulty, which indeed did not pertain to his subject at all. And *megaloplei* (the great city), by which there is no doubt that Constantinople is understood, for others of our society who have laid their hand to this homily have translated it thus, and produced testimonies from it. Furthermore, this image, formerly of the highest veneration and religion among the Constantinopolitans, is that which Pulcheria sent to Eudocia, who journeyed to Jerusalem, which began to be called *Hodegetria*, or "Leader of the Way." You will learn the reason for this matter and name from Nicephorus, lib. xiv, cap. 2, and lib. xv, cap. 14: "Pulcheria," he says, "also built a temple, which is famous by the cognomen of *ton Hodegon*, that is, 'Leaders of the Way': in which she took care that the divine image of her, which Luke the apostle left painted on a panel, and her sacred vestments, and the very swaddling clothes of the Savior, be preserved as a treasure, which Eudocia sent to her when she had traveled to Jerusalem." The same is in lib. xv, cap. 14. You see, therefore, whence the appellation of the Virgin *Hodegetria*, whom we now call *Itria* by a vulgar and corrupted term, comes—namely, from the temple or monastery of *Hodegion*, which is the same as *ton Hodegon*, "Leaders of the Way," where it was venerated. Furthermore, a monastery of this name was built by the same Pulcheria and joined to the temple, as the same Nicephorus Callistus writes in the said cap. 15, and the other Nicephorus Gregoras in lib. xi. Zonaras also says that it is referred to *pros ton tes Theotokou naon ton ton Hodegon keklemenon* (the temple of the Theotokos called 'of the Leaders'). For this image was carried for piety's sake to the Palace chapel in the final days of Lent, namely, on the Thursday that precedes the Sunday of the Passion, and remained there until the second day of Easter, on which day it was carried back to the monastery and temple of the *Hodegon*, accompanied byA a procession in the name of the Lord, or of the angels, or of the apostles, or of the prophets, or of the martyrs, or of the just, is holy. For it is fitting to honor with every kind of homage those who have shone forth in a manner worthy of God through Christ. Persevering in this most firm and true faith, brothers, let us each cleanse our own conscience of every passion, preserving a sincere love for one another. Let us not forget almsgiving; let us make the Lord a partner in what He has granted us. Let us fill the bellies of the poor, so that we may not later be tormented by hunger, like that rich man, and B not even obtain a drop of kindness. Furthermore, since we have come to the time of the holy fasts, let us all hasten to confession, and let no one pass by without declaring their sins. For what is the benefit of hiding the sore of sin from the physician, while applying the plaster of fasting externally? "Tell your sins first, that you may be justified," the prophet admonishes you; show the wound to the physician of the soul; confound the robber and thief of our souls through confession. For when he sees us parading his abominable deeds and wicked thoughts, he attacks us less and becomes weaker. Thus, he who minimizes his sin out of shame, feeds the serpent and makes the dragon sitting on the navel bolder, as Job said. Just as the deer, by natural power, draws C snakes from the hollows of the earth and kills them, so confession, revealing the hidden passions of the heart, hands them over to destruction. For every passion that is quickly recognized is easily helped; that which is treated with fear is incurable; and that which is put off for a long time borders on being irremediable. Why therefore do you flee the cure, like those gripped by frenzy flee the physicians? Why do you fear confession, as those bitten by mad dogs fear water? Approach confidently; do not feel shame before the priest; for he too is clothed with a body and participates in the same passions as you. If you confess what you have done wrong, the bond of sins is immediately blotted out, the soul is lightened of its heavy burden, the mind is cleansed of the cloud that obscures it, D the conscience is freed from reproaches, and then both the fasting is pure and the almsgiving acceptable. Thus may we pass the time of fasting without stumbling, and thus may we be deemed worthy to see the life-giving resurrection of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom is due all glory, honor and veneration with His Father who is without beginning, and His proceeding Spirit, unto the ages of the ages. Amen.
Homily 21: Concerning the Paralytic in Capernaum
Homily 21: Concerning the Paralytic in Capernaum
As I hasten to begin my customary teaching, my voice is cut short, placed as I am between indignation and sorrow. For I suffer the same as a farmer who, having poured many sweats into the earth, reaps but few ears of corn at harvest time. For although I speak at every gathering, I see no benefit resulting. How often have I labored, shouting until I became hoarse and bathed in sweat, exhorting you to put aside lawsuits during the time of the assembly and to gather for instruction! How often have I suggested you flee from oaths! But you deem the admonition nonsense and an empty sound of words. And I, miserable man, seem to be sowing everything in water, or on a rock that holds no moisture; for some, pricked by reproaches, flee from the teaching just as madmen flee from physicians. And this, too, is a fruit of my own failings; for if those are blessed who speak into the ears of those who listen, wretched, clearly, are those who speak to ears that do not hear. Nevertheless, I, fearing the condemnation that comes from keeping silent, will not hesitate to lay down the silver of the word, so that I may not suffer the same fate as the one who hid the talent. But I fear lest this instruction of mine become for you an occasion of greater sin. "For if I had not come," He says, "and spoken to them, they would have no sin." I say these things as one pricked by my love for you, ardently desiring your benefit, and, as the divine Jeremiah says, torn in my sensory faculties.
Be then in perception of what is fitting, and if you have missed your advantage up to this day, correct your folly by repentance, so that we may also be more eager in our instruction. Come then, let us again unfold the divinely-spoken words read today: "At that time, Jesus entered into Capernaum, and it was heard that He was in the house; and immediately many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door." B From the time when the Lord, proceeding into the country of the Gergasenes, healed those who were raving and driven by demons and dwelling in the tombs, and the herd of swine, having been driven to frenzy and having plunged down a precipice, became submerged in the lake, the city dwellers, having learned from the swineherds what had happened, besought the Lord—as I suppose, they were unworthy...
of his welcome B. But he rose from the mainland, boarded a small boat, and having crossed the salt-sea, came to Capernaum. Matthew called this the city of Jesus; for the disciples do not speak with precision regarding the call, being intent only upon the narration of the miracle. As the people perceived the Savior’s arrival, they gathered in great numbers, and they were crowded even up to the vestibule, sitting in clusters; for their various illnesses, healed by a mere touch and word, were drawing them and persuading them to stream together, as was the grace of his teaching, like some fragrance of perfume drawing in all those whose ears were not blocked by envy. And many also came together who were envious and heavy with anger, who would gain no profit, but like dogs were sniffing out what was said and done, seeking to grab hold, to mock, and to find fault; that this was indeed true, the subsequent history clearly shows. For those who said that he spoke blasphemy, in forgiving sins, clearly belonged to those very people. C "And they come to him, bringing a paralytic carried by four, and not being able to approach because of the crowd, they unroofed the house where he was, and having dug through, they lower the pallet." They came, he says, carrying the paralyzed man; and since they were not able to bring the bed through the door, they let it down from the roof. For they believed that if he only saw him, he would show his customary mercy; and they were not disappointed in their hope. What, then, does the Savior do? "Having seen," he says, "their faith, he says to the paralytic: Child, your sins are forgiven." For he looked to the faith of those carrying him. And yet he says to the woman with the flow of blood: "Your faith has saved you," and he asks the blind man: "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" and to another he says: "As you have believed, so let it be done to you." How, therefore, did he not look here to the faith of the one lying there, but to that of those who were carrying him? And indeed, in other cases he looked to the faith of the sick themselves. But here it is necessary to understand that whenever he sees the mind of the sufferer to be sound, then he seeks that person's faith; but whenever the incursion of the evil is so great that it clouds the mind, then he looks to the faith of those who bring him: as when he sees the minds of the sufferer intact, he then requires their faith; whenever such was the incursion of the affliction, he looks to the faith of those who bring the person; as (for example) when he sees the minds of the sufferer sound, he seeks their faith; whenever the incursion of the evil was so great that it clouded the mind, then he looks to the faith of those carrying him. D
A then he looks to the faith of those who bring [the sick], as in the case of the Canaanite maiden, the daughter of Jairus, the centurion's son, and this paralytic. Nor is it anything new or incredible that some are healed through the faith of others, since even infants who are baptized receive the illumination of the Spirit through the faith of those who bring them. Someone might say: "Yet the paralytic did not come seeking the forgiveness of sins, but the strengthening of his relaxed joints and nerves; why then does He grant one thing when he seeks another?" He does this very consistently; for He first removes the cause of the disease, which was the greater evil, and then he applies the cure, just as an excellent physician first checks the corruption from which the discharge arises, and then cleanses the suppuration of the wound. For that diseases are often the fruit of sins, the Lord has shown in many places, proclaiming to the paralytic in Solomon's porches... B C D
A “Behold, you have been made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you” — and in healing this present paralytic, He demonstrates the very same thing. And the great Apostle, rebuking those who do not approach the mystical table in a holy and pure manner, says: “For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and many sleep.” B Yet someone might say, “We see newly born infants often coming forth from the mother’s womb blind, or deprived of some other sense. What, then, has he sinned, who is not yet brought into the light?” But that just eye of Providence looks not only at the present time, but also at the future. And as for him who was going to ensnare souls with the lustful gaze of his eyes, it occupied itself with blunting the sharpness of his sight before he was even born; and he who was born blind, if he turns out righteous, shall be sharper-sighted even than the fabled Lynceus. Him, however, who was to be prompt and headlong toward pleasures, it restrained through hardship, or poverty, or the dissolution of his members, lulling his unruly desire as if under a mandrake, just as if one who had C prepared himself to commit murder were to find his right hand withered and remain at peace. Why, then, you will ask, is this scale of justice not tipped for all sinners, but many invaders of another’s marriage bed, many footpads, thieves, and robbers of tombs, many also usurers, and the fraudulent, and those sordid with greed, and those bound by shameful profits, live on, strong and well, and taste no hardship? But future malice is not always prevented by disease, so that the power of free will and self-determination granted to us from the beginning might be left free. For if everything were blotted out by death, it might seem unjust if any man, being wicked, were to pass his life in power and in an abundance of wealth and pleasures. But since the soul is immortal, it shall not escape its D penalty when it departs to the lower regions, but will feel the torture most of all there, as we have learned from the story of the rich man; so that it would be a gain for evildoers to be sick here, or rather, to be afflicted with poverty, than to be punished in the tribunals of the underworld. How, then, you ask, do the just also frequently find themselves surrounded by diseases, calamities, poverty, and other evils? But, my good man, do you not know that neither diseases nor death are considered by the wise to be among shameful or evil things? For Christians, it is the greatest shame to consider these as evils, seeing that even the external learning of philosophy called these things merely the discipline of wisdom. For they say that Plato chose for himself a sickly region of Attica, the Academy, on purpose, in order to blunt the robust health of the body.
just as one prunes the excessive growth of a vine. C Third is the nursing of the sick, and the infirmity of the body, since this also seems to Plato to have no small weight for philosophy. D I praise the high-mindedness and greatness of spirit of the Stoics, who say that external things are no hindrance to happiness, but that the virtuous man is blessed, even if he should be burning inside the bull of Phalaris. A Do not ever, when reproaching a man, cast at him base poverty, the bane of souls, as a disgrace; for it is a gift of the gods who live forever. Therefore, they say that Plato, forseeing the harm coming from the body, purposely chose for himself the sickly region of Attica, the Academy, so that he might prune the excessive health of the body, as if it were the vine’s tendency toward surplus growth. B And indeed, the righteous man sometimes slips, and either performs some act that is less than right, as David did, or harbors some thought, as Job did. And we, for our part, if we suffer any such thing, are amazed, being ignorant of the cause. But He who examines our lives, to whom nothing at all is hidden, seeing some small part of the righteous man’s soul wounded by the medicine of temptations, heals it, so that he may enjoy purely the good things of the life to come. It is fitting, moreover, to consider many of these things as due to the accidental condition of the body, to a failure of nature, or to an excess or deficiency of matter. For one person drags out from his ancestry a cachexia of the body, through the drunkenness and lack of self-control of his parents who have come together for procreation; for from this both many monsters and diseases are born. Another, through disorder of diet, and drunkenness, and intemperance, has made his body degenerate. Yet these things have not become an impediment to the acquisition of virtue. For some of them have ascended to the peak of philosophy, and through thanksgiving and patience have inherited the bosom of Abraham, like Lazarus. But those who are evil in their resolve do not do this as much as they wish, and for them the injury of the body becomes a safeguard of the soul. Do you see whither the discourse led us, and drew us away from the sequence of the argument? Let us then take up again the previous line of thought. B "Child, your sins are forgiven. Now there were some of the Scribes sitting there, and reasoning..."
in their hearts: "Why does this man speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" A Behold these drones—for that is the fitting name for those Scribes—leaping upon the word while ignoring the deed; they belch forth the calumny that smoldered within, reasoning in vain in their hearts. But the Lord brings the thoughts of their hearts into the open, refuting their reasonings and revealing what lay concealed in the depths of their minds, by Him who sees the inner musings: "Does He who planted the ear not hear, or He who formed the eye not consider?"* It was He, then, entirely, of whom David spoke, who by the touch of His hands implanted, as it were, the hearing of the deaf, through which also eyes were fashioned, formed like clay from spittle and earth. B "And immediately, knowing in His spirit, Jesus said to them: 'Why do you reason in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic: Your sins are forgiven, or to say: Arise, take up your bed, and walk?'" He mocks the ignorance of the Scribes and makes manifest the stupidity of the suspicion that was in them, clearly clarifying what lay hidden deep in their minds and hearts. For to speak, He says, is by nature easier than to act; but since it is uncertain to you whether the forgiveness of sins followed the word, I will confirm the uncertain by what is certain. He performs three things at once: He forgives the sick man his sins, He refutes the reasonings of the Scribes, and He raises up the paralytic. C "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." By these words He shows the inseparable union of the two natures in Him after the union, and that He shared the divine prerogatives with the flesh that He assumed, and that He possessed on earth the same authority He had in heaven; for His having become the Son of Man in no way harmed His divine power. "He says to the paralytic: 'To you I say, arise, take up your bed, and depart to your house.' And he arose immediately, and having taken up the bed, he went out before all." The Word, therefore, binds together his paralysis, strengthens the dissolution of his joints, gives tension to his nerves, and he who had previously been slackened and lying down, like a ship without nails, arose from the pallet and walked with nimble leaps, glorifying Him who had made his path blameless and had perfected his feet like those of deer.* These are exactly those prophetic things, and perhaps the divine oracle foretold this when it anticipated it: "Then shall the lame man leap as an hart."* But the miracle—
having received such a fulfillment does not permit us even to give a conclusion to the teaching, but rather that we use what has been said as propylaea for our entry into the interior meanings. But if the propylaea are adorned with such things, what might the inner palace be? Into which we will endeavor to step with God. This village, in which the said sign occurred, is according to Matthew the city of Jesus, and according to the divine Mark, Capernaum; it signified the terrestrial allotment, which is called the city of Jesus, as he shared in our nature, and shared with us the same way of life without sin. This same Capernaum also is translated as "village of consolation" in the Greek tongue, which received Christ who had entered for our consolation, of whom the son of thunder says: "We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."* The Lord came here, then, using the body as a vessel; he came surely for the salvation of the paralyzed nature of men, which at one time was in spiritual health, just as the nerves of the soul’s impulses were healthy and in accordance with nature. But since the concupiscible part gained control over the rest, it became glutted with greed, and fell from that health, and inherited this morbid and death-bearing region, gathering unto itself a heap of cares by which it became bedridden, having let slip the limbs of working according to virtue. And it lay on the cot of inaction, carried by four, that is to say, by the constituent elements of nature. Therefore the all-good Master came into his own city, the earth; for he did not come into a strange world, but into one which he himself established. "And he came into his own," as John says, "and his own received him not."* He came to preach, according to Isaiah, the remission of sins to the captives, and to heal those who are contrite in their bodily and psychic limbs—for the history resonates with the prophecy—and by the remission of sins and the cleansing of diseases, he persuades the nature of men to rise up from its fall and to walk with haste to its home, the paradise from which it had fallen. Thus indeed does the history hint at the salvation of the whole nature of men. But nothing at all prevents us from transferring this to ourselves. For each one of us is a paralytic, having let slip the mind in the inaction of the commandments, and lying upon the cot of insensibility,
having crushed his prudent reasonings like bones. But if he is lifted by four—by elemental fear, by zeal for the good, and by hope and faith—and comes before Christ, he shall be even now as in Capernaum, in the Church, which is truly the house of consolation and the city of Christ; then he shall hear, "Child of God," and shall receive remission of his sins and healing for his soul’s malady. Or if, as before, the roof be removed—that is, the mind be cleansed of earthly things—and the infirm one be let down, that is, humbled in imitation of Christ (for otherwise it is impossible to come to Jesus), then perhaps the roof being removed would be that despair which, blocking the path, used to cloud the mind and prevent it from considering what it ought to do. For when this is removed and our hope is let down into God, we might take up our cot and go to our home. For the cot of the soul is our body, which indeed, being rendered incorruptible in the resurrection along with the soul, shall be caught up into the heavens. This is our home, from which we were miserably cast out; let us hasten to regain it through the working of the four cardinal virtues, both by carrying the body and by lifting the soul from the attachment to earthly things toward the desire for eternal goods, which may we all attain in Christ Jesus, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
HOMILY XXII. On the words, "If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself." Spoken on the Sunday of the Veneration of the Holy Cross.
The time of temperance for us has now reached its very midpoint; and the angels from above intensify our urge for this struggle, and Christ, the institutor of the contest, watches the double course of our striving and holds out the crowns to the athletes, not as they are to those who contend in the Olympics. For there, only to the one who wins is the crown of victory given; but here, the reward is measured out to all according to each one’s merits.
A Let us all, then, become crowned victors; let us all win the noble and unenvied victory. Let one surpass another in strict self-control, stifling the bulk of the body through a meager diet; let another hasten to win by abundantly providing for the poor and by becoming radiant with the oil of mercy. Let another be longsuffering toward those who offend him, thereby rendering the Master propitious toward himself. Let us all, as in the day, walk becomingly (Rom. XIII, 13), according to the Apostolic word. For now a dawn has risen upon our souls, having removed us from the night of the passions. Now the mind, illuminated through fasting, is able to gaze clearly upon the intelligible light, while on the one hand checking the impulses of the flesh, and on the other receiving the splendors of the Spirit; quenching the fire of pleasures, and kindling the fire of virtues. Fasting has become for us the provider of all good things. Come, then, leaning upon it, let us hear the Savior himself ordering everyone with an exhortation. The Lord said: «If anyone desires to follow behind me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me» (Matt. XVI, 24). B After our Savior Jesus had announced to the holy disciples the things concerning the cross and the passion, the chief of the disciples, not yet being initiated into the more secret mysteries, and being moved by affection for the teacher, begged him not to suffer, saying: «Far be it from you, Lord, this shall not happen to you.» Having rebuked his rashness, the Lord turned toward the multitude of those following and uttered this voice: «If anyone desires to come behind me, let him deny himself.» To Peter, I think, directing his speech for the most part, he says these things, almost as if saying: I am not only hastening toward passion, but I wish everyone to choose for themselves the same death as mine. «If anyone desires to come behind me.» I do not remove, he says, free will and independence, nor do I force anyone to follow me. C I call to life and rewards and an unshakable kingdom. Whoever wishes to luxuriate in incorruptible gifts, let them follow me; let them deny themselves. But how one might deny himself, we shall make clear with an example: as if someone having a very dear friend, upon some emergency occurring, were to cast off all friendship for him, so that even if he were to see him dragged along, and struck on the cheek, and cut to pieces member by member, and his flesh shredded and minced, and torn on wheels and joint-breakers, he would not be moved to pity, having denied the relationship with him; thus even D [original-script column: see facsimile] [alt-version omitted]
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus
(17) *As to "on the cheek": For it signifies the cheek or jaw; whence our author uses this phrase, to which corresponds in Latin *colaphus* (a buffet), to strike with the fist. I have therefore used this, weighing the sense rather than the words, where the words are of no moment, nor does it matter to the matter how you translate [it], which I would also wish to be said for the following note, and for other similar places throughout the homilies. (18) *There are certain proper instruments of speaking [here] for inserting or casting into the joints; because, however, a convenient [translation] from the Latin language was not available...HOMILY XXII
A ...is willing to have us deny our own body. But what is it to follow Christ, and how can any man succeed in accomplishing this? For if we were to interpret the saying according to its most immediate meaning, conceiving of a bodily following, this is altogether impossible and impracticable, since the Lord now sits in the heavens and upon the throne most befitting to Him. Yet we observe Him giving this admonition to almost all who have come to Him, and urging them to follow Him. For just a little before, gathering together the disciples who would later serve in the teaching of the mystery, He commands them to walk behind Him. And first, meeting Philip, born in Bethsaida, after Peter, He utters this voice: "Follow me." B Now, the chief of the apostles, Peter, had indeed been instructed concerning Christ by Andrew, who had followed before; yet he was still sitting by the shore with his brother, and both were mending the pieces of their old nets, when the Savior, standing over them, says: "Come after me," which is the same as "Follow me." And seeing the sons of Zebedee descending into a boat, to use the words of David, "doing work in many waters," He says to them: "Follow me." And a certain publican collecting taxes, and holding firmly to his business—for this is signified by the enigma when it is said of Matthew that he sat at the toll booth—by that very voice He raises him from that wicked seat, saying: "Follow me." And to the man who asked about eternal life He says: "Sell the things you have, and come, follow me," C as if the keeping of the legal commandments led to this. And concerning those who chose to serve Him, He says thus: "He who wishes to serve me, let him follow me." But also, having named Himself the light of the world, as indeed He was, He quickly adds to the word: "He who follows me shall not walk in darkness." And even now, He says the same to all: "If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." This, then, is the perfection of the life lived according to the law: to follow Christ. For to the one who said that he had kept all the legal commandments from his youth, the Savior declares that this is lacking: to sell what he possessed, and, as if in a marketplace, to exchange them for following Christ. D "For if you wish," He says, "to be perfect, sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and come, follow me"—perfect, that is, when compared to the imperfection of the Law. For to those who choose to live in an evangelical manner, there are certain... [being] shaken even in the joints if some affliction should fall upon them,and for this reason that it is necessary to realize that to follow Christ is fitting both for those who are beginners and for those who have reached the perfection of human capacity. Both of these brought me to this line of thought: Moses, the peak of prophets, and Peter, the foremost of the disciples; for both heard this very voice, even after their progress to the extent possible.
And indeed, the great Moses—who appeared comely from his very birth, and alone escaped the child-killing law of the tyrant, who cast off royal glory, and for forty years occupied his mind in the silence of contemplation of that which is, and was illumined by the light from the bush, and loosened the base of his soul from the skin-garment—he who with repeated blows crushed Pharaoh with his entire army, and liberated Israel through light and water, who sweetened the water of Marah with the wood and turned the rock into a spring, who entered into the divine darkness and was initiated therein into the ineffable mysteries, who received the divinely-made tablets and, when they were broken, inscribed them again, who bore on his face the symbols of the divine power that appeared to him, who condemned those who rose up against the priesthood through a chasm and fire, and revealed the worthy priest through the rod—this man who achieved so many and such great things (and as many as my discourse has passed over due to their multitude), after having been raised so high through virtue, and having been lifted aloft on divine wings, and appearing to have already arrived at perfection, as if he had only just set foot on the path of virtue, hears from God: “Follow me.” For he whom He promised to show His back, He urges in every way to follow; for he who follows sees the back of the one walking; and he who hoped to see the face of God, and said, “Show me your aspect,” was barely counted worthy, as he wished to see His back; the Word teaching through these things, that he who desires to see the...
face of God, A in constantly following Him, sees the One he longs for.
But the leader of the sacred band of disciples, having followed the Master from the beginning, and having been a spectator of His miracles, and having received the authority to work wonders, and having seen the terrible transfiguration with his own eyes, and having heard the testimony of the Father, and having surpassed in his understanding the fiery rivers of the intellectual powers, and having been initiated by the Father into the nobility of the Son, and having testified that He is the Son of the living God, when he heard the Lord predicting the things of the Passion, having gone slightly astray, and not having well considered the saying, he spoke in opposition: “Far be it from you, Lord; this shall never happen to you,” and hears again that B saying: “Get behind me” — that is, “Follow me.”
And at the time of the Passion, having displayed a burning love toward his Teacher—for when all the disciples had trembled at the swords, and the torches, and the cohort, and the tribune, and had taken to flight, he alone rushed to defense, with insatiable eagerness cutting off the wretched ears of the Jews, which were deaf to the teaching of Christ. Having even this fear and tumult, he had not forgotten the voice which he heard from the beginning: “Follow me.” Therefore he followed, to see the end. And after the resurrection, seeing the Lord, and thinking he was just then receiving the rewards and the keys of the kingdom of heaven, after he had been entrusted with the shepherding of the sheep, he again hears the introductory voice: “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me.” C You see how, even for those already perfected according to the standard of Moses and Peter, such a command is appropriate? And how, after so many ascents, one is barely counted worthy of such a grace?
Having been initiated into these things, Moses legislated that the people should walk behind the Lord God. Having heard which, David says to God: “My soul has clung behind you.” And the chaste bride in the Song says thus: “My brother has passed by, my soul went out at his word.” For there is no hope of salvation unless one learns to follow. For in the shoulders—that is, in the later things—the thing which was before is fulfilled.
A “It shall overshadow thee,” says the Psalm, which refers to the being behind God; for the shoulders are situated on the back part of the body. This, I believe, the woman with the issue of blood understood, who followed Christ, and standing behind, touched the hem of his garment; she would not perhaps have attained salvation, had she not learned to follow the Lord. B Now, to follow the Lord is, in all things, as far as it is given to man, to imitate that way of life which he held when he became man: and first of all, frugality, sobriety, clemency, patience, mercy, openness, justice; and finally, to choose that ignominious death; that is, “Let him take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it.” Because it seemed grave and intolerable to embrace death voluntarily, in order to confirm the hearer, he disclosed the reward to be gained through it, which is the salvation of the soul. Whosoever, therefore, shall lose his soul through this temporary death and the endurance of the evils of this life, he shall save it in the future. Consider further the precision of his speech: for since many robbers and nocturnal thieves, when caught in their crimes, die by torments, he fortifies his discourse by saying, “Whosoever shall lose his soul for my sake and the Gospel's, shall save it.” C For clearly, as many as undergo death on account of their own wickedness do not suffer it for his sake, nor do they undertake it voluntarily. And lest anyone perchance might say: “Yet he who does not wish to die for Christ, nevertheless gains this present life for a while,” he meets this saying and dissolves the weak opposition, as it were, by saying: What do you say—that he gains a life which he will lay down by the law of nature? For even if someone could gain the whole world—which can happen by no means—this gain cannot be weighed against the loss of the soul. Moreover, from what he says, “Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”, that fabricated restoration D of Origen, who derives his name from anger, is refuted. Through these words, the Lord cries out most clearly that a temporary punishment is by no means given so that through it the salvation of the soul may be received. But even this—to lose the soul—signifies the eternal loss of the soul and the eternity of punishment: “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in the glory of his Father.” This is the same as that: “Whosoever shall deny me, him will I also deny.” For since our nature is double—consisting, I say, of soul and body—he requires from us a double confession, so that our sanctification may also be double.
A “Whoever, therefore,” he says, “is ashamed to confess me as God because of the humiliation to which I have subjected myself, and counts it a reproach to preach a crucified God, neither will he be confessed by me.” By these words, he foretells the contest of the martyrs, their confession, and their death undergone for his sake. He calls the unbelievers an adulterous and sinful generation; for so does the prophetic word censure them: that they committed fornication with graven images and played the adulterer with wood. The prophecy of Micah also rebukes them, saying: “From the wages of harlotry she gathered, and to the wages of harlotry she returned.” B Confessing the Crucified before such people, the martyrs, not being ashamed, obtained their crowns. For this reason, Peter rejoiced to be suspended head-downward, and Stephen to be stoned by those around him; and Andrew, and Simon, and Philip to be perfected by the cross; and Thomas to be pierced by the lance, and Paul to be beheaded by the sword; and all the athletes after them to be tortured by various torments.
“And he said to them: ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, that there are some of those standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God coming in power.’” C Since he had said above that “the Son of man shall also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father,” and this was still a matter of doubt for them, he promises to show them the preludes of that glory, and by these words foretells the Transfiguration, which was an intimation and image of that terrible and second manifestation, in which the righteous shall shine forth with God in the kingdom of heaven, filled with eternal glory.
But observe the precision of the discourse. D He did not say simply, “There are some of those who are here,” but added the word “standing.” For what reason? Because Judas, the merchant of Christ, was among them, who did not stand, having the foundations of his soul supported by faith, but was falling away in his mind, borne down by the weight of wickedness. Therefore, distinguishing the eleven from him—who had planted their feet upon the rock of Christ’s love—he says: “There are some of those standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God.”
May we all also become partakers of this, being strengthened by the virtue and grace of the life-giving Cross, in order to pass through the voyage of the holy fast without stumbling and to reach the harbor of Christ’s Resurrection; being crucified with Christ through voluntary endurance of suffering and following him who has clearly shown us the way of virtue, and becoming partakers with him of the coming glory and of those ineffable goods which are beyond sight, and hearing, and thought—which is to be with God—to whom honor and glory are due, forever and ever. Amen.
HOMILY XXIII. BY THEOPHANES KERAMEUS. On the passage: "There came to him a man, kneeling down to him and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is lunatic."
A As a level and wide-stretching plain urges on a spirited horse, and the rider, relaxing the reins, lets the colt gallop across the field, so too does the orderly attention of the people stir up the teacher toward instruction. For exactly as much as the hearing is intent, so much is the tongue of the teacher sharpened. This stirs me, too, and makes me more eager, seeing that you are listening with pricked-up ears and a mind aroused toward the teaching, like some fertile and rich soil receiving the seeds that are cast out. From this I am nurtured with high hopes that this husbandry will yield a crop worthy of the divine storehouse. Come, then, and once again opening the tablets of the New Testament—the holy Gospel, I mean—let us begin the usual instruction. "At that time, a man came to Jesus, kneeling down to him and saying, Lord, have mercy B on my son, for he is lunatic."
Beginning his divine signs, the Lord, like the best physician, first purges the cause of the evil, applying the lash that drives away the demons and, by an invisible power and lordly authority, expelling them while healing those whom they had driven to frenzy, as we learned concerning the demoniacs among the Gergesenes; from whom, having been driven out, the herd of swine, goaded by a frenzy, became submerged. But there, the Savior, moved by his own inner compassion, came of his own accord; concerning this lunatic child, however, of whom the evangelical voice has spoken today, the father who begot him reminds the Lord, being himself infirm in faith, as it seems. For this is what leads one to think so: that the disciples were unable to exert the terror against the demon, and what was said to him by the Lord: "O faithless and perverse generation!" C But, if it seems good, let us repeat the text again. "Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is lunatic, and suffers severely; for often he falls into the fire, and into the water; and I brought him to your disciples, and they could not cure him." Good indeed, and most seemly according to appearances, is the approach; for he falls upon his knees, and he calls him Lord, and he seeks to obtain mercy. But he who—"Horse into the plain"—in the same way a naturally gifted soul, anticipating the things spoken by it rather than being helped by teachers, and having seized upon some scientific principle, according to the proverb, "a horse rushes into the plain." D *Francisci Scorsi nota: adagium "Equum in planitie," etc. [Note: Latin apparatus omitted.]*
A but He who knows hidden things, and who enters into the secret places of the heart, did not look at the outward guise, but uncovers the unbelief within; for He knew that while he approached with a solemn posture and covered his request in seemly speech, he petitioned with a crooked and dishonest mind. Therefore He says: "O faithless and perverse generation!" B as if He were saying: Why do you bring a charge against the disciples, and not blame yourself, approaching as you do with a double heart? For the disciples cast out many demons from those who approached them with faith. For would they not have said, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name"? Do you not know that faith accomplishes all things? By faith the centurion obtained the healing of his son; by faith the admirable woman with the issue of blood performed her praiseworthy theft. Faith cast out the demon troubling the daughter of the Canaanite. How is it, then, that you yourself, being double-minded, charge the disciples with weakness? "O faithless and perverse generation!" But because He levels the accusation of faithlessness and perversity not only at that one man, but at his whole generation, the meaning of the statement must be investigated in another way. But before we explain this, let us correct the opinion of many. For those who attend to what is apparent, and close the senses of their soul, attribute the suffering of those possessed by demons not to the affliction of demons, but to the abundance of humors, when the sovereignty of black bile, at certain cycles, clouds the membranes of the brain through vapors; and they want the agitation and raging of the whole body, and the chill of the limbs, to be indication of this. These things are said by those who attend only to natural causes. Others say that the power of matter does not harm the possessed in the slightest degree, but that the demons immediately alienate the mind of the sufferer, and cloud his wits, and drive him wherever and in whatever manner the moving unclean spirit wishes. Both parties, by saying such things, deviate from a right and proper judgment. For the former are impious, the others are ignorant. Truth, however, standing in the middle C of these evils that are diametrically opposed, has avoided excess and deficiency. For neither does matter without demonic operation produce such distraction, nor does the demon so vex immediately on his own. But when man is handed over by the secret judgments of God to the enemy and avenger, then the latter, having most carefully observed the material that is dominant, uses it as a rod or a scourge to inflict harm. That these are scourges applied for the chastening of unruly souls, one may easily learn. D *Francisci Scorsi nota: ... [Latin apparatus omitted.]*
affliction. For that these are scourges chastening that which is disorderly in the soul, you may learn without effort by paying attention to the evangelical and apostolic sayings. For the holy Gospel, in narrating to us the miracle of the woman with an issue of blood, says, "She felt that she was healed of the plague;" and the Apostle, concerning those who touch the mysteries unworthily, says: "For this cause many among you are weak, and many sleep." But we have been led astray from the straight path, wishing to correct the assumption of the ignorant. Come now, let us turn the discourse, like a horse that has taken the bit, with a skilled hand, repeating the stated words: "O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? Bring him hither to me." It is the custom of the impure spirits to bring about mental derangement in those they suffer according to certain changes of the moon. For what purpose? So that the sign well-created for the benefit of the creation—I mean the moon—might be judged a cause of harm, and from there the Creator might be blasphemed as though He were the author of evils. Having craftily conceived this, they sowed this opinion, that the moon, with its own waxing or waning, produces such darkness; whence they called those suffering from it "lunatics." Being instructed by this perverse opinion, this man, letting go of saying that which was the case—"Have mercy on my son," because he is tossed by demonic darkness—says instead: "Because he is a lunatic." Therefore, reproving this, the Lord says, "O faithless and perverse generation." He would not have added "perverse" if He had not seen the perversion of the doctrine. Having thus branded the impiety first, He applies the healing, deeming it unreasonable that, because of the father's unbelief, the boy should not partake of the common salvation. The demon, therefore, burnt invisibly, departed without turning back; and the boy enjoyed divine tranquility. "Then the disciples came to Jesus," as being students of His wisdom, and seekers of the truth, and investigators of what actually is, and they sought to learn what it was that hindered them from driving out the demon; for they thought that perhaps there were some wicked spirits that did not quail before their strength. What, then, does the Savior do? They even of His wisdom are the investigators.
A He does not speak of the man's incredulity, lest the disciples should be puffed up with pride; and at the same time, rousing them to a more fervent faith, He says: "Because of your unbelief. For truly I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain: 'Move from here to there,' and it will move." What, then? someone will say, was the faith of the apostles so dim that it was not equal even to a grain of mustard? Those who had left all and followed Christ, to whom there was the promise to sit upon twelve thrones and judge Israel, whom He called the light of the world, and the salt of the earth, and His friends? How then had they reached such a point, if they did not possess burning faith? We say, therefore, that the faith of the apostles was not only similar to a grain of mustard, but to the magnitude of a high mountain towering above the clouds. And so great was their faith that they were able to subdue the whole world by their word. But here the Savior seems to indicate a dogma; B and this dogma, in my opinion, is as follows: that however much a person may transcend through faith, and become winged, the faith that is esteemed high and burning, when compared to a perfect faith, is not even to be compared to a grain of mustard. Now, mustard also has a certain affinity with faith. For it is hot, and is an extractor of the filth around the brain; it promotes the healthy condition of those who eat it, cutting through the thickness of latent phlegm and the moisture of harmful humors; but also the kingdom of heaven is compared to a grain of mustard seed, growing into a tree within the heart of the cultivator. So that he who has faith as a grain of mustard seed has within himself the kingdom of heaven; for the kingdom of heaven is within us. "You will say to this mountain: 'Move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you." He does not speak C here of a sensible mountain. For who, in accordance with the [reasoning] D of the natural world, would believe... [index: entries preserved]
that a physical mountain could be uprooted and cast into the sea through faith? But since we have already spoken sufficiently regarding the spiritual interpretation, let us proceed to the subsequent passage, applying the same method of interpretation to it, and clearly demonstrating—so far as our ability permits—the meaning of what was said.
But you, let us also return to the straight path of the discourse, so that we may not err in our understanding of these things, which we have been led to investigate by the evangelical and apostolic words. For the holy Gospel, in narrating the miracle of the woman with an issue of blood, says: "She felt," it says, "that she was healed of the plague." And the Apostle, regarding those who touch the mysteries unworthily, says: "For this cause many among you are weak, and many sleep." But we have strayed from the straight path, wishing to correct the understanding of the ignorant. Come now, let us skillfully guide the discourse, like a horse that has begun to bolt, returning to the text: "O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? Bring him here to me." It is customary for unclean spirits, at certain changes of the moon, A to induce madness in those who suffer. Why does this happen? So that the sign justly created for the benefit of the creation—I mean the moon—might be thought of as a cause of detriment, and hence the Creator might be blasphemed as though He were a creator of evils. Having cleverly devised this, they sowed the opinion that the moon, with its own increases and decreases, creates such darkness; whence they called those laboring under this disease "lunatics." Therefore, guided by this perverse opinion, this man approached, and omitting to say what was actually the case—"Have mercy on my son, for he is driven by demonic darkness"—he said, "For he is a lunatic." The Lord, therefore, rebuking this, says: "O faithless and perverse generation!" He would not have added "perverse" if He had not seen the perversion of the doctrine. Having thus branded the impiety first, He applies the cure; for He did not consider it just that, on account of the father's lack of faith, the child should be deprived of the common benefit of salvation. The demon, therefore, invisibly burning, departed irrevocably; and the boy enjoyed divine peace. "Then the disciples came to Jesus privately, saying: Why could we not cast him out?" The disciples B wish to learn, as befits those who were students of His wisdom, and seekers of the truth, and investigators of what is real; and they ask to learn what discouraged them, and prevented them from driving out the demon, for they thought perhaps that there were certain evil spirits that did not quail before their strength. What, then, does the Savior do? As those who were investigators of His own wisdom... C D
He speaks of the man’s unbelief, so that the disciples might not be lifted up into pride; and at the same time, inciting them to a more fervent faith, He says: "Because of your unbelief. For truly I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain: ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move." A What then? One might ask, was the faith of the apostles so dim that it was not even equal to a mustard seed? They who had left all things and followed Christ, to whom there was the promise that they would sit upon twelve thrones and judge Israel; whom He called the light of the world, and the salt of the earth, and His friends? How then could they have attained to such a state, if they had not possessed a burning faith? We say, then, that the faith of the apostles was not only comparable to a grain of mustard, but to the magnitude of a high mountain towering above the clouds. And so much did their faith avail, that they subjugated the entire world by their word. But here the Savior seems to indicate a doctrine B—and that doctrine, according to my own way of thinking, is this: that as much as anyone might surpass others through faith, and become winged in spirit, the faith which is considered high and burning, when compared to a perfect faith, is not even to be compared to a grain of mustard seed. And mustard possesses a certain affinity with faith. For it is hot, and it is a solvent for the filth around the brain; it promotes a healthy condition for those who eat it, cutting through the swiftness of latent phlegm and the moisture of harmful humors. Moreover, the kingdom of heaven is compared to a grain of mustard seed, C growing into a tree in the heart of its cultivator. So that he who has faith as a grain of mustard seed has within himself the kingdom of heaven; for the kingdom of heaven is within us. "You will say to this mountain: 'Move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you." He is not speaking here of a perceptible mountain. For who could believe D that it is possible for a believer to move such a thing from here to there? For even if it is possible for the believer to do this...
[THEOPHANE CERAMEUS]
...to move a mountain from its place, which has been rooted by creative power since the beginning of time? A For although it is possible for someone who has faith to do this, yet the law of established order does not permit the subversion of the craft of supreme power, since Scripture says in the person of God: "I have established the pillars of the earth," and, "He founded the world, which shall not be shaken." Therefore, He does not bid them to move Carmel, or Aetna, or Parnassus, or Olympus, but rather the demons who are puffed up with pride, concerning whom one of the prophets says: "Behold, I am against you, O mountain that corrupts the entire earth." And the bride in the Song of Songs, seeing the bridegroom Jesus acting against the demons, says: "Behold, my beloved, leaping upon the mountains, bounding over the hills," which the Prophet also makes clear by saying: "Every mountain and hill shall be humbled." And Micah, prophesying the Incarnation of the Lord and the turbulent panic of the demons, says: B "Behold, the Lord shall go forth from His place, and shall come down upon the high places of the earth, and the mountains shall be moved beneath Him." The ode of Habakkuk also proclaims beforehand that the mountains melted at His power; perhaps even the Apostle speaks of such a mountain when he says: "Every height that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." For the Savior showed that He was not speaking of a sensible mountain by the use of the article, for He did not say, "You shall say to a mountain," but, "To this mountain." And He added, "to this," pointing out that lunatic demon that was then being driven out by Him. If, therefore, we too have fervent faith in God, we shall say to the passions that overhang us like mountains—to anger, to desire, to self-love, to rapacity, to malice, to envy, to strife—to these passions, I say, as to mountains, we shall give commands, and they shall flee from us. For truly these things are not cast out except through prayer and fasting from the passions, just as our truthful Master Christ has declared, to whom is due all glory, to the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XXVII
On the precious Passion of Jesus Christ.
C Perhaps I may seem burdensome to your charity, and heavy, as if I were imposing another load upon you by keeping you standing through the whole night and listening to this sermon. But pardon me, for I cannot be satiated by your progress; and I stretch out the intention of my mind so that you may profit more. For if the haters of God, the Jews, spent the whole night awake in order to seize and crucify the Lord, how shall we not watch, that we may attain the understanding of the Gospels that have been read and chanted to us? For this reason, with all weariness cast aside, turn your mind to what is being said.
Since the Savior at this mystical supper washed the holy disciples, and Himself performed the sacrifice, D [by His own concession, as is publicly known,]...
A for, being further invited to a feast, He went with them to the Mount of Olives, not shunned the Passion, (for how could He be ignorant of it, and foretell it, and be able to escape it? Or rather, not willingly deliver Himself to the murderers? For the first plan was to frustrate the arrangement, and provide fear to the cowardly as an excuse; the other, to deliver Himself to the accursed men, as if He were forced against His will to be killed, and had extorted the Passion from them: at the same time He sets before us an example of true fortitude, and shows Himself a victor over fear and cowardice, and by His act instructs us, not to shun trials when they must be met, nor to become fearful for our own selves, as if we should stand in awe because of our cowardice.) But the Lord is not grasped, because they feared the raging conspirators. Although they did not esteem Him as God, yet they possessed Him as a just man and a prophet, because of His teaching and miracles. He grants them admission therefore after that hour, and from the place, to bring to an end the error. Again He foretells to the disciples [His] future security. Therefore He again warns the disciples,
« All you shall be scandalized in this night; for it is written, 189 I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. » By these words He shows [that the event happens] through the Father’s dispensation and counsel, which He was uttering. For if anyone says: Did the Father strike the Son, and scatter the sheep? C By no means; He did not strike [Him], but permitted [Him] to be struck by the disposition of His counsel, since He could have hindered Him, yet suffered him to suffer. St. Peter, therefore, since he was glowing with love, and not thinking sufficiently of the weakness of nature, and does not trust [the Lord’s] promise, adds also [a display] of vehemence: « Even if it were necessary to die with you, I would not deny you: but I will lay down my life for you. » D But the Lord clearly foretells to him the denial: « Today in this night, before the cock shall crow twice, you shall deny me thrice. » For so Mark enucleates, as others have written. For since the Lord knew that Peter would deny Him, yet later would die for Him, He adds those words: « Today, and in this night; » not only saying, « You will lay down your life for me; » but « in this night you shall deny me — » calling that same time of betrayal « night, » and assigning it to the denial itself; for he who denies the light, wanders altogether in darkness.
Homily XXIV
(43) It is true that God compensates for love with toils.Francisci Scorsi notes. (20) Marcus enucleates: The author says that St. Mark wrote more clearly than the other evangelists; which our Maldonatus observes, and adds the reason, offering his own conjecture: It seems to me, he says, that Mark, as a disciple of Peter, understood not only the meaning, but also the very words which Christ had spoken, that He would deny Him before the night was over, and that He had used the very same words. And as our author says, "Mark wrote more clearly than the others."
A And perhaps, foreseeing the course of this path, David sang: "He shall exult as a giant to run his course; his going forth is from the end of heaven even to the earth." For he went more slowly toward performing miracles, avoiding the reputation of vainglory; but he hastens toward death, eager to fulfill the Father's will. And having enumerated all the mournful things, how he would be delivered up, and mocked, and scourged, and spat upon, he promises the consolation of all these things, that on the third day he shall rise again. "And there come to him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying: But he said, What will you that I should do for you? And they said: Grant to us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left, in thy glory." Another evangelist says that their mother came and implored the Lord for her sons to receive the honor of the sitting on the right and on the left; therefore both things had happened. For the disciples, being timid at first, put forward their mother, Salome, as she had confidence from their being related according to the flesh, and because she was a disciple and followed him with the women who followed him from Galilee, as Matthew records more clearly. Afterward, they themselves also took courage, and drawing near, made the petition privately. B And what was it that persuaded them to seek such a pre-eminence? As the Savior had often spoken about the coming glory... Salome, the mother of two of the disciples, was the daughter of Joseph the betrothed. Having lived with Zebedee, she brought forth the two sons, the Sons of Thunder. She was also a unique disciple and later became a myrrh-bearer. Together with the other children of Joseph, she also was called a sister of the Lord. Whence it was natural for her to have such confidence. What was it that persuaded them to seek such pre-eminence...
[Latin translation of the same:] A ...foreseeing this course, David sang: "He shall exult as a giant to run his course; his going forth is from the end of heaven even to the earth." And truly he went more slowly toward performing miracles, declining the opinion of himself, and vainglory; but he accelerates his journey toward death, hastening to fulfill the decree of the Father. But when he had detailed the sad and troublesome things, that he would be delivered up, and mocked, and scourged, and spat upon, he adds the consolation of all these things, that he would be revived on the third day. "And there come to him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying: Master, we wish that whatsoever we shall ask, you would do for us. And he said: What will you that I should do for you? And they said: Grant to us, that one of us may sit on thy right hand, and another on thy left hand in thy glory." Another evangelist says that their mother approached and supplicated the Lord for her sons, that they might obtain this honor of sitting on the right and on the left. Therefore, both things took place; for the disciples, deterred by shame from asking this of the Lord themselves, first indeed put forward their mother Salome, as she had many reasons for confidence, both because she was joined to him by kinship, and because she was also a disciple, and accompanied him together with the women who, as St. Matthew records more clearly, had followed him from Galilee. B Afterward, however, and they themselves, having taken confidence, make the request by themselves privately. What, then, led the disciples themselves...
into the opinion that they might obtain what was requested? Since the Lord, having frequently discoursed with the disciples about his future glory, had also added that there were some of those standing there who would not taste death until they saw his kingdom; and since he had also shown them in Mount Tabor the tokens of his divinity, the apostles supposed that glory to be attained in this life was being announced to them, and that the Lord would indeed reign on earth, but would at the end be pressed by plots, and betrayed, and that all things which he had foretold to them would come to pass. For it was not a petition proposed concerning future glory, as some have supposed. What, then, is the Savior’s response? He neither promises that he will give it, nor refuses; but having reproved their words concerning death, he speaks again: “Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink, and to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” You imagine, he says, that my kingdom consists in things perceived by the senses, and you pant after the glory which is defined by the time of this life, seeking the most empty pomp and a seat, as if oblivious to that former voice which you heard from the very beginning: “Come after me;” for whoever follows me, let him take up his cross, and not seek a seat of empty glory. You, however, abandoning the following of me alongside others, wish to lead the way; therefore, “You do not know what you are asking.” Thus also Peter, while he followed the master according to his will, was a disciple; but when he prevented the Savior from suffering—as much as it depended on him—saying, “Far be it from you, Lord, this shall never happen to you,” then, not following, but rather standing face to face, he heard, “Go behind me, Satan.” And they indeed dreamed of worldly glory; but he calls them to face the death of martyrdom. For by the name of the cup and of the baptism he understands death. This indeed, as a cup joyfully drunk, brought upon him lifegiving sleep. Therefore, even at the time of the passion, he speaks thus to Peter: “The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?” Baptism also is called the same death, as one that has effected a purging of sins. According to the anagogical sense, however, we should understand by the name of the cup which we are commanded to drink the involuntary dangers that threaten us for the sake of the truth, by which, even while neglecting nature itself and preferring the divine desire, we undergo the trial...
HOMILY XXIV. On the petition of the sons of Zebedee; and that we must not seek for worldly glory.
As soon as the disciples, having taken confidence, make the request by themselves privately. When the Lord, because of their ignorance, had spoken to them with those words: “You do not know what you are asking,” having several times discoursed with the disciples about his future glory, and having added also that some of those standing there would not taste death until they should see his kingdom; and when he had also shown the specimen of his divinity on Mount Tabor, the apostles supposed that a glory to be compared in this life was being announced to them; and that the Lord would indeed reign on the earth, but would at last be oppressed by snares, and be betrayed, and that whatever he had foretold to them would come to pass. Nor, indeed, was the petition proposed about future glory, as some have imagined. What, then, the Savior? He neither promises that he will give it, nor refuses; but having reproved their words about death, he makes them again: “Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” You imagine, he says, that my kingdom consists in those things which are perceived by the senses, and you pant after the glory which is bounded by the time of this life, postulating a most empty pomp and a seat, as if oblivious to that first voice which you heard from the very beginning: “Come after me;” whoever follows me, let him take up his cross, he should not seek a seat of empty glory; you desist from following me together with others, and wish to precede—therefore, “You do not know what you are asking.” Thus also Peter, while he followed the master as his will moved, was a disciple; but when he prevented the Savior, as much as in him lay, from suffering, saying: “Far be it from you, Lord, this shall not be for you,” then surely, when he was not following but was rather standing against his face, he heard: “Go behind me, Satan.” And they indeed dreamed of worldly glory; but he calls these to the death of martyrdom to be encountered. For by the name of the cup and of baptism, he understands death. This indeed, as a cup, joyfully partaken, brought upon him lifegiving sleep. Therefore, even at that very time of the passion, he addressed Peter thus: “The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?” Baptism also is called the same death, as one which has made a purgation of sins. In the anagogical sense, however, by the name of the cup which we are commanded to drink, the involuntary dangers threatening us for the sake of defending the truth are to be understood, through which... A B C D
the nature itself being despised, and postponed to the love of God, we willingly undergo the corporal death that threatens us. By the name of baptism, the voluntary labors undertaken for the sake of virtue may be understood, through which we cleanse the filth of the soul and receive a voluntary death. The disciples, indeed, being dull of mind, thought He was speaking of the sensible cup, and they imagined baptism to be like some customary sprinkling and purification of the Jews, and said: "We can." But let our discourse regarding the historical sense rest here for a while. Now, let it be briefly explained what is signified by these things, and let it be considered in an anagogical sense why the mother of the sons of Zebedee, not Salome, A is said to have made the petition to the Lord. Salome, therefore, is interpreted as "peaceful," James as "supplanter," and John as "grace of God." From the peaceful soul, therefore, contemplation and action are born. The latter supplants the devil who lies in wait for our heel, and the former, as grace, elevates the soul toward the understanding of invisible things. That Salome was a sister of the Lord does not hinder the speculation. For the Savior Himself, in declaring the peacemakers blessed, calls them sons of God: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God." If, therefore, Christ is the Son of God, and the peacemakers are sons of God, the meaning is by no means alien to the whole sequence. But neither is Salome the sister of Christ by nature, nor is the peaceful soul His sister by nature, but by grace. B Such a soul, therefore, beseeches the Lord that its offspring may be deemed worthy of the heavenly seat with Him, for free, and without labor; but He Himself implies the mortification of the earthly affect, and the purification of the soul to be applied through baptism. For what says the Savior? "The cup indeed which I drink, you shall drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you shall be baptized: but to sit at my right hand, and at my left, is not mine to give to you, but to those for whom it is prepared." These words give birth to a double dilemma: first, whether a seat with God is prepared and predestined for anyone; and second, whether the Lord of all is unable to grant this to whom He wills. We say, therefore, that it is not right to understand the session in the future life as being the same as the one which is denoted by the concept D of a chair among us. For our session here C signifies the status of the body, so that the tension of the hook may not weary [the soul] permanently, for...
it supports the weight of the body by itself; but in the light of the future glory, the "chair" signifies a preeminence of honor. Moreover, [the expression] "It is not mine to give" does not indicate powerlessness; for how could the power of God become weak? Rather, it witnesses to the balance of justice, which inclines to neither side. For it is the way of an impartial judge to award prizes to the athletes proportionally, and not to prefer the lesser over the greater out of favor, nor those who have not competed over those who have labored; therefore he says, "It is not mine to give, but to those who have won the contest, the prizes of honor are reserved." He says this, not because any one will sit with God in the future glory; for the evangelical voice clearly showed in the narrative concerning the future judgment B that he will place the sheep on the right hand and the goats on the left. It is manifest that the position of sitting is contrasted [with the others], but, as I said, he hinted through [the term] "chair" at a preeminence of honor. "And when the ten heard it, they began to be angry with James and John." It is not strange that the disciples, being still imperfect, should be wounded by the stings of envy; therefore they are angry against their fellow-students who were seeking to obtain the chief seat above others. And so indeed some of those before us have explained [the text]. To me, however, the disciples' indignation does not seem to be an indication of spite. For they were not consumed with jealousy when they saw them being preferred on other occasions. For when he was about to raise the daughter of Jairus, he left all the others outside, and brought these two disciples with Peter into the house; and when he was transfigured on the mountain, he took the same ones alone; yet the choir of the others did not take offense at these things. And now, too, they did not become angry until they saw the Lord giving them a refusal; so they seem rather to sympathize with the master, and do not appear to be angry because of envy. Nevertheless, the Lord comforts them through his teaching; for calling them to him, he said to them: D "You know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them." It is, he says, a mark of Gentile arrogance to seek temporary honors and to lust after ephemeral glory, if they wish to rule tyrannically and to be exalted above their inferiors. But my disciples should walk the opposite path; and let him who desires the primacy attain it by serving everyone magnanimously, in the way of stewardship.
C For the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Even if you serve one another, he says, you have not yet vied for the prototype. For I have not come only to serve, but I even give my soul as a ransom for the whole world. But how, and to whom, and from whom, and for whom is the Only-begotten given? Adhering to the teachings of the Fathers (55), we shall speak briefly. Since by disobedience man surrendered himself to the enemy, and... D [alt-version omitted]
was reduced to the power of the adverse host, God, being moved to pity for His own image, did not judge it right to take him away from the tyrant by force, lest He appear to be acting by sheer authority and not in accordance with justice; yet it was just that the captive be liberated by some sort of exchange. For this reason, O miraculous event! the Son of God Himself gives Himself as a price of redemption. And since it was impossible to encounter the enemy with the naked Divinity, He is covered with flesh, having become as it were a bait A for the greed of the demon, so that he who had deceived man with the hope of becoming divine might himself be deceived by the hope of humanity. For having seen the Savior performing works beyond nature, since he could not, by attacking Him, master Him through sin, he desired to take Him as a ransom in place of the one held captive. B
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus
(56) This is from the doctrine of St. Thomas, part..., and the common opinion of the theologians, that the incarnation and death of Christ were not simply and absolutely, as we speak in the schools, necessary for the restoration of the fallen human race; for it could have been vindicated to salvation by other means devised by divine wisdom: yet it was necessary if it was to be liberated in a way more convenient; namely, that it might make satisfaction in full and from the rigor of justice, as we say in the same place, to the Divine Majesty offended. This being posited, the incarnation of the Word was simply necessary, since no pure creature, however holy, could make satisfaction to the equality of divine justice: which is shown and received in the schools. Thus did divine wisdom dispense this mystery of incarnation and death, so that man might be saved through mercy, yet so that nothing might be diminished from divine justice. Furthermore, it is also certain that any action and service of Christ offered to the Father, being of infinite value from the hypostatic union, could have been a sufficient price to expiate the sins of the whole human race: but nevertheless, it was so provided by God, to demonstrate His greater charity towards men, and so that the redemption might be copious, that Christ should redeem us by the death of the cross and the shedding of blood. Since, therefore, this doctrine is posited, when Gregory says the Father did not ask, nor had need of the blood of Christ except for the economy or dispensation, and because it was fitting that holiness be brought to man through the assumed humanity, he signifies the very thing which theologians now teach more clearly in the schools, that God did not have need of the blood of Christ, except by the posited decree and dispensation of redeeming men, in a way most convenient of all and from the rigor of justice, and through a copious satisfaction, and for the same reason, when he says He did not ask, he does not exclude the command given to Christ, the subsequent decree and dispensation of God; but only says He did not ask for it simply and as something to be sought for its own sake: for He is not delighted by the shedding of blood, which he had objected in the argument, unless it happens either in testimony of faith or for the satisfaction of vindicative justice, which last explanation of the word, *to have asked*, in which there seems to be a greater difficulty, I still confirm and explain by this argument. In the same way, in this proposition of Gregory, which is joined, "not that He asked and had need," is to be understood, "He did not ask and have need": but concerning the second it is true that He did not have need antecedently to the dispensation and decree: nor can it be understood in any other way: for with the dispensation or disposition of the manner of redeeming the human race posited, He had [need]; therefore, *to have not asked* is also to be understood in the same way; that is, antecedently to the dispensation, and as something to be sought and necessary by itself; by which argument the whole difficulty seems to me sufficiently solved and shown that the Theologian spoke most truly and theologically. A For because it was impossible for the prince of darkness to touch the mere presence of light, unless he perceived in it some part of the flesh; therefore, after he saw the divine flesh and beheld the wonderful things which were worked by it from the Divinity, he hoped that, if he should hold the flesh through death, he would hold all the power which was in it: and for this reason, having snapped at the bait of the flesh, he was pierced by the hook of the Divinity. This is Nyssen: and something similar [is said by] St. Proclus, whose words are here rendered by me from the Greek: "For the Shepherd put on a foreign skin of [a] body, and the wolf, seeing the lamb, circled it, panting; but indeed he sharpened his teeth, but he could not taste the flesh of the immaculate Lamb; for His flesh did not see corruption." Nicetas, however, in his commentary on the oration of Greg. Naz. on Holy Pascha, where he discusses the sense of Gregory concerning the blood of Christ offered for the liberation of the human race, says thus: "For the devil did not receive such a price; far from it. That, indeed, the wicked spirit had hoped for, but for that hope he received the subversion of his whole empire." These things of Nicetas harmonize with those which our author has a little further down in this place: "After he could not possess Him by attacking Him through sin, he desired to take Him as a ransom in place of the one held captive." But it is not to be understood explicitly and significantly that the devil sought Christ as a price for the captives; for he did not know the mystery of the Redemption to be accomplished through the blood of Christ, as theologians and interpreters of the Gospel teach commonly. "For if they had known," says Paul, "the princes of this world would never have crucified the Lord of glory." For I also explained this passage concerning the princes of darkness not without the authorities of some, when I was publicly interpreting the sacred Letters; but [he sought Him] exercised, as the dialecticians speak; for he sought the flesh of Christ, which was the price for the captive; he wished, of necessity, to kill Christ, and to take away a man so holy, working so many miracles; but he was deceived. For he wished to destroy Him by that very means whose death was to be the price for the captives. In the same exact way in which St. Leo speaks concerning the Jews and the devil himself, in the sermon on the Passion: "While their hands lie upon their own wickedness, they serve the Redeemer." Thus, it is not concerning the explicit knowledge of the devil, as Nicetas appears to speak, but concerning his deception that Theophanes is to be interpreted.A wishing to capture him, he desired to take him as a ransom in exchange for the one held captive. He gives himself, therefore, as a ransom for the one who had been led into slavery, in order to liberate through his death and resurrection those imprisoned in the corruption of Hades. But since every ransom is given to the one holding captive, and [the ransom] redeems the one held, the most divine blood of Christ indeed took away the captives, yet the tyrant did not receive it, but rather the Father of him who was sacrificed. And this the theological tongue clearly declares: the Father, it says, receives the great and renowned blood, not having asked nor begged for it, but on account of the economy, and because it was necessary for the human [nature] to be sanctified to God by the human [nature of Christ], so that he himself might deliver us from the tyrant who held us by force. Thus, having ingeniously and at the same time justly overthrown the enemy, he showed us the way to victory over him, in whose footsteps we follow through prayer and fasting, until we strive to overthrow the adversary. And just as he enslaved us through gluttony, making us his servants, so we, through the contrary [virtues], shall obtain a trophy over him. Behold this clay-like body, which encompasses the soul like a mist, [and] which received this heavy thickness from the forbidden food. For before the transgression, it was slender and pure, and airy, and such as was fitting to be joined to the image of God, closely attached and suitable. Therefore, what gluttony made thick, let us make slender through fasting. For now, we remain as if in a prison house. And he becomes an exile from God on account of wickedness, and is clothed in garment of skins, perhaps [meaning] the thicker flesh and the mortal, and the resistant. For even then man had flesh, but not such as he has now, and indeed Gregory the Theologian says this: "And he is clothed in garments of skins, perhaps the thicker flesh, and mortal, and resistant." So that before the transgression, the flesh of Adam was neither so thick, nor by nature mortal. For the Creator fashioned man as another angel on earth, so that, according to the greatest [theologian] in matters of theology, Gregory, the adoration might not be limited only to those above, but that there might also be worshippers below, so that all things might be filled with the glory of God. B C Delighting himself in works, and a wise mystic, Of heavenly and earthly things, a great power, another angel. D
A Since that beloved John was known to the high priest, he entered into the court. Whence he was known, I shall state briefly: this home (54) on Mount Sion was of the size of the possession of Zebedee, and conspicuous for its beauty; for it was built in an elevated place in Jerusalem, and was tempered on all sides, as we have perceived with our own eyes. Zebedee, dividing this house into two parts, granted one part of the residence to the high priest, and reserved the other for himself dwelling. Therefore, there was an upper room, where the Savior lodged with the disciples, and performed most of the mysteries there. The typical Passover, the mystical supper, the washing of the disciples' feet, the B final and theological discourses. In this also, after the resurrection, the disciples were hidden from the Jews. And in it, on the day of Pentecost, they received the grace of the Holy Spirit. And the all-holy Lady surely spent all the time of her life in this house.
Therefore, for this reason John was known to the high priest, and was not at all excluded from the entrance to the court. Peter, however, as a stranger, was kept out from the door, and remained at the porch until he was brought in by John, after the gatekeeper had been persuaded. And indeed, it would have been better if Peter had followed John and adhered to Jesus and observed the course of events; for thus he would have avoided the danger. But because he omitted this, he approached the fire kindled by the ministers, and was alarmed because of the fire of his enemies. C When, therefore, Peter and John signify action and contemplation, the history openly teaches that when one intends to follow practical virtue and desires to contemplate the divine dispensation, one should not cease from holy and pure consideration; and thus, when the mind is occupied by the cold of ignorance, a fire alien to the truth—which the ministers of Satan kindle—they strive to foster it, and, being then easily dragged by the servitude of pleasure, one denies the Lord. For the rational part is warped, and the spirit is dragged into base cowardice, and the heart, having abandoned desire to be with Jesus, chooses this life, and thus the third denial occurs. D Yet, the denial of Peter during that night, that is, before the daylight, was not altogether inexcusable.
A Since there was no Holy Spirit, for "the Spirit was not yet [given], because Jesus was not yet glorified." 17 Perhaps he was also a follower who knew Jesus through faith, and yet he remained in the courtyard of legal shadows, B and lingered among the servants of the one who kills the letter; a servant, I say, dragging himself toward the denial of the truth, until the apostolic word, which announces the day of faith, cries out clearly like a crowing rooster: "The night has passed, but the day has drawn near." 18 And then, having gone out from the shadow of the law, he will weep bitterly, that is, he will melt away the bitterness of legal observances with tears. For Peter did not weep while he remained in the courtyard, C but after he had gone out from the things, and the words, and the places that caused his denial of the Lord. Therefore, having denied once, when Peter heard the rooster crowing—but since he had not yet made the other two denials—he did not refrain, but the rooster crowed again, and thus he understood what had been said by Mark: "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times." 19 But Peter, trembling, did not realize that he had already fallen. But the Lord turning, since he could not reproach him with words, D argues his conscience by a glance of his eyes. And Peter, immediately remembering that he was not to be prone to weeping, but to be a disciple, went out from the courtyard of the men, weeping bitterly, making the bitterness of his denial sweet with tears. These things, then, were done during the night.
* When it was morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus, so that they might hand him over to death; and having bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. A We must not pass over in silence what is indicated by the history, how the disciples were offended in the night, for the Savior says: "You will all be offended in this night." 20 But Peter denies at night, and is forgiven; these others, however, having delivered the Lord when it was morning, have remained inexcusable. Hence we learn that when ignorance is not B a deliberate fault, as that which is committed at night and in darkness, it is easily forgiven; but what is committed at a perfect age, when the Word shines forth, is judged as guilty. The Jews, having delivered the Lord to the Romans, were themselves delivered to the C sieges of the Romans, and they drew upon themselves the curses of the prophets. As you said to the synagogue of Abdias, thus you have done, he says, it shall be to you: and D your retribution shall return upon your own head.
A Man is called a microcosm, B because he contains within himself all the elements of which this entire visible universe is composed, and because he is endowed with an intelligent soul, which we believe was made in the image of God. Since, therefore, the world was produced by the Creator at this time—for it was built in the first month, which is called Nisan by the Hebrews; and a proof of this is that the earth always begins to germinate at this time—and we have already said that man is a microcosm, the sanction of the fast admonishes man to imitate the world: that his body, fashioned from the earth, should germinate the fruits of virtue just as the earth does, and his soul, a partaker of intelligence, should be preoccupied with the understanding of intelligible things without offense. For if he orders his life in this way, man will not be a small world, but a great one in a small compass, as that theologian Gregory says, renewed every year by a change of life for the better. This, then, the continence attached to the vernal season suggests should be understood.
But the number of forty days has been marked by various deeds and riddles of both ancients and moderns. For that flood brought upon the whole earth because of the multitude of sins had a limit of the same number of days, so that we might learn from this to bring about by our natural tears an inundation of our sins, and to achieve salvation through an intelligible ark. For it is understood that the ark, compacted of various planks, represents virtue, which consists of various righteous deeds and is fastened together by the nails of love; through this, by escaping the death of sin, we are saved in the stability and loftiness of freedom from passion, as if upon Mount Ararat. This name denotes a loosening, by which is signified the cessation via virtue of the bites of the passions; for the concupiscence that is inherent in the flesh against the spirit has not been altogether destroyed. For in those who are most powerful in virtue, the bites of concupiscence often arise.
C Salome is interpreted as "peaceful"; it indicates a good soul that has conquered the passions as much as is possible, and dwells in peace. When he says *as much as is possible*, he shows that this is to be perfected by the soul. Regarding the term "freedom from passion" (which we brought forward in note 89 to homily V, from his own oration 38), although interpreted literally it signifies impassibility or listlessness, it is not to be accepted in that rigor [either] in this Father, who uses it in some places of these homilies, nor in St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Climacus, St. Maximus the monk, and the other Greek Fathers. For they are not to be believed to want to induce a hardness or a stupor of the soul that senses no motions or even initial affections, when they speak of the pinnacle of perfection. This is what is accustomed to be called the dogma of the Stoics (accustomed to be called, I say, because they did not truly say it themselves, as I will explain below), who seem to utterly exterminate everything from their wise man. And it was a heresy of Evagrius Ponticus, of those conscious of Christian philosophy, which Theophilus Raynaud of the Society of Jesus reports (vol. II). For these, and others of this sect, seemed to have taken the man out of man, to speak with St. Jerome, and wanted him to exist in the body without a body: for an imperturbable man is either a rock or a god. And as Cicero speaks in *Tusculans* III, this does not happen without a great price of inhumanity in the soul and of stupor in the body. Therefore, the word is not to be taken in this sense.
A toward the saints, an achievement of impassibility (apatheia), which they themselves having advanced, made well-worn for those following. Gen. VI, 7. *Notes of François Scorsi.* C strive to overcome perturbations and live in peace, yet it is not entirely possible that this should come about. Against these [objections], in his sermon on Lazarus, he teaches that Christ, in order to profess Himself to be man, admitted human affections, though they were free from fault. If, therefore, they are not contrary to supreme perfection, and can be devoid of fault, why does he not also say that Christ willed to prescribe for us by His own example, when He wept at Lazarus’ tomb, the mode of mourning and grieving at the funeral of those most dear? In his homily on the Samaritan woman, he teaches that the passions of anger and cupidity can be useful for virtue; and in other places he exhorts that those movements which are discordant with reason should be mortified. From these and other such sayings, which the reader might observe in these homilies, it seems sufficiently established what he means by the name *apatheia*, lest the author appear so often contradictory to himself. The same is to be judged as the sense of the other Fathers when they commend *apatheia*. Saint John Climacus composed the 29th step of the *Ladder of Paradise* "On Impassibility," and in the very title he calls it by a magnificent eulogy: "the terrestrial heaven, and the God-imitating impassibility, and perfection, and the resurrection of the soul before the general resurrection." Would Climacus, therefore, so greatly commend that hardness and stupor of soul and body, which he wishes to be granted by the Holy Spirit as a reward for humility and obedience? But a scholion on Climacus opens the sense: "He calls the highest purification *apatheia*, which is accomplished from obedience and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit." He calls the reward "highest purity," or the purgation of the soul, that is to say, *apatheia*, etc. You see what the scholiast understands under the name of *apatheia* in Climacus. Truly, Gerson takes offense at this step of the *Ladder*, and attacks Climacus among other things, because he admitted impassibility. For he says thus in his *Epistle on the Adornment of Spiritual Nuptials*: "In such [writings] indeed we often find many things false or badly explained, and therefore they provide much material for error to the simple, although in many respects they contain divine and most lofty things. Among such writings are narrated certain stories, or rules, or particular doctrines of some of the old Fathers, which are said to be more admirable than imitable, just as John, who is called Climacus, posits virtues of impassibility, and certain things very austere concerning penance and sins." These things Gerson speaks against Climacus, whose defense I do not wish you to accept from me, but from Matthaeus Raderus, a most erudite writer of our Society, who among other works recently edited Saint John Climacus, interpreted by himself in Greek and simultaneously in Latin, with great benefit to the Christian D republic. He, therefore, in his *Isagoge*, bears such a judgment concerning S. Climacus against Gerson: "Gerson is mistaken first in believing that there are false things found in Climacus; there is nothing false in the whole of Climacus; nothing against the decrees of the Church; nor anything badly explained; but rather badly understood, and subsequently badly interpreted. He does not posit virtues of impassibility; but says that one must strive for *apatheia*, or tranquility of soul, through virtues, which Gerson calls impassibility; for he states that this is the reward of obedience and humility, namely, this tranquility of soul or indolence." Climacus denies that the perfect do not feel natural movements of anger, cupidity, fear, joy, love, hope, and this general class of others, but says that the perfect religious holds all these movements in his own power, so that they do not break forth into act or wicked thought, just as a hunter [controls] his dogs. And this is not against divine dogmas; but it is confirmed by them, when God said to Cain: "Thy appetite shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it." Thus Raderus pleads the cause for Climacus, and indeed excellently. From this you have explained the true and sound sense not only of Climacus, but by the same token of our Theophanes, who agrees with Climacus, both here and often elsewhere in his homilies, and speaks in the same way. The same Raderus also proceeds against Gerson regarding what he had objected concerning penances. But these things are not to our point: therefore I omit them. Nor shall I add anything else that concerns S. Climacus. But truly, the same judgment is to be made regarding S. Maximus, whom our [author] praises and follows in even more places than he does Climacus. That he thought the same thing as is explained in Climacus, when he commends *apatheia*, is an argument to be sought from his other opinions. *Century I on Charity, cap. 39*, he defines what an affection is, *to pathos* in Greek, for I have no Greek exemplar. "Affection is a blameworthy movement of the soul contrary to nature." And cap 36: "*Apatheia*, or lack of affections, is a peaceful state of the soul, according to which the soul is moved with difficulty toward malice." And *Century II, cap. 16*: "Affection is a movement of the soul contrary to nature, whether toward love without reason, or toward hatred without judgment." You see, therefore, which affections and movements of the soul S. Maximus condemns when he opposes *apatheia* to them and praises it: those, namely, which are blameworthy, and contrary to nature, that is, vicious; for every vice is beyond or against nature, as S. Thomas teaches, 1 part, 11th question, and *Century I, Oeconomica*. He explains himself openly in another chapter: "Innate bodily affections, if they are governed by reason, are free from blame; without this, however, they bring shame." He says these, therefore, are to be cast aside, whose movement is ingrained by nature, but whose use, not moderated by reason, is frequently contrary to nature. And finally cap. 66: "Affections are even useful for the studious, when wisely withdrawing them from corporeal things, we convert them to the attainment of heavenly things." This last place of S. Maximus is brought forward by Theophilus Raynaudus of our society, who in volume II, *diss. 3*, from number 19, treats this matter learnedly; see him. From this, indeed, and from other things which I supersede reporting here, so that I may not be long, what S. Maximus means when he names and approves the lack of affections as *apatheia* becomes plain. And certainly, one must explain from these open places—if there are any more obscure [passages] in this Father—when he speaks of affections, that he is always dealing with immoderate and vicious affections, which must be entirely lacked. And since we mentioned the Stoic dogma at the beginning, and promised that it should be explained, surely when they require *apatheia* in the wise man, they demand the same immunity from the agitated movements of the soul that are discordant with reason. For what is, according to the notion of Zeno, the architect of the Stoa, *to pathos*, whose state of emptiness is called *apatheia*? "It is," says Cicero, *Tusc. lib. IV*, "this definition of Zeno, that a perturbation is—what he calls *pathos*—a movement of the soul averse to right reason, and contrary to nature." Therefore, *pathos* will not be called that movement of the soul which happens according to nature. We have in the Latin: "And the ark rested upon the mountains of Armenia"; in the Greek it is *Ararat*, and likewise in the Hebrew, which word all writers accept as Armenia. But the etymon of the Hebrew word is rather derived from *ramah*, which is "to exalt," from the fact that those mountains are very high. But our author here, perhaps on account of a certain similarity of letters, derived it from *arah*, whence comes the noun *oreach*, way, path, and thus he explained it as "well-worn."
HOMILY XXIV
...consecuti; whom they themselves, as if a way, when they had trodden it before, made well-worn for those who follow. But the fast of such a number of days was also performed by Moses on Mount Sinai, when he received the divinely written tablets. These, having been broken on account of the people's transgression, would perhaps never have been inscribed again, had not a fast of the same number of days intervened. What, then, is signified by this symbol? Since we have, as it were, broken the law of the commandments by sinning, we have need of the fast of forty days so that it may be inscribed again upon the tablets of our hearts, in order that the idol of sin may be completely removed from our mind and our thoughts. A Now, that zealot Elias, as we hear, who offered that marvelous and unaccustomed sacrifice, and also offered up the priests who had been affected by disgrace; who reduced the captains of fifty with their entire army to ashes; who by his word alone placed locks upon the clouds of heaven, and afflicted the earth with drought for more than three years; who made the handful of meal of the hostess of Zarephath a bottomless store, and the cruse of oil a perennial fountain; who recalled the dead child to life by a triple inhalation of spirit; who checked the restless flow of the Jordan with his mantle, and crossed over with dry feet; who was taken up into heaven in a chariot of fire, and bestowed a double grace of the Spirit upon Elisha: this man, therefore, who had won such great glory for himself by such great deeds, did not withstand the wrath of a single woman, B but, fearing the threats of Jezebel, went away a fugitive and struck with horror, and he would not have been able to escape the death with which she had threatened him, had he not made use of the forty-day flight. Consider now again, where the understanding of these things looks and where it leads you. Jezebel is interpreted as "the violence of mourning," and it signifies sin, which causes violent mourning for those who sin; this [sin], threatening our soul... [regarding] the passions C the well-known dogma of freedom from passion (apatheia)... D
A to give over to death, it is fitting to flee, following the example of the zealot, and through the hardship of forty days, to remain far from its snares. Our Master, too, honored this time; having fasted for so many days, He vanquished the tempter, and by conquering this [tempter] through the most general of the passions, He showed us the method and manner of fighting the battle against him. Forty days are appointed, denoting the perfection of the body—for since it has its composition from four elements, when multiplied by the perfect number, it becomes perfect, spiritually flourishing in the appropriate powers. And the eight days added to the forty are a symbol of the age to come, which is the eighth, and stands firm, and is eternal. For we must move from this weekly movement of time to that eighth and future state.
And if there are thirty-six days, in which we have received the instruction to keep a strict fast together with abstinence, even this is not foreign to the fitting contemplation. For not only is the tithing of the whole year shown from these, but it also reveals a certain mystical theorem. For since the things that reconcile man to God are the same—namely, the right opinion regarding the Divine and the observance of the commandments—this number contains the mystagogy of both: the firm and unchangeable nature of the faith in the holy Trinity, and the cycle of virtues of which we become fulfillers during the time of the fast. For they say that this number is both a circle, and a triangle, and a square; and it is indicated by the triangle, the difference of the persons of the unitary essence; and by the square, the right and firm faith towards it. For the shape of the square is unchangeable, B because of its dimensions.
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus
C ...observed the number six, homily 1, note [this refers to] the longer mystical consideration of Philo the Hebrew, book *On the Creation of the World*; Macrobius, book 6, *In Somnium Scipionis*; and Petrus Bongus, on the number 7. D ...according to the custom of the Greeks, from which the understanding of this book is to be sought, where he says that the fast is observed for thirty-six days, we discussed in homily XV, note 50. ...which agrees with this Theophanes. But if the saying of both Gregory and Theophanes is brought to calculation, thirty-six days will be found to be the tenth part of three hundred and sixty days; yet five days of the year still remain; but because these do not form a perfect and round number, but an abrupt and truncated one, account is usually not taken of them by the sacred orators. ...[T]he arithmetical ratios or mathematical figures of the number thirty-six were posited by our author in this homily, which he had likewise posited, but does not explain. He also said that the number six, in the homily *On Judgment*, has three dimensions and is composed of triangles, nor did he explain it; for he considered it sufficient to take up those theses from the writers on those subjects to construct pious meanings. But what we promised in that first homily and the eighteenth, that we would explain them so that nothing remains involved and concealed in this author, we now fulfill; and we also, who have scarcely sipped of mathematics, frankly confess that we borrow these from the storehouse of mathematicians, not as if we were drawing them from our own cellar. Therefore, to begin with the six, as from the base of the number thirty-six, it is said by Theophanes to contain the triple dimension from which every body is perfectly constituted. Which is the same as if you said the number is solid. For those are called solid which have this triple quantity or magnitude. Furthermore, the number six is demonstrated to be solid, because the three numbers 1, 2, 3, multiplying one another, produce the number six; for always from the multiplication of one of the stated [numbers] into another, and into the third, the number six will be produced, and therefore it must be considered solid according to definition 17 of the Elements of Euclid. It is also the first of the solids, because it is composed of triangles. That number is called a triangular number which, by the aggregation of its roots starting from unity...
is constituted according to the increment of the unit, and acquires the shape of a triangle. A And the circle of the virtues displays—as I have shown in the singular nature of the persons—the difference in the persons; but the tetragon, established correctly regarding this very mystery, rests upon the line of its sides.
[Francisci Scorsi Notes]
From book 1 of Arithmetic by D. Francesco Maurolico of Messina: The roots of numbers are those which increase from unity and successively grow according to the increment of the unit, as is shown first in the number three, whose apex is unity and whose base is two, which this same figure places before one's eyes. Furthermore, since the number six is made up of threes, it clearly appears that it is also made up of two triangles, since two triangles contain the three numbers 1, 2, and 3, of which the first multiplied by the second, and the product into the third, generates the number six. Whence it is also the first among the solids B to be composed in this way.
Six multiplied by six will yield the number thirty-six, from which this quadrangular figure arises. And so much for the number six. Now, that the thirty-sixth number is also a triangle is evident; for if the number is increased successively from unity to the eighth, which is the base, a triangle of thirty-six units will be formed, as you see in this diagram. The same number will likewise be a tetragon according to definition 18, book VII of Euclid, from which a tetragon is that which is constituted by two equal numbers. But indeed, in demonstrating and describing these two diagrams, there was not much difficulty; C but to create a circle from the thirty-sixth number, that was a Herculean labor. For you will not easily find among the distinguished and leading teachers of the disciplines of mathematics and arithmetic a mention of this matter, let alone an explanation; nay, even Peter Bungus himself, who among the moderns wrote most copiously and lucently about the mysteries of numbers, has not a word in this figure regarding the number thirty-six. In the number five, he does indeed touch upon the reason for the circular—or spherical—number; this happens when a number, by its own multiplication, always returns into itself. This occurs in the case of five, which, propagated into itself, produces twenty-five; and likewise in the case of six, which, by its same propagation, produces thirty-six. By D this reasoning, I could have deduced that the number thirty-six is circular, because if it is multiplied by itself, it produces 1,296. But this reasoning did not seem to demonstrate the matter clearly, for it did not appear from it how the thirty-six, once disposed, would form a circle. But indeed, labor—or rather, relentless love—conquers all. And for this Herculean knot to be untied, we have indeed opened a way and brought forward light sought from Peter Bungus himself, who shows that the number six is a circular figure, as can be seen in his own work, which, like some choice gem that I first discovered from the hidden depths of the earth, I showed to the professor of mathematics at this college in Palermo, Fr. Girolamo La Chiana, who, as a skilled goldsmith, accepted and polished it and completed this demonstration regarding both the number six and the number thirty-six. Thus, among the arithmeticians, unity is a circle, because, multiplied by itself, it terminates in itself: for unity multiplied by unity produces unity. Therefore, seven equal circles, representing seven units, can be disposed among themselves in such a way that they take the figure of a circle. In which six units are the periphery, but the seventh, around which the other six are circumscribed, is the center of the periphery, just as the same triangular number six...
[LATIN COLUMN]
511 THEOPHILUS KERAMEUS 512
stabilem. For the square figure is stable, A which is supported by equal angles and a straightness of the sides. A circle, however, shows the connection of the virtues, the cycle of which we ought to complete by performing their duties. When this is finished, may we be made partakers of that mystical supper and spectators of the clear resurrection of the great God and our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit is glory now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XXV.
On the resurrection of the just Lazarus.
The disciple whom Jesus loved, the evangelist, sets before us today as a most sumptuous banquet the resuscitation of the just Lazarus; B he offers the history as if it were bread, and seasons the table for us with theological thoughts instead of spices.
Francisci Scorsi notes
(74) Justi Lazari a mortuis excitati historiam... The Greeks celebrate this on the Saturday preceding Palm Sunday, and they have this day dedicated and festive to the memory of this miracle. Jacob Gretser, in his commentary on Codinus, among the "Despotic feasts," writes that these days—not only the Lord’s days themselves, but all days properly dedicated to Christ the Lord—are reckoned, such as the Transfiguration, the resuscitation of Lazarus, the feast of Palms, the Holy Cross, etc. Theophylact of Bulgaria, archbishop, in his oration on the adoration of the venerable cross, edited by the same Jacob Gretser, vol. II on the cross: "But what Friday do I mean? That one surely after which is that famous raising of Lazarus, after which he who dissolves and receives truly perfect praise from the mouth of infants and sucklings concerning our avenging death."
[The remainder of the page is technical notes by Francisci Scorsi regarding the circular geometry discussed in the previous homily, discussing inscribed hexagons and circle radii.]
HOMILY XXV
Therefore, with a sober mind and hearing, let us, like good guests, greedily feast upon the intelligible dishes. The more accurate account of the miracle requires time and a lengthy discourse. But leaving aside many things, and all that those before us have explained, let us touch upon the more timely points. « At that time, there was a certain man sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and Martha. »
The evangelist used a more precise sequence here, having recounted both the name of the village, and of the sick man, and of his kin—a thing he has not done in another miracle. And it seems to me that he makes a distinction from these of the Lazarus who was a beggar, concerning whom the most divine Luke wrote in the parables; or rather, because it is the custom of the present evangelist to begin from sensible things, and to move the discourse gently toward higher things—as he suggests in the narrative of the Samaritan woman and that of the blind man—he suggests here too that we interpret the historically occurred events intellectually. It will therefore be declared more clearly what we ought to understand through Lazarus, and the village, and the things that follow. This will be clear if we explain the meaning of the names in the Greek dialect.
Therefore, Lazarus is interpreted as "helped"; and Bethany, "house of glory and obedience." Bethany is thus an image of this earthly lot; for in it Jesus, the Son of God, made known his own glory to men. But Lazarus adumbrates our nature, which became in need of the help of God. Having fallen into the disease of disobedience, it became bedridden by the increment of sin, surrendered to the death of sin. And the fact that Lazarus was a friend of the Lord sounds in harmony with this speculation; for He himself said to his holy disciples: « You are my friends. » And the scriptural enigma which says: « The wounds of a friend are more desirable than the kisses of an enemy »; this also gives [us] to understand, by the flesh that is brought in...
for the chastisement of the body, that God is our friend and that these wounds are the disciplines imposed for our salvation. A « Now Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. » What was signified by the ointment, and its offering, and the wiping of the feet with her hair, will be told in what follows; for now, let us begin the history. Since he was about to make mention of the anointing with ointment a little later, he preemptively indicates here what was to come. « Therefore his sisters sent to him, saying: “Lord, behold, he whom you love is ill.” » Why did they not come themselves, becoming the messengers of their own request? They were very confident, having great intimacy with Christ. This they showed even through that passionate utterance: « Lord, behold, he whom you love is ill. » For they are, as it were, in distress and astonishment that a sickness should have seized the friend of the Master. B And they saw their brother gradually approaching death. Therefore, they feared lest they be deprived of his final words and gaze. Perhaps also the Savior’s stay in the desert caused them to hesitate; for he was not in the city at that time, but dwelling beyond the Jordan. Yet they are shown to have fallen far short of what was perfect and appropriate. For they ought to have emulated the Shunammite, who, even when her child was already dead, did not lose hope nor hesitate to run to Carmel. « But Jesus hearing, said: “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” » And yet it ended in death; how then did he say: « It is not unto death »? But it was not consistent to call death that which was to last only for a short time. Did Lazarus die, then, so that God might be glorified? By no means. But while he departed under the necessity of nature, since death is conjoined to nature, the death became an occasion for divine glory; for the « that » (ἵνα) here is not causal, but indicates the outcome. C In many places, the Scripture uses this figure of speech. For the prophet says: « He has blinded their minds, that seeing they might not see, » and the Apostle: « The law entered in, that the transgression might abound. » And one may find this everywhere derived from the event. D
A ...uttered. He speaks of it as “glory,” because he was about to raise the dead man. For it was not a miracle of such magnitude to heal him while sick, as it was to restore to life one who had died. Now, infirmity is taken in three ways: for anyone who is unstable toward faith, as it were wavering, is called “infirm,” of whom the Apostle says: « Him that is weak in the faith, receive. » Infirmity also signifies bodily disease, as in this place: « Behold, he whom thou lovest is sick; » and plots and persecutions stirred up by enemies against the saints are called infirmities, by which reason the Lord says to Paul: « For my power is made perfect in infirmity. » Observe, therefore, how he has clearly set forth everything in this place: the instability of the disciples and the women regarding faith in him, the disease of Lazarus, and the plot of the Jews; which indeed all came to pass for his glory. For both the disciples and the sisters of Lazarus were confirmed in faith, and the dead man returned to life, and the mystery through the cross was ratified. For he demonstrated the glory of the Son of man from the raising of the dead man; for it was not a glory of such magnitude to heal him while sick, as it was to resurrect one who was four days dead. Yet he mystically signified the mystery of the cross, concerning which he said: « Now is the Son of man glorified. » For the miracle regarding B Lazarus became an occasion for the Jews for greater madness and plotting against the Savior. But as I suppose, he is speaking these things concerning human nature. For the infirmity which befell the whole race through disobedience prompted the glory of the incarnation of God; for such great condescension was truly a glory to him.
« Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. » The Evangelist, knowing the difference between “love” (agape) and “friendship” (philia), and that in God, as he is perfect—or rather, supraperfect—entire perfection consists in love (in fact, he himself is love, as he clearly stated in his catholic epistle), whereas for us it might barely be possible to attain even to his friendship; knowing this, he says accurately: « Jesus loved Lazarus and his sisters. » Martha and Mary, however, as they were still imperfect, said: « Behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. » For they did not understand the difference between love and friendship. Thus also the Jews, when they saw the Lord weeping, said: « Behold how he loved him. »
C ...in the things created, [insofar] as they can be imagined and understood; the familiar manner of speech among the Greek Fathers by which they call God... See what we noted in the notes to the same homily. John Cyparissiotus [called] the Holy Trinity not only [God] but also [super-God], namely, above all divinity participated in by men, as in Exodus: "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh," and "I said, Ye are gods." This is also noted by Francis Turrianus in his commentaries on the same Cyparissiotus, book 1.
Homily XXVII
When, therefore, He heard that he was sick, He remained for two days in the place where He was; then, after this, He says to His disciples: "Let us go into Judea again." The disciples say to Him: "Rabbi, just now the Jews were seeking to stone You, and are You going there again?" He waits for two days, giving opportunity to nature to exert its own power, so that, after death had boldly held sway, the miracle might be shown to be more paradoxical. For if He had set out straightway for Bethany, it was not likely that Lazarus would have died; for it is impossible for death to be seen in action while Life is present. The disciples, therefore, having heard "Let us go into Judea," and fearing that their Teacher might become an object of the Jews' madness, did not have the boldness to contradict Him, but, under the guise of offering a reminder, they tried to restrain Him from His purpose, attempting to persuade Him with an ostensibly plausible argument: "Rabbi, just now the Jews were seeking to stone You, and are You going there again?" What, then, does the Savior do? Through sensible things He again lifts their mind to higher things, saying to them: "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world; but if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him."
What He is saying is this: "You are terrified, thinking that I am to be stoned by the Jews, but you have fallen very far short of a likely conjecture. For if he who walks in the day, which is divided into twelve hours, goes along with a steady gait, making his journey without stumbling and in safety, how are you fearful concerning Me, who am the light of the world?" For if the perceptible light keeps those who see it free from stumbling, how much more will the true and divine light be superior to the casting of stones! This is indeed the outward meaning of the passage; but we must also look into its recondite, inner meaning. For that the discourse hints at something deeper is shown by the irrationality of the facts; for neither does one walking in the night necessarily stumble, nor does everyone who walks in the day remain free from stumbling. Since, then, He assigned hours to the day, but having made mention of the night, He mentioned no hours at all, He outlined the future in His discourse, calling Himself day and light, according to which sense believers are called children of light and of the day. And perhaps it was of this day that David spoke: "I shall not fear by day," and of this light the same evangelist said: "The light shines in the darkness." The twelve hours signify the disciples, to whom He entrusted the preaching. Whoever, therefore, completes the path of life in the light of the Savior and through the preaching of the disciples will not go astray. He called the faith in Him the light of this world, because faith is effective in this world. And "night," which has no hours, would be the darkness of unbelief, in which, if anyone walks, he stumbles and bruises the soles of his soul against the antitype of the corner stone, Christ, who is called a stone of stumbling.
A And saying these things, the Lord indirectly rebukes Judas, who had foolishly deserted his post and withdrawn himself from the hours of the intelligible day, in which he had been numbered, and walked in the darkness of avarice, and for this reason miserably stumbled. And after this he said, "Lazarus our friend sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep." He declares his necessary arrival to the Jews, as to what the sleep of Lazarus might be. Showing also the ease of the resurrection, and that death had occurred to him like a sleep, only a little longer than the usual one, "Lazarus," he said, "sleepeth." For it is not so easy for anyone to wake one sleeping, as it is easy for him to raise the dead; but it is customary to call one who is about to be brought back to life "sleeping." For so he also spoke concerning the daughter of Jairus, "She is not dead, but sleepeth." But the disciples, being ignorant that death is termed sleep, said, "If he sleepeth, he shall do well," perhaps even prophesying—for death became for him a preamble to salvation. Then, therefore, he says to them plainly, B "Lazarus is dead." Behold how, through all the words of the history, the elements of theory are drawn forth. For when he said that Lazarus slept, he named him friend: "Lazarus our friend sleepeth." But when he said, "He is dead," he simply called him Lazarus. For to those who are friends of Christ, death becomes sleep and rest. But for those to whom death is the departure from the body due to the baseness of their life, these are unworthy to be called friends of God. "And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there." I rejoice, he says, for your sake; for my not being in Bethany will be an occasion for greater faith for you. And reasonably so; for had he been present, he would have healed the sick man, and this great miracle would have been prevented. Behold then how, through the word, he shows the duality of the natures in him. For to foretell that "Lazarus is dead" was of his divinity, but that "I was not there" was of his flesh. C "Thomas, therefore, who is called Didymus, said unto his fellow-disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him." The most wise and great Chrysostom says that Thomas said these things fearing, and as if vexed. And since, he says, this man desires death, and rushes into danger as a volunteer, let us fulfill his will and die with him. Thus indeed he of the golden tongue; but the sweet writer Metaphrastes says the word was spoken with boldness D and courage. For when the others were afraid, and especially Thomas, he said, "Let us go, that we may die with him"; some, however, say that he also desired to die. But surely that word argues fear and weakness, whence the age of Metaphrastes himself is necessarily deduced.
A of indicative things—for while the other disciples were terrified, Thomas infuses courage into them. To me, however, it seems that he is speaking more weakly than is fitting for faith, though he is surely showing great goodwill toward the Teacher. For it was a mark of unbelief to think that they would suffer any evil while being with Him, but it was a mark of a noble spirit to be eager to die along with the Guide. He makes the fellow-students bold, choosing even death itself over being parted from the Teacher. "Jesus therefore came and found him having already been four days in the tomb." Having waited two days, and thus having announced the death of Lazarus to the disciples, in two other days He reached Bethany; He saw him lying three days in the tomb, the event demonstrating God’s visitation to mankind. For as if having allowed our nature to lie for four days in the insensibility of wickedness, He visited it again. Four days might be understood: one, the time from Adam B until the deluge of the earth through water, after which the law given to Noah produced a second one until Abraham. Then the commandment of circumcision shone forth as a third day. This, the Mosaic law succeeded until Christ. In these four days, therefore, our nature was held in the tomb of unbelief. "And Bethany was near Jerusalem, about fifteen stadia away." It excellently clarifies the distance from Jerusalem to Bethany, as it was fifteen stadia away; showing that since the village was nearby, many of the Jews had come for the consolation of the women. For they were of noble and famous stock, born of Simon the Pharisee, and kept the life governed by the law with precision. And it was necessary for this to happen, so that the miracle might have many witnesses. But perhaps also, since Bethany is understood by us as this world, according to the anagogical sense, and Jerusalem as the upper C metropolis, about which glorious things were spoken, from which the nature of men, having fallen through sin, had died, to which the Lord came after the understood four days, as has been made clear; He shows mystically also the interval between the intelligible and the sensible things in which we have come to be, or rather, the causes that separated us from God. For the faculties of the soul, having bowed down entirely toward the senses, have distanced us from the intelligible Jerusalem. There are, indeed, three faculties of the soul; D and sense is fivefold, of which the fifteen stadia, being measured into three groups of five, are an evident symbol. And those same stadia become two miles, which the material duality of [alt-version omitted]
which the sensible is distinguished from the intelligible, signifies. It is also, I think, an elegant thought to consider that, since fifteen days elapsed between the raising of Lazarus and the resurrection of Christ—one of which events occurred in Bethany, the other of the Savior in Jerusalem—these he wished to obscurely signify through the stadia.
• “Martha therefore, as she heard that Jesus was coming, met him; but Mary sat in the house.” Why does Martha not also take her sister with her B to meet the Lord? She wished to encounter him privately, so that if Mary also came, the Jews who had assembled, who were evilly disposed toward the Savior, might not follow. She stole away quietly, therefore, and met the Lord alone; nevertheless, this is not without room for mystical consideration. For since Mary is understood as contemplation, and Martha as action (for so it has been understood by the teachers who preceded us), he shows that action approaches God through works first, even if contemplation, being sharp-sighted, C often proceeds ahead.
But what did Martha say to the Lord upon meeting him? “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” Do you see how she wavers, having an unsteady faith? For she believes that if he had been present, her brother would not have died; but she does not believe that he, being God, was present everywhere. And while she professes that he receives from God whatever he asks, thinking D humbly of him—that the place of the struggle is a stadium and a part of the so-called mile (for seven and a half stadia make a mile)—by the calling of action, contemplation is sharply awakened, finding the Lord outside the village. But to those who have their desire moving only around material composition, and who possess the faculties of the soul disconnected from one another, he appears not as he is, but as they are, showing that they have grasped with both hands that material duality through which the corporeal world, as if of matter and form, consists.
A She feels doubt, however, that her brother will rise again. For when the Lord said, "Your brother shall rise again," she replied that he would rise in the last day. Yet she will be confirmed a little later and confess Him as God. Unless perhaps she speaks here of the resurrection of our common nature, which we said was figured by Lazarus. For this will certainly rise in the last day, having cast off corruption; for this reason the Lord made His pronouncement common to both: "I am the Resurrection and the Life; he who believes in Me, though he may die, shall live." For He has truly become the Resurrection and Life of our fallen nature, having delivered it from the death that sin had introduced. He who believes in Him, although he may necessarily undergo this bodily death, shall yet live that blessed life, and shall not die the death of the soul. By these words He also refutes what Martha had said less considerately: "I know that whatever You ask of God, He will give You." For if He Himself is the Resurrection and the Life, He is in no way in need of asking. Be amazed, therefore, at the ineffable power of the Savior, how in the midst of speaking He instilled such knowledge into Martha's soul, that she was raised from low-creeping thoughts and uttered that theological voice: "Yes, Lord, I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world," B altogether in agreement with the foremost of the disciples; for thus Peter also spoke divinely of Him. The phrase "who is coming into the world" contains a prophetic prediction, for He came not only for Israel, but into the whole world. Or perhaps He calls the world the sphere of virtues, into which Christ arrives. Most clearly, then, He showed here also how action according to virtue is raised by gradual ascents to contemplation.
"And when she had said this, she went away and called Mary secretly, saying: The Master is present, and calls for you." It seems she called her sister by the command of the Lord; for she would not have told a lie by saying, "The Master calls you," but the evangelist, C hastening to reach matters of greater urgency, omitted this. She calls her secretly, avoiding the malice of the Jews sitting with her. She, as soon as she heard the word, arose and so hastened her journey that she reached the Lord at that same place where He had previously conversed with Martha.
D
Notes by Franciscus Scorus
I have interpreted [the phrase] paraphrastically, and [I have shown that] what the author said in two words is taken by the same interpreter and by the author Theophanes himself, who in Homily 56, which is about Saint Procopius, explains himself; where, among other meanings he runs through there, he adopts this last one, etc.: "World is also sometimes said, by a contrary reasoning, to be the laborious exercise of virtues, which Christ showed more perfectly through Himself," etc. See that homily; and our observation on that place, where we compare a similar statement by Saint Maximus. [It is] narrated (this is what this figure of the poets is called), so that from those things which are said afterward, certain things which were not said are understood, as Cornelius a Lapide rightly notes in his explanation of the Gospels, and brings forward this example: thus, in chapter 11, it is said that Magdalene told Martha: "The Master is present, and calls for you."A For she says that as soon as she heard it, she arose quickly and came to Him; for Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was in the place where Martha had met Him. For by the invitation of action, contemplation is sharply awakened and stirred up, finding the Lord outside the village—that is, grasping that the divine is outside this sensible world, and above all sense and thought. ‹ The Jews, therefore, when they had seen Mary, that she had risen quickly and gone out, followed her. › By the Jews in this passage one might understand those who console Martha and Mary—faith, hope, and charity, which are sent down into the soul as if from Jerusalem, the city of peace from above. These also travel with her as she hastens to attain the true life. ‹ Seeing Him, she fell at His feet saying: Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died. › She speaks consistently with Martha. The words are sisterly, the voices of the same kin; except that Martha is not said to have fallen at the feet of Jesus, nor to have spoken with tears. But this woman does both. For she longed to touch those feet at which, having reclined before, she had tasted the nectar of His teaching. She longed for these B beautiful feet with exceeding desire; previously she had sat beside them, but now she has cast herself down and washed them with her tears, and later anointed them with ointment and wiped them with her own hair. For the soul given to contemplation, disposing for itself those noble ascents, first sits at the mystical feet and seeks the truth; then, being instructed in divine matters, approaches and touches them spiritually; lastly, it imbues them with the ointment of unerring knowledge, and wipes them away with an insensibility to passions. For the hair signifies this as an enigma, as being devoid of sense. Furthermore, by the feet of Christ one might understand those things about Him that can be known by one who has purged himself of the thickness of earthy affection. But Mary’s weeping indicates what is accustomed to happen in the soul when it collects itself and looks inward; and, being called away from sensible things, is raised to contemplation; for then, fermenting with divine love, it casts off as tears the superfluous and irrelevant thoughts. For a tear is a moisture born of the passion of sadness; as such, the muscles are so constricted by grief that they send the pressed-out humor to the veins of the brain, and from there to the furrows of the eyes, nature thereby rejecting what is superfluous. ‹ Jesus, therefore, when He saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping, groaned in the spirit, and troubled Himself. › C Since, as God, He was utterly impassible, this indicates the removal of all confused agitation of the soul. For the feet of Christ—as far as it is possible to understand them—signify those things about Him that can be understood by one who has purged himself of the thickness of the material.
A Just as He was truly God, so was He also truly man; and He accepted all those affections within us that are unblamable by way of condescension, yet He was never overpowered by them, but rather only when, where, and in so far as He willed. For when His holy flesh was stirred and inclined toward sadness, He did not allow it to become overwhelmed by the passion of sadness, but by the power of the Holy Spirit He reproved it and, in a manner of speaking, chided it—for this is what it means that He "groaned"—and He brought it back to a moderate level, which was to weep quietly and only enough to demonstrate human nature. He did not wail, but He wept, for with wailing a certain outcry is joined. He wept, therefore, because He does not deny the likeness He has with man, but mixes human things with divine. And as a man, indeed, He weeps, providing us with a model and setting the measure of how much one ought to be moved to pity and to let fall a tear for the dead. For He does not weep for the death of Lazarus—how could He, knowing that he would be resurrected in a moment?—but rather He shows the consubstantiality of our nature and, as I said, provides us with a model. He also weeps for the fall caused by sin, which miserably befell the nature of men, such that there was a need for death to wash away the irrationality that had been contracted. He weeps, too, foreseeing the blindness of the Jews, in that not only will they not be improved by seeing this B paradoxical miracle, but they will actually be hardened, having fanned the flames of their envy all the more. He also weeps for Lazarus, not because he passed away, but because he will live again. For since he was righteous, God-fearing, and a friend to Christ, having laudably C passed through the stadium of life, he was destined to be in rest and honor; but the Lord... D [alt-version omitted]
Just man, says Solomon, if he be cut off by death, will be in rest. Since, therefore, it was necessary to raise him up for the sake of His own glory, He wept, as if saying: "Shall I call back to the surge of this life him who has already reached the harbor? shall I urge him who has already struggled and been crowned to return to the contests?" B Yet He asks: "Where have you laid him?" not as if He were ignorant, but, as I said, blending things human with things divine, so that by the opportunity of showing the place many might follow, and might bear witness to the miracle. And obliquely, indeed, He also reproves Mary and Martha through this interrogation, just as it has been already discussed by us, because they did not possess an equal faith to that of the Shunammite: for she did not bury her dead child, but covering him with the bedclothes, she ran with fervent faith to the prophet; but these women hid their dead brother in the tomb, and yet she went to Elisha, who was a man, while they went to God. Jesus again, groaning in Himself, comes to the tomb; and it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. C Groaning again with sorrow, He rebukes it, and also the death that dared to assault the Lord’s friend. And that dark and subterranean cave indeed signifies the life of men, into which, after the fall, we were miserably settled as into a dwelling, or it signifies the shadowy letter of the Law. And the stone lying upon it signifies the veil of the obscurity of the Law. But why does He not remove the stone Himself by a word, or even raise the dead man while it lies there? Since it is not necessary to work miracles in matters that are not necessary. For this would be a matter of superfluous boasting. Otherwise, it was also highly advantageous that the stone should be removed by them, so that they might perceive the stench of him who was rotting, and that the event might not appear to be a phantom, or that one man might seem to rise in place of another. For this reason He says: "Remove the stone yourselves," and behold the dead man lying there, and springing up at the voice as if from sleep. D The speech also carries with it a certain reproach of their unbelief. For He commands them to remove the stone of obstinacy from themselves, which weighed upon their souls like lead, so that they did not recognize Him who had arrived for the salvation of the world. He also urges them to remove the covering of the Law, so that they might circumspectly contemplate the things in it which were foretold by the Spirit. And in a more mystical sense, He prefigured that which was to happen in the preordained manner. For just as He once cried out to them: "Destroy this temple," so also now: "Remove this stone," speaking this concerning Himself. For He knew, He knew, that to the ruler He asks where Lazarus is laid, for He was a man. But He raises Lazarus, for He was God.
they shall shout: "Away, away, crucify him." He therefore foretells to them what is to happen. A Lift up the cornerstone, me, whom you indeed rejected, but who has become the head of the corner, joining two peoples into one wall. Lift him up, and crucify him; for death shall not have dominion over him. And perhaps the same evangelist speaks of this stone, Christ, when Mary came to the tomb and sees the stone lifted away; and the Magdalene, explaining this, says to the disciples: "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb." B "Martha, the sister of him who had died, says to him: Lord, by this time he smells; for he has been dead four days." Martha seems not to believe in the miracle. For great things and those beyond nature are not accustomed to be believed easily. Yet, out of the greatest reverence and honor, she did not consider it tolerable for the Lord to approach the tomb because of the offensiveness emanating from the body that had melted into corruption. For it is burdensome and unendurable to approach a body that is already rotting; for you could find nothing worse than such a terrible stench. The word C may be adapted also to our common nature, which, as if having passed the four days from Adam until Christ according to the purpose rendered above, had been cast into the tomb of ignorance, exhaling the odious stench of impiety. This, too, David lamented, saying: "My wounds have festered and rotted because of my foolishness." Jesus says to her: "Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?" He rebukes her as one who forgot that He had already said to her: "Your brother will rise again." Showing forth the Father as consubstantial D and of equal honor, having first, when He heard that Lazarus was sick, said, "This sickness is for the glory of the Son of God," now He says, "If you believe, you will see the glory of God," because there is one glory of the Father and the Son. Jesus lifted his eyes upwards and said: "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but for the sake of the crowd standing around I said it, so that they may believe that you sent me." By lifting His eyes upwards and thanking the Father, He shows that He is not an opponent of God; but through the words of the prayer He demonstrates the equality...
[of the Father and the Son]. For He does not entreat so that He may be heard, as Martha supposed, but says, "I know that You always hear me," A as the Son who is consubstantial; and I have no need of prayer, but I speak these things for the sake of the people standing by, that they may know the equality of the Father and of the Son. By these things, He also urges us to render the Divinity propitious to us always through prayers, and to lift the eye of the soul from base thoughts to the height of contemplation. And having said these things, He cried out with a loud voice: "Lazarus, come forth." And having raised the daughter of Jairus, and having restored life to the son of the widow, He does not appear crying out with a loud voice, but holding them by the hand and speaking quietly—to the one: B "Girl, arise," and to the other: "I say to thee, arise." But here He cries out clearly. Why? Because while those were recently dead, the soul was near the body somewhere (for the parental tradition terrifies us, how the soul visits its own body until the third day), but here, calling back the soul of Lazarus from far away, He cries out with a loud voice. And since He had previously said to the Jews, "That the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live," He fulfills the promise; and through that loud voice, He grants life to the one lying there, C so that they might know that, just as the Father, so also the Son vivifies whom He wills. This voice will sound on the last day, and the dead will rise. Perhaps, also wishing to signify the efficacy, and greatness, and power of the Word, he says that He "cried out with a loud voice"; for such was the strength in the voice that the power of Hades was broken, and the soul leaped forth faster from the dead, and the body, already dissolved, was strongly knit together and confirmed. D
A This great miracle, which was beyond nature and beyond hope, was performed in every respect. For it was not that someone rose from a sickness while at his very last breath, as the centurion’s boy did, nor that a child recently dead was restored to life, as the archisynagogue’s daughter, nor that a young man just about to be carried to the tomb was loosed from the bier, as in the city of Nain; but a man already of great age, and long dead, with his B flesh rotting in the moisture of the earth and his body necessarily falling apart, returned to life at a single call, and he who had been bound in wrappings leaped forth. For that he, with his hands and feet bound and his face covered with a napkin, should walk so nimbly was a miracle no less than the resurrection. Another thing even more marvelous is added to the fact. Since it was the custom among the Jews to embalm the bodies of the dead with myrrh and aloes to preserve them—and these are sticky and difficult to detach—one must conjecture how great the power of the word was that easily separated these things from the body. It was for this reason that He commanded those very people to loose him who had C come back to life, saying, "Loose him, and let him go," so that they might have no excuse for unbelief, being confirmed through all their senses: through their own voice, when they pointed out the sepulcher saying, "Come and see"; through their sight, when they recognized the dead man and beheld the resurrection; through their hearing, when they listened to that great and resounding voice, "Lazarus, come forth"; through their sense of smell, when they perceived the stench upon the removal of the stone; and through their touch, when they loosened him who had his hands and feet bound and his face covered with a D napkin. That great voice therefore signified the evangelical preaching, through which human nature, having its hands and feet bound by the chains of sins and lying in the sepulcher of unbelief, passed over to the true life, with the napkin removed from its eyes—that is, the cloud that stood before them and darkened the light of the soul; having been loosed from these by the apostles and teachers, it was permitted to walk toward the blessed life.
It would be good also to transfer the history to a more moral understanding, even if the discourse extends to a greater length. Lazarus, then, is our own mind, being a friend to Christ, inasmuch as he was created in His image. Martha, being interpreted as "laborious," denotes the flesh. Mary, as meaning "mistress," is a symbol of the soul; for she is indeed the mistress of the body. Whom it is fitting to lament, whenever the mind slips into the death of sin.
and to bring in, as it were, lamenting Jews for the confession of transgressions; for this is what is signified by the name "Jew." For the Lord will surely be present to those who weep, and He will call out through the Gospel, and He will remove the hardness of the heart, and He will call the dead man out of the fall—he who remained inactive in the four enlightening virtues—so that, having shaken off the accumulated sin and having been loosed by angels and priests, he may become a guest at the Savior’s table, being initiated into the knowledge of the Holy Trinity and striving wholly toward the love of It, for to It belongs honor and glory unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XXVII. On the Feast of the Palms. Delivered before King Roger.
Bright is the gathering of the present feast, glorious is the assembly of the festival, gathering together, as a different world, the procession of the emperor, who is seen now sitting in state, shining not so much by his diadem as by his virtuous achievements; or rather, not so much by his achievements as by the faith in God through which he has become the author of such great achievements. The feast, therefore, being illuminated by two rays, is both divine and imperial. Insofar as it portends the saving resurrection, the dissolution of death, and our own restoration, it is lit by divine beams. But insofar as the pious emperor has variously adorned it with his own presence, with the arrival of the archbishops, with the hymnody of the clergy, and with the multitudinous public gathering, the festival is imperial. What speech, then, shall be mine, which might be divided between both, and be suitable to the greatness of the feast and appropriate to the imperial glory? For even now I tremble and fear, covered in sweat, seized by dread, held by timidity, with my soul cowed, my mind wavering, my heart pounding, and the tone of my voice cut short, because I am presenting to imperial ears a speech that is salty and undrinkable. But since the serenity of your power, in imitation of Christ, has shown such condescension as to sit and listen to our uncultured words, which have nothing charming in them, look, we bring to you once again, as an annual tribute, this speech. But as for your virtues, O Emperor, and the victories given by God, and your noble deeds and trophies, another time and other writers have told of them and will tell of them; and especially because to recount your deeds is the same thing as to measure the sea with a pint pot. But now, let the discourse be occupied with the feast.
Notes by Francesco Scorsi
(4) On the etymology of this term, *Juda*. Whence "Jews"; for from the word (יָדָה) "to confess," [comes] *Jehudah*. [As to] what is written in the V.C. edition and others, except the Gallican, how it is to be corrected and understood, and concerning which emperor the beginning of this homily treats, has been discussed in the Prolegomena, § 6, where we debated the question of the time during which this Kerameus flourished.
(5) To measure the sea with a pint pot. Concerning this proverb and the meaning of this name, *hemina*, I spoke in Homily 4, Note 78, where [you may see] what portion of a measure a *hemina* is, which consult if you wish.
Homily XXVIII
A Let the reader begin with joy * (7) the sermon, and let him call to mind the words read in the Gospel, adapted to the shortness of the time. "At that time, when Jesus had drawn near to Jerusalem, and had come to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then he sent two disciples, saying to them: Go into the village that is opposite you; and immediately you will find an ass tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me." Since the Lord had often come to Jerusalem, and had made the journey on foot, as was his custom, now he adorns his entry with a newer [manner], with joyous acclamations, and glory, and a procession. For since the things which had been disposed by divine counsel now had reached their end, and the passion was before the doors, and the cross was approaching, and he himself, along with the other marvelous works he had performed, having especially dragged Lazarus from the jaws of the underworld, had manifested himself as the victor over death, what remained—after his trophies and victories—was that, like an emperor surrounded by his army, he should enter the city; and at once he fulfills the oracles of the prophets and prefigures the calling of the nations. For the patriarch Jacob said that he would bind his foal to the vine, and to the tendril the foal of his donkey (8); and that great David, foreseeing the acclamations of the children, says so: "Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have perfected praise." But Zechariah more clearly prophesied that he would come riding upon a beast into Sion: "Say," he says, "to the daughter of Sion: Behold, your king comes to you meek, and sitting upon an ass and a colt, the foal of a beast of burden (9)." But what, O prophet, do you not say these things yourself to the daughter of Sion, but command them to be announced by others? Because I indeed, he says, would have longed to be a spectator of that glory, but the established order of things forbids it. I truly congratulate those who are to reach those times; and these things I command to the new Sion. But the daughter of Sion is the Church, which has long been thirsting for God to become man.
Francisci Scorsi's Note
(7) *Exsultans inchoetur*: This is a word [θιασενέτω] which he borrowed from Gregory of Nazianzus, in whose work alone, indeed, this very word is read. It is derived, as I believe, from *thiasus* [θίασος], which is a sacred term among profane writers and signifies a sacred chorus, especially to Bacchus. *Etymologicum Magnum*: "Thiasus is called a chorus from the chanting of divine things, that is... whence the *thiasotae* are the companions and priests of Dionysius." This is from the Etym. To express the force of this name I have added in my version: "Let it be begun with joy" [exsultans inchoetur], whereas Billius translated it in Gregory of Nazianzus simply as "let it be begun." But, as I said, there is an allusion in that word to the alacrity of those reveling in the manner of Bacchants; and the orator rightly transfers it to the present sermon, in which he discourses about the crowds following Christ in his triumph. My view is confirmed by the fact that in the Greek Thesaurus the force of this word is explained thus: "It is almost the same as: I go forth and proceed with pomp and in the manner of a *thiasus*."
(8) Note on Gen. XLIX, 11: In the Vulgate edition, chapter XLIX, we have: "Binding his foal to the vine, and to the tendril, O my son, his ass." The LXX have, first indeed, that which is *helices*; second, which word I have translated here—or rather, the whole sentence—as it stands also in the Latin Sixtine edition of the LXX, which, as I have noted, I have often been compelled to do, as I did from the beginning, from the notes of the first homily. S. Cyprian also translates the same word as *helicen* in his *Adversus Judaeos*, book 1, the Latin being made from the Greek.*Helice*, as is noted in that Sixtine version and as Cornelius a Lapide observes on this verse of Gen. XLIX, is taught by the *Etymologicum Magnum*: it is, namely, that shoot or tendril by which the vine binds itself to its own stake and support and wraps itself around. For the vine, says Cicero in *De Senectute*: "which is by nature weak, and would fall to the ground if it were not supported, by these same tendrils, as if by hands, grasps whatever it has found, in order to raise itself up." By this word, therefore, the LXX translated the Hebrew [שורקה] which signifies an excellent and choice vine, and Symmachus translates it thus. Our edition [translates it] simply as "vine." See the interpreters.
HOMILY XXVI
This indeed is the interpretation of Sion A. For Sion, scorched by the heat of idolatry, was thirsting most ardently to taste of the living water. But what, according to the anagogical sense, is the village that lay over against them, to which the pair of disciples is sent? (For we shall omit the historical meaning, as it is known to all.) What else, then, could it be but this world, which by sin had departed from God and become set in opposition? Just as, therefore, Peter and John are sent into that village, intending to bring the ass and the colt, so the prophets and apostles were sent into this world, that they might lead those who were from the circumcision and those from the Gentiles to Christ through faith.
And if the colt was bound with cords in the crossway, this also is not inconsistent. For the Gentiles were held captive outside the ecclesiastical faith, bound along the broad and spacious way by the chains of their sins. The ass, too, was bound; for the Jews were restrained by the precepts of the law as if by chains. The word of contemplation rightly took the colt as a type of the Gentiles; for the Gentiles leaped about in disorder into impiety and shameful deeds, just like a colt not yet tamed by a bridle, nor having received a saddle upon its back. The ass, however, indicated the synagogue of the Jews. For it also, being under the yoke of legal servitude, carried the burdens of the law, and was held, as it were, by a halter made of the ordinances of the commandments.
But at the command of Christ, both are unbound and bound together into one faith; and thus, according to the patriarchal prophecy, He ties His colt to the vine. For the vine is the people from Israel, concerning whom the Psalm says: "You brought a vine out of Egypt." To this vine, therefore, He binds the gentile people with the evangelical precepts. Christ sits upon them B, the apostles having spread their garments for Him. You understand, I trust, that by the garments is signified a virtuous life, which ornaments the character through a seemly state of conduct. With these garments the apostles have clothed us; and Paul cries out: "Put on the armor of light, and let us walk decorously as in the day."
Now, having sat upon the beasts, the Lord enters Jerusalem. For as many as have received Him within themselves through contemplation and action are introduced into the heavenly Jerusalem, the city that is truly holy, in which there is the vision of peace. For Jerusalem means "the vision of peace." C
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus
(9) *The interpretation of Sion.* Derived from the unusual root *sy*, which signifies dryness or a desolate and thirsty place; hence *sitis* (thirst). From the Chaldean and Syriac word *sy* and *syh*, meaning "to be dry," and by metalepsis "to thirst," as in the Pentaglot Lexicon, the interpretation of Sion can be derived.
(10) *Christ sits upon both beasts.* Whether the Lord rode upon both beasts, namely the ass and the colt, which St. Matthew seems to state openly, or only upon the ass, as St. Luke and Mark, who make mention only of it, state, is a question which Maldonatus excellently discusses—arguing that Christ was carried on both, first upon the ass, and afterwards upon the colt; and this for the sake of the mystery, because the ass denotes the Jewish people, upon whom He sat first, and the colt the Gentile people, to whom He transitioned after leaving the Jewish. St. Thomas, Remigius, Serarius, Hugo, and Theophylact are praised for this view. Our author is also numbered in that same group, both regarding the history, or literal sense, when he says: *at the village*, and a little further down: *and the ass denotes the synagogue*, as well as regarding the allegory, which he elegantly pursues.
is explained. The children sing praises to the Lord; for if we do not acquire the innocence of children, we cannot fittingly sing the praises of the Lord. And those who went before and those who followed denote the righteous who existed before the Incarnation of Christ and those who existed after it. Abraham, and the patriarchs who came from him, and the chorus of the prophets went before, who indeed proclaimed the coming of Christ through symbols and prophecies. But Peter, and Andrew, and Matthew, and John, and Philip followed, to whom He had already said: “Follow me,” as do even now those who believe through them. Let us therefore strive, O most Christian assembly, through right faith and pious deeds, to carry the Lord seated within us. Let us imitate those children in purity of mind. Let us prune the branches from the trees, gathering the words of the spiritual trees, the holy Fathers and teachers, who are planted by the watercourses of the Spirit. From these plants let us gather the teaching and the manner of life, and let us spread for ourselves the path of life, showing that we live our life following the rule of Christ, both by going before and by coming after. Let us emulate the holy disciples: as Peter and John, through contemplation and action, cast the ass and the colt out of the village, releasing anger and desire from worldly preoccupations and transferring them to the obedience of Christ; and as the remaining disciples spread out the body, which is as it were the garment of the soul. For it is spread out for Christ when we refine it through temperance. Let us become like these plants, whose branches we carry in our hands; let us be accounted trees of Lebanon, offering our deeds to God in the odor of sweetness. Let us be planted as a fruitful olive tree in the house of God. Do you see how the plant of the olive is always flourishing, never casting off its covering of leaves? So the Lord wishes us to be adorned with virtues, and to bear fruit like oil—mercy. It is good for us to imitate the palm trees; for as the heart of the palm is most white, and its trunk is tall and high-crowned, so are the souls of the righteous: pure, and white, and stretching up toward the heavenly heights; even if A the palm abounds in thorns... B C D
yet also in the righteous there are thorns, which are the rebukes against those who sin, just as it is said, "The words of the wise are like goads." For this reason David in the Psalms, and Solomon in the Canticle, liken the righteous man to a palm tree. For just as the fruit of the palm is sweet on the outside and edible, but on the inside hard, and as firm as possible, so we too ought to be sweet toward our fellow men, devoid of all bitterness, envy, and anger, but steadfast in our souls, strong toward temptations, and unyielding, and never falling down, so that it may be said for each of us: "The righteous shall flourish like a palm tree; he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon." Let us prepare ourselves to meet Christ at the radiant resurrection, being illuminated by pure deeds, praying that the God-protected power of our pious emperor may remain unshaken for his children, that it may be braced and prospered by God who adorned him with wisdom, and bravery, and the royal diadem, and that in deep old age he may exchange this earthly kingdom for the kingdom of heaven; may we all attain to this in Christ Jesus, to whom is the glory and the power, unto the ages. Amen.
Homily XXVII. On the Precious Passion of Jesus Christ.
Perhaps I shall seem burdensome to your love, and heavy, because I impose upon you, who have already grown weary during the whole night in standing and psalmody, the hearing of this teaching as an additional load. But forgive me, for I am insatiate regarding your progress; and stir up your zeal, so that you may gain more. For if the God-hating Jews kept watch through the whole night, so as to seize and crucify the Lord, how shall we not keep watch, so that we may understand the purpose of the holy Gospels that have been sung and read to us? Therefore, shaking off all sloth from your soul, pay attention to what is being said. Since the Savior filled the sacred guests of the mystical supper, He Himself offered Himself as a sacrifice and offering for us, the priest at once and the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, in an ineffable manner of priestly service, and invisible to men.
On the twelve Gospels of the saving Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Then the office of the vigil is chanted at the appointed time, during which the twelve Gospels are read; then a lamp is given to the emperor by the protopope. And He offered Himself as an offering and a sacrifice for us, the priest at once and the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.
A Having distributed, and added to the meal, He goes out with them to the Mount of Olives, neither declining the Passion—for how could He, who had foreseen it, and foretold it, and was able to avoid suffering?—nor yet going of his own accord to his murderers. The one would have been a dissolution of the plan of salvation, and a kind of ignoble cowardice, while the other would have provided an excuse for those wretches, as if they had not sinned by killing Him who voluntarily delivered Himself, and as it were demanded the Passion. Yet at the same time, He becomes for us a type of true courage, appearing superior to cowardice and boldness, and teaching through Himself neither to proceed headlong into temptations, nor yet, when they come upon us, to be cowardly and frightened. He is not arrested in a house, because those who devised the treachery feared the crowds. For even if they did not regard Him as God, yet from His teaching and miracles they considered Him a just man and a prophet. He therefore provides them with the opportunity, from the time and the place, of bringing their knavery to an end. Therefore, He again foretells to the disciples what was to happen: "All you shall be scandalized in this night; for it is written, I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be dispersed." By these words He shows that what is happening is a paternal dispensation. For this was why the prophets had proclaimed these things beforehand. What then, someone might say, did the Father strike the Son, and disperse the sheep? By no means; He did not strike Him, but out of a plan of salvation He permitted Him to be struck, and allowed Him to suffer, although He was able to prevent it. Now the holy Peter, being a fervent lover, and not having sufficiently considered the infirmity of nature against denying, also promises to die with Him: "Even if it should be necessary for me to die with Thee, I will not deny Thee, but I will lay down my soul for Thee." But the Lord plainly reveals to him the denial: "Today in this night, before the cock shall crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice," for so Mark wrote more accurately than the others. For since the Lord knew that Peter would deny Him then, but would later die for Him, He adds "today," and "in this night," as if saying: "You will indeed lay down your soul for me, but in this very night you will deny me." Calling the very time of the betrayal "night," and the darkness resulting from the denial; for he who denies the Light is absolutely in darkness. B C D
Notes of Franciscus Scorus
(86) *Circa pomeridianum.* (On this word, *deilinon*, see my notes in the margin). This term is used by the Septuagint. In the book of Genesis, "They heard the voice of God walking in the garden in the *deilinon*." In our Vulgate: *Cum audisses vocem Dei deambulantem, ad auram, post meridiem*. Saint Jerome, and in the Hebrew Questions in Genesis: in most codices we have *ad vesperam*, *post meridiem*, because we have placed here "at the breeze," *to deilinon*, the Greek word for word; but one cannot translate it into Latin simply, as the Greeks do. It means the time when the heat of the sun subsides, and this is the afternoon, which we have interpreted in this place. And that the Septuagint understood this, with which the Hebrew agrees, "at the breeze" (for these two words sound combined), they translated *to deilinon*, and as the Hebrews themselves did not attain the Latin meaning, Saint Jerome could not express the Greek *to deilinon* with one Latin word. Hence he also used several words to explain it. But we call it "afternoon," the time truly itself, although we do not cling to the word: for this is a periphrasis of the afternoon or evening time, as Pererius says, lib. IV in Gen. cap. III, verse 8, that God comes into the garden.
(87) *Quam sanctissimam Dominam.* I have added, as I said in the notes, Gregory of Nyssa, whose words are: *de Resurrectione*: "Mary indeed the daughter of James, and mother of Joseph," as others have written the Gospel; and even if we have believed her to be the Theotokos, we have trusted that there is no other Mary, Mother of Jacob, and Mother of God.
A Since He had predicted what was to come, He went away to pray by Himself, as His custom was. Because the prayer demonstrated much trepidation (for He prayed that the cup of death might pass away), on this account He left the others behind, and took only those who had been witnesses of His glory on Tabor. Yet He was not held by agony as if shrinking from the Passion, nor did He reject death as something undesirable—for He knew the good things that would result from it. But because He truly became man, He shows that nature receives death with distress, since it came upon men even beyond nature. B He willingly undergoes the ordeal of fear, setting forth His sadness as a kind of bait for the devil, so that, thinking Him to be a mere man, he might leap at what was visible and dash himself against the invisible divinity. It caused Him grief, however, that the firstborn Israel had proceeded to such a pitch of audacity as to become a slayer of the Lord and to draw down the curse upon himself. It caused Him grief that the punishment following of necessity upon that audacity—the destruction of the temple, the abolition of the worship, the capture of the city, and the annihilation of the nation—would ensue. He calls death a "cup," saying: "If it is possible, let this cup pass from me," because it brings on this affliction like a dream; but by the words, "Not as I will, but as Thou," He demonstrated the virtuous and philosophical duty. For it is necessary to set the will of God before all things, even if the body's weakness C demurs. Having prayed, therefore, He returns to the disciples and finds them sleeping; and He upbraids Peter, who had arrogantly boasted that he would die along with Him, yet was not able to keep watch even for a single hour. He seemed then to speak thus: "You were not able to watch with Me for a short time, and how could you boast that you would lay down your life for Me?" Then He rebukes the weakness of the others as well, teaching us not to be arrogant and trust in our own strength, but to refer all things to God, and to pray against falling into temptation. For He says: "Watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation." But let us pause here a little and inquire, if by temptations and tribulations we become heirs of the kingdom of God—which the great James, knowing, teaches us to count as all joy when we fall into temptations—how does the Savior here advise us to pray that we do not enter into temptation? We say, therefore, that because of the uncertainty of the future, it is better to pray against it than, having fallen into it, to be defeated and become a spectacle of joy D to the enemy. For it is better not to be pursued by the impious than, having been pursued, to become a denier of the faith. Furthermore, He does not teach that we should pray not to fall into temptation, but not to enter into temptation—that is, not to be mastered by temptation.
If you desire a more exact and distinct understanding of these things, listen. A There are two types of temptations: one involuntary, pertaining to the body; the other voluntary, pertaining to the soul. Voluntary temptation is sin, which delights the senses but brings destruction to the soul; it is good to pray that we might be delivered from this. Involuntary temptation, however, causes pain to the senses but becomes the cause of salvation, concerning which the brother of the Lord teaches us to rejoice.
When the Savior says, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak,” he softens the sharp reprimand by attributing the cause of the failing to the natural weakness of the flesh. And again, coming a second and third time, He prayed using the same words, showing that He wishes nothing discordant with the Father’s will. B An angel appeared to Him, strengthening Him—not that He who is worshipped by every angelic power needed strength from an angel, but that He might fulfill the Mosaic prophecy sung in the canticle: “And let all the angels of God be strengthened in Him.” For the angel did not provide strength to the Omnipotent, but served Him as God, trembling at the excess of His condescension. To show that the agony was not of His divinity, but of His flesh, He shed drops of sweat, drying up the fountain of human cowardice.
Then, coming back again, He finds the disciples sleeping; such a burden had grief and the untimely night placed upon their eyes. What, then, does the Savior say to them? “Sleep on now, and take your rest.” He does not say this to permit them to sleep, but as if rebuking them for being overcome with untimely drowsiness while such terrible things were at hand. Perhaps He is also hinting at something hidden; it is as if He were saying this: Since you are still weak, and the time for your struggles is not yet here, rest meanwhile, until you are strengthened for the trial of His defeat. C But if you seek the more accurate and distinct knowledge of these things, note that there are two kinds of temptation: one involuntary, which concerns the body; the other voluntary, which pertains to the soul. Voluntary temptation is sin, which entices the senses with pleasure and brings ruin to the soul, from which it is best that we pray to be freed. Involuntary temptation afflicts the sense with pain, but becomes a cause of salvation, for which the brother of the Lord teaches us to rejoice. When the Savior says, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak,” He softens that sharp rebuke by transferring the blame to the natural sluggishness. And again, having gone away a second and third time, He prayed the same prayer, saying this in order to show that He wills nothing at variance with the Father’s will. An angel appeared to Him, strengthening Him—not because He who is worshipped by all angelic virtues had need of strength brought by an angel, D but to fulfill the Mosaic prophecy sung in the canticle: “And let all the angels of God be strengthened in Him.” For the angel did not provide strength to the Omnipotent, but served Him as God, standing astonished at the excess of His humility. And to show that the agony was of the flesh, not of the Godhead, He manifested blood-like sweat, and thereby dries up the fountain of human fear. Afterward, returning, He again finds the disciples sleeping; so heavily had both sadness and the dead of night weighed upon their eyes. What, then, does the Savior say to them? “Sleep on now, and take your rest.” Truly, these words are not of one urging them to sleep, but as it were of one rebuking them because, while such grave evils were impending, they were sleeping at an untimely hour. Perhaps also He indicates something hidden—as if to say: Since ...
you are still imperfect, and the time for your struggles has not yet come, rest for now; you shall struggle later. “The hour has drawn near,” and he speaks of the hour of the betrayal, and especially of the divine dispensation. Those words, “Rise, let us be going from here,” are an exhortation to shift the mind from earthly things to heavenly ones. He enters the garden, and there He is seized. For He who came to heal the contrary by the contrary (since it was from the garden of Eden that the devil, through disobedience, had snatched man) B fittingly delivers Himself to the murderers in a garden, bringing nature back to the garden from whence it had fallen. “Now he who betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying: ‘Whomever I shall kiss, He it is; seize Him, and lead Him away safely.’” What does this sign of the kiss mean for Judas? Since they, wishing to seize Him many times, had been unable, because the proper time had not yet arrived, and He would pass through the midst of them, he establishes the kiss as a mark so that the same thing would not happen again. Confiding, therefore, in the Master’s gentleness, C Judas “approached and kissed Him,” although this alone should have been able to soften his hard soul—that even at that very hour of betrayal, the Lord did not push away the detestable traitor. But so unyielding and foolish was the wretch that he did not perceive at all what was to his benefit. Quietly, therefore, the Lord rebukes the malice that lay deep within him: “Friend,” He says, “for what have you come?” What need is there, He says, of this facade and pretense of friendship? Accomplish the task for which you have come. You did not come to kiss, but to betray. I was stunned while speaking as I pondered the traitor’s audacity: D with what eyes did the vile man look upon the Teacher? With what lips did he shamelessly kiss Him, embracing one so temperate, so mild, and so gentle? Thus he became more savage than any beast. But He, indeed, with great magnanimity, gave Himself up to those who seized Him. But the anger of Peter was sharpened on the whetstone of the Law, which commands one to repel force with force and to defend oneself against those who attack. He had a sword because of the typical lamb; and he did not desire to strike anyone else but the servant of the high priest who had stitched together the treacherous plot. Since, therefore, he drew the sword to cut his throat, and the servant inclined his head, the ear most justly received the cut; for the Jews had been stopping their ears against the teachings of Christ. And it seems to me that the great Constantine, recognizing this long after, ordered that—
the ears of the Jews to be cut off, when they wished to rebuild the temple; perhaps also the fact that the ear of the servant was cut off by Peter was a sign of what the disciples would do later on. For they were about to cut away, with the sword of the Spirit, the carnal concepts of the letter which had previously been implanted in the ears of the Jews. B "Then Jesus says to him: 'Return your sword to its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'" The Lord rebukes Peter, as one still following legal ordinances. And if you use the law, he says, for a help, consider that the law commands those who take the sword to perish by the sword. For am I in need of human assistance? Can I not defend myself against those who attack me with legions of angels? But the prophecies of the Scriptures must be fulfilled. For since it was foreordained that Christ should suffer, and this was altogether unalterable, for this reason the prophets foretold all these things. For that even Judas would not have recognized him, if he had not wished it, John revealed when he said: "As he asked them: 'Whom do you seek?' And they said: 'Jesus the Nazarene,'" and they were not able to lay hands on him, nor to recognize him, until he himself permitted it to them. This very thing he also pointed out, saying to them: "As if against a robber you have come out with swords and clubs to arrest me." What, he says, was the need for warlike weapons? Am I, then, a tyrant or a robber? And what good would clubs and swords have done you, if I did not wish to C be arrested? And this is clear from the fact that, when I was teaching in the temple every day, although you often wished to seize me, you were not able. For I was reserving the appropriate time, but this is your hour, which you have received until my resurrection. For you will have the time shortened by the darkness, that is, being driven by the devil. He said these things, and immediately he heals the ear of the one who was struck. Since he himself was about to receive a blow from him later, so that he might not seem to do this out of revenge, he renders him inexcusable through the healing. Nor was it without purpose that John revealed the name of the servant, that he was called Malchus. But since kingdom is signified by this name, it is shown that the chief priests of the Jews brought their own kingdom down into servitude, having become servants of envy and self-love. The Lord, therefore, was in the hands of the executioners, and the disciples became fugitives, forgetful of their promise, and the words of the prophets were being fulfilled: "I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered." They were binding Jesus, and another prophecy was attaining its end. "They said among themselves: 'Let us bind the just man, because he is useless to us'"; perhaps he himself was even whispering calmly to the Father the words of David: "Let us break their bonds asunder," and D (27) [alt-version omitted] Francisci Scorsi notæ. (93) Truly, not signifying the hour. Not that Marcus meant to say, says Maldonado, at what hour the Lord rose, which is entirely uncertain, but at what hour he appeared to the women, and this is the sense of the Church. Whence in the preface. On Holy Saturday it is sung: O blessed night, which alone deserved to know the time and hour when Christ rose from the netherworld. Furthermore, Cornelius a Lapide and Sebastianus Corderius in his Annotations on Luke, and others, bring forward conjectures and testimonies by which it is believed that Christ rose at dawn. The ancients, tome 1, note that Christ was in the tomb for 36 hours with his soul, and that his body lay in the sepulchre for 33, which three hours before sunrise he had revived; but this supposition and division of the hours is rightly established in the vernal equinox. Although it is always so among the Hebrews, as likewise among the Romans, that the space of day and night is divided into twelve hours, these hours, however, except at the equinoxes, are different from ours, and the days are indeed longer in summer, and the nights [longer] in winter. (94) By punctuation we distinguish. Either we distinguish while reading, as others have already seen (Nyssen, orat. 1, de Resurr., Theophyl. on this passage of Mark, Victor of Antioch, whose words alone we transcribe from the Library, tom. 1: the text is one, but we can offer a difficulty in distinguishing), or, as some offer, by inserting a comma after "Jesus," as: "but immediately after 'Jesus' we add a comma and proceed in this manner: 'but rising, Jesus, at dawn on the first day of the week, appeared to Mary Magdalene.'"
'" that they might bring with them those who, like the Jews, were mourning and confessing their transgressions; for this is what is signified by the name of "Jews." For the Lord will surely be present to those who weep, and will call out through the Gospel, and will take away the hardness of heart, and will call the dead man out of the grave, even though he remained inactive in the four illuminating virtues, so that, having shaken off the sin that was pressing upon him and having been loosed by angels and priests, he might become a guest of the Savior, being initiated into the knowledge of the Holy Trinity and hastening entirely toward that love, for to Him befits honor and glory unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XXI. — On the Feast of the Palms. Delivered before King Roger.
The gathering of the present feast is bright, and the assembly of the festival is splendid, as it brings together another adornment for the arrival of the Emperor, B who is now seen presiding there, distinguished not so much by his diadem as by his virtuous achievements; or rather, not so much by his achievements as by the strength of his faith in God, through which he became the author of such great achievements. The feast itself, therefore, illuminated by two splendors, is both divine and imperial. Insofar as it foretells the saving Resurrection, the dissolution of death, and our restoration, it is flared with divine rays. And insofar as the pious Emperor has decorated it in various ways by his presence, by the arrival of the archbishops, by the chanting of the clergy, and by the gathering of the vast multitude of the people, the festival is imperial. What speech, then, shall be mine, which can divide itself between both, and be worthy of the magnitude of the feast, and fitting for the imperial majesty? As it stands, I tremble and fear, appearing in sweat, held by dread, possessed by cowardice, my soul timid, my mind unsteady, my heart palpitating, and the tone of my voice restrained, because I am draining into emperor's ears a discourse that is salty and undrinkable. But since the serenity of your power, Christ-imitating, has shown such condescension as to seat itself as a listener to my uncultured words, which have nothing charming in them, look: here again, like an annual tribute, I offer you this discourse. But your virtues, O Emperor, and your victories from God, and your deeds of prowess, and your trophies, another time and other writers have recounted and will recount; and primarily because narrating your deeds is the same as measuring the sea with a cup. D Now, however, let the speech celebrate the feast.
Francisci Scorsi's notes.
[index: entries preserved]A Sin, however, is not—"and sin he did not." But since they also needed witnesses, so that they might appear to be acting according to law, they bring forward two witnesses who weave the lie from the truth. For the Savior said: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," discussing these things in regard to his own body. But these godless and bold men, corrupting some things and adding others from their own invention, weaving together a lie, said: "This man said: I am able to destroy the temple of God, the one made by hands, and in three days I will build another not made by hands," augmenting the accusation by means of the addition. For observe the twisting of the words. He indeed said: "Destroy the temple," but they say: "I am able to destroy the temple." And he, as if pointing with his finger to his body, said: "This temple," but they said: "The temple of God, the one made by hands." And the Lord stood silent, B and perhaps sang to himself the words that were said for his sake: "Unjust witnesses rose up, asking me about things I did not know. But I, like a deaf man, did not hear, and like one speechless, not having in his mouth arguments." And he was right to remain silent, knowing that they would not accept him if he defended himself. For how could words have shamed those whom clear signs did not persuade? "The high priest, therefore, questioned him about his disciples and his teaching." Perhaps this blockhead, seeking to seize him, reasoned either that he was teaching things contrary to the Law, or—since he knew how those followers of Theudas and Judas, having plotted rebellion, had perished—he pushed the Lord toward the very same thing, wishing to convict him as a rebel, as one gathering disciples and thus handing him over to death, either as one who violates the law or as a conspirator. The Lord, therefore, exposes the treachery and malice of his approach and brings forward the very servants of that man as witnesses, and says: "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews convene, and I have said nothing in secret. Why do you question me? Ask those who have heard; behold, these men know what I have said." But why does he summon the servants as witnesses? Because these men, once sent by [the Pharisees]...
Francisci Scorsi's notes. D ...concerning which I have [the matter] preserved intact and covered in both Testaments, where the necessity of a variant reading does not compel [a change]; but if I had kept it here, I would not have been able to express the author's meaning, which takes [it] like a noun, so that it signifies "nothing," and he considers that sin, which is "nothing," is suggested by that word: wherefore I adapted the Latin version to it in this way: "And he finds nothing in me." Lest, however, this interpretation and the opinion of our Theophanes seem insolent to anyone. For in this way both Theodoret and Leontius and Cyril from the Greeks, and among the Latins Gregory [the Great] in his 39th Homily on the Gospels, and Ambrose, in his book *De fuga saeculi*, ch. 4, read and explain it; all of whom take "nothing," and therefore "sin," because sin is nothing. Which explanation our [Maldonatus], an interpreter of the sharpest judgment, surely does not disapprove. Josephus treats of this in his *Antiquities*, book XX, ch. 5, and mention is brought up in Acts of the Apostles, ch. V, by Gamaliel in the council, who argues thus: If the novelty of the apostles had proceeded from human counsel, it would soon have collapsed, just as Theudas and Judas, those seditious men, persuaded themselves; but if it were from God, it could not be hindered by the Jews by any effort from proceeding. I warn here that it is written as "Theodam" in the Latin edition; but Bede, all the Glosses, the Carthusian, and others call them "Theudam" along with Josephus, whom see, and likewise the commentaries on that chapter of Acts, if you are eager to know more things which are called into question by interpreters concerning them. For to our present purpose these are sufficient.
HOMILY XXVII.
A Those officers sent once by the chief priests to arrest Him, being amazed at His teaching, went back, saying: "Never has a man spoken as this man speaks." He, therefore, seeks to remind them of the things that were said at that time. Fearing, therefore, that if he did not bear witness against Him, the servant of the chief priest might be thought a sympathizer, and be accused as one who had admired Him, to free himself from this suspicion, he anticipates by his impudence and deals a blow. Hence the Lord, with equanimity, questions him who was previously an admirer and now a striker: "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if I have spoken well, why do you strike Me?"
But how does He who commanded the one struck on the right cheek to offer the other to the smiter, not keep the commandment Himself, but rebuke him who gave the blow? There is a threefold solution to the question. First, He shows that it was not for any crime that He received the blow, but that He suffered these things for the salvation of all. Second, that He was not without feeling, but felt the blows, even though He possessed an impassibility as God. Furthermore, the goal of the commandment is this: since someone might be struck on the cheek against his will, and since an involuntary act merits no reward, He commands one to offer the other cheek voluntarily, so that the involuntary might be balanced by the voluntary. But the Lord, having voluntarily exposed Himself to the blows, was not in need of this commandment.
The chief priest therefore asks Him again: "I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us if Thou art the Christ, the Son of God." Because the snares which the malicious chief priest had previously set remained ineffectual, he finally adjures Him, knowing that He will not lie, B not from a desire to learn if He is the Christ, but hastening to lay hold of Him. But the Lord, that He might not seem to treat the adjuration slightly, confesses and says: "Thou hast spoken"—that is, your mouth has confessed that I am Christ. Then He reminds them also of the prophecy which Daniel had delivered by divine inspiration regarding His second coming: "From now on, you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." This Son of Man, He says, whom you now judge in great humility, you shall see coming from heaven with glory.
Then, maliciously, the senseless priest, as if at a great blasphemy, tears his garment, C deceiving the crowds by this appearance. Then, assuming the favor of the people, he places the decision in their hands: "He has blasphemed; what do you think?" They, seized by the word and wishing to gratify their chief priest, said: "He is deserving of death." Then, therefore, as though He were already condemned in every way, they mocked Him, spitting, D striking, and buffeting Him, laughing at Him as a false prophet: "Prophesy to us, who is he who struck Thee?" The thunderbolts from above were being readied for vengeance, but were held back by Him who was being insulted. The sun looked down at that time at a spectacle more strange than all wonders.
since the Beloved John was following, and being known to the high priest, he entered together into the courtyard. A Why he was an acquaintance, I shall state briefly, weaving the history from the traditions delivered from of old. That famous house of Zion became a possession of Zebedee, conspicuous for its size and beauty; it had been built on high ground in Jerusalem, bathed on every side by a temperate breeze, as we ourselves have witnessed with our own eyes. Having divided this into two parts, Zebedee bestowed one portion upon the high priest; the remainder he made into his own dwelling. There, therefore, was the upper room where the Savior lodged with His disciples, and where He accomplished the greater part of the mysteries: the typical Passover, the mystical supper, the washing of the disciples' feet, the
final words of instruction and theology.
Here also, after the Resurrection, the disciples were hiding because of the Jews. In the same place, on the day of Pentecost, they received the grace of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the all-pure Lady spent the entire time of her life in this house. From this cause, therefore, John was known to the high priest and had entry at that time without hindrance. B Peter, however, as a stranger, was pushed back from the gate and remained outside until John, having persuaded the portress, brought him in. And it would indeed have been better for Peter to follow John, and to attend to Jesus, and to observe the events taking place. For in this way, perhaps, he would have been preserved from temptation. But since he abandoned this and approached the bonfire which the servants had lit, and was warmed by the fire of his enemies, because of this a certain base maidservant disturbed him. For since Peter and John signify action and contemplation, the history cries out through these things that when the practical virtue stops following contemplation, and C stops piously considering the things of the economy, and—wrapped in the night and cold of ignorance—seeks to be warmed by alien fire, which the ministers of Satan light; then, at that moment, it is easily dragged away by the servant of pleasure, and denies the Lord three times. For the reasoning faculty is darkened, the irascible power is dragged down into ignoble cowardice, and the appetitive power, having ceased desire to die with Jesus, chooses this life, and thus the triple denial comes to pass. Yet Peter’s denial was by no means entirely condemned, as having happened in the night, that is, before the receiving of the rays of the Spirit. D For no one is able to say, "Lord Jesu...Jesus," unless in the Holy Spirit. "For as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." Perhaps it was also a logical consequence that one who had recognized Jesus through faith, yet remained within the courtyard of the shadowy law and had mingled himself with the ministers of the killing letter, should be drawn away by the handmaid—that is, the legal cult—toward the denial of the truth, until the apostolic word, which announces the day of faith like a crowing cock, should cry out loudly: "The night is far spent, and the day is at hand." Then, indeed, having emerged from the shadow of the law, he shall weep bitterly; that is, he shall empty out through his tears the bitterness of the legal observances. For thus also Peter did not weep while he remained in the courtyard, but after he removed himself from the things, and words, and places that had caused him to deny the Lord. Now, when Peter had denied him once, the cock crowed. But when he added the other two denials, then the cock crowed again; and thus one must understand what was said by Mark: "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me thrice." But Peter, being terrified, did not immediately perceive that he had fallen; but the Lord, having turned, since it was not fitting to reproach him with words, he brought him to remembrance by a glance. And Peter immediately, lest he be weighed down by his tears and suspected of being a disciple, went out of the court of the impious, and wept bitterly, sweetening the bitterness of the denial with his tears.
These things, then, occurred in the night. "But when morning was come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus, to put him to death; and they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor." Let us not pass over without consideration that which is made manifest through the history, how the disciples, having been scandalized in the night, are not reprobated—for the Savior says, "All you shall be scandalized in me this night"—and furthermore Peter denies him in the night, and obtains pardon; but these men, when morning was come, having delivered up the Lord, have remained without pardon. From this we are taught that faults committed in ignorance and youth, as if performed in night and darkness, become easily pardonable; but those committed in mature age, when reason has brought its light, are judged as worthy of [strict] inquiry. The Jews, therefore, having delivered the Lord to the Romans, were themselves delivered to the sieges of the Romans, and drew upon themselves the curses of the prophets: "As you have done," says Obadiah to the Synagogue, "so shall it be done unto you; and your recompense shall be returned upon your own head."
it shall be to you, and your retribution shall be returned upon your head.” Another says: “Woe to the wicked; evil shall befall him according to the works of his hands.” Jesus, therefore, stood before the president. But the chief priests kept accusing him with the greatest impudence, stitching together many absurd accusations against him, and the prophecy of Hosea was receiving its fulfillment: “The priests have hidden the way of the Lord; they have murdered Sichyma, because they have wrought iniquity in the house of Israel.” Now the prophetic word called the Lord himself Sichyma. Pilate, hearing that he was subverting the nation and forbidding taxes to be given to Caesar, and that he proclaimed Christ himself king, asks whether he is the king of the Jews—giving him room, that is, to refute the calumnies. But he, A so that he might not appear by silence to assent to his accusers, nor by denying to give the impression of fear, answered very ingeniously: “You have said it.” And indeed, he could have demonstrated by irrefutable arguments that he had done the opposite of all that the slanderers were charging against him; for where did he forbid taxes, since he had said, “Render the things that are Caesar’s to Caesar”? And when did he attempt to seize the kingdom? Was it not when the crowds came to make him king, he left them and immediately withdrew into the mountain? What tyrannical thing did the abominable men see in him, such that they could contrive such things? B Thus envy and anger were boiling over in them to such an extent that they even blathered about incredible things. And how did he incite the crowd by his teaching? Bring forward, you slanderer, the words of his teaching also; but you blush, lest even Pilate, although an idolater, should detect your malice. But indeed it is detected, and those savage men are proved to surpass the impiety of a gentile man. For Pilate was rebuking them, and as though defending the Lord, he said: “I find no fault in him”; but they were crying out in disorder: “Take him away, take him away, crucify him.” Yet, overcome by that tumult, and unable to bear those disorganized shouts, having heard that he was a Galilean, C he sends him to Herod. Perhaps he was also escaping the wicked judgment and avoiding the shedding of innocent blood, which indeed he is seen to have done in the washing of his hands. “But the priests have hidden the way of the Lord; they have murdered Sichyma; because they have wrought iniquity in the house of Israel.” Sichyma or Sichima? Sichyma, and to give to the Pharisees, and to give taxes to Caesar, and he proclaims Christ himself king. He commands him to offer the other thing willingly. For why, he says, do you kiss? What is the need of the outward show of friendship? And the object, for the sake of which you came, this also fulfill. For you did not come in order to kiss, showing that he wills nothing of the paternal will. He wills nothing.
A Having therefore foretold what was to come, He went away, according to custom, to pray by Himself. Since the prayer betrayed much dismay (for He prayed that the cup of death might pass), He therefore left the others and took with Him only those who had been spectators of His glory on Tabor. Yet He was not seized by agony as if shrinking from the Passion through cowardice, nor did He refuse death as something undesirable; for He knew the goods that would result from it. But because He had truly become man, He shows His nature receiving death with reluctance, because it assailed humanity against its nature. He therefore voluntarily sustains the subjection to fear, holding out that sorrow as a sort of bait to the devil, so that, thinking Him a mere man, he might leap at what he saw and dash himself against the invisible divinity. It caused Him grief, too, that the firstborn Israel had gone to such a pitch of audacity as to become a slayer of the Lord and to draw down the curse upon himself. It caused Him grief—the punishment that necessarily followed that audacity: the abolition of the temple and the cult, the capture of the city, and the destruction of the nation. B He calls death a "cup," saying: "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me," because it brings on affliction like a kind of sleep. By the words, "Not as I will, but as Thou," He demonstrated the virtuous life and philosophical spirit; for it is necessary to place the will of God before all things, even if the weakness of the body should draw back. Having prayed, therefore, He returns to the disciples and finds them sleeping and rebukes Peter, who had arrogantly boasted that he would die with Him, yet had not possessed the strength to keep watch for a single hour. It is as if He had spoken thus: "You had not the strength to watch with Me for a short while, and how did you boast that you would lay down your life for Me?" Then He reproves the weakness of the rest as well, teaching us not to be arrogant nor to trust in our own strength, but to refer all things to God—and to pray that we may not fall into temptation. For He says: "Watch and pray, that you enter not into temptation." But let us pause briefly here and inquire: if through temptations and tribulations we become heirs of the kingdom of God—which the great James, understanding this, teaches us to count as all joy when we fall into temptations—why does the Lord here exhort us to pray that we do not enter into temptation? We say, therefore, that because of the uncertainty of the future, it is better to pray against it than to fall and be overcome, and become a laughingstock to the enemy. It is better not to be pursued by the impious than, having been pursued, to become a denier of the faith. Furthermore, He does not teach us not to pray against falling into temptations, but against entering into temptation, that is, being mastered by temptation; and to enter...
into it is quite different from being tempted. For it is one thing to be tempted, as one who is wrestled with, and another to enter into temptation, as one who is completely defeated and gripped by the trap. A Since it was not permitted to them to crucify Him, for the power of execution belonged to the Romans, yet it was necessary that the word of Jesus be fulfilled there, which He told His disciples, that He would be handed over to the Gentiles and be put to death. For this reason, John says: *That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, signifying by what death He was to die.*
Again, therefore, Pilate asked Jesus, *“Where are you from?”* B But He, as though the answer were beyond his grasp, withholds it and is silent again. What then does Pilate say? *“Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have the power to crucify you, and I have the power to release you?”* He indeed prides himself on Roman authority, but the Savior sets before him the good pleasure of the Father: *“You would have no power over me, unless it had been given to you from above.”* He called that which was permitted to him, “given.” C But how full of astonishment was that event! That to the judge He answered little, but to his wife he was revealed, filling her with dread and turmoil, so that by his silence Pilate might be struck with the fortitude of the one being judged, D and on the other hand, be confirmed by his spouse that he was not judging a mere man, but indeed a God. Nor did Pilate see the vision, so that he might not, in his fear, release Him, and the work of the economy not be completed—for it was not shown so that Christ might not suffer, but so that the woman might be saved, being worthy, it seems, of such a revelation, and that the type of the Church might be shown. For she, too, lived with the intelligible Pilate—that is, the natural law—but afterwards she was united to Christ.
Pilate is certainly proved to be a simpleton and timid. For he washed his hands in water, and by this, he thought he washed away the guilt of such a murder, in word indeed acquitting himself, but in deed preferring human respect to justice. But the wretched multitude of the Jews brought that righteous blood not only upon their own heads but upon their children’s. For they cried out: *“His blood be upon us and upon our children.”* And indeed they justly suffered the outcome of this curse, being cut down by the Roman sword. That Pilate, however, was not entirely blameless, the Savior showed by saying: *“Therefore, he who delivers me to you has the greater sin.”* Pilate, therefore, handed Him over to be crucified; but the daring Judas, as long as he saw the Savior being judged, was not transformed, for he thought that after mocking Him for a short time, they would release Him. But seeing that He was condemned and was surrendered to the soldiers, being lacerated by his conscience, standing between shame and grief, and considering, as is likely, the reproaches from everyone, he threw the silver into the temple, confessing that he had sinned. [alt-version omitted]
...remains as yet imperfect, and the time for your struggles has not yet come; rest for the remainder, but you will struggle afterwards. The hour has drawn near: He speaks of the hour of betrayal, and indeed of the divine dispensation. As for the words, "Arise, let us go hence," He seems to be exhorting them to turn their minds and spirits from earthly to heavenly things. He enters the garden, and there He is captured; for He who had come to heal contrary things with contrary things (since through the garden of Eden the devil had snatched man away through disobedience) appropriately surrenders Himself to the murderers in the garden, and thus leads nature back to the garden from whence it had fallen. "He who betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying: 'Whomever I shall kiss, it is he, hold him, and lead him away securely.'" What does the sign of the kiss mean for Judas? Since they had often attempted to seize Him and could not, because the appointed time had not yet come, but He had escaped from their midst, he agrees upon the kiss as a mark so that the same thing would not happen again. Trusting, therefore, in the Master's gentleness, Judas "approaching, kissed Him," although this alone ought to have softened his hard heart, that at the very moment of betrayal the Lord did not push away the detestable traitor; but the wretch was of such an obstinate and stupid mind that he did not perceive what was appropriate to be done. Yet the Lord softly reproves the malice latent in the recesses of his breast: "Friend," He says, "for what have you come?" What need is there, He says, of this disguise and simulation of friendship? That which you have come to do, perform; for you did not come to kiss, but to betray Me. I am stunned as I speak, considering the traitor's audacity; with what eyes did that wicked man look upon the Master? With what lips did he kiss, brazenly embracing One so modest, so gentle, so easy in His ways? Thus he proved himself fiercer than any wild beast. But He, indeed, surrendered Himself to the guards with great and generous soul. But the rage of Peter was sharpened by the whetstone of the Law, which commands one to repel force with force and to drive back those who attack. He had a sword, for he was sacrificing the typical lamb; nor did he wish to strike any other than the servant of the high priest who had stitched together the deceit. Wherefore, when he drew the sword to cut his throat, and the servant escaped the blow by ducking his head, the ear most justly received the stroke; for the Jews had always obstructed their ears to the teachings of Christ. And it seems to me that the great Constantine D wished to signify this long after, when he [cut] the ears of the Jews...
NOTES BY FRANCESCO SCORSI
...Baronius recounts in the tenth year of his reign: "So much," he says, "did the supreme happiness of the Christians carry the minds of the Jews, that, indignant at being subject to a Christian prince, they incited a sedition." How Constantine punished them, St. John Chrysostom records in these words: "Under the same Constantine, when they attempted to rebel, namely against the Roman Empire, he cut off their ears and, having impressed the mark of rebellion upon their bodies, led them around through all places like fugitive slaves and branded men with mutilated bodies," etc. This mutilation of the ear, our author has beautifully transferred to the moral sense of infidelity.A That the Jews' ears might be cut off, while they wished to rebuild the temple; perhaps also the cutting off of the servant's ear by Peter was a sign of the later efficiency of the disciples. For they were about to cut off, with the sword of the Spirit, the bodily conceptions of the letter that had been previously established in the ears of the Jews. B "Then Jesus says to him, 'Return your sword to its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'" The Lord rebukes Peter, as one still following the legal precepts. And if you use the law, He says, for help, consider that the law commands those who have taken the sword to perish by the sword. For am I in need of human help? Or am I not able to defend those who approach Me with legions of angels? But the oracles of the Scriptures must be fulfilled. For since it was foreordained that Christ should suffer, and this was altogether unchangeable, for this reason the prophets proclaimed everything beforehand. For that not even Judas would have recognized Him unless He Himself had willed it, John showed by saying: "When He asked them, 'Whom do you seek?' they said, 'Jesus the Nazarene,'" and they were not able to lay hands on Him or to recognize Him until He Himself permitted them to do so. Which, indeed, He said to them in reproof: "You have come out as against a robber with swords and clubs to take Me." What need, He says, was there of weapons of war? Am I a tyrant or a robber? And what would swords and clubs have availed you if I had not wished to be taken? And it is clear from the fact that daily, when I was teaching in the temple, although you often wished to seize Me, you could not. For I was saving the proper time for Myself, but "this is your hour," which you have received until My Resurrection. For you shall have the time constrained, driven along by the darkness, that is to say, by the devil. He said these things, and immediately heals the ear of the one who was struck. For since He Himself was to offer him baptism later, so that He might not appear to have done this in a spirit of vengeance, He renders him inexcusable through the healing. Nor was it without reason that John disclosed the name of the servant, that he was called Malchus. But since the meaning of this name is "kingdom," it is shown how the chief priests of the Jews brought their own kingdom down to slavery, having become slaves of envy and self-love. The Lord, therefore, was in the hands of the executioners, and the disciples became fugitives, forgetting their promise, and what the prophets said was coming to pass: "I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered." They were binding Jesus, and another prophecy was attaining its end. They said among themselves: "Let us bind the just, because he is useless to us"; perhaps even He Himself was quietly whispering to the Father the words of David: "Let us break their bonds asunder," and
A holding fast to the faith, they do not seem to me unlike those who at that time derided the Lord because He was kneeling. The impious and murderous ones, therefore, having insulted and mocked Him in this way, led Him away to be crucified, and as if He were a condemned criminal, they laid the wood of the cross upon Him, so that even here Isaiah might say: "Whose government was upon His shoulder," and "He bore our sins, and healed our infirmities." For it was necessary—it was necessary—that He should heal the curse of the Law within Himself. But Isaac, too, foreshadowing the Passion of Jesus, carried the wood of the burnt offering himself; and when, therefore, He had fulfilled that which was prefigured, Simon the Cyrenian, being pressed into service, assisted in bearing the load. Nor was the pressing of Simon into service a matter of chance; rather, it was because he had been foreordained to serve the command. For since "Simon" denotes obedience, and "Cyrenian" readiness—and Cyrene is one of the cities of the Pentapolis—the enigma shows that he who becomes ready for evangelical obedience carries, through the senses, the cross of practical virtue, and follows Christ, crying out with Paul: "I have been crucified to the world." Women, disciples of B doctrine, were following, protesting against the unjust judgment, and lamenting. Correcting their untimely sympathy, the Savior forbids them to weep, and says: "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me." For the Passion was not involuntary, so as to require consolation. He also foretells the evils that would come upon them from the siege, by which the Jews were utterly destroyed: "Behold, days are coming, in which they will say: 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that have not brought forth, and the breasts which have not nursed'"; for then even childlessness was considered better, and to be hidden under hills and mountains was desirable. "For if they do these things in the green wood," He says, "what will happen in the dry?" He calls Himself the green wood; for He was truly the Tree of Life, fruitful and verdant, bearing as fruit the miracles He performed and the sweetness of His teaching. If, therefore, He says, the Romans have raged against Me in this way, having received Me as a captive from the Jews, what might they do against you, who are "dry wood" on account of the impiety that is in you? They crucify Him, therefore, at Golgotha, where it is said the body of Adam was also laid, so that through the new Adam...
the debt of the old might be paid. A And sin is nothing, “for He did no sin.” But since they needed witnesses, so that they might appear to be acting according to law, they produce two witnesses, weaving falsehood out of truths. For the Savior said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” speaking these things concerning His own body. But these godless and bold men, corrupting some things and adding others of their own, making a lie, said: “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, the one made by hands, and in three days I will build another not made by hands’”; and by this addition they increased the accusation. B Observe, indeed, the distortion of the words. He said, “Destroy this temple,” but they say, “I am able to destroy the temple.” And He, as if pointing with His finger to His body, said, “This temple,” but they said, “The temple of God, the one made by hands.” And the Lord stood silent, C and was perhaps repeating to Himself what was said on account of Him: “Unjust witnesses rose up; they asked me things I did not know. But I, like a deaf man, did not hear, and like one speechless, not having in his mouth reproofs.” With good reason did He remain silent, knowing that they would not accept Him defending Himself. For those whom manifest signs did not persuade, how could words have shamed? “The high priest then questioned Him about His disciples and His teaching.” Perhaps this senseless man, seeking to lay hold of Him, either as one teaching contrary to the law, or because he knew that those around Theudas and Judas, having meditated rebellion, had died, was driving the Lord into this very thing, wishing to convict Him as a seditionist, as one gathering disciples, and so to deliver Him to death, either as a law-breaker or as a plotter. D Therefore the Lord exposes the hollow and malicious nature of his manner, and brings forth those very ministers of his as witnesses, and says: “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews always come together, and I have spoken nothing in secret. Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard; behold, these know what I said.” But why does He call the ministers as witness? Because “the nothing”—the nothing [note: the Greek text here discusses the meaning of "nothing" in the sense of sin, for which the Latin translation "Et in me non invenit nihil"—i.e., "has found nothing (of sin) in me"—is used; the commentary follows].
Notes of Franciscus Scorus
[Regarding the interpretation of "nothing" as "sin" in the context of the Lord's words]: Indeed, strictly speaking, I hold that text intact in both Testaments, where the necessity of a variant reading compels nothing else; but if I had preserved it here, I could not have expressed the author's meaning, which takes "nothing" as a noun, and signifies nothing, and considers that sin—which is nothing—is hinted at by that word; therefore I have accommodated the Latin version to it in this way: *Et in me non invenit nihil* ("And in me he has found nothing"). Let not this interpretation and opinion of our Theophanes seem strange to anyone. For in this way both Theodoret and Leontius and Cyril among the Greeks read and explain it, and among the Latins, Gregory, Hom. 39 in Evang., and Ambrose, lib. De fuga seculi, c. 4, all of whom take "nothing," and therefore "sin," because sin is nothing. This explanation is certainly not disapproved by our Maldonatus, an interpreter of the sharpest judgment.(35) Theudas and Judas. Josephus treats of the seditions of these men in book XX of the Antiquities, ch. 5, and mention is brought up in Acts of the Apostles, ch. 5, by Gamaliel in the council, who argues thus: If the novelty of the apostles had proceeded from human counsel, it would soon have collapsed, just as those of Theudas and Judas the seditious men believed; but if it were from God, it could not be hindered by any help from the Jews from proceeding. I note here that "Theodam" is written in the Latin edition; but Bede, all the Glosses, the Carthusian, and others call them "Theudam" along with Josephus, whom see, and likewise the Commentaries on that chapter of Acts, if you desire to know more things that are called into question by interpreters regarding them. For to our business these things are sufficient.
A ...of the nations, and of us who have believed from the Gentiles, and of them from the circumcision. For both were lawless, and robbers toward each other; some transgressors of the law of nature, and others, in addition to this, of the written law too. «And they set up over his head his charge written: This is the King of the Jews.» Since no crime was present in him, wishing to attach to him a charge of tyranny, they arranged for the title to be written. But Pilate, branding their malice, and as though defending himself, that no one might think him a partner with the thieves—which was what the Jews were striving for—by the inscription of the title seals their mouths, having set up the letters like a trophy; and shaming them because they had risen up against their own King, and showing that he suffered without any cause; and not in one language, but in three tongues, displaying the madness of the Jews. But the writing of the title was ordained, so that later the cross of the Lord might be recognized; for the crosses of the robbers were without titles. The threefold writing of the title, however, showed the crucified King as master of practical, natural, and theological philosophy. The Romans, as more manly, are a symbol of the practical; the Greeks of the natural, as being occupied in it; but through the Hebrew, theology is shown, as the Hebrews had been devoted to God from the beginning. «And those who were passing by blasphemed him, wagging their heads and saying: You who destroy the temple, and in three days rebuild it, save yourself. If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross. The same also did the robbers who were crucified with him.» B Formerly, indeed, the devil having tempted the Lord on the mountain, and having been gloriously defeated, departed from him until an opportune time, says Luke, signifying the time up to the Passion; for at the time of the Passion he fell upon him violently, like some irresistible storm, warring against him with incessant temptations. Having arranged for one of the disciples to be a traitor, and the rest of the disciples to be fugitives, he made Peter, the most fervent of all, a denier; then he maddened the Scribes, stirred up the crowds, made the ministers savage, swayed the judge, and sharpened the tongues of those crucified with him. And having fulfilled what he was hastening to do, since he saw him enduring everything with long-suffering, he attacks even on the very cross, having prepared those passing by to blaspheme and say: «If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.» This he even uttered on the mountain: «If you are the Son of God, speak that these stones may become loaves.» And again: «If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down.» And now, through the impious mouths, he speaks again in harmony with what went before: «If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.»
A Since the beloved John also followed, being known to the high priest, he entered with him into the courtyard. And whence he was known, I shall tell in brief, having woven the story from the traditions of old. That famous house of Zion had become the property of Zebedee, most conspicuous for its size and beauty; it had been built on high in Jerusalem, surrounded on all sides by a temperate climate, as we ourselves have witnessed with our own eyes. Having divided this into two, Zebedee bestowed one part upon the high priest, while he himself made the other part his dwelling. In that place, then, was the upper room, into which the Savior retired with his disciples, and where he accomplished most of his mysteries. The typical Passover, the mystical supper, the washing of the disciples' feet, and the final teachings and theological discourses. In this same place, even after the Resurrection, the disciples kept themselves hidden because of the Jews. In it, on the day of Pentecost, they received the grace of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the all-holy Lady spent the entire remaining time of her life in this house. B For this reason, then, John was known to the high priest and had free entry at that time. But Peter, being rejected from the gate as a stranger, remained standing before the doors until John led him in, having persuaded the portress. And it would have been better for Peter to follow John, and to keep close to Jesus, and to observe the things being done; for in this way, perhaps, he would have been preserved from temptation. But since he abandoned this and approached the fire which the servants had kindled, and grew warm with the fire of the enemies, for this reason a certain lowly maidservant disturbed him. For since Peter and John symbolize action and contemplation, the history cries out through these things that when the active virtue ceases to follow contemplation and to observe the divine dispensation in a godly manner, and is instead overtaken by night and the cold of ignorance, and seeks to be warmed by a foreign fire, which the servants of Satan kindle—then indeed, then, it is easily dragged away by the slave of pleasure and denies the Lord three times. C For both the rational part of the soul is darkened, and the irascible part is dragged down into ignoble cowardice, and the concupiscible part—having given up the desire to die with Christ—chooses this life instead; and thus the triple denial is brought about. Yet Peter's denial was not entirely without excuse, in that it happened by night—that is to say, before he had received D
should be your inheritance, and your recompense shall be returned upon your head. Another... A receive the rays of the Spirit. "For no one can say, 'Lord Jesus,' except in the Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit was not yet [given], for Jesus had not yet been glorified through the cross. Perhaps it was also a logical consequence that he who had known Jesus through faith, and yet remained in the atrium of the shadowy law, and had mingled himself with the ministers of the killing letter, should be drawn by the handmaid—I mean, by the legal worship—toward denying the truth, until the apostolic word, which announces the day of faith, should cry out like a cock: "The night has passed, and the day has drawn near." Then, having emerged from the shadow of the law, he would weep bitterly; that is, he would purge the bitterness of the legal observances through his tears. For thus, too, Peter did not weep while he remained in the atrium, but [only] after he had withdrawn himself from the deeds, words, and places that caused him to deny the Lord. When Peter had denied him for the first time, indeed, the cock crowed; but when he added the other two denials, then the cock crowed again. And that is how one must understand what was said by Mark: "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." But Peter, being in fear, did not immediately perceive his fall. The Lord, however, turning—since he could not reproach him with words—brought him to remembrance through that look. And Peter immediately, lest he be exposed by his tears and suspected of being a disciple, departing out of the atrium of the lawless, wept bitterly, sweetening the bitterness of the denial with his tears. These things, therefore, took place in the night. C "And when morning had come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus, so as to put him to death; and having bound him, they led him away and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor." Let us not pass over heedlessly what is demonstrated by the history: how it is that the disciples, having been scandalized in the night, are not rejected—for the Savior says: "All of you will take offense in me this night." Furthermore, Peter denies him in the night and is granted pardon; but these men, having delivered the Lord when morning had come, have remained without pardon. From this we are taught that faults committed in ignorance and youth, as though in night and darkness, become easily pardonable; but those [committed] in mature age, when the Word has shone forth, are judged worthy of scrutiny and judgment. The Jews, therefore, having delivered the Lord to the Romans, were themselves delivered to the sieges of the Romans, and drew upon themselves the curses of the prophets: "As you have done," says Obadiah to the synagogue, "so it shall be to you."
and your recompense shall be returned upon your own head." Another says: "Woe to the wicked; evil things shall befall him according to his works." A Jesus, therefore, stood before the judge. The chief priests accused him without shame, weaving together many absurd charges, and the prophecy of Hosea was receiving its fulfillment: "The priests have hidden the way of the Lord, they have murdered Sichem, because they have wrought iniquity in the house of Israel." The prophetic word has surely called the Lord himself Sichem. When Pilate heard that he corrupts the nation, B and prevents taxes from being given to Caesar, and proclaims Christ himself a king, he asks whether he himself is the King of the Jews, granting him a place to set aside the calumnies. But he, so that he might not seem by silence to agree with the accusers, or by denying it provide a suspicion of cowardice, answered very cleverly: "You have said it." And yet he could have demonstrated through unanswerable arguments that he had done the opposite of all the things of which they were calumniously accusing him. For where did he forbid taxes, when he said: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's"? And when was there any grasping at a kingdom on his part? Or when the crowds were coming to make him king, did he not leave them and immediately withdraw into the mountain? What tyrannical act were these wicked men seeing when they were fabricating such things? In them, C envy and anger were boiling over to such an extent that they prattled on about things that were unbelievable. And how was he stirring up the people by teaching? Bring forth, you sycophant, the words of the teaching! But you blush, lest Pilate, though an idolater, should discover your worthlessness. But indeed he did discover it, and the savage men are refuted, far exceeding the impiety of a Gentile man. For Pilate was rebuking them, and as if defending the Lord, he said: "I find no fault in him." But they were crying out in an unruly manner: "Take him away, take him away, crucify him." D Being overcome by the disturbances, and not bearing the unruly cries, he sends him to Herod, having heard that he is a Galilean. Perhaps he was also escaping the wicked judgment, and declining the shedding of innocent blood, which he is seen to have done in the washing of his hands.
A
Homily XXVII
consequently, the soul of the thief [is introduced] into the part and lot of the intelligible paradise. For how could a sensible place be suitable for a rational essence that dwells above sense? Thus, indeed, [both] the promise of the Lord and the testimony of the holy poets are seen to be fulfilled. And as I have said, the beauty of another poem sings of this more clearly, saying thus: "You made the thief who recognized You as God on the Cross, a partaker of the intelligible paradise." B "Now from the sixth hour until the ninth, there was darkness over all the earth." Because Adam had been created at the sixth hour, it was fitting that he should also be refashioned at the sixth hour through the Passion of Christ. And as the transgression had occurred at the sixth hour, the restoration also takes place at that same hour. But creation, seeing the Creator insulted by created men, armed itself for vengeance. And the moon, although it was then in diameter opposite the sun, ran ahead with unspeakable speed and poured out darkness; and not in one region of the earth, but over all that is contained within the circuit of the heavens, so that even the external wise men perceived the miracle. For it is impossible for an eclipse to occur without a conjunction of these two luminaries. But it was, in fact, the divine command that was superior to the order and sequence of nature, driving the moon from the vast hemispherical space to the barrier of the sun, or indeed going down under the sun in three hours according to the... [The Greek and Latin columns continue with discussions on the thief, the sixth hour of the Passion, and citations from Phlegon and the Areopagite regarding the darkness.] C D
A And they said this because it was not permitted for them to crucify, but it was in the power of the Romans to perform the execution by crucifixion. Yet it was necessary that the word of Jesus should be fulfilled here as well, which He had spoken to the disciples, that He would be delivered to the Gentiles and be put to death. For this reason John says: "That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, signifying by what death He was about to die." Pilate therefore again asked Jesus: "Whence art Thou?" But He, as if the answer were not one that Pilate could grasp, denies him, and again falls silent. What, then, does Pilate do? "Speakest Thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify Thee, and I have power to release Thee?" He indeed prides himself upon the Roman authority, but the Savior sets forth the will of the Father: "Thou wouldst have no power at all against Me, except it were given thee from above." Giving the name "given" to that which was permitted. Yet, how full of wonder is the fact that, while He did not answer the judge with many words, He admonished the judge’s wife and filled her with fear and perturbation, so that Pilate might, from His silence, be struck with the fortitude of Him who was being judged, and on the other hand, be confirmed by his spouse that it was not a mere man he was judging, but truly God. But the vision was not shown to Pilate, lest he should be terrified and release Him, and the work of the economy would not be accomplished; for it was not shown so that Christ should not suffer, but that the woman might be saved, being—as it seems—worthy of such a revelation, and that the type of the Church might be demonstrated. For she, too, had been wedded to the intelligible Pilate, or to the natural law, but was later joined to Christ. Pilate, moreover, is convicted of being somewhat foolish and cowardly. For having taken water, he washed his hands, and thereby washed away the penalty of such a murder, to all appearances; in word indeed declaring himself innocent, but in deed preferring human shame to justice. But the wretched multitude of the Jews brought the righteous blood upon their own heads, and not only upon their own, but upon their children’s as well. For they cried out: "His blood be upon us, and upon our children." And they indeed justly suffered the outcome of this curse, being cut down by the Roman sword. That Pilate, however, was not entirely blameless, the Savior showed by saying: "Therefore he who delivereth Me unto thee hath the greater sin." Pilate, then, delivered Him up to be crucified; but the audacious Judas, so long as he saw the Savior being judged, did not change: for he supposed that, having mocked Him for a little while, they would afterwards release Him. But seeing that He was condemned and was handed over to the soldiers, being consumed by conscience, and finding himself midway between shame and grief, and considering, as is likely, the reproaches from all sides, he threw the silver pieces into the temple, confessing that he had sinned. B
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus.
C Writers distinguish between different kinds of dreams, among whom is Macrobius, *Saturn.* lib. 1, cap. 3, which it is not the business of the present moment to review. From our own authors, Joannes Maldonatus, on this passage of the Gospel, enumerates four: natural, moral, divine, and diabolical, which are briefly explained in his work. But it seems more probable that the dream of Pilate’s wife was not diabolical, but divine, which Origen, Hilary, Leo (Serm. 2, *De Pass.*), Chrysostom, Jerome, Euthymius, and Theophylact—all of whom are cited by him—also believe, to whom this author of ours should be added. Moreover, Origen, Chrysostom, and Theophylact probably consider that the woman attained salvation from this dream she had about Christ. Our author acknowledges not only this, but also a mystery, or type, in this history, which he briefly insinuates.HOMILY XXVII.
A ...a sin of ignorance. For the prayer of the Lord offered to the Father had not been without fruit; but as many as saw the signs thereafter, and were initiated into the mystery of the Resurrection, and yet did not cast off their unbelief like an indelible dye, remained, as was fitting, bereft of this benefit. For it is improbable that those whom neither the earth quaking from its deepest caverns, nor the rocks being rent, nor the veil torn, nor the day darkened, nor the sun hidden, moved to faith, could plead ignorance. Wherefore, as fools, they were delivered to the Roman wrath. The soldiers, therefore, having acted with as much insolence as they wished—or rather, as much as was permitted to them—what remained was to perform the partition of the garments according to the prophetic utterance of the Psalm. For they did not divide the garments of the robbers who were crucified along with Him, but of Christ alone. Yet they did not tear the tunic, the seamless one woven from above, but gave it to the one on whom the lot fell. B It was "from above" in that it was woven, since it was common among the Galileans to make their tunics from two pieces of cloth, joined together at the shoulder. But this tunic must be taken as being of one weave, seamless. The tunic signified the holy flesh of the Word, which seed and pleasure did not stitch together, but which was woven from above by the grace of the Holy Spirit. For although the Word was born on earth according to the flesh, He was nevertheless from above, from God the Father. And the Virgin Mother being present, with her inward parts scorched C and receiving the sword of grief in her heart, which Simeon had predicted for her—
D [index: entries preserved]
He commended her to the beloved disciple, as to one pure, a virgin, and who had remained with Him even to the last dangers, and who was able to soothe her grief and explain the mystery of the Passion through theological interpretations. After these things, He spoke that utterance of the Psalm A: “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”—not because He Himself had been forsaken, or stood in need of aid; for He had said beforehand that “I am not alone, but My Father is with Me,” but He speaks these things in the person of humanity, appropriating our own, and drawing the mercy from above toward us. For we were the ones who were forsaken, as that theological voice asserts. He says this also in the person of Israel, because such abandonment had occurred toward it, that it became a God-killer, and arrived at such a pitch of audacity. Having now fulfilled all things concerning Himself, He said: “It is finished.” That is to say, both the things of the prophets, and those of the economy, and those of Jewish impiety had received their end. And having thus cried with a loud voice: “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit,” and bowing His head, He gave up the spirit. In these things also the prophecy of Joel was being fulfilled B: “The sun and moon shall be darkened, and the Lord shall cry out from Sion, and shall give His voice in Jerusalem.” He cries with a great voice, showing that by His own authority He lets go His soul. He commends it into the hands of the Father, so that He might receive it again as a deposit, and this was what He said to the Jews: “I lay down My life, that I may take it again.” And at the same time giving hopes to us, that the souls of the faithful no longer go into Hades, but are commended into the hands of God. He bows His head as if by a nod, summoning death as a handmaid. For with authority He delivered His own body to death, so that He might undergo the things of nature naturally, and rise again above nature divinely. Instantly, therefore, the veil of the temple is rent, which was a cloth hung right through the very middle of the temple, obscuring the things within, and making the sanctuaries visible and accessible to the priest alone. But since it was the custom among the Jews, at blasphemies against God, to rend their garments, the temple takes on the appearance of mourners, lamenting the audacity to such an extent, and as a tunic it tore the veil; perhaps also in some way pre-announcing its own desolation and at the same time indicating the divine C language, the Muse, that in that which I have said, it depicts our own: for we were the ones who were forsaken and overlooked before D.
...demonstrating that the divine power had retreated from the Temple, having been driven away by the impiety of the Jews. He also signified the obscurity of the Law, which previously had been spread out like a veil, hiding the truth, but which now was removed, revealing the beauty hidden within. It was rent from top to bottom because the preaching of salvation is not limited in its explanation. The earth was shaken as if it had heard Haggai speaking from the person of Christ: "I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea." A And again Habakkuk says: "He stood, and the earth was shaken, and the hills melted." For when the Cross was set up, the earth was shaken, and the demons that were exalted like mountains were crushed. The earth shakes to show the overturning of events. The rocks were split, signifying that the stony hearts of the nations would be opened to receive the seed of the Gospel, and be established on the foundation of the cornerstone. The resurrection of the dead indicated the freedom of the souls in Hades. There is, however, cause for hesitation here: whether the resurrection of the dead occurred before the resurrection of Christ, or after. If it were before the resurrection, as it seems to the divine Maximus, it is clear that they died again. For Christ was the first-born of the immortal resurrection. But if it were after the resurrection of Christ, which is more reasonable, the text should be read through a hyperbaton: "And many bodies of the sleeping saints arose" — *after his resurrection*; and then it should be completed: "And coming out of the graves, they entered into the holy city, and appeared unto many." For while the life-giving body was buried in the earth and the divine soul had descended into Hades, the bodies of the saints sensed a vital power, their souls were released, and many were reunited with their own bodies. A report B has reached us from the ancients, lacking nothing in credibility, that the long-suffering Job also rose at that time. His sacred book renders the report manifest, saying at the very end: "It is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord will raise," which indeed was accomplished in the resurrection of Christ. Thus, through the opening of the graves, the destruction of Hades became known, and the [victory] of...
the resurrection of the Lord. When the Author of our salvation emerged from the tomb, then, indeed, the saints themselves, untied from the bonds of death, came forth from the tombs, saying the words of Hosea: "He will heal us and restore us after two days, and on the third day we shall rise." And so, rejoicing, they entered into the holy city—both the one on earth and that in Eden—with the Savior leading the way and bringing in the robber, according to his promise. Then the centurion, seeing how he gave up his spirit with authority, how the rocks were split and the earth shaken, came to such compunction that he believed and confessed Christ to be the Son of God. Later, he was perfected by his own blood of martyrdom.
Now, consider also the constancy of the holy women, how great it was. They followed him from Galilee, ministering to him out of their own private means; then they were present during his dangers, and as he was being dragged to the cross, they followed after, bewailing him; and when he was nailed [to it], they sat by and kept watch, observing where he would be laid, so that, once the madness of the Jews had abated, having secured safety, they might come to anoint the body with incense. B The Jews, therefore, not wanting the bodies to remain on the cross because it was the Preparation Day (for that day of the Sabbath was a great one), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and they [the bodies] might be removed. C After this audacious task of theirs had been carried out, those god-hated, wretched, and baleful men—pretending to be guardians of the law—requested of the governor that the legs of those who had been crucified should be broken, at once hastening the death of Jesus while pretending to be guarding the legal injunction; for thus did Moses command: "If there shall be in anyone a crime of death, and you hang him upon a tree, his body shall not remain overnight upon the tree, but you shall bury him in that day." The legs of the robbers, as they were still breathing, they crushed with clubs. But as for Jesus, D when they saw that he was already dead, they did not do this; for it was not right for the bones of the holy victim to be broken, since the law forbade the breaking of the bones of the typical lamb. But a certain bold soldier pierced his side with a lance, and immediately the work of a paradoxical miracle followed; for as if from a single fountain, from his side there poured forth a stream and a blood. And by the water our handwriting of debt was wiped away; by the blood, however, royal freedom was inscribed for us. Or perhaps the blood flowed for the condemnation of the wickedness of the Jews, but the water for the salvation of those who are reborn through the water. But since also twofold is the salvation of those who are reborn through the water—that is, [the salvation] of the newly baptized—since as the water of the...
enlightened—and for those who are perfected through blood, for this reason both blood and water poured forth from the divine side, for the sake of the twofold grace of the confession of Christ: the one in martyrdom, the other in baptism. For water indeed frees those who have sinned, while blood crowns the martyrs. Moreover, the side gushed forth these two streams, correcting the fall of the woman derived from the side—so that the blood might become the solution for the curse, and the water the cleansing of the slipping. And from the side of the first Adam, B who had fallen into a deep sleep, she who was the source of the curse was fashioned; but from the new Adam, who fell into a deep sleep upon the Cross, the fountain of life gushed forth from his side. John says that he who has seen this bears witness to it, indicating himself as present, as seeing, and as testifying to the things he saw. And showing that these things were also divinely foretold from old, he brings forth the prophecy and the commandment of the Law. For Moses, C foreseeing that the legs of Jesus would not be broken, gives the law not to crush the bones of the lamb. But the prophet, foreseeing the wounds of the nails and the blow of the spear, says: "They shall look on him whom they pierced," meaning clearly the wounds themselves, which they themselves had wrought. "And when evening had come"—for it was truly the evening of the Sun of righteousness, as he was setting beneath the earth—Joseph, a man of note and one of the seventy disciples, D acts with boldness, asks for the body, and gives it a splendid burial; wrapping it in a clean shroud and laying it in a new monument. And he is placed in a new tomb, so that when the mystery of the resurrection was accomplished, no one of the slanderers could say that another had risen. May it befall us to become emulators of the noble Joseph, to seek and receive the body of Christ, and to wrap it in a pure conscience as in a clean shroud, for the averting of the enemy demons, and for the sanctification of our souls and bodies, and to the glory of Him who through His death made us immortal; for to Him is due all honor and adoration, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
Interpretation on the Eleven Matutinal Lessons. Homily XXVIII. On the First Matutinal Lesson.
When of old Moses, the contemplator of God, was leading the Israelite people to Sinai, by certain sprinkling rites... It must be known also of this, that the matutinal gospels are not read at the morning service from Easter in sequential order, but rather alternatingly: [index: entries preserved]
A of the Lord’s resurrection. And when the Author of our salvation came forth from the tomb, then indeed did the saints themselves also rise, loosed from their graves, saying the words of Hosea: “He will heal us, and will make us whole after two days, and on the third day we shall rise.” B And so, rejoicing, they entered into the holy city, both that which is on earth and that which is in Eden, with the Savior going before and bringing in the robber, according to his promise. Then indeed the centurion also, seeing how he had expired with authority, how the rocks were rent and the earth had been shaken, came to such compunction that he believed and confessed Christ to be the Son of God. Later, he was also perfected through the witness of his blood.
Observe also the diligence of the women, how great it was. They followed him from Galilee, ministering of their own substance; then they were present in his dangers, followed him as he was being dragged to the cross, lamenting; and they sat down as he was being nailed to it, and watched diligently, observing where he would be laid, so that once the madness of the Jews had subsided and they had grasped a moment of safety, they might come and pour ointments upon his body. C “The Jews therefore, that the bodies might not remain on the cross, because it was the Preparation (for that day of the Sabbath was a great day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.” Since that daring deed of theirs had reached its fulfillment, these god-hated, utter wretches and ill-fated men, pretending to be guardians of the law, requested of the governor that the legs of those who had been crucified be broken—at once hastening the death of Jesus and pretending to guard the legal observance; for thus Moses had commanded: “If there be a judgment of death upon any one, and you hang him upon a tree, his body shall not remain upon the tree, but you shall bury him in that day.” D They crushed with clubs the legs of the robbers who were still breathing. But Jesus, when they saw that he was dead, they did not do this to him; for it was not permitted that the bones of the holy victim be broken, since the law had forbidden the breaking of the bones of the typic lamb. A certain bold soldier, however, pierced his side with a lance, and immediately a work of paradoxical wonder followed; for as if from a single fountain of his side, it sent forth a stream of water and blood. And through the water was the handwriting of our slavery blotted out; but through the blood was royal freedom inscribed for us, or perhaps the blood flowed out for the condemnation of the wickedness of the Jews, while the water was for [index: entries preserved]
the salvation of those who are regenerated through water. Since also the power of saving baptism is twofold—being exerted both in those who are illuminated through water and in those who are brought to perfection through blood—for this reason blood and water flowed from the divine side, so that the twofold grace of the confession of Christ might be signified, both that which is shown in baptism and that which is shown in martyrdom. For the water indeed frees from sins, but the blood crowns the martyrs. A Moreover, a twofold fountain gushed from the side, to amend the fall of the woman who was drawn from his side: that the blood might release the curse, and the water might purge the slip. For from the side of the first Adam, who had fallen into a deep sleep, she who was the source of the curse was formed; but from the side of the new Adam, who fell into a deep sleep upon the Cross, the fountain of life flowed forth. Regarding this event, John says that he who has seen it has borne witness, indicating himself, as someone who was present, who saw, and who testified to what he saw. And showing that these things were ordained by God B long before, he brings forward the prophecy and the commandment of the Law. For Moses, anticipating that the legs of *Jesus* would not be broken, established a law that the bones of the lamb should not be shattered. But the prophet, foreseeing the wounds of the nails and the blow of the spear, says: "They shall look upon him whom they have pierced," meaning clearly the wounds themselves, which they themselves caused. "And when evening had come" (for it was truly the evening of the Sun of righteousness, as he was setting beneath the earth), Joseph, a man eminent for his status C and one of the seventy disciples, speaks with confidence, and asks for the body, and gives it a magnificent burial, wrapping it in a clean winding-sheet and placing it in a new tomb. He is laid in a new sepulchre so that, once the mystery of the resurrection is accomplished, no one among the slanderers might say that another has risen. May it be our lot to become followers of the honorable Joseph, to seek and receive the body of Christ, and to wrap it in a clean conscience as in a winding-sheet, for the averting of the hostile demons, and for the sanctification of our souls and our bodies, and for the glory of him D who through his death has made us immortal; for to him is due all honor and adoration, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
INTERPRETATION OF THE ELEVEN MATUTINAL GOSPELS
On the first matutinal gospel.
When Moses, the contemplator of God, was leading the Israelite people to Sinai, he commanded that those who were to ascend should purify themselves; and that they should wash their garments, and thus...
HOMILY XXXV
On the ninth matins.
A When it was late on that day, one of the Sabbaths, and the doors were shut where the disciples were gathered together. One must inquire, for the sake of those who search the holy Scriptures, why it is that Christ appeared to the women when the sun had risen, and very early after the resurrection, but to the disciples, when the daylight was already drawing to a close. And if we consider this according to the sense of history, it is probable that they had dispersed to different places, as may be inferred from those who were going to Emmaus, and that it was for this reason that night gathered them together B into the house in Sion, and that they were suffering from sorrow over the Master, and trembling from fear of the Jews, and communicating with one another, and were being stirred up in their souls by the promises of the Saviour. Therefore, when it was late, He stands in their midst, so that He might be visible to all. In a higher way, it was late for the disciples; for they were in the mist of human suffering, and in the pains of the faithless. For He took on human nature, that is, the intellectual soul, and the body, and the properties and natural and blameless passions of human nature for the sake of our salvation.
C
Notes of Francesco Scorso.
(47) *Pelliceas tunicas*. He alludes to that in Gen. 3: *The Lord God also made for Adam and his wife coats of skins*. The Septuagint: *Tunics of skin*. Whom our S. Gregory Nazianzen follows, whom our author follows, interpreting them in oration 38 on account of the coarseness of mortal flesh, which is longer in the 25th chapter of the same oration. But even if one takes a literal and historical interpretation, as James Billius has noted in the same oration, read Peter, in his *Commentary on Genesis*, who praises the opinion of Nazianzen, that those tunics were given by God to our first parents; and our author brings forward the same opinion, as I have said, S. Athanasius, in *On the Psalm and the Cross*, teaches that this was meant both in a literal and mystical sense, and that [Adam] put off his garments; for he was to be made a man when he introduced him into paradise, those tunics that Adam received when he was cast out of paradise. For since he had sinned, and was henceforth to die, it was fitting that he be made conspicuous with coats of skins as a sign of the mortality caused by the sin inflicted upon him. But if any others among the Fathers, who are few, think they are only meant figuratively and metaphorically, they do not speak in the same place.
(48) *That Adam after the transgression*. By what he explains in *Damascene*, book 4 of *De Fide*, chapter 14: *He is the same, [taking] all of man, our nature, a soul gifted with reason, and body, and the properties of human nature, and natural and blameless passions. For He took on only man for our salvation, that is, the intellectual soul, and body, and the properties of human nature, and natural and blameless passions*.
(49) *He reformed nature*. Human nature was still innocent, having not yet experienced sin, death, and corruption, and was immune to other diseases and sufferings, by a natural disposition of life; which it possessed by the benefit of the tree of life, or by some other gift, as theologians explain, the leader of whom S. Thomas is, in part 1, question 97, in the body. And this is for the state of life, and up to a determined time; for a finite man had been translated into a spiritual state. By a perfect reformation it is to be understood, which Theophanes says, that Christ restored nature to what it was before the sin: namely, into immortality and incorruption, and in addition to those things that are proper to a blessed body in the resurrection, as we hope the same Theophanes will obtain. Indeed, the rest differs from the immortality of glory, which is promised as a reward, says S. Thomas, quæst. cit., art. 4, but into mortality which was brought upon man in the state of innocence; and similarly, in him there was incorruption, otherwise it would have proceeded from another cause and not from those things that belong to the blessed body, and glory proceeds from them.
HOMILY XXVIII
The preaching of the apostles comprises these four things: precepts, dogmas, promises, and threats; and it is fitting indeed that in this fourth manifestation he entrusts them with the office of teaching the nations. But since there are many mountains in Palestine, why is he seen in a mountain of Galilee and not in any other? For there is in Judea Mount Segor, and Somor, and the mount of Samaria, and Thabor, and the Mount of Olives, and besides these, Carmel. Why, therefore, setting aside the rest, is he seen only in the mountain of Galilee? Doubtless because some of them had been workshops of wicked deeds; such as Mount Segor and Somor: of which the one saw the father, alas, mingling with his daughters, and Lot himself becoming to them both a father and a partner, and to those who were born, both father and grandfather. But the mount of Samaria was a lair of idols, in which the Samaritans did not worship sincerely. And these indeed he passed by, as profane. Of the rest, one saw him transfigured in glory; Carmel was allotted for the dwelling of Elias; the Mount of Olives awaited his return from thence to heaven. It was therefore fitting that the Lord should appear to the disciples in this mountain. For since Galilee is interpreted as "a revolution," and the mountain of Galilee stands above, Galilee may be understood as this world, which is constantly changing and revolving through one mutation after another; and by the mountain, that sublime manner and state of life which Christ instituted and maintained in his assumed humanity—he who conquered both the world and the prince of the world, and was lifted up like a mountain above all principality and power. The manifestation, therefore, made on the mountain of Galilee was an emblem of these things. A *And seeing him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.* Here it is necessary to discuss how all saw him and worshipped, but some doubted, and thus they were not all of the same mind; but some of them wavered. Who, then, were they that doubted, and what infused doubt into them? For those who explained this passage before us, having thought that this was said concerning Thomas, do not seem to me to have considered the matter accurately. For if this were to be signified, it would have been more apt perhaps to express that sentence in the singular number: *but he doubted.* But now the signification of the plural persuades the mind to understand something else. B It is fitting, therefore, to understand that the Lord did not appear to the disciples after the Resurrection entirely as he who dwelt with them before he suffered, but in another aspect, different from what he was before. For it was consistent...
that, when his assumed humanity had now been transferred to a state of immortality, a new form should come into existence for it; and thus he who had come forth as the victor over the world, and had endued his body with incorruption, and existed as pre-eminent over death, shone forth with a certain beautiful and illustrious majesty. David A also foretold this: "The Lord has reigned, he has put on comeliness," pointing out the kingdom and lordship which he obtained after the Resurrection. For the power which he had always possessed as God, having received this as man after the Resurrection, and having become lord of all the created order, he appeared endowed with a glorious comeliness and beauty. This was not because his features were changed, but because a certain inimitability of beauty was added to him, just as had happened previously at his Transfiguration. And perhaps, beholding him with this comely splendor as he ascended to the heavens, the angels asked one another: "Who is this who comes from Edom? This one is beautiful in his garment." Foreseeing this beauty of Christ, Solomon said in the Song, in wonder: "How have you been made beautiful, and how have you been made sweet!" And so that this divine appearance might not seem to have been introduced to him as an adventitious quality after his rising from the dead, he showed himself beforehand to his disciples on Tabor, shining with such beauty. For the Transfiguration was an image and a prefiguring of the glory following the Resurrection. In such a form, therefore, he appeared to the eleven on the mountain of Galilee, such as he had appeared previously to the three on Tabor. For this reason, both Peter and the sons of Zebedee remained unshaken, for they recognized the splendor he had then shown, which had been changed into incorruptibility, a brightness of a newer kind at that time. But as many as had not seen the Transfiguration, being astounded by the unusual nature of his form, doubted. Therefore, he did not rebuke them at all, but smoothed over the roughness of their hesitation, as if explaining to them the brilliance of the form that was appearing: "All authority," he said, "has been given to me in heaven and on earth." Do not let your mind be startled, he says, seeing me irradiated like the sun in my form; for my body is no longer in the infirmities of the flesh; but the prince of this world has been cast out, and the power and lordship over all creation has been given to me. For though he was King and Master of the whole nature, and had possessed the ruling power as innate from before every age, as man he has been appointed by the Father to be King. Since B C D
he had assumed flesh that needed to be glorified, and that flesh was not of some other, but was become his own, he most fittingly claims as his own those things which were conferred upon it, or came to pass concerning it; and as man, he receives from the Father those things which he possesses by nature: "Thou hast put all things under his feet." A And from the person of the Father, he thus speaks to Christ: "Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." For since the one nation of Israel had raged in madness and had therefore been cast away, all the nations that believed in him have been given to Christ. And since he was the expectation of the nations, and the nations had hoped in him, and instead of the one land of the Jews he obtained the fullness of the earth as his inheritance, he commands his disciples: "Go therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Before his passion he indeed forbade them to go into the way of the nations, and commanded them to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But now he has entrusted to them the care of all nations: "Go therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." B Now the mystery of the Trinity is not shown through types and symbols, but is clearly made known to all. For that shadowy Scripture taught concerning it obscurely, but the Lord speaks more clearly concerning himself, and the Father, and the Spirit. For it was also shown in the Jordan, when the Lord purified our nature through baptism. For the Son was baptized, and the Father bore witness to him who was touched by the hand; and the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove. And on Mount Tabor, too, the distinction of the hypostases in the Trinity was made known, though the identity of the essence and the equal dignity were not declared with such clarity. But now he makes that equality better known by saying: "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." But since our discourse is about baptism, it is necessary to explain why it is said, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." For those things which he had naturally as God, he speaks of as receiving, because he had become man according to the economy. C The divine fountain of the Gospel teachings, D touched the head of the Master, trembling with his hand, and rejoicing in his soul, and did baptize the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is necessary to say why the rite of baptism was instituted. For the divine bath is mocked by the unbelievers, who are ignorant of what is symbolized through it. Since the first birth leads man into a mortal life, it was necessary to discover another birth, and a more mystical manner, one that neither begins from corruption, nor ends in corruption; through which it would be possible for us to imitate the Author of our salvation, Jesus Christ. For the water of baptism is taken in the place of a womb; and the Spirit is in the place of God, who fashions the embryo. And just as He, after the deposition in the tomb, returned to life on the third day, so those who believe, emerging from the water as out of the earth in three periods, signify the life restored after three days, and the very Resurrection itself, the water being sanctified through the invocation of the holy Trinity; so that by the visible water the body might be illuminated, and by the invisible Spirit the soul might receive sanctification. For just as the water in a caldron shares the heat of the fire, so the water in the font is transformed into a divine power by the operation of the Spirit.
But why, after saying, "Make disciples of all nations," did He add again, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you?" By this He shows the difference between institution and instruction; for the one is introductory, and as it were elementary; but teaching is appropriate for the more perfect. And the one, as it were, lays down the dogmas as a foundation, while the other superimposes the building through works. For by saying "Make disciples," He indicated the learning of the dogmas; wherefore He also added "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit." In it you died and were born. And that saving water became for us both a tomb and a mother. And baptism is the bringer of the remission of sins and of adoption.
A Regarding the pool, it is the sheep-pool in Jerusalem. Yesterday you lay on your bed, paralyzed and loosed, and you had no man, so that when the water was stirred, he might cast you into the pool; today you have found a man and the same is God, or rather God-man. It was necessary that baptism be preceded by many things, and countless ones, such as those in the Old Testament, those in the pool that cleansed the one who was not healthy. B C D
which is the confirmation of dogmas. But since, according to the holy brother of the Lord, "faith without works is dead," he desires that the one who has been instructed in the dogmas of faith, and perfected by the regeneration of holy baptism, should also build upon it the works of faith; not partially, but all things whatsoever the Savior commanded the disciples. B "And behold I am with you all the days, even unto the consummation of the age. Amen." O sweet promise, O admirable undertaking, which our Master pledged in order to be eternally with the saints! And we do not by any means say that He will be with them up until the consummation of the age, and then be separated; let us not fall into such levity of thought as to understand or utter this. For the word "until" is not taken as temporal, but as indefinite; such is the habit of speech in the Holy Scriptures. It is used concerning the raven sent by Noah to see if the water had ceased from the earth; and concerning the holy espoused Joseph, that he did not know the Virgin "until she brought forth her firstborn son"; and the prophetic Psalm says thus: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." Harmonious with this, the Apostle also speaks: "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet," where in all these instances the word "until" has an indefinite and eternal signification. Holding this blessed promise, therefore, as a firm hope and "anchor," we believe without wavering that Christ is present with those who have believed in Him, and who remain firmly in His words, keeping them unharmed by the treachery and malice of the evil one, and constituting them heirs of eternal goods; may it be granted to us all to attain these, in Christ Jesus our Lord; with whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory to the ages. Amen.
HOMILY XXIX. On the Second Matins.
The rising of the sun from the east delights the eyes, and as it adorns the face of the earth with its rays, it brings joy.
A And the Resurrection of the Lord. But when the Author of our salvation departed from the tomb, then truly did these holy ones also emerge from the monuments, released, and saying the words of Hosea: "He shall heal us, and make us whole after two days, and on the third day we shall arise." And thus, rejoicing, they entered into the holy city—both that which is on earth and that which is in Eden—with the Savior proceeding before them, and bringing in the robber, according to his promise. Then, indeed, the centurion also, seeing how he gave up the ghost with authority, how the rocks were cleft and the earth had quaked, came to such compunction that he believed and confessed Christ to be the Son of God. And later, he was also perfected by his martyr’s blood.
See also the assiduity of the women, how great it was. They followed him from Galilee, ministering from their own resources; then they were present in his dangers, followed him as he was dragged to the cross, lamenting; and when he was fixed upon it, they sat by and watched closely, looking to see where he would be laid, so that when the madness of the Jews had subsided, having grasped a moment of safety, they might come and pour [perfume] over his body.
"The Jews, therefore, so that the bodies might not remain on the cross, because it was Preparation—for that day of the Sabbath was great—asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away." Since that daring deed had been completed by them, those who were hateful to God, and utterly lost, and wretched—pretending under the guise of guarding the law—besought the governor that the legs of those who had been crucified might be broken; intending at once to hasten the death of Jesus, while pretending to observe the legal requirement. For thus Moses commanded: "If there be in any man a judgment of death, and you hang him upon a tree, his body shall not remain overnight upon the tree, but you shall bury him in that same day." The legs of the robbers, therefore, as they were still breathing, they crushed with clubs. But as for Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not carry this out; for it was not right that the bones of the holy victim should be broken, since the Law also forbade the breaking of the bones of the typical lamb. But a certain bold soldier pierced his side with a lance, and immediately the work of a paradoxical miracle followed; for as if from a single fountain in his side, a stream and blood gushed forth. And by the water, the handwriting of our servitude was erased; but by the blood, a royal freedom was written out for us. Or perhaps the blood flowed for the condemnation of the wickedness of the Jews, but the water toward D salvation of those who are reborn through the water.
A Since the power of saving baptism is twofold—being exercised both in those who are enlightened through water and in those who are brought to perfection through blood—for this reason, blood and water came forth from the divine side, for the sake of the twofold grace of the confession of Christ, that which is in baptism and that which is in martyrdom. For the water frees those who have sinned, while the blood crowns the martyrs. The side poured forth these two streams, correcting the fall of the woman who was drawn from a side, so that the blood might be a release from the curse, and the water a purification of the error. And from the side of the first Adam, while he slept, was formed she who was the source of the curse; but from the side of the new Adam, while he slept on the cross, flowed the fountain of life. Regarding this event, John says that he who has seen it has borne witness—indicating himself as being present, seeing, and testifying to what he saw. Showing that these things had been predicted from of old, he brings forward the prophecy and the commandment of the Law. For Moses, anticipating that the legs of Jesus would not be broken, ordained by law that the bones of the lamb should not be shattered. The prophet, foreseeing the holes of the nails and the wound of the lance, says, "They shall look on him whom they pierced," B meaning to the very wounds which they themselves inflicted. "And when evening had come" (for it was truly the evening of the Sun of righteousness, as he was setting beneath the earth), Joseph, being a man of noble rank and one of the seventy disciples, speaks boldly, asks for the body, and gives it splendid burial; wrapping it in a clean linen cloth and laying it in a new monument. He is placed in a new tomb so that, when the mystery of the resurrection is accomplished, none of the slanderers might say that another has risen. May it be our lot to become emulators of this honorable Joseph, and to seek and receive the body of Christ, and to wrap it in our conscience as in a clean linen cloth, for the averting of the enemy demons, and for the sanctification of our souls and our bodies, and to the glory of him who through his death made us immortal; for to him is due all honor and adoration, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
Interpretation of the Eleven Matins Gospels, Homily XXVIII.
On the First Matins Gospel.
Of old, Moses, who beheld God, while leading the people of Israel up to Sinai, with certain...
[Note: The Greek/Latin column beginning "Notandum tamen inveni..." is a continuation of the explanatory notes regarding the order of the Matins Gospels, as marked by the rubric "Francisci Scorsi notae."]
It must be noted that the Matins gospels are not read at the morning service from Easter in a continuous order, but in a varied manner. C [index: entries preserved]
THEOPHANIS CERAMEI HOMILY XXXVI
A and the mother of Joses (the Gospels name him), and though they had visited the tomb before, they were not entirely ignorant of the resurrection; yet, being strengthened by a most ardent desire, they were hastening to receive greater confirmation. Salome, however, coming now for the first time, knew indeed that a great stone blocked the entrance to the tomb; for she had been present together with the women around the Theotokos during the laying away of the Lord’s body, and she had seen where it was placed, just as Matthew and Mark have made clear—one designating her by her children, the other by the name itself. Being ignorant of what happened thereafter, she was in doubt about the stone; for the words were her own: “Who will roll away the stone for us?” Therefore the Marys, as those who knew that the stone had been rolled away, dissolve her uncertainty by the cast of their eyes. “For looking up,” he says, “they see that the stone has been rolled away.” For by saying “looking up,” he signified the indication made by the B nodding of the eyes. The magnitude of the stone is also indicated by the saying: “For it was very great,” showing that it was not grave-robbers and thieves who rolled away the stone to try to steal the corpse, in accordance with what the slandering chief priests said to Pilate: “Lest his disciples come by night and steal him.” It should be known that that tomb was a man-made cave, to whose door Joseph, through the labor of many, rolled and set that great stone, so that it could not be easily pried away even by many men. It had also been sealed by the impressions of the seals; but truly, he who had rolled away the stone was very great, for nothing prevents us from understanding the statement “For it was very great” in this way as well. “And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, wearing a white robe, and they were amazed.” The women, seeing the stone lifted from the life-bearing coffin, immediately slipped inside; and having encountered a more perplexed sight, they were amazed, a young man in a white garment having appeared to them on the right side, and having struck them with his extraordinary form. For wonder is fear arising from an unaccustomed sight. C
Francisci Scorsi notes.
Gregory and this Theophanes here hold that the Blessed Virgin approached the sepulchre, and they are to be considered as attributing to her some lack of faith, but they think that it was done by her even out of love. And indeed, our Theophanes speaks rightly concerning the most complete faith of the Blessed Virgin in a homily below. We have “mother of Joses” (Joses is properly called so here). That this refers to the Theotokos, and that we have not believed otherwise, is what we hold. By what reasoning she is so called, he himself explains in the same place; but that explanation, which relies on the opinion held by many of the ancient Greeks, that Joseph had children from another wife before he married the Virgin Mary, is not to be admitted and should be read with caution. Concerning this matter we have spoken at Homily 24, note 55. For that opinion, according to the common sense of our theologians, is now obsolete, and this is the faith of the Church, says Peter Damian in the letter cited in the same place. But it is also not probable that the same Nyssen, and Theophanes adhering to him here, say that the most holy Virgin had set out to the sepulchre with other women with spices; others were doing this out of love for the body of Christ, even though it was lifeless, because they were thinking nothing of the resurrection; and thus they were bestowing that work of piety, which they were able, upon it. But the Theotokos Virgin was abstaining from it out of the most certain faith that He would rise again on the third day. This is the judgment, this is the sense of more recent theologians; and it is taken from Gregory Nyssen. For when he says, in the cited oration on the Resurrection, that “Salome was rightly in doubt, as one who had not approached the sepulchre at all, and was saying to her companions (Who will roll away the stone from the door of the monument?), those women, having shone forth as said above, when they raised their eyes, gave the answer by the very aspect; for indeed the stone appeared rolled away in their sight.” These are his words. And indeed from the fact that he thinks that the journey of Mary Salome was another, about which St. Mark speaks, and that it was the first of the other women, about which St. Matthew speaks. See note 84.
HOMILY XXIX
A The fear that had arisen from the unusual vision. But the fact that the angel appeared on the right side was a symbol and indication of a prosperous event and message. For in this way, too, Gabriel, when he was about to announce the birth of the Forerunner to Zacharias, appeared on the right side of the altar; the whiteness of the robe showed the splendor of the glorious resurrection; the youthful figure indicated the appearance of the angels, always flourishing in the same manner. For divine things always flourish as if in youth, devoid of old age and everywhere happy. He who says to them: "Do not be afraid; you seek Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified." At the beginning, he settles their fear, freeing them from the panic that had been produced; then, as one who is conscious of the reason for which they had come, he brings it out: "You seek Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified."
B But what is the reason that, omitting the sublime intellects which befit God, through which the divinity of the Word could be indicated, he uses these humble words? Perhaps to convict the thought of the women; for they had not turned their minds to Him clearly, as to God. Otherwise, they would not have come as if to a dead body to be anointed with spices. Something like this, therefore, is what he says: "Whom you consider so bare a man, turning your mind only to his visible form, Jesus, I say, from Nazareth, who received the salutary punishment of the cross, He has risen; for He is not as you think." For the adverb here should be taken as "thus," so that the sense might be: "He is not among the dead, as you imagine." For as God, He was everywhere, knowing no place, and filling all things. Since, therefore, he had instructed them in these things concerning the resurrection, he sent them to the apostles, so that they might act as apostles toward them, and bring the good news full of joy: "Go, tell His disciples, and Peter."
But for what reason, when he commands the news to be brought to the disciples, does he add, "and Peter"? Because, clearly, that solid and unbreakable column had been shaken and had denied the Lord, and realizing his fall had wept bitterly; and he was still being tormented by the consciousness of that evil, and his mind was still swaying with sorrow and anxiety, uncertain whether he had obtained pardon from God; and perhaps he did not yet deem himself worthy to be numbered among the disciples. Therefore, when the angel had called the disciples, he added his own name, so that Petrus, indeed, might recognize the fruit of his tears, by which he had not fallen from the choir of the disciples. Furthermore, so that the truth of the vision might be persuaded, and the resurrection of the Lord might be confirmed, he commanded that a sign known only to the disciples be brought to them. For he says: "For He will go before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He told you."
A That point, however, is worthy of investigation: how the divine Luke says that the women announced everything to the disciples—and this same evangelist elsewhere stated that the Magdalene went and announced it to those who had been with him, mourning and weeping—yet here he says: "They fled from the tomb, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." Because the disciples, having heard the first visions of the women that Matthew, John, and Luke recounted, did not believe, for which reason the Lord, appearing to the eleven themselves as they reclined at table, reproached their unbelief; for this reason the women, fearing that the disciples might appear unbelieving again, as they had before, kept silent about the revelation; for they feared that they might become the cause of greater condemnation for them if they remained incredulous regarding things so clearly and frequently seen.
Let us also imitate these godly and blessed women. Let one who is zealous for the practical life imitate Mary Magdalene; and just as she frequented the tomb throughout the whole night, being solicitous in inquiring about the Lord’s resurrection, so let him throughout his entire life seek the resurrection of the Word that has died within him. Another, like Mary of James, should open his mind to contemplation, and throughout his entire life be occupied with the knowledge of divine things; and through true knowledge, let him beget the Word within himself and acquire that kinship with God which is by grace. "For my mother and my brothers," says the Savior, "are those who do my will." If anyone, having appeared sluggish in his search for the Good during the early stages of life, has been hindered by the sleep of negligence, let him imitate Salome; and when the sun has risen—that is, when the divine light has shone upon him—let him shake off his sloth and join himself to those who have already made progress in practicing the good. Salome is interpreted as "peaceful," signifying the good soul that has conquered the passions and, so far as possible, is living in peace. By imitating them, let us seek the knowledge of the Word with great eagerness, the sun having risen—that is, the guiding faculty within us having been illumined—and the ignorance of our thoughts having been scattered like the night. If we seek in this way, we shall first see the hardness of our heart removed like a stone. Once this has been removed, the angel will appear to us—the movement of conscience—proclaiming the resurrection of the rational part of the soul that had died within us. Let us become teachers of the good to others as well, to as many as are obedient in hearing divine things; but to those who consider divine teaching to be nonsense, let us say nothing to anyone. For it is not right to reveal divine mysteries to the unbelieving.
that which needed to be glorified, and it became the flesh not of some other, but of Himself; thus, He reasonably appropriates to Himself the things that were directed at it or concerned it, and, as man, He receives from the Father that which He possesses by nature: "Thou hast put all things under His feet." A For, from the person of the Father, it is spoken thus to Christ: "Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the nations for Thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy possession." For since one nation, Israel, had raged and therefore been rejected, all the nations that believed in Him were given to Christ. And since there was an expectation of the nations, and the nations hoped in Him, and in place of the one land of the Jews He obtained as an inheritance the plenitude of the earth, He commanded the disciples: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And before the Passion, indeed, He forbade them to go into the way of the nations, and bade them go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; but now He has entrusted to them the care of all nations: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Now the mystery of the Trinity is not indicated to us in types and symbols, but is clearly made manifest to all. For that shadowy Scripture taught concerning it obscurely. But the Lord mentions Himself, and the Father, and the Spirit more clearly. And it was shown also in the Jordan, when the Lord cleansed our nature through baptism. For the Son was baptized; the Father bore witness to Him who was touched by the hand; and the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove. And on Mount Tabor, too, the difference of the hypostases in the Trinity was made known, although the identity of essence and the equality of dignity were not yet clearly shown. But now He makes that equality better known by saying: "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." B But since our discourse is concerning baptism, it is necessary to say why it was decided that... "All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth." For what He had by nature as God, this He says He receives as having become man, according to the economy. The source of the evangelical teachings touched the head of the Master, trembling in hand and rejoicing in soul, and baptized the Lord Jesus Christ.
HOMILY XXXVII
On the eleventh matutinal [gospel].
At that time, "Jesus showed Himself to the disciples, having risen from the dead," and says to Simon Peter: "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these?" When the Lord had appeared to the disciples fishing at the Sea of Tiberias, and had shown them mystical symbols, the catch, the bread, the embers, and the fish, and had eaten with them—He who was unknown already—one thing remained, that the disciple who had failed by denial should be healed; so that he who had known how to act in the opposite way to the contrary might through a threefold confession correct the threefold sin of the disciple. And although He knew all things before they came to pass, He feigns ignorance, C saying: "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me?" He knew indeed that Peter was fervent in love, even if he had been led astray by a certain better providence at the time of the Passion; but because Peter himself was pricked by the stings of conscience, and because there was a suspicion concerning him among the disciples (which had been hidden), the Savior shows, if He proposes him as the foundation of the Church, set over the rational sheep, and as chief of His disciples, D that he is the coryphaeus, or prince of apostolic dignity and rank. This is not against the innovators of our own time, who cannot bear the primacy of Peter, and who do not acknowledge the Roman see, which they refuse to obey, though they certainly have it as their adversary and the reprover of their errors. For besides this Theophanes Kerameus, whom I mentioned, who everywhere makes mention of St. Peter as prince, and speaks of him with such magnificence, calling him "the foundation of the Church, and the coryphaeus of the disciples and apostles," many others concur in this true sense. St. Proclus the bishop calls him the president and the chosen one, the first, the coryphaeus, the foundation, and the interpreter and commentator of his meaning, Vincentius Richardus, in homily 8, shows that the title "president" is not an empty name; for it implies, he says, that he who is president rules his own order and commands his own. Formerly, St. Chrysostom, "the guide of the apostles," in epistle 142, calls him "the coryphaeus of the disciples." And in homily 11, ep. 93: "As Peter is the coryphaeus of the choir of the apostles, as is clearly evident in the Acts." St. Cyril of Jerusalem, catechesis 11: "Peter is the coryphaeus and president of the apostles," and the Council of Nicaea: "As Peter is the chief of the apostolic assembly." And it is possible to refute and convict such heretics with six hundred other such passages.
A Rising, Jesus, then puncturing again to add, "Early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." For he does not speak of the hour of the resurrection, but the hour during which he was seen by the myrrh-bearing Magdalene, indicating that appearance which the son of thunder recorded more clearly: that Mary, seeing the Lord, mistook him for the gardener. Now that which John narrated more broadly, Mark indicated in passing. And not only this evangelist, but the divine Luke also said that the Magdalene had previously been possessed by seven demons, which he says the Lord once cast out of her. But let no one think that Mary had seven demons; rather, just as the gifts of the Holy Spirit are called seven spirits synonymously, as the great Isaiah enumerated: "A spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel, a spirit of strength and knowledge, and of piety, and of the fear of God," so too, by way of opposition, are the energies of demons called demons: despondency, avarice, disobedience, envy, falsehood, greed, and each of the passions is synonymous with its progenitor. He, therefore, who is mastered by these passions is held by demons. It is nothing, therefore, implausible that this Mary Magdalene also had been enslaved to seven certain passions, from which she was later redeemed having become a disciple of the Savior. But since she who was formerly possessed by the passions as if by demons, afterwards enjoyed so much grace, she became an apostle to the apostles, and being female, she surpassed nature with a manly spirit. For while the disciples were hiding because of the fear of the Jews, she did not cease going around to the life-bearing tomb, seeking the Master's body, and weeping with burning desire. Wherefore she was also the first to obtain the hoped-for sight, and was struck by that sweet voice, and became the evangelist of the resurrection. But was the company of the apostles held by such sluggishness that they deemed all things said by Mary false? "For they," he says, "hearing that he lived and was seen by her, did not believe. After this he was manifested in another form to two of them as they were walking, going into the country." Observe the scrupulous brevity of the present evangelist in his narration, or rather D the grace of the Holy Spirit [index: entries preserved]
A disposing it so. For what the divine Luke recounted at greater length—by what reason the Savior revealed himself to Cleopas at Emmaus—this Mark, using a shorter compendium, absolved in one word. But one must know that he abused the term *morphē* (form), when he said that he was manifested "in another form," bidding a long farewell to the wisdom of the world. For *morphē* (form), they say, is properly that which is formed and constituted from essential differences, which external philosophy most properly calls *eidos* (species/form). Yet here the evangelist called "form" that difference which exists in individuals from properties and lineaments, according to which, while the same person remained in the same state, he appeared to those seeing him as someone else—to Mary Magdalene, indeed, as a gardener; to those with Cleopas, as one of the sojourners in Jerusalem; but to the eleven in Galilee, as more divine.
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus
B The explanation of Theophanes on this passage of Mark, last chapter, consists in the Greek text of Mark himself, which reads as follows: *En heterā morphē*, which our interpreter renders: "He appeared in another effigy." Therefore, in the Latin there is no ambiguity. But since the word *morphē* in the Greek tongue signifies both the external figure and the specific form (as the dialecticians speak), hence arises this homonymy. Theophanes therefore asserts that the holy Mark used it here by catachresis, since *morphē* more properly signifies that according to which—and most properly, he says—they speak of *eidos*. Therefore, these words must be more searchingly explained by us, so that it may be understood what the author’s comment is worth. And indeed, if you look at the primary origin and notion of either word, the word *morphē* will seem to have been properly imposed to designate essential form, so to speak. For it is said in the *Etymologicum Magnum* to come from *partior* (to divide); whence also by pleonasm [it means] "part," because a form or species is a part of a genus. Rhetoricians also in Latin call "parts" the forms subject to a genus, which philosophers call "species." But from *video* (to see), it seems more to express the external species presented to the eyes. This is regarding the etymology. C But as regards the usage of authors, in the Holy Scriptures the word *morphē* is for the most part accepted in that proper signification which we explained, to which Phavorinus also assents in these words: *Morphē kyriōs*, etc. This is: "Morphē is properly taken by the Holy Fathers for essence, as when he was 'in the form' (*morphē*) of God, that is, in the essence of God." So Phavorinus. And indeed, concerning that passage of St. Paul to the Philippians 2, which Phavorinus hints at, all the Fathers and interpreters understand essence and nature by the word *morphē*; and from it they take a certain argument against the Arians, not only from the force of the name, but from the very consequence of the words. For St. Paul uses the same word when he speaks of the form of God, and when of the form of man or servant; therefore right reason demands that it either signify nature or substance in both places, or in neither. If the latter were the case, both the nature and essence of God and of man would be denied to Christ. Thus our Justinian, explaining this place, reasons. D Nay, he adds that this name *morphē* is always taken in the Holy Scriptures for essence and nature; which, however, having been stated so universally, has this passage as its opponent, had he but asserted that. For in Mark, *morphē* signifies an effigy and external conformation of the body entirely, as our interpreter also translates. I judge, therefore, that one should not always trust these acceptations of names, but that one should weigh what each passage requires, as we have already done in that of St. Paul. For indeed, both the word *morphē* and *eidos*—both in the Greek tongue and even in Aristotle himself—have a signifying use in the category of quality; he speaks thus: "The fourth genus of quality is figure, and the form which is about each thing." But in the *Physics*, text: "...for the remaining (he speaks of matter) together with the form is the cause of those things which come into being, just as the mother; and a little after in the same text he calls [that] which he had called *morphē*, *eidos*." And neither is the form able to desire itself, inasmuch as it does not need [it]. And in many other places of the same book, it is to be seen that *morphē* and *eidos* are taken for the same thing. The *Etymologicum* openly says: "This is, *Eidos* signifies three things, the same as *morphē*, or the character of the view and the figure or habit of face. And that which is distinguished from the genus, as horse, olive." And below, the same in other words: "It signifies also that which is predicated under a genus among the philosophers; from which you see that *eidos* also signifies the species or specific essence." And indeed, as far as pertains to this last signification of the name *eidos*, Theophanes himself confesses this, although Justinian says that external species is signified by *eidos*; and Luke uses that word in ch. 10, when speaking of the Transfiguration of Christ. But we learn from the related passages and from Phavorinus that both can signify both, who in the word *eidos* hands down: *Eidos, eidos*. This is: "Eidos is color, aspect, person, or form, and which are divided under the genus, just as the different natures of things, such as another species *eidos* of man and [another] of a horse." You see, therefore, that both words avail, and thus, as I said, one should not over-rely on these minutiae of significations. Nor indeed would I concede to our Theophanes that St. Mark used the word *morphē* here by catachresis, since that word can also signify an external effigy by usage; but if you notice, Theophanes speaks from the sense of those who contend that *morphē* signifies essence more properly, and especially in Scripture, which I showed at the beginning from the etymology itself. And therefore, he says, if anyone wishes to cavil in such a way, that Mark abused it by catachresis, I would reply; and that he did not care too much for these subtleties or distinctions of human wisdom.
OF THEOPHANES KERAMEUS, HOMILY XXXVII
A It is worthy of investigation what gives the appearance of disagreement: for Luke says that they returned from Emmaus and found the eleven gathered, and the rest saying, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon," while this one [Mark] says clearly that they believed neither the Magdalene nor the others. What, then, is the reconciliation of this apparent discord? Come, let us examine it. It is not that the disciples disbelieved that he had risen, but that he had appeared to the Magdalene and to those with Cleopas. The evangelist himself signaled this, that they did not believe those who had seen him risen from the dead. For since they were still imperfect, and had not yet received the grace of the Spirit, they considered it irrational and incredible that he had not appeared to Peter and John and the others, but had appeared to the Magdalene and to the lesser disciples. But when Peter came, reporting the sights at the tomb—how he had seen the linen cloths remaining—then indeed, having no reason to disbelieve Peter's testimony, they said, "The Lord has risen indeed" (Luke XXIV, 34).
"Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining, and he rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him risen" (Mark XVI, 14). He speaks here in harmony with the divine Luke; for he, too, after relating the return of those with Cleopas and the things concerning the appearance, says: "As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood in their midst" (Luke XXIV, 36). But that one [Luke] narrated more inquiringly the trembling of the apostles, the demonstration of the wounds in his hands and feet, and how he had eaten honey and fish before them; whereas this one [Mark], cutting out much, speaks of the mission to preach and the return into the heavens. B However, his saying that the disciples were reclining carries a clear reproach; for they were held fast by sloth, and had, as it were, collapsed from despair, even while the myrrh-bearing women were lingering throughout the whole night at the tomb.
And he said to them: "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mark XVI, 15). He does not entrust to them here a partial mission, nor does he distinguish the Gentiles and Samaritans from those of Israel, as he said before: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans" (Matt. X, 5). But since he had appeared as victor over the world, and had received the possession of the whole earth, according to that which is sung in the Psalms, as if from the Father: "I will give you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession" (Ps. II, 8), he henceforth encourages them to evangelize the whole world. And that they might not object by citing the unbelief of those to be taught, he proclaims beforehand the salvation that comes from believing, and the condemnation that comes from disobedience. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned." He did not stop the word at believing, C but added also the baptism. For this is the seal for the one who has believed and...
it is a cleansing of previous offenses, and a sanctification of the soul and body. A But from this point again the corrupter of souls and sower of tares has sown the fruit of his own wickedness, hastening to damage the fields of virtues. For the advocates of falsehood say that the laborious exercise of virtues is superfluous, since faith alone suffices for salvation. "For here," they say, "He did not say, 'He who has done good works,' but 'He who has believed and has been baptized will be saved.'" What then, O false teachers, I might say to them, do you not pay heed to Matthew saying that He commanded them to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you?" And how do you pass over that saying: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father"? That is to say: Not everyone who believes in me will obtain salvation, but he who confirms his faith by his deeds. For how could he be a believer who practices things contrary to the faith? B "And these signs will follow those who believe." For it was necessary, because of the difficulty that many had in believing, that there be an operation of signs. For those who are not ready to accept doctrine need the performing of wonders; for in this way they are finally brought to the truth. "In my name they will cast out demons." Lest they think the gift of signs belonged to them, and for that reason be lifted up to pride, He adds: "In my name." For not by your own energy, He says, will these things happen, but in my name, which provides the power to you. "They will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues." These miracles have been performed many times by the saints, and the accounts concerning them openly declare it. But these things are also worked spiritually even to this day. C For the passions of the demons are driven out by the grace of Christ: impiety, and envy, and intemperance, and the things that follow after these, which disturb the mind of a man from the straight path. Those who were formerly insulting toward Christ, now that they have believed and known the power of the mystery, speak in new tongues, and with Trinitarian hymns they sanctify their lips. D
A They also take up serpents, driving away every evil thought from their hearts. And if they drink anything deadly, it shall not harm them; they shall lay hands upon the sick, and they shall be well. He indicated active virtue through the hands, which, when applied through doctrine to diseased souls, prepares them to be well. Observe also that, since these things must be interpreted in two ways—according to what is apparent and what is understood—for this reason He divided the operation of the miracles in five parts: "They shall cast out demons, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly, it shall not harm them; they shall lay hands upon the sick, and they shall be well," since they are operative both according to the fivefold sense and according to the five powers of the soul intellectually. "The Lord Jesus, then, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat at the right hand of God." Here again, He has passed over the place from whence He was taken up and the manner in which it was done, things which the divine Luke has most clearly explained. But when you hear that He sat at the right hand of God, cease from imagining a physical seat, and shift your reasoning toward thoughts befitting God; for both standing and sitting are spoken of in relation to God. For the herdsman prophet saw God standing upon an adamant wall; B and the divinely inspired Stephen, having become full of the Holy Spirit, saw the glory of God, and the Son standing at the right hand of God. The divinely speaking Mark, and the great Paul, and before them the prophet David, say that Christ sits at the right hand of God. For David says: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand"; and the Apostle: "He sat at the right hand of the throne of the majesty of God," and here the evangelist speaks in harmony with these. But it would not be pious to think of standing and sitting in the case of that transcendent nature as it is in the case of bodies; for we shall not assume a posture with bent knees, nor a sitting position on the hips; but by C the standing, we understand stability in every good thing, and by the sitting, the divine power immovably established in every good thing, and possessing a firm permanence in the good. "And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word with signs following." Although the disciples did not go forth to preach immediately after the Ascension, but after they had received the grace of the Spirit through the fiery tongues, when they were endued with power from on high, and being dispersed here and there among the nations throughout all the earth, D [original-script column: see facsimile]
kept the devil away on every side by their teaching, and drove him out of the entire world, while they prepared for us an easy path to the kingdom of Heaven; of which may we all be counted worthy to attain by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father and to the life-giving Spirit be glory, now and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XXXI. On the Fourth Matutinal Gospel
Since our discourse today wishes to celebrate the life-giving resurrection of Christ, come, let us see, according to the word of Isaiah, women coming from a spectacle and proclaiming all that they have seen. These are they who were with Mary Magdalene, the bearers of myrrh. A Since the envy of the God-hating Jews had ceased, and He who was envied—having rested in the flesh in the tomb—had kept the Sabbath, He who indeed rose having spoiled Hades by His divine authority.
• *On the first day of the week, very early, they come to the monument, bringing what spices they had prepared.* B This is another errand of the holy women, different from those about whom Matthew, and Mark, and John have written, as may be concluded from the time and the person. For John indeed says that Mary Magdalene alone came to the tomb early, not bringing myrrh, but wishing, as it seems, to alleviate the weight of her distress by the sight of the tomb. So also Matthew, bringing the same Magdalene and Mary of James to the tomb late on the Sabbath in his account, did not say they brought spices, but that they came to see the tomb. For the soul is lightened of the weight of oppressive grief when it sees the tomb as the last sign of the beloved, the despondency being drained away by the sight, and the darkness like a cloud being dissolved by tears. Mark and Luke, however, bring the women to the tomb carrying spices; and one numbers Salome, the other Joanna, with the Marys. C In addition to these, Matthew and Mark said that one angel appeared to them, while John and Luke have said two. This is indeed worthy of inquiry: why did one appear to some, and two to others? To those, therefore, who thought the Lord was still in the tomb, and still counted Him among the dead, one angel appeared as a messenger of the resurrection. But to those who were in doubt and thought that the Lord’s body had been stolen, a pair of angels stood by, showing how it was impossible for the body, guarded by such watchmen, to be stolen. Thus to Mary Magdalene, who had said to the disciples, "They have taken the Lord from the tomb," D two candidates in white, as it were, were seen, leading her away from such an opinion, and now also...
when they had entered into the tomb and not found the body, they were at a loss, lest perhaps someone might have stolen it; two men stand by A them. For, as it says, "Seeing the stone taken away from the tomb, and having entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus." They, then, went very early to anoint the Lord, perhaps echoing that prophecy of Hosea: "Let us follow to know the Lord; as the dawn we shall find Him ready." But when they had entered and did not find Him whom they sought, they were held in perplexity. The removal of the stone, however, did not occur because the Lord had to rise—for He had already risen before the stone was rolled away—but in order that the resurrection might be made manifest to all. "And it happened while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling garments. As they were afraid and bowed their faces to the ground, they said to them." What, then, was it that struck them with fear? Luke speaks of the lightning of the garments, but Matthew also mentions the brilliance of their appearance: "His appearance, he says, was like lightning." For this reason they bowed their faces to the earth, having been struck in their vision as if by the glare of the sun. Therefore, having terrified them with their attire and dismayed them with their form, they fill them with joy by their speech: "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen." Then they remind them of the Savior's prediction before the passion, at once confirming the resurrection and, as it were, reproaching them as having forgotten the divine words: "Remember how He spoke to you in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again." Recognize B that the Savior had proclaimed the matters of the passion and resurrection not only to the disciples but also to the holy women who followed and ministered to Him. Wherefore, at the word, they were reminded of His sayings. They return, therefore, filled with faith and joy, and they become apostles to the apostles, and heralds to the heralds; they conquer nature and show themselves superior to the men. For the latter were hiding themselves on account of the Jewish people, but the former with undaunted courage proclaim the resurrection, led by the fervent and bold Magdalene. For the Virgin Mother and Lady of all creation was indeed fully persuaded, more clearly than all, concerning the resurrection of her Son, as one who had the eye of her soul illuminated by a brighter light; but she withheld herself the more, lest she seem to be speaking out of favor. As for the Magdalene, the weakness of her nature forced her to doubt, but the flames of divine love did not permit this, rather they sharpened her toward a more inquisitive search for the resurrection. And there were with them Joanna, a noble lady, C and illustrious, and abounding in much wealth—corporeal indeed, but even more so in the wealth of the soul.
the mysteries that we have been deemed worthy to contemplate; otherwise, our discourse will be devoid of profit, and we shall be the cause of greater condemnation for them. But may Christ our God, who has vivified us through his resurrection from the dead, himself restore us also from the death of sin and make us worthy of his kingdom. For to him is due all honor, glory, and worship, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XXXIX. On the Third Matutinal Gospel.
The rivers that flow perpetually neither cease to flow during the summer, nor do they particularly swell during the winter, since their headwaters and sources are ever-gushing streams; but ravines and mountain torrents dry up in the summer for lack of rain, yet in the winter they flow like rivers and gush forth with streams of water. So too, the rivers of the divinely inspired Scripture gush forth in abundance throughout all time and irrigate the fullness of the Church. But the torrent of our own mind, being parched and dry, has kept silent for a long time past, perhaps sympathizing with our ailing body; yet now, irrigated by the spring of evangelical thoughts, it hastens to gush forth their exposition, which, with God’s help, we shall undertake.
"Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." A The things concerning the life-giving and brilliant resurrection were recorded by the all-holy evangelists in various ways—not signaling the hour of the resurrection (for this is unknown to men and altogether past finding out), but rather narrating the various appearances that occurred after the resurrection. Here, however, the divine Mark seems to the inattentive reader to indicate the very hour of the resurrection. For he says: "Now when Jesus was risen B early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." He thus seems to say that the Lord rose early on the first day of the week; but this is both a bold thing to say and divorced from the truth. But if we were to divide the reading with a mark of punctuation, the ambiguity would be resolved. It must, therefore, be said as follows: C "Rising, Jesus..." D
ran to the monument, and stooping down he sees the linen cloths laid alone, and he went away wondering to himself at what had happened." And behold, two of them were journeying on that same day to a village called Emmaus, being sixty stadia away from Jerusalem. The life-giving resurrection of the Lord was not straightway shown to the leaders of the disciples, but the alabaster-bearing women were made worthy of this sight first.
A And their words appeared before them as foolishness, and they did not believe them. As it seems, the disciples were so submerged in such despondency that they considered the messages of the godly women to be mere babble. For a passion of jealousy pricked them, because they had become second to women.
Petrus, however, rising, ran to the monument, and stooping down he sees the linen cloths laid alone, and he went away wondering to himself at what had happened. B The theological writing has expounded more broadly upon the running of Peter and the sight of the linen cloths. For indeed, when Mary had reported that they had taken the Lord from the monument, Peter and John arrived in haste, and through the linen cloths and the sudarium they inferred the resurrection. Peter wonders at the fact, as one who knew that the linen cloths had been glued to the Lord’s body with aloe and myrrh, and that their removal was difficult. But if these things have been said by me in another place, do not marvel; for good things do not cause annoyance by being said often. And besides, I wish for them to remain in your memories indelible.
Let us also imitate these godly women; let us emulate the good Joanna, which is translated "dove"; let us turn away from the cohabitant Chusa, which is the mindset of the flesh, and let us be disciples to Christ, serving Him from the natural powers that are within us. Let us become doves, in the blamelessness of our ways, so that we may receive the illuminations of the dove that descended in the Jordan in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom is due all glory now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
Homily XXXII. On the Fifth Resurrection Gospel.
"Petrus, rising, ran to the monument, and stooping down he sees the linen cloths laid alone, and he went away wondering to himself at what had happened. And behold, two of them were journeying on that same day to a village called Emmaus, being sixty stadia away from Jerusalem."
The life-giving resurrection of the Lord was not straightway shown to the leaders of the disciples, but the alabaster-bearing women were made worthy of this sight first. After these, however, C the disciples... D
A were deemed worthy of the grace of the Spirit that arranges all things. For what the divine Luke narrated in a more digressive manner—how the Savior appeared to those around Cleopas in Emmaus—Mark, having used a shorter summary, presented in one word.
It must be known that he misused the name of "form," saying that he appeared in another form, bidding a long farewell to the wisdom of the world. For they say that a "form" [μορφὴν] is properly that which has been fashioned and specified by essential differences, which external philosophy calls "species" [εἶδος] in the most specific sense. Here, however, the evangelist called the difference in individuals, originating from the characteristic qualities, "form," according to which, while remaining the same in the same things, he appeared different to those who saw him: as a gardener to the Magdalene; to those around Cleopas, as one of those residing in Jerusalem; but to the eleven in Galilee, more divine.
B That the Lord appeared in another form... [Note: The text here becomes fragmented/repetitive due to the source structure and commentary on etymology]. For indeed, the word "form" is taken by the holy Fathers for essence, as in "being in the form of God" [Phil. 2:6], which is to say, being known in the essence of God. The fourth genus of quality is figure and the form [μορφὴ] of each thing. For the one remaining is the material cause of the form of things that come into being. C But it is not possible for it to be desired by itself. "Species" [εἶδος] signifies three things: the form, or the character of the appearance, and the figure, and that which is divided from a genus, such as "horse" or "olive." It also signifies that which is predicated under a genus among the philosophers, "a different species came into being." [It means] color, appearance, person, or the forms and those things that are divided from the genus, that is to say, the different natures of things, such as one species of man and D a species of horse.
*Notes of Franciscus Scorsus* Theophanes’ discourse on this passage of Mark, last chapter, consists in the Greek text of Mark itself, which stands thus: ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ, which our translator renders: *Visus est in alia effigie* [He was seen in another figure]. Thus, there is no ambiguity in the Latin. But since the word *morphē* signifies both external figure and essential form, as the dialecticians speak, hence this difficulty arises. Theophanes therefore judges that the holy Mark here used it by katachresis, since *morphē* more properly signifies the latter, what they most properly call *eidos*. Thus, these words must be explained for us more clearly so that the author’s observation may be understood; and indeed, if you consider the first origin and notion of either word, the word *morphē* will seem to have been more properly applied to designate the essential form, so to speak. For it is said in the *Etymologicum Magnum* to be from *partior*; whence also by pleonasm *morphē*, because form or species is a part of the genus. Even rhetoricians in Latin call parts and forms subject to a genus "species." But from *video*, it seems more to express an external appearance presented to the eyes. These things concerning the etymology. But as to the usage of authors, in the Holy Scriptures the word *morphē* is for the most part accepted in that proper meaning which we have explained, to which Phavorinus also assents in these words: *Morphē* properly among the holy Fathers is taken for essence, as when he was in the *morphē* of God, that is, in the essence of God. Thus Phavorinus. And indeed, concerning that passage of St. Paul to the Philippians, which Phavorinus hints at, I have already done so, as the matter demands to be weighed. For truly, both the word *morphē* and *eidos* in the Greek tongue, and even in Aristotle himself, have a usage of signifying in the category of quality; thus he speaks: "The fourth genus of quality is figure, and the form which is about individuals." But in the *Physics*, text: "For the permanent [he speaks of matter] is the cause of those things that come into being together with the form," just as matter; and a little later, in the same text, he calls that which he had called *morphē*, *eidos*. And neither can the form itself strive for itself, since it is not in need. And in many other places in the same book, *morphē* and *eidos* are seen to be taken for the same thing. The *Etymologicum* openly says: *Eidos* signifies three things, same as *morphē*, or the character of the appearance and the figure or habit of the face, and what is distinct from the genus, as horse, olive. And below, in other words: it signifies also that which is predicated under a genus among philosophers; from which you see that *eidos* also signifies the species or specific essence; and indeed, regarding this last meaning of the name *eidos*, Theophanes himself confesses it, although Justinianus says the same is signified by *eidos* as an external appearance, and that Luke used that word in chapter 24, when concerning the Transfiguration of Christ. But we learn from the related passages and from Phavorinus that both can signify, who in the word thus hands down: *Eidos* is color, appearance, person, or the forms, or those which are divided under a genus, as the different natures of things, as one species of man and another of horse. You see, therefore, that both words avail, and thus, as I have said, one should not rely too much on these niceties of meaning. Nor indeed would I concede to our Theophanes that divine Mark here used the word *morphē* by katachresis, since that word can also signify an external figure by usage; but if you observe, Theophanes speaks from the sense of those who contend that *morphē* more properly signifies essence, and especially in Scripture, which I showed from the etymology itself at the beginning. And thus, if anyone, he says, wishes to cavil in such a way, that Mark used it by katachresis, I would answer; and that he did not care too much for these subtleties or distinctions of human wisdom.
A A foreign traveler, approaching, walked along with them. And Jesus himself, drawing near, walked with them, B and as if he were ignorant, he asked the cause of their sadness: "What are these words that you are bandying about with one another, and are sad?" They, thinking from his voice and appearance that they saw a man of Jerusalem, rebuke him for being so foolish as to be ignorant of things that were evident and plain to all. The other one, Cleopas, made the rebuke—he whom the writings of Epiphanius testify was a cousin of the Lord. He, therefore, looking sternly at him, said: "Are you alone a stranger in Jerusalem, and have you not known the things that have happened in it in these days?" He is not saying this—that you are a sojourner come from a foreign land, and are dwelling in the city (for they supposed him to be not a sojourner, but a citizen); but the expression has this construction: "Do you live alone by Jerusalem, and are you ignorant of the things that have happened in it?" Perhaps he was still also a sojourner of the heavenly habitation, having exchanged the sojourning on earth, in order that he might lead our nature back to its fatherland in Eden, which had sojourned poorly here, and was lamenting the words of David: "Woe is me, that my sojourning has been prolonged!"
B "Do you live alone by Jerusalem?" "And he said to them: 'What things?' And they said to him: 'The things concerning the Nazarene, who was a man who was a prophet.'" He, indeed, still pretending to be ignorant, asked: "What things?" But Cleopas begins the narration and recounts everything according to the opinion they held: "A man who was a prophet"—for this they were thinking, not yet attaining to the higher glory. "Powerful in deed and word." Here he declares both the boldness of his teaching and the power of his miracles. For a sweet persuasion rested upon the words of Christ, refuting the Scribes and C drawing the crowds.
[Francisci Scorsi nota.] Some interpreters gather that an excuse is contained in these words: "Are you alone a stranger, etc.," as if it were not a wonder that things which had transpired in Jerusalem a few days before were unknown to a stranger. Others, which is more approved, say the rebuke is for a different reason: that it is a wonder if those things are unknown which were so much in the knowledge and on the lips of all, that they could have been known even to any stranger. Our author understands this way of rebuking. But that part in him is harsh and less probable, where he says that Christ was not thought by the traveling disciples to be a stranger, but that they did not think him a sojourner, but a citizen of Jerusalem; and thus splitting the phrase, he explains: "You live alone by Jerusalem." And although in the Greek language this is accepted, so that prepositions added to a verb are referred to a noun and govern it; yet in this place it seems to be twisted and gratuitously invented. For what prevents him from having been known as a stranger? Would there not have been a ground for rebuke if those travelers had not supposed Christ was a citizen? But this was their amazement, that he had not received the report of the atrocities which had occurred, which was already bruited about by all, even if he were a stranger, since it ought not to have escaped anyone, however much he had come from abroad.
Regarding the kin of Christ, which Cornelius a Lapide arranges from St. Matthew and Luke in chapter 24 of St. Luke, Cleopas was the brother of St. Joseph from the parentage of both Jacob; and Jacob was the brother of St. Anna, the parent of the Mother of God, from Mathan; and thus Cleopas and the Blessed Virgin were cousins. Whence it is easy for anyone to gather by what kin Cleopas was related to Christ. Furthermore, the same Cornelius brings forward, in chapter 24 of Luke, from the Spanish bishop of Caesaraugusta in the additions to his Chronicle of the Law of Deuteronomy (which, however, some learned men consider supposititious) and a passage of Maximus of this sort: "Alphaeus, who is also Cleopas, one of the seventy disciples, as St. Jerome teaches, and brother of Joseph, the spouse of the Blessed Virgin, is killed for Christ by the Jews in the castle of Emmaus." But where St. Epiphanius says this in the *Panarion*, I have not yet discovered.
What we said slightly above in note 18. Theophanes here said that a sweet power of persuasion rested upon the words of Christ, about which David had foretold in Psalm XLIV, which by the common consensus of the Fathers is the epithalamium of Christ himself and his bride, the Church: "Grace is poured abroad in thy lips." This grace is called sweet persuasion by Theophanes.
A ...he did not stop there, but added baptism. For this is the sealing for him who has believed, and a cleansing of things previously committed, and a sanctification of both soul and body. But from here again, the destroyer of souls, the sower of tares, sowed the fruit of his own wickedness, hastening to spoil the fields of the virtues. For those who are advocates of lying say that the laborious discipline of the virtues is superfluous, since faith alone suffices for salvation. "For here," they say, "he did not say, 'He who does good works [will be saved],' but, 'He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.'" Then, O false teachers, I would say to them, do you not pay attention to Matthew, who says that he commanded them to B make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you? And how do you pass over that statement? "Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of my Father." That is to say: Not everyone who believes in me will obtain salvation, but he who confirms faith with deeds. For how could he be a believer who practices things contrary to faith? "And these signs shall follow them that believe." For the performance of signs was indeed necessary on account of a natural difficulty in being persuaded. For those who are not ready to accept the teaching need the performance of miracles; for in this way they are finally drawn to the truth. "In my name they shall cast out demons." Lest they think the gift of performing signs was their own, and for this reason be lifted up to pride, he adds: "In my name." For not by your own power, he says, will these things happen, but in my name, which imparts the power to you. "They shall cast out demons, they shall speak with new tongues." These miracles have indeed been worked many times by the saints, and the narratives concerning them are proclaimed. But they are also worked mentally even to this day. For the passions of demons are driven out by the grace of Christ—impiety, and envy, and intemperance, and the things that follow these, which throw the mind of a man off its proper course. But those who were previously insulting toward Christ, now that they have believed and have known the power of the mystery, shall speak with new tongues, and by trinitarian hymns they sanctify their lips. They also take up serpents...
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus
(98) ...anointed or, rather, to block up, or to shut in, or to seal, from the word *sphragis*, which is to seal or to close with a seal and to secure; and thus this passage is to be noted where baptism is said to impress a seal, which is the same as a character, against Luther and his cohorts, who deny that any sacrament impresses a character—as our theologians speak—a matter we dealt with more copiously in homily 21, note 95. C He inveighs sharply against those who say that the works of the virtues are superfluous, and that faith alone is enough and more than enough for obtaining salvation; against those same people, these notes are to be marked, and against the innovators and false teachers of our age, as this Father calls them, who had disseminated a similar doctrine from the chair of pestilence. D The Greeks call "trinitarian" those hymns which contain the praise of the Holy Trinity; for in the individual odes of any canon, the two final verses always finish with the praise of the Holy Trinity and the Blessed Virgin; and indeed the one nearest the end is marked with the letter [symbol], and this is called the *theotokion*, while the one absolutely at the end is marked with the letter [symbol], and this is called [the *staurotheotokion*]: thus also you may read them inscribed.A They shall take up serpents as well, banishing every wicked thought from their hearts. And even if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not harm them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Through the hands he signified practical virtue, which, when applied through instruction to sick souls, prepares them to be well. Note also that, since it is necessary to take these things in a two-fold sense, both according to what appears [outwardly] and what is understood [inwardly], for this reason he has divided the effect of the miracles into five [parts]: “They shall cast out demons, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not harm them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover,” since their operation is adapted both to the senses, which are five in number, and to the five powers of the soul, in an intelligible way. B “The Lord Jesus, then, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat at the right hand of God.” Here again, he has passed over both the place from which He was taken up and the manner in which it was done, things which the divine Luke has most clearly explained. But when you hear that He sat at the right hand of God, do not conceive of a bodily seat, but lift your mind to thoughts worthy of God; for both standing and sitting are spoken of in relation to God. For the prophet who was a herdsman saw the Lord standing upon an adamant wall; and the divinely inspired Stephen, becoming full of the Holy Spirit, saw the glory of God and the Son C standing at the right hand of God. The divinely speaking Mark, and the great Paul, and before these the prophet David, say that Christ has sat at the right hand of God. For David says, “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand,” and the Apostle says, “He sat down at the right hand of the throne of the majesty of God,” and here the evangelist speaks in harmony with these. But it would not be pious to think of standing and sitting in the case of the transcendent nature in the same way as with bodies; for we shall not assume a standing upon legs or a sitting upon hips; but through the standing, we understand being steadfast in every good, and through the sitting, the divine power being immutably established in every good D and possessing a stable permanence in goodness. “And they, going forth, preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word with accompanying signs.” Although the disciples did not go out to preach immediately after the ascension, but after receiving the grace of the Spirit through the tongues of fire, when they were endued with power from on high, each dispersed to different nations throughout the whole earth. [Trinitarian, Theotokia.]
A But Christ forestalls their speed and appears to Simon, confirming others by the authority of the one who was the greater among the disciples. For since they had deemed the women's tidings as nonsense, he is revealed to Peter. And even if the evangelists have been silent as to when, and where, and how he was seen by Simon, yet the voice of the great Paul confirms this sight, saying: "That Christ died for our sins, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, and that he was seen of Cephas." Therefore, let us also, O God-loving assembly, imitate this pair of disciples; and having abandoned that Jerusalem—which first killed the prophets and later killed Christ, which Christ himself laments as a slayer of the prophets and a stoning-ground for the apostles; may this very thing be the vice contrary to virtue, that which crucified the Lord of truth and kicked against the prophetic and apostolic words—having fled from it, let us hasten to reach the village of Emmaus, the practical virtue that is sixty stadia away, the number signifying the six precepts multiplied tenfold, through which the righteous inherit the kingdom of God. For practical virtue, multiplied tenfold through action, increases to sixty, as we have learned in the parable of the seed. Having traversed this as if it were sixty stadia, we shall see the Lord, as it were, walking with us spiritually and conversing with us. For the Word runs along with him who pursues virtue, stirring up his sluggishness and providing his own impulse, without which no God-pleasing work can be successfully accomplished. B The Word keeps company, being viewed at first faintly, but appearing more clearly later. For the souls of those who are virtuous, the more they are purified, the more they know God. And he is revealed to them more clearly in the breaking of the bread, that is, in the communion of the fearful mysteries. But if he appears to the disciples and immediately becomes invisible, do not be surprised; for such is divine beauty. At once it shines upon the mind of those who have been purified, and like lightning it quickly retreats, becoming impossible to grasp, so that it might instill a desire in the mind for comprehension, and might draw the loving soul toward that which is greater, so that it may be carried up to the divine ascents and yearn ardently for the whole, the eternal longing, the singular nature, the blessed Divinity; to whom is due honor, and all glory, and hymnody, and majesty, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus
(24) In the breaking of the bread, most of the Fathers, cited by Cornelius, who holds the same opinion, judge that he consecrated the Eucharist. Clearly St. Augustine, sermon 140 de Tempore: "Where the Lord wished to be recognized in the breaking of the bread; we are secure, we break the bread, and we recognize the Lord. He would not be recognized, except there for our sake, who were not going to see him in the flesh, and yet were going to eat his flesh."In the Sixth Matins. The same Homily, which is on the salutary Ascension. (Homil. XXXIX). HOMILY XXXIII. In the Seventh Matins.
A When the detestable enemy first devised snares against our nature, using the serpent as an instrument, having first insinuated himself into the disposition of the woman as one more simple, through her he overcame the man as well. Therefore, in order that the Lord might heal this defeat by a contrary course, when he emerged risen from the sepulcher, he showed himself first to the women, so that she who from the beginning had been the cause of the fall, might be the same one to be the messenger of restoration. He appears, therefore, to Mary Magdalene, and by this appearance makes her great. For Magdalene B is interpreted as "magnified," and by that very name it is shown to what magnificence she had arrived, since she performed the office of an apostle to the apostles. But what Thomas was among the disciples, "two-minded" in his intellect, and for this reason called Didymus, such also was Mary Magdalene among the myrrh-bearing women. For even if she is perhaps seen to be more ardent than the other disciples, she did not, however, believe simply in what was said and done, but sought evident proofs, scrutinizing matters more searchingly, and running together with the others to the life-giving tomb, and lingering alone by the monument itself. And in the evening of the Sabbath indeed, C having arrived with the other Mary, she was deemed worthy not only of an angelic appearance and conversation, but she also saw the face of him whom she had desired, and held his lovely feet, and heard his sweet voice. In the early morning she accompanied the women who had gone there again; and yet once more she hastens at dawn, and visits the tomb alone on the very day of the resurrection. But it is better to reflect on the reading of the Gospel itself: «On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene comes early, while it was still dark, to the monument.» He wishes indeed to denote the boundary of night and day, which is called D "shadow-light." Nevertheless, through those things which... Thomas is double-named: "Two-minded in his intellect." And: "She did not believe simply in what was said and done." A word-cunning shadow, light.[cont: Francisci Scorsi nota...]
A Since it is not removed, he arouses the mind through things that happen historically toward contemplation. It was morning, therefore, because the Sun of righteousness had risen as if from the east of the tomb. And there was darkness, because for men the miracle of the resurrection was still unknown. He does not say that she saw the stone rolled away, even though the three evangelists narrated it this way. But the great John, as is his wont, mixing theological meanings with things that occurred historically, says the stone was removed; he seems not to be speaking simply of the sensible stone—for that was not removed from the monument, but had been rolled away a little distance from the door—but of the corner-stone, Christ. The same evangelist leads me to this meaning, now saying: "She sees the stone removed from the monument," and demonstrating Mary Magdalene speaking: "They have taken the Lord from the monument," interpreting the preceding B through the following utterance. For Emmanuel did truly become a rock of scandal and a stone of stumbling. This is the stone which the Scribes and the chief men of the Jews, who were supposedly administering the precepts of the Law, rejected. C But he has become the head of the corner, joining the two peoples into himself. And perhaps Jacob, resting his ruling faculty upon this stone, and falling asleep from things sensible, became in his imagination [partaker] of the intelligible ladder. This stone was figured by the rock that poured forth the drink abundantly for the people, as Paul says: "For they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ." This was the stone cut without hands, and which shattered the abominations of the demons, according to the prediction of Daniel. "She runs, therefore, and comes to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved." Why then? Why did she not make these things known to the rest of the apostles, but only to Peter and John? Because the others, fearing the madness of the Jews, were hiding, but Peter and John were moving about more boldly. The former [moved] as one already having faith, from the [fact of his] having denied with an oath; the latter, being known to the high priest, feared nothing. Encountering them, therefore, as they were troubled D and anxious, she says: "They have taken the Lord from the monument." For from female weakness, as it seems, she thought the Lord had been carried away by someone. But the disciples, being of a firmer mind, and suspecting that which had actually happened...
A they set out, he says, "and came to the monument." From whence did they set out? From the opinion that the Lord was still among the dead; and having been filled with good hopes by the wondrous news, they hastened to the tomb with an intense run. And the run of John was faster, which is why he arrived first at the tomb, even though, out of praiseworthy reverence, he did not first examine things inside, yielding the position of priority to the one who had been preferred. "And they two were running together; and the other disciple outran Peter." Here it is appropriate to be perplexed: if the other disciple outran him, how are they said to be running "together"? For the word "together" seems to designate an equality of pace. They were running "together," indeed, in promptness and in zeal, but the one outran the other in the swiftness of his feet; for contemplation, of which John is the symbol, is swifter than action, which Peter signifies. For the former, seeing keenly with the visions of the mind, touches upon the truth from afar, scanning the divine beauty with subtle thoughts, yet not being able to share in it without action. The latter, however, being led by the hand first by contemplation, is joined to the beloved with much labor and toil, and becomes a landing-place for contemplation, offering back to it the grace it received from it. Thus, even at the time of the Passion, Peter is brought into the courtyard through John. "For because he was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus, and told the portress to bring Peter in." But how is John said to be known to the enemy and accuser of Jesus? Since, for the contemplator, things that are contrary to one another are known. Or how might he enter into the courtyard? For by the calling of action, contemplation is quickly aroused, finding the Lord outside the village. For contemplation, of which John is the symbol, is swifter than action, which Peter signifies; to speak philosophically, for the sake of the philosophy from without. B C D
HOMILY XXXII
A ...female disciples; and after these, the disciples of the disciples, among whom were these two who were journeying to the village of Emmaus on that very day on which the great mystery of the resurrection was wrought. The Evangelist, having stated the name of the one but having passed over the other in silence, caused many to speculate about the name. Indeed, some say that the one was the Canaanite Nathanael, others Simon, and others another. But it seems rather that the author of these things was Luke, and thus, out of modesty, he passed over the name in silence. And that we might not also seem to be guessing at nothing, let us produce a reliable witness here: Symeon, who composed the Metaphrases brilliantly. It is sufficient, therefore, that this man, in his commentary on the holy Luke, thought as much.
These, then, were walking just on the way to Emmaus. B They were troubled regarding what had befallen the Lord, and full of cares, and as if intoxicated with grief. It is common in such circumstances for the narration of what has occurred to blunt the harshness of grief, as it is discharged, as it were; this they themselves did while journeying, renewing the events in their memory and lightening the burden of their distress through conversation about them. And it says: "And they were talking to each other about all these things that had happened." But He who is present everywhere was also with them invisibly, hearkening to the words born of their faint-heartedness. Then, however, He reveals Himself to them, having put aside His invisibility. Not, indeed, that He was recognized for who He was, but rather as one C acting like a traveler who presents himself to be seen; for they, as Saint Luke writes, returned and found the eleven gathered, and those who were with them, saying: "The Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon." D Theophanes treated of this manifestation further down in this same homily, explaining the mentioned verse; but there he says it is unknown how or when Christ appeared to Peter, therefore here he states absolutely that, after He had offered Himself to be seen by the women, He appeared to these two disciples of the disciples. ...and because He, being God, saw the thoughts of the heart of everyone through blessed—or even infused—knowledge, He had them present.
It is A a thing that belongs to worldly philosophy, yet it is a friend to the true word of faith. And in another way, the characteristics of action and contemplation are shown through these disciples. For Peter denied, but John remained unmoved. The man of action, indeed, is such that at times he slips from the right path, either because of the weakness of the body or perhaps because of a laxity of his thoughts; and he denies the Lord three times—either by setting aside the word itself, or by yielding to anger, or by being enslaved to some unseemly desire. At these things the cock, which is the vigilant guardian of the conscience, crows, rousing him to a perception of what he has transgressed. But he who, after action, has had his soul illuminated by the light of contemplation, and is a son of theology—having become a "son of thunder"—will never be turned aside from what is right.
But let us resume the Gospel text again. "And stooping down, he sees the linen cloths lying, yet he did not enter." John ran ahead with faster feet, but he did not become a spectator of the sights within. Peter, B following behind, arrived panting; and having entered into the inner sanctuary of the tomb, he beholds the mysteries that were there. After him, John also enters. In this same way, at the Sea of Tiberias, the former recognized the Lord first and signaled it to Peter; but Peter, having swum across, met the Master first. "Simon Peter therefore comes following him, and entered into the monument, and sees the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but wrapped apart in one place."
The sight of the linen cloths C was a clear indication of the resurrection. For because the linen cloths were stuck to the Lord's body with myrrh and aloes (for these things have a sticky quality and are difficult to pull away), it was the work of divine power alone to remove them from the body so easily. For if thieves and those lying in wait by night had stolen the body, they would not have had so much leisure as to strip the dead person first, especially since the body had been treated with myrrh, and a guard was watching it, and such a great stone was laid upon the tomb. But if tomb-robbers or clothes-stealers had committed such a daring deed, they would have carried off the body and, above all, stolen the burial garments. D Yet to leave them so orderly, and to separate the napkin from the rest, and to place it wrapped in a single spot—who would consider this to be the work of corpse-pillagers? Pondering all these things, the disciples believed.
and continuously to drink the waters of tears, from which Jacob is refreshed—that is, our mind—and from him are generated pious thoughts and cattle, desires, I say, and irascible impulses. A If we have drunk this water with our eyes, the Word that thirsts for our salvation will assist us spiritually, and will provide us with the showers of spiritual gifts; for to Him belongs all honor and glory, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XXXIX
On the saving Ascension.
The present festival is truly brilliant and illustrious, and indeed it contains the very sum of the subjects of the feasts; for this is the crowning of the mysteries of Christ; this is the perfection of our salvation B today: human nature is seated on the throne above the celestial spheres; today the ancient enmity of rational nature has been destroyed, and a union of angels and men has been made. Today that mass, which had been raised above the dignity of a body, has been made a partaker of divine dignity. Today the intellectual powers rejoice and are amazed, seeing heaven reconciled to earth, and in their astonishment at the miracle they seek to learn what Isaiah uttered beforehand. But we, placing the evangelical sayings in our midst, C will investigate the meaning within them as best we can.
‘Jesus stood in the midst of his disciples.’ It is worth the effort to inquire why the Word stood in the midst of the disciples. Since He was about to entrust to them the instruction of the nations—which is the precision of dogmas and the observance of commandments—He shows symbolically through his standing in the midst, that both are shown in the middle: both piety toward God and practical virtue. For the theology according to us is the middle of the narrow monarchy of D the Jewish [view], which limits it to one person, and the Hellenic [view], which establishes a multitude of gods; and indeed these virtues are middle paths, avoiding the excesses and the deficiencies. And if even among the disciples, as Mark says, Jesus [C (cont.)] said, “I tell you the truth, regarding what you see well, we have [only] milk.” Furthermore, I speak of “middle,” for truth, which is set before us to contemplate, must be so considered. Regarding various errors concerning the doctrine, the same Gregory treats it in many places—the same homily 29, and the first, which is apologetic, [and] 59, which is the first of theology—from which Theophanes has extracted a few things.
A We observe that Moses also prescribed this in the typical lamb customarily sacrificed at the Passover. For he commands the eating of the flesh, and as much of the bones as is edible, yet not the breaking of the bones, nor the touching of the inward parts; by this riddle we are instructed that we should investigate the accounts of the economy and of the divinity as much as is accessible to us, but that we should not touch the things difficult to be discerned and incomprehensible, but rather leave them as if wrapped in the treasures of the Spirit, who searches and knows all things, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XXXIV. On the Eighth Matutinal Gospel
A "Mary stood at the tomb outside, weeping. And as she wept, she stooped into the tomb, and saw two angels in white." B Since the leader of the disciples and the beloved disciple had recently run to the life-bearing tomb and, having seen the linen cloths, had received a proof of the resurrection, the Christ-bearing Magdalene subsists at the tomb and persists in weeping, C and is seen as the first fruits of the resurrection to the others, for she was the first to see the angels, and she was considered worthy to see the Lord Himself.
C *Francisci Scorsi notes.* Regarding St. Mary Magdalene, in that sense in which the Greek writers and the Fathers call holy men *theophoroi*, that is, to the word, which many use, "God-bearers"—though others interpret it as divine, full of God—since they clearly believe them to be called the same as those whom the same Greeks call *theioi* [divine]. Thus, St. Ignatius the Martyr, writing to the primitive Christians, calls them *theophoroi*. Blessed, therefore, are you, O God-bearers. And St. Polycarp was called "the God-bearer Polycarp" by Suidas, and St. Paphnutius *theophoros* in the *Menologion* of the Greeks, in which you may read many others marked by that name passim. St. Ignatius the Martyr himself was called *theophoros* by the same Suidas, and *theios* by St. Maximus, who also, with equal weight, attributed the same to others. But as pertains to St. Ignatius, Petrus Alloix of our Society shows in his Life, or rather in the annotations to the Life written by himself, that *theophoros* was attributed to him not as an epithet but as an agnomen. And he shows this from the fact that he calls himself *theophoros* in the inscribing of most of his epistles—which he would never have done, given his modesty and humility of mind, had it not been a surname by which he was commonly called by all, and not an honorific epithet of praise; and he opines that this surname was bestowed upon him from the time when Christ touched him with His hands in this life, as if from that, that God-man resided in the body of Ignatius, and not only in his inmost marrow. That St. Ignatius was the boy whom Christ took up and of whom He said, "Unless you become as this little child," etc., he proves with many conjectures, which can be read in his writings; he also explains at greater length in what sense the other holy Fathers are called *theophoroi*, from whose explanation ours does not differ. For they are called so because the souls of the saints are the seats of God, and they bear Him not only by their soul, but also by their body, in which they carry around the mortification of the cross, according to that of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6: "Glorify and bear God in your body." On which passage L. Thom[as] says, "As a horse bears its master and rider, and moves according to his will, so the body is consigned to the will and obedience of God." Thus St. Thomas, whom that of David in Psalm 72 also echoes: "I have become as a beast of burden before Thee, and I am always with Thee." For thus holy men, who live most closely with God and regulate all their own affairs at His nod, can truly speak. But that we may be led from lesser to higher examples, in the same way holy men are called *theophoroi*, just as St. Dionysius calls the order of angels, who are called Thrones, *theophorous*, on which passage his scholiast St. Maximus says: "Note that he also (Dionysius) called the order of the holy thrones 'God-bearing,' as bearing God intellectually resting upon them." So St. Maximus. I return to St. Magdalene, whom our author [Theophanes] could, with no less right than St. Ignatius, call [Christ-bearing] by reason of the contact with Christ. For from the time she touched His feet, and was touched by Him on the forehead, she bore Christ not only in her soul, but also in her body, and especially in the marks of Christ's fingers impressed upon her forehead, as tradition holds. Nor was that word first innovated by our author, but received from the most ancient Fathers. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catecheses Mystagogicae* VI, calls those who have recently been baptized and who receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist: "Thus," he says, "we shall be *Christophori* (I would prefer *Christiferi*, i.e., Christ-bearers), when we have received his body and blood into our members." And in the same place: "Thus we become," as the blessed Peter says, "partakers of the divine nature." Thus Cyril. And for the same reason common to the other saints and for that proper one which I have set forth, St. Magdalene was rightly and with the best title called *Christophoros* by Theophanes. I have translated that word as "Christ-bearing." For why should I not use this well in Latin, and compose a new word rather than say *Christophorum*, in imitation of many which Latin poets rightly use: *flammifera*, *letifera*, *vitifera*, etc.
HOMILY XXXIV
A She dwelt in the tomb, searching it all over in her distress, and shedding floods of tears, expecting to learn something higher through her persistent attendance. But when she had taken heart and peered inside the tomb that received God, a vision of angels immediately fell upon her. For two angels appeared to her in robes of white at the very place where the divine body of Jesus had lain. And because the face-cloth was separated from the other burial clothes, the one appeared at the head guarding the face-cloth, and the other at the feet, guarding the linens. This was perhaps a symbol of the two natures in Christ; for the head signified the divinity, while the feet represented the assumed flesh. Since, therefore, the flesh of the Word deposited in the tomb did not exist separated from the glory of the divinity, the angels kept guard at the Lord's place, as it were at a bridal chamber; intending to show the myrrh-bearing woman that it was not naked flesh that had been buried in that tomb, such as could be subject to theft. And consider the miracle of this occurrence for yourself: why, to Peter and John, who had arrived at the very same hour, were the linens alone seen, appearing as if kept by no one? The holy minds, although present, were invisible B to them; but for the woman, the manner of the vision was the opposite. For the linens remained hidden, while the angels were seen. Why? Because for the disciples, being of greater wisdom, the sight of the linens was sufficient for conviction; yet the weakness of the woman could scarcely be persuaded by an angelic vision, and even the appearance of Jesus Himself. Perhaps, had the disciples imitated the perseverance of the woman, they would have obtained an equal revelation.
Mary, then, struck by the appearance of the angels and having become as one stupefied, stood trembling at the wondrous sight; but the angels, relieving her of her anxiety, inquire as if desirous to learn the cause of her tears, by their appearance and their voice leading her away from the suspicion that the Lord had been stolen. “Woman, why are you weeping?” Why do you think that He who is guarded by such watchers was subject to theft? You see angels sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, and you think the treasure has been carried off? Who is this C shameless body-snatcher, or audacious grave-robber, such that he would steal a King guarded by an angelic array? Yet was the Magdalene so foolish that she took no argument from this of what was truly the case? For she still persisted in the same opinion, and says, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.” What she previously told Peter and John, she now says to the angels. But, O excellent perseverance! O praiseworthy inquisitiveness! The Desired One did not overlook her; He did not D [index: entries preserved]
allow the one who was being sought to sink into the deep through lack of faith; but seeing her fervent longing, He appeared to her of His own accord. B "For turning back, she sees Jesus standing, and she did not know that it is Jesus." What was it that persuaded her to leave off the conversation with the angels and turn back? From the very sight and bearing of the angels, she felt some presence casting a shadow over her back. For when the Lord appeared, the angels immediately rose from their seats, by the change in their appearance indicating who had arrived. Seeing this, Mary too turned her gaze; but she did not truly recognize who it was that asked her: "Woman, why do you weep? Whom do you seek?" Whether it was because of the day’s extreme brightness, or because her eyes were dulled by the welling of her tears; or rather, it was by the economy of divine power. "Woman, why do you weep? Whom do you seek?" are words of reproach and an expostulation regarding her lack of faith. For it is as if He were saying this: "Having seen Me together with the other Mary, and having clasped My feet, do you still remain in doubt?" But she sensed neither the reproach, nor did she recognize the Speaker Himself; and thinking Him to be the curator of that garden, she says to Him: "If you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him." Rightly did she suppose Him to be the gardener; for He was the new Adam, who had taken upon Himself the whole of the first gardener and keeper, he of the garden of Eden; and He who was delivered in a garden and buried in a garden, so that He might restore the garden of paradise to Adam once again. "If you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him." Why, she says, have you removed the dead man? C Perhaps, feeling disgust and not wishing Him to lie in your garden, have you thrown Him away unburied, through contempt and neglect? Tell me where you have placed Him, that I myself, taking up this light burden in my arms, may carry Him wherever I wish. What, then, does the Savior do? Seeing her held by such slowness of mind, and having no conception of the resurrection, by the mere address He brings her back to perception. "Mary." Turning, she recognized the sweet voice, and from the greatest joy she answered: "Teacher." Having recognized the familiar greeting, at the same time she rushed to take hold of His immaculate feet; but she is prevented from this attempt, and hears: "Do not touch Me." Do not approach, He says, nor attempt to touch Me; for I do not yet bear the grossness of flesh, such as to be subject to your touch. Even if by way of condescension a little while ago my feet... D
have trod the earth, I have ascended to My Father; and yet, Christ anticipates their speed and shows Himself to Simon, confirming the others by the authority of him who held the greater rank among the disciples. For since they had deemed the gospel tidings of the women to be nonsense, He reveals Himself to Peter. And if the Evangelists have remained silent as to when, and where, and how He was seen by Simon, yet the voice of the great Paul confirms this vision, saying: "That Christ died for our sins, and that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day, and that He appeared to Cephas." Therefore, let us too, O God-loving assembly, imitate this pair of disciples; and, having abandoned that Jerusalem—which at first was the slayer of prophets, and later the slayer of Christ, which Christ Himself also declares wretched as the murderer of the prophets and stone-thrower of the apostles; and let it be that this very vice is the opposite of virtue, that which re-crucified the Lord of truth and kicked against the prophetic and apostolic words—having fled from this, let us hasten to reach the village of Emmaus, which signifies practical virtue, standing sixty stadia away. By this number is indicated the six-fold of the commandments multiplied tenfold, through which the righteous inherit the kingdom of God. For practical virtue, through action, is multiplied tenfold and increases to sixty, just as we have learned in the parable of the seed. Having completed this course, then, as it were, of sixty stadia, we shall see the Lord walking with us spiritually, as it were, and discoursing. For the Word runs alongside him who pursues virtue, rousing his sloth and providing His own impulse, without which no work that pleases God is achieved rightly. And the Word brings us together, being seen at first faintly, but appearing later more clearly. For the souls of the virtuous, the more they are purified, the more they recognize God. But He is revealed more openly to them in the breaking of the bread—that is, in the communion of the tremendous mysteries. But if, as soon as He appears to the disciples, He suddenly vanishes, do not marvel; for such is the divine beauty. It shines at once upon the minds of the purified, and like lightning it suddenly withdraws, becoming impossible to grasp, so that it might instill in the understanding a desire, and draw the loving soul toward a greater pursuit, so that it may be lifted up to divine ascensions and may ardently long to see Him entirely—the sweetness that cannot satiate, the entirely sweet eternal desire, the singular nature, the blessed Divinity; to whom is due honor, and all glory, and hymn-singing, and majesty, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
A Since therefore you have seen with your eyes, and have heard with your ears, and have held with your hands, and yet you remain uncertain, and seek Him as one who has returned like one dead, "do not touch me," you who are surrounded by such a mist of disbelief. But perhaps the words, "Do not touch me," also signify a mental touch; for He wished to investigate how the mystery of the resurrection had been arranged. Therefore, He keeps her from touching upon such questions, and says: Do not be overly curious about things above you, for you are not yet able to attain to such a mystical initiation; since "I have not yet ascended to my Father," so that I might draw you toward higher contemplations through the mission of the Paraclete. And perhaps it tended toward this, what He had said before: "When I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself," B calling the ascension to the Father an "exaltation." I, therefore, He says, am ascending to my Father, to be with Him, even with my body. But you, go and announce the taking up to the disciples: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." It is not necessary for those who are knowledgeable in the divine Scriptures to be scandalized if Christ speaks of something in a manner fitting to humanity for the sake of the dispensation. For He called the Father "his God," as one who had assumed a created nature; but the same One he named "Father," as being of the same essence C and nature. He is therefore, according to His divine essence, His Father by nature, but our Father through Him by grace. In what way we say Christ after the resurrection was not graspable by human touch, let us investigate, so that we may be able to say with Paul: "If we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we no longer know him so." Since the transgression of our forefather brought upon us the density of the flesh, which theology has called "garments of skin," He who came to restore nature has become what Adam was after the transgression; but having suffered and risen again, He has transmuted nature into D a state of being by nature and otherwise possesses the gift of subtilty: whence it happens that if He wills, He can resist touch, and not change it through elemental qualities. And therefore if He is unwilling, He cannot be felt. Then He can, if He wills, resist another body by His own quantity, not using the gift of subtilty, neither interpenetrating with it, nor yielding to it; and yet effect nothing upon the other body, neither by His tactile qualities changing it, nor by imprinting an intentional species, because this action, as I have said, is free to a glorious body, and is not necessarily conjoined with the former resistance; and in this way a glorious body can resist and not be felt in the manner in which it could happen in a celestial body. A glorious body can also, by its own will, resist touch, changing it through sensible qualities, and in this way it can be felt. A glorious body is, therefore, if I may so speak, palpably voluntary and free, not out of necessity.
A through the things that happen historically, he elevates the mind to contemplation. It was morning, therefore, because as from the gate of the tomb the Sun of righteousness had risen; there was darkness, because for men the miracle of the Resurrection was still unknown. He does not say that she saw the stone rolled away, although the three evangelists narrated it so. But the great John, as he is accustomed to mixing theological meanings with things that historically occurred, says that the stone was "taken away"; for it seems that he is not speaking simply of the sensible stone—for that was not lifted from the tomb, but had been rolled a short distance from the door—but of the corner-stone, Christ. The same evangelist drew me toward this understanding, who, having said in this place: "She sees the stone taken away from the tomb," subsequently makes the Magdalene herself speak: "They have taken the Lord from the tomb," interpreting the previous statement by the following utterance. For Emmanuel has truly become a rock of scandal and a stone of stumbling. This is the stone which the scribes and the princes of the Jews rejected, those who were ostensibly administrating the precepts of the Law. But he became the head of the corner, joining two peoples into himself. And perhaps upon this stone Jacob rested his head—the principal part of his soul—and, having fallen asleep from sensible things, he saw in fantasy the intelligible ladder. This stone was foreshadowed by the rock that profusely gushed drink for the people; as Paul says, that "they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ." This is the stone that was cut without hands, and which crushed the abominations of the demons, according to the prophecy of Daniel. B "She runs, therefore, and comes to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved." Why so, finally? Did she not report this to the rest of the apostles, but to Peter and John alone? Because the others, fearing the madness of the Jews, were hiding; but Peter and John were moving about more boldly: the former, because he had already obtained faith from the very fact that he had denied him with an oath; the latter, because he was known to the high priest and feared nothing. Having encountered them, therefore, while they were grieving and anxious, she says: "They have taken the Lord from the tomb." For she supposed, as it seems, because of feminine weakness, that the Lord had been carried off by someone. But the disciples, being of a firmer disposition, and surmising what was real... C D
had their minds B darkened by a cloud of sorrow, as they supposed that the Sun of righteousness was still hidden beneath the earth. He comes, therefore, and enters with divine power while the doors were shut, establishing this as a sign that they should no longer think of His nature according to the flesh, for it had shared more perfectly in the glories of divinity by means of incorruption. He shows also that in such a manner He issued from the virgin womb, and had gone out from the sealed stone of the sepulcher. For He neither damaged the virgin seals when born, nor the seals of the tomb when risen, nor did He open the doors when appearing to the apostles. "The disciples therefore rejoiced, having seen the Lord." Perhaps this was the joy of which He spoke to them before the Passion, that "Ye shall see Me again, and your heart shall rejoice." They rejoiced, therefore, seeing Him risen and fulfilling His promise; and just as the darkness of the night is scattered by the rising sun, so the sweet appearance of the Lord dispelled the cloud of sorrow from the disciples. If, however, Luke, narrating this appearance, says that they were troubled, and thought they saw a spirit, while here [the text] says they rejoiced, this is not to be considered a contradiction. For it is probable that they were first troubled to see Him entering while the doors were shut, but rejoiced afterwards when they recognized Him from His greeting and the showing of His limbs. For this reason He pronounces a double peace to them, before the showing of the wounds and after the showing, so that He might deliver them from double anxiety: both that arising from the fear of the Jews, and that from the opinion that they were seeing a spirit. The double pronouncement of peace might also signify another thing. For Christ reconciled not only things on earth, but also things in the heavens. And this the apostolic tongue clarifies: "Having made peace through the blood of His Son, [for] the things in heaven, and the things on earth." "And when He had said this, He showed unto them His hands and His side." He shows the openings from the nails, still appearing in His limbs, so that they might learn from the C scars that not another body had risen, but the very same one that had suffered. He shows His hands, by which He had formerly fashioned Adam, and had fashioned him again after he had fallen. He shows the side, from which Eve, who had been fashioned from [Adam's] side, found life, having been delivered through the blood and cleansed through the water. He shows them His hands and His side, mystically instructing them regarding perfection: the active virtue through His hands, and faith through the side, from which the type of the double baptism flowed. "And when He had said this, He breathed upon them, and saith, Receive ye the Holy Spirit." By the act of breathing upon them He reforms their nature, imparting to it that ancient D gift of which it had been deprived by disobedience. Having brought forward from the beginning man...
He adorned him with the communication of the Spirit, breathing into him the breath of life, which was the communication of the Holy Spirit. Since this had been deformed by sin, He restores it anew through the insufflation, filling the disciples as from the fountain of His own fullness; and He makes them more capable of all those gifts of the Spirit which they were to receive at the feast of Pentecost. For in the meantime, He imparted through the insufflation only one kind of gift: that of forgiving sins. A «As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.» He does not say that the mission is of equal dignity. For the Father sent the Son as consubstantial and equal in honor; but Christ sends the apostles as servants and disciples. But what He says is this: As the Father sent me for the benefit of human nature, so I also send you to preach salvation to men. Having confirmed them in these things, He immediately became invisible, showing from this also the transformation of His body into a higher state. «But Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.» B It was by divine dispensation that Thomas was absent, so that through a more searching inquiry, the mystery of the resurrection might be revealed more clearly. Observe also how his name corresponded to his manner of acting. For Thomas is interpreted as abyss and twin, or rather, as one who doubts; for he was destined to doubt regarding the abyss of the resurrection.
Francisci Scorsi notes
(51) [Footnote contents omitted] (52) [Footnote contents omitted] (53) C Thomas, abyss: Theophanes embraces this interpretation of the name Thomas here, which we have also shown from the Hebrew source in homily 33, note 27. (54) [Footnote contents omitted] (55) [Footnote contents omitted] DA His fellow disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands.” He does not seem to doubt the resurrection, but only to inquire with greater care whether the very same body had risen. For if he had been incredulous regarding the resurrection, he would have said instead, “Unless I see the Lord himself, I will not believe.” But now, because he asks to touch the side and the hands, it is manifest that he was debating about the body. For since he had heard from the disciples that he had entered through closed doors, he thought that perhaps he had laid aside his body and remained a spirit. This is what the other disciples also experienced, thinking they saw a spirit. That the body, once carnal, rose as a spiritual body, no one will deny—for how could closed doors have admitted a body possessing mass? It was not, however, transformed into a thing without substance, nor into the nature of the Godhead, but the very body that had suffered was re-formed by the power of the Godhead into the subtlety of a spirit. It remains, indeed, a body, refulgent with divine glory. And thus we know it to be the first-fruits, yet not incorporeal. B “And unless I put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Do not fix your mind only on the incredulity of Thomas, but consider the firmness of the disciple and his desire to inquire. For because he was to preach the resurrection of the Lord publicly and boldly, and to cry out with John, “What we have heard, what we have seen, and our hands have touched,” it was fitting that he should investigate with such diligence, and through accurate scrutiny confirm the others as well. And even if Thomas alone is said to have been incredulous, yet the others too were shaken at the sight. For Matthew says, “But some doubted.” And Luke says that “they thought they were seeing a spirit.” Therefore, all are confirmed by the tactile sensation of Thomas. “And after eight days the disciples were inside, and Thomas was with them. Jesus comes, the doors being closed, and stood in the midst.” C He meets them again in the same manner; and, seeing that he had been present in an intelligible way when Thomas poured out those words of infidelity, he grants him the power to satisfy himself through touch: “Bring your finger here, and see my hands, and bring your hand, and put it into my side.” Come, he says, O Didymus, touch the side, handle the hands, insert your finger, and by inserting it, believe. It is evident from these words what the magnitude of the wounds was; for the piercings of the hands had been so enlarged by the nails that they were wide enough to allow a finger to enter within. D
the wounded side accepted his whole hand within it. A And Thomas answered, and said: "My Lord, and my God." O the divine grace which Thomas enjoyed from that contact! For by touching the scars, he drew forth the doctrines of theology; and he is the first to proclaim Him with a theological voice, and to declare most clearly the two natures in Him. B "Jesus says to him: Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are they who have not seen, and have believed." What then? Are the apostles, and all who at that time saw Christ and believed, excluded from this blessing? And how could He say to them: "Blessed are your eyes, for many prophets have desired to see what you see"? By no means! But this is what He says: Since you have obtained assurance by sight itself, go forth now to preach, and proclaim what you have seen; for blessed shall they be who have not seen, and yet have believed through the preaching. But let our discourse not omit to inquire why He confirms Thomas not immediately, three or four days later, but after eight days. It is because He wished to interweave a mystical figure into the event. For Thomas was an image of the infidel people of the Jews; and the house of Sion, where the apostles were hiding themselves, signified this world into which Christ came silently, passing through the closed virginal gates of the immaculate maiden. C The eighth day signifies that future eighth day, on which He shall come again, and shall stand in the midst of the elect. And the Jews shall look on Him whom they pierced; and they shall believe, despite themselves. If, therefore, we too, for fear of the passions that trouble us, take refuge in the height of divine contemplation as if in an upper room, and keep our senses guarded like closed doors, the Word of God shall come to us unknown, and shall stand in the midst of the powers of the soul, and shall grant us peace, and through the gift of the Holy Spirit shall show us the symbols of His most pure mysteries, and shall fill us with spiritual joy and faith, and shall make us worthy of ineffable blessings, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. D I recognize in you that which is from me; I acknowledge in you the ineffable divinity from the Father; I confess you to be one God and Lord. I have learned that you are not one thing and another, but I know you are not one person and a different person; I do not divide you who are indivisible, I do not separate you who are inseparable, I do not cut you who are indivisible; and what I see, and what I hold, and what I understand, I declare with one voice: "My Lord, and my God."
HOMILY XXXVI. On the Tenth Matutinal Gospel.
Let us also today accompany the holy disciples in our discourse to the Sea of Tiberias. For Peter, that leader of the order, having given up hope of being with the Master—as had been the case previously—resumes his customary trade, and shares his plan with Didymus Thomas, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his fellow-disciples, saying: "I go fishing." They, bound by the bond of love and unable to bear the separation from their leader (for the loss of their Master caused them sufficient sorrow), yield to his plan and say: "We also are coming with you." But why did the rest of the disciples not follow? Because the others were not well-suited for fishing. For Matthew was a tax collector and entirely unacquainted with the labors of the sea; the rest were inlanders and did not live near the coast. For this reason, only those skilled in the fisherman's art accompany Peter. For a boat, and oars, and nets, and the things caught by means of these, befit not men who are inlanders, but those whose occupation and life's purpose is the sea and the things within it. Observe also that they all happened to be Galileans, having the Sea of Tiberias as their neighbor and boundary. Thence, in my opinion, the two unnamed disciples were Andrew and Philip, being themselves Galileans as well, and from Bethsaida. Of whom the one followed his own brother Peter, while Philip followed his friend of old, Nathanael. Consequently, the nets and the boat, and the labor throughout the whole night, were of no avail. "For in that night," it says, "they caught nothing." But when morning had come—when the Sun of righteousness, rising from the tomb as from the east, had brought forth the morning—the sweet One came, the Bestower of light appeared, and coming, He does not enter into the sea, nor does He walk upon the waves (which He had performed as a miracle before the Passion, when the water was turned into dry land by the power of His presence, and supported the divine footstep through the sure antitype). But having arrived, He stood on the shore, perhaps showing by this that the human nature assumed by Him, having now been made immortal through the resurrection, had passed out of the sea of this life, no longer held as by waves by the weaknesses of the flesh, but standing on the shore of incorruption. "Jesus therefore saith to them: Children, have you any meat?" In appearance, He asks the question simply, but He rebukes them obliquely, reproaching their incompleteness, and their hesitating and childlike disposition. "Children, have you any meat?" Observe [index: entries preserved]
B how He rightly rebukes them, calling them children, since, following a childish frame of mind, they had so forgotten the teachings of the Lord that they returned to their customary practice. "For what," He says, "did you gain from this vain effort? Did you make any profit from your fruitless labor throughout the whole night?" What then of the disciples? They acknowledge the truth, and deny that they have caught anything. Therefore, wishing to recall to Peter that He was the same One who, from the beginning, having entered his boat, and commanded him to put out from the land, and to let down the net, and to catch a great multitude of fishes, He commands them to cast the net on the right side of the boat; not that they recognized who it was commanding them, but that a certain divine power followed the Salvador’s words, infusing love and persuasion into good souls. "They cast, therefore, into the right side, and were no longer able to draw it in for the multitude of fishes." O the miracle, and the infinite power of Him who commanded! Those who had toiled through the whole night, and had caught nothing at all, were unable even to draw in the net because of the multitude of those caught. This event foreshadowed and typified future things; for the sea is this life, which is tossed by successive temptations; and the night, during which they were unsuccessful in their fishing, is the time preceding the manifestation of the Savior, during which, although the succession of prophets had labored much and cast the net of instruction, it had no one to obey. But when the morning had arrived, when the Sun of righteousness rose for us like one rising from the sepulcher of the east, the disciples, spreading wide the evangelical net, gathered the whole inhabited world into it, which the number of the caught fish signifies, culminating in one hundred and fifty-three. For the number one hundred, being both square and very full, as the decad circulates within itself, pre-indicated the fullness of the nations having believed from the four ends of the earth. But the fifty prefigured those who believed from the circumcision, as they received the divine custody of the Decalogue of the commandments in a sensible manner. For the five multiplied by ten, or conversely the ten multiplied by five, produce fifty, signifying the five senses and the ten commandments. And the three indicates faith in the Trinity, which, uniting things that were separate, brought all together into one Church. That this number of caught fish foretold the whole multitude of the Church can also be learned from the history of Rebecca,
HOMILY XXXVI. On the Tenth Matins.
A To the Lake of Tiberias today let us also, in our discourse, accompany the holy disciples. For Peter, the chief, having utterly despaired of being with the Master as formerly, resumes his customary trade, and communicates his plan to Didymus Thomas, and to the sons of Zebedee, and to two others of his fellow-disciples, saying, "I go a fishing." They, bound by the bond of love, and not enduring the separation from their leader (for the privation of the Master had caused them sufficient grief), follow his design and say, "We also go with thee." Why, indeed, did the remaining disciples not follow? Because the others were not suitably equipped for fishing. Matthew, indeed, was a publican, and altogether unskilled in the toils of the sea; the others were men of the land, and did not dwell by the sea-shore; for this reason only those who were knowledgeable in the fishing craft follow Peter. B For a ship, and oars, and nets, and the things caught by means of these, would not befit men of the land so much as those whose trade and goal of life was the sea and the things within it. Observe also that they were all Galilaeans, having the Lake of Tiberias as their neighbor and boundary. Hence, those two unnamed disciples, as I suppose, were Andrew and Philip, being themselves also Galilaeans and Bethsaidans. Of whom, one accompanied his blood-brother Peter, while Philip accompanied Nathanael, his friend from the beginning. Truly, the nets and the ship were there, and the labor throughout the whole night was unproductive: "For in that night," he says, "they caught nothing." But when morning was come, when the Sun of righteousness, having risen from the grave as from the east, had produced the morning, the sweet One came, the Provider of light appeared, and coming, he did not enter the sea, nor walk upon the waves according to his miracle before the Passion, when the base of his appearance caused the water to become like dry land, and supported his divine footstep through the safe antitype. C But coming, he stood on the shore, perhaps showing this, that the flesh he had assumed, having been made immortal by the resurrection, had already come out of the sea of this life, no longer constrained by the infirmities of the flesh like waves, but standing on the shore of incorruption. "Jesus therefore saith to them: Children, have you any meat?" In appearance he makes the inquiry simply, but nonetheless he obliquely rebukes their imperfection, and their inconstant and childish disposition. "Children, have you any meat?" Observe D how he covertly rebukes them, calling them children, since by following a childish temper... [index: entries preserved] [original-script column: see facsimile] (57) Conjecture, into which even our Maldonado was led because Andrew and Philip were from Bethsaida, and the place where these disciples had at that time gone to fish was Bethsaida: for there they practiced their fishing. The etymology of Bethsaida also favors this, "House of Hunting," that is to say, of fishing; for thus Euthymius translates it: "House of fishing," that is, where they were accustomed to hunt fish, and so his fatherland was called by Peter and Andrew; for there were many fishermen there.
See how rightly He reproves them, calling them children, since, led by a certain childish sentiment, they had become so forgetful of the Dominical teaching that they returned to their accustomed study and exercise. For what, He says, have you profited from this vain study? Have you gained any profit from the fruitless labor of the whole night? What, therefore, do the disciples do? They confess what the state of the matter was, and deny that they have caught anything. Therefore, in order to recall to Peter’s memory that He was the same one who, from the beginning, when He had chosen the disciples, had embarked in his boat, and commanded him to draw back from the land and let down the nets for a catch, and so they had grasped a copious multitude of fishes, He commands them to cast the net into the right side of the vessel; not because they knew who it was who was giving the order, but because a certain divine power resided in the Lord’s word, which instilled both love and persuasion into good souls. "They cast therefore into the right side, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes." O miracle, O infinite power of the One who commands! Those who had labored throughout the whole night and had caught nothing at all, were now unable even to drag the net because of the multitude of the fish caught. By this riddle was presignified that which was to happen in time to come. For the sea is this life, agitated by waves of temptations one after another; but the night, in which the fishermen plied their work in vain, is the time preceding the advent of the Savior, in which, though the series of those who succeeded the prophets had labored much, and had lowered the nets of doctrine, they had no one who believed. But when the morning time arrived, when the Sun of justice arose for us as if from the east and appeared to us, the disciples, unfurling the evangelical net, swept the whole earth with a seine, which the number of the fishes caught insinuates as by a certain symbol, amounting to the sum of one hundred and fifty-three. For the centenary number, since it is both square and most complete, as ten, revolved into itself, produces it, shadowed forth the fullness of the nations brought to the faith from the four ends of the whole earth. But the quinquagenary number prefigured those who believed from the circumcision, who received the observance of the Decalogue's precepts committed by God in a sensible manner. For five multiplied ten times, and again ten five times, begets fifty, which number signifies the five senses and the ten precepts. The ternary number, however, shows the faith in the Trinity, which, gathering the scattered into one, has assembled all into one Church. That this number of the fishes caught foretold the whole multitude of the Church can also be learned from the history of Rebecca, [index: entries preserved]
servant sent by Abraham to betroth a wife for Isaac finds Rebecca at the water; and there he betroths her, and the marriage takes its beginning at the well. Now, Rebecca figured the Church, joined to Christ through baptism. For if the elements of the name "Rebecca" are converted into numbers, they will gather to one hundred and fifty-three, just as many as the fish we find to have been caught. Thus the draught of the apostles announced the multitude of the Church. B Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved says to Peter: "It is the Lord." For it was meet that Peter should first come to the perception of the fact, having the example of it in his own house. And... [Note: The following section in the Greek column contains verses and an inserted list of names/titles]. Four vowels it bears, and two mutes, two times two messengers, the whole number I shall name. For eight units, such tens upon these, and eight hundreds, for unbelieving men, a name you shall declare; but do you consider in your mind the immortal Child of God, Christ, of the Most High. The mutes are two, for him, the savior of the double messengers, voiceless, manifold. C Aldobrandini, Clement the eighth, the great priest, Mipreius, the Barberini, Florentine, Urban the eighth, High Priest. D [The Latin columns contain detailed notes by Franciscus Scorsus regarding the Gematria/isopsephy mentioned in the homily, specifically discussing the name of Jesus (888), the name of Christ, the name of the Antichrist (666), and local contemporary examples of name-number calculation regarding Popes Clement VIII and Urban VIII.] [alt-version omitted]
HOMILY XXXVI.
A for before his discipleship, the Lord had performed such a miracle in his own person. But since Peter is the symbol of faith, being as it were a certain rock of faith, and the foundation of the Church, and the first cause of the whole spiritual edifice; while John signifies the excellence of contemplation, being the son of thunder and the first fountain of the Word (61), as one who reclined upon His breast and to whom were entrusted the treasures of wisdom and knowledge: for this reason, John is the first to recognize the Lord. For contemplation is endowed with a sharper sight, as has been shown more fully in other places. Consider also the fervor of Peter, and how the flames of love kindled him and drew him toward the beloved. For as soon as he heard that it is the Lord, he girded himself with his outer garment, and, leaving the small boat, he swam across. An outer garment (63) is the covering placed over the tunic, which it was the custom for the Galileans to wear as a cloak. This, therefore, in order to maintain a grave demeanor, Peter girded about himself. But since the Spirit exhorts us not to rest our mind on the history alone, but to penetrate to deeper things, let us seek also in this place what is signified by the outer garment. B We see, therefore, that at another time, when the disciples were being tossed by the billows, the Lord stood by and calmed the tumult of the soul and the waves of the sea; and that He even permitted Peter to walk on foot by way of the wave and come to Him. He, indeed, as if treading upon dry land, was crossing the watery path; but seeing that the wave was broken and the sea raging, he became afraid and was on the point of sinking, had not divine grace, anticipating him, snatched him from peril. Why? Because, being about to walk on foot upon the waves, he had not girded himself with the outer garment of faith. Thus, he is rebuked by the Lord as of little faith; the discourse indicating that the weakness regarding faith was the cause of the danger. But here, having become full of faith, he is said to have girded himself with the outer garment, and thus he reached the Lord without danger.
Francisci Scorsi’s note.
C the Church, he drank the streams of the Gospel from that very sacred fountain of the Lord’s breast. And so, in him too, the doctrine of the Gospel became a fountain, from which first, more abundantly and clearly, flowed that: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. homil. xxv, not. 89, et hom. xxxi, not. 32. For it is what... and it is the word for putting on over something. From this etymology, our Lacerda in Adver. sacr. cap. 125 rejects Marius Victorinus, who thought the outer garment was an undergarment or shirt, and from the same, Maldonatus, in this chap. xxi of John, rejects those who interpret it as a loincloth or a linen garment, which would serve for modesty and not be a hindrance to one swimming; and furthermore because they seem to assume that Peter was entirely naked before, which does not seem probable. For what the evangelist says, that Peter was naked, can be understood even if he had only an inner garment, a dress of the kind that workers and swimmers D are accustomed to use, especially so that they may be nimble in their work. Cornelius a Lapide also thinks this. It is gathered, therefore, that it was a cloak or covering which the Galileans were accustomed to use, and which, when they were about to begin some labor, they easily took off and put on again. Such was also the one that Christ took off when He was about to wash the disciples' feet, being clothed with it over his seamless tunic. For it must be believed that Christ used no other habit than the one common among the Jews, for He did not wish to appear singular in anything. But if our interpreter translated it as ‘tunic,’ he used a more common word, for ‘tunic’ can be the lower one, properly, or the upper one, properly. Thus Jerome translates this name: ‘Superior tunic,’ ‘over-garment.’ And he understands this in the Life of S. Anthony, cap. 23, when he washed his outer garment; and in the Life of S. Hilarion, cap. 3: ‘Having a goatskin outer garment’; he is writing, indeed, of what they commonly call a cape or scapular. And this is what our Theophanes thinks, and Theophylact also defines it as the linen cloth with which Phoenician and Syrian fishermen used to clothe themselves, whether they were naked or dressed, putting this over those.
« But the other disciples came in the boat, for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits, dragging the net of fish. » And this pulling of the net by the disciples from the two hundred cubits, at which distance they were from the land, is not without a mystical reason. For the number of the two hundred signifies the ratio of matter and form, as the great Maximus said. The apostles draw out the minds of those being discipled from these things, and bring them to anchor in the stable word of theology. When therefore they had disembarked upon the land, they see coals laid, and a fish laid upon them, and bread; He produced all things from non-being by an ineffable word—the coals, the bread, and the fish. For, lest they should think they were seeing a phantom, He wishes to confirm them B through the eating. And since He knew that there was no food with them, He Himself prepares the table, with bread and fish, the customary food of fishermen, a simple meal, not curious or prepared with any fish-sauces, but devised from what was at hand on the fire as the occasion required. Nevertheless, even here, along with what actually happened in history, the more mystical sense is contemplated; for the coals were a symbol of the divinity of the Word. For God is fire, and a consuming fire, according to the prophetic saying. But the fish laid upon the coals was an image of the humanity that was assumed. Which, having been immediately united to the divinity according to hypostasis, and the whole having been roasted by the communication of the higher nature, became C homo-divine, not changed into the nature of divinity; for it is impossible for this to happen to a body from the earth, and it is impossible for anything of created nature to become homo-divine. For such is the sacrifice offered for us, an indumentum of incorruption, as it was and as it is called. And it is perfect, not only because of the divinity, than which nothing is more perfect, but also because of the assumption which was anointed by the divinity and became that which is the anointing, and I dare to say, homo-divine, homo-divine, homo-divine, deified, divine, homo-divine, divine. One must know that the flesh of the Lord is not said to have been deified, or to have become homo-divine, or God, because of a change or turning or alteration or confusion of nature, as the theologian Gregory says, of which the one deified, D and the other was deified; and I dare to say homo-divine, and that the Christ became man, the God who anointed and that which were anointed. Homo-divine. Wherefore, through His incarnation, which is beyond mind and word, He deified the first-fruits of our dough to the highest degree, that is to say, having made its own assumption this homo-divine. Homo-divine, God-man.
A transmigrated into the nature of Divinity; but it is indeed divine, since it is the body of God; yet it did not change its nature. And like a fish, it dwelt in the sea of this life, remaining untainted by the salt of sin. At the time of the passion, though he received countless kinds of insults, he was silent, not contending, nor gainsaying, nor avenging, nor yielding. A prepared bread, which neither plowing nor sowing had cultivated; but it was produced by the mere nod of Him who commanded it. It signified that very heavenly bread, which descended from above, but existed on the earth, which the womb of the Virgin, without seed and without plowing and untilled, brought forth as a sprout. Thus, then, the things produced signified Him alone. But according to another argument, since He wished to lead them forth to preaching, He shows them symbols of doctrine. For the evangelical word B becomes for some fire—for the Lord says, "I came to cast fire upon the earth"—for others bread, for others fish, changing its power according to the manifold quality in accordance with the aptitude of those who receive it. Therefore, as fire it incinerates sins; as bread it nourishes the souls of those who receive it; and as small fish, it is given to those still tender and not yet reaching perfection, as the excellent host, Paul the divine apostle, teaches, who prepares for the more perfect a more solid nourishment, and the word as food of flesh. But herbs for the weaker ones, and milk for those who are infants. How is it then, one might say, that He who prepared this mystical meal for the disciples did not also provide them a drink? According to the more physical interpretation of history, it is because the lake was present to them, providing abundant drink to those who wished. For it would be a matter of excessive ambition to work miracles where there is no necessity. For both the five thousand who were abundantly feasted in the wilderness, C and again the four thousand, were nourished by loaves and fishes, but it is not recorded that drink was provided for them. But the word also teaches in a spiritual sense, that since practical virtue is called food, because it is hard and more difficult to work, and contemplation and unfailing knowledge are drink; in this (present life) the nourishment through works is performed for us, but in the coming one the cup of knowledge is given. For when practice has reached its end here, contemplation alone is lived in the future, when one drinks the truth, as the Apostle says, "I gave you milk, not food; and you have become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food." D If milk, food, solid food, milk, food, herbs, solid food, meaty... [alt-version omitted]
Notes by Francisco Scorsi
...and bread, which our author explains in somewhat greater detail, S. Augustine has gathered more briefly and elegantly in tract. 123: "The roasted fish," he says, "is the suffering Christ: He is the bread which descended from heaven." The same is taken from the same S. Augustine by Bede. The same also by the anonymous author in the Greek Catena: here Theophanes refers to the other passage in 1 Cor. ch. 3, as "I gave you milk to drink, not meat"; and the other to the Hebrews, "you have become such as have need of milk, not solid food." In which places the Apostle sets down three names; which Theophanes here explains and distinguishes in order: so that it may correspond to infants, for whom he himself sets down "herbs," to those advancing, and those still weaker; which he also calls "solid," that is, nourishment made of flesh, for the perfect.For when the practical life ends here, only the contemplative life remains in the future, and holds sway, at which time the Lord promised that he would drink with us the cup of pure, sincere doctrine, when he reveals more clearly to the saints what he now shows them more obscurely. May it happen that we too may enjoy those divine repasts in Christ our God, to whom be glory and power with the Father who is without beginning, and with the life-giving Spirit, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XXXVII. On the Eleventh Matutinal Gospel.
"At that time, Jesus manifested himself to his disciples, having risen from the dead, and he says to Simon Peter: Simon of John, do you love me more than these?" When the Lord appeared to the disciples of A the lake of Tiberias as they were fishing, and pointed out to them mystical symbols—the catch, the bread, the hot coals, the fish—and had breakfasted with them while he was still unrecognized, it remained for him to heal the disciple who had fallen through denial. And so, he who knew how to cure contraries by contraries corrects the disciple's three-fold sin with a three-fold confession. And he who knew all things before they came to pass, feigns ignorance, as it were, and says: "Simon of John, do you love me?" He knew well that Peter was fervent in love, even if he had stumbled through a better providence in the time of the Passion; but since Peter himself was being scourged by the stings of his conscience, and the opinion concerning him among the disciples had been clouded, B the Savior shows that he [Peter] is the very foundation of the Church, the shepherd of the rational sheep, and the prince of his disciples. C
Francisci Scorsi's Note
...the fact that [God] allows this, as is said of St. Gregory the Great in his homily on the Gospel: "For the celestial clemency acted in such a way that the hesitating disciple, while feeling the scars of the flesh in his Master, might heal in us the scars of infidelity." For the infidelity of Thomas profits us more toward faith than the faith of the believing disciples, etc. And St. Augustine says concerning the common fall of the human race: "He judged it better to bring good out of evils than to allow no evils to exist at all." ... I have expressed the meaning and the metaphor rather than the literal word; for these [Greek terms] signify a base, a sandal, a foundation, a principle. D ... But since I had placed "foundation" a little earlier, and none of the other terms could be conveniently translated into Latin in relation to the disciples, I have rendered the sense. Nor, however, have I departed much from its meaning: for I could have translated it as "the beginning of the disciples," but I thought "prince" was more appropriate to the usage of speech itself. Observe, indeed, how many and how grave the words, and how many places in these homilies this Father varies in witnessing to the primacy of St. Peter, and indeed of his successors, whom he names openly in Homily 55, "On the Holy Apostles." What, indeed, is graver and more magnificent than the following words, with which he calls Peter the coryphaeus, or prince of apostolic dignity and order? This is against the innovators of our time, who cannot bear the primacy of St. Peter, and the schismatic Greeks, who refuse to recognize the first Roman see, who in truth have their own Fathers and their own Greeks as adversaries, rebuking their error, and whom they refused to obey. For besides this Theophanes Cerameus, who whenever mention is made of St. Peter, always speaks of him as a prince—splendidly, as I have said—and magnificently, and so names him, other Fathers also agree. St. Proclus, bishop of Constantinople, in the same most truthful sense names St. Peter, which his interpreter and commentator Vincentius Richardus notes in oration 8, and shows that the name is not an empty name, or one of dignity only, not of jurisdiction, as they say; because he rules his order and commands it. Now St. Chrysostom so calls him, and St. Isidore of Pelusium, lib. 1, epist. 142, lib. 2, epist. ... St. Cyril of Jerusalem, catechesis ... and the Second Council of Nicaea, can be overwhelmed and convicted by six hundred other such witnesses of this kind of heresy.
Τὴν φιλίαν κατὰ τρεῖς τρόπους συνεστάναι φασίν. Ἡ γὰρ ἡδονὴ ταύτην συνίστησιν, ἢ τὸ χρήσιμον, ἢ τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ τὸ καλόν. Ἢ μὲν οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς, οἰκεία μάλιστα τοῖς νέοις· τῆς γὰρ ἡλικίας ἐπιθυμητικῆς οὔσης, τοῦτο ποθοῦσι τὸ πρὸς ἡδονὴν εὐφραῖνον. Ἡ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ χρησίμου, τῆς μετὰ ταύτην ἡλικίας· οἱ γὰρ τὰ πρεσβύτερα φρονήσαντες, τὸ πρὸς χρείαν καὶ ὄφελος διώκουσιν. Ἡ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, τῆς τελείας· αὕτη γὰρ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἐστιν· ἀγαθοὶ γὰρ οἱ ἀεὶ ὄντες αὐτοὶ καθ᾽ αὑτούς, πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὡσαύτως ἔχουσιν. Πρὸς τούτοις οὖν, ἡ μὲν ἀγάπη, ἣν ὁ Κύριος ἐζήτησε, πρὸς ἣν ὁ Πέτρος κατεπάρεσχε, τὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ τοῦ καλοῦ συναπτομένην δηλοῖ. Ἡ δὲ φιλία, ἣν ἀνταπέδωκεν ὁ Πέτρος, τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς καὶ τῆς αἰσθήσεως οἰκειότητα σημαίνει. Ὡσανεὶ ἔλεγε· Κύριε, τὴν τελείαν τῆς ἀγάπης ἀρετὴν οὐκ ἐπαγγέλλομαι, ὡς ἐκείνην τὴν ἄπιστον φωνὴν ἀναλαβών· οἶδας δέ μου τὴν οἰκειότητα τῆς φιλίας, ἣν πρὸς σὲ ἔχω. Ἢ ὅτι ἀγάπη πρὸς ἀγάπην, φιλία δὲ πρὸς φιλίαν, ἀδιαφόρως κέχρηται τοῖς ὀνόμασιν ὁ Κύριος τῆς ἀγάπης. Ἔνιοι δὲ, οἱ ἀγαπῶντες τὴν ἀγάπην, φησίν, ὡς ἀγλαΐζουσαν τὸν βίον, ταύτην τὴν φιλίαν ἀσπάζονται.
[H] HOMILIA XXXVII.
Friendship is said to be constituted in three ways. For it is established either by pleasure, or by utility, or by what is good and honorable. That which arises from pleasure is most proper to the young; for as their age is concupiscent, they desire that which gladdens them for the sake of pleasure. That which arises from utility belongs to the age that follows; for those who have reached more mature thoughts pursue that which serves need and profit. But that which arises from the good is the perfect one; for this is the friendship of good men; for they who are good in and of themselves, always remain the same toward one another. In addition to these points, therefore, the *agape* (love) which the Lord sought, and to which Peter dared to aspire, signifies that which is joined to the good and the honorable. But the *philia* (friendship) which Peter rendered corresponds to the intimacy arising from pleasure and sensation. It is as if he were saying: "Lord, I do not promise the perfect virtue of *agape*, as if I were taking up that former faithless shout; but Thou knowest the intimacy of the *philia* which I have toward Thee." Or perhaps the Lord uses these names, *agape* and *philia*, interchangeably for the love of *agape*. And some say: those who love *agape*, as it adds luster to life, embrace this kind of friendship.
A THEOPHANES KERAMEUS: This, indeed, is what embraces all good things. But in order that what I am saying may be understood more clearly, let us inquire into the matter more subtly. They say that friendship is composed in three ways: for either pleasure, or a pretext of some utility, or an assimilation of virtue brings it together. But friendship which has taken its composition from one of these two ways is fragile and unstable; for if it happens that the utility—or the pleasure—ceases, the friendship also departs and vanishes. Hence, the lapse of time, and the distance of place, and the change of circumstances cause the attraction to wither. But the friendship established according to virtue is not extinguished by such circumstances; rather, it is established more firmly by the passage of time and by physical separation, becoming *agape* through small, incremental steps. B [alt-version omitted] Francisci Scorsi note: C ... and [becomes] friendship, not because of what is useful, nor because of what is pleasant—for not even goodwill occurs on account of these.
HOMILY XXXVI
B See how rightly he rebukes them, calling them children, since, following a childish mind, they had so forgotten the Dominical teaching that they returned to their accustomed practice. For, "What," he says, "did you profit from this vain pursuit? Did you gain anything by laboring in vain all night long?" What, then, do the disciples do? They confess the truth, and they deny having caught anything. Therefore, wishing to recall to Peter that he was the very same one who, from the beginning, had entered his boat and commanded them to put out from the land, and to cast the net, and to catch a great multitude of fish, he gives orders to cast the net on the right side of the boat; not because they had recognized who it was who was giving them the command, but because some divine power accompanied the words of the Savior, implanting love and persuasion in good souls. "They cast, therefore, on the right side, and they were no longer able to draw it because of the multitude of the fish." O the miracle, and the infinite power of the One who commanded! Those who had labored throughout the whole night and had caught nothing at all could not even draw the net because of the multitude of what had been captured. C This mystery hinted at and prefigured future events: for the sea is this life, tossed by wave after wave of temptations; and the night, during which they remained inactive while fishing, is the time preceding the arrival of the Savior, in which, though the series of prophets had labored much and let down the nets of teaching, they found no one who would listen. But when the morning had arrived, when the Sun of Justice rose for us from the tomb as if from the East, the disciples, extending the Gospel net, dragged the entire inhabited world; this number of captured fish also hints at this, summed up at one hundred and fifty-three. For the number one hundred, being both square and very full, as the decad multiplied into itself produces it, prefigured the fullness of the Gentiles brought to faith from the four corners of the whole world. The fifty, however, prefigured those from the circumcision who believed, as having received the custody of the divine Decalogue of commandments in a sensible manner. For the five, multiplied by ten, or the ten reversed, multiplied five times, produces fifty, signifying the pentad of the senses and the decad of the commandments. The three, however, indicates faith in the Trinity, which, having unified things that were divided, gathered everyone into one Church. That this number of captured fish prefigured the entire population of the Church can also be learned from the history of Rebekah.
A And he bore witness to this. For he had learned that this is love, that one should lay down his soul for his friends; since he himself had not yet achieved this, he draws back. But the Lord demanded these things from the friendship they had for Him, the shepherding of rational sheep, saying: "Feed my lambs," showing that the purpose of the economy in His eyes was the salvation of men. And again, bringing forward the same question a second time, He receives the same answer: "Lord, you know that I love you." Then again He entrusts the feeding to him, not of lambs, but of sheep (75). In some of the ancient copies, it is written thus: "Feed my little sheep," and this seems more consistent. For by having spoken of "lambs" first, "little sheep" second, and finally "sheep," he follows the order and progress of those who are being saved. He calls those who are imperfect in faith and beginners, who are still in need of milk as they are unable to receive the solid food of teaching, "lambs"; but those who have the strength to be initiated into the more perfect mysteries, he calls "sheep." For thus the great Paul B also divided the progress of those being instructed, feeding some with milk, while for others he fashioned the spiritual words into bread, and for others still, he set before them the stronger dogmas—like meat—for as many as are able to grind and digest them with the critical teeth of their reasoning. And perhaps even in the Gospel, the good ground that brought forth fruit a hundredfold, sixtyfold, and thirtyfold was a symbol of this triple distinction, signifying the lambs, the little sheep, and the sheep.
He says to him for the third time: "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?" He varied the third question; for he did not say, "Do you love me?" (ἀγαπᾷς), nor did he add "more," but he says: "Let it be so; since you do not confess that you love (ἀγαπᾶν) but that you are a friend (φιλεῖν), show your friendship through this: Feed my sheep." — Peter was grieved, because he spoke of friendship C as the beginning and foundation of charity, charity friendship, charity, friendship's sheep, little sheep.
D [index: entries preserved]
A
He said to him the third time, "Do you love [φιλεῖς] me?" That which induced Peter to be grieved was the third denial and the variation in the questioning; for through the questioning, he was brought into the memory of the third denial. And because he was examined first and second whether he loved [ἀγαπῴη], but the third time whether he felt friendship [φιλοίη]—which is less than charity—he was grieved; he was troubled lest he might fancy he felt friendship, but the revolution of time and events should prove that he did not. He therefore entrusts everything to Him who knows hidden things, and says: "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love [φιλῶ] you." You, he says, O Master, know the future just as you know the past; you do not ignore the readiness of the mind, but you know that as far as my strength arrived, I have been tied to your friendship. But if again my innate weakness should be shaken, this also is known to you alone.
"Jesus says to him: Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself, and walked where you wanted; but when you shall grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you." He calls the disciple back from grief and fear, and announces the cross to him beforehand, and foretells his death. For what he said is such as this: Do not be filled with fear and disturbance, fearing that you might appear not to love. For your charity toward me will extend to such a degree that you will become a partner in my passion, and stretch out your hands, and be crucified upon a cross. "When you were younger, you girded yourself, and walked where you wanted." It is possible from these words to conjecture that Peter was neither a youth in age at that time, nor yet aged, but had a beard and was at the very midpoint of life.
But for us, at least, who are more inclined toward the more spiritual aspects of the word, we shall speak the more mystical meaning. He says he was younger when he was living the life according to the law, growing in the legal observances. For then he girded himself with the belt of the commandments. But he calls "old age" the evangelical perfection, according to which Peter, having become full of good days, stretched out his hands for the exercise of practical virtue, and another girded him—namely, the Paraclete—girding the loins of his soul with the power of the gifts, so that he might run the course of the apostleship expeditiously, and finally stretch out his hands and receive from others the binding upon the cross. For that he hinted at the death by the cross, in which, having been placed, Peter glorified God, becoming a partner with Him in the passion, the Evangelist clearly interprets for us the enigma; for "this he said," he says, "signifying by what death he will glorify God." B
Thus, since the Evangelist has interpreted the saying, the audacity of friendship and charity, to love... C D
A I believe it is audacious to fashion another meaning for it. Yet, when the saints have thirsted all the more to die for Christ, how does the Lord say that Peter would be crucified against his will? "You will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you, and lead you where you do not wish." Here, He noted both the promptness of the will, and the infirmity of the flesh. For by saying that he would stretch out his hands willingly, he showed that he would go of his own accord to death; but by the words "lead you where you do not wish," He manifested the fear of the flesh. For since death entered into the world contrary to nature, for this reason nature recoils from it, even if holy men trample upon the affection of nature by the fervor of faith. B "And when he had said this, he says to him: Follow me." After he had repaired the fall of his denial through his confession, and had been appointed the chief pastor, and had been initiated into the things which he was to suffer, in order that he might not think himself perfect in all respects, He insinuates to him again that voice appropriate for beginners: "Follow me." For this is what He had said to him from the beginning, when He called him into his discipleship. "For do not," He says, "think that you are perfect; for now it is necessary for you all the more to follow, and to walk behind the first Shepherd by way of imitation." Furthermore, by "following," He signified that consummation which would come through the cross. "And Peter, turning, sees that disciple whom Jesus loved following; who also had reclined at supper upon his breast, and said: Lord, who is it that betrays you?" Seeing this man, Peter says to Jesus: "Lord, but what of this man?" C Observe with what charity the disciples were affected toward one another. For when Peter had heard the things that pertained to himself, he asks also about his fellow-disciple; he desired, indeed, to have him as a companion of his martyrdom, so that he might also come into the fellowship of the future goods. But the Lord, cutting off what was overly curious, and to teach him to consider his own affairs, and not to be an overly-solicitous inquirer into the affairs of his neighbor: "If I want him to remain," He says, "until I come, what is that to you?" By which words this is signified: If I want him to remain in Jerusalem, D until, having come, I command him also to go forth to the preaching, what is this to you? For He wanted John to sit for the time being in Jerusalem, as one who had undertaken the care of the most pure Mother, who had been entrusted to him at the time of the Passion. But some understand "to remain" as referring to the intensified life of the disciple.
A nor can the Savior be accused of the impossible. For He who comes to Me, He says, and hates not his father and mother, cannot be my disciple. But since love is the starting point and, as it were, a foundation — for love cannot be dissolved—it happens that there occurs a pulling away from this by some matter, or by one being drawn away by an overweening desire. Now, according to the anagogical sense, the Son or Daughter can be understood as the evil offspring born of the concupiscible and irascible parts of the soul; and these, indeed, one must not prefer to the love of Christ.
B And whosoever does not take up his cross, and come after me, is not my disciple. What it is "to take up the cross," and what "to follow Christ," has been spoken of by us more fully in other places. Now, it is sufficient to say this much: that by the cross, he means the voluntary mortification of the fleshly desires, and death undertaken for the sake of Christ; and by "following Him," is meant the imitation of His manner of life, as much as is possible for a man, who has lived upon the earth as a man.
C And Peter answering said unto him: Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? Here some, led by a certain empty impulse, imagine much regarding the vanity of the chief of the disciples, and, to speak more plainly, they mock him for being carried away by a scurrility rather than following the truth. They say, for instance, that it was out of vainglory that Peter boasted of having forsaken all and followed Christ. For what, they say, did he forsake? A poor man, a fisherman; and who could be poorer than a fisherman? If one were to argue that he left nets to be mended, from where would he have had anything else? Some have said this, not directing their attention to the truth. For one should have considered that the nets themselves, and the ship that he left, were his entire means of livelihood, and that he held the small amount of wealth he had with as much intensity of heart as the rich hold theirs. However, others among the disciples despised even money; for Matthew, at the same moment that he decided to follow Christ, rising from the toll-booth, not only left his earnings, but disregarded the dangers D that were to follow him because of the tax-collectors.
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus.
...it is more difficult, and I know not if it can be done by all: yet it is a concession, for he who is more perfect. (78) The chief of the disciples. Add to this place what we have said against the heretical and schismatic Greeks concerning the primacy of St. Peter, on page 37, note 68. (76) And disregarded the dangers: Chrysostom has observed the same thing, Homily on this Gospel: Matthew, he says, rose from the toll-booth itself, and followed Christ, not only leaving his profits, but even the dangers of the tax-collectors which were imminent, because he had left behind perfected accounts of the toll-booth. The same is held by Theophylact, Const., in his Homily which exists in Vol. I concerning the cross, in Gretser.A Furthermore, because Mark and Luke, having been taught the mystery by the chosen disciples, wrote their own Gospels. For even the divine Luke speaks thus in his Proem: "As they delivered to us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." John the Great, however, did not hear from others what he composed; but having followed Christ from the beginning, he wrote down those things which he had seen with his own eyes. The testimony of one who has seen the events for himself is, therefore, reasonably held to be true: "And there are also many other things that Jesus did; which if they should be written every one, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Amen.
B And the hyperbolic nature of this statement seemed burdensome and unbelievable to the foolish, the jesters, the scoffers, and those enslaved to the senses. For they do not know that it is customary for Holy Scripture to explain things with hyperbole. For it says that the cities of the Canaanites were walled up to heaven; and that the land of promise flows with milk and honey; and that the seed of the patriarchs would be multiplied like the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea. And moreover, David also says that the waves rise up to the heavens, and descend even to the abyss. And yet, in those instances, the hyperbole is absolute; but here, in this place, by adding "I suppose," he has relaxed the hyperbole. C Furthermore, to us who have learned to understand spiritual things spiritually, the meaning of this passage seems even more sublime. For it does not speak only of the things that Jesus did when He became man, but because He Himself is the Creator of the whole world—both that which falls under the intellect and that which is subject to the senses—and the reasons for these things are mysterious and inexpressible, the created order cannot contain the word concerning them. For who could have the power to comprehend the cause of each thing, and how many there are, and for what reason, when even what was written has not been contained? For the cowardly and licentious do not contain poverty, and wisdom shall not enter into a malicious heart. But may the discourses on the virtues be container-like D for us, illuminating our governing faculty, and lifting us out of the mire of this world to transfer us to the works of piety, by the grace of the super-luminous Trinity, to whom glory is due unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XXXVIII. On the Samaritan Woman.
How we shall today follow the Savior with our intellect as He departs without a prologue from Jerusalem to Galilee, and makes the salvation of the Samaritan woman a secondary task of His journey. For His work was the salvation of the sons of Israel, to whom He had come. But because of their disobedience, He went out and came into Samaria, setting this as a sign, that from Jerusalem the Gospel would be scattered into all the nations. The Lord was directing His journey, therefore, into Galilee;
A seeing, however, that He had to pass through Samaria, He did not make the transit without fruit; or rather, if one ought to consider what is true, the conversation of the Samaritan woman with the Savior did not happen by chance. But He who manages all things for our benefit, foreseeing the salvation that would come to the Samaritans, entered upon this road. For the road through Jericho was more direct B for traveling into Galilee. And that this was His intention in passing through Samaria is evident. For He arrived at the spring at that very hour at which He knew the woman would come to draw water. Whence the Samaritans originate, and what is signified by that name, and for what reason they considered the mountain that was among them to be worthy of adoration and veneration, and why the Jews considered them to be defiled, weaving the discourse out of the holy Scriptures, I shall quickly set forth the account. This mountain, of old, before the holy Abraham boarded the land C of promise, was acquired by Zambri—
HOMILY XXXVIII
[The Savior] was returning from Galilee to Jerusalem, being able also to go by another road; for even from Samaria it is easy to come to Jerusalem, yet [He went] by design, more directly. [From] Samaria to Jerusalem, it is more direct through Jericho to march straight to Galilee. [From] Samaria through ... this mountain of old, before the holy Abraham boarded the land of promise, was acquired by Zambri. [Boarded], went up. Of old indeed, "by Amri" was acquired by Zambri.[LATIN COLUMN] [The Savior] did not allow any profit to be made from that transit: or rather, if it is right to repute the truth, the meeting of the Samaritan woman with the Lord was not fortuitous. But He who disposes all things for our utility, foreseeing the future salvation of the Samaritan woman, entered upon that way. For a more direct and easier way (83) led through Jericho into Galilee. Whence it is also evident from this that He had his journey through Samaria with the intention that He arrived at the fountain at the same hour at which He knew she would come to fetch water. But whence the Samaritans have their origin, and what is signified by this name, and for what cause they judged the mountain that was among them to be constituted for the worship and cultivation of God, and why the Jews judged them to be impure, weaving the oration from the sacred Scriptures, I shall expose in passing. This mountain, indeed, before the holy Abraham (84) arrived in the land of promise, Zam- [bria] D acquired... [alt-version omitted]
from the Canaanite Semer; and having built upon it, he named the mountain Somor, from Semer, and the city Samaria. After David, therefore, and Solomon, the scepters having been divided, those who ruled in Samaria, having fallen into idolatrous worship, they themselves and their subjects became objects of Chaldean captivity and the sword, and the region of Samaria was inhabited by the Babylonians. For the King of Assyria, having become master of these places, and seeing the land to be fertile and ample, well-watered by rivers, and most productive of all kinds of fruits and produce, deported the local inhabitants and settled Chaldeans in it. But these men, attributing the permission that had come from God to the false gods they themselves worshipped, condemned the weakness of the God of the Hebrews and shamelessly derided Him, insulting the Divine. God, therefore, showing that He was indeed able to defend His own nation, but that He permitted the capture because of their impiety, sent upon them the assault of lions; and they B made the destruction of the barbarians successive. Since there was great slaughter and the evil was becoming unbearable, they made it known to their king. And he immediately, having summoned the priests of the Hebrews who were in captivity, inquired into the cause of the assault of the wild beasts. But they said, "The God of this place, O king, is jealous and most almighty, and He does not endure to see His own place defiled by the sacrifices of foreign gods; but if you are persuaded, transfer the religion of the inhabitants to His worship." The Assyrian is persuaded, and without any delay, sends Esdras the priest (86), very learned in divine things, of good character and peerless virtue, to Samaria, to… C D
Notes of Franciscus Scorus
(84) *[Editor's note: original Greek/Latin note omitted - summary: the author discusses the origin of Samaria according to Josephus and Salianus.]*
(86) *[Editor's note: original Latin note omitted - summary: The author discusses the chronological discrepancy regarding the figure of Ezra being sent by the King of Assyria, as Ezra the scribe lived much later under Artaxerxes Longimanus.]*
nature, excellent in way of life, and incomparable in virtue, he sends to Samaria, having instructed the inhabitants there in the worship of the Hebrews. The priests from the four nations, having heard of this, and fearing lest the abominations of their own gods might be shattered by Ezra, hid them in the recesses of the mountain, persuading the Samaritans that in whatever place one might happen to be, one should look towards the mountain, worship, and invoke God, as if God had his dwelling in the mountain. Indeed, having adjured their ancestral rites according to Ezra’s suggestions, they accepted those of the Hebrews; yet, not Judaizing in everything, but having accepted only the Pentateuch and rejecting the rest, they became half-pious. And therefore the Scripture says concerning them: "They remained doing the law of God, and worshipping idols," indicating the worship performed upon the mountain. For this reason, the Israelites held them in aversion, detesting them as abominable. But He who enveloped the whole of human nature in that first-fruit of the mass [which He partook], in which there was a portion of every nation—Jew, Samaritan, and Greek—did not refuse to impart grace even to these. And first, indeed, He captures the woman, beginning from that very race, from which from the beginning all evil had run riot. He comes, therefore, to a city of Samaria called Sychar. So much of the region as was named Samaria [was so called] both from the mountain and from the guards sent there; for the Chaldeans call guards "Samarites." There were various cities of Samaria, whose... body. For, since you have clothed yourself in my first-fruits for the sake of my salvation, do I not know you, who are clothed with light as with a garment? Today the human mass has been raised above the dignity of the incorporeal beings. [i]ζωγρεῖ[/i]: [i]ζώγρει[/i], "O son of Atreus, keep me alive, keep me alive" (from [i]ζῶ[/i], to live, and [i]ἄγρα[/i], prey). They knew how to spare, and taking them alive, to lead them away. And as the first prey from among the treasures of the satrap, the most precious thing...
HOMILY XXXVIII [sic]
in Samaria, to initiate its inhabitants into the rites of the Hebrews. When those who were gathered from the four nations who were in that place learned of this, and feared that Ezra might demolish the abominable idols of their gods, they hid them in the recesses of the mountain, persuading the inhabitants of Samaria that in whatever place each might be dwelling, they should direct their souls towards the mountain, and worship, and invoke God, just as if the Lord were dwelling in that mountain. And so, having been instructed by the suggestions of Ezra, they abjured their ancestral rite and accepted the religion of the Hebrews, not, however, Judaizing in everything, but with the Pentateuch alone having been received (87), and rejecting the rest, they held a "halved" cult of God. For the Scripture says of them: "They remained in the law of God, and worshipped idols," insinuating the adoration which was performed by them in the mountain. For this reason, the Israelites were hostile towards them, and detested them as execrable. But He who clothed Himself with all human nature, in that mass (88) which He assumed as first-fruits, in which there were parts of the whole race—Jews, Samaritans, and Greeks—did not refuse to impart His grace to them also. And first, indeed, He leads the woman captive (89), taking the beginning from that very sex, whence from the beginning (90) all evil had been rampant. He comes, therefore, into the city of Samaria which was called Sychar. For as much as the surrounding region extended, it was called Samaria, both from the mountain and from the guards sent there. The Chaldeans indeed call guards "Samarites" (91). There were various cities throughout Samaria... [IV Reg. xvii, 41.]
Francisci Scorsi's notes.
...who was sent by the king of Assyria into Samaria to instruct the new tenants in the law of God, is not called by any name in the Holy Scriptures, but James Salianus and Gaspar Sanchez, in chapter XVII of IV Kings, relate that he was from the Israelite people and the Samaritan, but not of the Levitical tribe, which was in Jerusalem, and that he was therefore more accustomed to sacrificing to idols in the mountains than to the true God; although, because he knew the law and the rite of worshipping the true God handed down to all the Hebrews, he could have taught it to the Samaritans. In those times, the same Salianus says, the Samaritans are read to have received the five books of Moses, and circumcision, and some other things, which the Samaritan priests were not ignorant of. B Such is that unique human nature assumed by the Word, which the Greek Fathers call the first-fruits of the whole human mass, inasmuch as He offered it first to God, and brought it into heaven. Thus S. Greg. Thaum. sermon on the Holy Theophany, and on Christ’s baptism: This is from the interpretation of Gerard Vossius: "Or is it because, for the sake of my salvation, you have clothed yourself in my first-fruits, that I should not recognize that you are clothed with light as with a garment?" In the same way S. Athanas. Orat. on the Ascension, twice; and S. Chrysost. has the same words as ours, sermon 5, On the Ascension, from those which the same Vossius published for the works of S. Gregor. Thaumaturg.: "When indeed today Christ raised the first-fruits of our mass, that is, our flesh, into heaven." But also let Theophanes illustrate himself, who in hom. 29, On the Ascension: "Today the mortal mass is raised above the dignity of the angels." Theophanes [uses] the term in the proper voice of those who, in battle, begged for their lives from an enemy already victorious; its use is frequent in Homer, Iliad, that is, the etymon is derived from hunters, who catch beasts alive, and to hunt. Thus Etymol. mag. and Hesychius. Heliod. Hist. Ethiop., book: "They decided to spare them, and to lead them away as captives." And the same book On Chariclea, "And so they led them away as the first spoil from the treasures of the satrap." D Moreover, that it is also a double tetragon, an octonary number, you may understand from those things which I said about the tetragon concerning this. 24, no. 75. [(82)] "He obtained the stewardship of the senses." Philo, book De specialibus legibus, says: "As nature gave the rule in the body to the head, so among the other senses it wishes the eyes to possess the empire." The Greek is: "As nature gave the hegemony of the body to the head, so it gave the power to the eyes." Whence it infers: "Therefore it has placed these in a high place; and they are indeed in various ways honored, but principally in that they are in so distinguished and conspicuous a place." See the work itself, if it is to your liking, versus the lines of the same book.
Homily XLII
A This was one of the cities, so called Sychar, which is interpreted "shadowing," the name itself, I believe, signifying the grace of the Spirit that overshadowed it. "Near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph." This statement will perhaps be difficult for those who have not read the book of Genesis with careful attention. But I shall endeavor, so far as I am able, to recount concisely the history that bears upon this. When Pharaoh appointed Joseph governor over his own kingdom, and Jacob—having migrated to Egypt with his whole house, and having arrived at the very close of his life—was giving his final commands and parting instructions to his sons, he gave this land to Joseph as a distinctive portion. For, being sharp-sighted toward the future in a prophetic manner, he knew the return of his descendants to Palestine, and that the land would again be taken possession of by the Hebrews, and would be allotted to their tribes. Whether he foresaw also that the spring near this parcel of ground would become an occasion of salvation and a symbol of the perfecting baptism, and that for this cause he bequeathed the land to the most temperate of his sons, I have no way of saying, nor, indeed, any way to deny. For temperance and purity are necessary for those who are to be baptized. Thence, too, the Lord rebuked the Samaritan woman’s polyandry, as she drew water with hands defiled from the well of that temperate man. "And Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well; it was about the sixth hour." B Observe the precision and conciseness of the words, how in a few details he set forth the self-control, the frugality, and the philosophy of the Lord. For by the word "wearied," his journey on foot and the exertion of walking are shown; and by saying, "He sat thus," his indifference C to comfort and his disregard for ease are indicated, as well as the unadorned and simple manner of his resting, as if he sought no special preparation or seat, but accommodated himself just as he was, seating himself upon the ground—a lack of pretension concerning a place of sitting. This, indeed, is the mark—
of that hour indicates his abstinence from food. For until the very midpoint of the day, he had been without food, and this while traveling on foot and being scorched by the sun. A Yet the indication of the hour wishes to signify something else as well: for at the same hour that Eve had drunk the poison of disobedience, this descendant of Eve received the antidote for sin. "There comes a woman of Samaria to draw water." Observe now how the ancient things sound in harmony with the new, as types of types are shown. For indeed, the joining of Rebekah with Isaac, which prefigured the Church, found its beginning at the well; and here, too, the salvation of the Samaritans proceeds from the well through the woman. But there, the domestic servant was the marriage broker; here, however, the Bridegroom himself betroths the whole of human nature through this Samaritan woman by the pledge of baptism. B "Jesus says to her: Give me water to drink. For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food." O the ineffable condescension of the divine Word! He who carries every created thing by a mere nod, concerning whom the prophetic proclamation says: "The eternal God shall not hunger, nor grow weary" (Isa. XL, 28), this one travels, and grows weary, and endures hunger and thirst, and asks for water from a woman. For just as he did not refuse to eat with tax collectors, so he did not recoil from conversing with a harlot, in the manner of the most excellent physicians, who, while constantly visiting those suffering from fever, are least likely to catch the disease themselves. He shows, moreover, from the very first conversation, that it is our salvation he thirsts for, and he seeks this from us. C Consulto, the evangelist adds the departure of the disciples. For if they had been present, they would surely have asked for water. But he, D foreknowing what was to be, sent everyone away, and alone speaks condescendingly with her alone. "The woman, the Samaritan, says to him: How is it that you, being a Jew, ask to drink from me, who am a Samaritan woman?" Stand back in awe of the power of his operation; for, enlightened in her mind by his very first utterance, the woman thinks better things than are natural, and seeks to learn something of those things she was ignorant of; for she neither gave him anything to drink, nor did she refuse, but, surmising from his speech and appearance that he was a Jew, she inquisitively seeks to learn how it is that he does not observe the Jewish custom. But the Lord, setting aside the task of solving her difficulty, and of stating plainly that "I am not subject to the Law, being the Lawgiver and God"—this he does not say; but rather, he leads her indirectly and quietly toward higher concepts, and says: "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, Give me to drink, you would have asked him, and he would have gi—
given you living water." If you knew, he says, that it is God who is conversing with you, and you were persuaded of what kind of gifts He rewards the grateful with, you would have seized the occasion and asked for the water of salvation, which is truly the living grace of the Spirit. For it is customary to call the Holy Spirit "living water"; for, teaching publicly as well, He said concerning the Spirit: "He who believes in me, rivers of living water shall flow from his belly." The Holy Spirit is likened to water as one that is pure and provides much relief to those who receive Him. And just as the same water is divided into different qualities, so the Spirit is accustomed to be distributed into different operations among the faithful. It is called "living" as being, so to speak, gushing, moving, and making the soul, as it were, easily moved. B "The woman says to him: Lord, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep; from where then do you have the living water?" The woman’s mind was still groveling on the ground, not yet lifted up to the loftiness of the discourse. She thought he was speaking of water of this kind, which gushed forth perpetually and remained always flowing, not like that which is contained in cisterns, wells, and stagnant pools. Howbeit, these words also contain a certain hidden meaning, discovered by those who reveal the depths of the Spirit. For the well is the divine Scripture, since it is a mother of knowledge like water; the depth of the well consists in its mysterious enigmas. The "drawing vessel" is the study and learning of letters; for just as a bucket, drawing up a very small part of the water, left the great [amount] unexhausted, so learning through knowledge, providing only partial knowledge to the learner, makes the initiation imperfect. This learning, then, acquired through study, the Lord did not have, being Himself Wisdom, and not in need of wisdom and instruction through letters. And in fact the Jews used to say: "How does this man know letters, having not learned?" C [index: entries preserved] D [index: entries preserved]
A Therefore the Samaritan woman says, "You have no bucket." "Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well, and he himself drank from it, and his sons, and his cattle?" Since the lineage of Jacob was of high standing, for this reason, even though she is a Samaritan, she claims for herself an Israelite nobility and registers Jacob as her father, and is step by step brought up to the understanding of the meaning. And she indeed admires the promise, but her mind is wavering; for what she says is effectively this: If you have such a drink so far surpassing this water, you seem to be someone greater than Jacob. For that man, even though he happened to be so renowned, did not have a spring better than this; but he himself, and those from him, and his cattle used this water.
But according to the sense of the anagogical interpretation, the well implies the divine Scripture; Jacob implies the contemplative mind; the sons of Jacob drinking from the well imply the contemplative capacity of the soul being irrigated by knowledge; and the cattle imply the impulses of the irascible and the concupiscible, whenever they are useful to us for virtue. The irascible is a good beast of burden when it becomes subjugated to the reasoning faculty. Such is also the concupiscible, when it bears upon its back and carries upward the soul, whenever it stands up toward the height. B "Jesus answered and said to her: Everyone who drinks from this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks from the water that I will give him, will become in him a spring of water leaping up into eternal life." He shows the superiority through the comparison, and says: As for this water of the well, if anyone drinks while thirsty, he finds a cure for his thirst for a time, then thirsts again; but the spiritual drink has the release from thirst forever. He seems mystically to indicate also the shadowy law, by how much it is inferior to the grace of the Spirit. For that law required constant meditation and the continuous reading of what was written, as though driving away the thirst of forgetfulness through recollection. But the Spirit of wisdom, having filled the soul with divine knowledge, renders it abundant and fertile, preparing it to gush forth springs of living waters. C The parable of the talents also showed this, increasing the five and the two, with the Word signifying the increase of the spiritual gifts. "The woman says to him: Lord, give me this" [water, so that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.] For the Samaritan people are—due to the changeability and kinship—when they see the Jews faring well, they call them kinsmen, as if sprung from Joseph, and having the beginning of their intimacy with them from there. But when they see them stumbling, they say they do not pertain to them from anywhere. D [Francisci Scorsi note: So Josephus, book 1, chapter 7: The Samaritans, mutable for the present time, as often as they see the Jews faring well, call themselves their kinsmen, as being descendants of Joseph, and by this reason joined to them by blood; but when they see them in adverse circumstances, they say nothing pertains to them. Thus Josephus. Genebrardus indeed, related by Salianus, in the place cited above, says that the new Samaritans received circumcision through the priests of Israel recalled from captivity, as well as the books of the law of Moses; for these things deserve to be understood as rites, and the legitimate service of the God of the land, IV Kings, chapter 17. And this, he proves, is the reason why they boasted that they were Israelites.]
Homily XLIII
this water, that I may not thirst, nor come hither to draw.” She does not yet reach the meaning of what is being said; she is still engaged with her thought upon sensible water, and she believes indeed that the water has such power, yet she does not raise her mind to the intelligible drink, but begs to receive this, so that she does not need to come to draw. “Jesus says to her, Go, call your husband.” He knew indeed that he was not her husband according to the law, but he declines to rebuke her openly so as not to be burdensome, and leads the word to the point where the matter reveals itself. For when she had said, “I have no husband,” the prophetic word followed without difficulty: “You have spoken well in that you said, I have no husband; for you have had five, and the one whom you now have is not your husband.” She indeed, through shame, was attempting to conceal her clandestine partner, but He immediately lays bare what was hidden, and lists that one too because of the number of those who had formerly consorted with her improperly—gently, however, and so as not to appear to be reproaching the shamefulness of the deed. For He did not say, “You have had five adulterers, or lovers, or ravishers of your bed,” but by saying “husbands,” He secretly rebukes the polygamy and the lack of permanence in the affair; for she had not used those previous unions lawfully. He therefore delivers the censure of the polygamy in a mannerly way, rousing her to recollection, and obliquely reproaching her, because she was bound even with those five in a disreputable way. Furthermore, He also seems to signify by that speech the custom of the Samaritans, who, having received the Pentateuch of Moses as five husbands, were about to accept as a sixth the law of the Gospel, into which they had not yet been introduced through faith. For this reason He says, “The one whom you have now speaking with you is not your husband, since you have not yet believed in Him.” A Since the Samaritan woman was portraying the whole nature of men, there could be understood by the five husbands the five laws given to her from of old by the Creator: the one in Paradise, the one after the disobedience, the one given to Noah after the flood, the fourth that of circumcision, and the fifth the written law. But in casting these aside, human nature was corrupted as if with an adulterer by the law of impiety. This is what the voices of the prophets also figuratively stigmatize. For Jeremiah says, “The face of a harlot has become yours.” And Hosea says, “She put on her garments, and went after her lovers.” B And Nahum says, “A harlot, he says, and she put on her earrings and her necklaces, and went after her lovers.” C And she put on, he says, her earrings and her vestments... D
καὶ Θεὸν ἰδικῶς κατὰ τὴν Νεστορίου δυσσέβειαν· εἰς γάρ ἐστι τῇ ὑποστάσει, μενούσης ἑκατέρας φύσεως ἐν τῇ ἰδιότητι, καὶ φυσικῇ διαφορᾷ. Ὁ Λόγος γὰρ ἐσαρκώθη, οὐ μεταβληθεὶς εἰς σάρκα, ἀλλὰ σάρκα προσλαβὼν νοερᾷ ψυχῇ κεκοσμημένην, πρὸς ἕνωσιν ἀπόρρητον ἐν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ὑποστάσει. Ὥστε ἓν τὸ πρόσωπον, καὶ μία ἡ προσκύνησις, οὐχὶ διαιρετὴ εἰς ἄνθρωπον καὶ Θεόν, ἀλλὰ ἑνιαῖα εἰς διπλοῦν τῇ φύσει, ἕνα τὸν Χριστὸν προσκυνοῦμεν.
Περὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ ὄρει Ὀλαιὰ τῆς Σαμαρείας, καὶ τῆς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις προσκυνήσεως.
A Καὶ ἀληθῶς, ὦ γύναι, ὡς εἶπες, ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν. Ὥρα γὰρ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνδημοῦντος, τὸ ἀληθινὸν φῶς ἐπέλαμψε, καὶ τὸ σκότος τῶν εἰδώλων ἐφυγαδεύθη, καὶ οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηταὶ οὐκέτι ἐν τύποις καὶ σκιᾶς λατρεύουσι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τῷ Πατρὶ προσκυνοῦσι. Πνεῦμα γὰρ ὁ Θεός, ὡς ἀσώματος, ἀόρατος, ἀπερίγραπτος· καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτῷ οὕτως δεῖ προσκυνεῖν, ὡς κατὰ τὴν οἰκικὴν πνευματικὴν καὶ ἀληθινὴν λατρείαν. Λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή· Οἶδα, ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται, ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός· ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν πάντα. B Ὦ τῆς διανοίας τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος! πῶς ἐκ τῶν λεχθέντων ἀνεπτερώθη πρὸς τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν θαυμάτων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ συνεῖδε τὴν θεότητ αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς φησίν· Ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι. Ὦ τοῦ ἀφατοῦς ἐλέους! Ὦ τῆς ἀφάτου συγκαταβάσεως! Ἐναργῶς ἑαυτὸν ἀποκαλύπτει τῇ ἁμαρτωλῷ γυναικί, ἵνα πιστεύσῃ αὐτῷ ὡς Θεῷ. Καὶ ἐλθόντες οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, ἐθαύμαζον ὅτι μετὰ γυναικὸς ἐλάλεῖ. C Οὐδεὶς δέ εἶπε· Τί ζητεῖς; ἢ τί λαλεῖς μετ᾿ αὐτῆς; Ἦν γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ τύπου τοῦ διδασκάλου, καὶ τὴν αὐθεντίαν αὐτοῦ αἰδούμενοι, οὐκ ἐτόλμων ἐρωτῆσαι. Ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἀφᾶσα τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς, ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, καὶ λέγει τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· Δεῦτε, ἴδετε ἄνθρωπον, ὃς εἶπέ μοι πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησα· μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός; D Ἐξῆλθον οὖν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτόν. Ἐν τούτῳ δέ ἠρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ λέγοντες· Ῥαββὶ, φάγε. Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Ἐγὼ βρῶσιν ἔχω φαγεῖν, ἣν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε. Ελεγον οὖν οἱ μαθηταὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους· Μήτις ἤνεγκεν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν; Λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν, ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, καὶ τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον.
Περὶ τοῦ θελήματος τοῦ Πατρός.
Τί δέ ἐστι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρός, ἢ ἡ σωτηρία τῶν ἀνθρώπων; τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν τὸ ἔργον, ὅπερ ὁ Υἱὸς ἀνέλαβε τελειῶσαι, ἵνα πάντες σωθῶσιν, καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἔλθωσι. Καὶ τοῦτο ἐδίδαξεν ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἦλθεν κρῖναι τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι᾿ αὐτοῦ. Οὐκοῦν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρὸς ἡ ἡμετέρα σωτηρία ἐστίν, ἣν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐπλήρωσε διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου πάθους, καὶ ἀναστάσεως· ἵνα ἡμεῖς σωθέντες, δοξάσωμεν αὐτὸν σὺν τῷ Πατρί, καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ, καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν.
Ἀμήν. A and God specifically, according to the impiety of Nestorius; for He is one in hypostasis, with the two natures remaining unmingled. But the Savior, giving honor to the things of the Jews, added: "For salvation is from the Jews." Truly, for both the knowledge concerning God, and the flight from impiety, took their beginning from the Jews. But more cryptically, He called himself by the name of salvation; for this is what Jesus signifies; for Christ, who is salvation, has been born from the Jews according to the flesh. "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." He hinted at the two things that perfect the soul, action and contemplation; by means of the spirit, declaring the practical; "For the spirit," he says, "lusts against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit," but by means of "in truth," the unerring understanding of dogmas. Through deeds, therefore, and truth, the true worship comes to be. Or, because the shadowy letter of the Law kills, but the Spirit gives life, He contrasted the spirit with the letter, and truth with the shadow. Therefore, for us who are faithful, worship is not local, as it was for the Jews and Samaritans, but spiritual. For God is Spirit, not having the quality of being circumscribed; "And those who worship him, ought to worship spiritually."
B "The woman says to him: I know that the Messiah is coming, who is called Christ." Consider that the Samaritans also were expecting the presence of Christ, having heard from Moses that "The Lord will raise up a Prophet for you from among your brothers, like me." The woman therefore brings in the discourse concerning these things, perhaps wishing to learn the time of His presence; and having heard, "I am he," she does not investigate further; since she had believed, and was restrained by the arrival of the disciples. But neglecting both the water and the rope, she departs for the city, preaching. The disciples, however, marveled at the condescension and lack of pride of the Savior, that He did not refuse to converse with a woman. But knowing that He does nothing without a godly economy, they do not investigate the manner of the discourse, but offering what had been bought, they urged Him to eat. But He, foreseeing the readiness of the Samaritans, and considering their obedience to be His own proper and fitting food: "I," He says, "have food to eat, which you do not know." And as they were bewildered by the word, and doubting whether some food had been brought to Him miraculously from somewhere, just as Habbakuk had brought to Daniel, and the birds to Elijah, He clears up the riddle: "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me." Thus, Jesus considered the readiness of those being initiated into the mysteries to be both food and delight, C representing both the one who is worshipped, and the one who says He worships, separately in humanity and in God, according to the impiety of Nestorius. For He is one by hypostasis, the two natures remaining unmingled. But the Savior, to give honor to the race of the Jews, added: "Because salvation is from the Jews." For in truth both the knowledge of God, and the withdrawal from impiety took their beginning from the Jews. But in a more hidden sense He called Himself salvation, the name itself bearing this meaning. For this is what the name Jesus signifies; for Christ who is salvation is born from the Jews according to the flesh. "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth." He hinted at those two things which perfect the soul, action and contemplation: by the spirit, indeed, signifying the practical virtue: "For the spirit," he says, "lusts against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit." But by that which He said, "in truth," the true understanding of dogmas. By action, therefore, and contemplation, true adoration is elicited. Or because the shadowy letter of the Law kills, but the spirit gives life, He set the spirit against the letter, and the truth against the shadow. Therefore, for us who are faithful, worship is not circumscribed by place, as it was for the Jews and Samaritans, but is done in spirit. For God is spirit, nor does the circumscription of place fall upon Him: "And those who worship Him must worship in spirit." D "The woman says to Him: I know that the Messiah is coming, who is called Christ." You should know also that the arrival of Christ was expected by the Samaritans, who had received this from Moses: "The Lord will raise up a Prophet for you from among your brothers, like me." The woman therefore brings in this discourse about Him, wishing perhaps to learn the time of His arrival; and where she heard, "I am He," she does not seek curiously anymore; both because she had believed, and because she was restrained by the intervention of the disciples. But neglecting the water and the water-pot, she goes off to the city preaching Christ. The disciples, for their part, were amazed at the Savior's humility and lowliness, that He did not refuse a conversation with a woman. But knowing that nothing is done by Him without counsel and a disposition becoming to God, they do not curiously inquire into the reason of the talk, but setting down what they had bought, they begged Him that He might eat. But He, foreseeing the obedience of the Samaritans, and deeming their faith His own proper and convenient food: "I," He says, "have food to eat, which you do not know." But when the disciples were amazed at the novelty of the saying, and doubted whether food of some kind had been brought to Him miraculously from elsewhere, such as Habbakuk brought to Daniel, and the birds had brought to Elijah, He declares the enigma: "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me." Thus He made the ready faith of those who...
were being initiated, and, by pointing His finger as it were, He marks out the Samaritans coming in crowds and together; for to such a degree had the words of the woman given them wings, A and He says: "Lift up your eyes, and look on the regions, for they are white already to harvest." He calls "harvest" the souls prepared to receive the evangelical sickle, which reaps the wickedness that God did not sow, and gathers into one the nature which He did not disperse. By saying, "I sent you to reap that whereon you have not labored," He intimated that the prophets had labored. For they were the ones who had first cast the seeds of the knowledge of God. "Therefore," He says, "the preaching will be easy for you, and it will be no labor to reap the ready crops with the sickle of the Word." And the joy will be common both to the prophets who sowed, and to you who are bringing in the fruits. But let the historical account reach its end; let the spiritual contemplation contained within it now be spoken. That the Samaritan woman was, as we have already said, a type of human nature is clear; for she too once dwelt on the mountain of B dispassion, lifted up by divine thoughts. But by keeping company with the counsel of the serpent, she is led captive into the confusion of sin, as into Babylon, having been brutalized by irrational impulses, and instead of divine thoughts on the mountain of the mind, having brought in impiety as if it were a multitude of Chaldeans, which became to her the cause of destruction by the lions. And by the wounds of the lions one might understand the various scourges brought upon mankind from time to time, floods of waters, confusions of tongues, and rains of fire, which indeed were distributed among the human race until the Mosaic legislation repelled the impiety. It did not, however, purge nature clearly; for it still worshipped on the mountain where idols were hidden, paying regard to Astarte, and to Chemosh, and to the calves. But when the very Mount of the Father, and the Word, having journeyed from the paternal bosoms, came down to our C lowliness, He found one easy path of salvation, to sit by the fountain of baptism; which is said to be of Jacob the Supplanter, as it supplants and strangles the intelligible Esau, and through that very fountain He gives to men the living water of the Spirit. May it also be our lot to become followers of the God-loving Samaritan woman, and to detest the irrational cohabitation with the senses—with which, as with five husbands, we have been united from our very birth—and to drag forth also the treacherous reasoning as a sixth paramour defiling the bed of the soul, and unceasingly to draw the water of tears, from which the mind itself D is refreshed...
own cattle—I refer to the appetitive and irascible faculties—are refreshed. If we draw this water from our eyes, the Word will stand by us spiritually, thirsting for our salvation, and will bestow upon us the showers of spiritual gifts: for to Him is due all honor and glory, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XXXIX. On the Saving Ascension
The present celebration is truly bright and illustrious, and it holds the very sum and substance of the feasts as its theme; for this is the crown of the mysteries of Christ, and this is the perfection of our salvation. Today, human nature has been established upon the super-celestial throne; today, the ancient enmity of the rational nature has been dissolved, and a union of angels and men has occurred; today, the mortal dough A has been raised above the dignity of the incorporeal powers, and has become a partaker of divine dignity; today, the intellectual powers rejoice, seeing the earth joined to heaven in amazement, and, astonished by the miracle, they seek to learn what Isaiah proclaimed in prophecy. But let us place the evangelical sayings in our midst and investigate their meaning as best we can.
"Jesus, having risen from the dead, stood in the midst of His disciples."
It is necessary to inquire why the Word stood in the midst of the disciples. Since He was about to entrust to them the instruction of the Gentiles—which consists in the precision of dogmas and the observance of commandments—He shows symbolically, by standing in the midst, that both are displayed in a state of mediocrity: namely, both piety toward the Divine and the active virtue. For our theology B stands in the midst between the narrow, single-person monarchy of the Jews and the polytheism of the Greeks; and these virtues themselves are mediocrities, shunning excess and deficiency. And if, while the disciples were reclining, as Mark says, Jesus—we have only the first-fruits of the dough. Now it truly comes to me to speak boldly against the diabolical tyranny, when I see today the first-fruits of my race reigning in the heavens; the first-fruits of the dough.
And when I speak of a middle state, it is because C since it is well said that moral virtue is a mediocrity, and how, and that it is the mediocrity between two evils—one by excess, the other by deficiency—and that it is of such a nature because it is a conjecture of that which is middle in affections and actions; D [index: entries preserved]
A having settled himself down upon the earth, nor did he study to look for a seat; the marking of the hour, moreover, indicates his temperance regarding food. For until the very middle of the day he had taken no food, and this while traveling on foot and being scorched by the sun. Yet this indication of the hour desires to signify something else as well: for at the same hour that Eve had drunk the poison of disobedience, at that same hour this descendant of Eve received the antidote for sin. “There comes a woman from Samaria to draw water.” Consider how the old harmonizes with the new, as types show forth types. For the union of Rebecca with Isaac, which prefigured the Church, found its beginning at the well; and here too the salvation of the Samaritans proceeds from the well through the woman. But there, the servant was the matchmaker; here, the bridegroom himself, through this Samaritan woman, betroths the whole of nature to himself through baptism. “Jesus says to her: Give me to drink. For his disciples had gone away into the city in order to buy food.” O, the ineffable condescension of the divine Word! He who carries all creation by his nod alone, of whom the prophetic manifestation says: “The eternal God will not hunger, nor will he labor,” he travels, and labors, and endures hunger and thirst, and asks for B water from a woman. For just as he did not refuse to eat with publicans, so he did not recoil from conversing with a harlot, in the manner of the most excellent physicians, who continually visit those suffering from fevers, yet are in the least wise contaminated by the disease. And he shows even from the very first conversation that he thirsts for our salvation, and seeks this from us. The evangelist also pointedly introduces the departure of the disciples; for if they had been present, they too would have asked for water. But he who foreknew what was to come, having sent them all away, converses alone with her alone in his condescension. “The Samaritan woman says to him: How is it that you, being a Jew, ask to drink of me, who am a Samaritan woman?” Stand in awe of the power of his operation; for her mind, being enlightened by his very first voice, thinks thoughts exceeding nature, and seeks to learn some of the things of which she was ignorant; for she neither gave him to drink, nor did she recoil, but conjecturing from his speech and his habit that he was a Jew, she is diligent to learn why he does not keep the Jewish observance. But the Lord, omitting to resolve the question, and to say clearly, “I am not subject to the Law, being its Lawgiver and God”—of this he does not speak, but indirectly and gently he leads her to C higher thoughts, and says: “If you knew the gift of God, D and who it is that says to you, ‘Give me to drink,’ you would perhaps have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”
χρὴ ἀμφιβάλλειν, ὅτι καὶ οἶνον ἐπεπώκει φαγών. Εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἐνταῦθα σεσίγηται, ἀλλὰ A θαυμαζόντων, εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· «Ἔχετέ τι βρώσιμον ἐνθάδε;» Ἐπειδὴ ἀπιστοῦντας ἔτι ἑώρα τοὺς φοιτητάς, καὶ ὡς ἐν τρυτάνῃ ταλαντευομένους τὸν νοῦν — τὰ γὰρ ὑπερβαλλόντως περιχαρῆ ἔκνον ἐμποιοῦσι πιστεύεσθαι — ἐκδηλότερον αὐτοὺς διὰ τῆς βρώσεως βεβαιοῖ, κατεδηδοκὼς τὸ μέλι καὶ τὸ τοῦ ἰχθύος τεμάχιον. Μὴ ταραττέσθω δὲ ἡ τῶν ἀκουόντων διάνοια, εἰ τὸ ἀφθαρτισθὲν σῶμα, καὶ γεγονὸς βρωμάτων ἀνενδεές, μεταλαμβάνει τροφῆς· μηδὲ ζητείτω, τί γέγονε τὸ μεταληφθέν· ταῦτα γὰρ ἀποροῦσιν οἱ ἐναντιούμενοι τῷ μυστηρίῳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὑπέδειξεν οἰκονομικῶς τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἤλων καὶ τῆς λόγχης πληγάς, καίτοι σαρκὸς παχύτητα μὴ ἐπιφερόμενος ἐν τῷ καθαρῷ ἐκείνῳ λεπτοῦ καὶ θεοειδεῖ σώματι, οὕτω δὴ καὶ μεταλαμβάνει τροφῆς, οὐ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα τῆς ἡμετέρας βρώσεως — τοῦ μεταληφθέντος ἀλλοιωθέντος εἰς προσθήκην, ἢ ἔκκρισιν, ἢ διάπνευσιν — ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἡ πυρσολαμπὴς τοῦ ἡλίου ἀκτὶς τὴν ὑποκειμένην νοτίδα ἐκδαπανᾷ, μηδὲν ἐξ αὐτῆς εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν φύσιν λαμβάνουσα, οὕτω γέγονε τῷ Σωτῆρι τῆς βρώσεως ἡ μετάληψις τῷ θεϊκῷ δαπανηθεῖσα πυρί, ὡς ἂν ἐν πεπυρακτωμένῳ σιδήρῳ κηρὸς ἐνστάξας διαλυθῇ. Ὄρα δὲ καὶ τὸ εἶδος τῆς βρώσεως ἐναργὲς τῆς οἰκονομίας τεκμήριον, ἰχθύος ὀπτοῦ μέρος, καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου. Ἰχθύος μέν, ὅτιπερ ἀνθρωπήσας, καὶ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς βίου γενόμενος, τῆς ἁλμυρᾶς ἁμαρτίας ἔμεινεν ἄγευστος, ὃν τρόπον ὁ ἰχθὺς τῆς θαλαττίας ἅλμης τηρεῖται ἀμέτοχος· ὀπτοῦ δὲ, ὅτι τῷ πυρὶ τῆς θεότητος ἐνωθεῖσα ἡ σὰρξ, οὐδέν τι χλιδῶν, καὶ ὑδαρωδὲς τοῦ πλαδαροῦ τοῦδε βίου ἐφέρετο. Καὶ μὴν πρὸς τὸ πάθος ἑλκόμενος, καὶ τὰ μύρια τῶν ὕβρεων εἴδη δεχόμενος, ἰχθύος τρόπον ἄφωνος ἦν, οὐκ ἐρίζων, οὐδὲ κραυγάζων, οὐδὲ ἀνοίγων τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν προφητικὴν Ἡσαΐου φωνήν. Τί δὲ τὸ κηρίον ἐδήλου τῶν μελισσῶν; Ἐπειδὴ χολῆς ἐγεύσατο, ὅτε τῷ σταυρῷ προσεπήγνυτο, τὴν εὐήδονον τοῦ προπάτορος ἀλθαίνων γεῦσιν διὰ τῆς ἐναντίας πικρότητος, τὴν ὑπὲρ τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν οἰκονομίαν πᾶσαν πεπληρωκώς, λοιπὸν μεταδίδωσιν ἡμῖν φωτισμοῦ B καὶ γλυκύτητος, ὧν ἐναργῆ σύμβολα τὸ μέλι, καὶ τὸ κηρίον βρῶμα τῷ Κυρίῳ γενόμενα· πάντως δὲ οὐκ ἀπὸ μελισσῶν, ἀλλὰ φωτισμοῦ τῶν ἁγίων Φώτων, νεοφωτίστοις τὸ κηρίον.
κηρίον.
Homily XXXIX.
Nor must one doubt that He also drank wine after eating. For although it is passed over in silence here, it is clear from what the Apostle says, that "We have both eaten and drunk with him," not only before the Passion, but also after the Resurrection. Otherwise, how would he have been expected to fulfill the promise he made before the passion, and had stated in the very time of the mysteries: "Henceforth I will not drink of this fruit of the vine, until I drink it new in the kingdom of God"? He called the Resurrection the kingdom, regarding which he said: "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." "New" it was, because the manner of that partaking was truly marvelous. A Having confirmed the disciples in faith with these things, and having reminded them of the doctrines previously handed down, and having opened their minds to understand the Scriptures by divine impulse and the sweetness of his words, and having commanded them to remain in Jerusalem and to await the coming of the Holy Spirit, which he termed "power from on high," he leads them out to the Mount of Olives, which the Evangelist indicated by saying: "He led them out as far as Bethany," designating this mountain by the neighboring place. For it was fitting, it was fitting that the Savior's return to heaven should take place on this mountain. Since, as a tradition from the Fathers has reached us from above, He will come again in this same place on the last day with his body. For the summit of this same place is called the Mount of Olives, while the lower slope is called the Valley of Weeping, B both names signifying, I suppose, that the righteous shall receive the mercy of rest, while the sinners shall receive that weeping which is without consolation. But the oracle of the inspired Zechariah prophesies in this mountain that the saving Ascension would take place: "Behold, the day of the Lord comes, and his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives which is opposite Jerusalem." On this mountain, therefore, he leads the disciples, and lifts up his hands, which he raised on our behalf upon the Cross, and imparts to them the Lordly blessing, as it were as a final and farewell [charge]; and thus he is wondrously taken up into heaven, not in a chariot of fire, as the Tishbite was raised, but taken up by a bright cloud. For so the same Evangelist says in the book of Acts, that "As they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their eyes." And this cloud was the Holy Spirit; C acting to us as a visible pledge, as it were, of our sanctification.
A
HOMILY XLIV
"Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come hither to draw." She does not yet grasp the meaning of what is being said; she is still occupied in her mind with sensible water, and she believes indeed that the water has such power, but she does not yet lift up her mind to the intellectual drink, but seeks to receive this so that she might not come to draw. "Jesus saith unto her: Go, call thy husband." He knew indeed that she was not joined to a man according to the law, but he avoids openly rebuking her, as it would be burdensome, and instead draws the discourse toward the matter revealing itself of its own accord. For when she said: "I have no husband," the prophetic word followed easily: "Thou hast well said, I have no husband; for thou hast had five husbands, and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." She was indeed trying out of shame to hide her illicit companion, and he immediately unveils what was hidden, and lists him along with them because of the number of those who had previously consorted with her indecently—yet he does this gently, so as not to seem to be reproaching her for the shamefulness of the deed. For he did not say, "You have had five adulterers, or lovers, or violators of your bed," but by saying "husbands," he implicitly rebukes the frequency of her marriages and the impropriety of the deed; for she had not used her former consorts lawfully. With character, therefore, he makes his censure of her multiple marriages, stirring her into recollection, and obliquely reproaching her for having been entangled in the shameful custom of those five. Moreover, it appears that by this speech he also indicates the custom of the Samaritans; who, having received the Pentateuch of Moses like five husbands, were about to receive as a sixth the law of the Gospel—though into this they had not yet been introduced through faith. For this reason he says: "He whom thou now hast talking with thee is not thy husband," because you have not yet believed in him. But since this Samaritan woman was adumbrating the entire human race, one might understand the five husbands to be the five laws given to it from the beginning by the Creator: the first in Paradise; the second after the disobedience; the third given to Noah after the flood; the fourth that of circumcision; and the fifth the written law. But having cast these aside, human nature was corrupted with the law of impiety as though with an adulterer. This is what the voices of the prophets also figuratively stigmatize. For Jeremiah says: B "Thou hast had a harlot's look." And Hosea says: "She put on her garments, and went after her lovers." And Nahum: "O harlot, she also put on her earrings and her necklaces, and she went after her lovers." C D
HOMILY XXXVIII
A "A beautiful and graceful harlot, who sells nations by her fornication." The law of impiety, therefore, was not a man of human nature; for it was about to be wedded to Christ, whom Paul adorns for her as a bridegroom, saying: "I have betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." But let us resume the historical narrative. "The woman says to him: 'Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.'" Once she heard those things which she had done in secret, and which had escaped the notice of the city, so openly revealed, she did not withdraw out of shame, nor did she speak anything indecorous or petulant; but having acknowledged him to be a prophet, she seemed to assent to his word, and to act otherwise than her own people had been accustomed. For the Samaritans did not accept the prophets. Then she also questions him regarding dogmas, as if she were already laboring under the burden of this question beforehand: "Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." The Jews, indeed, accepting the prophetic voices corporally, believed that it was necessary to worship God only in Jerusalem. But the Samaritans [believed it was necessary] in Mount Garizim, in which the idols had been hidden, as we said in the preceding [discourse]. This question, therefore, as a doubtful one, the woman proposes to the Master. What, then, does the Savior say? "Believe me, woman, that the hour is coming, when you shall worship the Father neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem." B By "the hour" he means his own advent, in which true worshippers will not render worship in a defined place, but everywhere, to God who is present everywhere. "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know." The worship spoken of in the case of Christ will perhaps disturb some of the hearers, since he counts himself among those who worship. But it is not a difficult task for those who wish to be pious to interpret such expressions in a manner worthy of God. He says that he worships, as one who has assumed the nature that is able to worship, and thus makes our nature his own; but again, the same person is called to be worshipped as God. However, one should not divide the one who is worshipped and the one who says he worships into a man
and God after the manner of the impiety of Nestorius; for He is one in hypostasis, while the two natures remain unmingled. A Yet, in order to give honor to the race of the Jews, the Savior added: "For salvation is from the Jews." Truly, both the knowledge of God and the withdrawal from impiety found their beginning from the Jews. But with a more hidden sense, He called Himself by his own name "salvation," for this is what Jesus signifies; for Christ, according to the flesh, was born from the Jews as salvation. "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth." He hinted at the two things that perfect the soul, action and contemplation; by "spirit" B signifying the practical virtue: "For the spirit," He says, "desires against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit," and by "in truth," the unerring understanding of doctrines. Therefore, through action and truth, true worship is effected. Or, because the shadowy letter of the Law kills, but the spirit gives life, He opposed the spirit to the letter, and truth to the shadow. Thus, for us the faithful, worship is not localized as it is for the Jews and Samaritans, but is performed in spirit. For God is spirit, and the restriction of place does not fall upon Him: "And those who worship Him must worship in spirit." C "The woman says to Him: I know that the Messiah is coming, who is called Christ." Know that the presence of Christ was also awaited by the Samaritans, who had received from Moses: "The Lord will raise up for you a Prophet from among your brethren like me." The woman therefore brings forward this discourse concerning Him, wishing perhaps to learn the time of His advent; and when she heard "I am He," she inquires no further; and this, both because she had believed, and because she was restrained by the presence of the disciples. But neglecting both the water and the bucket, she departs to the city preaching Him. The D disciples, however, wondered at the condescension and lack of pride of the Savior, in that He did not refuse to converse with a woman. Yet, knowing that He does nothing without a counsel and dispensation befitting God, they do not curiously inquire into the manner of the conversation, but setting out what they had bought, they asked Him to eat. But He, foreseeing the obedience of the Samaritans, and deeming their faith to be a food proper and fitting for Him, said: "I have food to eat which you do not know." When the disciples were astonished at the novelty of the saying and doubted whether some food had been brought to Him miraculously from elsewhere, [index: entries preserved] of the sort that Habbacuc had brought to Daniel and the birds to Elias, He explains the enigma: "My food is that I should do the will of Him who sent Me." Thus He made the ready obedience of those being initiated into the mysteries His own food and delight.
regeneration was made, through which he who was "the firstborn of all creation" A and "the firstborn of the dead" became known. In the first generation, after forty days, the Mother brought him into the temple, as the firstborn, to present him before the Lord and to offer sacrifice according to the law's commandment. In the second generation, which was made through baptism, he was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, and spending there the entire forty days, when he had conquered all temptations and shown himself stronger than the tempter, he began to preach the kingdom of God. Consistently, therefore, also after the third birth—I mean the resurrection from the dead—after forty days he is raised up into the heavenly temple, bringing our nature which exists in him, clean to God and the Father, and, having won the victory over the prince of this world, he is established above every principality and power.
Truly it is not right to pass over that point unmentioned: that not only the eleven disciples were spectators of the Ascension of Christ, but even the Lady herself, who is immaculate in every respect, and many of the seventy disciples were present, among whom was Nathanael the Canaanite. For otherwise, how was he to have seen his promise fulfilled? When Philip instructed him regarding Christ and enclosed him within the evangelical net, the Savior said to him: "From now on you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." This saying clearly signified his return into heaven, in which some of the angels ascended, B commanding the higher powers to lift up the gates of heaven, while others descended to make the disciples certain that "This same who is taken up from you into heaven, will come again to the earth with his body," signifying, of course, his final coming. But for what reason do the angels command the higher orders to lift up the gates? The theological discourse has explained it. For since the Lord, by his Passion,
[Note: The remaining columns of this page consist of Scorsi's notes.]
Apostle says: "Wherefore God also hath exalted him"; and since he himself also proclaimed to the disciples: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth"; for this reason he requires the gates also to be raised higher so as to receive him. But the angels who were receiving him, seeing him ascending with a body and displaying the signs of the Passion, inquire: "Who is this King of glory that cometh from Edom, with his garments from Bosor?" That is to say: Who is this coming from the earthly realms and bearing the cloak of flesh? For Edom is this terrestrial world; and Bosor is interpreted as flesh. To them they answer: "The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle," who fought against the devil on behalf of human nature. B What then, someone might say, did the intellectual powers not know of the Saviour's return into the heavens? And how is it not unreasonable that Isaiah indeed, and Zechariah, and before them David, should both foresee this and foretell it, while these purest minds were ignorant of the Ascension? If, therefore, they knew, why do they inquire who this is that comes from Edom? We say, therefore, that they indeed knew that he was about to return to the supercelestial dwelling after the Economy, and they sat by the heavenly gates expecting him; or what else does that evangelical parable signify: "Be like to men who wait for their Lord, when he shall return from the wedding"? Most clearly it hinted at the angels sitting at the heavenly gates, expecting the Lord to return from C the earth after he had joined the Church to himself through the mystical wedding. The angels, therefore, were not ignorant of the future Ascension; but whether he would ascend with a body, this was a matter of doubt for them. Therefore, perceiving the supernatural character of the mystery and seeing the Master in such a state, with his garment stained with blood, they are in doubt as to who this is. Having been assured by the twofold answer, they ask the Lord himself: "Why are thy garments red?"
Francisci Scorsi's notes
(32) Theophanes derives the word Edom from *adam*, meaning earth. (33) In the Hebrew text it is Bosra, but he himself reads it with the LXX elders as *Ek Bosor*, from Bosor. See the interpreters of Isaiah. (34) He cites Gregory, D whose words are these in Oration 42, which is on the Resurrection: "If he ascends into the heavens, ascend with him; join thyself to the accompanying or receiving angels; command the gates to be lifted up and to become higher, so that they may receive Christ, who is more exalted because of his passion." Thus Gregory Nazianzen, who is brief and profound in his pronouncements. He teaches that Christ was exalted through the Passion, made higher than the heavens, and thus commands the angels that the gates of heaven should be lifted up; a most mystical sense which our author has seized upon, so that he might expand and paraphrase it. Almost all the Fathers commonly interpret this passage of Isaiah anagogically regarding the triumph of Christ ascending into heaven, so that this is, as it were, a dialogue of angels inquiring and Christ answering, why he thus ascends in triumph, having defeated Satan, death, idolatry, and sin. So St. Jerome, Cyril, Haymo. And St. Dionysius, in the chapter "On the Celestial Hierarchy," considers
A HOMILY XXXIX. The Lord's flesh had indeed been tinged with the purple color of the blood flowing from His side, and had been adorned by the Passion; wherefore that holy multitude of incorporeal beings adds, "He is beautiful in His garment, and His raiment is as that of one who has trodden the winepress." [Isa. LXIII, 2] The garment and raiment are, of course, His humanity. But how was the tunic seen to be stained with blood on an incorruptible body? It was by way of economy that it appeared so. For just as He showed the holes of the nails to His disciples and ate the fish, though He stood in no need of food, so also did He appear in that habit to the angels to demonstrate His benevolence toward men. Jacob, foreseeing this color of the divine flesh, B foretold: "He shall wash his garment in wine, and his raiment in the blood of the grape." [Gen. XLIX, 11] But what does He Himself answer to the angels' question? "I have trodden the winepress alone, and of the nations there is no man with me," [Isa. LXIII, 3] calling the host of demons and the infidelity of the Jews the winepress, "whose grape is full of gall, and its wine is a cluster of bitterness." [Deut. XXXII, 32] Having trodden this alone through the cross, and having colored My flesh with blood as if with new wine, I ascend victorious to the Father's throne. Instructed by these things, the angels threw open the gates of heaven, C hastening to lift them up. And so we too, having received the counsel of the divine Isaiah, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord," [Isa. II, 3] and following spiritually Him who "ascendeth upon the clouds of heaven" according to the Psalm [Ps. LXVII, 33] and who, according to Habakkuk, "has led our nature up to the heights" [Hab. III, 20]—let us be associated with the angels, both those who sent Him forth for the sake of honor and those who received the Lord, according to the exhortation of Gregory the Theologian. For they who sent Him forth would be the discourses on Providence, which instruct us concerning the Lord's Incarnation; but they who received Him are those concerning theology, as many as explain that eternal and ineffable generation and teach that He is consubstantial with the Father. Furthermore, D the ascent from earth to heaven is the progression of the mind from those things that pertain to the design of the assumed humanity to those that reach the divinity, or, if you prefer, the advancement from practical virtue to contemplation. Whosoever, therefore, having perfectly attained through spiritual understanding the doctrine concerning divine Providence—insofar as it lies within us—are translated from it to higher discourses concerning God, these assuredly, by certain steps of ascent, raise the gates of the mind higher to receive the Word, God-made-man, passing as it were from earth to heaven, and being elevated from those things that involve practical virtue to contemplation. And simultaneously with the divine
A wonders, He said to them: "Have you anything here to eat?" Since He saw that the disciples were still disbelieving and wavering in their minds like a balance—for things which bring exceeding great joy often beget doubt of their truth—He confirmed them more clearly through the eating, having consumed the honey and the piece of fish. But let not the mind of those who hear be disturbed if the body, which has been set free from corruption and has become free from the need of food, partakes of sustenance; nor let them inquire what became of what was eaten. For these are the things about which those who oppose the mystery of the resurrection are perplexed. For just as He showed by way of condescension the wounds from the nails and the spear, although He did not carry any heaviness of flesh in that pure, subtle, and divine body, so also He partakes of food—not according to the likeness of our eating, where the thing eaten is altered for the purpose of nourishment, or excretion, or expiration; but just as the fire-bright ray of the sun consumes the moisture lying beneath it B without taking anything from it into its own nature, so it happened with the food taken by the Savior, consumed by the divine fire, as wax melting when dripped onto a glowing iron. And observe also the kind of food as a clear proof of the dispensation: a piece of broiled fish, and from a honeycomb. Of fish, because having become man and having existed in the sea of our life, He remained untasted by the saltiness of sin, in the same way that a fish remains untouched by the bitterness of the sea. Broiled, because the flesh, having been united to the fire of the Godhead, bore nothing soft or fluid belonging to this flaccid life. And, indeed, being dragged to the Passion and receiving ten thousand forms of insult, He was mute like a fish, "not contending nor crying out, nor opening his mouth," according to the prophetic voice of Isaiah. What, then, did the honeycomb of the bees signify? Since He tasted gall when He was fastened to the cross, healing the pleasure-loving taste of the first parent C through the opposite bitterness, having fulfilled all the economy on behalf of our nature, He subsequently communicates to us illumination and sweetness, of which honey and the honeycomb, having become food for the Lord, were clear symbols; and by all means, not the economy of bees, but the illumination of the holy Lights—the honeycomb D for the newly illumined.
A It is not necessary to doubt that he had also drunk wine after eating. For even if it is passed over in silence here, it is nevertheless clear from what the Apostle says, that "we have eaten and drunk with him," not only before the Passion, but also after the Resurrection. Otherwise, how was he to make good on that promise given before the Passion, which he said at the time of the mysteries: "From now on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine, until I drink it new with you in the kingdom of God"? By kingdom, he meant the Resurrection, regarding which he said: "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." And "new," because the manner of partaking was truly paradoxical.
Having confirmed the disciples in faith with these things, and having reminded them of his earlier teachings, and by divine assent and the sweetness of his words having opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and having ordered them to remain in Jerusalem and await the coming of the Holy Spirit—which he called power from on high—he leads them to the Mount of Olives, which the Evangelist indicated by saying, "He led them out to Bethany," designating this mount by the nearby place. For it was fitting, it was fitting that the Savior's return to heaven should take place on this mountain. Since, as the patristic tradition has come down to us from above, he will come back to this same place on the last day with his body. For the summit of this very place is called the Mount of Olives, while the lower slope is called the Valley of Weeping; by both names, I think, signifying that the just will receive the mercy of rest, while the sinners will receive that weeping which is void of all consolation. B But the oracle of the inspired Zechariah prophesies that the saving Ascension would take place on this very mountain: "Behold, the day of the Lord comes, and his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives, opposite Jerusalem."
Therefore, he leads the disciples to this mountain, and lifts up his hands, which for our sake he had lifted up on the cross, and gives them the Dominical blessing, as if it were his last, and a farewell; and thus, in a paradoxical way, he is carried up into heaven, not caught up in a chariot of fire as the Thesbite was, but taken up by a bright cloud. For so the same Evangelist says in the book of Acts, that "as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud received him out of their sight." And that cloud was the Holy Spirit. C
One God in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; one godhead without beginning, simple, supersubstantial, without parts and indivisible, the same monad, and the same according to the A properties. For thus it is: properties distinguish the persons, they do not divide, or separate them from one another. But the greatest difficulty is in understanding and explaining that passage of St. Damascene, book 1, chapter 11, where he speaks thus: "In all things they are one, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, except as regards ingeneracy, and generation, and procession; but that which is divided is B distinguished by thought alone." Billius translates this: "One and the same in every way are both the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, except that the Father is not begotten, the Son is begotten, the Holy Spirit has processed, which is distinguished in him by thought alone." And Faber Stapulensis translates the last words: "By reason, however, and intelligence, this is distinct"; where both have used the word *distinguishing*. But what does Damascene mean when he posits a distinction of reason in the divine persons? Jodocus Clicthoveus, a commentator on Damascene, explains it as if the author were saying: "That which is one in reality in the Holy Trinity is distinct by reason of its nature: For," he says, "when it is taken with the singular properties of each person, it is peculiarly accommodated to each, so that if that one thing is understood with the personal property of the Father, it is contracted to the first person; if with the singularity of the Son, to the second; if it is understood with the singular mode of subsistence of the Holy Spirit, it is attributed to the third." Thus Clicthoveus, who seems to posit a distinction of reason between nature and properties. C But Saint Thomas, in I, dist. 2, art. 4, and dist. 25, the only question, art. 4, explains it in such a way that he intends "reason" to be the same as "relation"; but *epinoia* (thought) is not a relation, it is what is called "intelligence," as our Suarez rightly says, in book 1, chapter 24, volume 1, in part 1, who adds, for the sake of explaining the passage of Damascene: "Damascene does not, however, say that the persons are distinguished by intelligence alone; but by processions and real property." He posits the difference between created and divine persons in this, that the distinction of persons D [original-script column: see facsimile] Francisci Scorsi's notes. ...Although I have learned the Greek things, which brings together some testimonies. Plato in the *Phaedrus*: "Therefore, he who intends to pursue the art of rhetoric must first distinguish these things by a path." Therefore, he who undertakes to impart the art of rhetoric must distinguish by this path and art. Budaeus translates it thus, which is the same as "to distinguish." Theophrastus in the third [book] *On Arboriculture*, speaking of that which they also attempt to distinguish, making the definition by genera and by seasons. Of which indeed they attempted to constitute differences and to note distinctions, which is "to distinguish." And below the same Budaeus says [Greek word], "discrimination and annotation of differences and of those things which pertain to constituting the matter, and they refer." Since therefore *to diaireisthai* has this force of signifying, why should we not use it in explaining the mystery of the divine persons, in which distinction has a place, not division, or distraction, or separation? I know that others, when they used the verb "to divide" in interpreting *diaireisthai* and thus attribute division to the divine persons, understood the same thing that we feel by the word "distinguishing"; but I nevertheless contend that in a matter so exquisite, one must speak more exquisitely and accurately. And so in the edict of Emperor Constantine, in the VI synod, act 18, where it is said: [Greek text], which the interpreter renders thus: "For the Unit is truly the Trinity, being unified in Godhead, and the Trinity is truly the Unit, divided by properties, and not partitioned by eternity." Concerning which I observe that *to adiairetos* in this place is the same thing that is *amerēs* (without parts); added for greater explanation. Gregory Nazianzen used these same words entirely when discussing the divine nature to Evagrius, oration 44: [Greek text]. We who acknowledge the truth must know that the divine and simple essence of the Better is indivisible and of one kind. And so in all that oration, in which he shows that no section or division is found in the divine essence, he uses *to adiaireton* for "the indivisible" and *to diairesis* for "the division." This I had to observe here, and to warn that this verb *diaireō*, and those derived from it, whether with the privative particle or without it, are not always to be interpreted in the same way in the Holy Fathers. For sometimes it is put not for a section and division into parts, but for distinction alone, which is to be diligently observed. For Damascene, book *On the Orthodox Faith*, chapter 8, spoke thus: [Greek text]. Which indeed Jacobus Billius translates thus: "We believe in one God, etc., one essence, one divinity, one empire in three perfect persons joined without mixture and confusion and divided without separation (which is a wonder) into Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit." Thus, I say, he translates, but I know not if it is sufficiently subtle and theological; nor indeed do I know if I would have rendered *to diairoumenē* more exactly as "distinct." The interpretation of Faber Stapulensis is approved, who translates it "indivisibly discrete," who also sins in this, that he referred "discrete" to the kingdom, when *to diairoumenais* accords with the persons. Therefore I would have rather translated those final words, *kai adiastatōs diairoumenais*, as "and indivisibly distinct." For the distinction certainly befits the persons of which Damascene speaks with those words, and this word is used in the schools, but division not at all. For it is never rightly said by theological measure: "The divine persons are divided among themselves," but they are "distinguished"; and thus Damascene, with those words, both denies the division when he says *adiastatōs* and concedes the distinction when he says *diairoumenais*. And the verb *diaireō* is often put in both significations, and the word *adiairetōs* derived from it, when the discourse is about this mystery of the Trinity. For in the confession of faith which Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, professed, related in the V synod approved, act 6, it is had thus: [Greek text]. Which are rendered into Latin there as follows: "One (I confess) domination, one deity, and lordship, one empire, and power, and authority which is divided in three persons, indivisibly, and is joined in substance, divisively." Thus, I say, those final words are there opposed to each other which, however, I would interpret more theologically: "That which is distinguished in persons indivisibly, and is joined in substance distinctly," and that for the reason brought forth above from the usage of the theologians' speech. And I would wish this annotation to be applied however this confession of faith or discourse on the Trinity and the distinction of its persons is contained in the general synods; for always, as I have seen, *to diairoumenon* is translated as "divided," which since it is its common signification, nevertheless it can signify distinction, as from Budaeus, an excellent observer of locutions... [alt-version omitted]
in creatures, it is with the exclusion of all identity; whence it happens that persons can be separated both by place and by time, and indeed so that their distinction can (so to speak) be seen with the eyes. Divine persons, however, are so distinguished that they are otherwise one and inseparable, and therefore it is said that their distinction is perceived by the intellect alone. Thus Suarez and correctly as it is read in the Latin version of Damascenus: That which in that [nature] is distinct, is distinguished by reason. But if C *to diēirēmenon* is explained as divided and separated, perhaps every difficulty in that passage of Damascenus will be removed, and we shall liberate it from all distinction of reason. And indeed, to me, it seems it should be explained so as to signify local division and separation, which from the preceding and subsequent [content] in his argument seems to be able to be proven. For in that chapter Damascenus treats of the distinction of thing and of reason, and teaches that these distinctions behave in a different way in created persons than in divine ones. For there, whatever is common is in reality divided into many individuals, but by reason alone it is one: *H koinotēs* (these are the very words of the author), "But the community and the affinity of nature is considered by reason and intelligence." But individuals or persons are really distinct and separated from one another. *Oude gar hai hupostaseis* etc., "For neither are the persons in one another, but apart each one and individually; therefore they are separated by themselves, having most things which divide one from the other, for they are distinguished both by place and time." And he pursues the other individual differences, after which he again adds: "But most of all they differ because they do not exist in one another, but separately, whence also they are called two and three men, and many." You see therefore how he speaks of such a distinction of created persons, which even happens with local separation of one from another. But in the holy Trinity, he says, the matter stands in the opposite way. For here what is one and common is considered in reality: *Theōreitai dia te to sunaïdion*, etc. But in the holy Trinity in a different way; for there what is common and one is considered in reality, partly because of the common eternity, etc. He pursues the divine attributes common to one nature: out of which, when he had shown the nature to be one in reality, and that all persons are one and the same except for the properties, he adds *to dē diēirēmenon* which is, "But what is divided in it, is divided by reason and intelligence"; just as if he were to say: There is no other distinction in the persons, except concerning the properties which he had just mentioned of being unbegotten, begotten, and spirated. Otherwise, no division and separation, or local distraction in them, is conceived except by our reason, or our mode of understanding; for they are in themselves one in another: which is the other part of the contrariety to created persons, which are so distinct that they are also disjoined from one another. Therefore, by those last words, in which is all the difficulty, Damascenus does not infer that the persons are distinct by reason, since he had sufficiently and more than sufficiently assigned their real distinction by properties and processions both above in this chapter and in the preceding ones, but this he says: That which is contrary in divine persons and the creatures is that nothing is divided and separated in them, except by our intelligence or our imperfect mode of conceiving; which is indeed my exposition, that it is true and appears clearly from the author's own subsequent words: for he adds: "For we cannot attribute local distinction to the uncircumscribed Deity, as we can in our own case. For the persons exist immanent, and in themselves one in another, not so as to be confused, but so as to adhere to one another, according to the word of the Lord saying, 'I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.'" This seems to me to be the genuine sense of that passage of St. Damascenus, which has been explained by us on the occasion of the word *dianoeisthai*, which since it signifies both to divide and to distinguish, as has been proven above, ought to be rendered in Latin and accommodated differently, according to how any passage of the holy Fathers, especially where the discourse is about the Trinity, requires. When he spoke concerning the divine nature, he called it by the same attribute *anarchon*, which is to be understood concerning the beginning of time; now when he calls the person of the Father *anarchon*, he signifies that he does not have a beginning of his being; for he is *anarchos* (ingenerate), and has his own proper notion, his *agennēsian*, which you may call innascibility, which terms are often repeated in the doctrine of this mystery by Damascenus, book *On the Faith*. But for illustrating Theophanes, the passage of Gregory Nazianzenus is luminous, who distinguishes the twofold meaning of *anarchon* when it is placed in divine things, and teaches excellently that one is proper to the Father, the other common to him, the Son, and the holy Spirit. For if *anarchos* is taken for that which is without a beginning of origin, and does not receive its being from another, *anarchos* is the Father alone; but the Son and the holy Spirit, although *sunaïdē* (coeternal), cannot be called such in that sense; but if *to anarchon* denies a beginning of time, from whence anything begins to be, the Son and the holy Spirit are also *anarchoi*. This is the summary of the doctrine of the Theologian, *Oratio 35*, which is the third on theology, the first on the Son. He begins indeed from those words: *Pōs oun*, "How therefore, you will ask, if the Son and the holy Spirit are coeternal with the Father, what can be brought forward, so that they also are not devoid of a beginning just as he?" "Because they are from him, although not after him. For that which lacks a beginning is also eternal. But that which is eternal is not straightway also devoid of a beginning, as long as it is referred to the Father as to a beginning and origin." Therefore they, regarding the cause, do not lack a beginning; regarding time, however, they are devoid of beginning; for those things from which time took its origin are not subject to time. These are the words of Nazianzen; which D context is abrupt, in which Christ only points out the difficulty of a rich man in attaining the kingdom of heaven, taken from the similitude of the camel (whether an animal or, as some men hold, a ship), so that he might put before the eyes the difficulty for that to pass through the eye of a needle; he did not wish to compare it then with any other vice, and indeed he himself does not touch upon this genuine sense above, nor does he ignore the signification of the camel, nor omit it untouched, but nonetheless he instructs regarding the morals that the author at this point directs at the people, and he has surely devised a pious sense, which can be accepted by a good mind. Moreover, for the spiritual sense, see the universal *Peregrinium*, book xxii, which assembles many elegant sayings from Eucherius regarding this. (26) *Acus vero sermonem Domini*. The translation is beautiful and well-explained by way of tropology, and differs much from the author's imperfect one, Chrysostom, *Homily 35*: "The needle is the Son of God, whose first part is subtle according to the divinity; others are however gros- ser, according to his incarnation." But the latter text is correct, and has no deflection, etc. See under him.
Homily XLVI
A For if he had spoken concerning the animal, the Word B would not have called it more impossible than what is altogether impossible. For it is more consistent to say, just as it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Now, however, the word more easily suggests something deeper to be considered. We ought not, therefore, to think of the camel as an animal, nor of a ship's cable, as some interpreters have thought. What then is that which we accept? They say that the camel, as an animal, keeps an injury indelibly against the one who has struck it, and watches for an opportune time for itself, when it can take revenge for the injury inflicted upon it. Therefore, C the Scripture, from the property natural to those animals, is accustomed to impose names upon those who are subject to such perturbations; and indeed to call the dog the one who is shameless; the horse, the one who is lustful; the wolf, the one who is rapacious; the fox, the one who acts deceitfully: so also to liken the one who is mindful of injury to the camel. For the things that are being envied in man are the passions of the brutes. But if you consider the needle, it rightly follows that the teacher's word joins and unites the disparate things, and like one garment adorns the souls, as with the thread of love binding them together. Of this needle, the Savior speaks when he says that, "Narrow is the gate that leads unto life." He says, therefore, that it is easier for a man who is mindful of injury to enter into the perfection of life, than for the rich man. Why? Because all that malice, when the hated person or thing is removed, is dissolved; and, the incentive being removed, the passion is extinguished by the loss; and thus the man who is free from the study of vengeance is able to grasp virtue, and arrive at perfection. But indeed, the desire for riches, and to be always burning for money, is very evil, and is released with difficulty by death.A For it is only laid aside with this life. And how can the satiety of those who are drunk be anything but an increase of thirst, when indeed the very madness for wine always inflames them, and inflames the desire for wine more and more; so the covetous, and the greedy, even if they become as rich as Croesus, even if the Pactolus river flows with infinite gold for them, are never satisfied. Whence it seems to me that the fable among the Greeks regarding Midas is a judgment upon greed: namely, that he acquired the measure of the insatiable greed that was innate in him, if only he could turn whatever he touched into gold by his prayer. And having obtained from his prayer this just penalty for his insatiable greed, B since everything he touched became gold, he perished from hunger and thirst. This story teaches us, I think, that lovers of riches die in their own greed, and leaving their accumulated wealth to others, they perish. Rightly, therefore, does Christ proclaim that the rich cannot enter the kingdom of God. Let us therefore flee, brothers, from the detestable greed for gain, the worm of the heart that gnaws at and consumes the soul—and waste not this time on personal concerns and expenditures. Let us train ourselves to be content with what is necessary; and let us regard what is superfluous as dangerous. If any man has acquired wealth, let him not squander it, but, having received it either from his ancestors or from some faultless undertaking, let him store it up through alms in heaven, where our true citizenship is, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
THE HOMILIES ON THE GOSPELS
RECITED ON FEAST DAYS OF THE SAINTS: Which it seemed more convenient to separate from the dominical ones, though they are arranged in the order of the manuscripts.
HOMILY XLVI
Concerning the rebuking of the waters. — Spoken on the feast of the great martyr Demetrius.
We are gathered today for a twofold reason. 1 For the grace of the Spirit adds to the Church — 28 "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee," A and thus he ascended with the Spirit accompanying him, as one who is always accompanied by Him, and who is substantially with Him. But for what reason did He not ascend into heaven as soon as He arose from the dead, but delayed this for forty days? It is because if this had happened, the Resurrection might have seemed a mere fantasy and an illusion, if He had departed as soon as He was seen: it would have been like the pleasures in dreams, which only appear and immediately fly away, deceiving the mind of those who sleep. For this reason, He remained for many days, and by various appearances confirmed the disciples, and after showing the miracle of the Resurrection to be so certain that it could not be contradicted, He was finally taken up into heaven. If you have a mind trained for more subtle thoughts, and it is capable of reaching higher things illuminated by pure light, I will also explain to you the figure of the forty days: what the reason was why He performed the ascension after this interval. We know of three births of Christ on earth: the first, indeed, from the most pure Mother; the second, which was in the Jordan through water; the third, which was from the dead. B And a little later you will see Jesus being purified in the Jordan, my own purification—or rather, purifying the waters by His own purification. For He Himself, who takes away the sin of the world, was in no need of purification; but it was shown in the Jordan that the Lord was purifying my nature through baptism. C And He Himself entered first, and was baptized in it, as I have said, first that He might take away the sin of the world; secondly, that He might summon those reborn through baptism unto brotherhood, He Himself becoming the first-born among many brothers (due to the same manner of His supernatural rebirth according to the flesh). D For by showing this to be a fountain of salvation, according to Isaiah, capable of regenerating in a supernatural way, without carnal union and the laws of nature, all those who approach Christ with faith, and making them sons of God, and brothers of Christ by grace because of a certain identity of birth, as has been said.
Homily XXXIX
A Regeneration has been made, by which He, who was the first-born of every creature, was also called the first-born from the dead. In the first generation, therefore, after forty days, His Mother brought Him, as the first-born, into the temple, that she might present Him before the Lord, and give the sacrifice according to the commandment of the Law. But in the second generation, which was made through baptism, He was led by the Spirit into the desert, and passed the full forty days there; and when He had conquered all temptations, and shown Himself stronger than the tempter, He began to preach the kingdom of God.
Concurrently, therefore, even after the third birth—I mean the resurrection from the dead—after forty days, He is led up into the supercelestial temple, presenting our nature as it exists in Himself, pure to God and the Father; and He who had reported victory from the prince of this world is established above every principality and power.
But it is not right to pass over that which is also worth mentioning, that not only the eleven disciples were spectators of the Ascension of Christ, but even the Lady herself, who is immaculate in every way, and many of the seventy disciples, among whom was also Nathanael the Canaanite; otherwise, how would he have seen the fulfillment of the promise made to him? For when Philip had instructed him about Christ, and had caught him within the evangelical net, the Savior had said to him: "From now on you shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man."
This statement clearly prefigured His return into heaven, in which some of the angels were ascending, commanding the higher powers to lift up the gates of heaven; while others descended, assuring the disciples that this—"He who is taken up from you into heaven, the same will come again in the body to the earth"—signified His final coming. But for what reason the angels command the higher orders to lift up the gates, the theological discourse has explained. For since the Lord, by His Passion, B has brought about a resurrection from the dead, according to which He became the first-born of all creation and the first-born of the dead, He was lifted up.
But it is not right to pass over that which is also worth mentioning, that not only the eleven disciples were spectators of the Ascension of Christ—and here the divine Nilus clarifies this by the theological voice—but the most immaculate Lady herself, and many of the seventy disciples, were also present.
The Threefold Generation
The Word knows a threefold generation for us: that of the body, that of baptism, and that of the resurrection. And my Christ is seen to have honored all these generations from Himself: the first by the first and vital breathing; the second by the incarnation and the baptism with which He Himself was baptized; and the third by the resurrection, of which He Himself was the beginning.
A commanded, a theological voice has clarified. For since the Savior became higher through his Passion, as the Apostle says, "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him," and he himself cried out to his disciples, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth," for this reason he demands that the gates also become higher to receive him. But the angels who receive him, seeing him ascending with a body, and showing forth the symbols of his Passion, inquire out of curiosity: "Who is this King of glory who comes from Edom, and his garments from Bosor?" That is to say: "Who is this coming from the earthly realm, and bearing the covering of flesh?" For Edom is this earthly world; and Bosor is interpreted as flesh. To them they answer: "The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle," who waged war against the devil on behalf of the nature of men. What then? Someone might say: Did the intellectual powers not know of the Savior's return to the heavens? And how is it not irrational that Isaiah, and Zechariah, and before them David, should both foresee this and foretell it, while those purest minds were ignorant of the Ascension? If, then, they knew, why do they inquire to learn who is coming from Edom? We say, therefore, that they did know, indeed, that he was about to return to the supercelestial abode after the economy, and they sat by the heavenly gates expecting him; or what else does that evangelical parable signify, "And you yourselves be like men who wait for their master, when he will return from the wedding"? For he alluded most clearly to the angels sitting at the heavenly gates, and awaiting the Lord when he would return from the earth, having joined the Church to himself through the mystical marriage. The angels, therefore, were not ignorant of the future Ascension; but whether he would ascend with a body, this was a matter of doubt for them. Perceiving, then, the supernatural character of the mystery, and seeing the Master in such a guise, the vestment stained with blood, they inquire who this is. Having been confirmed by the twofold answer, they ask the Lord himself: "Why are your garments red, and your clothing B as from the treader of the winepress?" For the Lord's flesh was flushed with the blood from his side, even if he ascends into heaven, ascend with him; be with the angels who are escorting or receiving him; command the gates to be lifted up and to become higher, so that they may receive him higher as a result of his suffering.
HOMILY XXXIX
A ...and your garments like those from the trodden winepress? For the Lord’s flesh had been reddened by the blood that flowed from his side, and it had been adorned by his Passion; wherefore the holy multitude of the bodiless powers adds to the discourse: "This one is beautiful in his raiment." The raiment and garment is his humanity. But how could a tunic stained with blood be seen upon an incorruptible body? It was by way of economy that it appeared so. For just as he showed the holes of the nails to his disciples, and ate fish, though he was in no need of food, so too, in order to demonstrate his benevolence toward man, he was seen by the angels in this form. B This color of the divine flesh Jacob foresaw and predicted: "He shall wash his garment in wine, and his cloak in the blood of the grape." But what does he himself answer to the questioning of the angels? "I have trodden the winepress alone, and of the nations there is no man with me," calling the winepress the battle array of the demons and the unbelief of the Jews, "whose grape is full of gall, and whose wine is a cluster of bitterness." Having trampled this alone by means of the Cross, and having colored my flesh with blood as if with new wine, I am ascending as victor to the Father’s throne. C Having been initiated into these mysteries, the angels threw open the gates of the heavens, hastening their lifting up. Therefore, let us also accept the divine Isaiah as our counselor: "Come, let us ascend to the mountain of the Lord," and spiritually follow him who "ascends upon the clouds of heaven," according to the Psalm, and who, as Habakkuk says, causes our nature to climb up on the heights; and let us be with the angels who are escorting and receiving him, according to the exhortation of Gregory the Theologian. And those who escort him would be the discourses concerning providence, which teach D everything regarding the Incarnation of the Lord; while those who receive him would be those concerning theology, which explain everything regarding his pre-eternal and ineffable generation and his consubstantiality with the Father. Now, the ascent from earth to heaven is the advancement from the economy to theology; or, if you prefer, the elevation from practical virtue to contemplation. Whosoever, therefore, by way of spiritual knowledge, has finished the discourses concerning Providence, as far as is possible, and is led from these to the discourses concerning theology, such men, by these step-by-step ascents, make the gates of the mind higher for the reception of the God-man Word, passing over from the things of the flesh to the things of the divinity, as if leaping from earth to heaven, and transitioning from action to contemplation, being lifted up together by the divine Word who draws us upward and ineffably united to God; to whom is due...
and in the law and the prophets, more clearly and, as it were, essentially, A to speak theologically, in a pre-eminent way among the apostles, B being manifested in them, it arrived at the perfection of the spiritual gifts. For when the Paraclete descended, he filled the whole house, and sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. C But why did he appear in the form of fire? Because he is the power that purifies souls, consumes the thorns of sins, and kindles the divine desire in the hearts of those who are worthy. D And when he had appeared in the form of cloven tongues, he taught that he is the Word of the Father, who opens the mouths of the silent and makes the stammerers articulate, leading them into all truth and explaining the deep mysteries of the Godhead.
Homily XLVII
The invitation to the present light, and those who are zealous for the feasts, to the most holy Anargyroi (58), that we may celebrate their solemnity religiously. For since they themselves shared in the grace from God, this grace is also shared to us by the Anargyroi. B
(57) *Not as a question.* He takes these words thus: *Not as interrogating*, but as asserting, because it is *such, as is the one whom* the winds and the sea obey; *what sort* then is *he*, that is, how great, how mighty, how great is he? *And what sort?* Not as questioning, but as declaring, "Oh, how truly great is he, who is clothed with such power, and moves the elements as he wills by his word and spirit!" C This is the historical miracle. But because the present life is a sea, and this watery life is agitated by the winds of all temptations, and by successive tribulations, we are those who ourselves cause the storm, and being plunged into wickedness, and falling into the evils of the soul, we often suffer shipwreck, let us imitate the holy disciples, and wake up the sleeping Lord with prayers and penitence, and offer D him propitiation, so that he may rebuke the unclean spirits, and say to the wickedness: "Be silent, be still," and he shall station the storm into a calm, that is, into the grace of the Holy Spirit, which directs our mind in the path of the virtues by spiritual sails, and establishes our soul in the celestial harbor; which it may be our lot to possess in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose grace and empire remain to the ages of ages. Amen.
Homily XLVII
Regarding the mission of the twelve disciples. Invited by today's light, and you who are lovers of feasts, to the most holy Anargyroi (58), that we may religiously honor their solemnity. For as they themselves shared in the grace from God, this grace is also shared to us by the Anargyroi.
Homily XL
A ...in the Law and in the Prophets, more clearly and, so to speak, essentially—to speak theologically—it shone forth in the Apostles. As a mighty Spirit overturning mountains, that is, the opposing powers, concerning which the Lord said: “You shall say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up,’” B thereby indicating that lunatic-afflicted demon; as a shaking, agitating and confounding the entire inhabited world with the preaching of the Gospel, which indeed Habakkuk prophesied saying: “You have driven your horses into the sea, troubling many waters”; or as fire, the tongues recently appeared fiery.
That it is a “voice as of a thin breeze,” C this, I think, needs no interpretation for those who attend to the history: “For there occurred, he says, a sound as of a rushing violent wind.” Voice and sound, therefore, are the same thing; for both are a striking of the air. Breeze and wind are likewise the same. The grace of the Holy Spirit is called a breeze, as it refreshes those who have withered in the flame and heat of sin, of which the opposing sun is the cause—the one which induced blackness upon the bride of the Song, concerning whom the ode says: D “The sun by day shall not burn you.” A thin breeze, because of its purity and divinity, and because it is devoid of matter. The oracle therefore adds: “And the Lord was there,” as providing a perfecting and complete grace, and in order to show that the Spirit is both Lord and God. As fire, it burns up the thorns of those being enlightened, which transgression caused to sprout—for this was the fire the Savior came to cast upon the earth; as wind, it refreshes, cooling those who partake; and it is violent, as it wrestles against the violence of the demons raised against us. And perhaps it is of this violent wind that David speaks: “In a violent wind you shall shatter the ships of Tarshish.” For with it he shatters the ships that transport the fugitives. For a certain prophet, fleeing from the presence of God, sought a ship sailing to Tarshish. But as a thin breeze, it thins out the thickness of sin, making the one who is regenerated a new man, and leading [him] back to the original brightness.
[alt-version omitted]
A For since human nature was brought into existence by the nod of the Artificer, it was immediately adorned by a relationship to the Spirit Himself; for He breathed into his face the breath of life, which is the Holy Spirit. For there was no other way for man to be in sanctification, and in kinship with God, except by being adorned through the participation of the Holy Spirit. But that first grace was dimmed and confounded by the turbidity of sin. And yet the only-begotten Son of God, having become man, and finding nature bereft of that good which it possessed in the beginning, transformed it back again into that same state, pouring the Holy Spirit into the disciples as if from the fountain of His own fullness, and bestowing it upon us through them. For that which produces the divine likeness in us, as the great Cyril says, is most certainly sanctification, that is, the participation of the Son in the Spirit, through whom we are renewed, being re-formed back into the image of the Creator from the beginning.
But, O Paraclete God, consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and sharer in the throne, and sharer in glory! O light B shining by Thyself, proceeding from the light of the Father, and remaining in Christ, who is the light, and coming unto us through Him, be present also to us, Thy servants, in a mystical manner; burn up the brush-like firebrands of the passions; preserve this our city which boasts in Thy name; fill with Thy grace both the shepherd and the flock; shatter the strength of the invisible enemies arrayed against us; blunt their fiery darts, [and] show us victors over the assaults of their audacity; become an ally to our pious Emperor against the godless sons of Hagar; preserve his empire in peace and tranquility; show the people gathered here today free from the guilt of their sins; make our fathers and brothers who have departed this life in piety C worthy of unceasing joy; for to Thee is due all honor and glory, together with the beginningless Father, and the consubstantial Son, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XLI. On the Sunday of All Saints.
The season of the year already leads us to the very time of spring.
A Since the sun sends down upon us the rays of its beams with greater heat, and the beauty of the flowers begins to show a fading, and already the sweet-smelling blossoms pass away—but the decor of the lilies succeeds the beauty of these—it seems to me that the order of the evangelical readings is harmonized with the season by a certain connection and sequence, joining the teaching to the times. For, having plucked the theological utterances of the Gospel according to John like certain spiritual roses, today we move on to the lily-beds of the great Matthew to pluck the purest lilies of the Christ-spoken words, which stir the athletes to His confession. The Lord said: B «Everyone who will confess me before men, I also will confess him before my Father who is in heaven.» And a King, preparing for war against a savage and cursed nation, also gathers a military census, and suggests how one must fight, and promises gifts. So also Christ, the Son of God, the King of all creation, hastening to cast down the tyranny of the demon against us, and anointing
the spiritual host
, and teaching how it is necessary to engage with the adversaries, fortifies the army with the weapons of confession, saying: «Whoever will confess me before men, I also will confess him.» I am not content, He says, with faith according to the mind, but I wish the words to be in agreement with the freedom of the soul. For it is the way of prattlers and C impostors to hide one thing in their minds, but to speak the opposite with their tongue. But it is a sign of those who have begun to be free to speak the truth boldly. «Everyone who will confess me before men.» I do not accept timid soldiers who are false to the faith in me by their words. As many as desire to become partakers of my rewards, let them proclaim their Lord by bright confessions, so that, having thus exhibited a courageous spirit of confession, they might also obtain a bright reward. And what is this? «I also will confess him before my Father who is in heaven.» But let us not pass over the philosophy latent in the saying.DA For why did he not say, «Whoever shall confess me,» but rather, «Whoever shall confess in me»? Because we are unable to perform any good thing unless we possess, working with us, the power of divine assistance. Since, therefore, the confession of faith is a divine good, lest anyone, while confessing Christ before kings and tyrants, should attribute the accomplishment to himself, he says, «Whoever shall confess in me,» signifying that he does not speak with boldness by his own power, but being helped by the grace from above, he offers his confession. «I also will confess him before my Father who is in heaven.» O blessed promise! B O divine and marvelous reward! Who could be found worthy to be confessed by the Master before the Father? Observe, too, how the Lord through this promise strengthens the frailty of our nature. For since the persecution brought upon the faithful by tyrants contained much that was painful to the senses and was destined to cause many to stumble, for this reason, strengthening the weaker ones toward confession, he shows them what the end of the struggle will be, so that, by relying on this good hope, they might easily overcome the temporary perception of pain. For this reason, the martyrs accepted as an occasion and assistance for this promised joy the various forms of torture, and readily received the fire, the sword, the wheel, the racks, the iron beds, the wild beasts, the abysses, the freezing in cold, the stripping of flesh from the bones, the pulling out of teeth, the nailing to the cross, the wasting away by hunger, the loss of eyes, the cutting off of limbs, the stoning; C insomuch that they even prayed for their tormentors and requited the murderers with blessings. For the great Stephen… D [The remainder of this page consists of editorial notes by Franciscus Scorsus on terminology, variants, and references to Gregory Nazianzen, and is skipped as per instructions.]
... receiving the stones, prayed that the sin should not be laid to the charge of those who were stoning him, and having confessed Jesus before the council, he saw him clearly bearing witness in return to his athlete before the Father. A For he saw the heavens opened, and the Son of God B standing, awarding the victory to those who struggle; and the apostles, having been scourged, went forth, as it says, rejoicing from the council, "because they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for his name." "But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny him before my Father who is in heaven." Consider how, when speaking of confessing, he laid down: "In me"; but when speaking of denying, not so, but: "Whoever denies me." Why so? C For confession does not happen without divine impulse; for it is not among those things that are easy, or rather, it is utterly impossible for one who has not preferred the things which are not seen to the pleasures of this life; the denial, however, arises from our own sloth and from a lack of hope in the things to come. But just as there the reward is great, and it is impossible to find anything better, so here the threat is terrible and full of dread; for what could be more fearful than to be denied by Christ, and to hear, "I do not know you"? But what does the addition of "heaven" mean, D when it might perhaps have been enough to say: "I also will confess him before my Father"? It was habitual for the Savior, when teaching about the Father, to add to the word: "the heavenly one." For indeed, even when he exhorts not to despise those who seem to be little ones: "Their angels," he says, "always see the face of my Father who is in heaven"; and: "Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect." And when he encourages not to be occupied with untimely anxieties, he adds, saying, as "For your heavenly Father knows that you have need of these things"; and: "Let your light so shine before men, that all who see you may glorify your Father who is in heaven." And teaching the disciples how they ought to pray, he makes the Father who is in heaven the prelude of the prayer. What then [does he desire] by doing this? While it seems to some of the interpreters, since heaven is the throne of God, the divine Scripture thus saying: "Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool"; and: "Do not swear by heaven, for it is the throne of God"—that for this reason, mentioning the Father, he adds also that renowned throne upon which he is said to be established; and through heaven hinting at the fire-like substances of the Seraphim within it. And such an understanding is perhaps not wide of the mark. But it seems to me that the Gospel does not speak of the element of heaven as if it were some apart dwelling-place of God, because...
the Godhead is equal in all things and passes through the whole of creation in the same way. The prophecy of the Psalms clearly sets this forth: “If I ascend into heaven, thou art there; if I descend into hell, thou art present. If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there also shall thy right hand lead me.” It is possible, therefore, to understand that the heavenly dwelling is not separated for God as an exception; but because the life above is pure from all malice, while this lower and more material life is filled with the passions that operate according to malice, for this reason, whenever the Gospel makes mention of heaven, it gives us to understand the dispassionate life, which is pure from every evil. “He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me.” The Lord does not forbid the love toward those who begat us—for how should He, who even in the old legislation, immediately after the love toward God, ordered the affection toward those who begat us? But because nature is something tyrannical and violent, so that we might not, through our disposition toward our parents, disregard the love owed to Him, He says these things. For it is necessary to love those who begat us, inasmuch as nature itself teaches this even in irrational creatures; B yet the affection toward them is not to be preferred to the love toward God. Observe also how He did not say: “He that cherisheth [ἀγαπῶν] father or mother,” but: “He that loveth [φιλῶν].” For love [ἀγάπη], being perfect, is difficult for the many to achieve; but affection [φιλία] is easy and readily attained. Having heard this voice, Thecla, having turned away from her mother Theoclia for Christ’s sake, followed Paul; and Barbara, being charmed by the divine desire, was cut down by her father’s sword. Since it is not appropriate to pay attention only to the letter (for this is petty and most unlearned), the word must be led up to a higher meaning. Having been from the city of Iconium, of the mother Theoclia. Having despised the fire into which she was cast, and her mother, and her suitors, she followed Paul C as the foundation of all right doctrine, which D
A the father of those who are more devoted to the desires of the flesh is this world; and the mother of the same is sense, which has an association with the world, and is connected to it by a sort of kinship. It would not be right, therefore, to love either the world or this sensory life above God, but it is proper to strive, by the choice of the will, to depart from this kinship and to be aggregated with those who "were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"; to whom the Lord said: "Ye are not of this world"; not because they were not of the world, but because, fleeing the world as a carnal father, they betook themselves to the true Father. "And he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Since the affection of parents for children seems to be more vehement than that of children for those who begat them—for this also the law shows, commanding children to honor their parents, but not commanding those who have begat them to love their children, B since nature itself has imposed upon them this ineluctable necessity—therefore, beginning from what is easier, he makes a step toward what seems more difficult. But indeed, not even in this place did he say, "He who loves with charity," but, "He who loves [φιλῶν]." For the affection of children is a love [amicitia/amor], not charity [charitas]: if it were charity, it would be hard to tear away, and impossible to be dissolved. "For charity never faileth," saith the Apostle. One must not attend only to the [unconquerable] affection; and of the affection, he says, that it is hard to tear away and impossible to be dissolved, C even when compelled by famine to abandon them, as is learned from the sacred Scriptures; it is fitting to transfer these to mystical senses, which we see has been done by all the holy Fathers, both Greek and Latin; this also Theophanes commands to be done in this place when he says: "Do not attend to the letters [only]." One must certainly attend first to the literal sense, then raise the mind to the mystical, or allegorical, or anagogical senses: for these are the parts of mystical doctrine, concerning which read especially Alfonso Salmeron of our Society, tom. [?] in the Gospels, which contains the prolegomena; see also more annotations by us below at Homily 14, note 24. For in speaking of the evils which were inflicted in the siege of Jerusalem [he treats] also of love for children, otherwise impregnable, which they disregarded on account of famine. It is, and to hinder us from following either the commands of God or even His counsels: and to that extent they are to be cast off and rejected, as we see accomplished by holy men and martyrs. But truly, that which is according to the prescription of reason, and is honest, and which does not resist obedience to God, is to be retained, nor ever to be cast away, which is understood from a double passage of the Gospels: "He that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me" (Matt. x, 37): although in the Decalogue it is commanded that parents be loved and honored. And such love for the honest [Cicero] calls by the most grave name of charity, even Cicero, in *De Amicitia*, where comparing two loves, which we have distinguished, he says thus: "Which indeed what it may be can be observed even in certain beasts; which love those born of them for a certain time, and are so loved by them, that the sense of them appears easily, which in man is much more evident; first from that charity which is between children and parents, which cannot be severed, unless by detestable crime." Thus Cicero, from whom you see that the love of beasts for their young is called [charity], which indeed no one rightly would call charity, and in this way our author distinguishes between *philia* and *agape*. What he further adds from the Apostle, 1 Cor. [xiii], "Charity never faileth," can likewise be accommodated to that charity explained in this way; for such is it that it ought not, as far as its own nature is concerned, ever be lost or removed: for thus also Saint Augustine explains this place of the Apostle, in his book *De natura et gratia*, ch. 14, and all commonly understand it of supernatural charity: that such indeed it is, that as far as its own nature is concerned it never faileth, although in this life it can be rejected by the freedom of the will, although hope and faith by their nature are to be abolished in the other life: whence consequently Theophanes says of that honest charity, which cannot rightly be cast away, that it is not commanded by the Lord that it be uprooted, but rather that that former love [be] immoderate... D we have said in the above note 70, to this homily, and note 3, homily 37, to which a few things must still be added to explain the present place. For here Theophanes compares the vehement affection of parents for children with charity, and calls the former *philia*, the latter *agape*. But by these names, as we have shown more copiously in the cited homily, this author understands something in love, or friendship, that is more imperfect, which he calls *philia*, and perfect in the same kind, which he names *agape*. The love, therefore, of parents for children can be considered in a double way: either as it is a certain natural propension toward children, proceeding from nature, which exists even in animals destitute of reason, or as it is even prescribed and ordered by reason: the first of these is called *philia* (love) by this author, the latter *agape* (charity), which surely cannot be distracted and dissolved. For the love of parents can be borne more vehemently than...
A that which drew him out of the Chaldean superstition. Then followed the shaking through the Law, which shook and disturbed not only Egypt with the scourge of the ten plagues, but also the wilderness and many nations. That it was through the Holy Spirit that Moses performed his works, you might learn if you attend to the cloud that guided Israel. For this cloud was the Holy Spirit, since the divinely speaking Paul says: the sea was a figure of water, but the cloud was a figure of the Spirit. But even the rock from which drink flowed abundantly to the people would not have been called "spiritual" by Paul had it not signified the Lord Jesus, and the water flowing from it the Holy Spirit. "For they drank," he says, "from the spiritual rock that followed them; and the rock was Christ." That the water prefigured the Spirit, the Lord taught us today in the Gospels: "He who believes in me, rivers of living water shall flow from his belly"; which the son of thunder interpreting, says: "This he said concerning the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive." And indeed, God took from the spirit that was in Moses and placed it upon the seventy, and upon Eldad and Medad who remained in the camp and were prophesying; and later, also upon Nun’s son, Joshua, the successor of Moses. But what says the oracle after these things? "And after the shaking, fire"—the Spirit itself speaking in the prophets, cherishing them and warming their governing faculty. Knowing this, the most calamity-stricken of the prophets said from the person of God: "Are not my words like fire? says the Lord." "And after the fire," he says, "a voice like a gentle breeze, and there is the Lord." Observe now the fulfillment of the prophecy, considering that breeze which descended upon the disciples in the upper room. For in the preceding manifestations he says: "The Lord is not in the wind, and not in the shaking, and not in the fire; but B in the voice like a gentle breeze," he added, "and there is the Lord." In the patriarchs, and in the Law, and in the prophets, the grace of the Spirit was somehow more dim; but the grace given later to the disciples had perfecting power. And just as in the creation of the world, Moses says that first the vegetative soul was placed in plants, then the sentient in the irrational, and last in man, the perfect and rational soul, containing within itself both the vegetative and sentient power; so the grace of the Spirit, being dimmer in the patriarchs, and stronger in the Law and the prophets, is, to use the expression of the Theologian C, by way of eminence...
HOMILY XLI
A ...and the collectors of public taxes were pressing upon them. Furthermore, the disciples not only renounced money, but also the pleasures of the flesh, kinship, the associations of friends, the customs of their lives, and everything that was contrary to the perfection of the Gospel. Thus James and John, when they heard that voice, "Follow me," B left behind not only the boat and the nets they were mending, but even their father Zebedee. Paul, beyond all other things, considered even the observances of the Law, in which he had been steeped from the beginning and throughout his life, to be dung for the sake of Christ. "Jesus said to them: You who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory, you shall also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Because he was speaking to all the disciples in common, and that most thievish disciple was among them, he did not say "those who follow me," but "those who have followed me," meaning those who persevered in following me. For he knew, he surely knew, that Judas would a little later cease from following and take an opposite path, and by his manifest actions would signify the opposition of his soul. For when he sought to kiss the face of the Master, he refused to follow him. For he who offers a kiss to the mouth does not follow from behind but stands face to face. What he therefore did in a way perceptible to the senses, this he is understood to have suffered within his mind, namely, that by his iniquity he became an adversary to the Lord, when by imitation he ought to have followed him. Hence, he was even strangled and lost the twofold life, and with good reason: "For no one shall see the face of God and live," according to the oracle given to Moses, that is, no one who stands against God shall live the true life, but rather he who, according to Moses, sees the hindmost parts, that is, he who follows. You, therefore, he says, who have followed me, and have imitated my way of life as far as you were able, shall receive this reward in the general resurrection—which he calls a regeneration, as it begets us anew and restores us to our ancient state—when the Son of Man shall sit, not in this common and humble guise in which he now appears, but in inaccessible and divine majesty, you also shall sit judging the Israelite tribes on an equal number of thrones. These words, moreover, give rise to a twofold question: one, whether anyone else is to sit with Christ at his second coming; and the other, how, since judgment has been given to the Son by the Father, the judging will be transferred to the apostles.
C D *Notes of Franciscus Scorsus.* The force of the meaning is elicited by the author from the Greek, which is in the past tense and is often used for the perfect; and thus our interpreter renders it as "You who have followed me"; but it may be rendered aptly as "You who will have followed me," which we, for the sake of greater explanation, have rendered as "You who have persevered in following me." Here it must also be noted that the portion of this Gospel which Theophanes expounds is taken from this Sunday's reading out of the nineteenth chapter of St. Matthew, and it does not cohere with the preceding [passages], which are in the tenth chapter of the same Matthew, but the Greeks construct the readings of the Gospel which they use in the liturgies at times from various fragments.
That none shall sit in judgment with Christ. And this is demonstrated in the narrative concerning the judgment: "For He shall separate," it says, "one from another, and shall set the sheep on the right hand, but the goats on the left." Who, hearing that "He shall set them," would surmise a sitting? But the thrones, and the establishment therein, which He promises to the disciples, are a symbol of surpassing honor. For by the things that are precious among us, Scripture is wont to represent what is above us and what is to come. And being "judges" does not mean "passing judgment," but rather "condemning." For even though they themselves were human, they had attained such glory by having become followers of the Light; but those others, having willingly closed the eyes of their soul, were unwilling to receive the rays of the intelligible Sun. It is written in the custom of Scripture for "judging" to be called "condemnation," as in: "Judge not, that you be not judged," and: "If we judged ourselves, we should not be judged," and: "In what judgment you judge, you shall be judged." For in that place, too, He indicated the condemnation from God arising from the fact that he who sins condemns himself. And He has given all to the Son. We say, therefore, conjecturing from the very doctrine of the Gospel: "And every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or land, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting." Consider, I pray, the order of the evangelical teaching, and marvel. For it leads us by the hand as if by a ladder, drawing us up from the lowest rungs to the heights; or rather, just as those who train men in military tactics first teach the young to arm themselves nimbly, then to move with rhythm in the handling of their weapons, brandishing the spear with great dexterity, and hitting the mark accurately; and finally, at the end, attracted by the desire for prizes, to make light of life itself, and with a noble impulse to set upon the opponent: so also does the Savior first...
require a confession before men, and then that we should prefer friendship with Him to the affection of parents and children; thence He leads the hearer to something more perfect, to despise all things here, and to follow Him, moving forward eagerly toward a reproachful death. And, rousing the spirit of his hearers with these words, He promises a reward, saying that he who has put aside present possessions and kinship for His sake shall receive a hundredfold.
But here again the detestable tongue of Julian A, like a sharpened razor, to use the Psalmist's words, is set, having set in motion the customary weapons of his own insolence. He ridicules this word and mocks the promise in a comic manner, saying: "If this is true, then let those who have believed in Jesus, and have put aside their own wives for His sake, receive a hundred in return for one." It would have been better, perhaps, to pass over this babbling like the barking of a dog. But so that the sophism might not drag the simpler-minded into error, we say that the Savior does not promise a reward of the same kinds, nor did He say that He would provide them in return with women and fields, but instead of the fleeting, the permanent; instead of the sensible, the intelligible; things which exceed the grasp of the eyes, the hearing, and the mind. Moreover, even in this present life, many pious women ministered to the apostles, providing for their clothing and other necessaries of life. Peter, having left one house in Bethsaida, became a dweller in many other houses; for while still wandering on earth and preaching the Gospel, he was given hospitality by the faithful, and now he possesses temples dedicated to his name throughout the whole world.
It will be pleasant to note also that the persons and things which we are commanded to depart from are eight in number: house, brothers, sisters, father, mother, wife, children, and fields. In return for these, therefore, which are divided into eight, the Lord promises to provide in that future eighth [day] those things which are established and permanent, which the number eight itself signifies—which, as they say, is the first cube, and double the first square, and signifies what is permanent and immovable, being equal to the equal times equal, or contained by three equal numbers. B C D
A Since we are supported by such a sweet promise, let us not be grieved, beloved, at being deprived of the pleasures of this world for Christ's sake, expecting to receive a hundredfold and eternal life, by the grace of the great God and Father, and of his only-begotten Son and our Savior Jesus Christ, and of his adorable Spirit, the uncreated and inseparable Trinity, to whom belong glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.
HOMILY XLII. On the words: "The lamp of the body is the eye."
A grateful debtor, even if he suffers no annoyance from his creditor, is nevertheless pricked by his conscience, thinks of his debt, and hastens to pay it. Therefore, I too come to pay a debt for which the day has already passed. Wherefore, having enlightened our souls with the light of the evangelical lamp, let us listen to the Lord’s teaching: "The Lord spoke this parable: The lamp of the body is the eye." B Leading us from objects of sense to those that are perceived by the intellect, the Savior most wisely sews higher things into small and visible ones, so that if anything appears difficult at the first glance, the mind, by penetrating it through contemplation, may be introduced into the inner sanctuary of the meaning; which is also to be found here. For wishing to speak about the state becoming the soul, he begins from a bodily example: "The lamp of the body is the eye." He calls the eye a lamp metaphorically. For nature itself, having placed the eyes in the upper part of the body as if upon a lampstand, has provided that the body should be guided C and rightly governed by them. Moreover, the eye was allotted the authority of the senses; for the other senses require both time and place for the apprehension of their objects, but the eye apprehends visible things without time. However, he is not speaking about the construction of the sensible or bodily eye; for the following statement does not permit us to understand it as the instrument of sight; for he says: "If your eye is single." But how will it fit? Just as nature placed the leadership of the body upon the head, so also it gave the power of the senses to the eyes.
HOMILIA XLII.
Does simplicity befit the eye? For experience, and that which has been gathered from the dissection of limbs, finds that it is composed of many parts, not only insofar as the body is compounded from the elements; but even in that eye a kind of manifold, complex composition is found. They say, in fact, that it contains four membranes: the corneal, the ureal, the primigenial, and the reticulated. Moreover, even the difference of the humors that constitute the eye shows another composition; for it is vitreous, crystalline, and aqueous. But these things let us leave to be examined by natural philosophers; let us, however, clarify what seems obscure, as far as we are able. It must be known, therefore, that the Lord is exhorting us not that the structure of the eye, but that its operation be simple. For sight was created for perceiving visible things, so that seeing the created things, we might glorify the power of the Creator. "For his invisible power is seen through the things that are made," B as the Apostle says, so that the whole body, being illuminated by sight, might be unobstructed in performing actions that are in accordance with nature. The eye, therefore, exercising this natural action, is called simple, casting far from itself the malice compounded extrinsically. But after it has slipped from what is proper, and has cast off the bridle of reason like an unbridled foal, then indeed the instrument which was given to us for aid becomes a minister of wicked desire, losing its natural simplicity by the admixture of evil. And perhaps the prince of our race was created with such simplicity, when the theology of Moses says that "they were naked in paradise;" naked, however, in simplicity, as another theology says. But when by the counsel of the wicked one, and by the turning C away from the good, he became a participant in the contrary vision, then "their eyes were opened," not that they might see better, but that they might understand that they were naked, and be ashamed. For the knowledge of evil which entered afterwards blunted the pre-existing simplicity, just as light loses the grace of its essence when darkness follows. D
* Rom. I, 20. * Gen. III, 7. * Gen. II, 25.
A “If your eye be single, your whole body shall be full of light.” And with good reason; for if your eyes see aright, according to the saying of the wise man, the whole body is illuminated by the operation that is according to nature. B The eye of the blessed David possessed this simplicity; wherefore he also said to God: “Lord, my heart is not lifted up, nor are my eyes lofty.” And because he had his vision unerring, occupied with the good alone, his whole body was luminous, stumbling in nothing; for his hearing was occupied with divine listening; for he says: “I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me.” And his taste, instead of the other sweetness that delights the passionate, was sweetened by the words of God: “How sweet are thy words to my throat! — better than honey to my mouth.” He kept his hands raised to God: “The lifting up of my hands is an evening sacrifice.” His feet did not move crookedly or unseemly, but were rooted in confidence toward God; wherefore he said: “My foot has stood in uprightness,” and: “You have set my feet upon a rock, and directed my steps.” All the limbs of the divine Prophet were strengthened in the fear of God by the simplicity of the eye. “But if your eye be evil, your whole body shall be full of darkness.” The discourse does not seem to proceed in order. For to the words, “If your eye be single,” it ought to have brought in: “If your eye be compound,” for to the simple, the compound is opposed. But that we might not think the word “single” was said about the structure of the eye, but about its operation according to nature, as our discourse has also demonstrated, for this reason he adds: “But if your eye be evil,” that through what follows you might understand what precedes, reasoning that to the evil, the good is rather opposed; and this is what is signified by simplicity. C “But if your eye be evil, your whole body shall be full of darkness”; for the evil and lofty eye, neglecting to behold those things for which it was made, observes the incentives of the passions. Wherefore the whole body walks as if in darkness, wandering through the dim-sightedness of the eyes. Restraining this curious gaze, God commanded: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor all things that are his.” And later He even called the curious looking at a woman adultery, plucking out the thorn-bearing root of the passion, from which the earth from the beginning brought forth thorns for us; for the evil sight of the plant sprouted the evil food for us. Since, just as the most beautiful flowers are wrapped in beautiful leaves on the outside, so the meanings of the Holy D Scripture are hidden by veils; come, having entered within the veil...
let us contemplate also in another way that which is signified through the eye. A “The lamp of the body is the eye;” for if He were speaking simply about the sight, He would have said, “The lamps of the body are the eyes.” But now, by using the singular number, He gave us the opportunity to understand something else. He calls the mind, therefore, the eye; for what the eye is in the body, this the mind is in the soul, being a certain faculty of the soul that is not adventitious, nor as one thing in another, but mind and soul are the same. For one should not believe those who say that the mind is one thing and the soul another, lured by Greek subtleties, as if fearing lest the souls of unreasoning creatures might appear to them imperfect. B Therefore, when this eye—that is, the mind—is purified of material mist and murkiness, the soul, as if walking in light, treads the path of the virtues unimpeded. For since our constitution is twofold—the one part light and intellectual, the other thick and material and inclined downward—if the mind gains the mastery by its reason, leading the body into servitude, then the soul is enlightened and easily hastens toward the upward movement, having the mind going before it like a lamp. But if leaden sin drags the mind downward, and the mist of matter darkens the ruling faculty, then, yes, even then the soul, having become like darkness, is turned toward that which is against nature, imagining things that are not as though they were, stumbling in the manner of the blind, and having by this means turned into unreasonableness, it is likened to the beasts. The Psalm indeed shows those whom the evil mind has transformed into the likeness of beasts: C “Man, being in honor, did not understand; he was compared to the senseless beasts and was made like unto them.” And again: “Their fury is according to the likeness of a serpent.” And: “Many dogs have surrounded me; fat bulls have beset me round about.” Another prophet, however, compares them to horses mad for females because of their tendency toward maddening pleasures. Thus, if the mind is evil, the whole man is dark in his works, belying his nature. “If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness?” If the mind given to you, He says, for light has become D horses mad for females.
A If, he says, the mind which was given to you for the illumination of your soul is obscured by passions, how great will be the obscuring of the sense of the passions of the flesh, which desires against the spirit? And because the explanation of Holy Scripture is rich in views, the Holy Spirit having so ordered it that many meanings should be contained in one utterance, let us not be reluctant to interpret the sense of the passage in another way also, taking up the wording again: “The lamp of the body is the eye.” Our eye is the law of the Spirit, which as a lamp leads the soul toward the light of knowledge. The prophetic testimony that leads me to this view is the one that says: “Your law is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path.” For when nature had fallen into sin, God did not overlook our fall without correction, but gave a law for the assistance of each person’s soul; on the contrary, He provided that the corrupter of the human race should be opposed by the law of the flesh, which wars against the spirit. B Positioned between both is our self-governing power and faculty of choice, and since each law is in opposition to the other, it makes whichever one it wishes more dominant over the other: the spiritual law leads toward the goods of virtue, which are laid up in hope for those who have achieved them; the fleshly law holds the foolish in bondage to material pleasures. Thus, while the law of the Spirit remains simple, it illuminates the entire soul, leading it toward virtuous action. Concerning this lamp, the foremost of the apostles says: “We have the prophetic word more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place.” But if it seems good, having passed beyond these meanings as holy things, let us enter into the Holy of Holies. C And I too fear the equine love of the city, lest it bring forth for you something difficult and foreign in time; the hunter, the law, and the corrupter of the human race, I give to the law, to the corrupter.
A bringing the sense into the obedience of Christ, as the Apostle exhorts. For Christ himself is both our lamp and our eye. For the Greek word for lamp, *lychnos*, is etymologized from *lyein ton nychon*, that is, "loosing the darkness." And who else dispersed the gloom of sin and bestowed the light of knowledge upon men, but He who said, "I am the light of the world"? For He is truly the light that illuminates every man coming into the world of virtues. But how He is both our eye and our lamp, the discourse shall demonstrate more clearly. Christ himself is the Head of the fullness of the Church; for thus says the great apostle Paul: "We are His body," and "members of His member." But the most excellent instrument of sensation in the head is the eye. Therefore, in whatever way He is the Head, in that same way He is the Eye, by which the whole body of the Church is illuminated.
Moreover, the lamp is highly comparable to the Incarnation of the Word. For, being God by nature, and having become flesh by dispensation, as light according to substance, He was united incomprehensibly within the earthen vessel of the flesh as if in a lamp, with the soul acting as the wick for the fire, and He appeared as the disperser of the darkness of ignorance. And certainly, the Lord says thus: "No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a vessel," that is to say: No one, having possessed the Word within himself through faith, as a lamp shining upon the mind, covers it over with earthly-mindedness, so that the light of such a lamp B appears inactive—not by its own nature, but by the negligence of him who possesses it. This lamp—I mean the Lord—the prophetic eye of the prophet Zacharias beheld as a torch; for he says: "I saw, and behold, a golden lampstand, and a torch upon it," signifying the Church through the lampstand, and the incarnate God through the torch. For thus also God and Father speaks through Isaiah: "My righteousness shall go forth as light, and my salvation shall burn as a lamp."
Since our nature is receptive to contraries, if we have within ourselves God the Word as a lamp shining upon our rational faculty, we are illuminated; but if we live in sloth and admit a contrary and dark power, we also become darkened by the intimacy of the prince of darkness, like the "tabernacles of Kedar," as the Bride in the Song mentions, having acquired shame. But I see that most excellent deacon weighed down by sleep; for having observed him for a sufficient time, I saw him reeling as if possessed—his gaze C failing, his body needing support, his soul as if fleeing away, and even while alive...
his other arm loosening in sleep, and with trembling fingertips barely touching his cheek. But tell me, what ails you, my good man, weighed down by such untimely drowsiness? Why do you disgrace yourself at a time of instruction by being enslaved to sleep? If you were watching a frenzied woman dancing, or a prostitute singing lewd and obscene verses, you would keep both your eyes and ears wide awake. Yet now, when divine words are being interpreted, the leaden mass of your listlessness makes your eyelids heavy. Wake up, and shake off this deep slumber; or have you not heard in the Acts how, as Paul was teaching at Troas, a young man named Eutychus fell asleep and, falling through a window from the third story, died? This story teaches you that anyone who does not soberly attend to the teaching of the divine oracles falls from the third story of the intellect, cast down through the window. For a window is understood to be the sense; for this is how Jeremiah named the senses when he said, "Death has climbed up through your windows." The three stories are opinion, mind, and understanding. For he who snores during the time of teaching, as if bound by sensible phantasms, falls away from the more sovereign faculties of the soul; and he who falls away from these is not among the living. For sleep is the brother of death, as even those outside the faith believe. Therefore, I B entreat you to attend to the teaching with vigilance and sobriety, so that you may not be condemned as fruitless, and we may not appear to be milking the purest milk of Scripture into the ground in vain, or speaking the word to the deaf. Seal your hearing with action; "For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God," as the Apostle says, "but the doers." And the Lord says, "Blessed are those who hear the word of God, and keep it." Doing this, and having the divine commandment as a lamp illuminating our lives, we shall never journey crookedly, nor shall we make our life’s paths curved, but we shall run straight toward the blessed life in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and power unto the ages. Amen.
Homily L. On the remaining part of: "The lamp of your body is the eye."
Mendicants and the common poor, as they wander about homes obtaining the necessities of life through begging… C D[GREEK COLUMN] ζόμενοι, εἴ που τύχωσι τραπέζης πολυτελούς ὄψοις ἐστιβασμένης, καὶ πληθούσης καρυκευμάτων, καὶ πολλὰ ἐχούσης ἐδώδιμα, τὰς σφῶν γαστέρας ἀφθό- νως κορέσαντες, ἐγκολποῦνται τῆς τραπέζης τὰ λείψανα, τὴν εἰς αὔριον τροφὴν ἐκ τούτων ταμιευό- μενοι. Ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ ἡμᾶς χθὲς ὁ εὐαγγελικὸς λύ- χνος τῷ ποικίλῳ τῶν νοημάτων ἑστιάσας ἐφόρεσεν, ὡς μὴ ἐξισχῦσαι καὶ τῶν ἑξῆς λόγων ἐφάψασθαι, φέρε τῆς χθεσινῆς τραπέζης τὰ λείψανα προθῶμεν σήμερον πρὸς ἑστίασιν· ἱκανὰ γὰρ ταῦτα τῆς τρα- πέζης τὰ ψιχίδια τὰς φιλοθέους κορέσαι ψυχάς. « Οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν. » Καὶ μὴν οὐκ ἀδύνατον ἕνα δουλεύειν δυσί· κοινοὺς γὰρ οἰκέτας ὁρῶμεν πολλούς. Ἀλλ' οὐ περὶ τῶν ἑνὶ στοι- χούντων θελήματι ἐκληπτέον τὴν παροῦσαν ἀπόφα- σιν· εἰ γὰρ εἶεν δύο τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπιτάττοντες, καὶ B μηδὲν ἀλλήλοις ἐναντιούμενοι, οὐ δύο τότε νομίζον- ται κύριοι· ἀλλ᾽ οἱ τὰ ἀντικείμενα ἐπιτάττοντες, οἷς ἀμήχανον ὑποτάσσεσθαι τἀναντία διαπραττομέ- νοις. Τοῦτο δὲ συμβολικῶς ἐπιτάττονται καὶ τὰ πα- λαιὰ διατάγματα. Καὶ πῆ μὲν τὸν ἀμπελῶνα σπεί- ρειν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπονται, πῆ δὲ ἱμάτιον ὑφασμένον ἐκ δυοῖν μὴ ἀμπέχεσθαι, καὶ διὰ τούτων νομοθετοῦντα τὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀμπελῶνα τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως γεωρ- γούμενον καὶ τὸν βότρυν καρποφοροῦντα τὸν νοητόν, οὗ τὸ αἷμα ποτὸν σωτήριον τοῖς πιστεύουσι γίνεται, τοῦτον μὴ κατασπείρειν τοῖς ἐναντίοις σπέρμασιν, οἷς ὁ ἐχθρὸς τὸν ἐσπαρμένον σῖτον ἐνόθευσεν, ὡς ἐν τῇ τῶν ζιζανίων παραβολῇ μεμαθήκαμεν, οὔτε δι- πλοῦν ἱμάτιον ἐνδιδύσκεσθαι, ἐξ ἐναντίων δογμάτων συνυφαινόμενον. Πρὸς γὰρ τῷ ἀπρεπεῖ, καὶ ἀνάρ- μοστον. « Τίς (γάρ) κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος; » Οὐδεὶς οὖν δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν· ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα μισήσει, καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει· ἢ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται, καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει. Ἐπειδὴ παρακατιὼν ὁ λόγος λευκότερον σαφηνίζει τίνες οἱ δύο κύριοι, τὸν Θεὸν εἰπὼν, καὶ τὸν μαμ- μωνᾶ, προσήκει νοεῖν ὡς τὸ μισήσει, καὶ τὸ ἀν- θέξεται, ἐπὶ τοῦ μαμμωνᾶ τέταχε· τὸ δὲ, ἀγαπή- σει, καὶ καταφρονήσει, ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Οἱ γὰρ βδελυ- ροὶ καὶ φαυλόεργοι οὐ μισοῦσι Θεὸν, ἀλλὰ καταφρο- νοῦσι· καὶ οὐκ ἀγαπῶσι τὸν μαμμωνᾶν, ἀλλ' ἀντέχονται. Μαμμωνᾶν δὲ τὸν πλοῦτον ἐκάλεσεν. Οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι τούμπαλιν ἀγαπῶσι τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ μυσάττονται τὸ πλουτεῖν· διὰ τοῦτο τὸ μὲν· « Ἢ τὸν ἕνα μισήσει, καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, » ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν τέτακται· τὸ δὲ, « Ἢ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξε- ται, καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει, » ἐπὶ τῶν φαύ- λων. « Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν· Μὴ μεριμνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑμῶν τί φάγητε, καὶ τί πίητε, μηδὲ τῷ σώ- ματι ὑμῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε. » Καὶ μὴν οὐχ ἡ ψυχὴ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει, ἀλλὰ τὸ σῶμα. Ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ τὸ σῶμα τρεφόμενον συνέχει καὶ τὴν ψυχήν· μὴ τρε- C [LATIN COLUMN] HOMILIA XLIII. [LATIN TRANSLATION] as those who, if ever they chance upon a sumptuous table, heaped with dainties, and abounding in condiments, and full of eatables, having glutted their stomachs without measure, stow away the scraps of the table, storing them up for the next day's food. Since, therefore, the evangelical lamp, having feasted us yesterday with the variety of its thoughts, has finished, so that we have been unable to reach the following words, come, let us set forth today the leavings of yesterday's table for a feast; for these crumbs from that table are enough to satisfy souls that love God. "No one can serve two masters." And yet it is not impossible for one to serve two; for we see many common servants. But this present judgment should not be understood regarding those who follow one will; for if there were two who ordered the same things and did not contradict each other at all, they would not then be reckoned as two masters. But [it refers to] those who command opposing things, to whom it is impossible to be in subjection while performing contraries. This, moreover, the ancient ordinances symbolically command. For in one place, they are not allowed to sow a vineyard, and in another, they are forbidden to wear a garment woven C of two things, and by these [ordinances] they enact that the vineyard of the soul, which is cultivated by faith and brings forth the intelligible cluster — whose blood becomes a saving drink for those who believe — is not to be sown with contrary seeds, with which the enemy has adulterated the sown wheat, as we have learned in the parable of the tares; and that one is not to be clothed in a double garment, woven from contrary dogmas. For besides being unbecoming, it is also highly unfitting. "For what fellowship hath light with darkness?" Therefore no one can serve two masters; "for either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will cleave to the one and despise the other." Since the discourse, proceeding onward, clarifies more clearly who these two masters are, by mentioning God and mammon, one should understand that "hate" and "cleave to" are used in reference to mammon; but "love" and "despise," in reference to God. For the abominable and evil-doers do not hate God, but they despise Him; and they do not love mammon, but they cleave to it. And He called wealth "mammon." But the righteous, on the contrary, love God, and detest being wealthy; for this reason, the words, "Or he will hate the one and love the other," are applied to the good; but the words, "Or he will cleave to the one and despise the other," are applied to the evil. "Therefore I say unto you, be not anxious for your soul, what ye shall eat, and what ye shall drink, nor for your body, what ye shall put on." And yet, it is not the soul that eats and drinks, but the body. But since the body, being fed, also sustains the soul; for with food withheld from the body, the soul also is [necessarily separated] D
A from it; but it seems that the soul finds more pleasure than the body, which is nourished and clothed; therefore he says: “For your soul, what you shall eat.” “Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap, and your heavenly Father feeds them.” Teaching those who are faint-hearted and do not trust in God, and who wear themselves out with futile toils, he took an example from the least of the birds, so that what the sparrows have by nature, we might have by choice. For if he cares for vile little sparrows, of how much care—tell me—will he be for his own image? And he who provided the whole world for you for its sake, how will he be in need of your activity, so that he might supply the things needed for you? What diligence do animals that lack reason apply in providing the necessities of life? Which fields are the sparrows’? Which barns have the ravens? Do you wish to hear whence the provision of life is granted to them? Listen to the Psalm: “Who gives food to the beasts, and to the young ravens that call upon him.” We say that God cares for the birds, inasmuch as he grants them the knowledge whence they might seek their food. And by these things, he seems to summon to our memory the way of life that the progenitors of our race once lived in paradise, which was free from B care and devoid of any complexity. In a more elegant sense, one might understand the “birds of the air” to be those who, through the purity of their life, have their mind fixed in heaven and are lifted up by the wings of virtue; those who “neither sow to the flesh, nor reap corruption.” “For he who sows to the flesh,” says the Apostle, “will from the flesh reap corruption.” Neither do they “gather into barns,” where moth and rust are produced, and where thieves and robbers break in, whom the heavenly Father nourishes with heavenly bread, that is, with the word of his mouth. “For which of you is able to add one cubit to his stature?” Consider the breadth of this evangelical wisdom, how much a brief statement has encompassed. For by these words he restrains those who dissipate themselves in vain pursuits because of their desires, and prohibits untimely anxiety; and perhaps this is what the enigma of Moses the Lawgiver wishes to signify: “Whoever walks upon his hands is unclean, and whoever has many feet is unclean.” By the first, he obscurely hinted at him who has the hope of life placed in his own hands; but he said that he who pursues things around the body, and wears himself out in superfluous things, has many feet. He called both, therefore, unclean—and deservedly so. For nature seeks bread and clothing, which supply what is lacking to the body, which Jacob also prayed for, saying: C “If God my father will look upon me, and give me bread and clothing.” Thus, also in prayer, the Savior exhorts us not to ask for more of worldly things than to receive the daily bread, not luxury, and the varied splendor of cooks, nor flowering purple garments. D [index: entries preserved]
and a bed inlaid with gold; for these are of the sowing of tares. By what artifices of cooks was the great Elias nourished while living in the mountains? Was it not by herbs and water? Or what variety of garments did he wear? Was not the sheepskin mantle A more precious to him than royal purple, by which also he parted the streams of the Jordan? And was not the new Elias, John, greatest among those born of women, venerable and renowned, though he fed on locusts and wild honey, and was covered with camel’s hair? And why are you anxious about clothing? Observe the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. Just as, when exhorting us not to be anxious about food, He had taken the birds as an example, so also about clothing He makes His demonstration from those things which quickly wither, B saying as it were: Why do you busy yourself about your clothing, plotting for the purple dye, and the brightness of fine linen, and the redness of scarlet? And when you have busied yourself with everything, you do not even find things that harmonize with the humble lily for our substance; the "daily" (epiousion) coming upon our substance and food is sufficient.
HOMILY XLIII.
...we receive; not luxury, not the various delicacies of cooks, not shining purples, not an inlaid bed; for these things are from the tares which the enemy sowed. By what artifices of cooks was that great Elias nourished, when he led his life in the mountains? Was it not by herbs and water? Or with what variety of garments was he clothed? Was not a mantle A made of goatskins 96 more precious to him than royal purple, by which he even divided the streams of Jordan? But the new Elias, John, I say, [though he] lived on locusts and wild honey, and was covered with hair of camels, was he not venerable and celebrated?
* * *
B And concerning clothing, why are you anxious? Observe the lilies of the field, how they grow; they do not labor, nor do they spin; but I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed like one of these. As he warned us not to be anxious about food, [he] brought birds as an example, so also when speaking about clothing, he makes an argument from those things which quickly fade, saying as it were: Why do you curiously seek out clothing? Why [do you seek] the purple color of the conch 97, the splendor of fine linen, and the redness of scarlet, C which is enough for our substance. And it agrees with Suidas, who explains *supersubstantialem*... I have translated as it is translated by the ancient author of our Vulgate edition; nor did any reason appear why I should dissent from that received interpretation; for this Father signifies the same thing here, as is signified by those words of Christ teaching us to pray. Moreover, that difficulty of this word, which can be drawn from a double origin, namely *ousia* which means substance or essence, from which St. Jerome translates *supersubstantialem*, and others *consubstantialem*, as if it were the same as [the Greek], or D from the participle which is *epienai* and signifies to arrive, and to be present, from which it is derived, just as when it is said by Greek writers "the arriving day is at hand," and thus it is the same as "daily" (*quotidianus*), "today's" (*hodiernus*), which we ask for for the coming day, and the imminent meal, or *ousia* [essence], which is approved by no one more, and by which our version is defended; this difficulty, I say, is not peculiar to this place, but to that of chapter VI of Matthew, for the more ready expounding of which one should see the interpreters Maldonado, Cornelius, and others.
A being able to liken your clothing to the field. For not even Solomon in all his glory attained this. If then that which you have acquired with curiosity and with effort cannot even match the herb which quickly withers, why do you not fill the lack of the body with things that are easily obtainable? By the lily, he indicates the soul that possesses nothing and is free from care, which the departure from material things adorns, the radiance of temperance makes white, and piety renders fragrant. For the lily, rising high from the earth, brings forth the flower after the manner of a reed from its summit. Such are those souls that have raised themselves above earthly things. And just as the lily is admired in this, in bearing beauty and fragrance, so the soul has perfection in these two things: both in the faithful keeping of the dogmas and in the observance of the commandments. And perhaps the praise in the Song of Songs is of such a soul: "As a lily among thorns, so is my sister among the daughters." For the pure soul, growing in the midst of the thorns of life, rises above all. He rightly added, "Not even Solomon was clothed as one of these lilies," for that man, who had become renowned in wisdom, did not acquire the purity of temperance. B "If then the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, God so clothes." Just as by the lily he hinted at the virtuous, so by the grass he implies those who are subject to the passions of the mind, and who perform deeds worthy of the eternal fire, which he called an oven. But by another account, he called the soul the lily, and the body the grass of the field; for the body, which flourishes like grass in the spring of youth, is placed in the summer of old age into the oven of the tomb. That our body has been likened to grass, Isaiah also declared, saying: "All flesh is grass." And it seems to me that Isaiah, and the example of the Gospel, by the image of grass, rather honor than disparage the misery of our nature, since it is by much worse than grass; for grass has nothing naturally unpleasant, but our body is a workshop of odor and unpleasantness, turning all that it takes in toward corruption and waste. Therefore David did not call man grass, but... C D [index: entries preserved]
like grass. A For he says: "Man, like grass, are his days." How is it then that we do not blush, nor are we humbled, looking upon our own nature, but instead become full of pride, swelling like a bubble? One man prides himself on his youth, and looking at the flower of his age, he preens himself in his beauty; another trusts in his wealth; another is haughty because of his lineage, and lifts his eyebrow against those of low birth, ignoring that true nobility is known to be characterized not by blood, but by virtue. For this carnal [lineage] is related to the grass, which quickly withering, goes off to nothingness. Considering these things, beloved, let us learn to be humble-minded, looking toward the end of this fleeting life, so that we may not, like grass, be delivered to the furnace of unquenchable fire, from which may it be granted to us all to be rescued, and to obtain eternal goods in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and power unto the ages of ages. Amen.
Homily XLIV: Concerning the Centurion
The wicked one contends against good works, always seeking to damage that which is most noble. Therefore, even today, having stirred up against us a contentious legal dispute, he hastened to confuse our gathering and to interrupt the word of instruction, having entered completely into that senseless and half-barbarous man. But you, B appearing not unacquainted with his artifices, quite prudently thwarted his design, rushing to the church and leaving that untimely bawler and babbler to go mad by himself, you applied yourselves to the didactic word.
"At that time, when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion approached him." Since the Lord, by filling Judea with miracles, was inciting greater envy against himself in the souls of the unlettered—who, according to the voice of Isaiah, "put light as darkness and sweet as bitter"—he now shares the grace of miracles with the nations; C at once showing that he had come for the salvation of the whole world, and at the same time, through the faith of the nations, D more clearly rebuking the unbelief of the Jews.
of the nations, most evidently proving their faith; for the nations are somehow more ready, and inclined in great measure toward believing in Christ. For see how diametrically opposed are the stubbornness of the Jews and the readiness of the nations. For the former even pursued Him with insults; but the Syrophoenician woman, being from the nations, called herself unworthy of grace, and implored that she might be reckoned in the rank of whelps and partake of the crumbs from the table of the Jews, which they utterly rejected. And this centurion, in the same way, judges himself altogether unworthy to receive the Lord under his roof. For this reason, those reaped the rewards of their unbelief, and these enjoyed the grace, having been justified by faith. But let us take up the beginning of the narrative again. At that time, A «When Jesus had entered Capharnaum, there came unto Him a centurion, beseeching Him, and saying.» B The divine Luke, in recounting this miracle, does not say that the centurion came in person and made the request, but that he sent elders of the Jews to entreat the Lord regarding this matter. But this shows no disagreement to those who attend with a fair mind. For those sent by him are present in the person of the one who sent them, and no handle for the fault-finder appears from this, because one says that the centurion himself came, while Luke says others were the ministers of the request. For the thing that the evangelists were zealous for was to declare the miracle with truth, not to be overly precise about the matters that preceded the miracle. C Nor is there anything to prevent us from thinking that both things happened. For the centurion imagined, out of respect, that since he was a Gentile and an alien, Christ would refuse his request. He decided, therefore, to send legates separately at first; but when he heard of the promptness of the promise, taking courage, he came himself. Now, therefore, the Savior begins the preludes of the Resurrection, and He healed limbs and parts that were previously afflicted. D And since the nature of man is divided into male and female, He bestows the benefit upon both genders. For both, man and woman, had fallen away from the commandment, and both have obtained the benefit. He heals him who was paralyzed in his nerves and whose bodily frame was dissolved; but He did not leave the woman bent over and inclining to the earth without attention. He delivered many from the frantic rage of demons; but He also healed the daughter of the Canaanite, who was harassed by demons; He snatched Zacchaeus from the injustices committed in the tax-collecting, but also the lascivious harlot from the stench of [...]
sin He cleansed. Simon the Pharisee calls the Lord to a feast; but Martha also received Him into her house. He heals the centurion’s child, delivering him from the illness; but by also sternly rebuking the fever that was burning Simon’s mother-in-law, He made such a removal of the evil that He invigorated her for serving, though she had already been expected to die. A You will see Him raising up from the dead both the son of the widow, and also the daughter of Jairus. And a band of disciples followed Him, but also women ministered, having become apostles of the resurrection. Do you see that the blessings of the common Lord and Creator are also common? Since some had reached such a point of shamelessness as to say that woman is not properly a human being, but a part of a human being, as having been fashioned from the side of the man, He bridles through these things the unbridled impulses of the tongues of his accusers, showing that both man and woman have equal power over virtue and vice. But these things have been said in passing; let us now resume the sacred words themselves. «Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.» B Observe how he was at the very gates of death; for he was lying in the house, so that he could not even be brought to the Lord. Luke declares this more explicitly, adding that he was about to die. Some, indeed, say that for this reason they did not even bring him carrying him on a pallet, lest he should die while being carried, as he was already expected to die; but to me it seems that it was not for this reason that they did not bring him, but because the centurion was persuaded that the Lord could heal even while absent. And this is evident from what he said: «Speak the word, and my servant shall be healed.» Jesus says to him: «I will come and heal him.» Why did He comply so easily, and bring on the healing immediately, although He was not accustomed to do this in other cases? For He rebukes the father of the lunatic child who was falling at His knees and asking for the healing of the sufferer, calling them first a faithless and perverse generation. And to the Canaanite woman who was emotionally begging on behalf of her daughter, He said: «It is not right to take the bread from the children and give it to the dogs.» But in the present case, as soon as He heard that «My servant is lying at home paralyzed, and is hastening towards healing.» C Why? Because He who searches the hearts and reaches unto the intentions of the soul, knew how great the centurion’s faith was. He measures the grace, therefore, according to the faith, and promises the healing immediately; so that the fervent piety of the Gentile might be shown to the Jews who followed. D
A For as soon as he saw the Savior proceeding on his way, he was struck with terror and dismayed at the thought of receiving God into his house, saying: "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof; but say the word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, having soldiers under myself; and I say to this one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it."
The meaning of what he says is this: If I, who serve under Caesar and obey his commands, yet by a word alone command the soldiers subject to me, so that no one dares to resist when dismissed, nor to refrain from coming when called, how can you, who are not under authority, but possess all things by the sovereign power of your own divinity, not be able to command if you so wish, and the servant be healed by your order? That his words were not woven out of flattery, nor tainted by the baseness of sycophancy, the Savior himself bore witness, declaring his faith to be firmer than that of all Israel, and adding: "As thou hast believed, so let it be done unto thee."
B The Savior, knowing that these were the holy first-fruits of the nations called through the Gospel, and foreseeing through this centurion those who would come to him, predicts what was to be: "Many shall come from the east and west, and shall recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." For since he did not find such faith in Israel, he now summons the nations from the ends of the earth; the ungrateful people have departed from their intimacy with him, and the nations, having been justified by faith, have been brought in. C This is the reason why he says they shall recline with Abraham, as they have emulated the faith of that patriarch. But those who were called sons—I mean those of the Jewish people—"shall be cast into the outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
They shall be cast out, he says, from the kingdom; they shall be pushed away from the priesthood, and from those very holy places and the legal sacrifices to which they were accustomed. They shall exchange the darkness of ignorance for the divine light, and the weeping of repentance for the joy born of union with God; and they shall gnash the teeth of their souls in vain, hungering for divine nourishment. The future punishment of the wicked is termed "outer darkness," because the twofold operation of fire is to be divided at that time; to the righteous the light will be returned, pure and devoid of the quality of burning, while to the wicked will be allotted that which has the power of burning and is devoid of light. And these are called the outer D darkness, or rather the inner ones; for even here, as it were, in...
Homily LI
HOMILY XLIII.
A Persons who, when they happen upon a sumptuous table piled high with dainties and abounding in condiments and filled with many edibles, have satisfied their bellies abundantly, tuck away the remnants of the table, storing them up as food for the morrow. Since, therefore, the evangelical lamp yesterday also sated us, having entertained us with a variety of meanings, to such an extent that we were unable to grasp the succeeding words, come, let us set forth today the remnants of yesterday's table for a banquet; for these crumbs from the table are sufficient to satisfy souls that love God.
« No one can serve two masters. » B And yet, it is not impossible for one person to serve two; for we see many common servants. But we must not interpret the present utterance regarding those who obey the will of one. If there were two who commanded the same things and in no way dissented from one another, they would not then be considered two masters; but rather those who command opposite things, to whom it is impossible to be subject while doing contrary things. This is also symbolically enjoined by the ancient statutes. For in one place they are forbidden to sow a vineyard, and in another they are forbidden to wear a garment woven from two materials, C and through these laws they decree that the vineyard of the soul, which is cultivated by faith and brings forth the spiritual grape cluster, the blood of which becomes a saving drink for those who believe, should not be sown with contrary seeds, with which the enemy adulterated the sown wheat, as we have learned in the parable of the tares; nor should one put on a double garment, obviously one that is woven from contrary dogmas. For besides being unseemly, it is also inappropriate. « For what communion has light with darkness? »
« No one, therefore, can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. » D Since the discourse proceeding further clarifies more clearly who these two masters are, naming God and mammon, it is fitting to understand that "he will hate" and "he will hold to" is set with reference to mammon; but "he will love" and "he will despise" with reference to God. For the abominable and base-doing people do not hate God, but despise Him; and they do not love mammon, but they hold to it. Now, he called wealth "mammon." But the righteous, conversely, love God and loathe being rich; for this reason, that which is written: « Or he will hate the one and love the other, » is set of the good; but that which is written: « Or he will hold to the one, and despise the other, » of the base. « Therefore I say to you, do not be anxious for your soul, what you shall eat, and what you shall drink, nor for your body, what you shall put on. » And yet, the soul does not eat and drink, but the body. But since the body, being nourished, sustains also the soul; if food is withdrawn from the body, the soul also is separated or departs.
[alt-version omitted]
A And since this stands thus, if anyone wishes to emulate this centurion, he will say to this one: "Go, and he goes." What is this one? It is that concerning which the Lord said to the disciples: "You shall say unto this mountain, Be taken up, and it shall be taken up," B indicating that lunatic demon. And when this one has withdrawn, he will call not the same one, but the one pleasing to him. For the ally of wickedness being driven away, the soldier of justice enters in his place, putting on the breastplate of justice and the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit. And then the servant, the body, fears its master, the mind, and performs the fitting service, so that the minding of the flesh no longer rises up against the spirit. For it is impossible, while the opposing soldier is present, for the body to yield to the temperate reason. Wherefore, brothers, as long as we are centurions—that is, surpassing many in wickedness—and are enslaved to Caesar, C the devil who governs the world, even if we have acquired the praiseworthy fear, let us be ashamed to receive the grace of theology, as being unworthy to take it. But if we should become such that we are able to send away the passionate reasonings, to bring in the virtues in their place into the soul, and to subject the body to the life according to God, then each one of us also can confidently say: "I have soldiers under me, and I say to the wicked one, Go, and he goes; and to the good one, Come, and he comes; and to my body, Perform the work of virtue, and it performs it," in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and power unto the ages of the ages. Amen.
HOMILY XLV. Concerning the rich man who questioned Jesus.
D Just as it is accustomed to happen regarding perfumes made from roses and the composition of sweet-smelling flowers; for if these are provided to turtledoves or doves, it makes them more robust, but the corpse-eating vultures are immediately destroyed by the contact of the perfume; for their nature, having become attuned to the foul-smelling and corrupt, feels disgust at that which is fragrant and turns away: something similar also happens concerning the doctrinal word, which, being poured out for all in common, does not work the same thing in all; but as many as have the continence of the turtledoves or the simplicity of the doves, these are nourished by the fragrance of the teaching [and perceive the psychical benefit]. [index: entries preserved]
But those who have corrupted their own nature with the foul odor of envy, these, like vultures or beetles, turn away from the incense of the teaching. A But to what end was I looking when I used this example? Since the rebuke that took place among us yesterday, common to all, became a correction to those who were sensible and prudent; but as for those whose character was corrupt and beyond correction, these, far from being improved, even inclined toward greater impudence. But we shall heal the disease of the latter with sharper medicines, God helping, and with more austere censures we shall bring their numbed state to consciousness. You, however, who with a sober mind have chosen what is better and have run to the B assembly, listen to the evangelical words. "At that time, a certain man approached Jesus, kneeling before him, and saying: 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?'" This man who was present, being a man of hidden thoughts and imitating the reefs under the water, does not approach with a good intention to inquire, but thinking to convict the Lord as doing things contrary to the Law. He approaches, therefore, in a hypocritical guise, babbling with flattering speech, and trying to deceive Him who is unerring. "Good Teacher." You see the poison of hypocrisy tempered with the honey of flattery. And perhaps this is what David sang in the Psalms in the person of Christ: "To me they spoke peaceful things, and in their anger they plotted deceits." C But he missed his hope, and was caught in the trap which he hid. For He who enters even to the marrow of the soul, recognizing the treachery of his mind and his hidden nature—"Why," He says, "do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone." But here again arise the disciples of the evil one, the lacerators of divine words, the hunters of phrases, the abusers of true knowledge, who attempt with their chatter to cast the Only-Begotten Son of God from the paternal thrones of natural goodness, saying: "Jesus Himself denied that He was God, when He reproved D the one who called Him good; 'Why,' He says, 'do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.'"
HOMILY XLV
[alt-version omitted]
(Note: As this is a new page, and there is no preceding text to serve as the anchor, the following represents the start of the translation for this page based on the provided text.)
A God, rebuking him who called Him good: "Why," He says, "do you call me good? No one is good except one, God." But the reasoning of these men is utterly rotten, and reveals its own ugliness. For it was necessary to observe, if they were free from envy, that by this He does not deny that He is good—for how could He, who called both a man and a tree good? "The good man brings forth from his treasure things new and old; and: "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit." Therefore, He does not deny that He is good, but He convicts the man of hypocrisy, and reveals the fox-like skin with which he had cloaked his question, as if saying: How do you name Him good whom you consider a mere man? How do you call Him good, if you have come to deceive Him with words? And how do you flatter Him, whom you suspect to be contrary to Moses? Why do you not come to fight openly, but instead lay an ambush with flattery? "No one is good except one, God." If, therefore, you confess that I am good, believe that I am also God. If you name me a mere man, capable of being deceived by your words, do not even call me good. Looking toward this, the Lord said: "No one is good except one, God." B But He uncovers yet another consideration. For if God alone is good, how does Scripture call Samuel a good and wise child, and "good is Saul the son of Kish"? And Elkanah, comforting his wife Hannah, who was despondent over her childlessness, says: "Am I not better to you than ten children?" And the Psalm: "Do good, O Lord, to the good, and to those who are upright in heart." But the Gospel speaks of that goodness which is so in the primary sense, which exists solely with God. For all other things that are naturally good have participated in goodness by grace, just as also in holiness, and justice, and piety, and the other goods which each of the things that exist has received, insofar as the nature of the receiver could contain it. "No one, therefore, is good except one, God." And if it is necessary to add, as it were, some seasoning to the discourse for the sake of those who attend to such things, there exists a certain communion between both names, of "God" and "good." For if anyone counts the units of the letters, he will clearly find them equal in both, amounting to two hundred and eighty-four. God good; looking toward this, the Lord said: "No one is good except one, God"; self-good is of equal numerical value...
A of each name. But this is perhaps more curious. Come, let us also consider the next phrase. "Jesus says to him: 'You know the commandments? You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness.'" He indeed thought he would hear some other doctrine, so that he might have something to accuse [against the Lord]; but the Savior, although He could have avoided his snares in another way, sets forth the usage of Moses. It is necessary, however, to observe this too: why He does not state all the commandments, but passes over the first ones and mentions those that follow. For the Decalogue of the Law begins: "You shall love the Lord your God, and your neighbor as yourself." B Next, it forbids the rendering of worship to alien gods: "For there shall not be," He says, "other gods." Then He enacts the observance of the Sabbath day. But the Savior, having passed over these, proceeds to the later ones. Why? Because, as He was conversing with Jews, He deemed it superfluous to say: "You shall love the Lord your God," and "There shall not be for you other gods." For this was, as it were, supposedly observed by him; but the "Keep the Sabbath day" He passes over as being without gain. He recounts, however, those things by which the nature of men is accustomed to be overcome for the most part. And very fittingly the law joined adultery to murder. For just as he who kills separates the soul from the body, so those who are C destroyers of alien marriages, and who tear apart the harmony of life, separate the affection of the woman from the conjunction with the man; and those whom God joined into one flesh, these the sword of adultery cuts asunder. "You shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness." It is a terrible thing to steal what belongs to others, but it is all-terrible to construct false witness against someone, and to be seen as a slanderer, and a mimic of the ancient one. For slander humbles a man, as some wise man said. The slanderer is not far from the murderer. For this reason David also prays to be delivered from the slander of men. Next He places the honor toward parents: "Honor your father and your mother." He did not say, "Love," but "Honor." Why? Because nature itself D has placed affection toward those who gave birth in such a vehement and strong way, that even in the irrational [animals]... Let murderers and adulterers be punished according to the same standard. Slander disturbs the wise man and destroys the heart of his nobility. To love, if [we distinguish] love or to be fond, if [we distinguish] by fondness, to love... to cherish, to be fond.
A to experience its force; yet, by its nature, worship is doctrinal and requires legislation. What then does he reply to these things, who deemed himself an observer of the law? "All these I have kept from my youth." Therefore, the Savior, seeing him practiced in the commandments of the law, leads him by [His] word toward gospel perfection, showing that the Gospel originates from the law, and that the doctrines are neighbors to one another; for the commandment "You shall not commit adultery" is akin to "You shall not covet," and to "You shall not kill" is akin "You shall not be angry." Indirectly and with great skill, He strips bare the soul's love of riches. For, omitting all else, He proposes that which most of all could have grieved him: "Sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me."
B Here that serpent, who from the beginning slandered God to man, again hisses dreadfully through the impious and abominable tongue of Julian. For he, wishing to show Christ's counsel to be futile, tricks himself with a hypothetical syllogism in this way: If all people, he says, obeying this counsel, were to choose to sell what they have and distribute it to the poor, who then would be the one buying these things, if everyone were selling according to the proposed hypothesis? You have heard the raving of the sophist of iniquity; come, let us crush the teeth of the lie with the cornerstone of truth. For if Jesus, who urges the selling of possessions, were not God, the statement of this sophism might perhaps have a place. But since He was God, from whom nothing of what will be is hidden, it is manifest that He knew that not all would grasp this word, nor would the majority reach for this perfection; yet, not for this reason shall the way of salvation be hindered. For of Christian doctrines and commandments, some are acted upon as obligations, while others are by voluntary offering. C For to believe rightly, to love one's neighbor, not to bear malice toward enemies, not to steal, not to commit adultery, and all that the legal commandments contain, these must out of necessity be kept; for by transgressing these, we are judged. However, virginity, celibacy, poverty, and withdrawal, and to turn the other cheek to one who strikes, and to willingly strip off the cloak for the one taking the tunic, and to magnanimously distribute one's possessions to the poor—these, if kept, lead the one who practices them toward perfection; but if one should be lacking in these, yet be a keeper of the necessary commands and doctrines, he is not outside the number of the saved. For this reason, He did not say concerning the others: "If you wish, do not steal, do not kill," since one was bound to keep these things necessarily. But concerning those which act as a gift of voluntary choice, D "If you wish," He says...
A freed; but He also cleansed the lustful harlot from the foul-smelling stench of sin. Simon the Pharisee calls the Lord to a feast; but Martha also received Him into her house. He heals the centurion's boy, delivering him from his disease; but by rebuking the fever violently as it burned Simon's mother-in-law, He made such a recovery from the evil that she was strengthened to serve, even though she was already expected to die. You shall see Him raising the dead: both the widow's son and Jairi's daughter. A band of disciples followed Him, but women also served Him, having become apostles of the resurrection. Do you see that the benefits of the common Lord and Creator are also common? For since some proceeded to such a point of shamelessness as to say that woman is not properly a human being, but a part of a human being, as having been fashioned from the side of the man, He bridles B through these things the unbridled impulses of the tongues of his detractors, showing that both man and woman exercise self-mastery equally over virtue and vice. But these things have been said in passing; let us return to the sacred words themselves. "Lord, my boy is lying in the house paralyzed, suffering terribly." Observe indeed how he was on the very brink of death; for he was lying in the house, unable even to be brought to the Lord. Luke shows this more clearly, adding that he was about to die. Some say that for this reason they did not even bring him carrying him on a cot, in case he should die while being carried, being as he was already expected to die; but to me it seems that he was not brought not for this reason, but because the centurion was persuaded that the Lord is able to heal even when absent. And this is evident from what he said: "Say the word, and my boy will be healed." Jesus says to him, "I will come and heal him." Why did He agree so easily, and bring on the cure immediately, although He was not accustomed to do this in other cases? For He rebukes the father of the lunatic boy who was falling to his knees and begging for the healing of the one suffering, calling them an unbelieving and perverse generation. And to the Canaanite woman who was begging with great feeling for her daughter, He said: "It is not right to take the bread from the children and give it to the dogs." But in the present case, as soon as He heard that "my boy is lying in the house paralyzed," He hastens to the healing. For what reason? Because He who searches hearts and reaches even to the thoughts of the soul, knew how great the centurion's faith was. He measures the grace, therefore, according to the faith, and promises the cure immediately; so that C thus the fervent piety of a Gentile man might shame D the Jews.
HOMILY LIII
is the food of those devoid of reason. But he who ascends toward that which is more spiritual in the Word, is nourished with heavenly bread. Let us not suppose, even here, that we are speaking of the camel in a literal sense. For if the discourse concerned the animal, he would not have called that which is altogether impossible, "easier." For it would have been more consistent to say that it is as impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle as it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God. But now, the expression "easier" prompts us to consider something more profound. It is not appropriate, therefore, to understand it as the camel, nor as the ship's cable, as some of the interpreters have supposed. What then is it that we grasp? They say that the animal, the camel, retains an indelible memory of an injury against one who has struck it severely, and spends its entire life watching for the opportunity to take vengeance on the one who harmed it. Just as it is the custom of Scripture to name those who are prone to passions according to the natural properties of irrational creatures—calling the shameless person a dog, the lustful person a horse, the greedy person a wolf, and the deceitful in character a fox—so too [the Lord] likens the one who is vengeful to the camel. For the passions of animals are nature for them, but when imitated by man, they become passions of the soul. The needle, for its part, may appropriately be understood as the didactic Word, which connects things that are divided, brings things into unity, and adorns the soul out of various virtues as if with a single garment, binding them into one with the cord of love. The eye of this needle is the narrow and afflicted gate, regarding which the Savior says: "Narrow is the gate which leadeth unto life." He says, therefore, that it is easier for a man who is prone to vengeance to enter through [the path of] perfection than for a rich man. Why so? Because all that malice is dissolved when the hated person or object is removed; and, the fuel being taken away, the passion is, as it were, extinguished. And in this way, a man freed from the memory of wrongs might be able to take hold of virtue and be established in perfection. But the love of riches, and being always consumed with the desire for possessions, is a very great evil, and one that is scarcely dissolved even by death.
NOTES OF FRANCISCUS SCORSUS
(26) *A*...that the Lord's Word significabit (shall signify)... (The remainder of the notes, from *D*...*sensus mysticus*... to the end, are largely critical observations on the allegorical interpretation of the camel provided by the homilist, acknowledging the allegorical method as common but suggesting the literal sense is more congruent with the Evangelist's intent.)
[COLUMNS 927/928]
for the imperfect in us, it lives on, and the Herod of the flesh reigns; for the flesh is subject to passions, and signifies in its etymology 25 that which is skin, through which the earthly affection is foreshadowed, which, as it were, kills the masculine and manly thoughts of virtue; nay, even it attempts to slay the word of virtue born within us; then, certainly, one must flee into Egypt, that is, into the laborious exercise of virtue. For when we are engaged in this, we render the appetites of the flesh ineffective. When the conscience has been stripped and worn down by these things, and the mind of the flesh, and the members which are upon the earth, have been mortified, then it is fitting to return, as it were, from Egypt to Jerusalem, that is, to transfer the mind to contemplation from the laborious practice of the virtues. For when the passions of the soul have been mortified, why should we any longer linger in the study of practice? Why not rather hasten to attain the contemplation, whose act serves as a foundation? And we are indeed translated from labor altogether, from contemplation as from action, from Egypt to Jerusalem, where the four principal virtues certainly exist, which, like fountains and mothers, others are, and of which we have rightly perfected the duties: to which, indeed, as regards conduct, one is raised, as much as one is able to receive 359 of the superessential knowledge 26, and to the blessed Trinity, to whom it is fitting that all honor, and hymnody, and magnificence be rendered, for ever and ever. Amen.
HOMILY LIII
On the Annunciation to the most holy Mother of God.
Today the Church is mystically enlightened, and is set ablaze, celebrating the first of all the festivals. Today the partition wall of enmity begins to be dissolved 50, and heaven is mystically joined with the earth. Today that ancient, sad reproach of the angel is turned into joy, and the old severity and sorrow are dispelled. Today the Virgin Mary succeeds to the Seraphic thrones, bearing in an ineffable manner Him who is carried by them. Today the mystery of Him is shown to be fulfilled, when the fire of Divinity is implicitly contained within the dry rod 51. This festival, therefore, exists as the crown of all festivals, and embraces many mysteries. We, however, pressed by the shortness of time, will explain to you, as you are lovers of God, the questions from the Gospel in brief 52.
[*] In those days Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias, conceived [*]
[alt-version omitted]
[COLUMNS 927/928 continued at the bottom, left column]
...for in the perfect, He appears perfect. The history advises that when Christ is an infant in us—that is, when we bear the word of virtue in us as yet imperfect, and the Herod of the mindset of the flesh lives and reigns; for the flesh is subject to passions, and is interpreted as "leathern skin," through which the earthly mindset is figuratively represented, which kills the masculine infants, the manly thoughts of virtue I say, and seeks to kill the word of virtue in us—then we must flee into Egypt, that is, into the practical struggle against passions. Becoming engaged in this, we render the desires of the flesh ineffective. When the conscience has been stripped and worn down, and the mindset of the flesh and the members that are upon the earth have been mortified, then we cross over as from Egypt to Jerusalem, that is, from the practical struggle to the vision, and we transfer the mind. Having been purified from the passions, it is foolish to linger in the practical, and not to hasten to grasp the vision, the result of which is action. We surely reach B the Jerusalem of vision as from the Egypt of practice, clearly having attained the four cardinal virtues, which are as it were fountains and mothers of the others, and through which the mind is ethically guided and led up to the, as far as possible, contemplation of the superessential and blessed Trinity, to whom is fitting all honor, and hymnody, and magnificence, to the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY LIII
On the Annunciation to the most holy Theotokos.
Today the Church is mystically lighted and set on fire, celebrating the first of the feasts. Today the partition C wall of enmity begins to be dissolved, and heaven is mystically joined to the earth. Today the joyful angelic greeting replaces the sad one of old, and ancient gloom vanishes. Today the Virgin Mary succeeds to the Seraphic thrones, bearing Him who is carried upon them in an ineffable manner. Today the mystery of the bush is shown to be fulfilled, since by nature it is touched by the fire of Deity. As the crown of all the feasts, it contains many mysteries. But we, because of the urgency of the hour, will explain to your God-loving ears what lies in the middle of these brief Gospel questions.
[*] In those days Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias, conceived [*] D
A a double chalice, tempering the memory of an ancient fear with the solemn festival of the martyr Demetrius, so that we may simultaneously rejoice by celebrating the feast, and be humbled by the recollection of the threat of the earthquake. And may neither the joy be dissolute, nor the fear be without hope of salvation. Since, therefore, at the morning hours we have learned the athletic consummation of the martyr from the records, and have received in our ears the reason for the commemoration of the earthquake from the histories, come now, let us also examine the words of the Gospel: At that time, "When Jesus had entered a boat, his disciples followed him." Having worked many miracles on land, and having shown the divine power that was in him to his disciples, in order that they might not be disturbed in their minds, as if he were able to work wonders only on the earth, he enters finally with them into a boat, and crosses the paths of the sea, demonstrating clearly through the miracle, "That the sea is his, and he made it," as the Psalm remembers. When the voyage was opportune, and a favorable wind was pressing, and the spirit was blowing at the stern, and the ship was speeding and cutting the liquid path very well, the Savior himself, resting upon the decks, was sleeping indeed in the body, but with that all-seeing and sleepless eye he was beholding the sea stirred by the spirits. "And behold, a great earthquake occurred in the sea." It seems, indeed, improbable B that an earthquake should occur in the middle of the sea. [alt-version omitted] C [The note regarding the Great Martyr George and the earthquake of the sea is here omitted as a marginal addition.] D [The note regarding the provenance, the manuscript history, and the scholarly apparatus of the Homilies is here omitted.]
[GREEK COLUMN] [LATIN COLUMN] of the ship; for so the holy Mark says, that "The waves beat into the ship," A so that it was now filling. For if even the fact of it occurring were to be granted, it was yet imperceptible to those sailing, the earthquake’s shaking hiding the swirling [of the sea]. More accurately, therefore, the other evangelists say that a whirlwind of wind descended. But because what an earthquake is on land, that are storms and whirlwinds on the sea, the divine Matthew abused the word, declaring the like by the like. And a whirlwind is called a violent wind, as if a clod [of earth] were falling into the sea, not indeed directly, but overturning the waves by its weight in the manner of a whirlpool, so that the water, being weighed down by the impact, is pushed upward into foam, which also happened then; for from a clean, clear sky a haze darkened the air, and the sky had become cloudy. But a terrible whirlwind falling upon it overturned the boat, so that it was near to becoming submerged. And we certainly do not say that he himself caused the disturbance of the sea, wishing to frighten the disciples, but the surge occurred by the natural sequence of the winds being stirred up; while he, though able to hinder it, nevertheless allowed the elements to perform their customary acts, bringing the disciples into greater faith. "But he was sleeping." Since he foresaw the surge that was about to occur, he gives permission to the winds during his sleep to disturb the sea. For if he had been awake, either the uprising of the winds would not have happened, or if it had, he would have stilled the disturbance from the beginning, or if he had not done so, it might have seemed to them that he was powerless. And perhaps they would not even have had recourse to supplication had he been awake; but now, by the pretext of sleep, these things followed. While the wind was roaring, and the wave was being churned, and the current was resounding, and the foam was boiling around, and the rowing had ceased, and the vessel was filled with water— B [The Greek text glosses “earthquake” (σεισμός), noting it is used for a sea-storm by analogy: "And he produced this suffering, which we are accustomed to call an earthquake (σεισμός) of the earth, a movement having occurred... It seems incredible that a movement should occur in the middle of the sea. But a whirlwind and vortex is a violent wind, spiraling from below upwards; a storm (καταιγίς) of the violent winds is a wind striking suddenly from above; storm (καταιγίς) from whirlwind, due to the aegis (αἰγίς). But from ἀΐσσω (to rush), meaning moving, and making rotations of the winds as they move; storms are the winds."]
"]
A of the vessel; for thus the holy Mark says, as "The waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full." The disciples, having despaired utterly, and having given up hope for their own lives, and having become terrified, trembling, and agitated with horror, awakened the Lord, saying, "Lord, save us, we perish." And yet it behooved them to consider that even while sleeping bodily, He could save them divinely; but they were therefore imperfect, and infantile in their minds, "Lord, save us, we perish." See in the words a certain interweaving of disbelief and faith. For "Lord, save us" shows a suitable faith; but "We perish" accuses the great faintheartedness and listlessness of the disciples. For to suspect entirely that they would fall into danger while Christ was with them revealed manifest disbelief; and the Lord rebukes them: "Why," He says, "are you so fearful, O you of little faith?" Having thus calmed the turbulence of their souls, He rebukes the sea and the winds. But when you hear of a rebuke here, fix your mind more keenly upon what is said; for He does not rebuke the elements—for it is absurd, and altogether childish to think that inanimate and insensible things are rebuked, and those unable to hear—but He rebukes the apostate powers that are accustomed to bring afflictions upon us through the elements by the permission of God. Having rebuked these, He immediately calms the waves, lulls the winds, quietens the currents, and the tempest was changed into a fair, favorable, and following breeze, and the sea immediately grew calm, settled from the waves through silence. David, foresceing this paradoxical miracle with prophetic eyes, most clearly preannounced it in the one hundred and sixth Psalm, the sealing of the tempest, the uprising of the waves, the fear of the apostles, the supplication to the Lord, the rebuke of the spirits, the calming of the surge. It would be clearer if we were to remember the very words themselves. B And C as for the tempest, he says thus: "He commanded, and raised the stormy wind, which lifted up the D waves thereof."
ascending up to the heavens, and descending down to the abysses." Regarding the trembling of the disciples: "They were troubled, and moved like a drunken man; fear took hold of them." After these things he adds: "They cried unto the Lord when they were in their affliction." Finally, the end of the miracle, and the sweet voice of Jesus, by which the sea, having received his rebuke, was changed into a calm: "And he commanded the storm, and it stood in a breeze, and its waves were silent." A You see how clearly the psalmic harp had foretold this. The disciples, not understanding, said in wonder: "What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?"—saying this not in interrogation, but as a statement of fact. How great indeed is he who is invested with such power, and who moves the elements wherever he wills by his word and nod!
Now the miracle according to history had such an end. But since the present life is a sea, a watery existence, agitated by all the winds of temptations, and surging with successive passions; and we are those who bring on the tempest for ourselves, being submerged in malice, and often falling into the evil shipwrecks of the soul: let us imitate the holy disciples, and let us awaken the Lord, who is sleeping through his long-suffering, by repentance B and prayer, and let us appease him, so that he may rebuke the unclean spirits and say to our wickedness: "Be silent, be muzzled." And he shall set the storm into a breeze, into the grace of the Holy Spirit, which directs the mind through intelligible sails toward the voyage of virtue, and anchors the soul in the divine harbor, in which may it be granted to us all to attain to the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose grace and power is unto the ages. Amen.
Homily XLVII. On the Mission of the Twelve Apostles
The most holy pair of Anargyroi invites us today, O lovers of feasts, to celebrate their festival spiritually. For the grace which they themselves received from God, this they C dispense to us without silver.
Anargyroi: Of the holy and medical Anargyroi: Cosmas and Damian, Cyrus and John, Panteleemon and Hermolaus, Sampson and Diomede, Thalassius and Tryphon, and the rest.
[index: entries preserved]
granting, and being destroyers of every kind of disease, receive from us this return of gratitude: A to celebrate their memories with festivals, and to rejoice spiritually. Since, therefore, we enjoy their divine gifts, and harvest both vigor of body and salvation of soul, let us listen to the gospel voice just read. B "At that time, Jesus called his twelve disciples to himself, and gave them power over unclean spirits, so as to cast them out, and to heal every sickness and every infirmity" (Matt. x, 1). The Savior, already hastening to overthrow the Ogygian tyranny of the demon, and, as it were, showing the prelude of his own dismantling of it, gives power to the disciples, so that they might drive off the demons as they would certain scourgers, and heal without labor the evils inflicted by them upon men.
But since the word "spirit" is homonymous—for God is a spirit, and human souls are spirits, and the mind presiding over the soul, and even the moving air itself is called a spirit, and the apostate powers have shared in this name—the Gospel, distinguishing the homonymy, says: "He gave them power against unclean spirits." For the spirits of malice alone have taken upon themselves uncleanness and become the agents of it for men. Having received the beginning of their own existence, and being directed by the sway of their free choice, they slipped away from that which is, inclining toward that which is not—and now one is an aerial demon, another is terrestrial, and another is subterranean. C Since, therefore, they were stripped of the honor initially bestowed upon them, they became frenzied against men, as those who are honored with the divine image, and they undertook the war against us, having become the enemies and the avengers of our race. For in that they push us toward base deeds, and through them separate us from God, they are enemies; but in that God uses them as scourges for our punishment, or testing, or correction, they might justly be called avengers. For this reason, He who has come into the world in the flesh to cast out the enemy and the avenger, as David sings (Ps. viii, 3), D first commands the disciples to cast out the demons, then to cure diseases, showing...
as I suppose, that the afflictions which befall men for the most part proceed from demons. For this reason, he commands them to cast out the demon that is the cause of the disease, and then to apply the cure to the infirmity. That these things occur through the assault of demons for a proving and a scourging, it is easy to see. For the woman who was bent crooked to the ground, as the Evangelist states, was held by a spirit of infirmity; and he who was mute, deaf, and stammering, uttered nothing articulate, but suffered the blunting of his senses through the violence of a demon. "For when the demon had gone out," he says, "the mute man spoke."
It is necessary to say why the evangelist records the names of the apostles. Certain false apostles had arisen who made a doctrine congruent to their own impiety, and were sowing tares upon the wheat of truth that sustains the soul. For Manes, possessing profane books and going about Persia, called himself an apostle. Simon and Dositheus were both Samaritans, and they identified themselves: the one as the great power of God, the other as the one heralded by Moses. And indeed Basilides, and many others, laid upon themselves the apostolic dignity. Distinguishing them as bastard from legitimate disciples, he marked the name of each, although the gospel passage read today has passed over this.
He sent these twelve, commanding them and saying, "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter into a city of the Samaritans." Why did he choose twelve disciples first? Historically, as regards the number of the twelve sons of Israel, from whom the tribes of the Hebrews originated; which the lyre of David also foretold: "Instead of thy fathers, thy sons were born; thou shalt make them princes over all the earth" (Ps. xliv, 17). He calls the patriarchs fathers, since they were fathers of Christ according to the flesh, and the holy followers he calls sons; for thus he named them also in another psalm: "Bring to the Lord, O ye sons of God" (Ps. xxviii, 1). According to the deeper reason, since through the apostolic preaching there occurred a renewal of the world which is subject to time and to sense. For time is septenary, and sense is quinquenary, which being combined...
twelve. Since these two numbers together form the dodecad, the leaders of the preaching were with good reason counted as such. What other reason, moreover, underlies this number? It is because all their doctrine comprises theology, natural philosophy, and moral philosophy. These are contained within the compass of the number twelve: the theology is ternary, on account of the mystery of the Trinity; the natural philosophy is quinary, on account of the elements and the shape that constitutes them in species; and the moral philosophy is quaternary, on account of the general virtues; all of which, gathered into one, make twelve. But for what reason did He who came for the salvation of the whole world, and who clothed Himself with the entire human nature through the first-fruits of the lump—in which the parts of every nation, Jew, Samaritan, and Greek, were contained—circumscribe the preaching to the Jews alone, saying, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles"? Perhaps because the Gospel had to be preached to the Jews first. For to them the promises had been given from the beginning, and from them Christ was born according to the flesh. But since these had raged against Him, seeking to ensnare His soul in the toils of death, they became rejected and odious to God, and they fell away from the intimacy with God, and the work of salvation was granted to the Gentiles. Furthermore, the Lord does not forbid the disciples to preach to the Gentiles; for how could He forbid it, who is the common Creator and Provider of all, who said, "Teach all nations," who also spoke with the Samaritan harlot, and stayed with the Samaritans themselves for two days, and did not repulse the centurion and the Syrophoenician woman, though they were Gentiles and needy? Therefore, He does not forbid teaching the Gentiles, but He forbids walking in their way and fulfilling their deeds. Observe, moreover, how in the case of the Gentiles He specified "the way," saying, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles," because all the Gentiles lived outside the rule of life prescribed by the Law and the Prophets, wandering about that broad and spacious road, which the Lord forbids the disciples to walk upon, saying, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles." And regarding this way, David declares him blessed who has not stood fast in it: "Blessed is the man who has not stood in the way of sinners." A The Lord commands one to turn aside from this way and to proceed along the straight path; and you are not ignorant, I think, of the way through which the disciples are commanded to run well, having learned it from Him who said, "I am the way." But when He speaks of the Samaritans, He does not use the term "way," but "city," saying thus: "And into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not." For they had approached the Jewish customs through the Mosaic Law, and had in a manner inhabited the city of piety. But since they were only half-pious—for they still worshipped at the mountain where the idols
A had been hidden; and indeed the Scripture says of them: "They continued doing the law of God, and worshipping idols." One might understand the "city of the Samaritans" to be this half-piety, through which the Lord forbids the disciples to walk, making it a short path. "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." He calls the Israelite people sheep because they were, as it were, a clean animal, enclosed within the fold of the Law, marked with the sign of circumcision, comforted by the words of the prophets, nurtured like fodder by fleece, and fattened by the very abundant pasture of the divine oracles. And the psalm also says thus: "You led your people like sheep." And Ezekiel compares those of Israel to sheep, in which passage he seizes upon the priests, saying: "Thus says the Lord: Do the shepherds not feed my sheep? Therefore, behold, I will seek out my sheep from their hands." These sheep, then, through the great desolation of those who should have shepherded them, became wandering and lost, straying outside the fold of the commandments, until "the good shepherd, who gives his life for the sheep," gathered them into the life-bearing pastures of the Gospel. He did not say "you shall go," assigning a time for the baptism, but "go," indicating by the imperfect sense a never-ending journey, inasmuch as the Gospel word is extended even to all, and is progressing, and does not have any halting point in its journey. "And as you go, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand." The kingdom of heaven is the grace which comes through faith, liberating man from the observances of the Law that cannot be attained, and making him a citizen of heaven by spiritual adoption. Or rather, the kingdom of heaven is Christ himself, who through the flesh has drawn near to us who had become far from Him through vanity. "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons." Why did He distinguish the lepers from the sick? For B was it because...
[...The Latin column continues with the discussion of the Samaritans, the sheep of Israel, and the interpretation of the terms regarding the "city" and the "conversation" or "way of life" used by the author, and proceeds to the Scholastic notes by Franciscus Scorsus...] C D
A or was it not implied also that the disease of the lepers was included when He spoke of the infirm? But because every leper was considered unclean by the law, and whoever touched a leper became a partaker of the uncleanness, according to the Law which says, "Whoever touches a leper shall be unclean," to prevent the disciples from turning away from them as from unclean things when they were requested to approach—as the disciple of Elias did, who, because of the prescription of the Law, could not even endure to see with his eyes the prince of Syria B—for this reason, specific instructions are given regarding the lepers. For the disciples were no longer under the Law, having already been led to the light of grace. But since we consist of a twofold part, I mean the soul and the body, a twofold kind of miracle was performed by the disciples. For it was not only those held in bodily infirmity and covered with the vibices—that is, the scales—of leprosy, but also those seized by the passions of the soul, sick with unbelief, and branded by the loathsome stain of sin, who were healed by the apostles; and demons, and the evils brought in by them, were driven away for nothing, as the grace operated without silver. Let us, therefore, pray to the disciples of Christ and to the miracle-working Anargyroi (the Unmercenaries), in whose honor this present festive assembly is held, to drive away the evils that are in us—unbridled anger, envy against one's neighbor, pride, and self-conceit—and to cleanse the marks of the soul that has been leprous from sins, so that we may eagerly walk the path of the virtues, following, as far as is possible, the footsteps of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom belongs all glory, honor, and veneration together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XLVIII. On the Mission of the Seventy Disciples. Delivered on the feast of the Archistrategos (Michael).
The sensory meadows, bearing the beauty of various flowers, delight the senses of those who behold them, and sight, divided toward the manifold variety of colors, and smell, receiving the fragrance, prepare one to enjoy a double feast. But the spiritual pasture of the evangelical teaching…
produces even greater pleasure from its flowers. And while the most beautiful of flowers bloom all together and, appearing but briefly, wither, the beauty of Holy Scripture is preserved intact for all time. Since, then, the Archistrategos A of the rational powers has gathered us here today to celebrate his festival, come, let us approach the evangelical pasture and pluck spiritual roses from it.
HOMILY XLVIII
"The Lord said to his own disciples: 'He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me.'" In the beginning, the Savior chose twelve disciples, whom he also ordered, upon sending them forth for the proclamation, neither to go into the way of the Gentiles, nor to enter into the cities of the Samaritans. But when the word of instruction was being broadened, and the number of believers was increasing, and according to the Lord’s parable the harvest of believers was plenteous, while the laborers were only twelve, he chose in addition another seventy; and the twelve, indeed, he chose according to the number of the twelve sons of Jacob, from whom are the tribes of the Hebrews, which the lyre of David also foretold: "Instead of thy fathers, sons are born to thee; thou shalt make them princes over all the earth," B calling the patriarchs "fathers," who were the progenitors of Christ according to the flesh, and the holy followers of Christ "sons." For thus he named them also in another psalm: "Bring to the Lord, O ye sons of God." But another ancient history hinted at the calling of the seventy. For God once commanded Moses, the contemplator of God, to choose seventy men from the elders of the people; and the Lord descended in a cloud and took of the spirit that was in Moses and put it on the seventy; and these were co-opted with the legislator. This future event was a pre-figuring, and those seventy men were a pre-figuration of these disciples, equal in number. C But also, when the descendants of Israel were led through the desert, following the guiding cloud, they reached a place irrigated with potable water, abounded by twelve springs, and shaded by seventy tall palm trees. The twelve springs, therefore, [represented] the twelve... D
A chosen disciples, while the palm trees [represented] those seventy who were chosen later, beyond the twelve. For just as those twelve springs irrigated the seventy palm trees, so the seventy disciples, having been initiated into the mystery by the select twelve, brought forth the fruit of their mission. And indeed, that great Luke, beginning his Gospel, says thus: "As those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us." B To these seventy, therefore, the Lord directs this word: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me." Since the mission to preach the mystery seemed difficult to the disciples on account of the unbelief and disobedience of men, he encourages them with these words: "He who hears you, hears me." You ought not, he says, to be distressed if many do not receive the word of the preaching; for the contempt shown toward you is referred to me, the teacher who sends you. And if toward me, then certainly also toward the Father who sent me; so that this word holds the force of a syllogism drawing this conclusion from the stated premises: "He who rejects you, rejects him who sent me." Most wisely, he placed himself as a middle term C, clearly demonstrating that he became a mediator between God and man: and, on account of what is consubstantial with us, he claimed the disciples’ [fate] for himself, while on account of that which is consubstantial with the Father… [we] who are God-bearers, following therefore the holy Fathers, all unanimously teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in divinity and the same perfect in humanity, truly God and truly man, the same [consisting] of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the divinity, and the same consubstantial with us according to the humanity, and in all things like us without sin. D
the One who sent me, demonstrating the unchangeableness of the Father's substance, saying that the insult offered to himself is referred back to the Father. But come, let us consider how he says that the achievement resulting from the preaching returns to himself, while the rejection passes over to himself and the Father. A “For he who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me, and through me, him who sent me.” He thereby shows that the judgment of those who reject them will be great, and at the same time supports them, as the Father will not endure being treated with such contempt, but will certainly facilitate the preaching. Micah prophesied this mission of the disciples to preach, saying: “And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many peoples, as dew from the Lord falling, and as sheep upon the grass.” B “The seventy returned with joy, saying: ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us.’” Once they were seen as effectors of signs and expellers of unclean spirits, having become the fulfillers of the preaching, the disciples return and say to the Teacher: “Lord, even the demons are subject to us.” Not only are other signs performed by us, but what is greatest of all, even the demons are subject to us, being put to flight by your name. For lest anyone should think that they were working only by the terror [they struck] against the demons, he also added the conjunction: “Lord, even the demons are subject to us.” Perhaps someone might also say: if the apostles had received the grace of miracles then, the gift given after the resurrection through the breathing and the tongues of fire was superfluous. We say, therefore, that this was not the gift of the charisms of the Spirit. And the son of thunder, great of voice, clarifies this, saying: co-essential, co-essential, co-essential. C If anyone says the flesh of Christ is co-essential with the Godhead, let him be anathema. The co-essential, the co-essential . . . effectors, expellers. D translaton continues from the Latin column, acknowledging the footnote apparatus omitted . . . to such a power and grace of performing miracles.
A "And the holy Spirit was not yet [given], because Jesus was not yet glorified." The disciples, therefore, before the saving Passion, performed miracles by Dominical authority. For if you examine the matter accurately, you will see that the Lord, as the discourse proceeded, said: "Behold, I give unto you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions." He did not say: "I give you the Holy Spirit"; but He spoke thus after the resurrection: "Receive the Holy Spirit." And He is seen giving the same power to the twelve disciples as well. For, having called together His twelve disciples, "He gave them power against unclean spirits." Before, therefore, the Lord was glorified through the cross according to the human nature, the disciples performed miracles by the power granted to them, not indeed always and upon all, but when and where He who had given the power willed. This is plain; for they were not able to heal the lunatic boy. Perhaps you will say: "And why did He not grant them the gift of the Holy Spirit from the beginning?" Because, being still imperfect, they were not yet capable of receiving such a charisma. Moreover, it was necessary first for our nature to be purified through the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, and then, as a divine wealth, for the Holy Spirit to be bestowed upon men. But let us resume the discourse, holding to the sequence. B "He said, moreover, unto them: I beheld Satan as lightning falling from heaven." This answer of the Lord seems, in a way, disconnected from the speech of the apostles, yet it is reconciled with the understanding from which they uttered their words. Because, having cast out demons, they had imagined something great about themselves, as having now mastered the prince of this world; in order to lead them away from such conceit, He says these things, almost saying: . . .
Homily LV
. . . C the evangelist, the great-voiced son of thunder. And you, possessing the great-voiced declaration of these things more sublimely from your own sufferings, are the great-voiced one. For no other has worthily admired, or shall admire, except you, and your great-voicedness. O eye of the world, the great voice and trumpet, the palace of words: What is the great-voiced one? . . .
D Francis Scorsi's notes remain. [index: entries preserved]
A of the ruler of this world, drawing them away from such conceit, says these things, practically telling them: You ought not marvel if the demons tremble at you; for their prince, having grown weak, has fallen, and a little while hence he shall be cast out altogether. He says this so that they might not have the power of signs and the casting out of demons as an occasion for vainglory. He confirms them, therefore, with this example, saying: "Satan [(63)] was once also in the brightness of excellence, but having become proud, he was overthrown. 'I was watching Satan fall like lightning from heaven.'" Most appropriately did He use the example of lightning. For lightning is produced, as those who have occupied themselves with the knowledge of natural phenomena have recorded, when a dry spirit, coiled within a thick and moist cloud, violently breaks through the continuous felted layers of the cloud, producing a rumble and a crash, just as if one were driven forcefully into water; and that is called thunder. But the bursting of the cloud, when the spirit has been ignited by the friction and has flashed, is called lightning, which is quickly extinguished and proceeds to nothingness. Thus, indeed, the most wicked spirit, having coiled itself in the cloud of pride, uttered a rumbling of unspeakable blasphemy as if from the thunder of its own conceit: "I shall take hold of the inhabited world as a nest," it said, "and I shall set my throne above the stars, and I shall be like the Most High." B For this reason, having flashed like lightning in his first brightness, having defected to wickedness, he has vanished, having gone into nothingness, which is what wickedness is. Whence also God says to him through Ezekiel: "Your heart was lifted up in your beauty, because of the multitude of your sins, I have cast you upon the earth." And somewhere Obadiah also says to him: "If you are lifted up like an eagle, and if you set your nest among the stars, from thence will I bring you down, says the Lord." "I was watching Satan fall like lightning from heaven." Not because He is saying that he was in heaven, but demonstrating the height from which he has fallen. For in many places Scripture calls excessive height "heaven." For concerning the cities of the Canaanites, he says: "Cities walled up to heaven." And concerning Capernaum, the Lord said: “Woe to you, Capernaum, the one exalted unto the heavens.” And indeed also the sea waves unto the... 1
[(63)] Many of the Fathers, related by our Cornelius, accept this as the fall of Lucifer, who considers this the literal and preferable explanation. But concerning the second fall of the same one, namely, the loss of power and the worship which he had occupied and obtained before the coming of Christ, Gregory Nazianzen (in his oration *On Theology*) understands it; Basil (in his homily *That God is not the Author of Evils*); Cyril (in the work of St. Thomas); and Euthymius and Theophylact approve it. This same Cornelius thinks this mystical and symbolic view is acceptable, yet he does not reject the former, but embraces it, as does Maldonatus. I mention this variety of opinions so that you might know that both explanations are supported by good authors, both ancient and recent. But our Father here subscribes to the former and brings the same reason that others do for why Christ introduced the fall of Satan—namely, because the disciples appeared to be puffed up with joy, He proposes to them the example of Lucifer, who, having proceeded to such a height of glory, fell because of pride, alluding to that passage of Isaiah: "How are you fallen, Lucifer?" I must not pass over the words of Gregory the Great in his *Moralia*, which confirm this note: "Wonderfully, the Lord, in order to crush the pride in the hearts of the disciples, recounted the evidence of the ruin which the master of pride himself received, so that in the author of pride they might learn what they should fear concerning the vice of pride." Moreover, as regards the variety of the codices, this opinion of Theophanes is the same in the Vatican copy, but it varies in vocabulary from the Gallican. Since, however, the Gallican reading seemed richer and fuller, I have edited it, nor is the matter of great moment.
HOMILY LV
A Capharnaum, which was exalted unto heaven.” And indeed David speaks of the waves of the sea ascending even unto heaven; so, in this place, too, He took the term “heaven” to indicate height. For, as I said, Satan was not in the heavens, but was appointed by God to hold and occupy the earthly domain before he fell and was darkened through pride. And before the saving dispensation, he was invincible and acted insolently against all that is under heaven. But since the Only-Begotten, assuming our likeness, became man, the enemy became weak, and he who was formerly bold and unapproachable became a fugitive. “Behold, I give unto you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy.” There was given to the apostles power even against sensible beasts. For the divine herald Philip, by prayer alone, destroyed the viper that was worshipped by the Hieropolitans as a deity; and the blessed Paul, having shaken off the beast into the burning pile, remained unharmed. But they also received power against the intelligible beasts—I mean the unclean demons—concerning whom David predicted in the Psalm-hymns: “Thou shalt walk upon the asp and the basilisk, and thou shalt trample upon the lion and the dragon,” B speaking all these things to the apostolic choir. And Habakkuk the prophet expressed more clearly the power of the apostles against the devil, saying: “Woe to him that multiplieth to himself what is not his; for suddenly they shall rise up that bite thee; for thou hast spoiled many nations, all the remnant of the peoples shall spoil thee.” Therefore, against this dragon and the demons serving under him, the heralds of God received authority, as well as against those who worshipped them and persecuted the proclamation, C having trampled and crushed whom they spread the Gospel everywhere. But lest the grace and operation of the signs might introduce the passion of pride, D [the Savior adds: Verily, in this...].
[alt-version omitted]
they were keeping to a region as it were a city. But since they did not preserve piety in every part—for they still worshiped on the mountain in which idols were hidden; for of them the Scripture says, «They remained doing the law of God, and nonetheless worshiped idols»—by the city of the Samaritans could be understood this divided worship, through which the Lord makes it abrupt for the disciples to go. «But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.» He calls the Israelite people sheep, because they were as it were a clean animal, and enclosed within the pens of the Mosaic law, marked with the stigma of circumcision, and were cherished time and again by the words of the prophets as if by fleeces of sheep, and were fattened by the very many and abundantly supplied pastures of the Word of God; of which also the Psalmist thus says: «You led your people like sheep.» And indeed Ezekiel compares the Israelite offspring to sheep, in which passage he takes the priests to task, saying: «Thus says the Lord: Do the shepherds no longer pasture my sheep? Therefore behold I will seek out my sheep from their hands.» These sheep, therefore, being abandoned by the destitution and vice of the shepherds, were wandering and lost as prey through the mountains, outside the pens of the commandments, until «the good shepherd, who gives his life for his sheep,» brought them back to the vital pastures of the Gospel. Truly, he did not say, *You shall go*, as if setting one time for baptism, but *Go*, showing by this extensive signification a perpetual journey, inasmuch as the evangelical word is to be put forth into the universal world, and will proceed in such a way that it never desists from its course. «And going, preach, saying that the kingdom of heaven has approached.» The kingdom of heaven is the grace which is given through faith, freeing man from the observances of the law which cannot be kept, and fashioning him into a citizen of heaven by spiritual adoption. Or rather, the kingdom of heaven is Christ himself, who through the flesh approached us who were far removed from him by wickedness. «Cure the infirm, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons.» Why is it that he separated the lepers from the infirm? For were not the lives of the blessed men... like certain living images of the life according to God set forth; for «our conversation is in heaven.»
A "Upon whom shall I look," says the prophet, "but upon the humble and quiet and him that trembles at my words?" He did not, therefore, prefer foolishness to wisdom, nor ignorance to knowledge—as certain wicked detractors of the truth have interpreted the saying—but he preferred humility to pride. Let us, therefore, become little children, brothers, and let us bring forth that infancy which is according to God; let us imitate the long-suffering of children in enduring injury. "For unless you become," says the Savior, "as these little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of God." He does not command us to be turned back into the age of childhood—for this is among the things that are impossible—but to fashion our own character according to the integrity of the infant. For when he pointed to the children, he did not say, "Theirs is the kingdom of God," but, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." If, therefore, we too become infants through the simplicity of our ways, the good pleasure of God will be accomplished in us, and the kingdom of heaven will be given as an inheritance, into which may we all attain in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.
Homily XLIX. On the words: "Jesus desired to go forth into Galilee."
—Read on the feast of Saint Philip.—Not only did the disciples of the Savior, while traveling bodily upon the earth, sweep the inhabited world with their preaching; but even now, having departed into the heavens, they are present with us in spirit, and they congregate with us, and though silent they preach; and by dwelling invisibly in their own temples, and by rousing those who love festivals to their celebrations, they manifestly impart their gifts to them. I, therefore, seeing the sacred shrine of the great Philip straitened by the multitude of the people, am struck with wonder at the grace given by God to the saints, and I cannot bear to pass over the festival in silence. Let us, then, each contribute something else to the festival of the apostle. For one may bring an all-night vigil and hymns of thanksgiving; another, a contrite spirit and fitting prayer; another, repentance for transgressions; yet another, mercy toward the poor (for there is here, as you see, a multitude of the poor), and let each contribute something else, and let no one be seen empty and void. Indeed, I would have wished to set life before words as a teacher; for then the discourse would have been harmonized, with the life singing in accord with the words. But since I bring a life stained with every spot of sin, that [the economy and the will of God may be fulfilled]... [the text here continues to discuss the meaning of "good pleasure" (eudokia)].
HOMILY XLIX
A ...not to appear altogether useless and fruitless to this assembly, come, encouraged by the intercession of the Apostle, I shall explain to your God-loving ears the words of the Gospel read today. B At that time, "Jesus wanted to go forth into Galilee, and he findeth Philip, and saith to him, Follow me." When the Savior lived upon the earth, managing the economy [conducted] for our sake, and it was necessary to gather a band of disciples who were to proclaim the mystery of the economy, the wonderful Philip was the first summoned to discipleship. For even if Andrew was a disciple from the beginning, he, however, arrived having called himself, after hearing John speak about Christ, that he was the Lamb of God. But our Savior Christ, having found the most holy Philip, as if [finding] some most excellent treasure—for this is what "He findeth Philip" signifies—saith to him, "Follow me." For Philip had been long familiar with Christ, who was reared in Galilee, as the Gospel teaches. For he was destined to be a receiver of the lamp of the Spirit, and to bear deeds corresponding to his calling. For Philip is interpreted as "mouth of the lamp." C And Philip was from Bethsaida, the village of Andrew and Peter. The mention of the village from which he sprang, namely Bethsaida, and the inclusion of Peter and Andrew, brings forth a twofold purpose. For it both shows that God chose the despised things of the world, and that the name of the village was confirmed by its works. For Bethsaida is translated into the Greek tongue as "house of hunters." From this place, therefore, he calls the hunters of human souls—Peter, and Andrew, and Philip, and the sons of Zebedee, to whom he said: "Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men." What then of Philip? D As soon as he was called, he was illuminated, and knew in his mind who was calling him. And being an ardent friend of Nathanael, and searching with him into what was spoken in the Law and by the Prophets concerning Christ, he deems it a terrible thing if he did not also share with his friend the treasure that had been found. Therefore, having found [the treasure], as if he had found a windfall... Therefore today Andrew, having found the common Master like a treasure of light,
A nor did he prefer ignorance of knowledge, as the wicked accusers of the truth took the expression, but he preferred the humility of arrogance. Let us also become like children, brethren, in the childhood according to God; let us imitate the long-suffering of children. "For unless you become," says the Savior, "as these children, you will not enter into the kingdom of God." He does not command us to be turned into the age of a child—for this is of the impossible—but to regulate our own character toward the guilelessness of the infant. And showing the children, He did not say, "The kingdom of God is of these," but, "Of such as these." If, therefore, we also become like children in simplicity, the good pleasure of God will be accomplished in us, and the kingdom of heaven shall be given as an inheritance, into which may we all enter in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XLIX
On the text, "Jesus desired to depart into Galilee." — Read on the feast of the holy Philip.
Not only as they wandered bodily on the earth of the Savior did the disciples sweep the inhabited world with their preaching, but having already transferred to the heavens, they are present with us intellectually, and they gather together, and silent they preach, and in their own shrines invisibly dwelling, they gather the feast-lovers to their own festivals and communicate the charisms to them clearly. I, therefore, seeing the holy temple of the great Philip crowded to fullness by the multitude of the people, am amazed at the grace given by God to the saints, and I do not endure to pass over the festival in silence. Let us, therefore, contribute another thing to the feast of the apostle: one, an all-night vigil and hymns of thanksgiving; another, a contrite spirit and a fitting prayer; another, the repentance of errors; B another, mercy toward the poor (for there is present here, as you see, a multitude of the poor), and let another bring something else, and let no one be seen empty-handed. I, indeed, desired to place life before words as a teacher; for thus the matters of teaching would have been consonant, with life sounding in harmony with the words; but since I bring a life stained with every speck of sins, so that the dispensation and the will [of God]... good pleasure, good pleasure, good pleasure. By the word 'good pleasure' (eudokia), [is meant] the best and most beautiful voluntary will of God; whence also 'good pleasure of the Lord' comes from the fact that it seems good to Him; I am well-pleased, good pleasure. C D
HOMILY XLIX
ALest I should seem to be altogether not contributing to this festival, and fruitless, come now, relying on the intercession of the Apostle, I shall explain to your God-loving ears the read words of the Gospel today: "At that time, Jesus wished to go forth into Galilee, and He finds Philip, and says to him, 'Follow me'." When the Savior was passing His time on earth, managing the dispensation for our sake, and it was necessary to gather a choir of disciples who were bound to preach the mystery of the dispensation, the wonderful Philip is called first to discipleship. For even if Andrew had been a disciple from the beginning, yet he presented himself voluntarily, having heard John speaking regarding Christ, that He Himself was the Lamb of God. But the most holy Philip, as some most beautiful treasure B and desired thing, our Savior Christ having found—for this is what "He finds Philip" signifies—says to him, "Follow me." For Philip was indeed also of old familiar to Christ, having been brought up in Galilee, as the Gospel teaches. He was destined, therefore, to become a recipient of the lamp of the Spirit, and to bear the action corresponding to his name. For Philip is interpreted as "mouth of a lamp." "Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the village of Andrew and Peter." To mention the village from which he had originated, namely Bethsaida, and to make mention also of Peter and Andrew, produces a twofold intent. Both that He might show how God chose the despised things of the world, and that the name of C the village might be confirmed by its works. For Bethsaida is translated in the Greek tongue as "house of hunters." From this, therefore, He calls the hunters of human souls—Peter and Andrew and Philip, and the sons of Zebedee, to whom He said, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." What then of Philip? As soon as he was called, being illuminated, he knew in his mind who it was that called. Being a burning friend of Nathanael, and together with him searching what had been spoken in the Law and by the prophets concerning Christ, he deems it a terrible thing if he should not share the found treasure with his friend, finding the find, as it were, a godsend. Therefore today Andrew, having found the common Master as a treasure of light,
to the humble and quiet man, and him that trembleth at my words.” He did not, therefore, prefer foolishness to wisdom, nor ignorance to knowledge, as certain wicked adversaries of the truth have interpreted this saying, but he preferred humility to pride. Let us, therefore, become infants, brethren, and show forth that infancy which is according to God; let us imitate the patience of children in bearing injury. “For unless you become,” says the Savior, “as these little children, you shall not enter B the kingdom of God.” He does not command us to return to the age of childhood—for this is an impossibility—but that we should conform our own character to the integrity of an infant. For when he pointed to the children, he did not say, “Theirs is the kingdom of God,” but, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” If, therefore, we also become infants in the simplicity of our character, the good pleasure of God will be fulfilled in us, and the kingdom of heaven will be given as an inheritance, into which may we all arrive in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY XLIX. On the words: “Jesus willed to go forth into Galilee.” — Read on the feast of Saint Philip.
Not only when wandering physically upon the earth did the disciples of the Savior draw the habitable world into their net by their preaching, but having now departed into the heavens, they are present with us spiritually, and they gather together with us, and though silent they preach; and by dwelling invisibly in their own temples, and by stirring up those who love the festivals to attend their celebrations, they manifestly impart their charismata to them. I, therefore, seeing the sacred shrine of the great Philip crowded by the multitude of the people, am amazed at the grace given by God to the saints, and I cannot bear to let this festival pass in silence. Let each of us, therefore, contribute something to the feast of the Apostle; let one contribute an all-night vigil and hymns of thanksgiving; another, a contrite spirit and fitting prayer; another, repentance for sins; another, mercy toward the poor (for there is present here, as you see, a multitude of the needy)—and let each contribute something, and let no one be seen empty-handed. I, for my part, would have wished to set forth life before words as a teacher; for thus would the instructions have been in harmony with my life, when the life resonated in agreement with the words; but since I bring a life stained with every spot of sin...
A not to seem altogether useless and unprofitable to this festival, come now, relying on the intercession of the Apostle, I shall explain the words of the Gospel read today to your God-loving ears. "At that time, Jesus wanted to depart into Galilee, and he finds Philip and says to him, 'Follow me.'" When the Savior was spending his time on earth, managing the dispensation for us, and it was necessary to gather a choir of disciples who were to proclaim the mystery of the dispensation, Philip, that wondrous man, is called first to discipleship. For although Andrew had been a disciple from the beginning, yet he arrived of his own accord, having heard John speaking about Christ, that he himself was the Lamb of God. But Christ our Savior, having found the most holy Philip as if he were some most beautiful discovery, and one long desired—for this is what "He finds Philip" signifies—says to him, "Follow me." For Philip was already familiar to Christ, having been reared in Galilee, as the Gospel teaches. He was destined to be the recipient of the lamp of the Spirit, and to bring forth actions consonant with his calling; for Philip is interpreted as "mouth of the lamp." B And Philip was from Bethsaida, the village of Andrew and Peter. To mention the village from which he had sprung, that it was Bethsaida, and to make mention also of Peter and Andrew, brings forth a twofold purpose: that he might show both that God has chosen the despised things of the world, and that the name of the village might be confirmed by the works. For Bethsaida is interpreted in the Greek tongue as "house of hunters." From this village, therefore, he calls the hunters of human souls—Peter, Andrew, Philip, and the sons of Zebedee—to whom he said, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." What then of Philip? As soon as he was called, he was illuminated and recognized in his mind who it was that was calling him. Being an ardent friend of Nathanael, and having searched with him into what was spoken in the Law and by the prophets concerning Christ, he deems it a grave matter if he does not share the found treasure with his friend, [thinking it] a stroke of luck to have found such a discovery. Therefore, today, Andrew, having found the common Master as if he were a treasure of light, C [...and] D [...]
becoming, as it were, a herald of the object sought, becomes the bearer of the message. "He finds," he says, "Philip, and says to him: 'We have found Him of whom Moses wrote in the Law, and the prophets, Jesus the son of Joseph, [who is] from Nazareth.'" It is all but as if he were shouting, "There is no need for us any longer, friend Nathanael, to pay heed to the letter, now that the reality has been found. We have found Him concerning whom we were making great search." But observe how, although Philip seems to be saying great things, he has not yet completely shaken off the Jewish coarseness. For in that he calls the Lord the son of Joseph, it is clear that he has not yet purely recognized the mystery. Yet he did recognize it later, when it was no longer the case that He had a father according to the flesh, when he even dares to say to the Master: "Show us the Father." Nathanael says to him: "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" Philip says to him: "Come and see." What then [of] Nathanael? Since he had been instructed with precision out of the divine Scriptures concerning the mystery of the Savior, and knowing that the first manifestation would occur from Bethlehem, but because of [His] life in Nazareth, He would be called a Nazarene, he readily agreed with the words of Philip, that [the one] expected to be revealed from Nazareth would indeed be something great and most beautiful. For the words, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" are not spoken in a questioning manner, as some think. For it would be foolish to accept these words of Nathanael B in that sense, as if he were ignorant of the mystery of the Savior, and indeed not yet clearly knowing—
Notes of Franciscus Scorsus
—that this interpretation is highly distorted and derived much further than is permitted from the Hebrew region, since the word was born in Greece and translated from it to the Hebrews. [Derived] from the love or study of horses, which was given as praise not mediocre to those ancient heroes, and even to the gods by Greek storytellers, just as [it is attributed] to Pallas by Callimachus. From this, therefore, the name is derived; but if someone should wish to grant this etymology to Theophanes, who piously draws it to his own sense and the praise of the apostle, he might think it said not altogether without any probable reasoning: for [he considers it] as a torch or lamp, from which he himself weaves the [etymology of the] name of Philip. Jerome will confirm both the etymology and the sense of the author, who deduces from the ignobility of the town that Christ wished to show that the ignoble and contemptible things of the world were chosen by Him. Thus, therefore, Jerome, lib. IX, in cap. XVI Ezech.: "The little village of Peter C and Andrew (and the same for Philip) is called by this name [Bethsaida]; for Bethsaida in our tongue is called 'house of hunters.'" Read besides [the] Onomasticon of Eusebius, who discusses the double word and reading, Bethesda and Bethsaida.
As for those words: "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" Theophanes reads and asserts that they must be taken [affirmatively], how also Rupert, Augustine, and Bede read it, although our Maldonato notes that no one among the Greek Fathers [does so]. But behold, this Greek Father, whom we are newly bringing to light, agrees with those Latins—whom Maldonato, if he had been edited earlier, could have had, to bring him forward in that opinion. And so, both in this [passage] which he thus expounds, and in the other testimonies, the Greek little word *ti* he accepts for "something," or for an intensive particle; just as the Latins sometimes [use] "how," and in the same way the same author, hom. 46, which is about the calming of the storm at sea, [takes] those words: "What manner of man is this, that the winds and the sea obey him?"—not interrogatively, but affirmatively he takes [it] in this way: "How great is this man, who D possesses such power, and moves the elements whither He wills!" And that I may weigh the individual places brought forward by the author: that first one from the Psalm is indeed read even in the Greek Edition of the LXX with a question; yet there is not lacking one who reads or explains: "They are greatly multiplied," as Vatablus [does], which reading falls into the same [result] as if one were to say with our [author]: "How greatly multiplied are my enemies!" Nor indeed, if you explain it thus, does the sense conflict with our Vulgate reading, and that also which is of the LXX. For that which is said through the figure of admiration or interrogation, as far as the matter and sense pertain, is not different from that which is pronounced without a figure of this kind, solely by affirming: like those from the Canticle, are from cap. 1, where we have: "Thy cheeks are beautiful as that of the turtledove," [while] the LXX have: *Ti horai-...* and the Latin version of the sixth: "How beautiful have thy cheeks become as that of the turtledove!" Nor is there any mark of interrogation in the edition, so that the Greek [word] appears taken entirely for an intensive particle. But in cap. IV, where we read: "How beautiful are thy breasts, my sister, my spouse?" with an added mark of admiration, the LXX [has]: *Ti ekallio-...* with no added mark even in the most correct Royal Bibles. Whence the same sense is gathered, which is brought forward by our [author], who indeed reads thus in his Bibles. Finally, that place of St. Matthew, cap. VII: "How narrow is the gate and the strait way!" In Greek it is said:
HOMILY XLIX.
For it is foolish to think of Nathanael as a man who A investigated the things concerning Christ with a critical spirit. But the "What is good?" must be understood by us as, "What is very good?" This phrase is worn and common in the Scriptures. For when David, dizzy at the multitude of temptations, says: "Lord, why have they multiplied that trouble me?" he is saying "why" to mean, "How greatly have my enemies multiplied!" And the beautiful kinsman in the Canticle, admiring the beauty of the chaste bride, says thus: "How beautiful have thy breasts become, my sister bride!" And, "How fair have thy cheeks become!" And concerning the entrance of virtues, the Savior says with admiration: "How narrow is the gate that leadeth unto life!" For if Nathanael had said this in perplexity, as though it were impossible for anything good to come from Nazareth, he would have been a false Israelite and deceitful, and would not have received such praise from the mouth of Truth. B "For Jesus," He says, "saw Nathanael coming to Him, and says of him: Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile." He saw him coming from the shadow to the truth, from the fig tree of the Law to Him who dried up the leaves of the legal fig tree on account of its lack of fruit in good works; and seeing him, He named him a genuine, and not a bastard, Israelite. For since "Israelite" is interpreted as "a mind seeing God," and Nathanael, by calling Christ "a great good," confessed Him to be God (for no one is good except God alone), he was justly named an Israelite indeed, as having no guile or hypocrisy. As an Israelite, therefore, he recognized God; but as Nathanael, he was brought to Him as a gift, for Nathanael is interpreted as "the gift of God." Observe also the stability and lack of flattery in Nathanael. For although praised, he was not in the least puffed up, C but by saying, "Whence knowest thou me?" he shows himself eager to learn some secrets. And the sign is ready at hand: "Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee." He was indeed sitting under a fig tree when he was being initiated by Philip concerning Jesus. Nevertheless, by these words He also alluded to the fig tree of the Law, whose shadow hindered the participation of the light. For just as the trunk of the fig tree is bitter to the taste, and its leaves are rough to the touch, but the fruit that comes from it is very sweet, so the punishments of the Law are bitter, but the path that leads to life, although the road is rough, D and its commandments are difficult to keep, is, as it were, the fruit of that tree.
A which sprung from the synagogue and the Law, that fruit of the root of Jesse, which is fair in beauty above the sons of men, and sweeter than honey and the honeycomb. But some are now so shameless as to concoct a mythical story out of this utterance. They say, namely, that Nathanael, while still wrapped in swaddling clothes and hanging at his mother’s breast, was hidden by his parents beneath a certain fig tree, covered by the density of its leaves, when the tyrant’s law mowed down the children like grass, and that in this way he escaped death. And this, they claim, is what the words, “I saw you under the fig tree,” signify. These sorts of ravings are utterly ridiculous and are mere tales fabricated by decaying old women. For Herod ordered those children to be killed who were in the borders of Bethlehem, not those in Galilee. But let us cut away these things, like useless branches and shoots of the trees of truth, with the pruning hook of critical discourse, and let us listen to the theology of Nathanael: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel.” Oh, divine radiance illuminating his holy mind, so that he might understand something deeper and more worthy of Israelite nobility than the testimony of Philip! For the one had called him the son of Joseph, but the other, having first called him a great good, now declares more explicitly that he is the Son of God and the King of Israel, indicating the duality of the two natures in Christ. For as one who is B by nature the Son of God, he is said as man to receive the kingdom from the Father, just as Gabriel said to the Virgin: “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father.” When, therefore, the Lord saw him speaking thus about God, he leads him by his discourse toward higher insights. “Because I said to you,” he says, “that I saw you under the fig tree, you believe; you shall see greater things than these.” By these words, he promises that he will show him the Resurrection. For he knew, he knew—he who sees the future as if it were present—that after his own saving resurrection, Nathanael would be present with the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and would thirst for the mysteries there—the charcoal fire, the bread, and the fish—and would be initiated into the meanings signified by these things. For this reason he says, “You shall see greater things than these.” And having foretold through these things the rising again from the dead, he adds gradually the ascent into heaven: C “From now on you shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” Because he had called him a true Israelite a little earlier, he confirms that praise. For the old Israel, when he had come to Charran, having become detached from the things of the senses—for this is what the patriarch’s sleeping is understood to signify, like that saying, “I sleep, and my heart keeps watch”—saw in a vision that very ladder from which the angels of God were ascending and descending. Since, therefore, that [man] [index: entries preserved]
A contemplated in a dream, this [one] promises Nathanael he shall see while awake. But since by faith it is believed that the angels are in heaven, or above the heaven, and from thence are sent down as ministering spirits for divine services, it would perhaps have been more consistent to put the descent before the ascension. B For how should they ascend if they have not descended? Direct your mind to this, and rise to more subtle meanings; perceive within these words a hidden dogma. For many are the questions here: What is the meaning of the heavenly gates being opened; and when, and how, were they closed to men? And why did the Lord, as soon as he assumed flesh, not immediately effect their opening? We maintain, therefore, that heaven is said to be opened because the ascent of men to God has become unobstructed, which certainly was granted to us by the grace of Christ when he elevated our mass into heaven. For the introduction of sin had placed, as it were, a fence and a middle wall between God and man. This the Lord surely removed; he made himself a way for us to ascend into heaven, having indeed from the start deified the assumed flesh through the union, but having bestowed upon us immortality through the Resurrection, and perfect reconciliation C with the Father through the Ascension—which indeed he called the opening of the heavens. In that, however, he placed the ascension of the angels before their descent, he showed that the mystery of the dispensation was not known to all the angelic powers, but only to those who served it. Those indeed ascended along with him as he returned to heaven in the Ascension, commanding the heavenly gates to be lifted up; but those to whom the mystery was unknown, these, as they descended, asked, “Who is this King of glory?” In a higher sense, the angels ascend, illuminated by supernal contemplations, to the summit of the divine height, that is, of the singularity in the Trinity and the one principle. But they are brought down as they descend to the depth of the ineffable mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, when they see that same one in substance after the conjunction. You learn from this, too, that not even the angels can comprehend the mystery of the divine nature; but even they, as pure minds, ascend indeed higher than human weakness can, yet they too descend, since they are not able to reach the incomprehensible. These things, then, the holy Gospel has taught us. D
A But you, beloved, whosoever have come to the apostolic precinct to celebrate the festival, do not profane the sanctity of the feast with drunkenness, or with improper dances; rather, as is pleasing to God and to the Apostle, so let us celebrate the festival. Do you wish to perform a festival pleasing to God? Enter the divine temple, approach the icon of the Apostle, and converse with it as if it were a living image. If you have been held fast until now by some base habit, or by raging in unlawful intercourse, or by nourishing enmity against someone in your soul, or by contriving evil counsel, reveal everything, and set a limit in honor of the Apostle to mortify the passion and to make use of fitting repentance. And if you do this, this will be for you a true festival, and you shall find the Apostle richly granting you health of body, ease of life, and the enjoyment of soul's salvation; and while others shall return home weighed down by drunkenness, you will be sent forth by the great Apostle full of good hope, glorifying the Author and Creator of all, God, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
HOMILY L
On the words, "John was standing, and two of his disciples." Delivered on the feast of the holy Apostle Andrew.The discourse on the present feast is for me a payment of an old debt, not a demonstration of wisdom. For I have no desire to be adorned with words, nor am I ambitious to appear attractive to my fatherland with a splendid and pompous tongue. For I wish to keep my own philosophy, such as it is, hidden, shunning the inflation of vain glory. But since this holy shrine of the First-Called [Apostle] nurtured us from childhood like a nurse, providing the breast of primary instruction and the learning of the holy Scriptures, as it were instilling milk—not indeed abundantly, nor to satiety, but as much as might spring from the breast of one advanced in age, yet in such a way that it laid the foundations for perfection—I therefore return the price of my upbringing to this Church as to a nurse, fulfilling the reciprocation of the stork mentioned in the proverb. B And I become a fellow-worshipper, O most God-loving assembly, and I exult to see the dear ground, my fatherland, piously celebrating the memorials of the saints. I for my part...
A became that ladder from which the angels of God were ascending and descending. For what he once beheld in a dream, this same thing he promises Nathanael he would see in reality. But since it is believed that the angels are in the heavens, or above the heavens, and that they are sent down from there for the services of God
as serving spirits
, it would perhaps have been more logical to place the descent before the ascent. For how could they ascend if they had not descended? Apply your mind here; rise to subtle thoughts, grasp the dogma hidden in the statement; for here there are many questions: what is the opening of the heavenly gates, and when, and how were they closed to men, and why did the Savior, after becoming man, not immediately effect their opening? We say, therefore, that He says the heavens were opened because of the unhindered ascent of men to God, which Christ granted to us by lifting up our B own nature into the heavens. For the infiltration of sin had become, as it were, a barrier and a middle wall between God and men. Which the Lord indeed removed, becoming for us a way of ascent into heaven, having divinized the assumed nature through the union, and having provided immortality through the Resurrection, and through the Ascension having deemed us worthy of perfect reconciliation with the Father—which He called the opening of the heavens. But by placing the ascent of the angels before the descent, He showed that the mystery of the Economy was not known to all the angelic powers, but only to those who served in it. These, indeed, in the Ascension, were ascending together with Him as He went up, commanding the heavenly gates to be lifted; but those to whom the mystery was unknown, these, coming down, inquired: C “Who is this King of glory?” But in a higher manner, the angels ascend, illuminated by the supernal contemplations toward the height of the divine pinnacle of the Trinitarian unity and one principle; and they are brought back, descending toward the depth of the ineffable incarnation of the Word, so that they may see Him as the same in hypostasis after the union. For you learn from this that not even the angels are able to comprehend the mystery of the divine nature, but those, too, ascend as intellects, grasping higher than human weakness, yet they themselves also descend, being unable to reach the Incomprehensible. These things, then, the holy Gospel has instructed us. DTowards the height of the divine pinnacle.
And pinnacle [signifies] such a pinnacle, and incomparable glory;[it is] prescribed right well. And he did so very reasonably, and in a manner worthy of his own virtue. For he was not a reed shaken by the wind, as the One proclaimed by him testified in return unto him; but, to speak with David, having planted the foundations of his soul upon the rock of confession, he remained unshaken. That standing signifies the fixity in the matter, the Psalmist bears witness, saying: "I have sworn, and have established, that I will keep thy judgments." A Thus the prophet Amos sees God standing upon an adamant wall, B by the stationing indicating that which is fixed, and by the adamant signifying the strong and unyielding. In such a way did Stephen, the leader of the martyr phalanx, see Jesus standing at the right hand of God. "John stood, and two of his disciples." But what was indicated by the stationing of John has been explained in a few words. Now it is necessary to ask what it means that there were two disciples with him. These things occurred, to be sure, historically, but the events were images of things understood by the mind; C and he indeed who is elegant and a lover of beauty removes the outer husk, and gathers the beauty that is within. What then did the pair of disciples indicate? It revealed, as I suppose, a type of the synagogue and the Church from the Gentiles. For I suppose there is no one among you who does not know that the great John became the mediator of the Law and of grace. He stood, therefore, in the midst of two disciples, as in the midst of two peoples: of the old, which was already ceasing, and of the new, which was just beginning—for after the baptism, Jesus began to preach. And it seems to me that the evangelist looked toward this when he let the calling of one of the disciples pass by. For having named Andrew, he was silent about the other, as the legal worship typed by him had become silent and was abrogated. Andrew, however, since it is interpreted as "becoming power," D bears the type of the Church. For what power could be more becoming than that which received the Gospel proclamation, and was fortified so manfully that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it? But let us hear also of the things that follow: "And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he says: Behold the Lamb of God." Consider then for me, beloved, how deep in a word so brief is the scope of meanings hidden; how the history harmonizes with the contemplation. For having said of Andrew that he is "manly" from "man."
A John, however, stood quietly, as to how he interpreted the "stance" there. For the saying, "Behold the Lamb of God," is an indication of how steadfastly he stood by his previous assertions. For this one taketh away the sin of the world, baptizing in the Spirit and in fire. But let us dwell more laboriously upon the meaning. For just as from a meadow rich in flowers the eye does not wish to depart quickly, so I, looking around the evangelical meadow, desire to linger on these things. For not even the phrase "looking upon Jesus" is devoid of deeper contemplation. For if he were speaking to us about a corporeal gaze, he would have said, rather, "having looked at Jesus." But now, having used the dative sense, he indicated a spiritual vision, so that he might not fall short of prophetic revelation even in this; for such were the visions of the prophets who saw. Having therefore looked upon the Word of God, who in the body of Jesus was united without mixture, without confusion, and without separation, B and having understood Him who is one in hypostasis to be twofold in nature, he let forth a theological voice, prophesying what was appropriate for each nature: "Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world." Do you see the composite of the two natures in the one Christ? By saying "Lamb of God," he signifies the assumption: the truly innocent lamb, who was led to death for our sake. But so that you might not deem this Lamb to be a mere man, he adds quite alertly, "who taketh away the sin of the world"—for he joined this, which is an indication of divinity, to the former. Through both, he leads the one who is able to understand to the prophecy of Isaiah, almost crying out: This is he of whom Isaiah says, "As a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer, he was dumb." "He bore our iniquities, and by his stripe we were healed." But it escaped me, undiscussed, why he says that John stood, but Jesus walked: "John stood, and having looked upon Jesus walking." Does this not seem to you, also, worthy of examination? Come then, like an unskilled harvester, I shall glean what was overlooked. The stance of John indicated, as I said, the steadfastness of prophecy, C as he looked upon Jesus; and having looked upon Jesus, [he showed] theoria: for theoria [comes] from theorein, and theoria, and having looked upon Jesus. And [he was united] without mixture, and without confusion, and without separation.
HOMILY L
Let history harmonize with our contemplation. For since he said, "Behold," in the passage cited above; and afterwards added, "Hic est de quo Isaias dicit: Ut ovis ad occisionem ductus est, et ut agnus coram tondente se non aperuit os suum," — indeed, "He bore our iniquities, and by his stripe we were healed (92)" — when he had said, "John stood," he proceeds quietly to interpret what he meant by "station." For this very thing, that he says, "Behold the Lamb of God," is an indication that he stands firm in his prior assertion. For this one indeed takes away the sins of the world, who baptizes in the Spirit and fire. But let us willingly linger in expending this meaning more accurately. For just as from a meadow filled with the variety and abundance of flowers, the gaze does not allow itself to be averted, so I, observing the evangelical field, wish to linger longer on these things. Nor does [the text] (93), "looking upon Jesus," lack a deeper consideration. D For if he had signified to us a corporeal aspect, he would have said rather, "looking at Jesus"; but now, using the significance of the dative, he indicated a spiritual intuition, so that he might not be devoid of prophetic revelations even here. For such were the visions of the seeing prophets. When, therefore, his gaze was thrown upon the body of Jesus, which was united to the Word of God without commixtion (94), without confusion, and without division, and he understood Him as one in hypostasis, who was twofold in nature, he emitted that voice, full of divine doctrine, through which he chanted with a divine oracle what was appropriate to each nature: "Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world." You see in one Christ the composition of two natures. When he says, "Lamb of God," he shows the assumed humanity, the lamb truly innocent led to death for our sake. But so that you might not think this Lamb a mere man, he added forthwith: "Who taketh away the sin of the world"; for he connected this, which is an indication of divinity, to the former. Through either dictum, however, he leads his mind to the prophecy of Isaiah, for one who can hear, who is almost crying out: "This is he..." and so on, as cited above. But that point has escaped me undiscussed, for what cause he said that John stood, but Jesus walked: "John stood, he says, and looking upon Jesus walking." Does this not seem to you worthy of our examination? Come now, as an inept harvester, I shall reap what was passed over. The status of John indicated the firmness of prophecy, as...as the fixed, immovable end of the previous page.
llbracketA the fixed, and it also bore a type of the legal cessation and station. But the walking of Jesus signified the movement of the evangelical preaching, which began from the baptism itself. For thus, historically, John, after the baptism, saw Jesus walking. And he persuades me to understand this by the oracle of the Baptist; for he had said, prophesying concerning Christ: “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him; and he must increase, but I must decrease,” indicating the evangelical increase and the decrease of the Law. “And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.” Since, therefore, he says, both disciples had heard him, they followed Jesus. But if the unnamed disciple, who has been taken as a type of the letter, follows with Andrew, let nothing trouble you. For many from the old worship were brought under the yoke of the Gospel, and when the fullness of the Gentiles has entered, as the Apostle says, the remnant of Israel shall be saved. Let us, therefore, also, beloved, follow the good Master Christ, imitating his life on earth, as much as is possible for man, through contemplation and action. Let us blot out our sins through alms; let us open the bowels of mercies to the needy. Let us also ask the Lord, as did the great Andrew: “Master, where dwellest thou?” For we shall know that He dwells in the heart of him who is merciful, of him who is compassionate, of him who does not foster envy in himself against his neighbor, of him who does not grow rich from rapine and injustice, of him who does not carry in his soul the remembrance of injury, of him who exercises patience towards the offender. In such a soul God dwells. Shall we remain in the commandments of Christ, as the two disciples remained with Him? For perhaps even for us it is the eleventh hour. For just as this is the final part of the day, so each of us is near to the end. For death always sets snares for us, coming upon us from any slight and chance cause. Who, then [is] that excellent steward and caretaker of his own soul, who by means of almsgiving has bought back the blessed life in exchange for the perishable things here, before the assembly here is dissolved by death? Let us emulate the manly endurance of the first-called Andrew. For you all know, having heard, how much this great man endured first in Sinope, and later in Patras; and how those wild men, bestially leaping upon him, even laid hold of his very apostolic flesh with their teeth. In Achaia, indeed, preaching the Gospel, he did not refuse the crucifixion on account of his love for the Master; but following the footsteps of the Teacher whom he had followed from the beginning, by the cross B—
A he attained to him. What, then, prevents us from following him to the best of our ability, as long as we are in this life, in Sinope, which indeed wounds the sight of our souls? For truly, as if the eyes of our understanding were damaged, alas! we walk in darkness, B like animals laboring in a mill, with eyes covered, driving the mill of this life around. Let us therefore act manfully here, when we are torn by the bites of temptations and bitten by the teeth of envy. And if that intelligible Aegeas, the adversary of our salvation, attacks us, let us offer a praiseworthy resistance even unto death. The great apostle was fastened to an olive tree; let us be grafted onto the ever-verdant plant of mercy, fastening our flesh with the nails of continence, revolving in our thoughts the future judgment, and making death our meditation, so that with a pure conscience and a light-filled soul we may receive the radiations of the most divine Trinity and one nature, which illumines our leading faculty C unto the true knowledge of it, for to it pertains all glory and honor unto the ages. Amen.
HOMILY LI. On the Beatitudes. Pronounced on the memory of our holy Father Nicholas.
When the Lord called His own sheep to His own divine fold, He promised to provide for them, that they might have life, and have it more abundantly. What did He mean by this? That they would become heirs of eternal life, and have something more after their departure from here; D foretelling those celebrations, I think, which we solemnize in honor of the saints. For since they enjoy openness of speech with God, and communicate their graces to us, we honor them with feasts and assemblies. But all the saints, each in part, obtained veneration from men, whether by being honored especially in the places where they served God, or where the treasure of their sacred relics is laid, or where they manifested the graces of their miracles. Yet the wonderworker and great Nicholas, to the extent that he surpassed all the saints in the gifts of miracles, attained by all to an equal degree the praise derived from that wonder and work. Indeed, he is renowned for miracles, and a myrrh-streamer, myrrh-streamer