PSEUDO-CIIRYSOSTOMUS

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMUS 513

teins” and we merely give one illustrationmore. The name Bathsheba, or as ke reads itBersabee, he finds in Hebrew denotes seven wells.But he deduces from Prov. v. 15 that “well”denotes a wife. Bathsheba was the seventhw ife of the literal David; but we learnspiritually ' t that Christ is the spouse of sevenchurches, for so the one church is designated onaccount of the seven Spirits by which it is sus-tained, and accordingly both Paul and John wroteto seven churches. This last remark may sug-gest that the writer was acquainted with thework of which the Muratorian fragment is apart.

The writer shews a strong preference for theascetic life. He remarks (24, 135) that whenthe disciples said “ If the case of the man be sowith his wife it is not good to marry,” our Lorddid not contradict them or say it was good tomarry. The writer holds (1, 24) that conjugalunion is bad, and in itself considered is a sin;hnd although on account of God’s permissionit ceases to be sin, yet it is not righteousness.In the beginning of the world men marriedristers—a sin excusable at the time on accountthe fewness of men. Afterwards this wasforbidden, but a man was allowed to have morewives than one ; then, as population increased,<.his too was forbidden, but a man was allowedto have one wife; “ now that the world hasgrown old we know what is well-pleasing inGod’s sight, though on account of incontinentmen we dare not say it.” Some hard languageconcerning the female sex will be found(24, 135). Yet to those who will not take hiscounsel he condescends to give advice concerningthe choosing and the ruling of a wife—“ See•hat she comes of a good stock; if both parentsare virtuous you may safely venture. If bothare bad have nothing to say to her; if one isgood, the other bad, it is an even chance how shewill turn out. If, after marriage, she plays theharlot, send her away. If her misconduct stopshort of adultery, she is to be dealt with inthree ways: first, admonish her before God ;secondly, if that avail not, publicly rebukeher, that she who regards not the fear ofGod may be influenced by shame of men ; butif, after repeated rebukes, she will not reform,beat her with a stick, for it is meet that shewho cannot be made to blush like a freewomanshould be chastised like a slave.” The writerdoes not even withdraw the apostle’s permis-sion of a second marriage, though regarding thisas but license given on account of the hardnessof men s hearts, a second marriage, in itselfconsidered, being but “ honesta fornicatio.”This is quoted as Chrysostom’s in the Decretuniof Gratian (pars 2, caus. 31, quaest. 1, 9). Ithas been already mentioned that the writer ownsthere were more examples of continence in the

ominant church than in his own sect, but he isnot a w ^it the more on that account disposed tocondone that church’s heresy. A heretical sectls 110 rnore a church than an ape is a man. Ifyou see a man who does not worship God injj r°* n S w ^ at seem to you good works, doy f , ell . e ^ e 7°w eyes and say he is a man of goodbut believe God, who says “ An evil treeeaanot bring forth good fruit.” It you call himg od you make Christ a liar ; you only see theS1 c> God sees the heart. The works of a manChrist, biogr.—vol. iv.

who does not care to believe rightly can springfrom no good motive, for it is better to believerightly than to act rightly. Faith withoutworks is dead, but still it is something; workswithout faith are nothing at all. The foolishvirgins had the lamps of right faith, but not theoil of good works to burn in them; but whatavails the oil of good works to Jews or hereticswho have no lamps wherein to light it ? Thewriter will not even own the baptism of hereticsas valid.

It has been questioned whether the originallanguage of this commentary were Greek orLatin, but it appears to us that the original wascertainly Latin. Some proofs may be rejectedas indecisive; for instance a translator mayconceivably have modified the language u Jesselatino sermone refrigerium appellatur” (p. 16),or “ in graeco non dicit ‘ beati pauperes * sed‘ beati egeni ’ vel * beati mendici * ” (9, 56). Butthere are other passages where the argumentturns on the use of Latin, as, for example(53, 223), money passing from hand to hand—“ usu ipso multiplieatur, unde dicitur usura abusu,” or (7, 53) where an explanation is sug-gested why, at the call of the apostles, Peter andhis brother are described as “ mittentes retia.”John and his brother “retia componentes,”“ quia Petrus praedicavit evangelium et noncomposuit, sed Marcus ab eo praedicata compo-suit; Joannes autem et praedicavit evangeliumet ipse composuit.” The commentator, however,clearly uses Greek authorities. From such hemust have derived his explanation (49, 205)why the commandments are ten—“ secundummysterium nominis Jesu Christ! quod est inlitera iota, id est perfection^ indicio ” (see also1, 23). The writer knew no Hebrew, though helays great stress on the interpretation of Hebrewnames, making use for this purpose of a glossarywhich we have not been able to identify withthat used by any other writer. It must havebeen from the work of some Oriental writer thathe came by the name of Varisuas as that of aheretic (48, 199), for it would seem plain thatBarjesus is intended. The commentator doesnot use Jerome’s Vulgate, but a previous transla-tion. Thus (Matt. v. 22) he has “ sine causa,”

which Jerome omits, and he anticipates bishopButler in his observations as to the uses of angerJusta ira mater est disciplinae, ergo nonsolum peccant qui cum causa irascuntur sed econtra nisi irati fuerint peccant.” In the Lord’sprayer he has “ quotidianum,” not “ supersub-stantialem.” He has the doxology at the end ;in this differing from the usage of Latin versionsbut agreeing with the Apostolic Constitutions(iii. 18), a work which he highly valued. Inthe beatitudes he follows the received text inplacing “Blessed are they that mourn” before“ Blessed are the meek,” contrary to Jerome andthe bulk of the Latin versions. Both here, how-ever, and in the case of the doxology, he agreeswith the Codex Brixianus. He reads “ nequefilius ” (Matt. xxiv. 36); he distinctly omitsLuke xvii. 36 (50, 213).

Besides the Scriptures he uses the Shepherdof Hermas (33, 142), but acknowledging that itwas not universally received; the ClementineRecognitions (20, 94; 50, 212; 51, 214), theApostolic Constitutions or Canons as he callsthem (13, 74; 53, 221). The first of these