So A. B. C. N. Cat. Of the Edd., Savile alone retains this clause, the rest follow the mod. text, which rejects it. And indeed it can hardly be doubted, that St. Chrys. himself would have expunged, or altered this statement, had he revised these Homilies: for in the next Hom. he shows that the Philip of vv. 26 ff. was certainly not the Apostle, but probably one of the seven deacons. The fact seems to be, that having had no occasion until now to discuss this question, he had assumed (as others had done before him) that the Philip of the Eunuch’s history was the Apostle of that name: thus in Hom. ad Gen. xxxv. §2 (delivered but a few years before), he takes this for granted. Here, however, he perceives that the Philip who preached at Samaria could not be the Apostle: but at present he is still under the impression, that the person by whom the Eunuch was converted was St. Philip the Apostle, and accordingly speaks as in the text, “This Philip, I take it, was one of the Seven; he of the story of the Eunuch was one of the Apostles.” Of course it was impossible on a review of the circumstances to rest in this conclusion; and in the very beginning of the next Homily he tacitly revokes the notion here advanced, and points out how the command, “Arise, and go to the south,” must have been addressed to Philip in Samaria (the deacon), and not Philip the Apostle in Jerusalem. (See the note there.) The early writers frequently confound the Philip of this chapter (the deacon and evangelist, Acts xxi. 9, with the Apostle: Polycrates ap. Eus. H. E. iii. 30, and v. 24, (see Vales and Heinichen on the former passage.) Const. Apol. vi. 7. S. Clementine Strom. iii. p. 192. Comp. St. Augustin Serm. 266. §5.—S. Isadore of Pelusium, Ep. 448, in reply to a correspondent who was not satisfied with his statement (Ep. 447), that “Philip who baptized the Eunuch and catechized Simon was not the Apostle, but one of the Seven,” and requested proof from Scripture (᾽Επειδὴ καὶ μαρτυρίαν ζητεῖς γραφικήν.…᾽Επειδὴ πολλῶν ἀποδειξέων ἐρᾷς,) bids him observe, ch. viii. 1. that the Apostles remained at Jerusalem: that Philip the Apostle would have been competent to impart the gift of the Spirit: and further suggests, that Philip the deacon, fleeing from the persecution, was on his way through Samaria to Cæsarea his native place, (where we afterwards find him xxi. 9), when these events befell, viz. the preaching, etc., at Samaria, and the conversion of the Eunuch.—In the next sentence, ἐκεῖνοι (i.e. the Apostles) οὐκ ἐξῄεσαν· ᾠκονομήθη τούτους (i.e. Philip the deacon and others) ἐξελθεῖν· καὶ ἐκείνους (the Apostles) ὑστερῆσαι: “should come after,” or rather, “should be lacking, be behindhand, not be forthcoming (at the time):” but Cat. καὶ ἐκείνους ἑτέρως, “and those (the Apostles) otherwise.”—The modern text, after “next to Stephen,” proceeds thus: “Wherefore also, when baptizing, he did not impart the Spirit to the baptized, for neither had he authority to do so, since the gift belonged only to the Twelve. But observe; those went not forth; it was Providentially ordered that these should go forth, οἳ καὶ ὑστέρουν τῆς χάριτος διὰ τὸ μήπω λαβεῖν Πν. & 169·Α., who were deficient in the grace because they had not yet received the Holy Ghost. For they received power, etc. Consequently, this was the prerogative of the Apostles.”