Homily XX 1 Cor. viii. 1

Homily XX 1 Cor. viii. 1

Homily XV



1 Cor. v. 1, 2

It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even named among the Gentiles, that one of you hath his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you.

When he was discoursing about their divisions, he did not indeed at once address them vehemently, but more gently at first; and afterwards, he ended in accusation, saying thus, (c. 1. xi.) “For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them which are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.” But in this place, not so; but he lays about him immediately and makes the reproach of the accusation as general as possible. For he said not, “Why did such an one commit fornication?” but, “It is reported that there is fornication among you;” that they might as persons altogether aloof from his charge take it easily; but might be filled with such anxiety as was natural when the whole body was wounded, and the Church had incurred reproach. “For no one,” saith he, “will state it thus, such an one hath committed fornication,’ but, in the Church of Corinthians that sin hath been committed.’“

And he said not, “Fornication is perpetrated,” but, “Is reported,—such as is not even named among the Gentiles.” For so continually he makes the Gentiles a topic of reproach to the believers. Thus writing to the Thessalonians, he said, (1 Thess. iv. 4, 5, kai time om. ta loipa inserted.) “Let every one possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification, not in the passion of lust, even as the rest of the Gentiles.” And to the Colossians and Ephesians, (Ephes. iv. 17. cf. Col. iii. 6, 7.) “That you should no longer walk, as the other Gentiles walk.” Now if their committing the same sins was unpardonable, when they even outdid the Gentiles, what place can we find for them? tell me: “inasmuch as among the Gentiles,” so he speaks, “not only they dare no such thing, but they do not even give it a name. Do you see to what point he aggravated his charge? For when they are convicted of inventing such modes of uncleanness as the unbelievers, so far from venturing on them, do not even know of, the sin must be exceeding great, beyond all words. And the clause, “among you,” is spoken also emphatically; that is, “Among you, the faithful, who have been favored with so high mysteries, the partakers of secrets, the guests invited to heaven.” Dost thou mark with what indignant feeling his works overflow? with what anger against all? For had it not been for the great wrath of which he was full, had he not been setting himself against them all, he would have spoken thus: “Having heard that such and such a person hath committed fornication, I charge you to punish him.” But as it is he doth not so; he rather challenges all at once. And indeed, if they had written first, this is what he probably would have said. Since however so far from writing, they had even thrown the fault into the shade, on this account he orders his discourse more vehemently.

[2.] “That one of you should have his father’s wife.” Wherefore said he not, “That he should abuse his father’s wife?” The extreme foulness of the deed caused him to shrink. He hurries by it accordingly, with a sort of scrupulousness as though it had been explicitly mentioned before. And hereby again he aggravates the charge, implying that such things are ventured on among them as even to speak plainly of was intolerable for Paul. Wherefore also, as he goes on, he uses the same mode of speech, saying, “Him who hath so done this thing:” and is again ashamed and blushes to speak out; which also we are wont to do in regard of matters extremely disgraceful. And he said not, “his step-mother,” but, “his father’s wife;” so as to strike much more severely. For when the mere terms are sufficient to convey the charge, he proceeds with them simply, adding nothing.

And “tell me not,” saith he, “that the fornicator is but one: the charge hath become common to all.” Wherefore at once he added, “and ye are puffed up:” he said not, “with the sin;” for this would imply want of all reason: but with the doctrine you have heard from that person . This however he set not down himself, but left it undetermined, that he might inflict a heavier blow.

And mark the good sense of Paul. Having first overthrown the wisdom from without, and signified that it is nothing by itself although no sin were associated with it; then and not till then he discourses about the sin also. For if by way of comparison with the fornicator who perhaps was some wise one, he had maintained the greatness of his own spiritual gift; he had done no great thing: but even when unattended with sin to take down the heathen wisdom and demonstrate it to be nothing, this was indicating its extreme worthlessness indeed. Wherefore first, as I said, having made the comparison, he afterwards mentions the man’s sin also.

And with him indeed he condescends not to debate, and thereby signifies the exceeding greatness of his dishonor. But to the others he saith, “You ought to weep and wail, and cover your faces, but now ye do the contrary.” And this is the force of the next clause, “And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn.”

“And why are we to weep?” some might say. Because the reproach hath made its way even unto the whole body of your Church. “And what good are we to get by our weeping?” “That such an one should be taken away from you.” Not even here doth he mention his name; rather, I should say, not any where; which in all monstrous things is our usual way.

And he said not, “Ye have not rather cast him out,” but, as in the case of any disease or pestilence, “there is need of mourning,” saith he, “and of intense supplication, that he may be taken away.’ And you should have used prayer for this, and left nothing undone that he should be cut off.”

Nor yet doth he accuse them for not having given him information, but for not having mourned so that the man should be taken away; implying that even without their Teacher this ought to have been done, because of the notoriety of the offence.

[3.] Ver. 3. “For I verily being absent in body, but present in spirit.”

Mark his energy. He suffers them not even to wait for his presence, nor to receive him first and then pass the sentence of binding: but as if on the point of expelling some contagion before that it have spread itself into the rest of the body, he hastens to restrain it. And therefore he subjoins the clause, “I have judged already, as though I were present.” These things moreover he said, not only to urge them unto the declaration of their sentence and to give them no opportunity of contriving something else, but also to frighten them, as one who knew what was to be done and determined there. For this is the meaning of being “present in spirit:” as Elisha was present with Gehazi, and said, “Went not my heart with thee? (2 Kings v. 26.) Wonderful! How great is the power of the gift, in that it makes all to be together and as one; and qualifies them to know the things which are far off. “I have judged already as though I were present.”

He permits them not to have any other device. “Now I have uttered my decision as if I were present: let there be no delays and puttings off: for nothing else must be done.”

Then lest he should be thought too authoritative and his speech sound rather self-willed, mark how he makes them also partners in the sentence. For having said, “I have judged,” he adds, “concerning him that hath so wrought this thing, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan.

Now what means, “In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ?” “According to God;” “not possessed with any human prejudice.”

Some, however, read thus, “Him that hath so wrought this thing in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and putting a stop there or a break, then subjoin what follows, saying, “When you are gathered together and my spirit to deliver such an one unto Satan:” and they assert that the sense of this reading is as follows, “Him that hath done this thing in the Name of Christ,” saith St. Paul, “deliver ye unto Satan;” that is, “him that hath done insult unto the Name of Christ, him that, after he had become a believer and was called after that appellation, hath dared to do such things, deliver ye unto Satan.” But to me the former exposition (ekdosis. It seems to mean “enunciation.”) appears the truer.

What then is this? “When ye are gathered together in the Name of the Lord.” That is; His Name, in whose behalf ye have met, collecting you together.

“And my spirit.” Again he sets himself at their head in order that when they should pass sentence, they might no otherwise cut off the offender than as if he were present; and that no one might dare to judge him pardonable, knowing that Paul would be aware of the proceedings.

[4.] Then making it yet more awful, he saith, “with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ;” that is, either that Christ is able to give you such grace as that you should have power to deliver him to the devil; or that He is Himself together with you passing that sentence against him.

And he said not, “Give up” such an one to Satan, but “deliver;” opening unto him the doors of repentance, and delivering up such an one as it were to a schoolmaster. And again it is, “such an one:” he no where can endure to make mention of his name.

“For the destruction of the flesh.” As was done in the case of the blessed Job, but not upon the same ground. For in that case it was for brighter crowns, but here for loosing of sins; that he might scourge him with a grievous sore or some other disease. True it is that elsewhere he saith, “Of the Lord are we judged, (1 Cor. xi. 32.) when we suffer these things.” But here, desirous of making them feel it more severely, he “delivereth up unto Satan.” And so this too which God had determined ensued, that the man’s flesh was chastised. For because inordinate eating and carnal luxuriousness are the parents of desires, it is the flesh which he chastises.

“That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus;” that is the soul. Not as though this were saved alone, but because it was a settled point that if that were saved, without all controversy the body too would partake in its salvation. For as it became mortal because of the soul’s sinning: so if this do righteousness, that also on the other hand shall enjoy great glory.

But some maintain, that “the Spirit” is the Gracious Gift which is extinguished when we sin. “In order then that this may not happen,” saith he, “let him be punished; that thereby becoming better, he may draw down to himself God’s grace, and be found having it safe in that day.” So that all comes as from one exercising a nurse’s or a physician’s office, not merely scourging nor punishing rashly and at random. For the gain is greater than the punishment: one being but for a season, the other everlasting.

And he said not simply, “That the spirit may be saved,” but “in that day.” Well and seasonably doth he remind them of that day in order that both they might more readily apply themselves to the cure, and that the person censured might the rather receive his words, not as it were of anger, but as the forethought of an anxious father. For this cause also he said, “unto the destruction of the flesh:” proceeding to lay down regulations for the devil and not suffering him to go a step too far. As in the instance of Job, God said, (Job ii. 6.) “But touch not his life.”

[5.] Then, having ended his sentence, and spoken it in brief without dwelling on it, he brings in again a rebuke, directing himself against them;

Ver. 6. “Your glorying is not good:” signifying that it was they up to the present time who had hindered him from repenting, by taking pride in him. Next he shews that he is taking this step in order to spare not that person only, but also those to whom he writes. To which effect he adds,

“Know ye not, that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” “For,” saith he, “though the offence be his, yet if neglected it hath power to waste the rest of the body of the Church also. For when the first transgressor escapes punishment, speedily will others also commit the same faults.”

In these words he indicates moreover that their struggle and their danger is for the whole Church, not for any one person. For which purpose he needeth also the similitude of the leaven. For “as that,” saith he, “though it be but little, transforms unto its own nature the whole lump; so also this man, if he be let go unpunished and this sin turn out unavenged, will corrupt likewise all the rest.”

Ver. 7. “Purge out the old leaven,” that is, this evil one. Not that he speaketh concerning this one only; rather he glances at others with him. For, “the old leaven” is not fornication only, but also sin of every kind. And he said not, “purge,” but “purge out;” “cleanse with accuracy so that there be not so much as a remnant nor a shadow of that sort.” In saying then, “purge out,” he signifies that there was still iniquity among them. But in saying, “that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened,” he affirms and declares that not over very many was the wickedness prevailing. But though he saith, “as ye are unleavened,” he means it not as a fact that all were clean, but as to what sort of people you ought to be.

[6.] “For our Passover also hath been sacrificed for us, even Christ; wherefore let us keep the feast: not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” So also Christ called His doctrine Leaven. And further he himself dwells upon the metaphor, reminding them of an ancient history, and of the Passover and unleavened bread, and of their blessings both then and now, and their punishments and their plagues.

It is festival, therefore, the whole time in which we live. For though he said, “Let us keep the feast,” not with a view to the presence of the Passover or of Pentecost did he say it; but as pointing out that the whole of time is a festival unto Christians, because of the excellency of the good things which have been given. For what hath not come to pass that is good? The Son of God was made man for thee; He freed thee from death; and called thee to a kingdom. Thou therefore who hast obtained and art still obtaining such things, how can it be less than thy duty to “keep the feast” all thy life? Let no one then be downcast about poverty, and disease, and craft of enemies. For it is a festival, even the whole of our time. Wherefore saith Paul, (Philip. iv. 4.) “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, Rejoice.” Upon the festival days no one puts on filthy garments. Neither then let us do so. For a marriage hath been made, a spiritual marriage. For, “the kingdom of Heaven,” saith He, “is likened unto a certain king which would make (St. Matt. xxii. 1. ethelese poiesai, rec. text epoiese.) a marriage feast for his son.” Now where it is a king making a marriage, and a marriage for his son, what can be greater than this feast? Let no one then enter in clad in rags. Not about garments is our discourse but about unclean actions. For if where all wore bright apparel one alone, being found at the marriage in filthy garments, was cast out with dishonor, consider how great strictness and purity the entrance into that marriage feast requires.

[7.] However, not on this account only does he remind them of the “unleavened bread,” but also to point out the affinity of the Old Testament with the New; and to point out also that it was impossible, after the “unleavened bread,” again to enter into Egypt; but if any one chose to return, he would suffer the same things as did they. For those things were a shadow of these; however obstinate the Jew may be. Wherefore shouldest thou enquire of him, he will speak, no great thing, rather it is great which he will speak of, but nothing like what we speak of: because he knows not the truth. For he for his part will say, “the Egyptians who detained us were so changed by the Almighty that they themselves urged and drave us out, who before held us forcibly; they did not suffer us so much as to leaven our dough.” But if a man asketh me, he shall hear not of Egypt nor of Pharaoh; but of our deliverance from the deceit of demons and the darkness of the devil: not of Moses but of the Son of God; not of a Red Sea but of a Baptism overflowing with ten thousand blessings, where the “old man” is drowned.

Again, shouldest thou ask the Jew why he expels all leaven from all his borders; here he will even be silent and will not so much as state any reason. And this is because, although some indeed of the circumstances were both types of things to come, and also due to things then happening; yet others were not so, that the Jews might not deal deceitfully; that they might not abide in the shadow. For tell me, what is the meaning of the Lamb’s being a “Male,” and “Unblemished,” and a “year old,” and of, “a bone shall not be broken?” and what means the command to call the neighbors also, (Exod. xii. 4.) and that it should be eaten “standing” and “in the evening;” or the fortifying the house with blood? He will have nothing else to say but over and over all about Egypt. But I can tell you the meaning both of the Blood, and of the Evening, and the Eating all together, and of the rule that all should be standing.

[8.] But first let us explain why the leaven is cast out of all their borders. What then is the hidden meaning? The believer must be freed from all iniquity. For as among them he perishes with whomsoever is found old leaven, so also with us wheresoever is found iniquity: since of course the punishment being so great in that which is a shadow, in our case it cannot choose but be much greater. For if they so carefully clear their houses of leaven , and pry into mouse-holes; much more ought we to search through the soul so as to cast out every unclean thought.

This however was done by them of late ; but now no longer. For every where there is leaven, where a Jew is found. For it is in the midst of cities that the feast of unleavened bread is kept: a thing which is now rather a game at play than a law. For since the Truth is come, the Types have no longer any place.

So that by means of this example also he mightily drives the fornicator out of the Church. For, saith he, so far from his presence profiting, he even doth harm, injuring the common estate of the body. For one knows not whence is the evil savor while the corrupt part is concealed, and so one imputes it to the whole. Wherefore he urges upon them strongly to “purge out the leaven, that ye may be,” saith he, “a new lump, even as ye are unleavened.”

“For our Passover hath been sacrificed for us even Christ.” He said not, hath died, but more in point to the subject in hand, “hath been sacrificed.” Seek not then unleavened bread of this kind, since neither hast thou a lamb of the same kind. Seek not leaven of this description, seeing that thine unleavened bread is not such as this.

[9.] Thus, in the case of material leaven, the unleavened might become leavened, but never the reverse; whereas here there is a chance of the direct contrary occuring. This however he has not plainly declared: and observe his good sense. In the former Epistle he gives the fornicator no hope of return, but orders that his whole life should be spent in repentance, lest he should make him less energetic through the promise. For he said not, “Deliver him up to Satan,” that having repented he might be commended again unto the Church. But what saith he? “That he may be saved in the last day.” For he conducts him on unto that time in order to make him full of anxiety. And what favors he intended him after the repentance, he reveals not, imitating his own Master. For as God saith, (Jonah iii. 4. lxx: rec. text, “forty days.”) “Yet three days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” and added not, “but if she repent she shall be saved:” so also he did not say here, “But if he repent worthily, we will confirm our love towards him.’“ (2 Cor. ii. 8.). But he waits for him to do the work that so he may then receive the favor. For if he had said this at the beginning he might have set him free from the fear. Wherefore he not only does not so, but by the instance of leaven allows him not even a hope of return, but reserves him unto that day: “Purge out (so he says) the old leaven;” and, “let us not keep the feast with old leaven.” But as soon as he had repented, he brought him in again with all earnestness.

[10.] But why does he call it “old?” Either because our former life was of this sort, or because that which is old is “ready to vanish away,” (Heb. viii. 13.) and is unsavory and foul; which is the nature of sin. For He neither simply finds fault with the old, nor simply praises the new, but with reference to the subject matter. And thus elsewhere He saith, (Ecclus. ix. 15.) “New wine is as a new friend: but if it become old, then with pleasure shalt thou drink it:” in the case of friendship bestowing his praise rather upon the old than the new. And again, “The Ancient of days sat,” (Dan. vii. 9.) here again, taking the term “ancient” as among those laudatory expressions which confer highest glory. Elsewhere the Scripture takes the term “old” in the sense of blame; for seeing that the things are of various aspect as being composed of many parts, it uses the same words both in a good and an evil import, not according to the same shade of meaning. Of which you may see an instance in the blame cast elsewhere on the old: (Ps. xvii. 46. ap. LXX.) “They waxed old, and they halted from their paths.” And again, (Ps. vi. 7. ap. LXX.) “I have become old in the midst of all mine enemies.” And again, (Dan. xiii. 52. Hist. Susan.) “O thou that art become old in evil days.” So also the “Leaven” is often taken for the kingdom of Heaven, although here found fault with. But in that place it is used with one aspect, and in this with another.

[11.] But I have a strong conviction that the saying about the leaven refers also to the priests who suffer a vast deal of the old leaven to be within, not purging out from their borders, that is, out of the Church, the covetous, the extortioners, and whatsoever would exclude from the kingdom of Heaven. For surely covetousness is an “old leaven;” and whenever it lights and into whatsoever house it enters, makes it unclean: and though you may gain but little by your injustice, it leavens the whole of your substance. Wherefore not seldom the dishonest gain being little, hath cast out the stock honestly laid up however abundant. For nothing is more rotten than covetousness. You may fasten up that man’s closet with key, and door, and bolt: you do all in vain, whilst you shut up within covetousness, the worst of robbers, and able to carry off all.

“But what,” say you, “if there are many covetous who do not experience this?” In the first place, they will experience it, though their experience come not immediately. And should they now escape, then do thou fear it the more: for they are reserved for greater punishment. Add to this, that in the event of themselves escaping, yet those who inherit their wealth will have the same to endure. “But how can this be just,” you will say? It is quite just. For he that has succeeded to an inheritance; full of injustice, though he have committed no rapine himself, detains nevertheless the property of others; and is perfectly aware of this; and it is fair he should suffer for it. For if this or that person had robbed and you received a thing, and then the owner came and demanded it back; would it avail you in defence to say that you had not seized it? By no means. For what would be your plea when accused! tell me. That it was another who seized it? Well: but you are keeping possession. That it was he who robbed? But you are enjoying it. Why these rules even the laws of the heathen recognise, which acquitting those who have seized and stolen, bid you demand satisfaction from those persons in whose possession you happen to find your things all laid up.

If then you know who are the injured, restore and do what Zacchaeus did, with much increase. But if you know not, I offer you another way yet; I do not preclude you from the remedy. Distribute all these things to the poor: and thus you will mitigate the evil.

But if some have transmitted these things even to children and descendants, still in retribution they have suffered other disasters.

[12.] And why speak I of things in this present life? In that day at any rate will none of these things be said, when both appear naked, both the spoiled and the spoilers. Or rather not alike naked. Of riches indeed both will be equally stripped; but the one will be full of the charges to which they gave occasion. What then shall we do on that day, when before the dread tribunal he that hath been evil entreated and lost his all is brought forward into the midst, and you have no one to speak a word for you? What will you say to the Judge? Now indeed you may be able even to corrupt the judgment, being but of men; but in that court and at that time, it will be no longer so: no, nor yet now will you be able. For even at this moment that tribunal is present: since God both seeth our doings and is near unto the injured, though not invoked: it being certain that whoever suffers wrong, however in himself unworthy to obtain any redress, yet nevertheless seeing that what is done pleases not God, he hath most assuredly one to avenge him.

“How then,” you will say, “is such an one well off, who is wicked?” Nay, it will not be so unto the end. Hear what saith the Prophet; (Ps. xxxvii. 1, 2.) “Fret not thyself because of the evil doers, because as grass they shall quickly wither away.” For where, tell me, where is he who wrought rapine, after his departure hence? Where are his bright hopes! Where his august name? Are they not all passed and gone? Is it not a dream and a shadow, all that was his? And this you must expect in the case of every such person, both in his own person while living, and in that of him who shall come after him. But not such is the state of the saints, nor will it be possible for you to say the same things in their case also, that it is shadow and a dream and a tale, what belongs to them.

[13.] And if you please, he who spake these things, the tent-maker, the Cilician, the man whose very parentage is unknown, let him be the example we produce. You will say, “How is it possible to become such as he was?” Do you then thoroughly desire it? Are you thoroughly anxious to become such? “Yes,” you will say. Well then, go the same way as he went and they that were with him. Now what way went he? One saith, (2 Cor. xi. 27.) “In hunger, and thirst, and nakedness.” Another, (Acts iii. 6.) “Silver and gold I have none.” Thus they “had nothing and yet possessed all things.” (2 Cor. vi. 10.) What can be nobler than this saying? what more blessed or more abundant in riches? Others indeed pride themselves on the contrary things, saying, “I have this or that number of talents of gold, and acres of land without end, and houses, and slaves;” but this man on his being naked of all things; and he shrinks not from poverty, (which is the feeling of the unwise,) nor hides his face, but he even wears it as an ornament.

Where now be the rich men, they who count up their interest simple and compound, they who take from all men and are never satisfied? Have ye heard the voice of Peter, that voice which sets forth poverty as the mother of wealth? That voice which has nothing, yet is wealthier than those who wear diadems? For this is that voice, which having nothing, raised the dead, and set upright the lame, and drove away devils, and bestowed such gracious gifts, as those who are clad in the purple robe and lead the mighty and terrible legions never were able to bestow. This is the voice of those who are now removed into heaven, of those who have attained unto that height.

[14.] Thus it is possible that he who hath nothing may possess all men’s goods. Thus may he who possesses nothing acquire the goods of all: whereas, were we to get all men’s goods, we are bereft of all. Perhaps this saying seems to be a paradox; but it is not. “But,” you will say, “how does he who hath nothing possess all men’s goods? Doth he not have much more who hath what belongs to all?” By no means: but the contrary. For he who hath nothing commands all, even as they did. And throughout the world all houses were open to them, and they who offered them took their coming as a favor, and they came to them as to friends and kindred. For so they came to the woman who was a seller of purple, (Acts xvi. 14.) and she like a servant set before them what she had. And to the keeper of the prison; and he opened to them all his house. And to innumerable others. Thus they had all things and had nothing: for (Acts iv. 32.) “they said that none of the things which they possessed was their own;” therefore all things were theirs. For he that considers all things to be common, will not only use his own, but also the things of others as if they belonged to him. But he that parts things off and sets himself as master over his own only, will not be master even of these. And this is plain from an example. He who possesses nothing at all, neither house, nor table, nor garment to spare, but for God’s sake is bereft of all, uses the things which are in common as his own; and he shall receive from all whatsoever he may desire, and thus he that hath nothing possesses the things of all. But he that hath some things, will not be master even of these. For first, no one will give to him that hath possessions; and, secondly, his property shall belong to robbers and thieves and informers and changing events and be any body’s rather than his. Paul, for instance, went up and down throughout all the world, carrying nothing with him, though he went neither unto friends nor kindred. Nay, at first he was a common enemy to all: but nevertheless he had all men’s goods after he had made good his entrance. But Ananias and Sapphira, hastening to gain a little more than their own, lost all together with life itself. Withdraw then from thine own, that thou mayest use others’ goods as thine own.

[15.] But I must stop: I know not how I have been carried into such a transport in speaking such words as these unto men who think it a great thing to impart but ever so little of their own. Wherefore let these my words have been spoken to the perfect. But to the more imperfect, this is what we may say, Give of what you have unto the needy. Increase your substance. For, saith He, (Prov. xix. 17.) “He that giveth unto the poor, lendeth unto God.” But if you are in a hurry and wait not for the time of recompense, think of those who lend money to men: for not even these desire to get their interest immediately; but they are anxious that the principal should remain a good long while in the hands of the borrower, provided only the repayment be secure and they have no mistrust of the borrower. Let this be done then in the present case also. Leave them with God that He may pay thee thy wages manifold. Seek not to have the whole here; for if you recover it all here, how will you receive it back there? And it is on this account that God stores them up there, inasmuch as this present life is full of decay. But He gives even here also; for, “Seek ye,” saith He, “the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added unto you.” (St. Matt. vi. 33.) Well then, let us look towards the kingdom, and not be in a hurry for the repayment of the whole, lest we diminish our recompense. But let us wait for the fit season. For the interest in these cases is not of that kind, but is such as is meet to be given to God. This then having collected together in great abundance, so let us depart hence, that we may obtain both the present and the future blessings; through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom unto the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor, now, henceforth, and for evermore. Amen.

Homily XVI



1 Cor. v. 9–11

I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters, for then must ye needs go out of the world: but now I write unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a drunkard, or a reviler, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

For since he had said, “Ye have not rather mourned, that such an one should be taken away;” and, “Purge out the old leaven;” and it was likely that they would surmise it to be their duty to avoid all fornicators: for if he that has sinned imparts some of his own mischief to those who have not sinned, much more is it meet to keep one’s self away from those without: (for if one ought not to spare a friend on account of such mischief arising from him, much less any others;) and under this impression, it was probable that they would separate themselves from the fornicators among the Greeks also, and the matter thus turning out impossible, they would have taken it more to heart: he used this mode of correction, saying, “I wrote unto you to have no company with fornicators, yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world:” using the word “altogether,” as if it were an acknowledged thing. For that they might not think that he charged not this upon them as being rather imperfect, and should attempt to do it under the erroneous impression that they were perfect, he shews that this were even impossible to be done, though they wished it ever so much. For it would be necessary to seek another world. Wherefore he added, “For ye must needs then go out of the world.” Seest thou that he is no hard master, and that in his legislation he constantly regards not only what may be done, but also what may be easily done. For how is it possible, says he, for a man having care of a house and children, and engaged in the affairs of the city, or who is an artisan or a soldier, (the greater part of mankind being Greeks,) to avoid the unclean who are to be found every where? For by “the fornicators of the world,” he means those who are among the Greeks. “But now I write unto you, If any brother” be of this kind, “with such an one no not to eat.” Here also he glances at others who were living in wickedness.

But how can one “that is a brother” be an idolater? As was the case once in regard to the Samaritans who chose piety but by halves. And besides he is laying down his ground beforehand for the discourse concerning things offered in sacrifice to idols, which after this he intends to handle.

“Or covetous.” For with these also he enters into conflict. Wherefore he said also, “Why not rather take wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? Nay, ye yourselves do wrong and defraud.”

“Or a drunkard.” For this also he lays to their charge further on; as when he says, “One is hungry and another is drunken:” and, “meats for the belly and the belly for meats.”

“Or a reviler, or an extortioner:” for these too he had rebuked before.

[2.] Next he adds also the reason why he forbids them not to mix with heathens of that character, implying that it is not only impossible, but also superfluous.

Ver. 12, “For what have I to do with judging them that are without?” Calling the Christians and the Greeks, “those within” and “those without,” as also he says elsewhere, (1 Tim. iii. 7.) “He must also have a good report of them that are without.” And in the Epistle to the Thessalonians he speaks the same language, saying, (2 Thess. iii. 14.) “Have no intercourse with him to the end that he may be put to shame.” And, “Count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” Here, however, he does not add the reason. Why? Because in the other case he wished to soothe them, but in this, not so. For the fault in this case and in that was not the same, but in the Thessalonians it was less. For there he is reproving indolence; but here fornication and other most grievous sins. And if any one wished to go over to the Greeks, he hinders not him from eating with such persons; this too for the same reason. So also do we act; for our children and our brethren we leave nothing undone, but of strangers we do not make much account. How then? Did not Paul care for them that were without as well? Yes, he cared for them; but it was not till after they received the Gospel and he had made them subject to the doctrine of Christ, that he laid down laws for them. But so long as they despised, it was superfluous to speak the precepts of Christ to those who knew not Christ Himself.

“Do not ye judge them that are within, whereas them that are without, God judgeth?” For since he had said, “What have I to do with judging those without;” lest any one should think that these were left unpunished, there is another tribunal which he sets over them, and that a fearful one. And this he said, both to terrify those, and to console these; intimating also that this punishment which is for a season snatches them away from that which is undying and perpetual: which also he has plainly declared elsewhere, saying, (1 Cor. xi. 32.) “But now being judged, we are chastened, that we should not be condemned with the world.”

[3.] “Put away from among yourselves the wicked person.” He used an expression found in the Old Testament, (Deut. xvii. 7.) partly hinting that they too will be very great gainers, in being freed as it were from some grievous plague; and partly to shew that this kind of thing is no innovation, but even from the beginning it seemed good to the legislator that such as these should be cut off. But in that instance it was done with more severity, in this with more gentleness. On which account one might reasonably question, why in that case he conceded that the sinner should be severely punished and stoned, but in the present instance not so; rather he leads him to repentance. Why then were the lines drawn in the former instance one way and in the latter another? For these two causes: one, because these were led into a greater trial and needed greater long-suffering; the other and truer one, because these by their impunity were more easily to be corrected, coming as they might to repentance; but the others were likely to go on to greater wickedness. For if when they saw the first undergoing punishment they persisted in the same things, had none at all been punished, much more would this have been their feeling. For which reason in that dispensation death is immediately inflicted upon the adulterer and the manslayer; but in this, if through repentance they are absolved, they have escaped the punishment. However, both here one may see some instances of heavier punishment, and in the Old Testament some less severe, in order that it may be signified in every way that the covenants are akin to each other, and of one and the same lawgiver: and you may see the punishment following immediately both in that covenant and in this, and in both often after a long interval. Nay, and oftentimes not even after a long interval, repentance alone being taken as satisfaction by the Almighty. Thus in the Old Testament, David, who had committed adultery and murder, was saved by means of repentance; and in the New, Ananias, who withdrew but a small portion of the price of the land, perished together with his wife. Now if these instances are more frequent in the Old Testament, and those of the contrary kind in the New, the difference of the persons produces the difference in the treatment adopted in such matters.

[4.] C. vi. ver. 1. “Dare any one of you, having a matter against his brother, (ton adelphon, rec. text thon heteron.) go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?”

Here also he again makes his complaint upon acknowledged grounds; for in that other place he says, “It is actually reported that there is fornication among you.” And in this place, “Dare any one of you?” From the very first outset giving signs of his anger, and implying that the thing spoken of comes of a daring and lawless spirit.

Now wherefore did he bring in by the way that discourse about covetousness and about the duty of not going to law without the Church? In fulfilment of his own rule. For it is a custom with him to set to right things as they fall in his way; just as when speaking about the tables which they used in common, he launched out into the discourse about the mysteries. So here, you see, since he had made mention of covetous brethren, burning with anxiety to correct those in sin, he brooks not exactly to observe order; but he again corrects the sin which had been introduced out of the regular course, and so returns to the former subject.

Let us hear then what he also says about this. “Dare any of you, having a matter, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?” For a while, he employs those personal terms to expose, discredit, and blame their proceedings: nor does he quite from the beginning subvert the custom of seeking judgment before the believers: but when he had stricken them down by many words, then he even takes away entirely all going to law. “For in the first place,” says he, “if one must go to law it were wrong to do so before the unrighteous. But you ought not to go to law at all.” This however he adds afterwards. For the present he thoroughly sifts the former subject, namely, that they should not submit matters to external arbitration. “For,” says he, “how can it be otherwise than absurd that one who is at variance (mikropsuchouta) with his friend should take his enemy to be a reconciler between them? And how can you avoid feeling shame and blushing when a Greek sits to judge a Christian? And if about private matters it is not right to go to law before Greeks, how shall we submit to their decisions about other things of greater importance?”

Observe, moreover, how he speaks. He says not, “Before the unbelievers,” but, “Before the unrighteous;” using the expression of which he had most particular need for the matter before him, in order to deter and keep them away. For see that his discourse was about going to law, and those who are engaged in suits seek for nothing so much as that the judges should feel great interest about what is just; he takes this as a ground of dissuasion, all but saying, “Where are you going? What are you doing, O man, bringing on yourself the contrary to what you wish, and in order to obtain justice committing yourself to unjust men?” And because it would have been intolerable to be told at once not to go to law, he did not immediately add this, but only changed the judges, bringing the party engaged in the trial from without into the Church.

[5.] Then, since it seemed easily open to contempt, I mean our being judged by those who were within, and especially at that time, (for they were not perhaps competent to comprehend a point, nor were they such as the heathen judges, well skilled in laws and rhetoric, inasmuch as the greater part of them were uneducated men,) mark how he makes them worthy of credit, first calling them “Saints.”

But seeing that this bore witness to purity of life, and not to accuracy in hearing a case, observe how he orderly handles this part also, saying thus, “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?” How then canst thou who art in thy day to judge them, endure to be judged by them now? They will not indeed judge, taking their seat in person and demanding account, yet they shall condemn. This at least he plainly said; “And if the world is judged in you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?” He says not “by you,” but “in you:” just as when He said, (St. Matt. xii. 42.) “The queen of the south shall rise up and condemn this generation:” and, “The men of Nineveh shall arise and condemn this generation.” For when beholding the same sun and sharing all the same things, we shall be found believers but they unbelievers, they will not be able to take refuge in ignorance. For we shall accuse them, simply by the things which we have done. And many such ways of judgment one will find there.

Then, that no one should think he speaks about other persons, mark how he generalizes his speech. “And if the world is judged in you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?”

The thing is a disgrace to you, he says, and an unspeakable reproach. For since it was likely that they would be out of countenance at being judged by those that were within; “nay,” saith he, “on the contrary, the disgrace is when you are judged by those without: for those are the very small controversies, not these.”

Ver. 3. “Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more, things which pertain to this life?”

Some say that here the priests are hinted at, but away with this. His speech is about demons. For had he been speaking about corrupt priests, he would have meant them above when he said, “the world is judged in you:” (for the Scripture is wont to call evil men also “The world:”) and he would not have said the same thing twice, nor would he, as if he was saying something of greater consequence, have put it down afterwards. But he speaks concerning those angels about whom Christ saith, “Depart ye into the fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels.” (St. Matt. xxv. 41.) And Paul, “his angels fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness.” (2 Cor. xi. 15.) For when the very incorporeal powers shall be found inferior to us who are clothed with flesh, they shall suffer heavier punishment.

But if some should still contend that he speaks of priests, “What sort of priests?” let us ask. Those whose walk in life has been worldly, of course. In what sense then does he say, “We shall judge angels, much more things that relate to this life?” He mentions the angels, in contradistinction to “things relating to this life”: likely enough; for they are removed from the need of these things, because of the superior excellence of their nature.

[6.] Ver. 4. “If then ye have to judge things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are of no account in the Church.”

Wishing to instruct us as forcibly as possible that they ought not to commit themselves to those without, whatsoever the matter may be; having raised what seemed to be an objection, he answers it in the first instance. For what he says is something like this: Perhaps some one will say, “No one among you is wise, nor competent to pass sentence; all are contemptible.” Now what follows? “Even though none be wise,” says he, “I bid you entrust things to those who are of least weight.”

Ver. 5. “But this I say to move you to shame.” These are the words of one exposing their objection as being an idle pretext: and therefore he adds, “Is it so that there is not a wise man among you, no not even one?” Is the scarcity, says he, so great? so great the want of sensible persons among you? And what he subjoins strikes even still harder. For having said, “Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one?” he adds, “who shall be able to judge in the case of his brother.” For when brother goes to law with brother, there is never any need of understanding and talent in the person who is mediating in the cause, the feeling and relationship contributing greatly to the settlement of such a quarrel.

“But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers.” Do you observe with what effect he disparaged the judges at first by calling them unrighteous; whereas here, to move shame, he calls them Unbelievers? For surely it is extremely disgraceful if the priest could not be the author of reconciliation even among brethren, but recourse must be had to those without. So that when he said, “those who are of no account,” his chief meaning was not (ou touto eipe proegoumenos ) that the Church’s outcasts should be appointed as judges, but to find fault with them. For that it was proper to make reference to those who were able to decide, he has shewn by saying, “Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one?” And with great impressiveness he stops their mouths, and says, “Even though there were not a single wise man, the hearing ought to have been left to you who are unwise rather than that those without should judge.” For what else can it be than absurd, that whereas on a quarrel arising in a house we call in no one from without and feel ashamed if news get abroad among strangers of what is going on within doors; where the Church is, the treasure of the unutterable Mysteries, there all things should be published without?

Ver. 6. “But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers.”

The charge is twofold; both that he “goeth to law,” and “before the unbelievers.” For if even the thing by itself, To go to law with a brother, be a fault, to do it also before aliens, what pardon does it admit of?

[7.] Ver. 7. “Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you, that ye have lawsuits one with another.”

Do you see for what place he reserved this point? And how he has cleared the discussion of it in good time? For “I talk not yet,” saith he, “which injures, or which is injured.” Thus far, the act itself of going to law brings each party under his censure, and in that respect one is not at all better than another. But whether one go to law justly or unjustly, that is quite another subject. Say not then, “which did the wrong?” For on this ground I at once condemn thee, even for the act of going to law.

Now if being unable to bear a wrong-doer be a fault, what accusation can come up to the actual wrong? “Why not rather take wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?”

Ver. 8. “Nay, ye yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.”

Again, it is a twofold crime, perhaps even threefold or fourfold. One, not to know how to bear being wronged. Another, actually to do wrong. A third, to commit the settlement of these matters even unto the unjust. And yet a fourth, that it should be so done to a brother. For men’s offences are not judged by the same rule, when they are committed against any chance person, and towards one’s own member. For it must be a greater degree of recklessness to venture upon that. In the other case, the nature of the thing is alone trampled on; but in this, the quality of the person also.

[8.] Having thus, you see, abashed them from arguments on general principles, and before that, from the rewards proposed ; he shuts up the exhortation with a threat, making his speech more peremptory, and saying thus, (ver. 9.) “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, (ver. 10.) nor covetous, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” What sayest thou? When discoursing about covetous persons, have you brought in upon us so vast a crowd of lawless men? “Yes,” says he, “but in doing this, I am not confusing my discourse, but going on in regular order.” For as when discoursing about the unclean he made mention of all together; so again, on mentioning the covetous he brings forward all, thus making his rebukes familiar to those who have such things on their conscience. For the continual mention of the punishment laid up for others makes the reproof easy to be received, when it comes into conflict with our own sins. And so in the present instance he utters his threat, not at all as being conscious of their doing such things, nor as calling them to account, a thing which has special force to hold the hearer and keep him from starting off; namely, the discourse having no respect unto him, but being spoken indefinitely and so wounding his conscience secretly.

“Be not deceived.” Here he glances at certain who maintain (what indeed most men assert now) that God being good and kind to man, takes not vengeance upon our misdeeds: “Let us not then be afraid.” For never will he exact justice of any one for any thing. And it is on account of these that he says, “Be not deceived.” For it belongs to the extreme of error and delusion, after depending on good to meet with the contrary; and to surmise such things about God as even in man no one would think of. Wherefore saith the Prophet in His person, (Ps. xlix. LXX. 1. Heb. ver. 21.) “Thou hast conceived iniquity, that I shall be like unto thee: I will reprove thee and set before thy face thine iniquities.” And Paul here, “Be not deceived; neither fornicators,” (he puts first the one that was already condemned,) “nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor drunkards, nor revilers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Many have attacked this place as extremely severe, since he places the drunkard and the reviler with the adulterer and the abominable and the abuser of himself with mankind. And yet the offenses are not equal: how then is the award of punishment the same? What shall we say then? First, that drunkenness is no small thing nor reviling, seeing that Christ Himself delivered over to hell him that called his brother Fool. And often that sin has brought forth death. Again, the Jewish people too committed the greatest of their sins through drunkenness. In the next place, it is not of punishment that he is so far discoursing, but of exclusion from the kingdom. Now from the kingdom both one and the other are equally thrust out; but whether in hell they will find any difference, it belongs not to this present occasion to enquire. For that subject is not before us just now.

[9.] Ver. 11. “And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified.”

In a way to abash them exceedingly, he adds this: as if he said, “Consider from what evils God delivered us; how great an experiment and demonstration of loving-kindness He afforded us! He did not limit His redemption to mere deliverance, but greatly extended the benefit: for He also made thee clean. Was this then all? Nay: but He also “sanctified.” Nor even is this all: He also “justified.” Yet even bare deliverance from our sins were a great gift: but now He also filled thee with countless blessing. And this He hath done, “In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ;” not in this name or in that: yea also, “In the Spirit of our God.”

Knowing therefore these things, beloved, and bearing in mind the greatness of the blessing which hath been wrought, let us both continue to live soberly, being pure from all things that have been enumerated; and let us avoid the tribunals which are in the forums of the Gentiles; and the noble birth which God hath freely given us, the same let us preserve to the end. For think how full of shame it is that a Greek should take his seat and deal out justice to thee.

But you will say, what if he that is within judge contrary to the law? Why should he? tell me. For I would know by what kind of laws the Greek administers justice, and by what the Christian? Is it not quite plain that the laws of men are the rule of the Greek, but those of God, of the Christian? Surely then with the latter there is greater chance of justice, seeing that these laws are even sent from heaven. For in regard to those without, besides what has been said, there are many other things also to suspect; talent in speakers and corruption in magistrates and many other things which are the ruin of justice. But with us, nothing of this sort.

“What then,” you will say, “if the adversary be one in high place? Well, for this reason more than all one ought to go to law in Christian courts: for in the courts without he will get the better of you at all events. “But what if he acquiesce not, but both despise those within and forcibly drag the course without?” Better were it to submit willingly to what you are likely to endure by compulsion, and not go to law, that thou mayest have also a reward. For, (St. Matt. v. 40.) “If any one will go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, thou shalt let him have thy cloak also:” and, (v. 25.) “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art with him in the way.” And why need I speak of our rules? For even the pleaders in the heathen courts very often tell us this, saying, “it were better to make up matters out of court.” But, O wealth, or rather, O the absurd love of wealth! It subverts all things and casts them down; and all things are to the many an idle tale and fables because of money! Now that those who give trouble to courts of laws should be worldly men is no marvel: but that many of those who have bid farewell to the world should do the very same, this is a thing from which all pardon is cut off. For if you choose to see how far you should keep from this sort of need, I mean that of the tribunals, by rule of the Scripture, and to learn for whom the laws are appointed, hear what Paul saith; (1 Tim. i. 9.) “For a righteous man law is not made, but for the lawless, and unruly.” And if he saith these things about the Mosaic Law, much more about the laws of the heathen.

[10.] Now then, if you commit injustice, it is plain that you cannot be righteous: but if you are injured and bear it, (for this is a special mark of a righteous man,) you have no need of the laws which are without. “How then,” say you, “shall I be able to bear it when injured?” And yet Christ hath commanded something even more than this. For not only hath he commanded you when injured to bear it, but even to give abundantly more to the wrong-doer; and in your zeal for suffering ill to surpass his eagerness for doing it. For he said not, “to him that will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, give thy coat,” but, “together with that give also thy cloak.” But I bid you overcome him, saith He, by suffering, not by doing, evil: for this is the certain and splendid victory. Wherefore also Paul goes on to say, “Now then it is altogether a defect in (hettema rec. vers. “a fault.”) you that ye have lawsuits one with another.” And, “Wherefore do ye not rather take wrong?” For that the injured person overcomes, rather than he who cannot endure being injured, this I will make evident to you. He that cannot endure injury, though he force the other into court and gain the verdict, yet is he then most of all defeated. For that which he would not, he hath suffered; in that the adversary hath compelled him both to feel pain and to go to law. For what is it to the point that you have prevailed? and what, that you have recovered all the money? You have in the meanwhile borne what you did not desire, having been compelled to decide the matter by law. But if you endure the injustice, you overcome; deprived indeed of the money, but not at all of the victory which is annexed to such self-command. For the other had no power to oblige you to do what you did not like.

And to shew that this is true; tell me, which conquered at the dunghill? Which was defeated? Job who was stripped of all, or the devil who stripped him of all? Evidently the devil who stripped him of all. Whom do we admire for the victory, the devil that smote, or Job that was smitten? Clearly, Job. And yet he could not retain his perishing wealth nor save his children. Why speak I of riches and children? He could not insure to himself bodily health. Yet nevertheless this is the conqueror, he that lost all that he had. His riches indeed he could not keep; but his piety he kept with all strictness. “But his children when perishing he could not help.” And what then? Since what happened both made them more glorious, and besides in this way he protected himself against the despiteful usage. Now had he not have suffered ill and been wronged of the devil, he would not have gained that signal victory. Had it been an evil thing to suffer wrong, God would not have enjoined it upon us: for God enjoineth not evil things. What, know ye not that He is the God of Glory? that it could not be His will to encompass us with shame and ridicule and loss, but to introduce (proxenesai) us to the contrary of these? Therefore He commands us to suffer wrong, and doth all to withdraw us from worldly things, and to convince us what is glory, and what shame; what loss, and what gain.

“But it is hard to suffer wrong and be spitefully entreated.” Nay, O man, it is not, it is not hard. How long will thy heart be fluttering about things present? For God, you may be sure, would not have commanded this, had it been hard. Just consider. The wrong-doer goes his way with the money, but with an evil conscience besides: the receiver of the wrong, defrauded indeed of some money, but enriched with confidence towards God; an acquisition more valuable than countless treasures.

[11.] Knowing these things, therefore, let us of our free choice go on strict principles, and not be like the unwise, who think that they are then not wronged, when their suffering wrong is the result of a trial. But, quite on the contrary, that is the greatest harm; and so in every case when we exercise self-restraint in these matters, not willingly, but after being worsted in that other quarter. For it is no advantage that a man defeated in a trial endures it; for it becomes thenceforth a matter of necessity. What then is the splendid victory? When thou lookest down on it: when thou refusest to go to law.

“How say you? have I been stripped of every thing,” saith one, “and do you bid me keep silent? Have I been shamefully used, and do you exhort me to bear it meekly? And how shall I be able?” Nay, but it is most easy if thou wilt look up unto heaven; if thou wilt behold the beauty that is in sight; and whither God hath promised to receive thee, if thou bear wrong nobly. Do this then; and looking up unto the heaven, think that thou art made like unto Him that sitteth there upon the Cherubim. For He also was injured and He bore it; He was reproached and avenged not Himself; and was beaten, yet He asserted not His cause. Nay, He made return, in the contrary kind, to those who did such things, even in benefits without number; and He commanded us to be imitators of Him. Consider that thou camest naked out of thy mother’s womb, and that naked both thou and he that hath done thee wrong shall depart; rather, he for his part, with innumerable wounds, breeding worms. Consider that things present are but for a season; count over the tombs of thine ancestors; acquaint thyself accurately with past events; and thou shalt see that the wrong-doer hath made thee stronger. For his own passion he hath aggravated, his covetousness I mean; but yours, he hath alleviated, taking away the food of the wild beast. And besides all this, he hath set you free from cares, agony, envy, informers, trouble, worry, perpetual fear; and the foul mass of evils he hath heaped upon his own head.

“What then,” saith one, “if I have to struggle with hunger?” Thou endurest this with Paul, who saith, (1 Cor. iv. 10.) “Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked.” But he did it, you will say, “for God’s sake:” do thou it also for God’s sake. For when thou abstainest from avenging, thou dost so for God’s sake.

“But he that wronged me, takes his pleasure with the wealthy.” Nay, rather with the devil. But be you crowned with Paul.

Therefore fear not hunger, for (Prov. x. 3.) “the Lord will not kill with hunger the souls of the righteous.” And again, another saith, (Ps. lv. 23.) “Cast upon the Lord thy care, and He will nourish thee.” For if the sparrows of the field are nourished by Him, how shall He not nourish thee? Now let us not be of little faith nor of little soul, O my beloved! For He who hath promised the kingdom of heaven and such great blessings, how shall He not give things present? Let us not covet superfluous things, but let us keep to a sufficiency, and we shall always be rich. Let shelter be what we seek and food, and we shall obtain all things; both these, and such as are far greater.

But if you are still grieving and bowing down, I should like to shew you the soul of the wrongdoer after his victory, how it is become ashes. For truly sin is that kind of thing: while one commits it, it affords a certain pleasure; but when it is finished, then the trifling pleasure is gone, one knows not how, and in its place comes dejection. And this is our feeling when we do hurt to any: afterwards, at any rate, we condemn ourselves. So also when we over-reach we have pleasure; but afterwards we are stung by conscience. Seest thou in any one’s possession some poor man’s home? Weep not for him that is spoiled, but for the spoiler: for he has not inflicted, but sustained an evil. For he robbed the other of things present; but himself he cast out of the blessings which cannot be uttered. For if he who giveth not to the poor shall go away into hell; what shall he suffer who takes the goods of the poor?

“Yet,” saith one, “where is the gain, if I suffer ill?” Indeed, the gain is great. For not of the punishment of him that hath done thee harm doth God frame a compensation for thee: since that would be no great thing. For what great good is it, if I suffer ill and he suffer ill? And yet I know of many, who consider this the greatest comfort, and who think they have got all back again, when they see those who had insulted them undergoing punishment. But God doth not limit His recompense to this.

Wouldest thou then desire to know in earnest how great are the blessings which await thee? He openeth for thee the whole heaven; He maketh thee a fellow-citizen with the Saints; He fits thee to bear a part in their choir: from sins He absolveth; with righteousness He crowneth. For if such as forgive offenders shall obtain forgiveness, those who not only forgive but who also give largely to boot, what blessing shall they not inherit?

Therefore, bear it not with a poor spirit, but even pray for him that injured thee. It is for thyself that thou dost this. Hath he taken thy money? Well: he took thy sins too: which was the case with Naaman and Gehazi. How much wealth wouldest thou not give to have thine iniquities forgiven thee? This, believe me, is the case now. For if thou endure nobly and curse not, thou hast bound on thee a glorious crown. It is not my word, but thou hast heard Christ speaking, “Pray for those that despitefully use you.” And consider the reward how great! “That ye may be like your Father which is in the heavens.” So then you have been deprived of nothing, yea, you have been a gainer: you have received no wrongs, rather you have been crowned; in that you are become better disciplined in soul; are made like to God; are set free from the care of money; are made possessor of the kingdom of heaven.

All these things therefore taking into account, let us restrain ourselves in injuries, beloved, in order that we may both be freed from the tumult of this present life, and cast out all unprofitable sadness of spirit, and may obtain the joy to come; through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor, now, henceforth, and for ever and ever. Amen.

Homily XVII



1 Cor. vi. 12

“All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought into the power of any.

Here he glances at the gluttons. For since he intends to assail the fornicator again, and fornication arises from luxuriousness and want of moderation, he strongly chastises this passion. It cannot be that he speaks thus with regard to things forbidden, such not being “lawful:” but of things which seem to be indifferent. To illustrate my meaning: “It is lawful,” he says, “to eat and to drink; but it is not expedient with excess.” And so that marvellous and unexpected turn of his, which he is often wont to adopt; (Cf. Rom. xii. 21; 1 Cor. vii. 23.) bringing his argument clear round to its contrary, this he manages to introduce here also; and he signifies that to do what is in one’s power not only is not expedient, but even is not a part of power, but of slavery.

And first, he dissuades them on the ground of the inexpediency of the thing, saying, “they are not expedient:” in the next place, on that of its contrariety to itself, saying, “I will not be brought under the power of any.” This is his meaning: “You are at liberty to eat,” says he; “well then, remain in liberty, and take heed that you do not become a slave to this appetite: for he who uses it properly, he is master of it; but he that exceeds the proper measure is no longer its master but its slave, since gluttony reigns paramount within him.” Do you perceive how, where the man thought he had authority Paul points out that he is under authority? For this is his custom, as I was saying before, to give all objections a turn the contrary way. It is just this which he has done here. For mark; each of them was saying, “I have power to live luxuriously.” He replies, “In doing so, thou art not so much acting as one who had power over a thing, but rather as being thyself subject to some such power. For thou hast not power even over thine own belly, so long as thou art dissolute, but it hath power over thee.” And the same we may say both of riches and of other things.

Ver. 13. “Meats for the belly.” By “the belly” here he means not the stomach, but the stomach’s voraciousness. As when he says, (Philip. iii. 19.) “Whose God is their belly:” not speaking about that part of the body, but about greediness. To prove that so it is, hear what follows: “And the belly for meats; but the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord.” And yet “the belly” also is of “the body.” But he puts down two pairs of things, “meats” and gluttony, (which he terms “the belly;”) “Christ,” and “the body.”

What then is the meaning of, “Meats for the belly?” “Meats,” he says, are on good terms with gluttony, and it with them. It cannot therefore lead us unto Christ, but drags towards these. For it is a strong and brutal passion, and makes us slaves, and puts us upon ministering to the belly. Why then art thou excited and gaping after food, O man? For the end of that service is this, and nothing further shall be seen of it: but as one was waiting on some mistress, it abides keeping up this slavery, and advances no further, and has no other employment but this same fruitless one. And the two are connected together and destroyed together; “the belly” with “the meats,” and “the meats” with “the belly;” winding out a sort of interminable course; just as from a corrupt body worms may be produced, and again by worms the body consumed; or as it were a wave swoln high and breaking, and having no further effect. But these things he says not concerning food and the body, but it is the passion of greediness and excess in eatables which he is censuring: and what follows shews it. For he proceeds:

“But God shall bring to nought both it and them:” speaking not of the stomach, but of immoderate desire: not of food but of high feeding. For with the former he is not angry, but even lays down rules about them, saying, (1 Tim. vi. 8.) “Having food and covering we shall be therewith content.” However, thus he stigmatizes the whole thing; its amendment (after advice given) being left by him to prayer.

But some say that the words are a prophecy, declaring the state which shall be in the life to come, and that there is no eating or drinking there. Now if that which is moderate shall have an end, much more ought we to abstain from excess.

Then lest any one should suppose that the body is the object of his censure, and suspect that from a part he is blaming the whole, and say that the nature of the body was the cause of gluttony or of fornication, hear what follows. “I blame not,” he says, “the nature of the body, but the immoderate license of the mind.” And therefore he subjoins, “Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord;” for it was not formed for this purpose, to live riotously and commit fornication, as neither was the belly to be greedy; but that it might follow Christ as a Head, and that the Lord might be set over the body. Let us be overcome with shame, let us be horror-struck, that after we have been counted worthy of such great honor as to become members of Him that sitteth on high, we defile ourselves with so great evils.

[2.] Having now sufficiently condemned the glutton, he uses also the hope of things to come to divert us from this wickedness: saying,

Ver. 14. And God both raised up the Lord, and will raise up us also through His power.

Do you perceive again his Apostolical wisdom? For he is always establishing the credibility of the Resurrection from Christ, and especially now. For if our body be a member of Christ, and Christ be risen, the body also shall surely follow the Head.

“Through his power.” For since he had asserted a thing disbelieved and not to be apprehended by reasonings, he hath left entirely to His incomprehensible power the circumstances of Christ’s own Resurrection, producing this too as no small demonstration against them. And concerning the Resurrection of Christ he did not insert this: for he did not say, “And God shall also raise up the Lord;”—for the thing was past and gone;—but how? “And God both raised up the Lord;” nor was there need of any proof. But concerning our resurrection, since it has not yet come to pass, he spoke not thus, but how? “And will raise up us also through His power:” by the reliance to be placed on the power of the Worker, he stops the mouths of the gainsayers.

Further: if he ascribe unto the Father the Resurrection of Christ, let not this at all disturb thee. For not as though Christ were powerless, hath he put this down, for He it is Himself who saith, (S. John ii. 19.) “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up:” and again, (S. John x. 18.) “I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again.” And Luke also in the Acts says, (c. i. 3.) “To whom also He shewed Himself alive.” Wherefore then does Paul so speak? Because both the acts of the Son are imputed unto the Father, and the Father’s unto the Son. For He saith, (S. John v. 19.) “Whatsoever things He doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner.”

And very opportunely he here made mention of the Resurrection, keeping down by those hopes the tyranny of gluttonous desire; and all but saying, Thou hast eaten, hast drunk to excess: and what is the result? Nothing, save only destruction. Thou hast been conjoined unto Christ; and what is the result? A great and marvellous thing: the future Resurrection, that glorious one, and transcending all utterance!

[3.] Let no one therefore go on disbelieving the Resurrection: but if a man disbelieve, let him think how many things He made from nothing, and admit it as a proof also of the other. For the things which are already past are stranger by far, and fraught with overpowering wonder. Just consider. He took earth and mixed it, and made man; earth which existed not before this. How then did the earth become man? And how was it produced from nothing? And, how, all the things that were made from it? the endless sorts of irrational creatures; of seeds; of plants; no pangs of travail having preceded in the one case, no rains having come down upon the others; no tillage seen, no oxen, no plough, nor any thing else contributing to their production? Why, for this cause the lifeless and senseless thing was made to put forth in the beginning so many kinds of plants and irrational creatures, in order that from the very first He might instruct thee in the doctrine of Resurrection. For this is more inexplicable than the Resurrection. For it is not the same thing to rekindle an extinguished lamp, and to shew fire that has never yet appeared. It is not the same thing to raise up again a house which has fallen down, and to produce one which has never at all had an existence. For in the former case, if nothing else, yet the material was given to work with: but in the latter, not even the substance appeared. Wherefore He made first that which seemed to be the more difficult, to the end that hereby thou mightest admit that which is the more easy; more difficult, I say, not to God, but as far as our reasonings can follow the subject. For with God nothing is difficult: but as the painter who has made one likeness will make ten thousand with ease, so also with God it is easy to make worlds without number and end. Rather, as it is easy for you to conceive a city and worlds without bound, so unto God is it easy to make them; or rather again it is easier by far. For thou consumest time, brief though it be, in thy conception; but God not even this, but as much as stones are heavier than any of the lightest things, yea even than our minds; so much is our mind surpassed by the rapidity of God’s work of creation.

Do you marvel at His power on the earth? Think again how the heaven was made, not yet being; how the innumerable stars, how the sun, how the moon; and all these things not yet being. Again, tell me how after they were made they stood fast, and upon what? What foundation have they? and what the earth? What comes next to the earth? and again, what after that which came next to the earth? Do you see into what an eddy the eye of your mind is plunged, unless you quickly take refuge in faith and the incomprehensible power of the Maker?

But if you choose from human things also to make conjecture, you will be able by degrees to find wings for your understanding. “What kind of human things?” may be asked. Do you not see the potters, how they fashion the vase which had been broken in pieces and become shapeless? Those who fuse the ore from the mine, how the earth in their hands turns out (ten gen chrusion apophainousi) gold, or silver, or copper? Others again who work in glass, how they transform the sand into one compact and transparent substance? Shall I speak of the dressers of leather, the dyers of purple vestments; how they make that which had received their tint shew as one thing, when it had been another? Shall I speak of the generation of our own race? Doth not a small seed, at first without form and impress, enter into the womb which receives it? Whence then the so intricate formation of the living creature? What is the wheat? Is it not cast a naked seed into the earth? After it has been cast there, doth it not decay? Whence is the ear, the beard, the stalk, and all the other parts? Doth not often a little grain of a fig fall into the ground, and produce both root, and branches, and fruit? And dost thou hereupon admit each of these and make no curious enquiries, and of God alone dost thou demand account, in His work of changing the fashion of our body? And how can such things be pardonable?

These things and such like we say to the Greeks. For to those who are obedient to the Scriptures, I have no occasion to speak at all.

I say, if you intend to pry curiously into all His doings, what shall God have more than men? And yet even of men there are many about whom we do not so enquire. Much more then ought we to abstain from impertinent inquiry about the wisdom of God, and from demanding accounts of it: in the first place, because He is trustworthy who affirmeth: in the second place, because the matter admits not investigation by reasonings. For God is not so abjectly poor as to work such things only as can be apprehended by the weakness of thy reasonings. And if thou comprehendest not the work of an artisan, much less of God, the best of artificers. Disbelieve not then the Resurrection, for very far will ye be from the hope of that which is to come.

But what is the wise argument of the gain-sayers; rather, I should say, their exceeding senseless one? “Why how, when the body is mixed up with the earth and is become earth, and this again is removed elsewhere, how,” say they, “shall it rise again?” To thee this seems impossible, but not to the unsleeping Eye. For unto that all things are clear. And thou in that confusion seest no distinction of parts; but He knows them all. Since also the heart of thy neighbor thou knowest not, nor the things in it; but He knoweth all. If then, because of thy not knowing how God raiseth men up, thou believest not that He doth raise them, wilt thou disbelieve that He knoweth also what is in thy mind? for neither is that obvious to view. And yet in the body it is visible matter, though it be dissolved: but those thoughts are invisible. Shall He then who knoweth with all certainty the invisible things, not see the things which be visible, and easily distinguish the scattered parts of the body? I suppose this is plain to every one.

Do not then disbelieve the Resurrection; for this is a doctrine of the Devil. This is what the Devil is earnest for, not only that the Resurrection may be disbelieved, but good works also may be done away with. For the man who does not expect that he shall rise again and give an account of the things which he has done, will not quickly apply himself to virtue; will in turn come to disbelieve the Resurrection entirely: for both these are established by each other; vice by unbelief, and unbelief by vice. For the conscience filled with many wickednesses, fearing and trembling for the recompense to come and not willing to provide itself with comfort by changing to what is most excellent, is fain to repose in unbelief. Thus when thou deniest resurrection and judgment, the other for his part will say, “Then shall I also not have to render account of my bold deeds.”

[4.] But why saith Christ? (St. Matt. xxii. 29.) “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” For God would not have wrought so many things, had He intended not to raise us up again, but to dissolve and blot us out in annihilation. He would not have spread out this heaven, He would not have stretched the earth beneath, He would not have made all the rest of the universe only for this short life. But if all these are for the present, what will He not do for that which is to come? If, on the contrary, there is to be no future life, we are in this respect of far meaner account than the things which have been made for our sakes. For both the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the rivers, are more lasting than we are: and some even of the brutes; since the raven, and the race of elephants, and many other creatures, have a longer enjoyment of the present life. To us, moreover, life is both short and toilsome, but not to them. Theirs is both long, and freer from grief and cares.

“What then? tell me: hath he made the slaves better than the masters?” Do not, I beseech thee, do not reason thus, O man, nor be so poverty-stricken in mind, nor be ignorant of the riches of God, having such a Master. For even from the beginning God desired to make thee immortal, but thou wert not willing. Since the things also of that time were dark hints of immortality: the converse with God; the absence of uneasiness from life; the freedom from grief, and cares, and toils, and other things which belong to a temporary existence. For Adam had no need either of a garment or a shelter, or any other provision of this sort; but rather was like to the Angels; and many of the things to come he foreknew, and was filled with great wisdom. Even what God did in secret, he knew, I mean with regard to the woman: wherefore also he said, “This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.” (Gen. ii. 23.) Labor came into being afterwards: so did sweat, so did shame, and cowardice, and want of confidence. But on that day there was no grief, nor pain, nor lamentation. But he abode not in that dignity.

What then, saith one, am I to do? must I perish on his account? I reply, first, It is not on his account: for neither hast thou remained without sin: though it be not the same sin, at least there is some other which thou hast committed. And again, you have not been injured by his punishment, but rather have been a gainer. For if you had been to remain altogether mortal, perchance what is said would have had some reason in it. But now thou art immortal, and if thou wilt, thou mayest shine brighter than the sun itself.

[5.] “But,” says one, “had I not received a mortal body, I had not sinned.” Tell me then, had he a mortal body when he sinned? Surely not: for if it had been mortal before, it would not have undergone death as a punishment afterwards. And that a mortal body is no hindrance to virtue, but that it keeps men in order and is of the greatest service, is plain from what follows. If the expectation of immortality alone so lifted up Adam; had he been even immortal in reality, to what a pitch of arrogance would he not have proceeded? And as things are, after sinning you may do away with your sins, the body being abject, falling away, and subject to dissolution: for these thoughts are sufficient to sober a man. But if you had sinned in an immortal body, your sins were likely to have been more lasting.

Mortality then is not the cause of sin: accuse it not: but the wicked will is the root of all the mischief. For why was not Abel at all the worse for his body? Why are the devils not at all the better for being incorporeal? Wilt thou hear why the body’s becoming mortal, so far from hurting, has been positively useful? Mark how much thou gainest thereby, if thou art sober. It drags thee back and pulls thee off from wickedness, by griefs and pains and labors and other such things. “But it tempts men to uncleanness,” perhaps you will say. Not the body, but incontinence, doth this. For all these things which I was mentioning certainly do belong to the body: on which account it is impossible that a man who has entered into this life should escape disease and pain and lowness of spirits: but that he commit no uncleanness is possible. Thus it appears that if the affections of vice were part of the nature of the body they would be universal: since all things natural are so; but to commit fornication is not so. Pain indeed cometh of nature: but to commit fornication proceeds from deliberate purpose.

Blame not the body then; let not the Devil take away thine honor, which God hath given thee. For if we choose, the body is an excellent bridle to curb the wanton sallies of the soul, to pull down haughtiness, to repress arrogance, to minister to us in the greatest achievements of virtue. For tell me not of those who have lost their senses; since we often see horses, after they have thrown out their drivers, dashing with their reins over the precipices, and yet we do not blame the rein. For it is not the breaking of that which caused it all, but the driver not holding them in was the ruin of every thing. Just so do thou reason in this case. If thou seest a young person living in orphanhood and doing innumerable evil things, blame not the body, but the charioteer who is dragged on, I mean, the man’s faculty of reasoning. For as the reins give no trouble to the charioteer, but the charioteer is the cruise of all the mischief through his not holding them properly: (and therefore do they often exact a penalty of him, entangling themselves with him, and dragging him on, and compelling him to partake in their own mishap:) so is it also in the case before us. “I,” say the reins, “made bloody the horse’s mouth as long as you held me: but since you threw me away, I require satisfaction for your contempt, and I entwine myself about you, and drag you along, so as not to incur the same usage again.” Let no one then blame the reins, but himself and his own corrupt mind. For over us too is a charioteer, even reason: and the reins are the body, connecting the horses with the charioteer; if then these be in good condition, you will suffer no harm: but if you let them go, you have annihilated and ruined every thing. Let us be temperate then, and lay all blame not on the body, but on the evil mind. For this is the Devil’s special work, to make foolish men accuse the body and God and their neighbor, rather than their own perverted minds; lest, having discovered the cause, they get free from the root of the evils.

But do ye, being aware of his design, direct your wrath against him: and having set the charioteer upon the car, bend the eye of your minds towards God. For in all other instances he that appoints the games contributes nothing, but only awaits the end. But in this case, He is all in all, who appointed the contest, even God. Him therefore let us render propitious, and surely we shall obtain the blessings in store; through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, honor, now, henceforth, and for evermore. Amen.

Homily XVIII



1 Cor. vi. 15

“Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? God forbid.

Having passed on from the fornicator to the covetous person, he comes back to the former from the latter, no longer henceforth discoursing with him but with the others who had not committed fornication. And in the act of securing them lest they fall into the same sins, he assails him again. For he that has committed sin, though you direct your words to another, is stung even in that way; his conscience being thoroughly awakened and scourging him.

Now the fear of punishment indeed was enough to keep them in chastity. But seeing that he does not wish by fear alone to set these matters right, he uses both threatenings and reasons.

Now upon that other occasion, having stated the sin, and prescribed the punishment, and pointed out the harm which intercourse with the fornicator brought upon all, he left off, and passed to the subject of covetousness: and having threatened the covetous and all the rest whom he mentioned with expulsion from the kingdom, he so concluded his discourse. But here he takes in hand the work of admonition in a yet more terrific manner. For as he that only punishes a sin and does nothing to point out its most extreme lawlessness, produces no such great effect by his chastisement: so again, he who only abashes and fails to terrify by his mode of punishing, does not very keenly hit men of hardened minds. Wherefore Paul does both: here he abashes, saying, “Know ye not that we shall judge angels?” there again he terrifies, saying, “Know ye not that the covetous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?”

And in regard to the fornicator, he again uses this order of discourse. For having terrified him by what he had said before; first cutting him off and delivering him to Satan, and then reminding him of that day which is coming; he abashes him again by saying, “Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ?” thenceforth speaking as to children of noble birth. For whereas he had said, “Now the body is for the Lord,” he indicates it more plainly now. And in another place as well he does this same thing, saying, (xii. 27.) “Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof.” And the same figure he often employs, not with the same aim, but at one time to shew His love, and at another to increase their fear. But here he has employed it to startle and fill them with alarm. “Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? God forbid.” Nothing can be apter to strike horror than this expression. He said not, “Shall I take the members of Christ, and join them on to a harlot?” but what? “make them members of a harlot;” which surely would strike more keenly.

Then he makes out how the fornicator becomes this, saying thus, “Know ye not that he that is joined unto a harlot is one body?” How is this evident? “For the twain, saith He, shall become one.”

Ver. 17. “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.”

For the conjunction suffers the two no longer to be two, but makes them both one.

[2.] Now mark again, how he proceeds by means of the bare terms, conducting his accusation in the names of the harlot and of Christ.

Ver. 18. “Flee fornication.”

He said not, “abstain from fornication,” but “Flee:” that is, with all zeal make to yourselves deliverance from that evil. “Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.” This is less than what went before; but since he had to speak of fornicators, he amplifies that guilt by topics drawn from all quarters, from greater things and smaller alike, making the charge heinous. And, in fact, that former topic was addressed to the more religious, but this to the weaker sort. For this also is characteristic of the wisdom of Paul, not only to allege the great things wherewith to abash men, but the lesser also, and the consideration of what is disgraceful and unseemly.

“What then,” say you, “does not the murderer stain his hand? What, of the covetous person and the extortioner?” I suppose it is plain to every one. But since it was not possible to mention anything worse than the fornicator, he amplifies the crime in another way, by saying that in the fornicator the entire body becomes defiled. For it is as polluted as if it had fallen into a vessel of filth, and been immersed in defilement. And this too is our way. For from covetousness and extortion no one would make haste to go into a bath, but as if nothing had happened returns to his house. Whereas from intercourse with a harlot, as having become altogether unclean, he goes to a bath. To such a degree does the conscience retain from this sin a kind of sense of unusual shame. Both however are bad, both covetousness and fornication; and both cast into hell. But as Paul doeth every thing with good management, so by whatever topics he had he magnified the sin of fornication.

[3.] Ver. 19. “Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you?” He did not merely say, “of the Spirit,” but, “which is in you;” which was the part of one who also was soothing. And again, explaining himself still further, he added, “which ye have from God.” He mentioned Him that gave also, both exalting the hearer and putting him in fear, both by the magnitude of the deposit, and by the munificence of Him that made it.

“And ye are not your own.” This is not only to abash, but even to force men towards virtue. “For why,” says he; “doest thou what thou wilt? thou art not thine own master.” But these things he said, not to take away free-will. For so in saying, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient,” he does not take away our liberty. And here again, writing, “Ye are not your own;” he makes no infringement upon freedom of choice, but he leads away from vice and indicates the guardian care of the Lord. And therefore he added, “For ye were bought with a price.”

“But if I am not my own, upon what ground do you demand of me duties to be done? And why do you go on to say again, “Glorify God therefore in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s?” What then is the meaning of, “ye are not your own?” And what does he wish to prove thereby? To settle them in a state of security against sin, and against following the improper desires of the mind. For indeed we have many improper wishes: but we must repress them, for we can. And if we could not, exhortation would be in vain. Mark, accordingly, how he secures his ground. For having said, “Ye are not your own,” he adds not, “But are under compulsion;” but, “Ye were bought with a price.” Why sayest thou this? Surely on another ground, one might say perhaps, you should have persuaded men, pointing out that we have a Master. But this is common to the Greeks also together with us: whereas the expression, “Ye were bought with a price,” belongs to us peculiarly. For he reminds us of the greatness of the benefit and of the mode of our salvation, signifying that when we were alienated, we were “bought:” and not simply “bought,” but, “with a price.”

“Glorify then, take up and bear, God in your body, and in your spirit.” Now these things he says, that we may not only flee fornication in the body, but also in the spirit of our mind abstain from every wicked thought, and from driving away grace.

“Which are God’s.” For as he had said “your,” he added therefore, “which are God’s:” continually reminding us that all things belong to the Lord, both body and soul and spirit: For some say, that the words “in the spirit” mean the gracious Gift; for if That be in us, God is glorified. And this will be, if we have a clean heart.

But He has spoken of these things as God’s, not only because He brought them into being, but also because, when they were alienated, He won them again a second time, paying as the price, the blood of the Son. Mark how He brought the whole to completion in Christ, how He raised us up into heaven. “Ye are members of Christ,” saith he, “ye are a temple of the Spirit.” Become not then “members of a harlot:” for it is not your body which is insulted; since it is not your body at all, but Christ’s. And these things he spake, both to make manifest His loving-kindness in that our body is His, and to withdraw us from all evil license. For if the body be another’s, “you have no authority,” says he, “to insult another’s body; and especially when it is the Lord’s; nor yet to pollute a temple of the Spirit.” For if any one who invades a private house and makes his way revelling into it, must answer for it most severely; think what dreadful things he shall endure who makes a temple of the King a robber’s lurking place.

Considering these things therefore, reverence thou Him that dwelleth within. For the Paraclete is He. Thrill before Him that is enfolded and cleaves unto thee; for Christ is He. Hast thou indeed made thyself members of Christ? Think thus, and continue chaste; whose members they were, and Whose they have become. Erewhile they were members of an harlot, and Christ hath made them members of His own Body. Thou hast therefore henceforth no authority over them. Serve Him that hath set thee free.

For supposing you had a daughter, and in extreme madness had let her out to a procurer for hire, and made her live a harlot’s life, and then a king’s son were to pass by, and free her from that slavery, and join her in marriage to himself; you could have no power thenceforth to bring her into the brothel. For you gave her up once for all, and sold her. Such as this is our case also. We let out our own flesh for hire unto the Devil, that grievous procurer: Christ saw and set it free, and withdrew it from that evil tyranny; it is not then ours any more but His who delivered it. If you be willing to use it as a King’s bride, there is none to hinder; but if you bring it where it was before, you will suffer just what they ought who are guilty of such outrages. Wherefore you should rather adorn instead of disgracing it. For you have no authority over the flesh in the wicked lusts, but in those things alone which God may enjoin. Let the thought enter your mind at least from what great outrage God hath delivered it. For in truth never did any harlot expose herself so shamefully as our nature before this. For robberies, murders, and every wicked thought entered in and lay with the soul, and for a small and vulgar hire, the present pleasure. For the soul, being mixed up with all wicked devices and deeds, reaped this reward and no other.

However, in the time before this, bad though it were to be such as these, it was not so bad: but after heaven, after the King’s courts, after partaking of the tremendous Mysteries, again to be contaminated, what pardon shall this have? Or, dost thou not think that the covetous too, and all those whom he recounted before, have the Devil to lie with them? And dost thou not judge that the women who beautify themselves for pollution have intercourse with him? Why, who shall gainsay this word? But if any be contentious, let him uncover the soul of the women who behave in this unseemly manner, and he will surely see that the wicked demon closely entwined with them. For it is hard, brethren, it is hard, perchance even impossible, when the body is thus beautified, for the soul to be beautified at the same time: but one must needs be neglected, while the other is cared for. For nature does not allow these to take place together.

[4.] Wherefore he saith, “He that is joined to a harlot is one body; but he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit.” For such an one becomes thenceforth Spirit, although a body envelope him. For when nothing corporeal nor gross nor earthly is around him, the body doth but merely envelope him; since the whole government of him is in the soul and the Spirit. In this way God is glorified. Wherefore both in the Prayer we are commanded to say, “Hallowed be Thy Name:” and Christ saith also, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

So do the heavens also glorify Him, uttering no voice, but by the view of them attracting wonder and referring the glory unto the Great Artificer. So let us glorify Him also, or rather more than they. For we can if we will. For not so much do the heaven nor day nor night glorify God, as a holy soul. For as one that gazeth upon the beauty of the heaven, saith, “Glory be to Thee, O God! How fair a work hast thou formed!” so too when beholding virtue in any man: nay, and much more so in the latter instance. For from these works of creation all do not glorify God; but many even assert that the things which exist are self-moving: and others impute to demons the workmanship of the world and providence; and these indeed greatly and unpardonably err: but in regard to the virtue of man, no one shall have power to hold these shameless opinions, but shall assuredly glorify God when he seeth him that serveth Him living in goodness. For who shall help being astonished when one being a man, and partaking of our common nature, and living among other men, like adamant yields not at all to the swarm of passions? When being in the midst of fire and iron and wild beasts, he is even harder than adamant and vanquishes all for the Word of godliness’ sake? when he is injured, and blesses; when he is evil reported of, and praises; when he is despitefully used, and prays for those who injure him; when he is plotted against, and does good to those that fight with him and lay snares for him? For these things, and such as these, will glorify God far more than the heaven. For the Greeks when they behold the heavens feel no awe; but when they see a holy man exhibiting a severe course of life with all strictness, they shrink away and condemn themselves. Since when he that partakes of the same nature as themselves is so much above them, a great deal more so than the heaven is above the earth, even against their inclination they think that it is a Divine power which works these things. Wherefore He saith, “And glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

[5.] Wilt thou learn also from another place how by the life of His servants God is glorified, and how by miracles? Nebuchadnezzar once threw the Three Children into the furnace. Then when he saw that the fire had not prevailed over them, he saith, (Dan. iii. 28. LXX. ek tes kaminou added.) “Blessed be God, who hath sent His Angel, and delivered his servants out of the furnace, because they trusted in Him and have changed the word of the king.” “How sayest thou? Hast thou been despised, and dost thou admire those who have spit upon you?” “Yes,” saith he, “and for this very reason, that I was despised.” And of the marvel he gives this reason. So that not because of the miracle alone was glory given to God at that time, but also because of the purpose of those who have been thrown in. Now if any one would examine this point and the other, as they are in themselves, this will appear not less than that: for to persuade souls to brave a furnace is not less in respect of the wonder than to deliver from a furnace. For how can it be otherwise than astonishing for the Emperor of the world, with so many arms around him, and legions, and generals, and viceroys, and consuls, and land and sea subject to his sway, to be despised by captive children; for the bound to overcome the binder and conquer all that army? Neither was there any power in the king and his company to do what they would, no, not even with the furnaces for an ally. But they who were naked, and slaves, and strangers, and few, (for what number could be more contemptible than three?) being in chains, vanquished an innumerable army. For already now was death despised, since Christ was henceforth about to sojourn in the world. And as when the sun is on the point of rising, even before his rays appear the light of the day groweth bright; so also when then the Sun of Righteousness was about to come, death henceforth began to withdraw himself. What could be more splendid than that theatre? What more conspicuous than that victory? What more signal than those new trophies of theirs?

The same thing is done in our time also. Even now is there a king of the Babylonish furnace, even now he kindles a flame fiercer than that. There is even now such an image, and one who giveth command to admire it. At his side are satraps and soldiers and bewitching music. And many gaze in admiration upon this image, so varied, so great. For somewhat of the same kind of thing as that image is covetousness, which doth not despise even iron , but unlike as the materials are whereof it is composed, it giveth command to admire all, both brass and iron, and things much more ordinary than they.

But as these things are, so also even now are there some who are emulous of these children: who say, “thy gods we serve not, and thine images we worship not;” but both the furnace of poverty we endure and all other distress, for the sake of God’s laws.” And the wealthy for their part, even as those at that time, oftentimes, worship this image too and are burnt. But those who possess nothing despite even this, and although in poverty, are more in the dew than those who live in affluence. Even as at that time they who cast into the fire were burnt up; but those in the midst of it found themselves in dew as it were rain. Then also that tyrant was more burnt up with the flame, his wrath kindling him violently, than those children. As to them, the fire had no power even to touch the ends of their hair: but more fiercely than that fire did wrath burn up his mind. For consider what a thing it was that with so many to look on, he should be scorned by captive children. And it was a sign that his taking their city also had not been through his own might, but by reason of the sin of the multitude among them. Since if he had not the power to overcome these men in chains, and that when they were cast into a furnace, how could he have overcome the Jews in regular warfare, had they been all such as these? From which it is plain that the sins of the multitude betrayed the city.

[6.] But mark also the children’s freedom from vain-glory. For they did not leap into the furnace, but they kept beforehand the commandment of Christ where he says, (St. Matt. xxvi. 41.) “Pray that ye enter not into temptation.” Neither did they shrink when they were brought to it; but stood in the midst nobly, neither contending without a summons, nor yet when summoned playing the coward: but ready for everything, and noble, and full of all boldness of speech.

But let us hear also what they say, that from this also we may learn their lofty spirit. (Dan. iii. 17.) “There is a God in heaven able to deliver us:” they take no care for themselves, but even when about to be burned the glory of God is all their thought. For what they say comes to this, “Lest perchance if we are burnt thou shouldest charge God with weakness, we now declare unto thee accurately our whole doctrine. “There is a God in heaven,” not such as this image here on earth, this lifeless and mute thing, but able to snatch even from the midst of the burning fiery furnace. Condemn him not then of weakness for permitting us to fall into it. So powerful is He that after our fall, He is able to snatch us out again out of the flame. “But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” Observe that they by a special dispensation are ignorant of the future: for if they had foreknown, there would have been nothing wonderful in their doing what they did. For what marvel is it if when they had a guarantee for safety, they defied all terrors? Then God indeed would have been glorified in that He was able to deliver from the furnace: but they would not have been wondered at, inasmuch as they would not have cast themselves into any dangers. For this cause He suffered them to be ignorant of the future that He might glorify them the more. And as they cautioned (espsalixonto) the king that he was not to condemn God of weakness though they might be burnt, so God accomplished both purposes; the shewing forth His own power and the causing the zeal of the children to appear more conspicuous.

From whence then arose their doubting and their not feeling confident that they should at all events be preserved? Because they esteemed themselves assuredly too mean, and unworthy of such a benefit. And to prove that I say not this upon conjecture; when they fell into the furnace, they bewailed themselves after this sort, saying, (Song of the three Children vv. 6, 10.) “We have sinned, we have done iniquity, we cannot open our mouth.” And therefore they said, “But if not.” But if they did not plainly say this, namely, “God is able to deliver us; but if he deliver us not, for our sin’s sake He will not deliver us;” wonder not at it. For they would have seemed to the barbarians to be sheltering the weakness of God under the pretext of their own sins. Wherefore His power only is what they speak of: the reason they allege not. And besides, they were well disciplined not to be over-curious about the judgments of God.

With these words then, they entered into the fire; and they neither cast insult upon the king, nor overturned the statue . For such should the courageous man be, temperate and mild; and that especially in dangers; that he may not seem to go forth to such contests in wrath and vain-glory; but with fortitude and self-possession. For whoso deals insolently undergoes the suspicion of those faults: but he that endures, and is forced into the struggle, and goes through the trial with meekness, is not only admired as brave, but his self-possession also and consideration cause him to be no less extolled. And this is what they did at that time; shewing forth all fortitude and gentleness, and doing nothing for reward nor for recompense or return. “Though He be not willing so it stands’ to deliver us, we will not serve thy gods:’ for we have already our recompense in that we are counted worthy to be kept from all impiety, and for that end to give our bodies to be burned.”

We then also having already our recompense, (for indeed we have it in that we have been vouchsafed the full knowledge of Him, vouch-safed to be made members of Christ,) let us take care that we make them not members of an harlot. For with this most tremendous saying we must conclude our discourse, in order that having the fear of the threat in full efficacy, we may remain purer than gold, this fear helping to make us so. For so shall we be able, delivered from all fornication, to see Christ. Whom God grant us all to behold with boldness at that day, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ; to Whom be the glory, for evermore. Amen.

Homily XIX



1 Cor. vii. 1, 2

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of fornications, let each man have his own wife; and let each woman have her own husband.

Having corrected the three heaviest things laid to their charge, one, the distraction of the Church, another, about the fornicator, a third, about the covetous person, he thenceforth uses a milder sort of speech. And he interposes some exhortation and advice about marriage and virginity, giving the hearers some respite from more unpleasant subjects. But in the second Epistle he does the contrary; he begins from the milder topics, and ends with the more distressing. And here also, after he has finished his discourse about virginity, he again launches forth into matter more akin to reproof; not setting all down in regular order, but varying his discourse in either kind, as the occasion required and the exigency of the matters in hand.

Wherefore he says, “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me.” For they had written to him, “Whether it was right to abstain from one’s wife, or not:” and writing back in answer to this and giving rules about marriage, he introduces also the discourse concerning virginity: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” “For if,” says he, “thou enquire what is the excellent and greatly superior course, it is better not to have any connection whatever with a woman: but if you ask what is safe and helpful to thine own infirmity, be connected by marriage.”

But since it was likely, as also happens now, that the husband might be willing but the wife not, or perhaps the reverse, mark how he discusses each case. Some indeed say that this discourse was addressed by him to priests. But I, judging from what follows, could not affirm that it was so: since he would not have given his advice in general terms. For if he were writing these things only for the priests, he would have said, “It is good for the teacher not to touch a woman.” But now he has made it of universal application, saying, “It is good for a man;” not for priest only. And again, “Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.” He said not, “You who are a priest and teacher,” but indefinitely. And the whole of his speech goes on entirely in the same tones. And in saying, “Because of fornications, let every man have his own wife” by the very cause alleged for the concession he guides men to continence.

[2.] Ver. 3. “Let the husband pay the wife the honor due to her: in like manner the wife the husband.”

Now what is the meaning of “the due honor? The wife hath not power over her own body;” but is both the slave and the mistress of the husband. And if you decline the service which is due, you have offended God. But if thou wish to withdraw thyself, it must be with the husband’s permission, though it be but a for short time. For this is why he calls the matter a debt, to shew that no one is master of himself but that they are servants to each other.

When therefore thou seest an harlot tempting thee, say, “My body is not mine, but my wife’s.” The same also let the woman say to those who would undermine her chastity, “My body is not mine, but my husband’s.”

Now if neither husband nor wife hath power even over their own body, much less have they over their property. Hear ye, all that have husbands and all that have wives: that if you must not count your body your own, much less your money.

Elsewhere I grant He gives to the husband abundant precedence, both in the New Testament, and the Old saying, (he apostrophe sou, LXX. Gen. iii. 16.) “Thy turning shall be towards thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Paul doth so too by making a distinction thus, and writing, (Ephes. v. 25, 33.) “Husbands, love your wives; and let the wife see that she reverence her husband.” But in this place we hear no more of greater and less, but it is one and the same right. Now why is this? Because his speech was about chastity. “In all other things,” says he, “let the husband have the prerogative; but not so where the question is about chastity.” “The husband hath no power over his own body, neither the wife.” There is great equality of honor, and no prerogative.

[3.] Ver. 5. “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent.”

What then can this mean? “Let not the wife,” says he, “exercise continence, if the husband be unwilling; nor yet the husband without the wife’s consent.” Why so? Because great evils spring from this sort of continence. For adulteries and fornications and the ruin of families have often arisen from hence. For if when men have their own wives they commit fornication, much more if you defraud them of this consolation. And well says he, “Defraud not; fraud” here, and “debt” above, that he might shew the strictness of the right of dominion in question. For that one should practice continence against the will of the other is “defrauding;” but not so, with the other’s consent: any more than I count myself defrauded, if after persuading me you take away any thing of mine. Since only he defrauds who takes against another’s will and by force. A thing which many women do, working sin rather than righteousness, and thereby becoming accountable for the husband’s uncleanness, and rending all asunder. Whereas they should value concord above all things, since this is more important than all beside.

We will, if you please, consider it with a view to actual cases. Thus, suppose a wife and husband, and let the wife be continent, without consent of her husband; well then, if hereupon he commit fornication, or though abstaining from fornication fret and grow restless and be heated and quarrel and give all kind of trouble to his wife; where is all the gain of the fasting and the continence, a breach being made in love? There is none. For what strange reproaches, how much trouble, how great a war must of course arise! since when in an house man and wife are at variance, the house will be no better off than a ship in a storm when the master is upon ill terms with the man at the head. Wherefore he saith, “Defraud not one another, unless it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer.” It is prayer with unusual earnestness which he here means. For if he is forbidding those who have intercourse with one another to pray, how could “pray without ceasing” have any place? It is possible then to live with a wife and yet give heed unto prayer. But by continence prayer is made more perfect. For he did not say merely, “That ye may pray;” but, “That ye may give yourselves unto it;” as though what he speaks of might cause not uncleanness but much occupation.

“And may be together again, that Satan tempt you not.” Thus lest it should seem to be a matter of express enactment, he adds the reason. And what is it? “That Satan tempt you not.” And that you may understand that it is not the devil only who causeth this crime, I mean adultery, he adds, “because of your incontinency.”

“But this I say by way of permission, not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself; in a state of continence.” This he doth in many places when he is advising about difficult matters; he brings forward himself, and says, “Be ye imitators of me.”

“Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.” Thus since he had heavily charged them saying, “for your incontinence,” he again comforteth them by the words, “each one hath his own gift of God;” not declaring that towards that virtue there is no need of zeal on our part, but, as I was saying before, to comfort them. For if it be a “gift,” and man contributes nothing thereunto, how sayest thou, “But (v. 8.) I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I: (v. 9.) but if they have not continency let them marry?” Do you see the strong sense of Paul how he both signifies that continence is better, and yet puts no force on the person who cannot attain to it; fearing lest some offence arise?

“For it is better to marry than to burn.” He indicates how great is the tyranny of concupiscence. What he means is something like this: “If you have to endure much violence and burning desire, withdraw yourself from your pains and toils, lest haply you be subverted.”

[4.] Ver. 10. “But to the married I give charge, yet not I, but the Lord.”

Because it is a law expressly appointed by Christ which he is about to read to them about the “not putting away a wife without fornication; “(S. Matt. v. 32., xix. 9; S. Mark x. 11; S. Luke xvi. 18.) therefore he says, “Not I.” True it is what was before spoken though it were not expressly stated, yet it also is His decree. But this, you see, He had delivered in express words. So that the words “I and not I” have this difference of meaning. For that you might not imagine even his own words to be human, therefore he added, “For I think that I also have the Spirit of God.”

Now what is that which “to the married the Lord commanded? That the wife depart not from her husband: (v. 11.) but if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled unto her husband.” Here, seeing that both on the score of continence and other pretexts, and because of infirmities of temper, (mikropsuchias.) it fell out that separations took place: it were better, he says, that such things should not be at all; but however if they take place, let the wife remain with her husband, if not to cohabit with him, yet so as not to introduce any other to be her husband.

Ver. 12. “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. If any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her. And if any woman hath an husband that believeth not, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave him.”

For as when discoursing about separating from fornicators, he made the matter easy by the correction which he applied to his words, saying, “Howbeit, not altogether with the fornicators of this world;” so also in this case he provideth for the abundant easiness of the duty, saying, “If any wife have a husband, or husband a wife, that believeth not, let him not leave her.” What sayest thou? “If he be an unbeliever, let him remain with the wife, but not if he be a fornicator? And yet fornication is a less sin than unbelief.” I grant, fornication is a less sin: but God spares thine infirmities extremely. And this is what He doth about the sacrifice, saying, (S. Matt. v. 24.) “Leave the sacrifice, and be reconciled to thy brother.” This also in the case of the man who owed ten thousand talents. For him too He did not punish for owing him ten thousand talents, but for demanding back a hundred pence from his fellow-servant He took vengeance on him.

Then lest the woman might fear, as though she became unclean because of intercourse with her husband, he says, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband.” And yet, if “he that is joined to an harlot is one body,” it is quite clear that the woman also who is joined to an idolater is one body. Well: it is one body; nevertheless she becomes not unclean, but the cleanness of the wife overcomes the uncleanness of the husband; and again, the cleanness of the believing husband overcomes the uncleanness of the unbelieving wife.

How then in this case is the uncleanness overcome, and therefore the intercourse allowed; while in the woman who prostitutes herself, the husband is not condemned in casting her out? Because here there is hope that the lost member may be saved through the marriage; but in the other case the marriage has already been dissolved; and there again both are corrupted; but here the fault is in one only of the two. I mean something like this: she that has been guilty of fornication is utterly abominable: if then “he that is joined to an harlot is one body,” he also becomes abominable by having connection with an harlot; wherefore all the purity flits away. But in the case before us it is not so. But how? The idolater is unclean but the woman is not unclean. For if indeed she were a partner with him in that wherein he is unclean, I mean his impiety, she herself would also become unclean. But now the idolater is unclean in one way, and the wife holds communion with him in another wherein he is not unclean. For marriage and mixture of bodies is that wherein the communion consists.

Again, there is a hope that this man may be reclaimed by his wife for she is made completely his own: but for the other it is not very easy. For how will she who dishonored him in former times and became another’s and destroyed the rights of marriage, have power to reclaim him whom she had wronged; him, moreover, who still remains to her as an alien?

Again in that case, after the fornication the husband is not a husband: but here, although the wife be an idolatress, the husband’s rights are not destroyed.

However, he doth not simply recommend cohabitation with the unbeliever, but with the qualification that he wills it. Wherefore he said, “And he himself be content to dwell with her.” For, tell me, what harm is there when the duties of piety remain unimpaired and there are good hopes about the unbeliever, that those already joined should so abide and not bring in occasions of unnecessary warfare? For the question now is not about those who have never yet come together, but about those who are already joined. He did not say, If any one wish to take an unbelieving wife, but, “If any one hath an unbelieving wife.” Which means, If any after marrying or being married have received the word of godliness, and then the other party which had continued in unbelief still yearn for them to dwell together, let not the marriage be broken off. “For,” saith he, “the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife.” So great is the superabundance of thy purity.

What then, is the Greek holy? Certainly not: for he said not, He is holy; but, “He is sanctified in his wife.” And this he said, not to signify that he is holy, but to deliver the woman as completely as possible from her fear and lead the man to desire the truth. For the uncleanness is not in the bodies wherein there is communion, but in the mind and the thoughts. And here follows the proof; namely, that if thou continuing unclean have offspring, the child, not being of thee alone, is of course unclean or half clean. But now it is not unclean. To which effect he adds, “else were your children unclean; but now are they holy;” that is, not unclean. But the Apostle calls them, “holy,” by the intensity of the expression again casting out the dread arising from that sort of suspicion.

Ver. 15. “Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart,” for in this case the matter is no longer fornication. But what is the meaning of, “if the unbelieving departeth?” For instance, if he bid thee sacrifice and take part in his ungodliness on account of thy marriage, or else part company; it were better the marriage were annulled, and no breach made in godliness. Wherefore he adds, “A brother is not under bondage, nor yet a sister, in such cases.” If day by day he buffet thee and keep up combats on this account, it is better to separate. For this is what he glances at, saying, “But God hath called us in peace.” For it is the other party who furnished the ground of separation, even as he did who committed uncleanness.

Ver. 16. “For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thine husband?” This again refers to that expression, “let her not leave him.” That is, “if he makes no disturbance, remain,” saith he, “for there is even profit in this; remain and advise and give counsel and persuade.” For no teacher will have such power to prevail (Reg. peisai. Bened. ischusai. ) as a wife. And neither, on one hand, doth he lay any necessity upon her and absolutely demand the point of her, that he may not again do what would be too painful; nor, on the other, doth he tell her to despair: but he leaves the matter in suspense through the uncertainty of the future, saying, “For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O husband whether thou shalt save thy wife?”

[5.] And again, ver. 17. “Only as God hath distributed to each man, as the Lord hath called each, so let him walk. Was any one called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Was any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Wast thou called, being a slave? Care not for it.” These things contribute nothing unto faith, saith he. Be not then contentious neither be troubled; for the faith hath cast out all these things.

“Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Hast thou been called, having an unbelieving wife? Continue to have her. Cast not out thy wife for the faith’s sake. Hast thou been called, being a slave? Care not for it. Continue to be a slave. Hast thou been called, being in uncircumcision? Remain uncircumcised. Being circumcised, didst thou become a believer? Continue circumcised. For this is the meaning of, “As God hath distributed unto each man.” For these are no hindrances to piety. Thou art called, being a slave; another, with an unbelieving wife; another, being circumcised.

Astonishing! where has he put slavery? As circumcision profits not: and uncircumcision does no harm; so neither doth slavery, nor yet liberty. And that he might point out this with surpassing clearness, he says, “But even (All’ ei kai dunasai) if thou canst become free, use it rather:” that is, rather continue a slave. Now upon what possible ground does he tell the person who might be set free to remain a slave? He means to point out that slavery is no harm but rather an advantage.

Now we are not ignorant that some say, the words, “use it rather,” are spoken with regard to liberty: interpreting it, “if thou canst become free, become free.” But the expression would be very contrary to Paul’s manner if he intended this. For he would not, when consoling the slave and signifying that he was in no respect injured, have told him to get free. Since perhaps some one might say, “What then, if I am not able? I am an injured and degraded person.” This then is not what he says: but as I said, meaning to point out that a man gets nothing by being made free, he says, “Though thou hast it in thy power to be made free, remain rather in slavery.”

Next he adds also the cause; “For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord’s free man: likewise he that was called, being free, is Christ’s bondservant.” “For,” saith he, “in the things that relate to Christ, both are equal: and like as thou art the slave of Christ, so also is thy master. How then is the slave a free man? Because He has freed thee not only from sin, but also from outward slavery while continuing a slave. For he suffers not the slave to be a slave, not even though he be a man abiding in slavery: and this is the great wonder.

But how is the slave a free man while continuing a slave? When he is freed from passions and the diseases of the mind: when he looks down upon riches and wrath and all other the like passions.

Ver. 23. “Ye were bought with a price: become not bondservants of men.” This saying is addressed not to slaves only but also to free men. For it is possible for one who is a slave not to be a slave; and for one who is a freeman to be a slave. “And how can one be a slave and not a slave?” When he doeth all for God: when he feigns nothing, and doeth nothing out of eye-service towards men: that is how one that is a slave to men can be free. Or again, how doth one that is free become a slave? When he serves men in any evil service, either for gluttony or desire of wealth or for office’ sake. For such an one, though he be free, is more of a slave than any man.

And consider both these points. Joseph was a slave but not a slave to men: wherefore even in slavery he was freer than all that are free. For instance, he yielded not to his mistress; yielded not to the purposes which she who possessed him desired. Again she was free; yet none ever so like a slave, courting and beseeching her own servant. But she prevailed not on him, who was free, to do what he would not. This then was not slavery; but it was liberty of the most exalted kind. For what impediment to virtue had he from his slavery? Let men hear, both slaves and free. Which was the slave? He that was entreated or she that did entreat? She that besought or he that despised her supplication?

In fact, there are limits set to slaves by God Himself; and up to what point one ought to keep them, has also been determined, and to transgress them is wrong. Namely, when your master commands nothing which is unpleasing to God, it is right to follow and to obey; but no farther. For thus the slave becomes free. But if you go further, even though you are free you are become a slave. At least he intimates this, saying, “Be not ye the servants of men.”

But if this be not the meaning, if he bade them forsake their masters and strive contentiously to become free, in what sense did he exhort them, saying, “Let each one remain in the calling in which he is called?” And in another place, (1 Tim. vi. 1, 2.) “As many servants as are under the yoke, let them count their own masters worthy of all honor; and those that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren who partake of the benefit.” And writing to the Ephesians also and to the Colossians, he ordains and exacts the same rules. Whence it is plain that it is not this slavery which he annuls, but that which caused as it is by vice befalls free men also: and this is the worst kind of slavery, though he be a free man who is in bondage to it. For what profit had Joseph’s brethren of their freedom? Were they not more servile than all slaves; both speaking lies to their father, and to the merchants using false pretences, as well as to their brother? But not such was the free man: rather every where and in all things he was true. And nothing had power to enslave him, neither chain nor bondage nor the love of his mistress nor his being in a strange land. But he abode free every where. For this is liberty in the truest sense when even in bondage it shines through.

[6.] Such a thing is Christianity; in slavery it bestows freedom. And as that which is by nature an invulnerable body then shews itself to be invulnerable when having received a dart it suffers no harm; so also he that is strictly free then shows himself, when even under masters he is not enslaved. For this cause his bidding is, “remain a slave.” But if it is impossible for one who is a slave to be a Christian such as he ought to be, the Greeks will condemn true religion of great weakness: whereas if they can be taught that slavery in no way impairs godliness, they will admire our doctrine. For if death hurt us not, nor scourges, nor chains, much less slavery. Fire and iron and tyrannies innumerable and diseases and poverty and wild beasts and countless things more dreadful than these, have not been able to injure the faithful; nay, they have made them even mightier. And how shall slavery be able to hurt? It is not slavery itself, beloved, that hurts; but the real slavery is that of sin. And if thou be not a slave in this sense, be bold and rejoice. No one shall have power to do thee any wrong, having the temper which cannot be enslaved. But if thou be a slave to sin, even though thou be ten thousand times free thou hast no good of thy freedom.

For, tell me, what profit is it when, though not in bondage to a man, thou liest down in subjection to thy passions? Since men indeed often know how to spare; but those masters are never satiated with thy destruction. Art thou in bondage to a man? Why, thy master also is slave to thee, in arranging about thy food, in taking care of thy health and in looking after thy shoes and all the other things. And thou dost not fear so much less thou shouldest offend thy master, as he fears lest any of those necessaries should fail thee. “But he sits down, while thou standest.” And what of that? Since this may be said of thee as well as of him. Often, at least, when thou art lying down and sleeping sweetly, he is not only standing, but undergoing endless discomforts in the market-place; and he lies awake more painfully than thou.

For instance; what did Joseph suffer from his mistress to be compared with what she suffered from her evil desire? For he indeed did not the things which she wished to put upon him; but she performed every thing which her mistress ordered her, I mean her spirit of unchastity: which left not off until it had put her to open shame. What master commands such things? what savage tyrant? “Intreat thy slave,” that is the word: “flatter the person bought with thy money, supplicate the captive; even if he reject thee with disgust, again besiege him: even if thou speakest to him oftentimes, and he consent not, watch for his being alone, and force him, and become an object of derision.” What can be more dishonorable, what more shameful, than these words? “And if even by these means you make no progress, why, accuse him falsely and deceive your husband.” Mark how mean, how shameful are the commands, how unmerciful and savage and frantic. What command does the master ever lay on his slave, such as those which her wantonness then laid upon that royal woman? And yet she dare not disobey. But Joseph underwent nothing of this sort, but every thing on the contrary which brought glory and honor.

Would you like to see yet another man under severe orders from a hard mistress, and without spirit to disobey any of them? Consider Cain, what commands were laid on him by his envy. She ordered him to slay his brother, to lie unto God, to grieve his father, to cast off shame; and he did it all, and in nothing refused to obey. And why marvel that over a single person so great should be the power of this mistress? She hath often destroyed entire nations. For instance, the Midianitish women took the Jews, and all but bound them in captivity; their own beauty kindling desire, was the means of their vanquishing that whole nation. Paul then to cast out this sort of slavery, said, “Become not servants of men;” that is, “Obey not men commanding unreasonable things: nay, obey not yourselves.” Then having raised up their mind and made it mount on high, he says,

[7.] Ver. 25. “Now concerning virgins. I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.”

Advancing on his way in regular order, he proceeds next to speak concerning virginity. For after that he had exercised and trained them, in his words concerning continence, he goes forth towards what is greater, saying, “I have no commandment, but I esteem it to be good.” For what reason? For the self-same reason as he had mentioned respecting continence.

Ver. 27. “Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.”

These words carry no contradiction to what had been said before but rather the most entire agreement with them. For he says in that place also, “Except it be by consent:” as here he says, “Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not separation.” This is no contradiction. For its being against consent makes a dissolution: but if with consent both live continently, it is no dissolution.

Then, lest this should seem to be laying down a law, he subjoins, (v. 28.) “but if thou marry, thou hast not sinned.” He next alleges the existing state of things, “the present distress, the shortness of the time,” and “the affliction.” For marriage draws along with it many things, which indeed he hath glanced at, as well here as also in the discourse about continence: there, by saying, “the wife hath not power over herself;” and here, by the expression, “Thou art bound.”

“But if and thou marry, thou hast not sinned.” He is not speaking about her who hath made choice of virginity, for if it comes to that, she hath sinned. Since if the widows are condemned for having to do with second marriages after they have once chosen widowhood, much more the virgins.

“But such shall have trouble in the flesh.” “And pleasure too,” you will say: but observe how he curtails this by the shortness of the time, saying, (v. 28.) “the time is shortened;” that is, “we are exhorted to depart now and go forth, but thou art running further in.” And yet even although marriage had no troubles, even so we ought to press on towards things to come. But when it hath affliction too, what need to draw on one’s self an additional burden. What occasion to take up such a load, when even after taking it you must use it as having it not? For “those even that have wives must be,” he saith, “as though they had none.”

Then, having interposed something about the future, he brings back his speech to the present. For some of his topics are spiritual; as that, “the one careth about the things which be her husband’s, the other about those which be God’s.” Others relate to this present life; as, “I would have you to be free from cares.” But still with all this he leaves it to their own choice: inasmuch as he who after proving what is best goes back to compulsion, seems as if he did not trust his own statements. Wherefore he rather attracts them by concession, and checks them as follows:

Ver. 35. “And this I say for your own profit, not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is seemly, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. Let the virgins hear that not by that one point is virginity defined; for she that is careful about the things of the world cannot be a virgin, nor seemly. Thus, when he said, “There is difference between a wife and a virgin,” he added this as the difference, and that wherein they are distinguished from each other. And laying down the definition of a virgin and her that is not a virgin, he names, not marriage nor continence but leisure from engagements and multiplicity of engagements. For the evil is not in the cohabitation, but in the impediment to the strictness of life.

Ver. 36. “But if any man think that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin.”

Here he seems to be talking about marriage; but all that he says relates to virginity; for he allows even a second marriage, saying, “only in the Lord.” Now what means, “in the Lord?” With chastity, with honor: for this is needed every where, and must be pursued for else we cannot see God.

Now if we have passed lightly by what he says of virginity, let no one accuse us of negligence; for indeed an entire book hath been composed by us upon this topic and as we have there with all the accuracy which we could, gone through every branch of the subject, we considered it a waste of words to introduce it again here. Wherefore, referring the hearer to that work as concerns these things, we will say this one thing here: We must follow after continence. For, saith he, “follow after peace, and the sanctification without which no one shall see the Lord.” Therefore that we may be accounted worthy to see Him, whether we be in virginity or in the first marriage or the second, let us follow after this that we may obtain the kingdom of heaven, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ; to Whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, honor, now, henceforth, and for everlasting ages. Amen.

Homily XX



1 Cor. viii. 1

Now concerning things sacrificed to idols: we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.

It is necessary first to say what the meaning of this passage is: for so shall we readily comprehend the Apostle’s discourse. For he that sees a charge brought against any one, except he first perceive the nature of the offence will not understand what is said. What then is it of which he was then accusing the Corinthians? A heavy charge and the cause of many evils. Well, what is it? Many among them, having learnt that (St. Matt. xv. 11.) “not the things which enter in defile the man, but the things which proceed out,” and that idols of wood and stone, and demons, have no power to hurt or help, had made an immoderate use of their perfect knowledge of this to the harm both of others and of themselves. They had both gone in where idols were and had partaken of the tables there, and were producing thereby great and ruinous evil. For, on the one hand, those who still retained the fear of idols and knew not how to contemn them, took part in those meals, because they saw the more perfect sort doing this; and hence they got the greatest injury: since they did not touch what was set before them with the same mind as the others, but as things offered in sacrifice to idols; and the thing was becoming a way to idolatry. On the other hand, these very persons who pretended to be more perfect were injured in no common way, partaking in the tables of demons.

This then was the subject of complaint. Now this blessed man being about to correct it, did not immediately begin to speak vehemently; for that which was done came more of folly than of wickedness: wherefore in the first instance there was need rather of exhortation than of severe rebuke and wrath. Now herein observe his good sense, how he immediately begins to admonish.

“Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge.” Leaving alone the weak, which he always doth, he discourses with the strong first. And this is what he did also in the Epistle to the Romans, saying, (Rom. xiv. 10.) “But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother?” for this is the sort of person that is able to receive rebuke also with readiness. Exactly the same then he doth here also.

And first he makes void their conceit by declaring that this very thing which they considered as peculiar to themselves, the having perfect knowledge, was common to all. Thus, “we know,” saith he, “that we all have knowledge.” For if allowing them to have high thoughts, he had first pointed out how hurtful the thing was to others, he would not have done them so much good as harm. For the ambitious soul when it plumes itself upon any thing, even though the same do harm to others, yet strongly adheres to it because of the tyranny of vain-glory. Wherefore Paul first examines the matter itself by itself: just as he had done before in the case of the wisdom from without, demolishing it with a high hand. But in that case he did it as we might have expected: for the whole thing was altogether blameworthy and his task was very easy. Wherefore he signifies it to be not only useless, but even contrary to the Gospel. But in the present case it was not possible to do this. For what was done was of knowledge, and perfect knowledge. Nor was it safe to overthrow it, and yet in no other way was it possible to cast out the conceit which had resulted from it. What then doeth he? First, by signifying that it was common, he curbs that swelling pride of theirs. For they who possess something great and excellent are more elated, when they alone have it; but if it be made out that they possess it in common with others, they no longer have so much of this feeling. First then he makes it common property, because they considered it to belong to themselves alone.

Next, having made it common, he does not make himself singly a sharer in it with them; for in this way too he would have rather set them up; for as to be the only possessor elates, so to have one partner or two perhaps among leading persons has this effect just as much. For this reason he does not mention himself but all: he said not, “I too have knowledge,” but, “we know that we all have knowledge.”

[2.] This then is one way, and the first, by which he cast down their pride; the next hath greater force. What then is this? In that he shews that not even this thing itself was in all points complete, but imperfect, and extremely so. And not only imperfect, but also injurious, unless there were another thing joined together with it. For having said that “we have knowledge,” he added, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth:” so that when it is without love, it lifts men up to absolute arrogance.

“And yet not even love,” you will say, “without knowledge hath any advantage.” Well: this he did not say; but omitting it as a thing allowed by all, he signifies that knowledge stands in extreme need of love. For he who loves, inasmuch as he fulfils the commandment which is most absolute of all, even though he have some defects, will quickly be blest with knowledge because of his love; as Cornelius and many others. But he that hath knowledge but hath not love, not only shall gain nothing more, but shall also be cast out of that which he hath, in many cases falling into arrogance. It seems then that knowledge is not productive of love, but on the contrary debars from it him that is not on his guard, puffing him up and elating him. For arrogance is wont to cause divisions: but love both draws together and leads to knowledge. And to make this plain he saith, “But if any man loveth God, the same is known of Him.” So that “I forbid not this,” saith he, “namely, your having perfect knowledge; but your having it with love, that I enjoin; else is it no gain, but rather loss.”

Do you see how he already sounds the first note of his discourse concerning love? For since all these evils were springing from the following root, i.e., not from perfect knowledge, but from their not greatly loving nor sparing their neighbors; whence ensued both their variance and their self-satisfaction, and all the rest which he had charged them with; both before this and after he is continually providing for love; so correcting the fountain of all good things. “Now why,” saith he, “are ye puffed up about knowledge? For if ye have not love, ye shall even be injured thereby. For what is worse than boasting? But if the other be added, the first also will be in safety. For although you may know something more than your neighbor, if you love him you will not set yourself up but lead him also to the same.” Wherefore also having said, “Knowledge puffeth up,” he added, “but love edifieth.” He did not say, “Behaveth itself modestly,” but what is much more, and more gainful. For their knowledge was not only puffing them up but also distracting them. On this account he opposes the one to the other.

[3.] And then he adds a third consideration, which was of force to set them down. What then is this? that although charity be joined with it, yet not even in that case is this our knowledge perfect. And therefore he adds,

Ver. 2. “But if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” This is a mortal blow. “I dwell not,” saith he, “on the knowledge being common to all. I say not that by hating your neighbor and by arrogance, you injure yourself most. But even though you have it by yourself alone, though you be modest, though you love your brother, even in this case you are imperfect in regard of knowledge. “For as yet thou knowest nothing as thou oughtest to know,” Now if we possess as yet exact knowledge of nothing, how is it that some have rushed on to such a pitch of frenzy as to say that they know God with all exactness? Whereas, though we had an exact knowledge of all other things, not even so were it possible to possess this knowledge to such an extent. For how far He is apart from all things, it is impossible even to say.

And mark how he pulls down their swelling pride: for he said not, “of the matters before us ye have not the proper knowledge,” but, “about every thing.” And he did not say, “ye,” but, “no one whatever,” be it Peter, be it Paul, be it any one else. For by this he both soothed them and carefully kept them under.

Ver. 3. “But if any man love God, the same,” he doth not say, “knoweth Him,” but, “is known of Him.” For we have not known Him, but He hath known us. And therefore did Christ say, “Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you.” And Paul elsewhere, “Then shall I know fully, even as also I have been known.”

Observe now, I pray, by what means he brings down their high-mindedness. First, he points out that not they alone knew the things which they knew; for “we all,” he saith,” have knowledge.” Next, that the thing itself was hurtful so long as it was without love; for “knowledge,” saith he, “puffeth up.” Thirdly, that even joined with love it is not complete nor perfect. “For if any man thinketh that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing as yet as he ought to know,” so he speaks. In addition to this, that they have not even this from themselves, but by gift from God. For he said not, “hath known God,” but, “is known of Him.” Again, that this very thing comes of love which they have not as they ought. For, “if any man,” saith he, “love God, the same is known of Him.” Having then so much at large allayed their irritation, he begins to speak doctrinally, saying thus.

[4.] Ver. 4. “Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no God but one.” Look what a strait he hath fallen into! For indeed his mind is to prove both; that one ought to abstain from this kind of banquet, and that it hath no power to hurt those who partake of it: things which were not greatly in agreement with each other. For when they were told that they had no harm in them, they would naturally run to them as indifferent things. But when forbidden to touch them, they would suspect, on the contrary, that their having power to do hurt occasioned the prohibition. Wherefore, you see, he puts down their opinion about idols, and then states as a first reason for their abstaining the scandals which they place in the way of their brethren; in these words: “Now concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world.” Again he makes it common property and doth not allow this to be theirs alone, but extends the knowledge all over the world. For “not among you alone,” says he, “but every where on earth this doctrine prevails.” What then is it? “That no idol is anything in the world; that there is no God but one.” What then? are there no idols? no statues? Indeed there are; but they have no power: neither are they gods, but stones and demons. For he is now setting himself against both parties; both the grosser sort among them, and those who were accounted lovers of wisdom. Thus, seeing that the former know of no more than the mere stones, the others assert that certain powers reside in them , which they also call gods; to the former accordingly he says, that “no idol is anything in the world,” to the other, that “there is no God but one.”

Do you mark how he writes these things, not simply as laying down doctrine, but in opposition to those without? A thing indeed which we must at all times narrowly observe, whether he says anything abstractedly, or whether he is opposing any persons. For this contributes in no ordinary way to the accuracy of our doctrinal views, and to the exact understanding of his expressions.

[5.] Ver. 5. “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are gods many and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we unto Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him.” Since he had said, that “an idol is nothing” and that “there is no other God;” and yet there were idols and there were those that were called gods; that he might not seem to be contradicting plain facts, he goes on to say, “For though there be that are called gods, as indeed there are;” not absolutely, “there are;” but, “called,” not in reality having this but in name: “be it in heaven or on earth:—in heaven,” meaning the sun and the moon and the remainder of the choir of stars; for these too the Greeks worshipped: but upon the earth demons, and all those who had been made gods of men:—”yet to us there is One God, the Father.” In the first instance having expressed it without the word “Father,” and said, “there is no God but one,” he now adds this also, when he had utterly cast out the others.

Next, he adduces what indeed is the greatest token of divinity; “of Whom are all things.” For this implies also that those others are not gods. For it is said (Jer. x. 11.), “Let the gods who made not the heaven and the earth perish.” Then he subjoins what is not less than this, “and we unto Him.” For when he saith, “of Whom are all things,” he means the creation and the bringing of things out of nothing into existence. But when he saith, “and we unto Him,” he speaks of the word of faith and mutual appropriation (oikeioseos), as also he said before (1 Cor. i. 30.), “but of Him are ye also in Christ Jesus.” In two ways we are of Him, by being made when we were not, and by being made believers. For this also is a creation: a thing which he also declares elsewhere; (Ephes. ii. 15.) “that He might create in Himself of the twain one new man.”

“And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him.” And in regard to Christ again, we must conceive of this in like manner. For through Him the race of men was both produced out of nothing into existence, and returned from error to truth. So that as to the phrase “of Whom,” it is not to be understood apart from Christ. For of Him, through Christ, were we created.

[6.] Nor yet, if you observe, hath he distributed the names as if belonging exclusively, assigning to the Son the name Lord, and to the Father, God. For the Scripture useth also often to interchange them; as when it saith, (Ps. cx. 1.) “The Lord saith unto My Lord;” and again, (Ps. lxv. 8.) “Wherefore God Thy God hath appointed Thee;” and, (Rom. ix. 5.) “Of Whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is God over all.” And in many instances you may see these names changing their places. Besides, if they were allotted to each nature severally, and if the Son were not God, and God as the Father, yet continuing a Son: after saying, “but to us there is but One God,” it would have been superfluous, his adding the word “Father,” with a view to declare the Unbegotten. For the word of God was sufficient to explain this, if it were such as to denote Him only.

And this is not all, but there is another remark to make: that if you say, “Because it is said One God,’ therefore the word God doth not apply to the Son;” observe that the same holds of the Son also. For the Son also is called “One Lord,” yet we do not maintain that therefore the term Lord applies to Him alone. So then, the same force which the expression “One” has, applied to the Son, it has also, applied to the Father. And as the Father is not thrust out from being the Lord, in the same sense as the Son is the Lord, because He, the Son, is spoken of as one Lord; so neither does it cast out the Son from being God, in the same sense as the Father is God, because the Father is styled One God.

[7.] Now if any were to say, “Why did he make no mention of the Spirit?” our answer might be this: His argument was with idolaters, and the contention was about “gods many and lords many.” And this is why, having called the Father, God, he calls the Son, Lord. If now he ventured not to call the Father Lord together with the Son, lest they might suspect him to be speaking of two Lords; nor yet the Son, God, with the Father, lest he might be supposed to speak of two Gods: why marvel at his not having mentioned the Spirit? His contest was, so far, with the Gentiles: his point, to signify that with us there is no plurality of Gods. Wherefore he keeps hold continually of this word, “One;” saying, “There is no God but One; and, to us there is One God, and One Lord.” From which it is plain, that to spare the weakness of the hearers he used this mode of explanation, and for this reason made no mention at all of the Spirit. For if it be not this, neither ought he to make mention of the Spirit elsewhere, nor to join Him with the Father and the Son. For if He be rejected from the Father and Son, much more ought He not to be put in the same rank with them in the matter of Baptism; where most especially the dignity of the Godhead appears and gifts are bestowed which pertain to God alone to afford. Thus then I have assigned the cause why in this place He is passed over in silence. Now do thou if this be not the true reason, tell me, why He is ranked with Them in Baptism? But thou canst not give any other reason but His being of equal honor. At any rate, when he has no such constraint upon him, he puts Him in the same rank, saying thus: (2 Cor. xiii. 14.) “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all:” and again, (ch. xii. 4.) “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit: and there are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of workings but the same God.” But because now his speech was with Greeks and the weaker sort of the converts from among Greeks, for this reason he husbands it (tamieuetai) so far. And this is what the prophets do in regard of the Son; no where making mention of Him plainly because of the infirmity of the hearers.

Ver. 7. “But not in all is knowledge,” saith he. What knowledge doth he mean? about God, or about things offered in sacrifice to idols? For either he here glances at the Greeks who say that there are many gods and lords, and who know not Him that is truly God; or at the converts from among Greeks who were still rather infirm, such as did not yet know clearly that they ought not to fear idols and that “an idol is nothing in the world.” But in saying this, he gently soothes and encourages the latter. For there was no need of mentioning all he had to reprove, particularly as he intended to visit them again with more severity.

[8.] “But some being used to the idol eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled.” They still tremble at idols, he saith. For tell me not of the present establishment, and that you have received the true religion from your ancestors. But carry back your thoughts to those times, and consider when the Gospel was just set on foot, and impiety was still at its height, and altars burning, and sacrifices and libations offering up, and the greater part of men were Gentiles; think, I say, of those who from their ancestors had received impiety, and who were the descendants of fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers like themselves, and who had suffered great miseries from the demons. How must they have felt after their sudden change! How would they face and tremble at the assaults of the demons! For their sake also he employs some reserve, saying, “But some with conscience of the things sacrificed to an idol. “ Thus he neither exposed them openly, not to strike them hard; nor doth he pass by them altogether: but makes mention of them in a vague manner, saying, “Now some with conscience of the idol even until now eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; that is, with the same thoughts as they did in former times: and their conscience being weak is defiled;’“ not yet being able to despise and once for all laugh them to scorn, but still in some doubt. Just as if a man were to think that by touching a dead body he should pollute himself according to the Jewish custom, and then seeing others touching it with a clear conscience, but not with the same mind touching it himself, would be polluted. This was their state of feeling at that time. “For some,” saith he, “with conscience of the idol do it even until now.” Not without cause did he add, “even until now;” but to signify that they gained no ground by their refusing to condescend. For this was not the way to bring them in, but in some other way persuading them by word and by teaching.

“And their conscience being weak is defiled.” No where as yet doth he state his argument about the nature of the thing, but turns himself this way and that as concerning the conscience of the person partaking. For he was afraid lest in his wish to correct the weak person, he should inflict a heavy blow upon the strong one, and make him also weak. On which account he spares the one no less than the other. Nor doth he allow the thing itself to be thought of any consequence, but makes his argument very full to prevent any suspicion of the kind.

[9.] Ver. 8. “But meat doth not commend us to God. For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.” Do you see how again he takes down their high spirit? in that, after saying that “not only they but all of us have knowledge,” and that “no one knoweth any thing as he ought to know,” and that “knowledge puffeth up;” then having soothed them, and said that “this knowledge is not in all,” and that “weakness is the cause of these being defiled,” in order that they might not say, “And what is it to us, if knowledge be not in all? Why then has not such an one knowledge? Why is he weak?”—I say, in order that they might not rejoin in these terms, he did not proceed immediately to point out clearly that for fear of the other’s harm one ought to abstain: but having first made but a sort of skirmish upon mention of him, he points out what is more than this. What then is this? That although no one were injured nor any perversion of another ensued, not even in this case were it right so to do. For the former topic by itself is laboring in vain. Since he that hears of another being hurt while himself has the gain, is not very apt to abstain; but then rather he doth so, when he finds out that he himself is no way advantaged by the thing. Wherefore he sets this down first, saying, “But meat commendeth us not to God.” See how cheap he holds that which was accounted to spring from perfect knowledge! “For neither if we eat are we the better,” (that is, stand higher in God’s estimation, as if we had done any thing good or great:) “nor if we eat not are we the worse,” that is, fall in any way short of others. So far then he hath signified that the thing itself is superfluous, and as nothing. For that which being done profits not, and which being left undone injures not, must be superfluous.

[10.] But as he goes on, he discloses all the harm which was likely to arise from the matter. For the present, however, that which befel the brethren is his subject.

Ver. 9. “For take heed,” saith he, “lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to the weak among the brethren.” (ton adelphon not in rec. text.)

He did not say, “Your liberty is become a stumbling-block,” nor did he positively affirm it that he might not make them more shameless; but how? “Take heed;” frightening them, and making them ashamed, and leading them to disavow any such conduct. And he said not, “This your knowledge,” which would have sounded more like praise; nor “this your perfectness;” but, “your liberty;” a thing which seemed to savor more of rashness and obstinacy and arrogance. Neither said he, “To the brethren,” but, “To those of the brethren who are weak;” enhancing his accusation from their not even sparing the weak, and those too their brethren. For let it be so that you correct them not, nor arouse them: yet why trip them up, and make them to stumble, when you ought to stretch out the hand? but for that you have no mind: well then, at least avoid casting them down. Since if one were wicked, he required punishment; if weak, healing: but now he is not only weak, but also a brother.

Ver. 10. “For if a man see thee who hast knowledge, sitting at meat in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to idols?”

After having said, “Take heed lest this your liberty become a stumbling-block,” he explains how and in what manner it becomes so: and he continually employs the term “weakness,” that the mischief may not be thought to arise from the nature of the thing, nor demons appear formidable. As thus: “At present,” saith he, “a man is on the point of withdrawing himself entirely from all idols; but when he sees you fond of loitering about them, he takes the circumstance for a recommendation and abides there himself also. So that not only his weakness, but also your ill-timed behavior, helps to further the plot against him; for it is you who make him weaker.”

Ver. 11. “And through thy meat he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died.”

For there are two things which deprive you of excuse in this mischief; one, that he is weak, the other, that he is thy brother: rather, I should say, there is a third also, and one more terrible than all. What then is this? That whereas Christ refused not even to die for him, thou canst not bear even to accommodate thyself to him. By these means, you see, he reminds the perfect man also, what he too was before, and that for him He died. And he said not, “For whom even to die was thy duty;” but what is much stronger, that even Christ died for his sake. “Did thy Lord then not refuse to die for him, and dost thou so make him of none account as not even to abstain from a polluted table for his sake? Yea, dost thou permit him to perish, after the salvation so wrought, and, what is still more grievous, for a morsel of meat?’ “For he said not, “for thy perfectness,” nor “for thy knowledge,” but “for thy meat.” So that the charges are four, and these extremely heavy: that it was a brother, that he was weak, and one of whom Christ made so much account as even to die for him, and that after all this for a “morsel of meat” he is destroyed.

Ver. 12. “And thus sinning against the brethren, and wounding their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.”

Do you observe how quietly and gradually he hath brought their offence up to the very summit of iniquity? And again, he makes mention of the infirmity of the other sort: and so, the very thing which these considered to make for them, that he every where turns round upon their own head. And he said not, “Putting stumbling-blocks in their way,” but, “wounding;” so as by the force of his expression to indicate their cruelty. For what can be more savage than a man who wounds the sick? and yet no wound is so grievous as making a man to stumble. Often, in fact, is this also the cause of death.

But how do they “sin against Christ?” In one way, because He considers the concerns of His servants as His own; in another, because those who are wounded go to make up His Body and that which is part of Him: in a third way, because that work of His which He built up by His own blood, these are destroying for their ambition’s sake.

[11.] Ver. 13. “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for ever.” This is like the best of teachers, to teach in his own person the things which he speaks. Nor did he say whether justly or unjustly; but in any case. “I say not,” (such is his tone,) “meat offered in sacrifice to an idol, which is already prohibited for another reason; but if any even of those things which are within license and are permitted causes stumbling, from these also will I abstain: and not one or two days, but all the time of my life.” For he saith, “I will eat no flesh for ever.” And he said not, “Lest I destroy my brother,” but simply, “That I make not my brother to stumble.” For indeed it comes of folly in the extreme that what things are greatly cared for by Christ, and such as He should have even chosen to die for them, these we should esteem so entirely beneath our notice as not even to abstain from meats on their account.

Now these things might be seasonably spoken not to them only, but also to us, apt as we are to esteem lightly the salvation of our neighbors and to utter those satanical words. I say, satanical: for the expression, “What care I, though such an one stumble, and such another perish?” savors of his cruelty and inhuman mind. And yet in that instance, the infirmity also of those who were offended had some share in the result: but in our case it is not so, sinning as we do in such a way as to offend even the strong. For when we smite, and raven, and overreach, and use the free as if they were slaves, whom is not this enough to offend? Tell me not of such a man’s being a shoemaker, another a dyer, another a brazier: but bear in mind that he is a believer and a brother. Why these are they whose disciples we are; the fishermen, the publicans, the tent-makers, of Him who was brought up in the house of a carpenter; and who deigned to have the carpenter’s betrothed wife for a mother; and who was laid, after His swaddling clothes, in a manger; and who had not where to lay His head;—of Him whose journeys were so long that His very journeying was enough to tire Him down; of Him who was supported by others.

[12.] Think on these things, and esteem the pride of man to be nothing. But count the tent-maker as well as thy brother, as him that is borne upon a chariot and hath innumerable servants and struts in the market-place: nay, rather the former than the latter; since the term brother would more naturally be used where there is the greater resemblance. Which then resembles the fisherman? He who is supported by daily labor and hath neither servant nor dwelling, but is quite beset with privations; or that other who is surrounded with such vast pomp, and who acts contrary to the laws of God? Despise not then him that is more of the two thy brother, for he comes nearer to the Apostolic pattern.

“Not however,” say you, “of his own accord, but by compulsion; for he doeth not this of his own mind.” How comes this? Hast thou not heard, “Judge not, that ye be not judged?” But, to convince thyself that he doeth it not against his inclination, approach and give him ten thousand talents of gold, and thou shalt see him putting it away from him. And thus, even though he have received no wealth by inheritance from his ancestors, yet when it is in his power to take it, and he lets it not come near him neither adds to his goods, he exhibits a mighty proof of his contempt of wealth. For so John was the son of Zebedee that extremely poor man: yet I suppose we are not therefore to say that his poverty was forced upon him.

Whensoever then thou seest one driving nails, smiting with a hammer, covered with soot, do not therefore hold him cheap, but rather for that reason admire him. Since even Peter girded himself, and handled the dragnet, and went a fishing after the Resurrection of the Lord.

And why say I Peter? For this same Paul himself, after his incessant runnings to and fro and all those vast miracles, standing in a tent-maker’s shop, sewed hides together: while angels were reverencing him and demons trembling. And he was not ashamed to say, (Acts xx. 34.) “Unto my necessities, and to those who were with me, these hands ministered.” What say I, that he was not ashamed? Yea, he gloried in this very thing.

But you will say, “Who is there now to be compared with the virtue of Paul?” I too am aware that there is no one, yet not on this account are those who live now to be despised: for if for Christ’s sake thou give honor, though one be last of all, yet if he be a believer he shall justly be honored. For suppose a general and a common soldier both present themselves before you, being friends of the king, and you open your house to both: in which of their persons would you seem to pay most honor to the king? Plainly in that of a soldier. For there were in the general, beside his loyalty to the king, many other things apt to win such a mark of respect from you: but the soldier had nothing else but his loyalty to the king.

Wherefore God bade us call to our suppers and our feasts the lame, and the maimed, and those who cannot repay us; for these are most of all properly called good deeds which are done for God’s sake. Whereas if thou entertain some great and distinguished man, it is not such pure mercy, what thou doest: but some portion many times is assigned to thyself also, both by vain-glory, and by the return of the favor, and by thy rising in many men’s estimation on account of thy guest. At any rate, I think I could point out many who with this view pay court to the more distinguished among the saints, namely, that by their means they may enjoy a greater intimacy with rulers, and that they may find them thenceforth more useful in their own affairs and to their families. And many such favors do they ask in recompense from those saints; a thing which mars the repayment of their hospitality, they seeking it with such a mind.

And why need I say this about the saints? Since he who seeks, even from God, the reward of his labors in the present life and follows after virtue for this world’s good, is sure to diminish his recompense. But he that asks for all his crowns wholly there, is found far more admirable; like that Lazarus, who even now is “receiving” (St. Luke xvi. 25.) there all “his good things;” like those Three Children, who when they were on the point of being thrown into the furnace said, (Dan. xvii. 17, 18.) “There is a God in heaven able to deliver us; and if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up:” like Abraham, who even offered his son and slew him; and this he did, not for any reward, but esteeming this one thing the greatest recompense, to obey the Lord.

These let us also imitate. For so shall we be visited with a return of all our good deeds and that abundantly, because we do all with such a mind as this: so shall we obtain also the brighter crowns. And God grant that we may all obtain them, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, honor, now, henceforth, and for everlasting ages. Amen.

↑ Back to top