Acts 1:12–26

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet. Our Lord and Savior, having conquered the prince of darkness, leads the faithful to a place of peace and light. Rightly he ascended the mount of blessing, promising the holy Spirit, whose anointing teaches us about everything.

He is near Jerusalem, having the distance of a Sabbath journey. According to history, it indicates that the Mount of Olives is separated by about a mile from the city of Jerusalem. For on the Sabbath, according to the law, it was not permitted to go more than a thousand paces. But according to allegory, whoever will be worthy to contemplate within the glory of the Lord ascending to the Father and to be enriched with the promise of the Holy Spirit, this one enters the city of eternal peace by the journey of the Sabbath. And for him, according to Isaiah, there will be a Sabbath from the Sabbath, because whoever here has ceased from perverse work will there rest in celestial recompense. But on the other hand, whoever in this age, as if through the time of six days, has neglected to work for salvation, during that time of perpetual rest, will be excluded from the boundaries of blessed Jerusalem, despising that Gospel: "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath."

That is nearly two miles.

"Then Returned They," it is said: namely, when they had heard. For they could not have borne it, if the angel had not referred them to another Coming. It seems to me, that it was also on a sabbath-day that these things took place; for he would not thus have specified the distance, saying, "from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey," unless they were then going on the sabbath-day a certain definite distance.

So that there was no long way to go, to be a cause of alarm to them while yet trembling and fearful.

One mile, which was the distance of the Sabbath's journey, as Origen says in the fifth Homily, was two thousand cubits. And moreover the holy tent and the ark occupied this same space before the encampment, and from that distance they encamped. The distance permitted those who worshipped the holy tent to walk on the Sabbath.

When did "then they returned"? When they heard what was said by the Angels, because they would never have torn themselves away from the place if the Angels had not informed them about the second coming. And it seems to me that this happened on a Sabbath, because Luke would not have indicated the distance in this way: "from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away." The length of the journey that Jews were permitted to travel on the Sabbath day was fixed. Josephus in his twentieth book of Antiquities relates that the Mount of Olives was eight stadia from Jerusalem. And Origen in his fifth book says: "The Sabbath journey was three cubits." Indeed, the holy tabernacle with the ark preceded the camp by such a distance and was placed at such a distance from it as worshippers were permitted to travel on the Sabbath. This distance is one mile.

And when they had entered the upper room, they went up where they were staying. It designates a place on high, because they had already ascended from earthly conversation of the Sabbath to the higher realms of knowledge and virtue.

James of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas of James. Some think that there were two apostles called James, namely James of Zebedee and James of Alphaeus, and that the third James, the brother of the Lord, was not an apostle but the bishop of Jerusalem. That is by no means true, but according to the faith of the Gospels, it should be known that this same James, the son of Alphaeus and an apostle, was in charge of Jerusalem, who was called the brother of the Lord, because he was the son of the Lord's maternal aunt, of whom John the evangelist mentions. However, he says, "standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Clopas" (John 19). Naming this Mary of Clopas from her father or family. For how could the brother of the Lord be said to be not an apostle but the third James, when Paul also names him an apostle: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the brother of the Lord" (Galatians 1)? And the evangelist Mark calls him the same, not the third but the other, saying: "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Younger and Joses, and Salome" (Mark 15). For since "greater" and "lesser" usually provide a distinction not among three but between two, the lesser James is called the son of Alphaeus, in distinction from the greater who was the son of Zebedee. Read the book of blessed Jerome against Helvidius. However, Simon the Zealot is the one who is written in the Gospels as the Canaanite. For Cana interprets as zeal. He was from a village in Galilee, Cana, where the Lord turned water into wine, and after his brother James, he ruled the Church of Jerusalem and at the age of one hundred and twenty ascended the cross under Trajan. He is declared to be according to the flesh a cousin of the Savior, because Hegesippus testified that his father Clopas was the brother of Joseph. And Judas of James, that is, the brother of James, is the same as the one called Thaddeus in the Gospels, and he was sent to Edessa to Abgarus, the king of Osroene, as ecclesiastical history tells. It continues:

And when they had entered the upper room, they went up where they were staying. For in Greek the order of words is also placed thus: And when they had gone into the upper room, they went up where they were staying—Peter and John, and Andrew and James. In Greek the order of names is thus: Peter and Andrew, and James and John, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. Histories recount concerning these, in which the passions of the apostles are contained, and many deem them apocryphal, that they preached in Persia, and there were killed by the priests of the temples in the city of Suanir, and they underwent glorious martyrdom. The Book of Martyrology, which is titled with the name and preface of blessed Jerome, although Jerome himself was not the author but the translator, and Eusebius is narrated to have been the author, affirms this as well. Further, Isidore believes that this Simon is the one who ruled the Church of Jerusalem after James the brother of the Lord, and was crowned with martyrdom of the cross under Trajan, being a hundred and twenty years old, whom we also followed formerly in the first book of the Acts of the Apostles, not examining what he wrote scrupulously, but simply listening to his words, believing that he learned these things from certain ancient histories. We dare not deny this even now, especially since he who wrote the aforementioned passions of the apostles has most certainly revealed that he wrote uncertain and false things. For he says that the eunuch of Candace, whom Philip baptized in Judea, was in Ethiopia at the time when Matthew was teaching there and helped him in his teaching, while it is manifest that Candace is the name not of a man, but of a woman, that is, not of the eunuch, but of his mistress, namely the queen of the Ethiopians, who, as we have learned from ancient records, were all commonly called thus in olden times. I wrote in the same work, following Jerome's commentary, and concerning Judas the brother of James, who was also called Thaddaeus, that he was sent to Abgar, king of Osroene, as ecclesiastical history has handed down; but afterward, examining the ecclesiastical history itself more diligently, I found it not written there that Thaddaeus the apostle, one of the twelve, but Thaddaeus one of the seventy disciples, was sent to heal the aforementioned king. I do not think an error should be imputed to me, where, following the authority of great doctors, I believed without doubt what I found in their small works should be accepted.

[Daniel 6:10] "Now when Daniel learned of it, that is, of the law which had been enacted, he entered his house, and with the windows in his upper room opened up in the direction of Jerusalem, he continued to bow his knees three times a day and worshipped, and made confession before his God just as he was previously accustomed to do." We must quickly draw from our memory and bring together from all of Holy Scripture all the passages where we have read of domata, which mean in Latin either "walled enclosures" (menia) or "beds" or "sun-terraces," and also the references to anogaia, that is, "upper rooms." For after all, our Lord celebrated the passover in an upper room (Mark 14:15, Luke 22:12), and in the Acts of the Apostles the Holy Spirit came upon the one hundred and twenty souls of believers while they were in an upper room (Acts 1:13). And so Daniel in this case, despising the king's commands and reposing his confidence in God, does not offer his prayers in some obscure spot, but in a lofty place, and opens up his windows towards Jerusalem, from whence he looked for the peace . He prays, moreover, according to God's behest, and also according to what Solomon had said when he admonished the people that they should pray in the direction of the Temple. Furthermore, there are three times in the day when we should bow our knees unto God, and the tradition of the Church understands them to be the third hour, the sixth hour, and the ninth hour. Lastly, it was at the third hour that the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles (Acts 2:15) . It was at the sixth hour that Peter, purposing to eat, ascended to the upper room for prayer (Acts 10:9). It was at the ninth hour that Peter and John were on their way to the Temple (Acts 3:1).

"And when they were come in," it says, "they went up into an upper room, where they were making their abode:" so they then remained in Jerusalem after the Resurrection: "both Peter, and James, and John:" no longer is only the latter together with his brother mentioned, but together with Peter the two: "and Andrew, and Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, and James (the son) of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas, (the brother) of James." He has done well to mention the disciples: for since one had betrayed Christ, and another had been unbelieving, he thereby shows that, except the first, all of them were preserved.

They durst not appear in the town. They also did well to go up into an upper room, as it became less easy to arrest them at once.

Peter, interpreting or knowing: James, supplanter of labor. John, by the grace of God: Andrew, becoming powerful or condemned: Philip, the mouth of widows or the mouth of the lamp: Thomas, the abyss or twin or doubting. Bartholomew, son of him who suspends waters: Matthew, gifted: James son of Alphaeus, supplantation. Simon the Zealot, discipline of life: Judas son of James, he was also called Thaddeus. He names the disciples individually to show that, since they had fallen away at the time of the passion, Judas indeed completely cast himself out from the band of the apostles. But Peter agreed, and through the threefold question was summoned back to the Teacher. And if John is recorded among the same as taking the Mother of Christ, yet with John present to the apostles, she herself was also present.

He does not compile a list of the disciples in vain: but wishing to show that they had suffered something human, yet had not remained in apostasy. For indeed Peter, who had denied, was absolved from his denial by bitter tears, as is made evident from this, that shortly afterwards the spiritual flock was entrusted to him. Thomas, who had been unbelieving, was healed of his unbelief when the wounds and the side were touched with his hands. Therefore, although all the others were present together, Judas alone was missing. And Mary, Mother of God, was present, as indeed was John, who had received her into his house, and the brothers were present. What if Joseph, the bridegroom, had been alive, certainly he would also have been present: especially he, who, when his sons doubted, never doubted concerning the privilege. But it is clear that he had long since died: for he himself was not then present, when his kinsmen wished to see Jesus teaching. For what does he say? "Your mother and your brothers are seeking you outside," (Matt. 12:47) nor is it added: "And your father."

Now although they lived beforehand the life of freedom, as a pledge, yet they did not receive this freedom in themselves until they had first of all laboured in the life of abstinence, for it is written concerning them that immediately our Redeemer was taken up they returned to that upper chamber in which they were abiding, and that they lived there with much fasting, and in close confinement, and with sincere prayers, and bitter weeping, and that afterwards they were held to be worthy to receive the Paraclete. And if from the ascension of Christ into heaven, unto the descent of the Spirit the days of their abstinence were few, we must learn that they also tarried in this service of fasting and abstinence after they had received the Spirit, and in every place is it written concerning them that they fasted and prayed.

He prudently enumerates the disciples. Since one of them betrayed, another denied, and a third did not believe, he shows that, apart from the betrayer, all were present.

They sought by a swift path, with which it was possible to go a mile on their sabbath, the well-known walls where Mary, the gateway of God, the virgin mother of her Creator, formed by her own son, was sitting at a religious gathering. The second virgin put to flight the woes of Eve's crime; there is no harm done to the sex; she restored what the first took away. Let grief not raise up complaints or vex mourning hearts with groaning over the old law; these very forms of wickedness and crime rather cause delight at this bargain, and a better lot comes to the redeemed world from the fall. The person, not the nature [of a woman], caused ruin; in those days [of Eve] a pregnant woman [brought forth] peril. In these [of Mary] one grew great to bring forth God, the one begetting mortal things and the other bearing divine—she through whom the Mediator came forth into the world and carried actual flesh to the heavens.

All these were continually devoting themselves with one accord to prayer. Those who patiently continue in prayer are those who await the arrival of the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit of discipline flees from deceit (Wisdom 1). Therefore, whoever desires to receive the promised gifts of the Holy Spirit must persist diligently in prayers steeped in fraternal love.

With the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. It says brothers of Jesus, not of Mary. For in Greek there is a clear distinction where it is written not αὐτῆς but αὐτοῦ, which without any doubt is a masculine pronoun among them. Blessed Luke took care to inform readers that the brothers of the Lord were participants in his faith at that time, about whom it was previously said before his passion: "Neither did his brothers believe in him."

"Blessed," says He, "are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the sons of God." [Matthew 5:9] It behooves the sons of God to be peacemakers, gentle in heart, simple in speech, agreeing in affection, faithfully linked to one another in the bonds of unanimity.

This unanimity formerly prevailed among the apostles; and thus the new assembly of believers, keeping the Lord's commandments, maintained its charity. Divine Scripture proves this, when it says, "But the multitude of them which believed were of one heart and of one soul." [Acts 4:32] And again: "These all continued with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren." [Acts 1:14] And thus they prayed with effectual prayers; thus they were able with confidence to obtain whatever they asked from the Lord's mercy.

Before all things, the Teacher of peace and the Master of unity would not have prayer to be made singly and individually, as for one who prays to pray for himself alone. For we say not "My Father, which art in heaven," nor "Give me this day my daily bread; "nor does each one ask that only his own debt should be forgiven him; nor does he request for himself alone that he may not be led into temptation, and delivered from evil. Our prayer is public and common; and when we pray, we pray not for one, but for the whole people, because we the whole people are one. The God of peace and the Teacher of concord, who taught unity, willed that one should thus pray for all, even as He Himself bore us all in one... Thus also we find that the apostles, with the disciples, prayed after the Lord's ascension: "They all," says the Scripture, "continued with one accord in prayer, with the women, and Mary who was the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren." [Acts 1:14] They continued with one accord in prayer, declaring both by the urgency and by the agreement of their praying, that God, "who makes men to dwell of one mind in a house," only admits into the divine and eternal home those among whom prayer is unanimous.

"These were all continuing with one accord in prayer together with the women." For this is a powerful weapon in temptations; and to this they had been trained. "Continuing with one accord." Good. Besides, the present temptation directed them to this: for they exceedingly feared the Jews. "With the women," it is said: for he had said that they had followed Him: "and with Mary the mother of Jesus." How then is it said, that "that disciple" took her to his own home, at that time? But then the Lord had brought them together again, and so returned.

"And they continued," it is said, "with one accord in prayer." Do you see how watchful they were? "Continuing in prayer," and "with one accord," as it were with one soul, continuing therein: two things reported in their praise.

"And Mary the Mother of Jesus and His brethren." Now Joseph perhaps was dead: for it is not to be supposed that when the brethren had become believers, Joseph believed not; he who in fact had believed before any. Certain it is that we nowhere find him looking upon Christ as man merely.

But how does he say, "with Mary the mother of Jesus"? Although the evangelist said that "from that time the disciple… took Her to his own" (John 19:27), this in no way contradicts the foregoing, because if that very disciple was there, then nothing prevented Her from being present as well. Why does he not mention Joseph here? He does not mention him because Joseph had already died, for if the brothers believed and were present — they who had often expressed disbelief before — then all the more would Joseph have proved faithful and would not have wished to withdraw from the company of the apostles, had he still been alive, since he never expressed any doubt.

Foremost among the band of apostles, Peter had been called from his small boat; the scaly throng were wont to be caught by this fisher; suddenly, seen from the shore as he drew [his nets], he himself deserved to be drawn; Christ's fishing deigned to seize a disciple who must stretch the nets which are to catch the human race. To the hand that had borne the fishhook was transferred the key. He who had been eager to shift the dripping booty from the depths of the sea to the shore and to fill the craft with spoils, now in another area draws from the better waves [of baptism]; no longer pursuing his profits through the waters, he forsakes his profession. To him the Lamb entrusted the sheep which he saved by his passion; and he enlarges his flock throughout the whole world under this shepherd.

There was, however, a crowd of about a hundred and twenty people together. These hundred and twenty, gradually rising from one to fifteen by increments, form the number of the fifteen steps, which mystically signifies the perfection of both laws in the Psalter, and in which the chosen vessel remains with Peter in Jerusalem. For it was necessary that the mystery, which the legislator exhibited in years, should be designated by the preachers of the new grace in their number.

"And in those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said, "etc. At that moment blessed Peter, quoting Psalm 108, said in the midst of the brethren, who were about a hundred and twenty in number: "Now that Judas the traitor is gone, we must think of the twelfth apostle," for the perfect number to be completed. Then, having placed Joseph and Matthias in the middle and said a prayer, they cast lots, and the election fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered as the twelfth apostle.

And this is subsequently observed, according to divine instruction, in the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter speaks to the people of ordaining an apostle in the place of Judas. "Peter "it says, "stood up in the midst of the disciples, and the multitude were in one place."

"And in those days," it says, "Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said." Both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honor, he always begins the discourse. ("The number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty.)

"Men and brethren," says Peter. For if the Lord called them brethren, much more may he. "Men," he says: they all being present. See the dignity of the Church, the angelic condition! No distinction there, "neither male nor female." I would that the Churches were such now! None there had his mind full of some worldly matter, none was anxiously thinking about household concerns. Such a benefit are temptations, such the advantage of afflictions!

Again, consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark also the great moderation of the other Apostles, how they concede the throne to him, and no longer dispute with each other. For that Church was as it were in heaven: having nothing to do with this world's affairs: and resplendent not with walls, no, nor with numbers, but with the zeal of them that formed the assembly. They were "about an hundred and twenty," it says. The seventy perhaps whom Christ Himself had chosen, and other of the more earnest-minded disciples, as Joseph and Matthias. There were women, he says, many, who followed Him. "Together" they were on all occasions.

Then Peter arose, not James, and as if more zealous, and as one to whom the leadership of the disciples had been entrusted. Moreover James was modest, more suited to speech and quiet, while the others handled affairs. Therefore they yield the seat [καθέδρας] of Jerusalem to him. But see how he acts by common decree in all things, and not from primacy nor by his own authority. One hundred and twenty were together present of those who had believed in the Lord. For indeed there were seventy, and five hundred whom Paul says he saw the Lord after he had risen (1 Cor. 15:6). But it is likely that these were among those who had been more approved and were more fervent in speaking freely.

Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to "go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost." [Matt. 28:19] Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as "the sent." Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, [Ps. 109:8] chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth [Acts 1:15-20], into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches.

"In those days," that is, in the days before Pentecost, "Peter, standing in the midst of the disciples, said," as the fervent disciple and the one to whom Christ entrusted His flock, and, finally, as the first. But pay attention: he does everything with the common consent and nothing on his own will and authority.

Twelve constellations of the [stellar] choir shine and cast the brilliance of Olympus on the earth. Note what realization this light reveals: The world is divided by the regions of its four sides; a triune faith calls this [world to belief], in whose name [the world] is washed in the font. Therefore, four taken together three times makes up the whole figure which the twelvefold order possesses, and to the devout disciples, to whom this baptism is commanded, a mystic reason gave cause for making up again the former number.

Brethren, it is necessary to fulfill the Scripture which the Holy Spirit foretold, etc. Peter the Apostle feared to remain in the number eleven. For all sin is 'eleven,' because through perverse actions, it transgresses the precepts of the Decalogue. Hence, because none of our justice is innocent by itself, the tabernacle that contained the Ark of the Lord was overlaid inside with eleven goat-hair curtains. And he restored the number of apostles to twelve, so that by the two parts of seven (for three times four is a fine sum), they would maintain the grace they preached and with the number, and those who were to preach the faith of the Holy Trinity to the fourfold world, as the Lord says: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19), they would also strengthen the perfection of work by the sacrament of the number. According to the higher understanding, the loss that the Church suffers from false brethren persists to the greatest extent unaddressed. But when at the end of the world, the people of the Jews who crucified the Lord are believed to be reconciled to the Church, like on the approaching fiftieth day, the number of the apostles is restored.

the scripture had to be fulfilled: The Apostles bring to fulfillment what David had stated was to be done.

The Apostle Peter, therefore, after the resurrection of the Lord, and His assumption into the heavens, being desirous of filling up the number of the twelve apostles, and in electing into the place of Judas any substitute who should be chosen by God, thus addressed those who were present: "Men [and] brethren, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, spake before concerning Judas, which was made guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us: ... Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and, His bishop-rick let another take;" -thus leading to the completion of the apostles, according to the words spoken by David.

"Men and brethren," he says, "this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spake before." Why did he not ask Christ to give him some one in the room of Judas? It is better as it is. For in the first place, they were engaged in other things; secondly, of Christ's presence with them, the greatest proof that could be given was this: as He had chosen when He was among them, so did He now being absent. Now this was no small matter for their consolation. But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously. And he does not speak thus without a meaning. But observe how he consoles them concerning what had passed. In fact, what had happened had caused them no small consternation. For if there are many now who canvass this circumstance, what may we suppose they had to say then?

"This Scripture," says he, "must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spake before." Always he comforts them by the prophecies. So does Christ on all occasions. In the very same way, he shows here that no strange thing had happened, but what had already been foretold. "This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled," he says, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before." He does not say, David, but the Spirit through him. See what kind of doctrine the writer has at the very outset of the book. Do you see, that it was not for nothing that I said in the beginning of this work, that this book is the Polity of the Holy Spirit? "Which the Holy Ghost spake before by the mouth of David." Observe how he appropriates him; and that it is an advantage to them, that this was spoken by David, and not by some other Prophet.

Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, "We are sufficient." So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed.

Peter consoles them with prophecy. Nor does he say: As David said, but the Holy Spirit through the mouth of David. What then were these? Whatever the one hundred and eighth psalm contains: of which he will also make mention after a little bit. Speaking of Judas, however, he treats the matter both temperately and without vilification. For he does not say "the accursed, the filthy one," but simply indicates what happened. And having introduced the phrase, "This man therefore acquired a field with the wages of unrighteousness," (Acts 1:18) and that becoming prone he was rent, or, as some read, "was split," he did not refer the keeping of it to Judas. For he himself did not buy the field, but the priests, from the silver thrown down by him in the temple. Since, then, these things are the wage of Judas' betrayal, the acquisition is also reckoned to him. And again, since this has been destined for burial, Scripture is fulfilled: "his habitation be desolate." (Ps. 69:25; Acts 1:20) For what is more desolate than a grave? By saying that "and having fallen headlong he burst open in the middle," it showed that, together with the act of betrayal, he had brought about this end through excessive disregard and slackness born of indifference. And when they say that he used a rope and hung himself, the sacred Gospels also record that if he now fell forward and everything that follows, there is no contradiction. For both happened: the cord by which the hanging occurred broke, and therefore he was carried forward onto the ground and had fallen. And insofar as these things are related about him some days later, it is thereby confirmed that they happened immediately after the betrayal.

"In those days," that is, in the days before Pentecost, "Peter, standing in the midst of the disciples, said," as the fervent disciple and the one to whom Christ entrusted His flock, and, finally, as the first. But pay attention: he does everything with the common consent and nothing on his own will and authority. He persuades even on the basis of prophecy and does not say that David said, but: "the Holy Spirit foretold through the mouth of David"; then he adds "concerning Judas, who was the guide of those who seized Jesus." Notice here too the wisdom of this man — notice how in the narrative he does not insult and does not speak of Judas as despised and most despicable, but simply states what happened.

God is no respecter of persons. Even Saul and Judas had been good at one time. How could someone who was not good have a share in the Savior's ministry? In the plan of God it was decided that we would be considered worthy for the time for which he was chosen. It is no wonder that these men were considered good, because all nature is good and no substance is evil, but rather transgression, which arises from the will.

"Concerning Judas," he says, "which was guide." Here again mark the philosophical temper of the man: how he does not mention him with scorn, nor say, "that wretch," "that miscreant:" but simply states the fact; and does not even say, "who betrayed Him," but does what he can to transfer the guilt to others: nor does he animadvert severely even on these: "Which was guide," he says, "to them that took Jesus." Furthermore, before he declares where David had spoken, he relates what had been the case with Judas, that from the things present he may fetch assurance of the things future, and show that this man had already received his due. "For he was numbered," says he, "with us, and had obtained part of this ministry."

"For he was numbered with us," says Peter. On this account it behooves to propose another; to be a witness in his place. And see how he imitates his Master, ever discoursing from the Scriptures, and saying nothing as yet concerning Christ; namely, that He had frequently predicted this Himself. Nor does he mention where the Scripture speaks of the treachery of Judas; for instance, "The mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me"; but where it speaks only of his punishment; for this was most to their advantage. It shows again the benevolence of the Lord: "For he was numbered with us," he says, "and obtained his lot of this ministry." He calls it everywhere "lot," showing that the whole is from God's grace and election, and reminding them of the old times, inasmuch as God chose him into His own lot or portion, as of old He took the Levites.

Then he adds "concerning Judas, who was the guide of those who seized Jesus." Notice here too the wisdom of this man — notice how in the narrative he does not insult and does not speak of Judas as despised and most despicable, but simply states what happened; and he does not say that the Jews acquired, but: Judas "acquired the field," and rightly so, because the owner in fairness should be considered the one who put up the money, even if others made the purchase. And the payment was his.

"You shall not steal:" [Exodus 20:15] for Achan, when he had stolen in Israel at Jericho, was stoned to death; [Joshua 7:1] and Gehazi, who stole, and told a lie, inherited the leprosy of Naaman; [2 Kings 5:27] and Judas, who stole the poor's money, betrayed the Lord of glory to the Jews, [John 12:6] and repented, and hanged himself, and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out; [Matthew 27:5; Acts 1:18] and Ananias, and Sapphira his wife, who stole their own goods, and "tempted the Spirit of the Lord," were immediately, at the sentence of Peter our fellow-apostle, struck dead. [Acts 5:1-11]

And he indeed obtained a field from the reward of iniquity. He who sold the Lord of life, having lost the land of the living, possesses a field of blood and eternal death, the memory of his crime and his name. Otherwise, Judas himself did not deserve to possess the potter's field bought with the price of blood, who, having returned the thirty pieces of silver, immediately punished the crime of treachery with a more criminal death. But, according to the manner of sacred speech, it is said he possessed what he caused to be possessed. As the blessed Job says: "And my clothes will abhor me," that is, my corruptible members will render me abominable.

And he burst asunder in the middle. The mad traitor found a punishment worthy of himself, that is, the noose's knot strangled the throat from which the voice of betrayal had emerged. He also sought a fitting place of destruction, so that he who had delivered the Lord of men and angels to death, hated by heaven and earth, as if only to be associated with the spirits of the air, might perish in the midst of the air, according to the example of Ahithophel and Absalom who persecuted King David. To whom, indeed, the death itself succeeded with a sufficiently fitting outcome, so that the bowels which had conceived the deceit of betrayal were burst open and cast out into the empty air. A similar punishment by which death is reported to have condemned Arius, the heresiarch, so that since the one sought to extinguish the humanity of Christ, the other the divinity, both, as they lived devoid of sense, thus also perished with empty bellies.

In my daily paper this morning I read the following interesting paragraphs, which take my mind back to an England which I do not remember and which, therefore (perhaps), I admire.

"Nearly sixty years ago--on 4 September, 1850--the Austrian General Haynau, who had gained an unenviable fame throughout the world by his ferocious methods in suppressing the Hungarian revolution in 1849, while on a visit to this country, was belaboured in the streets of London by the draymen of Messrs. Barclay, Perkins and Co., whose brewery he had just inspected in company of an adjutant. Popular delight was so great that the Government of the time did not dare to prosecute the assailants, and the General--the 'women-flogger,' as he was called by the people--had to leave these shores without remedy.

"He returned to his own country and settled upon his estate at Szekeres, which is close to the commune above-mentioned. By his will the estate passed to his daughter, after whose death it was to be presented to the commune. This daughter has just died, but the Communal Council, after much deliberation, has declined to accept the gift, and ordered that the estate should be left to fall out of cultivation, and be called the 'Bloody Meadow.'"

Now that is an example of how things happen under an honest democratical impulse. I do not dwell specially on the earlier part of the story, though the earlier part of the story is astonishingly interesting. It recalls the days when Englishmen were potential lighters; that is, potential rebels. It is not for lack of agonies of intellectual anger: the Sultan and the late King Leopold have been denounced as heartily as General Haynau. But I doubt if they would have been physically thrashed in the London streets.

It is not the tyrants that are lacking, but the draymen. Nevertheless, it is not upon the historic heroes of Barclay, Perkins and Co. that I build all my hope. Fine as it was, it was not a full and perfect revolution. A brewer's drayman beating an eminent European General with a stick, though a singularly bright and pleasing vision, is not a complete one. Only when the brewer's drayman beats the brewer with a stick shall we see the clear and radiant sunrise of British self-government. The fun will really start when we begin to thump the oppressors of England as well as the oppressors of Hungary. It is, however, a definite decline in the spiritual character of draymen that now they can thump neither one nor the other.

But, as I have already suggested, my real quarrel is not about the first part of the extract, but about the second. Whether or no the draymen of Barclay and Perkins have degenerated, the Commune which includes Szekeres has not degenerated. By the way, the Commune which includes Szekeres is called Kissekeres; I trust that this frank avowal will excuse me from the necessity of mentioning either of these places again by name. The Commune is still capable of performing direct democratic actions, if necessary, with a stick.

I say with a stick, not with sticks, for that is the whole argument about democracy. A people is a soul; and if you want to know what a soul is, I can only answer that it is something that can sin and that can sacrifice itself. A people can commit theft; a people can confess theft; a people can repent of theft. That is the idea of the republic. Now, most modern people have got into their heads the idea that democracies are dull, drifting things, a mere black swarm or slide of clerks to their accustomed doom. In most modern novels and essays it is insisted (by way of contrast) that a walking gentleman may have ad-ventures as he walks. It is insisted that an aristocrat can commit crimes, because an aristocrat always cultivates liberty. But, in truth, a people can have adventures, as Israel did crawling through the desert to the promised land. A people can do heroic deeds; a people can commit crimes; the French people did both in the Revolution; the Irish people have done both in their much purer and more honourable progress.

But the real answer to this aristocratic argument which seeks to identify democracy with a drab utilitarianism may be found in action such as that of the Hungarian Commune--whose name I decline to repeat. This Commune did just one of those acts that prove that a separate people has a separate personality; it threw something away. A man can throw a bank note into the fire. A man can fling a sack of corn into the river. The bank-note may be burnt as a satisfaction of some scruple; the corn may be destroyed as a sacrifice to some god. But whenever there is sacrifice we know there is a single will. Men may be disputatious and doubtful, may divide by very narrow majorities in their debate about how to gain wealth. But men have to be uncommonly unanimous in order to refuse wealth. It wants a very complete committee to burn a bank note in the office grate. It needs a highly religious tribe really to throw corn into the river. This self-denial is the test and definition of self-government.

I wish I could feel certain that any English County Council or Parish Council would be single enough to make that strong gesture of a romantic refusal; could say, "No rents shall be raised from this spot; no grain shall grow in this spot; no good shall come of this spot; it shall remain sterile for a sign." But I am afraid they might answer, like the eminent sociologist in the story, that it was "wiste of spice."

"Now this man acquired a field out of the reward of iniquity." He gives his discourse a moral turn, and covertly mentions the cause of the wickedness, because it carried reproof with it. And he does not say, The Jews, but, "this man, acquired" it. For since the minds of weak persons do not attend to things future, as they do to things present, he discourses of the immediate punishment inflicted. "And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst." He does well to dilate not upon the sin, but upon the punishment. "And," he says, "all his bowels gushed out." This brought them consolation.

He also dwells upon the circumstances respecting Judas, showing that the reward of the treachery was made itself the herald of the punishment. For he "acquired," he says, "a field out of the reward of the iniquity." Observe the divine economy in the event. "Of the iniquity," he says. For there are many iniquities, but never was anything more iniquitous than this: so that the affair was one of iniquity.

Judas did not die by hanging, but survived, having been crushed before being strangled. This is indicated by the Acts of the Apostles, which say that, having fallen forward, he burst open in the middle. This is narrated more clearly by Papias, a disciple of the apostle John, who says: "An example of great sin walked in this world in Judas. For having been pressed upon his flesh to such an extent that he could not pass through, as a wagon passed over him he was pressed by the wagon, so that his guts were emptied." [APOLLINARIS OF LAODICEA]

"For his flesh had swollen to such an extent that not even where a wagon easily passes could one pass him, nor was it only the swelling of the head. For they say the eyelids of his eyes had so become blinded that he did not at all see the light. Nor could his eyes be seen even by a medical lens, they were so deep from the outer surface; and his genitals appeared more loathsome and larger than anything shameful. And they say that from it there issued, from all parts of the body, corruptions and worms in abundance, by them alone of necessity. And after many tortures and punishments, they say he died in his own place, and because of the smell the village became deserted and uninhabited until the present. But not even today could anyone cross that place unless he stopped up his nostrils with his hands." [APOLLINARIS OF LAODICEA]

And Luke here records immediately the suffering of Judas. For the souls of the weaker are most disgraced by present things. He increased not the sin, calling him a traitor, but the punishment, because he endured this and that in full detail.

Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before he was suffocated. And the acts of the apostles show this, that falling head long he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. This fact is related more clearly by Papias, the disciple of John, and the fourth book of the Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord as follows:

Judas walked about in this world a terrible example of impiety; his flesh swollen to such an extent that, where hay wagon can pass with ease, he was not able to pass, no, not even the mass of his head merely. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all, while as for his eyes they were not visible even by a physician looking through an instrument, so far have they sunk from the surface.

His genitals appeared entirely disfigured, nauseous and large. When he carried himself about discharge and worms flowed from his entire body through his private areas only, on account of his outrages. After many agonies and punishments, he died in his own place. And on account of this the place is desolate and uninhabited even now. And to this day no one is able to go by that place, except if they block their noses with their hands. Such judgment was spread through his body and upon the earth.

He speaks of the punishment which Judas suffered in the present life, and not of the future punishment, because the souls of weak people do not pay as much attention to the future as to the present. Observe: he elaborated not on the transgression, but on the punishment for it, because Judas did not die in the noose, but lived on even after, since he was taken down before he strangled to death. Papias, a disciple of John, relates this more clearly in the fourth book of the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord. He says thus: "Judas presented a great example of impiety in this world, whose body swelled to such a degree that he could not pass where a wagon could drive through, and not only could he himself not pass, but not even his head alone. The lids of his eyes, they say, swelled so much that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes themselves could not be seen even by means of a medical dioptra, so deep were they from the outer surface… After great sufferings and torments he died, they say, on his own estate; and that estate remains deserted and uninhabited even to this day; even to this day no one can pass by that place without holding their nostrils with their hands. Such is the stench that spread from his body even to the ground." This served as a certain consolation for the apostles. But just as the bowels of Judas burst open, so too did the bowels of the heretic Arius.

This revenge on Judas is not empty. It denies funeral rites and comes thus as acceptable punishment for an unjust income. He had lately bought fields with the price of his death. He had purchased ground with the name of Blood, reusing tombs for foreign ashes, [appearing to] make the earth fruitful by means of the graves; this wicked one is denied the fertility of his own field and is alone excluded from the lands which bear sepulchers. His cruel trumpet [voice] began the gory wickedness. He is the standard bearer who, by planting a kiss, by a sign of peace, waged war as a wolf on the Lamb.

And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akeldama. It says in their language who were inhabitants of Jerusalem, because certainly, even though both spoke Hebrew, the propriety of the language of Jerusalem differed from that of the Galileans, from whom were the apostles, which we learn in the story of the Lord's passion, where Peter, even against his will, was revealed by his speech to be a Galilean.

"And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood." Now the Jews gave it this name, not on this account, but because of Judas; here, however, Peter makes it to have this reference, and when he brings forward the adversaries as witnesses, both by the fact that they named it, and by saying, "in their proper tongue," this is what he means.

Now not only to those who were present did the event become known, but to all thereafter, so that without meaning or knowing what they were about, they gave it a name; just as Caiaphas had prophesied unconsciously. God compelled them to call the field in Hebrew "Aceldama." By this also the evils which were to come upon the Jews were declared: and Peter shows the prophecy to have been so far in part fulfilled, which says, "It had been good for that man if he had not been born." We may with propriety apply this same to the Jews likewise; for if he who was guide suffered thus, much more they. Thus far however Peter says nothing of this.

And the place called Akeldama was not named by Judas, but by the Jews. For he says, in their own dialect, the Jews bearing witness to the lawlessness.

The Jews gave the village the name "Akeldama" on account of what happened with Judas. Peter brings up this fact here, presenting as witnesses the enemies who gave this land such a name.

Let his habitation be desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it, and let another take his office. Indeed, these verses are clear and openly explained by the blessed Peter, because Judas received the deserved punishment for his transgression, and going to his own place, namely infernal hell, he deserted the common habitation of human conversation by an untimely and impious death, and nonetheless, with the holy Matthias taking his place in the ministry and apostleship, the most sacred sum of apostolic perfection was restored. But it is to be noted that the whole testimony is not taken from the one hundred and eighth psalm according to the Vulgate Edition, but only the final part, while the former is from the sixty-eighth, in which it is said of the Jews: Let their habitation be desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in their tents. For while the blessed Peter wished to confirm both the rejection of Judas and the election of Matthias with prophetic testimonies, he joined the testimony which was specifically about Matthias's episcopate with that which was generally placed about the rejection of the Jews, among whom Judas was also numbered. This, I know not by which first unskilled editor, was added to the one hundred and eighth psalm. When he saw these verses put together by the blessed Peter, and his Psalter not having them together, he began to think his Codex falsified, and presumed to add what he did not have. In the same way, eight verses from the thirteenth psalm were added in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, which he had composed from various psalms and the prophet Isaiah. The first of these is: Their throat is an open sepulcher. The last: There is no fear of God before their eyes. These things which I have said, not only the Hebrew truth and the more correct edition of the seventy interpreters confirm, but also open reason proves, that in the same one hundred and eighth psalm, excepting these verses, there are thirty curses laid upon Judas Iscariot, according to the number of pieces of silver with which he did not fear to sell the Lord. The first of which is: Set a sinner over him. The last: And let them be covered with their own confusion as with a cloak.

Not only does the saying hold true in the time of Judas, but even today. If Judas lost his office of apostle, let priest and bishop be on guard lest they, too, lose their ministry. If an apostle fell, more easily is it possible for a monk to fall. Virtue is not lost, even though man falls and perishes. The Lord continues to lend out his money at interest; if anyone who receives it does not double it, it is taken away and given to another who already has some. The Lord's money cannot lie idle.

Then after the event, he appositely brings in the Prophet, saying, "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein": this is said of the field and the dwelling: "And his bishopric let another take; that is, his office, his priesthood. So that this, he says, is not my counsel, but His who hath foretold these things. For, that he may not seem to be undertaking a great thing, and just such as Christ had done, he adduces the Prophet as a witness.

Then, showing that the term, "Aceldama," might well be applied to his fate, he introduces the prophet, saying, "Let his habitation be desolate." For what can be worse desolation than to become a place of burial? And the field may well be called his. For he who cast down the price, although others were the buyers, has a right to be himself reckoned owner of a great desolation. This desolation was the prelude to that of the Jews, as will appear on looking closely into the facts. For indeed they destroyed themselves by famine, and killed many, and the city became a burial-place of strangers, of soldiers.

The words "let his habitation be desolate" (see also Ps. 68:26) were said about this land and about the house of Judas, for what could be more desolate than a cemetery, and a public cemetery at that, which is what this land became? And the words: "let another take his office" (see also Ps. 108:8) point to the rank of the priesthood.

"Wherefore it behooves of these men which have companied with us all the time." Why does he make it their business too? That the matter might not become an object of strife, and they might not fall into contention about it. For if the Apostles themselves once did this, much more might those. This he ever avoids. Wherefore at the beginning he said, "Men and brethren. It behooves" to choose from among you. He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby both making the elected objects of reverence and himself keeping clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest. For such occasions always give rise to great evils.

Now that some one must needs be appointed, he adduces the prophet as witness: but from among what persons: "Of these," he says, "which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection": that their college might not be left mutilated. Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor. And besides, he was not yet endowed with the spirit.

"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us," continues Peter. Observe how desirous he is they should be eye-witnesses. It is true indeed that the Spirit would shortly come; and yet great care is shown with regard to this circumstance. "Of these men," he says, "which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us." He shows that they had dwelt with Christ, not simply been present as disciples. In fact, from the very beginning there were many that then followed Him. "All the time," he says, "that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John." True! for no one knew what preceded that event, though they did learn it by the Spirit. "Unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection." He said not, a witness of the rest of his actions, but a witness of the resurrection alone. For indeed that witness had a better right to be believed, who was able to declare, that He Who ate and drank, and was crucified, the same rose again. Wherefore it was needed that he should be a witness, not only of the time preceding this event, nor only of what followed it, and of the miracles; the thing required was, the resurrection. For the other matters were manifest and acknowledged, but the resurrection took place in secret, and was manifest to these only. And they do not say, Angels have told us; but, We have seen. For this it was that was most needful at that time: that they should be men having a right to be believed, because they had seen.

Peter announces to them, so that the matter may not become a subject of bitter contest, and that they may not fall into quarreling. For this reason he also begins, "Men, brothers," he says, "it is necessary to choose from among you, entrusting the decision to the multitude, and at the same time making the chosen ones respectable, and freeing himself from hate toward the others." And that which needed to happen, he even introduces by quoting the prophet: "Another will take his office." (Ps. 109:8) But from whom must he be chosen? From those who, by their assembly with them, have shown themselves tried over time. Therefore he did not even say "from the respectable," so as not to seem to insult the others.

He presents the matter as shared with the brethren, so that it would not meet with objections and would not give occasion for disputes. Therefore at the beginning of the discourse he also said: "Men and brethren, it is necessary to choose from among you," — entrusting the choice to all, and at the same time granting honor to those chosen, and freeing himself from reproach on the part of anyone whatsoever. And that this is how it had to be, he himself says and brings a prophet as witness. From whom was the choice to be made? "From those who were with us the entire time." He says this because it necessarily had to be so. And he did not say: "from honorable men who are with us," because then it would have seemed that he was insulting the rest. But now the matter was decided by time.

Having begun he added: "From the baptism of John." For concerning this, none of them knew, having learned and being present, except only the one chosen; but the Spirits perceived. And he declared him a witness of the resurrection. For this is above all the chief point of Jesus' divinity. Since also regarding his miracles before the passion, many were witnesses and even the unbelieving who had seen them.

"Was together with us a witness of His resurrection," so that the company of disciples would not be diminished in any way. He says: "a witness of the resurrection," and not of anything else, for whoever proves worthy to testify that the Lord, who ate and drank with the disciples, and was crucified, and rose again — to such a person it is all the more possible and necessary to entrust testimony about the other events as well, because what was sought was the resurrection, since it was accomplished in secret, while the rest happened openly.

They choose two: Joseph, surnamed the Just, and Matthias—a name, as they say, that means "God's small one" in the Hebrew language, and by calling [him, God] confirms him as humble. Oh, how different are human from heavenly judgments! He who was just according to the praise of humankind is surpassed by the merit of a small one.

Joseph who is called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. Barsabbas is interpreted as "son of rest," Matthias as "little one of God." Concerning whom Arator says: . . . . . . O how far human judgments differ from those above? He who was just is deservedly surpassed by the little one in human praise.

And they appointed two, Joseph who was called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus. In Greek it is more detailed: And having said these things, they appointed two: Joseph who was called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. Where we in this sentence read Justus, in the Greek also Justus is written. If we believe it to be a Latin name, it seems that this man was of such virtue that even the Romans, who could have known him, gave him the name of justice. But if it is a Hebrew name, it can be interpreted as "sparing" or "he himself uplifted," as Jerome teaches in the Book of Hebrew Names. What is called Justus in Latin, in Hebrew is Sadoch, and in Greek is called δίκαιος. Furthermore, Clement of Alexandria, a most learned man in all respects, reports that both those appointed to the lot of apostleship were from the number of the seventy disciples.

But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.

That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.

The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: "And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said." [Acts 1:23]

"And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabus, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias." Not he appointed them: but it was he that introduced the proposition to that effect, at the same time pointing out that even this was not his own, but from old time by prophecy; so that he acted as expositor, not as preceptor. "Joseph called Barsabus, who was surnamed Justus." Perhaps both names are given, because there were others of the same name, for among the Apostles also there were several names alike; as James, and James (the son) of Alphaeus; Simon Peter, and Simon Zelotes; Judas (the brother) of James, and Judas Iscariot. The appellation, however, may have arisen from a change of life, and very likely also of the moral character.

"And they appointed two," it is said. Why not many? That the feeling of disappointment might not reach further, extending to many. Again, it is not without reason that he puts Matthias last; he would show, that frequently he that is honourable among men, is inferior before God.

And they hastened to fill up the number of the apostles, for fear that the teacher's choice be as if harmed. They did not, however, appoint many, but only two alone, so that greater hopelessness would not arise from many being passed over.

Barsabbas and Joseph and Justus, either names of distinction or of zeal.

He [Justus, surnamed Barsabbas] drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.

"And they appointed two." Why not many? So that no great disorder would arise, and besides, the matter concerned only a few. What kind of men were they? Perhaps they were from the number of the Seventy who had been with the twelve apostles, or from other believers, but more fervently believing and more devout than the rest. Such were both Joseph and Matthias. He calls Joseph both Barsabbas and Justus, perhaps because among them these names referred to one person; but perhaps a new name was also given on account of a change in way of life; finally, the surname was perhaps assigned according to one's occupation. Why does James, who had received the episcopate in Jerusalem, not begin the discourse, but yields the right to address the people to Peter? Because he was filled with humility; at that time they thought nothing of human considerations, but had in view the common benefit. For this very same reason the apostles also yield the seat to him and do not rival him, and do not contend with him.

Though the imperial power be great, yet consider, O Emperor, how great God is. He sees the hearts of all, He questions the inmost conscience, He knows all things before they happen, He knows the inmost things of your breast. You do not suffer yourselves to be deceived, and do you desire to conceal anything from God?

"They appointed two," it is said, "Joseph called Barsabus, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said; Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and Apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." They do well to mention the sin of Judas, thereby showing that it is a witness they ask to have; not increasing the number, but not suffering it to be diminished.

And they all pray in common saying, "Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show. Thou," not "We." And very seasonably they use the epithet, "heart-knowing:" for by Him Who is this must the choice be made. So confident were they, that assuredly one of them must be appointed. They said not, Choose, but, "Show the chosen one;" knowing that all things were foreordained of God; "Whom Thou didst choose: one of these two," say they, "to have his lot in this ministry and apostleship." For there was besides another ministry.

They call him a discerner of hearts at the right time; and they do not say, "Choose," but, "Appoint the one chosen." For all things are known and the best are with God, and before our considerations. And he calls it an inheritance, showing the whole of God's love and choice, and recalling the ancients, that he likewise allotted the Levites in this way.

A lottery takes place to avoid contention and to assure greater certitude and clarity. The source of this rule is the counsel of God. The apostles imply the idea when they say, Lord, who knowest the hearts Thus it is clear that the lot does not happen by chance but by the power of God.

They cry out in prayer to the Knower of Hearts at the fitting time. They do not go on to say "choose," but "show… the one whom You have chosen," knowing that with God all things are determined before human thought.

Specifically, he says, "In this ministry," for there were also others. And he calls his own place the gallows, that is, the one for which Judas prepared himself by his betrayal. Or because Judas was cast out, he might have his own place, receiving the office that belonged to him.

"To go to his own place." The place which Matthias was worthy to occupy, Luke calls "his own" or "one's own," because just as Judas, even before he fell from it, from the time he became sick with the disease of love of money and betrayal, was already alienated from this place, so too even before Matthias occupied this place, from the time he made himself worthy of such a gift, it became his own possession. And in another sense: "to his own place": each person by his own deeds prepares for himself either a good or a bad place. So when Luke says this, he says that Judas went "to his own place" — a bad one, which he prepared for himself by the betrayal of Jesus; because places are not good or bad for us by nature, but by our own deeds we prepare a place for ourselves. The word "place" has many meanings. It signifies, among other things, a certain office; thus, we say "the place of a bishop or a presbyter." One can see the same thing also from the opposite perspective, depending on how each person prepares his own place for himself by his own deeds: thus one can hold the place of a false teacher and a false apostle, just as of a tyrant and an author of other criminal deeds. So, since Judas too, having been carried away by the passion of avarice, took the place of a traitor, it is rightly said of him: "to go to his own place." Having lost through his actions his place in the ranks of the apostles, he prepared for himself "his own place."

This saying, "I have chosen you twelve," may be understood in this way, that twelve is a sacred number. For the honor of that number was not taken away because one was lost, for another was chosen into the place of the one that perished. The number remained a sacred number, a number containing twelve. These twelve were to make known the Three [the Trinity] throughout the whole world, that is, throughout the four quarters of the world. That is the reason of the three times four. Judas, then, only cut himself off; he did not profane the number twelve. He abandoned his Teacher, but God appointed a successor to take his place.

He reproved them by saying, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walks in the day, he does not stumble." Follow me, if you do not wish to stumble: do not give counsel to me, from whom you ought to receive it. To what, then, refer the words "Are there not twelve hours in the day"? So as to point himself out as the day, he chose twelve disciples. If I am the day, he says, and you the hours, is it for the hours to give counsel to the day? The day is followed by the hours, not the hours by the day. If these, then, were the hours, what in such a reckoning was Judas? Was he also among the twelve hours? If he was an hour, he had light; and if he had light, how was the Day betrayed by him to death? But the Lord, in so speaking, foresaw not Judas himself but his successor. For Judas, when he fell, was succeeded by Matthias, and the twelvefold number preserved. It was not, then, without a purpose that the Lord chose twelve disciples, but to indicate that he himself is the spiritual Day. Let the hours then attend upon the Day, let them preach the Day, be made known and illuminated by the Day, and by the preaching of the hours may the world believe in the Day. And so in a summary way it was just this that he said, "Follow me, if you do not wish to stumble."

What lesson then, my brothers, did our Lord Jesus Christ wish to impress on his church, when it pleased him to have one castaway among the twelve, but this, that we should bear with the wicked and refrain from dividing the body of Christ?… Such was this man Judas, and yet he went in and out with the eleven holy disciples. With them he came even to the table of the Lord: he was permitted to converse with them, but he could not contaminate them. Both Peter and Judas partook of one bread, and yet what communion had the believer with the infidel? Peter's partaking was to life, but that of Judas to death. For that good bread was just like the sweet savor. For as the sweet savor, so also does the good bread give life to the good and bring death to the wicked. "For whoever eats unworthily eats and drinks judgment against himself": "judgment against himself," not against you. If, then, it is judgment against him, not against you, bear as one that is good with him that is evil, that you may attain the rewards of the good and not be hurled into the punishment of the wicked.

And they gave forth their lots, etc. This example, or because the prophet Jonah was caught by lot, should not be indiscriminately relied upon for lots, "since the privileges of individuals," as Jerome says, "can by no means make a common law." For there, even the Gentile men, driven by the storm, sought the author of the danger by lot, and here Matthias is chosen by lot, lest the selection of the apostles seem to differ from the command of the old law, where the high priest was commanded to be sought by lot, as it is said about Zechariah: According to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to put incense (Luke 1). Therefore, as I think, he was then chosen by lot, so that by the type it might be figured that a true priest should always have been sought, until he came for whom it was reserved, who not by the blood of sacrifices, but by his own blood entered once into the holy places having obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9). Whose sacrifice, offered at the time of Passover, but truly consumed on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit appeared in fire. For it was the custom of the old to consume victims accepted by God with heavenly fire. Therefore, until the truth was fulfilled, it was allowed to practice the figure. Hence it is that Matthias, who is ordained before Pentecost, is sought by lot; but the seven deacons afterward are not ordained by lot, but only by the election of the disciples and the prayer and imposition of hands by the apostles. But if any, compelled by some necessity, think that God should be consulted by lots as an example of the apostles, let them see that the apostles themselves did this not except by gathering the brotherhood and pouring out prayers to God.

"And they gave forth their lots" (for the spirit was not yet sent), "and the lot fell upon Matthias: and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles."

"And they gave them their lots." For they did not yet consider themselves to be worthy to be informed by some sign. And besides, if in a case where neither prayer was made, nor men of worth were the agents, the casting of lots so much availed, because it was done of a right intention, I mean in the case of Jonah; much more did it here. Thus, did he, the designated, fill up the company, complete the order: but the other candidate was not annoyed; for the apostolic writers would not have concealed that or any other failings of their own, seeing they have told of the very chief Apostles, that on other occasions they had indignation, and this not once only, but again and again.

Let us then also imitate them. And now I address no longer every one, but those who aim at preferment. If thou believest that the election is with God, be not displeased. For it is with Him thou art displeased, and with Him thou art exasperated: it is He who has made the choice; thou doest the very thing that Cain did; because, forsooth, his brother's sacrifice was preferred, he was indignant, when he ought to have felt compunction. However, that is not what I mean here; but this, that God knows how to dispense things for the best.

Since they are not yet perfected, they learn who is worthy by lot and not by miracle. Yet it should not be faulted that it is done by lot. For if the lot had power concerning Jonah when rejected and profane men cast lots, (Jonah 1:7) what then must be thought when they permit the saints to prayer? Indeed, if only the right mind of those men rightly directed the matter, much more so that of divine men.

Everywhere he calls the election "receiving a lot," showing by this that everything occurs according to God's love for mankind and God's choosing, and reminding them of ancient events, because just as the Levites, so also them God chose for Himself by lot. Why do they prefer election by lot? Because they did not yet consider themselves worthy to learn about this through any sign, and the Holy Spirit had not yet descended upon them; nor was there need for a sign, because the lot held great significance. If already in the case when neither prayer nor the wisdom of men helped to determine the correct judgment regarding Jonah, but on the contrary, the lot meant so much, then all the more so in this case.