Atos 15
John Chrysostom · Comentário Patrístico (catena)
Atos 15:1
Mark how at every step of the right progress in respect of the Gentiles, the beginning is brought in as matter of necessity. Before this Peter being found fault with, justified himself, and said all that he said in the tone of apology, which was what made his words acceptable: then, the Jews having turned away, upon this Paul came to the Gentiles. Here again, seeing another extravagance coming in, upon this the apostle enacts the law. For as it is likely that they, as being taught of God, discoursed to all indifferently, this moved to jealousy them of the Jews who had believed. And they did not merely speak of circumcision, but they said, Ye cannot even be saved. Whereas the very opposite to this was the case, that receiving circumcision they could not be saved. — Homily on Acts 32
Atos 15:1
In Jerusalem, then, there were not any believers from among the Gentiles: but in Antioch of course there were. Therefore there came down certain yet laboring under this disease of the love of rule, and wishing to have those of the Gentiles attached to them. And yet Paul, though he too was learned in the Law, was not thus affected. — Homily on Acts 32
Atos 15:2
And Paul does not say, What? Have I not a right to be believed after so many signs? but he complied for their sakes. But when he returned from thence, the doctrine also became more exact. For if they at Jerusalem enjoin no such thing, much more these have no right to do so. — Homily on Acts 32
Atos 15:2
How can he say in his letter to the Galatians, "I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, nor did I move"? We suggest this: in the first place because he had not gone up spontaneously but had been sent by others; and in the second place because he did not come in order to learn something but to persuade others. Indeed, from the beginning he held that opinion that the apostles approved later, namely, that it was not necessary to circumcise. Until that day, however, it had seemed to them that [Paul] was not worthy of faith, but they rather listened more to those who lived in Jerusalem. So [Paul] went up, not in order to gain what he had been ignorant of before but in order to persuade his opponents because those who were in Jerusalem agreed with them. He had recognized from the start what had to be done and needed no teacher. And he had a clear and sure idea, beyond any discussion, of what the apostles would have decreed after a long discussion. Since it had seemed opportune to the brothers that he might learn something about them, he went up not for himself but for them. Even though he says, "I did not go up," we can explain that. He did not go up at the beginning of his preaching or in order to learn. And he means both these things when he says, "I did not go immediately in flesh and blood." He did not simply say, "I did not go" but "I did not go immediately." — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 15.2-4
Atos 15:3
And observe, the consequence is that all the Samaritans also, learn what has come to the Gentiles: and they rejoiced. Do you mark, as many as are not enamoured of rule, rejoiced in their believing? It was no ambitious feeling that prompted their recitals, neither was it for display, but in justification of the preaching to the Gentiles. — Homily on Acts 32
Atos 15:4
See what a providence is here! And observe they do not come accusing those at Antioch, but "declaring all things that God had done with them." Thus they say nothing of what had happened in the matter of the Jews. But still they brought forward none of these charges: but when they have proved the matter, then the Apostles write in stronger terms. — Homily on Acts 32
Atos 15:5
Great effrontery this, of the Pharisees, that even after faith they set up the Law, and will not obey the Apostles. But see these, how mildly they speak, and not in the tone of authority: such words are amiable, and more apt to fix themselves in the mind. Observe, it is nowhere a display of words, but demonstration by facts, by the Spirit. And yet, though they have such proofs, they still speak gently. But even if they would needs bring over the Gentiles to their side, they learn that neither must the Apostles overlook it. — Homily on Acts 32
Atos 15:6
"And the Apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them." And this too is no small point-at a time when Jews believed, not turned away from the Gospel. "Among us," an argument from the place: "of old days," from the time. — Homily on Acts 32
Atos 15:7
See how Peter was, from the beginning, removed from the debate and how he was following the ways of the Jews even still. "You know," he says. Perhaps some of those who had once accused him with regard to Cornelius were present and had entered with him, so that he brings them as witnesses. "From the ancient days God chose among you." What does "among you" mean? It means either "in Palestine" or the "you" is those who were present. "Through my mouth." See how [Peter] shows that God spoke through him and there was nothing human. "And God, who knows human hearts, testified to them"—he refers them to the testimony of the Spirit—"by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us." — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 15.7-8
Atos 15:7
Observe Peter from the first standing aloof from the affair, and even to this time judaizing. And yet he says "ye know." Perhaps those were present who of old found fault with him in the matter of Cornelius, and went in with him on that occasion: for this reason he brings them forward as witnesses. "From old days," he says, "did choose among you." What means, "Among you?" Either, in Palestine, or, you being present. "By my mouth." Observe how he shows that it was God speaking by him, and no human utterance. And that expression, "Chose:" just as in their own case he says not, so willed it, but, "Chose that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe." Whence is this proved? From the Spirit. — Homily on Acts 32
Atos 15:8
"And God, that knoweth the hearts, gave testimony unto them:" he refers them to the spiritual testimony: "by giving them the Holy Ghost even as unto us." Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. Then he shows that the testimony given them is not of grace merely, but of their virtue. "And God which knoweth the hearts bare them witness;" having afforded to them nothing less than to us, for, he says, "Put no difference between us and them." Why then, hearts are what one must everywhere look to. And it is very appositely said, "God that knoweth the hearts bare them witness:" as in the former instance, "Thou, Lord, that knowest the hearts of all men." For to show that this is the meaning, observe what he adds, "Put no difference between us and them." — Homily on Acts 32
Atos 15:9
"And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith." From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those objectors; this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision. For indeed they do not say all this only by way of apology for the Gentiles, but to teach the Jewish believers also to abandon the Law. When he has mentioned the testimony borne to them, then he utters that great word, the same which Paul speaks, "Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision." "That he may make the twain one in Himself." Of all these the seeds lie in Peter's discourse. And he does not say between them of the circumcision, but "Between us," that is the Apostles, "and them." Then, that the expression, "no difference" may not seem an outrage, After faith, he says-"Having purified their hearts by faith"-He thoroughly cleansed them first. — Homily on Acts 32
Atos 15:10
"Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples?" What means, "Tempt ye God?" As if He had not power to save by faith. Consequently, it proceeds from a want of faith, this bringing in the Law. Then he shows that they themselves were nothing benefited by it, and he turns the whole stress of his speech against the Law, not against them, and so cuts short the accusation of them: "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." And he did not say, Why do ye disbelieve? which was more harsh, but, "Tempt God," and that when the fact is demonstrated. "Why therefore tempt ye God?" who is become the God of the Gentiles: for this was tempting: whether He is able to save even after the Law. See what he does. He shows that they are in danger. — Homily on Acts 32
Atos 15:11
Then he shows, not that the Law was evil, but themselves weak. "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved even as they." Mark how he ends with a fearful consideration. He does not discourse to them from the Prophets, but from things present, of which themselves were witnesses. For if, what the Law could not do, faith had power to do, "we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved even as they:" but faith falling off, behold, themselves are in destruction. "And put no difference between"-he said not, them of the circumcision, but "us and them," i.e. the Gentiles: for this gradual advance little by little is stronger. — Homily on Acts 32
Atos 15:11
"But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved, even as they." How full of power these words! The same that Paul says at large in the Epistle to the Romans, the same says Peter here. "For if Abraham," says Paul, "was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God." Do you perceive that all this is more a lesson for them than apology for the Gentiles? However, if he had spoken this without a plea for speaking, he would have been suspected: an occasion having offered, he lays hold of it, and speaks out fearlessly. See on all occasions how the designs of their foes are made to work with them. If those had not stirred the question, these things would not have been spoken, nor what follows. — Homily on Acts 32
Atos 15:12
"Then all the multitude kept silence." There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up for the next word. Great the orderliness of the proceedings. No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:13-15
This James was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old. For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this active part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas James here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion. "Men and brethren," he says, "hearken unto me." Great is the moderation of the man. His also is a more complete oration, as indeed it puts the completion to the matter under discussion. "Symeon," he says, "declared:" namely, in Luke, in that he prophesied, "Which Thou hast prepared before the face of all nations, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel." "How God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name." Then, since that witness, though from the time indeed he was manifest, yet had not authority by reason of his not being ancient, therefore he produces ancient prophecy also. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:14
But what means it, "How God first did visit?" It means from the beginning. Moreover he well says, "Symeon expounded," implying that he too spake the mind of others. "And to this agree," etc. Observe how he shows that this is a doctrine of old time. "To take out of the Gentiles," he says, "a people for His Name." Not simply, Chose, but, "for His Name," that is for His glory. His Name is not shamed by the taking the Gentiles first, but it is even a greater glory. Here some even great thing is hinted at: that these are chosen before all. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:16-17
"After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up." What? was Jerusalem raised up? Was it not rather thrown down? What sort of raising up does he call that which took place after the return from Babylon? "That the residue of men," he says, "may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles upon whom My Name is called." Then, what makes his word authoritative: "Saith the Lord, which doeth all these things." But if one would look into the matter closely, the kingdom of David does in fact now stand, his Offspring reigning everywhere. For what is the good of the buildings and the city, with none obeying there? And what is the harm arising from the destruction of the city, when all are willing to give their very souls? There is that come which is more illustrious than David: in all parts of the world is he now sung. This has come to pass: if so, then must this also come to pass, "And I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:" to what end? "that the residue of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom My Name is called." If then it was to this end that the city rose again namely because of Him that was to come of them, it shows that of the building of the city the cause is, the calling of the Gentiles. Who are "the residue?" those who are then left. "And all the Gentiles, upon whom My Name is called:" but observe, how he keeps the due order, and brings them in second. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:18
"Saith the Lord, which doeth these things." Not "saith" only, but "doeth." Why then, it was God's work. "But the question is other than this namely, what Peter spoke more plainly, whether they must be circumcised. Then why dost thou harangue about these matters?" For what the objectors asserted, was not that they must not be received upon believing, but that it must be with the Law. And upon this Peter well pleaded: but then, as this very thing above all others troubled the hearers, therefore he sets this to rights again. And observe, that which was needful to be enacted as a rule, that it is not necessary to keep the Law, this Peter introduced: but the milder part, the truth which was received of old, this James saith, and dwells upon that concerning which nothing is written, in order that having soothed their minds by that which is acknowledged, he may opportunely introduce this likewise. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:19
"Wherefore," saith he, "my sentence is, not to trouble them which from among the Gentiles do turn unto God," that is, not to subvert: for, if God called them, and these observances subvert, we fight against God. And again, "them which from the Gentiles," he saith, "do turn." And he says well, with authority, the "my sentence is." He does not say, Not to offend, nor to turn them back, which is what Paul said to the Galatians, but, "not to trouble them:" he shows that the point if carried is nothing but a mere troubling. Thus he made an end of the whole matter; and while he seems to preserve the Law by adopting these rules from it, he unbinds it by taking only these. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:20
"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication" - and yet they often insisted upon these points in discoursing to them - but, that he may seem also to honor the Law he mentions these also, speaking however not as from Moses but from the Apostles, and to make the commandments many, he has divided the one into two saying, "and from things strangled, and from blood." For these, although relating to the body, were necessary to be observed, because these things caused great evils. "From things strangled," it says, "and from blood." Here it prohibits murder. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:21
"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." Since then they had heard of the Law, with good reason he enjoins these things from the Law, that he may not seem to make it of no authority. And yet observe how he does not let them be told these things from the Law, but from himself, saying, It is not that I heard these things from the Law, but how? "We have judged." Then the decree is made in common. This above all quieted them. For this cause I affirm that it is good so to write to them. Then why do we not write the same injunctions to Jews also? Moses discourses unto them. See what condescension to their weakness! Where it did no harm, he set him up as teacher, and indulged them with a gratification which hindered nothing, by permitting Jews to hear him in regard of these matters, even while leading away from him them of the Gentiles. See what wisdom! He seems to honor him, and to set him up as the authority for his own people, and by this very thing he leads away the Gentiles from him! — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:22
Then the decree is made in common. "Then pleased it the Apostles and elders, together with the whole Church, to choose men of their own company" - do you observe they do not merely enact these matters, and nothing more? - "and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote letters by them after this manner." And observe, the more to authenticate the decree, they send men of their own, that there may be no room for regarding Paul and his company with suspicion. There was a design of Providence in the disputation also, that after the disputation the doctrine might be more firm. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:23
"The Apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia." "To those in Antioch," it says, "and Syria and Cilicia," where the disease had its birth. Observe how they say nothing harsher against those brethren, but look to one thing only, namely, to undo the mischief which has been done. For this would make even the movers of the faction there to confess that they were wrong. They do not say, The seducers, the pestilent fellows, or suchlike: though where need is, Paul does this, as when he says, "O full of all guile": but here, the point being carried, there was no need. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:24
And mark with what forbearance of all harsh vituperation of those brethren they indite their epistle. "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the Law: to whom we gave no such commandment." Sufficient was this charge against the temerity of those men, and worthy of the Apostles' moderation, that they said nothing beyond this. And observe, they do not put it, That certain from us ordered you to keep the Law, but, "Troubled you with words, subverting your souls" - nothing could be more proper than that word: none of the other speakers has so spoken of the things done by those men. "The souls," he says, already strongly established, these persons are taking down again as in speaking of a building, displacing them from the foundation. "To whom," he says, "we gave no such commandment." — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:24
You have received as your patrimony the desire never to allow the teachings of our faith to degenerate into heresy. What makes this clear? In the time of your ancestors, people came here from Judea who were muddying the clear waters of the doctrine taught by the apostles. They were exhorting your ancestors to practice circumcision and to observe the Mosaic law. Those who then lived in your city did not remain silent, nor did they put up with this innovation. They were like courageous hounds who saw wolves attacking and destroying the entire flock. They sprang after the wolves and did not let up chasing them and driving them away. They saw to it that the apostles from every corner of the world sent them their decision in the form of a letter that would protect them from any attack launched against the faithful by those innovators and all such as might come thereafter. — AGAINST THE ANOMOEANS 2.4-5
Atos 15:25-26
Then to show that they do not act despotically, that all are agreed in this, that with deliberation they write this - "It seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send men of ours whom we have chosen" - then, that it may not look like disparagement of Paul and Barnabas, that those men are sent, observe the encomium passed upon them - "together with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." If "beloved," they will not despise them, if they "have hazarded their lives," they have themselves a right to be believed. The encomium passed upon Paul stopped their mouths. For this is the reason why neither Paul comes alone nor Barnabas with him, but others also from the Church; that he may not be suspected, seeing it was he that advocated that doctrine: nor yet those from Jerusalem alone. It shows that they have a right to be believed. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:27
"We have sent therefore Judas and Silas; who shall also tell you the same things by mouth." For it was necessary that there should be not merely the Epistle there by itself, lest they should say that Paul and Barnabas had suppressed the real purport, that they said one thing instead of another. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:28
"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" - it is not man's doing, it says - "to lay upon you no greater burden" - again it calls the Law a burden: then apologizing even for these injunctions - "save these necessary things." For that was a superfluous burden. See here a brief Epistle, with nothing more in it than was needed, neither arts of persuasion nor reasonings, but simply a command: for it was the Spirit's legislating. "For it seemed good," say they, "to the Holy Ghost and to us": not making themselves equal to Him - they are not so mad. But why does it put this so? Why did they add, "And to us," and yet it had sufficed to say, "To the Holy Ghost?" The one, "To the Holy Ghost," that they may not deem it to be of man; the other, "To us," that they may be taught that they also themselves admit the Gentiles, although themselves being in circumcision. They have to speak to men who are still weak and afraid of them: this is the reason why this also is added. And it shows that it is not by way of condescension that they speak, neither because they spared them, nor as considering them weak, but the contrary; for great was the reverence of the teachers also. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:29
"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well." For these things the New Testament did not enjoin: we nowhere find that Christ discoursed about these matters; but these things they take from the Law. "From things strangled," it says, "and from blood." Here it prohibits murder. It shows that the rest are not necessary, but superfluous, seeing these things are necessary. "From which if ye keep yourselves," it saith, "ye shall do well." It shows that nothing is lacking to them, but this is sufficient. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:30-31
"So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation." Then those brethren also exhorted them: and having established them, for towards Paul they were contentiously disposed, so departed from them in peace. For it might have been done also without letters, but that there may be a law in writing they send this Epistle: again, that they may obey the law the Apostles also told those men the same things, and they did this, and confirmed them. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:32-33
"And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the Apostles." No more factions and fightings, but thenceforth Paul taught. After the epistle, then Judas and Silas also themselves exhort them by word: for this also was needful, that Paul and Barnabas might be quit of all suspicion. "Being prophets also themselves," it says, exhorted the brethren "with many words." It shows here the right that Paul and Barnabas have to be believed. For Paul also might have done this, but it behooved to be done by these. — Homily on Acts 33
Atos 15:35
"Teaching and preaching the word of the Lord." They did not simply tarry in Antioch, but taught. What did they "teach," and what "preach" (evangelize)? They both (taught) those that were already believers, and (evangelized) those that were not yet such. — Homily on Acts 34
Atos 15:36-39
And there seems indeed to be exasperation, but in fact the whole matter is a plan of the Divine Providence, that each should receive his proper place: and it behooved that they should not be upon a par, but the one should lead, and the other be led. "And so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches." And this also is a work of Providence. For the Cyprians had exhibited nothing of the like sort as they at Antioch and the rest: and those needed the softer character, but these needed such a character as Paul's. — Homily on Acts 34
Atos 15:36-39
And besides, the contention cannot be said to be evil, when each disputes for such objects (as here) and with just reason. I grant you, if the exasperation were in seeking his own, and contending for his own honor, this might well be (reproved): but if wishing, both the one and the other, to instruct and teach, the one took this way and the other that, what is there to find fault with? For in many things they acted upon their human judgment; for they were not stocks or stones. And observe how Paul impeaches (Mark), and gives the reason. For of his exceeding humility he reverenced Barnabas, as having been partner with him in so great works, and being with him: but still he did not so reverence him, as to overlook (what was necessary). — Homily on Acts 34
Atos 15:36-39
"And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other." And already indeed Luke has described to us the character of the Apostles, that the one was more tender and indulgent, but this one more strict and austere. For the gifts are diverse-(the gifts, I say), for that this is a gift is manifest-but the one befitting one, the other another set of characters, and if they change places, harm results instead of good. In the Prophets too we find this: diverse minds, diverse characters: for instance, Elias austere, Moses meek. So here Paul is more vehement. — Homily on Acts 34
Atos 15:39
"And how is it not amiss, that upon so small a matter there should arise so great an evil?" In the first place then, no evil did come of it, if, sufficing each for whole nations, they were divided the one from the other, but a great good. And besides, they would not readily have chosen to leave each other. But admire, I pray you, the writer, how he does not conceal this either. "But at any rate," say you, "if they must needs part, let it be without exasperation." Nay, but if nothing more, observe this, that in this too is shown what was of man (in the preaching of the Gospel). For if the like behooved to be shown (even) in what Christ did, much more here. — Homily on Acts 34
Atos 15:39
The point to be considered, is not that they differed in their opinions, but that they accommodated themselves the one to the other (seeing), that thus it was a greater good their being parted: and the matter took a pretext from this. What then? did they withdraw in enmity? God forbid! In fact you see after this Barnabas receiving many encomiums from Paul in the Epistles. There was "sharp contention," it says, not enmity nor quarrelling. The contention availed so far as to part them. And with reason: for what each supposed to be profitable, he did not forego thereafter, because of the fellowship with the other. Nay, it seems to me that the parting took place advisedly, and that they said one to another "As I wish not, and thou wishest, therefore that we may not fight, let us distribute the places." So that in fact they did this, altogether yielding each to the other: for Barnabas wished Paul's plan to stand, therefore withdrew; on the other hand, Paul wished the other's plan to stand, therefore he withdrew. — Homily on Acts 34
Atos 15:39
Would to God we too made such separations, as to go forth for preaching. A wonderful man this is; and exceedingly great! To Mark this contest was exceedingly beneficial. For the awe inspired by Paul converted him, while the kindness of Barnabas caused that he was not left behind: so that they contend indeed, but the gain comes to one and the same end. For indeed, seeing Paul choosing to leave him, he would be exceedingly awed, and would condemn himself, and seeing Barnabas so taking his part, he would love him exceedingly: and so the disciple was corrected by the contention of the teachers: so far was he from being offended thereby. — Homily on Acts 34
Atos 15:39
This happens even in the case where God and men are the parties: the man requests, God is wroth. For instance, when He saith, "If her father had spit in her face": and again, "Let me alone, and in Mine anger I will blot out this people." And Samuel when he mourns for Saul. For by both, great good is done. Thus also here: the one is wroth, the other not so. The same happens also in matters where we are concerned. And the sharp contention with good reason, that Mark may receive a lesson, and the affair may not seem mere stage-playing. For it is not to be thought that he who bids, "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath," would have been wroth because of such a matter as this: nor that he who on all occasions gave way would not have given way here, he who so greatly loved Paul that before this he sought him in Tarsus, and brought him to the Apostles, and undertook the alms in common with him, and in common the business relating to the decree. — Homily on Acts 34
Atos 15:40
"But Paul," it says, "departed, having chosen Silas, and being commended to the grace of God." What is this? They prayed it says: they besought God. See on all occasions how the prayer of the brethren can do great things. — Homily on Acts 34
Atos 15:41
"And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches." And now he journeyed by land, wishing even by his journeying to benefit those who saw him. For when indeed they were in haste they sailed, but now not so. "And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches. Then came he to Derbe and Lystra." Mark the wisdom of Paul: he does not go to other cities before he has visited them which had received the Word. For it is folly to run at random. This let us also do: let us teach the first in the first place, that these may not become an hindrance to them that are to come after. — Homily on Acts 34