Chapter IX: Part I: The King’s Highway (5)

It is the virtue of teachers to seek not honour nor glory from their disciples, but their salvation, and to do all things unto that end; for he who seeks the former would be a tyrant, not a teacher. It was not for your greater personal glorification that God set you over them, but that your business should be forgotten whilst theirs is strengthened. This is a teacher’s part; this was what blessed Paul did, who was removed from vanity and considered himself as one of the multitude, or rather as the least of all. Thus he calls himself their slave, and generally speaks in the attitude of a suppliant. Look at him, at least in this instance, writing nothing imperiously, nothing authoritatively, but mild, conciliating words. _I, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called_, he says. Tell me, what do you beseech, O Paul? That you may get something for yourself? ‘Certainly not,’ he answers, ‘but that I may save others.’ Yet they who beseech do it for what concerns themselves. ‘And this does concern me,’ he says, ‘as I have written distinctly in another place: _Now we live, if you stand in the Lord_.’ He was always most eager for the salvation of his disciples. _I, the prisoner in the Lord._ Great and wonderful dignity, surpassing consulships, and kingdoms, and all things else. This he wrote also to Philemon, saying: _As Paul, an old man, and_ _now a prisoner also of Jesus Christ_. Nothing is so glorious as a chain for Christ’s sake, as the fetters which hang round those hallowed hands. Better than being an apostle, or a teacher, or an evangelist, is it to be a prisoner for Christ’s sake. If there be a lover of Christ, he will know what I say;[11] if any man be foolish and on fire for his Lord, he understands the power of chains, he would choose to be a prisoner for Christ rather than to dwell in paradise. Paul has shown us those hands of his more glittering than gold or than any royal crown. A band of precious stones does not ennoble a head as iron chains for Christ’s sake. _His_ prison was more glorious than kingly palaces, or than heaven itself. Why do I say ‘than palaces’? That place contained Christ’s prisoner. A lover of Christ knows what this privilege is, he is acquainted with this virtue, he knows what a gain the being in chains for His sake has been to the human race. More glorious far than sitting on His right hand, more solemn than sitting on one of the twelve thrones, is the being imprisoned for His sake. And why do I speak of human things? I shame to put riches and golden ornament in comparison with those chains, but with regard to those great ones, if their deed had no reward, this alone is a great reward and a powerful antidote, the suffering these evils on account of the Beloved. Lovers, I say not of God but of man, know the proverb which speaks of those who take pleasure rather in suffering evils from the loved ones than in being honoured by them. This is seen only in the case of the holy band: I mean the Apostles. Listen to what blessed Luke says: _They went from the council rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for His Name_. Now to others it seems ridiculous that dishonour should be accounted honour and a joy, but to those who follow Christ this desire is held to be most blessed of all. If anyone would give me all heaven or those chains, I would choose the chains. If anyone were to place me with the angels above or with Paul in chains, I would choose his prison. If anyone were to make me one of those heavenly Powers or Thrones, or a prisoner as Paul was, I would choose to be a prisoner. Nothing is more blessed than those chains. Would that I could now be in those regions; for it is said that the chains are preserved, as well they may be, and I am in admiration of those men full of desire for Christ; would that I could see those chains, which devils have feared and trembled at, which angels reverence. Nothing is better than suffering some adversity for the sake of Christ. I deem Paul blessed not so much because he was ravished into paradise as for being thrown into prison. I call him blessed not so much because he heard ineffable words as for enduring chains. I hold him blessed not so much for being carried into the third heaven as for his chains. That these were greater than those things, understand what he himself thought of them. He did not say, ‘I, who have heard mysterious words, beseech you,’ but what? _I, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you._ And if he did not use the expression in all his epistles, it is not astonishing, for he was not always in chains, only at certain times. I would choose rather to suffer adversity for Christ than to be honoured by Christ. This is true honour and glory, higher than any other. If he became a servant for my sake and divested Himself of His praise, nor deemed that He was glorified except in being crucified for me, what ought I not to suffer? Listen to Him as He says, _Glorify Me, O Father_. What sayest Thou, Lord? Thou art led to the cross between thieves and malefactors, to suffer the most shameful death; Thou art to be spit upon and struck, and this Thou callest glory? ‘Yea,’ He answers, ‘I suffer these things for those whom I love, and account them a glory indeed.’ If He Who loves the wretched and miserable calls this glory, if He finds His glory, not in being on His Father’s throne, nor in honour, but in being dishonoured, and prefers it, how much more am _I_ bound to hold these things a glory! O happy chains, O blessed hands which those chains adorned! Those hands of Paul’s which raised up the lame man in Lystra and made him walk were less honourable than when covered with chains. If I had been living in those days, it is then that I would have embraced them and placed them on my eyes; I would not have ceased caressing the hands which had been found worthy to wear chains for my Lord’s sake. Do you wonder at Paul because the serpent fastened upon his hand and did no harm? Wonder not: the serpent reverenced the chains, and so did the ocean, for then he was in fetters. If anyone were to give me now the power of raising the dead I would not have it, but I would have those chains. If I were free from the cares of the Church, and were sound in body, I would go that long journey only to look at those chains, to see the prison in which he was bound. Although amongst his wonderful deeds there are many signs everywhere, they are not so enviable as the marks of Christ. And in the Scripture he does not encourage me so much by wonder-working as he does when he is suffering persecution, being scourged, and dragged away. _So that_, he says, _they brought handkerchiefs and aprons from his body to the sick_. These were truly wonders, but not so great as those others: _They scourged him and laid many stripes upon him, they cast them into prison_; and again: _They gave praise to God in their chains_; and again: _They stoned him and drew him out of the city, thinking him to be dead_. Would you know what a privilege it is for the body of a servant to wear an iron chain for Christ’s sake? Then listen to Christ’s words: _Blessed are ye_. Why blessed, O Lord? When you raise the dead? No, not for this. When you cure the blind? Not at all. Then why? _When they shall reproach you, and pursue you, and say every evil against you, lying, for My sake._ And if evil report makes men so blessed, what will suffering evil not do for them? Listen to that holy one who says this in another place: _For the rest a crown of justice awaits me_. Yet the chains are brighter than this crown; they will make me worthy of it, he says, and I value nothing so much. Suffering for Christ’s sake is a perpetual remedy to me. May it be given to me to utter those words, _I make up in my flesh what is wanting to the sufferings of Christ_: and I shall want nothing more.

· · · · · · ·

The Seed not vivified unless it dies.
(_Homilies on First Epistle to Corinthians_, xli., vol. ii., p. 517.)

· · · · · · ·

_But some one asks, how are the dead to be raised to life? With what sort of body will they come? Senseless man, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die first._ Whereas the Apostle is everywhere so gentle and humble, he makes use of stronger language in this place on account of the adversaries’ unreasonableness. Nor is this enough but he adds arguments and examples, and in this way gets the better even of the most contentious. He had already said: _Whereas by man came death, by man came also the resurrection from the dead_; and now he dissipates an opinion prevalent amongst heathens. And consider again how he cuts away that which is most plausible about it. He did not say, ‘_you_ ask,’ but made the adversary indefinite, that, using strong language with effect, he might not unduly crush his hearers. He stated two difficulties: the manner of the resurrection and the quality of bodies. And indeed they were in doubt concerning both points by their words: ‘How can that which is dissolved rise again?’ and, ‘With what sort of body will they come?’ How, _with what sort of body_? Will it be like this corruptible mortal body, or like some other? Then, to show that they are not seeking to clear up doubtful points but to dispute what is indisputable, he uses still stronger language, saying, _Foolish man, that which thou sowest is not vivified unless it dieth_.

This is also our way of answering those who call in question what is indisputable. Why, for instance, does he not at once take refuge in the power of God? Because he is talking to unbelievers. Whenever he has to deal with believers he is in no great need of arguments. For instance, saying in another place that _He shall transform the body of your humility into becoming conformed to the body of His glory_, and showing forth something further than the resurrection, he made use of no examples, but, instead of any proof, brought forward the power of God, adding, _according to the efficacy of His power and to bring all things into subjection to Him_. Here, however, he sets arguments in motion. For since he provided this one from Scripture, he used the same with authority against those who did not believe in the Scriptures, and said: _Foolish man, that which thou sowest_; that is, you see from what you yourself do day after day the proof of these things, and do you still doubt? This is why I call you foolish, that you ignore what happens every day to yourself, and that whereas _you_ can work a resurrection, you doubt concerning God; therefore he said most emphatically: _That which thou sowest_; you, that is, who are a mortal and corruptible man.

And see how the words he uses bring home the point in question. _It is not vivified_, he says, _unless it dieth_. Passing over the terms which are proper to seeds, such as the sprouting and growth and rotting and withering, he takes those points which correspond to our flesh, the ‘vivifying’ and ‘death,’ which belong properly not to seeds but to bodies. And he does not say that it is vivified after dying, but what is more, that it is quickened _because_ it has died. You see how, as I am always saying, he brings his argument as a proof against itself. That which they made out as conclusive against the resurrection _he_ makes an earnest of it, for they said, ‘He will not rise because he is dead’. Now, how can you meet this? If, indeed, he had not died, neither would he rise again, and _because_ he has died, therefore he rises again. In the same way Christ points this out still more clearly, saying: _If the grain of wheat, falling into the earth, doth not die, it remaineth alone, but if it dieth, it beareth much fruit_; so here, in illustrating this example, Paul does not say that it does not live, but that it is not ‘quickened,’ making again the power of God his theme, and showing that it is He Who does all, not the properties of the soil. And why did he not at once speak of something more personal—I mean of human seed? For our coming into the world also begins in corruption just as that of the corn does. It was because it was still stronger in our case than in the latter. What he wants is something quite perishable: the corn was partially so, and that is why he introduced it. Besides, the human seed proceeds from a living person, and falls into a living womb, but here the seed is cast into the earth, not into a living body, and becomes dissolved in it, just as in the case of the mortal body. Thus the example was the more pertinent.

_And the sower does not sow the body which shall be._ That which has been said so far is to answer the objection, ‘How shall they rise again?’ this is directed to the question, ‘What sort of body will they have?’ Now what is, _Thou sowest not the body which shall be_?—not a full ear of corn, nor new grain. For here they were not disputing the resurrection, but the manner of the resurrection, what sort of body the risen one should be, whether like our present one, or more perfect and splendid, and he embraces both points in the same example, and shows that it is a much more perfect one. But heretics, admitting none of these things, retort by saying that it is one body which is sown and another which is risen. How, then, could it be a resurrection since a resurrection refers to something sown? What is there wonderful or awful about the victory over death, if one thing is sown and another thing rises again? Death would not seem to be giving back the trophy which he took. How would the illustration be carried out in what they say? Not one substance is sown and another raised up, but the same substance in an improved condition. Supposing that Christ did not resume the same body when He became the first fruits of the risen; but according to you He cast off His former body although it was without sin, and took another. Whence, then, did this other come from? The first was from the Virgin. Whence the second? Do you see what an unnatural argument it is? Why did He show the marks of the nails? Was it not because He wished to prove that the same body which was crucified had also risen again? How does the sign of Jonas affect him? I presume that it was not one Jonas who was swallowed up, and another who was washed to land again? And what were His words? _Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again._ It is plain that He _did_ raise up this temple when destroyed. Therefore, the Evangelist went on to say that _He was speaking of the temple of His body_. Now, what does St. Paul say? _Thou sowest not the body which shall be_; that is, not the ear of corn, which is the same and not the same: the same as being the same substance, and not the same inasmuch as it is perfected, and whereas the same substance remains, it rises in renewed vigour. If this were not the case, He would not have required a resurrection at all, unless He had meant to raise up something better. Why, indeed, should He dissolve the house if He did not intend to make it a more striking dwelling-place? This, therefore, St. Paul said in answer to those who look upon it as corruptible. Moreover, lest any man should imagine that he means another body, he softens the difficulty, and himself interprets it so that his hearer should not in any way bring the wisdom of the world to bear upon the point. What need is there, then, of our arguments? Listen to his interpretation of the words, _Thou sowest not the body which shall be_, to which he added pertinently, _but bare grain, as of wheat, or of some of the rest_. That is to say, _thou sowest not the body which shall be_: the corn, for instance, as we look upon it, with stalk and ear, _but bare grain, as of wheat, or of some of the rest. And God giveth it a body as He wills._ ‘Granted,’ you say, ‘but in that case the work of nature comes in.’ Tell me, what sort of nature? Here it is God Who works everything, not nature, nor soil, nor rain. Hence He makes this clear, and leaving earth, rain, air, sun, and the labour of the agriculturist out of the question, adds: _God giveth it a body as He willeth_. Seek not, therefore, to understand or to scrutinise the why and the how, when you hear that God’s power and good pleasure come into play. _And to each of the seeds its own body._ Why then another? He gives each his own. So that when St. Paul says, _Thou sowest not the body which shall be_, he does not mean that He raises up something else of a different substance, but something better and more splendid: _To each one of the seeds its own substance_.

· · · · · · ·

The Resurrection in Creation.
(_Homilies on First Epistle to Corinthians_, xvii., vol. ii., p. 199.)

· · · · · · ·

Let no man disbelieve in the Resurrection, but if any man be in doubt, let him consider what great and wondrous things God made out of nothing, and receive _them_ as a pledge of _it_. That, indeed, which has already taken place is much more marvellous and awe-inspiring. For, consider, He took the earth and moulded it, and made man and earth which was not before. How, then, did earth become man? How did the earth come out of nothing? How all those things proceeding from the earth, the endless families of unreasoning animals, of seeds and plants, which came forth without travail, without rains falling upon them, with no apparent cultivation, neither oxen nor plough nor anything else contributing towards their production. On this account He brought forth in the beginning, from that which was without life and without substance, such great things, both of the physical and animal creation, in order that He might teach you from the first the doctrine of the Resurrection. For this is far more difficult than the Resurrection. It is not indeed an equivalent proof of power to rekindle a smouldering flame and to light a fire by invisible means; it is not the same thing to restore a dilapidated house and to build one from the foundations. In the one case, if there was nothing else, there was material to work from; but in the other not even that. Consequently, He began by the more difficult thing, in order that you might receive that which was easier. I say _more difficult_, not that it was so to God, but according to our manner of reasoning. For nothing is hard to God; and just as the sculptor who makes one statue can as easily produce a thousand, so it is as easy to God to create a thousand endless worlds, or, rather, as easy as it is to you to _think_ of a city or countless worlds, and indeed much more so. _You_ spend a little time upon the thought, but it is not so with God. In the same proportion as stones are heavier than the swiftest birds, or rather than this mind of ours, so much is our mind removed from God’s swiftness of action. Have you wondered at His power with regard to the earth? Consider again how the heavens were made from nothing, the countless stars, the sun and moon: none of these things were previously in being. Again, tell me how, after they were made, they remained in place, and on what they rested? What was their basis, and what is the earth’s basis? And what comes after the earth? What is that something? Do you see to what a giddy height the light of your reason leads you if you do not hold eagerly to the faith and to the inscrutable power of the Creator? If you will make a guess from human things, you will shortly be able to give wings to your reason. ‘What human things?’ you ask. See you not what potters do? How they remould a broken and shapeless thing into a vessel; how melters make gold and iron and brass out of earth? Again, how others who manipulate glass transform sand into one compact and transparent body? Let me mention dyers of leather, who dress garments: they produce one piece after the other, which they have received, with the dye. Again, as to our own generation: is not the seed, formless and shapeless at first, implanted in the mother’s womb? Whence, then, comes so wonderful a formation of the living man? And what about wheat? Is not a mere seed put into the ground? And does it not rot after it has been put there? Whence come the ear of corn and the stalk and all the rest? Does not a small grain of fig, which is often scattered into the earth, take root and put forth branches and fruit? You receive each one of these things, and do not trouble yourself about them, but would subject God alone, Who disposes of our bodies, to scrutiny! What can justify such a demand?

These and such like things are what we say to heathens, for I need no argument with those who are convinced of the Scriptures. For if you were able to understand all that He does, how would God be more than a man? Indeed there are many men whom we fail to understand. But if this happens to us in the case of men, and we do not grasp them, how much more are we to abstain from scrutinising the wisdom of God and from fathoming His reasons—the former, because He Who acts is worthy of confidence; the latter, because the acts themselves are above reasonings. God is not so abject as to do only those things which _you_, in the weakness of your reasonings, are able to encompass. For, if you cannot grasp a mechanic’s work, how much less that of God the Sovereign Architect! Therefore, do not disbelieve the Resurrection, for you will be so much the further away from the future hope. But what clever thing do opponents say, or rather what exceedingly foolish thing? ‘How,’ they ask, ‘when the body has been mixed with earth, and become earth, and it again has been changed into something else, can it rise again?’ This seems to _you_ to be impracticable, but not so to the Eye which never sleeps, for to It all things are laid bare. In that corruption _you_ see no distinction, but He knows everything; you, again, are ignorant concerning your neighbour’s heart: He is familiar with all. Since, then, you do not know how God raises from the dead, you doubt that He _does_ raise, and will doubt that He knows what is in the human mind; for neither are these things apparent to our bodily eyes. If, indeed, in the case of the body, matter is visible even if it be dissolved—but those conceptions are invisible—therefore, shall He Who is perfectly cognisant of invisible things not see the visible ones and not easily raise up the body? No one will say so! Do not disbelieve in the Resurrection, for this disbelief is in truth a diabolical temptation, and the devil urges it, not only that the Resurrection may be doubted, but also that he may dissolve and destroy virtuous actions. For if a man imagines that he is not to rise again, and not to give an account of his works, he will not easily be righteous, and not being righteous, he will thoroughly mistrust the Resurrection. Each paves the way for the other: wickedness comes from want of faith, and want of faith from wickedness. For when a conscience has burdened itself with much wickedness, and since it is not willing to provide itself with consolation by change to a better course, in fear and anguish at the future punishment, it seeks to ease itself in unbelief. If you say there is neither Resurrection nor Judgment, another man’s comment is: ‘Then I shall give no account of my actions’. But what are Christ’s words? _You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God._ In truth, God would not have worked things so great if He had intended not to raise us up again, but to dissolve and annihilate us: He would not have stretched the heavens above our heads, nor the earth under our feet, nor have made all other things for this brief period of life only. But if He has done this for the life which now is, what will He not do for the life to come? If there is to be no future life, then are we far less considered, according to our present condition, than those things which were called into existence for our sakes. For heavens, and earth, and ocean, and rivers are more abiding than we, as also some unreasoning animals: the crow, the elephant, and many others are much longer lived than we. _Our_ life is short and full of labour: it is not so with them, but they have a long life free from despondency and care. Tell me, how is this?—has He made the servants happier than their masters? I repeat it, do not reason in this way, nor humble your intellect, nor disregard the riches of God, having so great a Master. It was God’s design from the beginning to make you immortal, but you were not willing. The being with God, the living a life without suffering, or grief, or care, or labour, or any other anxiety,—all this pointed to immortality. Adam had no need of clothes, nor of shelter, nor of any other protection, but he was more like an angel, and he had a fore-knowledge of many things to come, and was endued with much wisdom. He knew what God had done in secret, as to the creation of woman, and so he said, _This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh_. Afterwards came labour, and sweat, and shame, and cowardice, and bondage: _then_ there was neither grief nor pain, nor effort. But he did not remain in this high state.

· · · · · · ·

Resurrection confirmed by Signs which followed.
(_Homilies on the New Testament_,[12] viii., t. iii., p. 89.)

· · · · · · ·

The reason, beloved brethren, why we read immediately after the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of the wonders worked by the Apostles is that we may have a clear and unambiguous proof of the Resurrection. You did not look upon Him rising from the dead with your bodily eyes, but you see Him rising with the eyes of faith. You did not look upon Him rising with this physical eyesight of yours, but you will see Him rising through those signs. For their manifestation will lead you to faith’s contemplation. Hence the working of signs in His name was a much greater and stronger testimony than seeing Him as He rose from the dead. Would you know how this establishes the Resurrection more firmly than if it had been seen by all men with their bodily eyes? Listen with attention, for many men make this objection and say, ‘Why, when rising from the dead, did He not show Himself immediately to the Jews?’ But this argument is trifling and vain. If He had meant to enforce faith upon them, He would not have omitted to appear to all men after the Resurrection. Now He showed that He did _not_ mean to put force upon them by appearing after the Resurrection: in the case of Lazarus, He raised up this man, who had been four days dead, and was corrupt and stinking, and He made him, who was bound, come forth before all; and not only He did not induce them to believe, but He provoked them to anger. When they came they wished to put Him to death on this account. Now, if they were faithless when He raised up another, would they not also have been mad with Him if He had shown them Himself risen from the dead? If they had not been able to accomplish anything, they would still have been guilty of impiety. Thus, wishing to save them from a useless madness, He concealed Himself. For He would have made them deserving of chastisement if He had appeared to them after the Cross. Consequently, to spare them, He hid Himself from their eyes, but manifested Himself through signs. Hearing Peter say, _In the Name of Jesus Christ arise and walk_, was not a less thing than seeing Him rise again. And that this _was_ a great proof of the Resurrection, and more conducive to faith than the first, that seeing signs taking place in His Name was better able to persuade the minds of men than the sight of Him risen is evident from what I am going to say. Christ rose and showed Himself to the disciples. Yet one of their number, Thomas, who was called Didymus, was unbelieving, and he demanded to put his hands into the marks of the nails. Now, if that disciple, who had spent three years with Him, who had partaken of his Lord’s table, witnessed great signs and wonders, and heard his Lord’s words, did not at first believe when he even beheld Him risen, until he felt the marks of the nails and of the wounds, tell me how would the whole world have believed it if it had seen Him risen? Who would say as much? But I will give you further proof than this that signs were more persuasive than the physical sight of the risen Lord. The crowd hearing Peter’s words to the lame man, _In the Name of Jesus Christ arise and walk_, three thousand, and five thousand believed in Christ; on the other hand, the single disciple seeing Christ risen was unbelieving. Do you see that the signs much more furthered faith in the Resurrection? In presence of the one His own disciple doubted, whereas in contemplating the signs even enemies were persuaded. Hence they were more powerful and clearer; they attracted men and won them over to the Resurrection. And why do I speak of Thomas? For understand fully that neither were the other disciples persuaded by their first sight of Jesus risen; but condemn them not, dear brethren. If Christ did not reproach them, neither should you, for the disciples saw a strange and wonderful thing; they saw Him rising the First-Born from the dead. Signs so great as this are wont at first to stupify, until in process of time they take root in the souls of the faithful. Now, this is what happened to the disciples. Whilst Christ risen from the dead spoke to them the words, _Peace be to you_, the Evangelist says they were troubled and frightened, imagining they saw a spirit, and Jesus said to them, _Why are ye fearful?_ And after that He showed them His Hands and Feet, and He said to them, whom joy and wonder made unbelieving, _Have you anything to eat?_ wishing to convince them through these material things of the Resurrection. ‘Do neither My Side nor My Wounds persuade you, then let even food persuade you.’ That you may clearly understand that He said, _Have you anything to eat here?_ in order to show them they beheld not a vision, nor a spirit, nor a phantom, but a true and substantial resurrection, consider how Peter is convinced of it in this very way. For in saying that _God had raised Him from the dead and had given Him to appear in a glorious form to us His preordained witnesses_, he added, as a proof of the Resurrection: _we who ate and drank with Him_. This was why whenever Christ raised anyone from the dead, in order to prove the Resurrection, He said: _Give him to eat_. When, therefore, you hear that He offered Himself to them in the body during forty days, appearing to them and living with them, understand His reason for eating with them. It was not that He required food, but He wished to strengthen the weakness of the disciples; whence it is plain that the signs and wonders of the Apostles were the greatest proof of the Resurrection. Therefore, His own words were: _Amen, Amen, I say to you, he who believeth in Me shall do the works which I do, and greater works than I do_. For since the Cross coming between had scandalised many, He required even greater signs after it. If, indeed, Christ in ending His life had remained in death and the tomb, and had not risen, as the Jews pretend, nor ascended into heaven, not only were greater signs not required to come after the cross, but even the former ones should have been blotted out. Follow my argument attentively, as what I have said is an irrefutable proof of the Resurrection, and therefore I repeat it. First, Christ did wonders, He raised the dead and cleansed lepers, and cast out devils: after this He was crucified, and, as the lawless Jews assert, He did not rise from the dead. Now, how are we to answer them? That if He did _not_ rise, how after this did greater signs take place in His Name? No living man at his death ever worked greater wonders after it, but in this case they _were_ greater after it, both in manner and in matter. They were greater in matter, for never had the shadow of Christ raised from the dead, yet the shadows of the Apostles did many things of this kind. And they were greater in manner when at His command signs took place; but after the crucifixion His servants, using His awful and all-holy Name, did greater and more wonderful things, so that their power shone forth more conspicuously than His. For it was much more striking that another should do these things by invoking His Name than that He should command them to be done. See you, dear brethren, how the signs of the Apostles after Christ’s Resurrection were greater both in manner and in matter? Therefore, the proof of the Resurrection is irrefutable. As I was saying, and now repeat, if Christ had died and not risen again, wonders also should have ceased and been extinguished: now, not only were they not quenched, but they became more evident and more glorious after these things. And if Christ had not risen, others would not have worked signs so great in His Name. One and the same power did wonders both before and after the Cross, first through Himself and afterwards through His disciples; but the greater and more wonderful signs took place after the Cross in order that the proof of the Resurrection might be the clearer and more renowned. ‘And how,’ the unbeliever asks, ‘is it certain that signs _did_ take place?’ ‘How is it certain that Christ was crucified?’ ‘From Holy Scripture,’ you answer. And it is also evident from Holy Scripture both that signs took place then and that Christ was crucified, for they say one and the other. And if the adversary assert that the Apostles did no signs, he shows their power and divine grace to have been the greater, inasmuch as without wonders they were able to win such a world to the service of God.[13] For this is the greatest sign and the crowning wonder of all, that the lowly, and poor, and despised, and ignorant, and unlearned, and needy, twelve men in number, seem without signs to drag in their train cities so great, and races and peoples, kings, tyrants, philosophers, and orators, and, so to speak, the whole world. Would you like to see signs taking place now? Then I will show you signs more striking than the former ones—not one dead man raised to life, not one blind man restored to sight, but the whole world freed from the darkness of error; not one leper cleansed, but entire nations washed from the leprosy of sin and purified through baptism to regeneration. What greater signs than these would you have, O man, contemplating so radical a change over the face of the earth?

Would you know how Christ restored sight to the world? Men began by looking at wood and stone, not as wood and stone, but were so blinded as to invoke material things as gods: now, however, that they have seen what wood is and what stone is, they believe what God is, for that high and blessed nature is contemplated by faith alone. Would you have another sign of the Resurrection? You will find it in the knowledge of the disciples, which was increased after the Resurrection. For it is admitted by all that one who is well-disposed towards a living man thinks no more of him when he is dead, but if he dislikes the living man, and if he deserts him whilst present, much more will he forget him when dead. Hence, no one who neglected a friend and counsellor when living will make much of him when dead, especially when he finds a thousand dangers threatening himself if he should be so minded. Yet, what took place in the case of no other man _did_ take place with Christ and His Apostles and those who had denied and forsaken Him during His life, who had left Him when apprehended, and turned their backs upon Him after numberless reproaches, made so much of the Cross, as to give up their own lives for their testimony and for their faith in Him. If Christ did not die and did not rise again, what reason was there that those who had fled from Him when living, on account of impending danger, should have encountered a thousand dangers for Him when dead? Now they all fled from Him, and Peter, besides, denied Him thrice with an oath, and he who denied Him thrice with an oath, and was frightened at a poor maid-servant, after His death, wishing to persuade us through their acts that he had seen Him risen, became so thoroughly changed that he defied all the people, and went out into the midst of the Jews and proclaimed that He Who was crucified and buried had risen from the dead on the third day, and had ascended into heaven, and that he himself feared no evil. Whence came this courage of his? Whence, if not from his conviction of the Resurrection? For since he had seen Christ, and spoken with Him, and had heard future things foretold, risking the rest of his life as if for a living man, he so confronted all adverse things that he took fresh strength and courage, so as to die for Him, and to be crucified with his head downwards. Therefore when you see greater signs taking place, and the disciples showing more feeling for Him Whom they at first deserted, and a bolder fearlessness, and the change in morals becoming everywhere more marked, and bringing everything into a secure and happy state, learn through practical experience that the personal history of Christ did not stop at the death of Christ, but a Resurrection received Him, and He lives and remains immutably the crucified God for ever. If He had not risen and were not living, the disciples would not have worked greater wonders than had taken place before the Cross. _Then_ the disciples even had left Him: _now_ the whole world seeks Him out, and not Peter alone, but thousands of others; and after Peter many more, who never saw Him, have given up their lives for Him. They have lost their heads and suffered numberless evils in order to maintain a pure and entire belief in Him until their death. How then could a dead man lying in his tomb, as you say, O Jew, have shown forth so great a strength and power even in those coming after Him, persuading them to adore Him alone, and to be willing to endure and suffer anything rather than to give up their faith in Him? Do you not see this clear proof of the Resurrection in every particular? Through the signs then and now, through the affection of the disciples then and now, through the perils in which believers passed their lives? Would you see His enemies too fearing His strength and His power, and in much greater straits after His crucifixion? Give your minds, then, to this also. The Jews seeing the courage of Peter and John, the Scripture says, and considering that they were ignorant and untaught men, wondered and were dismayed, not that they were illiterate, but that, being illiterate, they got the better of all the wise, and seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it, although before this they _had_ had something to say against it when they saw signs taking place. Now, why had they nothing to say then? The invisible power of the Crucified had sealed their tongues. He it was Who had silenced their mouths and put down their boldness, so that they stood there, and could not gainsay them. And when they _did_ speak, see how they admit their own cowardice. _Would you draw down upon us the blood of this man?_ For if He be a mere man, why fear His blood? How many prophets have you removed, O Jew, how many just have you slain, and have you feared the blood of any one of them? Why, then, did you fear in this case? The Crucified awed their conscience; and not being able to conceal their struggle, they reveal their own weakness towards their enemies in spite of themselves. And when they crucified Him, they cried out, saying, _His blood be upon us and upon our children_. Thus did they despise His blood. But after the Cross, seeing His power shine forth, they are afraid and distressed, and say, _Would you draw down_ _the blood of this man upon us?_ If indeed he was a deceiver, and impious, as you false Jews say, why did you fear His blood? If He were this you should have prided yourselves on putting Him to death, but because He was not this, therefore, are you in fear.

Do you see how everywhere His enemies are distressed and afraid? Do you see their anguish? Learn, too, the kindness of the Crucified. They said, _His blood be upon us and upon our children_. Not so Christ, but, supplicating the Father, He said, _Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do_. For, if His blood had indeed fallen upon them and upon their children, the Apostles would not have been made out of their children; neither three thousand nor five thousand would have believed on the spot. See you how barbarous and cruel as they were towards their descendants, they ignored even nature itself, whilst God was more loving than all fathers put together and tenderer than any mother? Still His blood _was_ upon them and upon their children, though not upon all their children, but on those alone who emulated the impiety and unrighteousness of their fathers. Those alone were liable to the evils who were sons, not according to nature, but through their own foolish choice. Look with me at another side of the goodness and lovingness of God. He did not at once let the chastisement and penalty fall upon them, but He allowed forty years and more to pass after the Cross. Our Lord Himself was crucified under Tiberius, and their city was destroyed under Vespasian and Titus. Now, why did He allow so long a time to elapse after these things? Because He wished to give them time for repentance, so that they might put off their iniquities and be quit of their crimes. As, having a respite for conversion, they remained in their impenitence, He at last inflicted punishment upon them, and, destroying their city, sent them out wanderers over the face of the earth. And this He did through love. He dispersed them that they might everywhere see that Christ Whom they had crucified adored, and that, seeing Him adored by all, they might learn His power and acknowledge their own exceeding wickedness, and in acknowledging it might come to the truth. And indeed their humiliation became a teaching to them and their chastisement a remedy, for, if they had remained in the country of the Jews, they would not have recognised the truth of the prophets. What had the prophets said? _Ask of me and I will give you the gentiles for your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession._ Thus it behoved them to go out to the ends of the earth that they might see with their own eyes that Christ reigns even there. Again, another prophet says, _Each one shall adore Him from his own place_. Therefore it was necessary that they should be dispersed into every corner of the earth, that with their very eyes they might see every man adoring Him from his own place. Again, another says, _The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea_. Therefore, it was fitting that they should go forth unto all the earth, that they might see it all filled with the knowledge of God, and _seas_, that is, these spiritual churches, with His fear. On this account God dispersed them throughout the earth. If they had established themselves in Judæa, they would not have known these things. He wishes too that they should experience with their eyes both the truth of the prophets and His own power, so that, if they be right-minded, they may be thus led to the truth, whilst, if they follow impiety, they may have no excuse in the terrible day of judgment. Therefore, God dispersed them over the earth that we too may draw profit hence, that, seeing the prophecies concerning their dispersion and the destruction of Jerusalem, which Daniel, in recalling the abomination of desolation, and Malachias, in saying, _The gates shall be shut in you_, and David and Isaias and many other prophets have foretold, and how those are chastised who did not receive their Lord, cut off from their national liberty, from all their domestic ties and hereditary customs, may understand the power which accomplishes and works these things, and that enemies may see His strength through our gain. May we indeed learn through their chastisement His infinite kindness and power, and may we be constant in giving Him praise, so that we may arrive at eternal and unspeakable goods by the grace and goodness of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom, with the Father and the Son, be honour and power, now and for ever. Amen.