66 At the beginning of St. Chrysostom's exile in 404, when he was in Nicæa, in a Letter which he wrote to Constantius about a mission which he had set on foot at Phoenicia (Ep. 121 t. iii. pp. 721, 722, ed. Montf.), he begs him "not to cease having a care for the Churches of Phoenicia and Arabia and the east, and to write to" St. Chrysostom quite often, and tell him how many Churches had been built in a year and what holy men had gone into Phoenicia." Soon after, Constantius seems to have asked leave of St. Chrysostom to join him; for in his 13th letter to Olympias on arriving at Cocussus or Cucusus in Cappadocia, now Goksyn, his bitter place of exile, St. Chrysostom says (ib. p. 594), "My Lord, the most pious priest Constantius, would fain have been here long ago, for he wrote to me begging that I would let him come." About this time, perhaps while Constantius was on his actual journey to Cucusus, St. Chrysostom writes to him (Ep. 225, P. 724), grieved at not having heard from him, and speaks of their great love for each other and of Constantius' goodness to the poor, the fatherless and widows: soon after he writes from Cucusus to Elpidius bishop of Laodicea (Ep. 114, p. 656), “the most reverend priests Constantius and Euethius are here with us." There are extant two Letters of Constantius, one of them to his mother, written while he was companion of St. Chrysostom there (pp. 731 and 734). In the course of this banishment St. Chrysostom writes (Ep. 123, pp. 663, 664) about this Phoenician mission to "the priests and monks in Phoenicia, who were instructing the Gentiles there," encouraging them in their work, and saying that he had given orders that all their expenses "in clothing, shoes, and support of the brethren should be bountifully supplied," and adds that they will know about his affairs from Constantius' letter. In a letter to Gerontius (Ep. 54, p. 623) written during this exile about the mission in Phoenicia, St. Chrysostom says that he had intrusted Constantius to give Gerontius all he needed whether "for building or for the needs of the brethren." To Constantius' piety we owe the preservation of these Homilies. One very special value of them lies in the pious fervent exhortation at the end of each, on Penitence, Almsgiving, or whatever St. Chrysostom had at the time chiefly in mind, breathing forth words from a heart, filled with the love of GOD and that longed for his flock to partake it. HOM. I on sin and Almsgiving 2 on high thoughts and on poverty and wealth 3 on God's gifts to each 4 on heathen practices at funerals 5 on temptation 6 on Heaven 7 on old age 8 on study of Scriptures 9 on Penitence and confession of our sins 10 on relieving distress II on Almsgiving and giving to beggars 12 on free-will and Penitence 13 on not postponing Baptism and on a right life 14 on Thought of GOD and earnest prayer 15 on sin-enslavement and on untimely laughter 16 on dwelling in Heaven 17 on worthily receiving Holy Communion 18 on the Might of Poverty 19 on the great Gain of loving one's neighbor 20 on slavery to possessions and on Thankfulness 21 on gossip 22 on seeking GOD, on His protection and enduring Temptation 23 on the loss of GOD 24 on the acquirement of Virtue 25 on not caring for things of the world nor partaking with the covetous 27 on the might of Prayer and on minding us that we are sinners 28 value of Affliction and on simplicity of life and adornment of the soul 30 on helping each other in way of salvation 31 on Penitence and keeping in mind our sins 32 on the Might of mercifulness to others 33 on the value of affliction, trial, poverty, and on Thankfulness 34 on using with intensity of mind and purpose, the Grace of the SPIRIT. After the publication of Dr. Field's text (Bibliotheca Patrum Ecclesiae Catholicae Qui ante Orientis et Occidentis schisma floruerunt, tom vii. Oxonii 1862) the translation was again very carefully revised by that text by the Rev. Dr. BARROW, Principal of St. Edmund Hall he also wrote heads for the present Preface. The headings were given (as far as could be done) in the MS. and many of them have been retained; others, fitting in less well with the printed page, seemed to need a little modification. For an occasional note enclosed in brackets, the son of the one remaining Editor of the Library is responsible. OXFORD, May, 1877. P. E. PUSEY. [It has seemed better in this edition to conform the translation of the Scripture texts to some one standard. St. Chrysostom used the current text of his day, which, on the whole, was more like the Textus Receptus, the basis of the A. V., then the more critical text followed by the R. V. It has therefore seemed best to take the A. V. as the standard (except where St. Chrysostom has followed a different text), but note has been made of any variations of the R. V. materially affecting the sense. There remain a number of loose quotations and combinations of different texts, and in these the English translation is retained. Effort has been made to simplify the language and remove involved constructions in the translation of the Homilies. The English translation was originally made from the Benedictine, and afterwards revised from Field's more accurate text, and the differences between these have sometimes been overlooked. Besides this, it has often been possible to give St. Chrysostom's meaning more accurately, sometimes even reversing the sense. There are, however, many very felicitous translations in the English edition which have been retained. It is a revision, and not a new translation. All the notes in the English edition have been scrupulously retained, additions being enclosed in square brackets, with the initials of the reviser. An introduction on the authorship of this Epistle has been inserted. — F. G.] -- [Published after his decease. — F. G., jr.] INTRODUCTION. BY THE AMERICAN REVISER. IN the following Homilies St. Chrysostom assumes throughout St. Paul's authorship of the Epistle, and in his opening Homily deals with considerable ingenuity with several of the most obvious objections to the Pauline authorship. The Epistle, however, is anonymous, and is not attributed to St. Paul by the most ancient historical testimony which has come down to us, nor is his authorship generally recognized by modern criticism. It is interesting, therefore, to enquire whether St. Chrysostom, in adopting the prevailing view of his time, did so on sufficient grounds. The history of the matter is very curious. At the close of the second century Tertullian speaks positively and unhesitatingly of the Epistle to the Hebrews as written by Barnabas, the early and long-continued companion of St. Paul.' But there happened to be current in the ancient Church another epistle ascribed to Barnabas, and then commonly received as his, though generally considered spurious. The two epistles were so entirely unlike that no one could well receive them both as from the same author. The result was different in different parts of the Church. In the West, although the Epistle to the Hebrews had been used very largely by Clement of Rome, it came to be discredited altogether, and did not secure general recognition until the fourth century; it was then gradually acknowledged and attributed, at first doubtfully, but afterwards by common consent, to St. Paul. In the East, on the other hand, the Epistle itself was firmly accepted from the first, but with no certain tradition and much questioning in regard to its author. The suggestion of its Pauline authorship seems to have been made by Pantænus, the teacher of Clement of Alexandria, and a contemporary of Tertullian. We have his opinion, however, only at third hand, in a quotation preserved by Eusebius from a lost work of Clement, and it is impossible to tell on what grounds he rested his opinion, or whether it was a mere personal speculation, like the reason he gives for the omission of the name of St. Paul in connection with the Epistle. His disciple Clement adopted the suggestion not without hesitation. No one familiar with Greek, which was still the current language of the East, and especially of Alexandria, could fail to be struck by the extreme difference of style between this Epistle and those of St. Paul. Clement, therefore, conjectured that it might have been originally written by St. Paul in Hebrew and translated into Greek by St. Luke. This again is second-hand opinion preserved to us by Eusebius. Nevertheless, in other works, which are still extant, he frequently cites the Epistle as St. Paul's. 1 Tertull. De Pud. c. 20, Ed. Migne, 1021. Exstat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis auctoritatis viro [viri], ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae tenore:... [1 Cor. ix. 6]. ... Et utique receptior apud Ecclesias Epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum. Monens itaque discipulos, omissis omnibus initiis, ad perfectionem magis tendere, [After quoting Heb. vi. 4-8, he goes on] Hoc qui ab Apostolis didicit et cum Apostolis docuit, etc. 2 Eusebius' Eccl. Hist. vi. 14 (Crusé's translation, p. 213). "But now, as the blessed presbyter used to say, 'since the Lord who was the Apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul by reason of his inferiority, as if sent to the Gentiles, did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews; both out of reverence for the Lord, and because he wrote of his abundance to the Hebrews, as a herald and apostle of the Gentiles.'" 3 Ibid. The Epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, but that it was carefully translated by Luke and published among the Greeks. Therefore one finds the same character of style and of phraseology in the Epistle as in the Acts. "But it is probable that the title, Paul the Apostle, was not prefixed to it. For as he wrote to the Hebrews, who had imbibed prejudices against him and suspected him, he wisely guards against diverting them from the perusal by giving his name." Clement was succeeded in his catechetical office at Alexandria by Origen, a profound thinker and scholar. He was strongly impressed with the difference between the Greek of this and of the Pauline Epistles, and speaks of the matter in different parts of his voluminous works, sometimes suggesting the Clementine hypothesis, sometimes speaking of the variety of opinions and traditions on the subject, sometimes speaking of St. Luke or of Clement of Rome as the probable author, but summing up his perplexity (in language, quoted fully by Eusebius), by saying that who really was the author, God only knows.' Thus far the question of authorship was evidently an open one on which every one was free to hold his own opinion, or uncertainty of opinion. Tertullian speaks of the authorship of Barnabas simply as a fact, without an allusion to any doubt on the matter. But as the time went on, the attention of the masters of thought in the Church became more and more engrossed with doctrinal questions, while those of exegesis and criticism more and more lost their interest, especially in the East. In the West there is no trace of any reference of the authorship of the Epistle to St. Paul until the middle of the fourth century; but after this the opinion spread rapidly, and under the influence of Augustine, in the year 393 somewhat hesitatingly, but in 419 positively, the provincial council of Carthage reckoned it among the Pauline Epistles. Augustine himself, however, sometimes expressed himself doubtfully, and although it had now become customary to quote the Epistle as St. Paul's, yet scholars like Jerome, when distinctly treating of the question, express the old doubts and uncertainties of Origen. The assumption of the Pauline authorship was a convenience in maintaining the authority of the Epistle, and there being almost no one to call it in question, had come to be generally adopted in St. Chrysostom's time, and remained almost unquestioned until the revival of learning at the period of the Reformation. Since then, while still remaining a popular impression, it has come to be rejected by the great majority of careful students. In this variety of opinion from the earliest times, and in the absence of any consistent external evidence, we are plainly left free to form our own conclusions from internal evidence. Among the great number of authors suggested by different writers, the only names entitled to especial consideration are those of St. Paul (Chrysostom, Augustine, and later writers generally until modern times, but at present the only scholar of weight is Hofmann), St. Luke (besides the views of ancients given above, Calvin, Ebrard, Döllinger, and to a certain extent Delitzsch), Clement of Rome (Erasmus, Reithmaier, Bisping), Silas (Mynster, Böhme, Godet), Apollos (Luther, Semler, De Wette, Tholuck, Bunsen, Kurtz, Farrar, De Pressensé, Bleek, Hilgenfeld, Lünemann, Alford), and Barnabas (Ullmann, Wieseler, Ritschl, Grau, Thiersch, Weiss, Renan, Keil). Of the three first we have genuine writings with which to make a comparison; of the three last-assuming the spuriousness of the so-called Epistles of Barnabas-nothing remains. The supposition of the authorship of St. Paul, although so long carelessly held, seems almost forbidden by an expression in the Epistle itself. St. Paul was always most strenuous in asserting that he had received his apostleship and his knowledge of the truth "not of man, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father" (Gal. i. 1), while the author of this Epistle ranks himself among those who had received through the medium of others that Gospel "which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him" (ii. 3). All attempts to weaken the force of this evidence by considering the passage as merely an instance of the rhetorical figure koinosis, in which the writer identifies himself with his readers, and thus attributes to himself what properly belongs only to them, have been unsuccessful. Delitzsch considers that if the Epistle were the joint work of St. Paul and St. Luke, in which the former only supplied the general course of thought, leaving its expression entirely to 1 Eusebius' Eccl. Hist. vi. 25. Extended quotations from the various writers above referred to, and from many others, may be found in almost any of the innumerable treatises on the subject, and are given with especial fullness and clearness in Alford's Prolegomena. |