Saint John Chrysostom : HOMILY VI. ROM. II. 17, 18.

"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.