"Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the Law, and makest
thy boast of God, and knowest His will, and approvest the things that
are more excellent, being instructed out of the Law."
AFTER saying that the Gentile wanteth nothing appertaining to
salvation if he be a doer of the Law, and after making that wonderful
comparison, he goes on to set down the glories of the Jews, owing
to which they thought scorn of the Gentiles: and first the very name
itself, which was of great majesty, as the name Christian is now. For
even then the distinction Which the appellation made was great. And
so he begins from this, and see how he takes it down. For he does
not say, Behold, thou art a Jew, but "art called" so,
"and makest thy
boast in God;" that is, as being loved by Him, and honored above
all
other men. And here he seems to me to be gently mocking their
unreasonableness, and great madness after glory, because they
misused this gift not to their own salvation, but to set themselves up
against the rest of mankind, and to despise them.
"And knowest His
will, and approvest the things that are more excellent." Indeed
this is
a disadvantage, if without working: yet still it seemed to be an
advantage, and so he states it with accuracy. For he does not say,
thou doest, but knowest; and approvest, not followest and doest.
Ver. 19. "And art confident that thou thyself."
Here again he does not say that thou art "a guide of the
blind," but
"thou art confident," so thou boastest, he says. So great was
the
unreasonableness of the Jews. Wherefore he also repeats nearly the
very words, which they used in their boastings. See for instance
what they say in the Gospels. "Thou wast altogether (olos 4 Mss.
olws) born in sin, and dost thou teach us?" (John ix. 34.) And all
men
they utterly looked down upon, to convince them of which, Paul
keeps extolling them and lowering the others, that so he may get
more hold on them, and make his accusation the weightier.
Wherefore he goes on adding the like things, and making more of
them by different ways of relating them. For "Thou art
confident," he
saith, "that thou thyself art a leader of the blind,"
Ver. 20. "An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which
hast
the form of knowledge and truth, which is in the Law."
Here again he says not, in the conscience and in actions and in
welldoings,
but "in the Law;" and after saying so, he does here also what
he did with regard to the Gentiles. For as there he says, "for
wherein
thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself," so saith he here
also.
Ver. 21. "Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not
thyself?"
But there he frames his speech with more of sharpness, here with
more of gentleness. For he does not say, However on this score thou
deservest greater punishment, because though entrusted with so
great things thou hast not made a good use of any of them, but he
carries his discourse on by way of question, turning them on
themselves (entr>s210>pwn), (entr>s210>pwn), and saying,
"Thou
that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?" And here I would
have you look at the discretion of Paul in another case. For he sets
down such advantages of the Jews, as came not of their own
earnestness, but by a gift from above, and he shows not only that
they are worthless to them if neglectful, but that they even bring with
them increase of punishment. For neither is the being called a Jew
any well doing of theirs, nor yet is the receiving of the Law, nor the
other things he has just enumerated, but of the grace from above.
And towards the beginning he had said, that the hearing of the Law
is valueless unless the doing be thereto added ("for not the
hearers
of the Law," he says, "are just before God,") but now he
shows
further still, that not only the hearing, but, what is more than the
hearing, the teaching of the Law itself will not be able to screen the
teacher, unless he do what he says; and not only will it not screen
him, but will even punish him the more. And he has used his
expressions well too, since he does not say, Thou hast received the
Law, but "Thou restest in the Law." For the Jew was not
wearied with
going about to seek what was to be done, but had on easy terms the
Law pointing the way leading to virtue. For if even the Gentiles have
natural reason (and it is on this ground that these are better than
they, in that they do the Law without hearing), yet still the others had
greater facility. But if you say, I am not only a hearer, but even a
teacher, this very thing is an aggravation of your punishment. For
because they prided themselves upon this, from this above all he
shows them to be ridiculous. But when he says, "a guide of the
blind, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes," he is
speaking
their own pompous language. For they treated proselytes extremely
ill, and these were the names they called them by. And this is why he
dwells at large upon what were supposed to be their praises, well
knowing that what was said gave ground for greater accusation;
"Which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the
Law." As if
any one who had a picture of the king, were to draw nothing after it,
and they that were not entrusted with it were to imitate it exactly
even without the original. And then after mentioning the advantages
they had from God, he tells them of their failings, bringing forward
what the prophets accused them of. "Thou therefore which teachest
another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man
should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not
commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest
idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?" For it was strictly forbidden
them to touch any of the treasures upon the idols (so Field from the
Mss: Vulg. "in the idol temples") by reason of the defilement.
But the
tyranny of avarice, he says, has persuaded you (4 Mss. and mar.
"us") to trample this Law also under foot. Then he brings the
far
more grievous charge afterwards, saying, Ver. 23. "Thou that makest
a boast in the Law through breaking the Law dishonorest thou
God?"
There are two accusations which he makes, or rather three. Both that
they dishonor, and dishonor that whereby they were honored; and
that they dishonor Him that honored them, which was the utmost
extreme of unfeelingness. And then, not to seem to be accusing
them of his own mind, he brings in the Prophet as their accuser, here
briefly and concisely as it were in a summary, but afterwards more in
detail, and here Isaiah, and after that David, when he had shown the
grounds of reproof to be more than one. For to show, he means, that
it is not I who speak these things to your reproach, hear what Isaiah
saith.
Ver. 24. "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles
through you." (Is. lii. 5; Ez. xxxvi. 20, 23.)
See again another double accusation. For they not only commit
insolence themselves, but even induce others to do so. What then is
the use of your teaching when ye teach not your own selves? Above,
however, he merely said this, but here he has even turned it round to
the contrary. For not only yourselves, but even others, do ye not
teach what should be done. And what is far worse--ye not only teach
not the things of the Law, but ye even teach the opposite, viz. to
blaspheme God, which is opposite to the Law. But the circumcision,
one will say, is a great thing. Yea, I also confess it, but when? when
(So all Mss. S. "then, when") it hath the inward circumcision.
And
observe his judgment, in bringing in what he says about it so
opportunely. For he did not begin straightway with it, since the
conceit men had of it was great. But after he had shown them to
have offended in that which was greater" and to be responsible for
the blasphemy against God, then having henceforth possession of
the reader's judgment against them, and having stripped them of
their pre-eminence, he introduces the discussion about
circumcision, feeling sure that no one will any more advocate it, and
says, Vet. 25. "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the
Law."
And yet, were this not so, a man might have rejected it and said,
What is circumcision? for is it any good deed on his part that hath
it? is it any manifestation of a right choice? For it takes place at an
unripe age, and those in the wilderness too remained uncircumcised
for a long time. And from many other points of view also, one might
look at it as not necessary. And yet it is not on this foot that he
rejects it, but upon the most proper ground, from the case of
Abraham.
For this is the most exceeding victory,--to take the very reason for
showing it to be of small regard, whence it was held by them in
reverence. Now he might have said that even the prophets call the
Jews uncircumcised. But this is no disparagement of circumcision,
but of those that hold ill to it. For what he aims at is to show that
even in the very best life, it has not the least force. This is what he
next proves. And here he does not bring forward the Patriarch, but
having previously overturned it upon other grounds, he keeps him
till afterwards, when he brings in what he has to say of faith, on the
words--"How then was it reckoned" to Abraham? "when he
was in
circumcision, or in uncircumcision?" For so long as it is
struggling
against the Gentile and the uncircumcised, he is unwilling to say
aught of this, lest he should be over irksome to them. But when it
comes in opposition to the faith, then he disengages himself more
completely for a combat with it. Up to the present point then it is
uncircumcision that the contest is against, and this is why he
advances in His discourse in a subdued tone, and says, "For
circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the Law; but if thou be a
breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." For
here he speaks of two uncircumcisions, and two circumcisions, as
also two laws. For there is a natural law and there is a written law.
But there is one also between these, that by works. And see how he
points these three out, and brings them before you.
"For when the Gentiles," he says, "which have not the
Law." What
Law, say? The written one. "Do by nature the things of the
Law." Of
what Law? Of that by works. "These having not the Law." What
Law?
The written one. "Are a law unto themselves." How so? By using
the
natural law. "Who show the work of the Law." Of what law? Of
that
by actions. For that which is by writing lieth outside; but this is
within, the natural one, and the other is in actions. And one the
writing proclaims; and another, nature; and another, actions. Of this
third there is need, for the sake of which also those two exist, both
the natural and the written. And if this be not present they are of no
good, but even very great harm. And to show this in the case of the
natural he said, "For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest
thyself." But of the written Law, thus--"Thou that preachest a
man
should not steal, dost thou steal? Thus also there are two
uncircumcisions, one that of nature, and the second from conduct:
and one circumcision in the flesh, and the other from the will. I mean
for instance, a man has been circumcised upon the eighth day; this
is circumcision of the flesh: a man has done all the Law bids him;
this is circumcision of the mind which St. Paul requires above all,
yea rather the Law also. See now how having granted it in words, he
in deed does away with it. For he does not say the circumcision is
superfluous, the circumcision is of no profit, of no use. But what
saith he? "Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keepest the
Law." (Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6.) He approves it so far, saying, I
confess
and deny not that the circumcision is honorable. But when? When it
has the Law kept along with it.
"But if thou be a breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made
uncircumcision." He does not say, it is no more profitable, lest he
should seem to insult it. But having stripped the Jew of it, he goes
on to smite him. And this is no longer any insult to circumcision, but
to him who through listlessness has lost the good of it. As then in
the case of those who are in dignified stations and are after
convicted of the greatest misdemeanors, the judges deprive them of
the honors of their stations and then punish them; so has Paul also
done. For after saying, if thou art a breaker of the Law, thy
"circumcision is made uncircumcision," and having shown him to
be
uncircumcised, he condemns him after that without scruple.
Ver. 26. "Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of
the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?"
See how he acts. He does not say that the uncircumcision
overcomes circumcision (for this was highly grating to those who
then heard him), but that the uncircumcision hath become
circumcision. And he next enquires what circumcision is, and what
uncircumcision and he says that circumcision is well doing and
uncircumcision is evil doing. And having first transferred into the
circumcision the uncircumcised, who has good deeds, and having
thrust out the circumcised man that lived a corrupt life into the
uncircumcision, he so gives the preference to the uncircumcised.
And he does not say, To the uncircumcised, but goes on to the thing
itself, speaking as follows: "Shall not his uncircumcision be
turned
into circumcision?" And he does not say "reckoned," but
"turned
to," which was more expressive. As also above he does not say thy
circumcision is reckoned uncircumcision, but has been made so.
Ver. 27. "And shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature
judge?"
You see, he recognizes two uncircumcisions, one from nature, and
the other from the will. Here, however, he speaks of that from nature
but does not pause here, but goes on, "if it fulfil the Law, judge
thee,
who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law?" See
his exquisite judgment. He does not say, that the uncircumcision
which is from nature shall judge the circumcision, but while where
the victory had been, he brings in the uncircumcision, yet where the
defeat is, he does not expose the circumcision as defeated but the
Jew himself who had it, and so by the wording spares offending his
hearer. And he does not say, "thee that hast the Law and the
circumcision," but yet more mildly, "thee who by the letter
and
circumcision dost transgress the Law." That is, such uncircumcision
even stands up for the circumcision, for it has been wronged and
comes to the Law's assistance, for it has been insulted, and obtains
a notable triumph. For then is the victory decided, when it is not by
Jew that Jew is judged, but by the uncircumcised; as when he says,
"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment against this generation,
and shall condemn it." (Matt. xii. 41.) It is not then the Law that
he
dishonors (for he reverences it greatly), but him that does disgrace
to the Law. Next, having settled these grounds clearly, he goes on
confidently to define what the Jew really is; and he shows that it is
not the Jew, nor the circumcision, but he that is no Jew, and
uncircumcised, whom he is rejecting. And he seemeth indeed to
stand up in its behalf, but yet does away with the opinion regarding
it, securing men's concurrence by the conclusion he comes to. For
he shows not only that there is no difference between the Jew and
the uncircumcised, but that the uncircumcised has even the
advantage, if he take heed to himself, and that it is he that is really
the Jew; and so he says:
Ver. 28. "For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly."
Here he attacks them as doing all things for show.
Ver. 29. "But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision
is
that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter."
By saying this he sets aside all things bodily. For the circumcision is
outwardly, and the Sabbaths and the sacrifices and purifications: all
of which he hints in a single word, when he says, "For he is not a
Jew which is one outwardly." But since much was made of the
circumcision, inasmuch as even the sabbath gave way to it (John vii.
22), he has good reason for aiming more especially against it. But
when he has said "in the spirit" he thereafter paves the way
for the
conversation of the Church, and introduces the faith. For it too is in
the heart and spirit and hath its praise of God. And how cometh he
not to show that the Gentile which doeth aright is not inferior to the
Jew which doeth aright, but that the Gentile which doeth aright is
better than the Jew which breaketh the Law? It was that he might
make the victory an undoubted one. For when this is agreed upon, of
necessity the circumcision of the flesh is set aside, and the need of a
good life is everywhere demonstrated. For when the Greek is saved
without these, but the Jew with these is yet punished, Judaism
stands by doing nothing. And by Greek he again means not the
idolatrous Greek, but the religous and virtuous, and free from all
legal observances.
Chap. iii. ver. 1. "What advantage then hath the Jew?"
Since he has set all aside, the hearing, the teaching, the name of the
Jew, the circumcision, and all the other particulars by his saying that
"he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but he which is one
inwardly;" he next sees an objection which starts up, and against
this makes his stand. Now what is this objection? If, he means, these
things are no use, what reason was there for that nation being called,
and the circumcision too being given? What does he then and how
does he solve it? By the same means as he did before: for as there,
he told, not of their praises, but the benefits of God; nor their well
doings (for to be called a Jew and to know His Will and to approve
the things which are more excellent, was no well doing of their own,
but came of the grace of God and this the Prophet also says,
upbraiding them; "He hath not done so to any nation, neither hath
he
showed His judgments unto them;" (Ps. cxlvii. 20.) and Moses again
"Ask now whether there hath been any such thing as this?" he
says,
"did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of
the fire, and live?") (Deut. iv. 32, 33), this then he does here
also. For
as, when speaking of circumcision, he did not say, Circumcision is
valueless without a good life, but, Circumcision is of value with a
good life, pointing out the same thing but in a more subdued tone.
And again he does not say, If thou be a breaker of the Law, thou who
art circumcised art no whir profiled, but "thy circumcision is made
uncircumcision:" and after this again, "the
uncircumcision," saith he,
shall "judge," not the circumcision, but "thee that dost
transgress
the Law," so sparing the things of the Law, and smiting the
persons.
So he doth here also. For after setting before himself this objection,
and saying, "what advantage then hath the Jew?" he says not,
None,
but he concurs with the statement, and confutes it again by the
sequel, and shows that they were even punished owing to this pre
minence. And how he does so, I will tell you when I have stated the
objection. "What advantage then," he says, "hath the
Jew," or "what
profit is there of circumcision?"
Ver. 2. "Much every, way: chiefly, because that they were entrusted
with the oracles of God."
Do you see that, as I said above, it is not their well doings, but the
benefits of God, that he everywhere counts up? And what is the
word episteuqhsan? (they were trusted.) It means, that they had the
Law put into their hands because He held them to be of so much
account that He entrusted to them oracles which came down from
above. I know indeed that some take the "entrusted" not of the
Jews,
but of the oracles, as much as to say, the Law was believed in. But
the context does not admit of this being held good. For in the first
place he is saying this with a view to accuse them, and to show that,
though in the enjoyment of many a blessing from above, they yet
showed great ingratitude. Then, the context also makes this clear.
For he goes on to say, "For what if some did not believe?" If
they did
not believe, how do some say, the oracles were believed in? What
does he mean then? Why that God entrusted the same to them, and
not that they trusted to the oracles: how else will the context make
sense? For he farther goes on to say, Ver. 3. "For what if some did
not believe?"
And what comes next makes the same point clear. For he again adds
and follows; "Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without
effect?"
Ver. 4. "God forbid." The word episteuqhsan, then, proclaims
God's
gift.
And I would have you here also note his judgment. For again he
does not bring in his accusation of them on his own part, but as it
were by way of objection, as if he said, But perhaps you will say,
'What then is the use of this circumcision since they used it not as
was fitting, since they were trusted with the Law and were unfaithful
to the trust?' And hitherto he is not a severe accuser, but as if to
clear God of complaints against Him, he by this means turns the
whole of the accusation round upon themselves. For why, he would
say, do you complain that they did not believe? and how doth this
affect God? For as for His benefit, doth the ingratitude of those
benefited overturn it? Or doth it make the honor to be no honor? For
this is what the words, "Shall their unfaithfulness make the faith
of
God without effect," amount to.
"God forbid." As if one should say, I have honored such an
one. And
if he did not receive the honor, this gives no ground for accusing me,
nor impairs my kindness, but shows his want of feeling. But Paul
does not say this merely, but what is much more. That not only does
their unbelief not leave the soil of complaint upon God, but even
shows His honor and love of man to be the greater, in that He is seen
to have bestowed honor upon one who would dishonor Him. See
how he has brought them out guilty of misdemeanors by means of
what they gloried in; forasmuch as the honor with which God treated
them was so great, that even when He saw what would come thereof,
He withheld not His good-will toward them! Yet they made the
honors bestowed on them a means of insulting Him that Honor them!
Next, since he said, "For what if some did not believe?"
(while clearly
it was all of them that did not believe,) lest by speaking here too as
the history allowed him, he should seem to be a severe accuser of
them like an enemy, he puts that, which really took place, in the
method of reasoning and syllogism, saying as follows: "Yea, let God
be true, but every man a liar." What he says is something of this
sort.
I do not mean, he says, that some did not believe, but if you will,
suppose that all were unbelieving, so waiving what really happened,
to fall in with the objector, that he might seem overbearing or to be
suspected. Well, he says, in this way God is the more justified. What
does the word justified mean? That, if there could be a trial and an
examination of the things He had done for the Jews, and of what had
been done on their part towards Him, the victory would be with God,
and all the right on His side. And after showing this clearly from what
was said before, he next introduces the Prophet also as giving his
approval to these things, and saying, "that Thou mightest be
justified
in Thy sayings, and clear when Thou art judged." (Ps. li. 4.) He
then
for His part did everything, but they were nothing the better even for
this. Then he brings forward after this another objection that arises,
and says, Ver. 5. "But if our unrighteousness commend the
righteousness of God, what shall we say? is God unrighteous Who
taketh venvvengeance? I speak as a man."
Ver. 6. "God forbid."
He solves one perplexity by another again. Yet as this is not clear,
we must needs declare it more clearly. What is it then he means?
God honored the Jews: they did despite to Him. This gives Him the
victory, and shows the greatness of His love towards man, in that He
honored them even such as they were. Since then, he means, we did
despite to Him and wronged Him, God by this very thing became
victorious, and His righteousness was shown to be clear? Why then
(a man may say) am I to be punished, who have been the cause of
His victory by the despite I did Him? Now how does he meet this? It
is, as I was saying, by another absurdity again. For if it were you, he
says, that were the cause of the victory, and after this are punished,
the thing is an act of injustice. But if He is not unjust, and yet you
are
punished, then you are no more the cause of the victory. And note
his apostolic reverence; (or caution: euLabeia); for after saying,
"Is
God unrighteous Who taketh vengeance?" he adds, "I speak as a
man." As if, he means, any body were to argue in the way men
reason. For what things seem with us to be justice, these the just
judgment of God far exceedeth, and has certain other unspeakable
grounds for it. Next, since it was indistinct, he says the same thing
over again:
Ver. 7. "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie
unto His glory: why yet am I also judged as a sinner?"
For if God, he means is shown to be a Lover of man, and righteous,
and good, by your acts of disobedience, you ought not only to be
exempt from punishment but even to have good done unto you. But
if so, that absurdity will be found to result, which is in circulation
with so many, that good comes of evil, and that evil is the cause of
good; and one of the two is necessary, either that He be clearly
unjust in punishing, or that if He punish not, it is from our vices that
He hath the victory. And both of these are absurd to a degree. And
himself meaning to show this too, he introduces the Greeks (i.e.
heathens) as the fathers of these opinions, thinking it enough to
allege against what he has mentioned the character of the persons
who say these things. For then they used to say in ridicule of us,
"let
us do evil that good may come." And this is why he has stated it
clearly in the following language.
Ver. 8. "If not (as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil that
good
may come? Whose damnation is just."
For whereas Paul said, "where sin abounded grace did much more
abound" (Rom. v. 20), in ridicule of him and perverting what he said
to another meaning, they said, We must cling to vice that we may get
what is good. But Paul said not so; however to correct this notion it
is that he says, "What then? shall we continue in sin that grace
may
abound? God forbid!" (ib. vi. 1, 2.) For I said it, he means, of
the
times which are past, not that we should make this a practice. To
lead them away then from this suspicion, he said, that henceforth
this was even impossible. For "how shall we," he says,
"that are
dead unto sin, live any longer therein?" Against the Greeks then he
inveighs (katesramen) without difficulty. For their life was exceeding
abandoned. But of the Jews, even if their life seemed to have been
careless, still they had great means of cloaking these things in the
Law and circumcision, and the fact of God having conversed with
them, and their being the teachers of all. And this is why he strips
them even of these, and shows that for these they were the more
punished, and this is the conclusion to which he has here drawn his
discussion. For if they be not punished, he would say, for so doing,
that blasphemous language-let us do evil that good may come--must
necessarily gain currency. But if this be impious, and they who hold
this language shall be punished (for this he declared by saying,
"whose damnation is just"), it is plain that they are
punished. For if
they who speak it be deserving of vengeance, much more are they
who act it, but if deserving thereof, it is as having done sin. For it
is
not man that punishes them, that any one should suspect the
sentence, but God, that doeth all things righteously. But if they are
righteously punished, it is unrighteously that they, who make
ridicule of us, said what they did. For God did and doth everything,
that our conversation might shine forth and be upright on every side.
Let us then not be listless; for so we shall be able to recover the
Greeks also from their error. But when we are in words lovers of
wisdom, but in deeds behave unseemly, with what looks shall we
face them? with what lips Shall we discourse concerning doctrines?
For he will say to each of us, How can you that have failed in what is
less, claim to teach me about what is greater? you who as yet have
not learnt that covetousness is a vice, how can you be wise upon the
things in heaven? But do you know that it is a vice? Then, the charge
is the greater, because you transgress knowingly. And why speak I
of the Greek, for even our laws allow us not to speak thus boldly
when our life has become abandoned. For to "the sinner," it says,
"saith God, what hast thou to do to declare my statutes?" (Ps.
1. 16.)
There was a time when the Jews were carded away captive, and
when the Persians were urgent with them, and called upon them to
sing those divine songs unto them, they said, "How shall we sing
the
Lord's song in a strange land?" (Ps. cxxxvii. 4.) Now if it were un
lawful to sing the oracles of God in a strange land, much less might
the estranged soul do it. For estranged " the merciless soul is. If
the
Law made those who were captives and had become slaves to men
in a strange land, to sit in silence; much more is it right for those
who are slaves to sin and are in an alien community (politeia) to have
a curb upon their mouths. And however they had their instruments
then. For it says, "Upon the willows in the midst thereof did we
hang
our instruments," but still they might not sing. And so we also,
though we have a mouth and tongue, which are instruments of
speech, have no right to speak boldly, so long as we be slaves to
what is more tyrannical than any barbarian, sin. For tell me what
have you to say to the Greek, if you plunder, and be covetous? will
you say, Forsake idolatry, acknowledge God, and draw not near to
gold and silver? Will he not then make a jest of you, and say, Talk to
thyself first in this way? For it is not the same thing for a Gentile to
practise idolatry, and a Christian to commit this same (4 Mss. om.
"same") sin. For how are we to draw others away from that
idolatry if
we draw not ourselves away from this? For we are nearer related to
ourselves a than our neighbor is, and so when we persuade not
ourselves, how are we to persuade others? For if he that doth not
rule well over his own house, will not take care of the Church either
(1 Tim. iii. 5), how shall he that doth not rule even over his own soul
be able to set others right? Now do not tell me, that you do not
worship an image of gold, but make this clear to me, that you do not
do those things which gold bids you. For there be different kinds of
idolatry, and one holds mammon lord, and another his belly his god,
and a third some other most baneful lust. But, "you do not
sacrifice
oxen to them as the Gentiles do." Nay, but what is far worse, you
butcher your own soul. But "you do not bow the knee and
worship."
Nay, but with greater obedience you do all that they command you,
whether it be your belly, or money, or the tyranny of lust. For this is
just what makes Gentiles disgusting, that they made gods of our
passions; calling lust Venus, and anger Mars, and drunkenness
Bacchus. If then l you do not grave images as did they, yet do you
with great eagerness bow under the very same passions, when you
make the members of Christ members of an harlot, and plunge
yourself into the other deeds of iniquity. (1 Cor. vi. 15.) I therefore
exhort you to lay to heart the exceeding unseemliness hereof, and to
flee from idolatry:--for so doth Paul name covetousness--and to flee
not only covetousness in money, but that in evil desire, and that in
clothing, and that in food, and that in everything else: since the
punishment we shall have to suffer if we obey not God's laws is
much severer. For, He says, "the servant that knew his Lord's
will,"
and did it not, "shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke
xii. 47.)
With a view then to escaping from this punishment, and being useful
both to others and to ourselves, let us drive out all iniquity from our
soul and choose virtue. For so shall we attain to the blessings which
are to come, whereto may it be granted us all to attain by the grace
and love toward man, etc. Amen.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου