Chapter V: Part I: The King’s Highway (1)

The Way, the Truth, and the Life.
(_Homilies on St. Matthew_,[4] lxxvi., vol. ii., p. 395.)

· · · · · · ·

Is not it with justice, then, that He turns away from us and chastises us, since in everything He is offering us Himself, and we are resisting Him? This is clear to all. ‘For,’ He says, ‘if you wish to adorn yourself you have My adornment, or to arm yourself you have My arms, or to dress yourself you have My clothing, or to eat you have My table, or to walk you have My road, or to inherit you have My inheritance, or to go into your own country you have that city of which I am the Builder and the Architect, or to build a house you have My tents. I do not demand of you a reward for the things which I give, but I owe interest to you besides for that reward if you are willing to make use of all that is Mine.’ What could equal this munificence? ‘I am father, I am brother, I am bridegroom, I am dwelling-place; I am food, I am clothing, I am root and foundation; I am all things whatsoever you desire: stand in need of no man. I will also be a slave, for I came to minister, not to be ministered to. I am a friend too; I am member and head, and brother, and sister, and mother; I am all things; only hold Me for your own. I am poor for you, and a wanderer for you; I was on the cross for you, and in the tomb for you; I intercede with the Father for you up above, and I came down to earth as a messenger to you from the Father. You are all things to Me—brother and co-heir, and friend and member.’ What more do you ask? Why do you turn away from Him, your Lover? Why do you labour for the world? Why do you pour water into a broken pitcher? For this is to toil for the life which now is. Why do you spin a web for burning? Why beat the air? Why run at random? Has not every art an object? This is clear to everyone. Show me, then, you also, the object of your labour in life. You have none.

_Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity._ Let us go into a churchyard; show me now your father, show me your wife. Where is he who was clothed in gold? Where is he who rode in his chariot? Where is he who had an army at his command, he who had a treasury, and he who held a public office? Where is he who killed some and cast others into prison, who slew whom he pleased and acquitted whom he pleased? I see nothing except bones, and the moth and the cobweb; all those things were dust and fable, and dream and shadow, and idle talk and an epitaph—indeed, not even an epitaph, for we see an epitaph on a figure, but in this place not even a figure. And would that evils ended here! Now, that which pertains to honour and feasting and great name is like a shadow and idle talk, but that which they produce is by no means a shadow or idle talk. Their effects remain, and will abide with us there and be evident to all—rapacity and selfishness, fornication, adultery, and a thousand vices of the same kind. These are not in the image nor in the ashes, but both words and deeds are written above. With what eyes, then, shall we look upon Christ? For if a man would not venture to see his father if he were conscious in his own mind of sinning against him, how shall we in that hour confront Him Who is infinitely gentler than a father? How shall we bear Him? For we shall stand before the tribunal of Christ, and there will be a strict scrutiny of all things. But if anyone disbelieve in that future judgment, let him consider things as they are on earth—those in prisons, for instance, those in mines and on dung-hills, possessed men, madmen, those who are fighting with incurable disease, those who are pinched by persistent poverty, those who are mated with hunger, those who are given over to unhealable sorrow, those who are in captivity. Men, indeed, would not now suffer these things if He did not ordain that reward and punishment should await all those who have been guilty of the like transgressions. And if these men incur no penalty in this world, you must take this to yourself as a sign that there is to be something in the next after our departure hence. For He Who is the Lord of all would not chastise some and leave others, who had been guilty of the same or of worse things, unchastised, if He did not reserve a punishment for them in the next world.

· · · · · · ·

Who is the Greater?
(_Homilies on St. Matthew_, lviii., vol. ii., p. 167.)

· · · · · · ·

_At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who, then, is the greater in the kingdom of heaven?_ The disciples had a human feeling, this is why the Evangelist lays special stress upon it, saying, _at that time_—that is, when He had singled out Peter for special honour. For in the case of James and John one was the first-born, but He did nothing of the kind for them. As, then, they are ashamed to own to their annoyance, they do not say openly: ‘Why hast Thou honoured Peter more than us?’ or, ‘Is he greater than we?’ they would not say this, but ask indefinitely: _Who is the greater?_ When they saw the three singled out for special honour, they had felt nothing of the kind; they _were_ grieved, however, when so great a distinction was conferred upon one. This was not all, for their feeling was intensified by putting many other favours together. For Our Lord said to him: _I will give thee the keys, and, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona_, and again, _Give it to them for Me and thee_; and, seeing Peter’s great fearlessness, they were irritated. And if Mark says that they did not put their question, but thought it in their own minds, this is not in any way contrary to Matthew’s account. For it is probable that they did both one and the other, both that they felt this at one time, and that at another they spoke out, and also had their own thoughts about it. Now, do not look merely at the accusation, but consider further, first, that they are not seeking earthly things, and secondly, that they afterwards overcame this feeling, and ceded the first places to each other. We, on the contrary, are neither able to reach their defects, nor do we seek who is the greater in the kingdom of heaven, but who is the greater in the kingdom of the world, who is the richer and the more powerful.

Now, what does Christ say? He reveals their conscience to them, and answers this feeling rather than their mere words. _Calling unto Him a little child, He said: Unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven._ ‘You, indeed, enquire who is the greater, and dispute about the first places; _I_ tell you that he who has not become meeker than all the rest is not worthy even to enter into that kingdom.’ And He brings the example before them in a beautiful way; and not only does He bring it before them, but He sets the child in the midst of them, admonishing them by the sight, and urging them to be both humble and unaffected. For a child is free from envy and from vainglory, and from the love of the first places, and he possesses the greatest virtue—simplicity, and unaffectedness and humility. It is not sufficient to have courage and prudence, but this virtue also: I mean humility and simplicity. For with the greatest, our salvation will be at fault, if we have not these. Contempt, blows, honour, or praise cause a child neither annoyance nor envy, nor is he thereby inflated. Do you see again how He excites us to natural qualities, showing us that these may be rightly directed by a free choice, and how He thus condemns the wretched fury of the Manicheans? For if nature be bad, why does He take from nature illustrations in favour of asceticism? The child seems to me most truly a child standing in the midst of them, free from all these passions. Such a child, indeed, is without folly, and the love of reputation, without jealousy and envy, and every affection of the kind; and having many virtues—simplicity, humility, unmeddlesomeness—he is not puffed up by any one of them; it is doubly wise to possess these things and not to be vain of them. This is why Our Lord called the child and set him in the midst of them; nor did He close His argument here, but He adds this further exhortation, saying: _He who shall receive one of these children in My name receives Me_. ‘Not only if you have become like to them shall you have a great reward, but also if you honour those like them for My sake, I will give you a kingdom as a reward for your honour of them.’ He says, indeed, more than this in the words _receives Me_. Thus, ardently am I to desire meekness and unaffectedness. Hence He calls men who ate thus simple and humble, and cast off by the multitude, and despised, children.

· · · · · · ·

The First are Last and the Last First.
(_Homilies on St. Matthew_, lxvii., vol. ii., p. 285.)

· · · · · · ·

Let no sinner despair: let no just man give way to sloth. Neither let the just be presumptuous, for it often happens that the harlot outstrips him; nor let the sinner be downcast, for he may overtake those who are first.

Listen to what God says to Jerusalem: _I said all these things after her adultery, Turn to Me, and she did not turn_. As often as we return to the burning charity of God, He no longer remembers our former sins. God is not as man: He does not reproach those who come to Him, or say, if we be really changed, ‘Why hast thou wasted so much time?’ but He loves us whenever we go to Him. Let us only go to Him in the right way. Let us cling fast to Him, and nail our hearts to His fear. These things have taken place not only recently, but they happened also of old. What was worse than Manasses? Yet he was able to appease God. Who was more blessed than Solomon? But torpor made him fall. Indeed, I can show the two things happening in one man; in Solomon’s father, for he himself was just and became wicked. Who was more blessed than Judas? Yet Judas became a traitor. What could be more miserable than Matthew? But he became an evangelist. What was worse than Paul? Still, Paul became an apostle. Who was more zealous than Simon? And yet Simon himself became the most wretched of all. How many more of the same vicissitudes would you contemplate—those both of the past and those which are taking place every day? So I say, neither let the man who is on the stage despair, nor let the man who is in the Church make too bold. To the latter it was said: _He who seems to stand, let him be careful lest he fall_, and to the former: _Does the fallen man not rise up again?_ and, _Restore languid hands and disabled knees_. Again, to the just it was said: _Watch_, but to sinners: _Arise, thou who sleepest, and rise from the dead_. The former have need to watch over what they possess, and the latter to become that which they are not as yet: the just to preserve their health, sinners to put off their sickness. For they _are_ sick, but many of the sick are sound, and some of the sound, by their carelessness, become sick. For it was to these that Our Lord said, _Go, thou art sound: sin no more, lest something worse should befal thee_; but to sinners, _Wilt thou be made sound? Take up thy bed and walk, and go into thy house._ Sin is indeed a dire paralysis, or, rather, it is not only a paralysis, but something more fearful. For a paralysed man is not only lacking good things, but is also a prey to bad ones. Still, if you are even in this state, and are willing to make a small effort to rise, all sins are remitted. Even if your sickness has lasted thirty-eight years, yet you strive to become sound: there is no one to prevent you. Christ is at hand now as then, and He says, _Take up thy bed_. Only be willing to rise; do not lose heart. Have you no man? You have God. Have you no one to put you into the pool? But you have One Who will not allow you to require the pool in vain. Have you no one to hold you in it? You have One Who commands you to take up your bed. You have not to say, _When I come, another gets down before me_. For if you wish to go down to the fountain no man hinders you. Charity is not spent nor consumed: it is a source which is always flowing upwards: out of His fulness we are all cured as to our soul and as to our body. Now, therefore, also, let us approach Him. Rahab was a harlot, yet she was saved; and the thief was a murderer, but he became a citizen of paradise; and Judas, being in the society of the Master, was lost, whilst the thief on the cross became a disciple. These are God’s paradoxes. Thus it was that the Magi found favour, that a publican became an evangelist, and a blasphemer an apostle.

Consider these things, and never despair, but be of good heart always, and raise yourself up. Keep to that path alone which leads above, and you will make rapid progress. Close not the doors nor block up the entrance. This time is short and the labour small. And if it were heavy, even then we should not refuse it. For if you are not weary with this most delicious weariness of wisdom and virtue, you will be weary with the weariness of the world, and will be worn out in another way. But if there be weariness here too, why do we not choose for ourselves that other which is so productive of fruit and has so great a reward? And yet this last weariness is not as the former. For in worldly things there are always risks and continuous penalties: hope is uncertain, much slavery of spirit is required, and there is expenditure of money, and of strength of body and of mind, and even then the compensation of results is far below the expectation, if there be any results at all. The sweat and toil of worldly business do not, indeed, in all cases produce fruit. Even in those instances in which they are not fruitless, but rich in results, these are short-lived. For it is when you grow old, and have no longer an acute sense of enjoyment that your labour yields its fruit. The hard work falls to the lot of the body at its prime, whereas the fruit and its enjoyment come when it is worn and aged, and time has dulled its perceptions, or, if it has not dulled them, the prospect of an approaching end forbids enjoyment. It is not so in the other case, but labour is the part of a mortal and corruptible body, and the crown belongs to a glorified and immortal one which is eternal. The labour comes first and is slight, but the reward comes last and is infinite, so that you may rest with security and be untroubled as to the future. There is no fear of change or of misfortune as there is here on earth. What goods, then, are these—insecure, slight, and earthly, which disappear before they appear, and are possessed with so much toil? How are they equal to those immutable, undecaying good things which are free from all hardships, and crown you in the time of warfare? The man who despises money receives his reward even on earth: he is free from care and envy, slander, treachery, and heart-burnings. The wise man, he who lives decorously, is crowned and in luxury before his flight hence, in his freedom from unseemliness and senseless laughter, and dangers and accusations, and all evils. In the same way, virtue, of whatever other kind, puts us already in possession of our reward. Let us then, fly from evil and choose the good, so that we may arrive at both present and future rewards. Thus we shall both enjoy our lives here and possess our crowns in heaven, which may it be given to us all to do through the love and mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

Variety of Human Lot.
(_Homilies on the First Epistle to the Corinthians_,[5] xxix., vol. ii.,
p. 359.)

· · · · · · ·

_One and the same Spirit worketh all things, distributing to each his own gifts according to His pleasure._ Therefore he says, let us not be troubled or grieved, thinking to ourselves, ‘Why have I received this and not received that?’ Neither must we scrutinise the doings of the Holy Spirit. For if you know that He has shown you favour out of kindness, considering that out of the same kindness He has also put a limit to His gift, acquiesce and rejoice in what you have received, and be not down-hearted about what you have not received, but rather give thanks that your gift is not beyond your power. If it behoves us not to be over-eager in spiritual things, how much less in those of the flesh; but we should be at ease, and not be disturbed because one man is rich and another poor. In the first place, not every rich man gets his wealth from God, but many become rich through injustice and avarice and graspingness. For how could He, Who commands us not to lay up riches, have given that which He prohibited our taking? Now, in order that I may silence those who differ from us in this with the more authority, let us go deeper into the argument. Tell me why were riches given by God? Why was it that Abraham was rich, and that Jacob even wanted bread? Were not both righteous men? Had not God said equally of the three, _I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob_? Why then was the one rich and the other in poverty? Or, rather, why was Esau, the unjust and fratricidal man, rich, and Jacob in servitude for so long? Again, why did Isaac pass his whole life in ease, and Jacob in toils and hardships, so that he said, _My days are short and miserable_? Why did David, too, being both prophet and king, as he was, live his life in labour, whilst his son Solomon was, during forty years, the richest of men, in the enjoyment of enduring peace, glory, and honour, and every possible luxury? Why, in short, amongst the prophets was one tried more and another less? Because thus it was profitable to each. Therefore, every man should say, _Thy judgments are a deep abyss_. For if God exercised those great and admirable men in different ways—one through poverty, another through riches; one by a life of ease, another by tribulation—it behoves us all the more to take the same lesson now to heart. Together with these considerations, we must admit that many things happen to us, which are not according to His judgment, but the result of our own wickedness. Say not, then, ‘Why is it that a man is rich, being bad, and another man is poor, being just?’ We may easily explain this, and say that neither does the just man suffer any harm from his poverty, which is a source of greater merit to him, and that the unjust man, unless he be converted, possesses in his riches a store of wrath, and that, in place of chastisement, the riches of many men have often been the cause of evil to them, and led them into a thousand abysses. But God leaves them these riches, showing everywhere the free action of divine choice, everywhere teaching other men not to fight nor to strive for money. ‘What, then,’ you say, ‘if a bad man becomes rich, and suffers no harm? If a righteous man were to become rich, it would be just, but what are we to say when a bad man does?’ That on this account he is to be pitied. For wealth added to wickedness increases the intensity of passions. But a man is just, and he is starving. Well, it does him no harm. But he is bad, and starving. Well, he has his just deserts, or, rather, what is for his good. ‘But so and so,’ you say, ‘received his wealth from ancestors, and has squandered it on bad women and parasites, and he is none the worse.’ How is this? Will you call him a dissolute man, and say he is none the worse? He is a drunkard, and do you call it enjoyment? He wastes for no good purpose, and do you look upon him as enviable? What could a man do worse than to be making his soul an ignominy? If a body were to be distorted or maimed, you would think it the saddest matter in the world; yet, contemplating that man’s soul wholly maimed, do you consider him a happy man? ‘But,’ you say, ‘he does not feel it.’ And for this very reason he is the more to be pitied, just as men who lose their wits are. For he who knows that he is ill will seek the physician honestly and apply remedies; whereas he who does not know it will be beyond cure. Tell me, then, is this the man you consider happy? But this is not astonishing, for the majority of men are devoid of a right estimate of things. So it is that, when chastised, we pay the extreme penalty, and are not freed from wrath; hence come desires and despondencies and perpetual anxieties, since, when God shows us a painless life, that of goodness, by removing ourselves from it, we choose another road, the way of riches and money, which is productive of a thousand evils. We act as a man would act, who, not being able to judge of physical beauty, but, ascribing everything to clothes and adornment, should pass over a young woman, possessing comeliness of body, and take to himself an ugly one, deformed and crippled, merely for her fine dress. The great mass of men now do something of this kind in the matter of goodness and badness, by following their bad nature on account of its outward attraction, and by turning away from the good nature, which is blooming and beautiful, on account of its unadorned comeliness, the very reason why they should have chosen it.

· · · · · · ·

Whence the Rich?
(_Homilies on First Epistle to Corinthians_, xxxiv., vol. ii., p. 430.)

· · · · · · ·

You ask, ‘Whence come the rich?’ for it is written, _Riches and poverty are from the Lord_. Now let us ask those who urge this upon us, ‘Then is all wealth and all poverty from the Lord?’ Who would say as much? For we see many laying up riches for themselves through rapacity, through the spoliation of tombs, through sorcery, and other means of the same kind, and that those who possess these riches are unworthy even of living. Now, tell me, is this the wealth we recognise as from God? No, far from it. Whence, then, does it come? From sin. For a bad woman grows rich by misusing her body, and the handsome youth often bartering the flower of his years possesses his money in ignominy, and the invader of graves who unearths tombs amasses the wealth of unrighteousness, just as the thief does by breaking down walls. Therefore not all wealth is from God. How then, you ask, shall we answer this argument? In the first place, understand that poverty was not made by God either, and then we will examine our argument. When a licentious youth either spends his riches upon bad women, or upon magical arts, or upon any other lusts of the same nature, and thus becomes poor, is it not evident that it is brought about not by God, but by his own riotousness? Again, if a man were to become poor through sloth, or to fall into poverty because of his want of sense, or to engage in perilous and unlawful pursuits, is it not evident once more that no one of these or those like them would be thrust into this want by God? Then, is the Scripture false? God forbid, but those who lay down the law on all the Scripture with insufficient discernment are wanting in sense. For if it be asserted that the Scripture is trustworthy, and it be proved that not all wealth is from God, then the difficulty lies in the weakness of those who put an inconsiderate construction upon such things. I ought indeed to have let you alone on this point, having first cleared the Scripture of blame, in order to make you pay a penalty for your carelessness concerning it; yet since I have great pity on you, and cannot bear to see you more troubled and confounded, let me add the explanation, considering in the first place who said it, then when it was said, and to whom.

For God does not speak in the same way to all, just as we ourselves do not use children as we use men. Now, when is it said, and by whom, and to whom? By Solomon of old to the Jews, who were familiar with sensible things only, and measured God’s power by these. It is they who say, _Is He not able to give us bread_? and, _What sign dost Thou show us? Our fathers ate manna in the desert, whose belly is their God_. Since they estimated Him by these things, he tells them that God is also able to make men rich and poor, not that He Himself does it altogether, but that He can do it if He choose, as when He says, _He rebuketh the sea, and drieth it up, and bringeth all the rivers to be a desert_, although this never happened at all. How, then, does the prophet say that it did? Not as really taking place, but implying His power to do it. Now, what sort of poverty does He give and what sort of wealth? Call to mind the patriarch, and you will see what the riches are which God bestows. For it was He Who made Abraham rich, and Job after him, as Job admitted in the words: _If we have received good things from the Lord, shall we not endure the bad things as well?_ And later on their twofold increase was His gift. And Jacob’s riches began from the same source. There is a poverty which is praised by Him, that which He proposed to that rich young man, saying, _If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and come and follow Me_; and again, when legislating for the disciples, He said, _Ye shall not possess gold nor silver nor two cloaks_. Therefore, do not say that He gives wealth to all without exception, for I have shown you that it is put together by murders and covetousness and a thousand other like causes.

· · · · · · ·

The Rich Young Man.
(_Homilies on St. Matthew_, lxiii., vol. ii., p. 227.)

_And behold one came and said to Him: Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?_ Some reject this young man as insidious and bad. I, however, would not deny that he was a lover of money, and unable to resist it, since Christ convicted him of this; but I should not admit that he was insidious, because it is not safe to make a venture upon what is unknown, especially in accusations, and because St. Mark has removed this doubt. For he says _that running up and kneeling before_ Him, he asked Him a question, and again, that _Jesus, looking upon him, loved him_. But great is the tyranny of money as we gather from this; for even if we be quite faultless as to other things, it alone spoils everything else. St. Paul too justly called it the root of all evils. _The love of money_, he says, _is the root of all evils_. Now, why did Our Lord answer him by saying, _No man is good_. Because the youth approached Him as a mere man, as one of many, and a Jewish teacher: on this account Our Lord spoke as man to man with him. For He frequently answers according to the secret mind of those who come to Him, as, for instance, when He says, _We adore what we know_, and, _If I bear witness to Myself, My witness is not true_. When, then, He says, _No man is good_, He does not say it to repudiate His own goodness—far from it; for He does not say, ‘Why do you call _Me_ good? I am not good,’ but, _No man is good_, that is, no man at all.

When He speaks in this way, He is not defrauding men of all goodness, but making a distinction as to God’s goodness. So He added: _Only God is good_. And He did not say, ‘Only my Father,’ that you may know that He did not disclose Himself to the youth. Thus, higher up, He called all men bad, saying, _But if you who are bad know how to give good gifts to your children_. And if He called them wicked in this place, He did not condemn human nature as altogether bad (for He says _you_, not ‘you, the human race’). He so called them, because He was putting the goodness of man by the side of the goodness of God, and therefore He added, _How much more will your Father give good gifts to those who ask Him_. And, you may say, what necessity or advantage was there that He should answer the young man in this way? He leads him up by degrees, teaches him to put off all deception, withdraws him from the things of earth, nailing him to God, inducing him to seek the things to come, to know the good, the root and foundation of all things, and to refer honour back to Him. And thus when He says, _You shall call no man master upon earth_, He said it to make a distinction as to Himself, that they might learn Who was the first Beginning of all things. For, so far, the young man had shown no slight willingness by rushing eagerly to embrace this love; and whilst others had come, some to tempt, others for the curing of disease, whether it was their own or their neighbours’, he had come and had spoken for the sake of eternal life. The soil indeed was rich and moist, but the brambles overpowered and stifled the seed. For consider how far up to this point he is disposed to obey commands. _What shall I do_, he says, _that I may inherit eternal life?_ Thus ready was he to accomplish what he should be told. But if he had come to Our Lord to tempt Him, the Evangelist would have told us so, as he does in other instances, and in that of the advocate. But if the young man was silent, Christ would not have allowed him to escape unknown, but would have convicted him wisely, or have hinted at his meaning, so that the youth should not think he had deceived and escaped without recognition, and so have been misled. If he had come to tempt, he would not have gone away sad, because of what he heard. This, at least, was not what any one of the Pharisees of the day did; but when they were silenced, they were angry. It was not so with the young man: _he_ went away cast-down, which was no small proof that he had come with a weak rather than a bad intention, with the desire of life, but weighed down by another and a stronger passion.

Therefore, when Our Lord said, _If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments_, he asks, _Which commandments?_ This was not said tempting—far from it—but thinking that he was to know of other commandments besides those of the Law, which would help him to life. This showed a great desire on his part. Then, when Jesus enumerated those of the Law, he said, _All these have I kept from my youth_. And he did not stop his enquiry here, but asked further, _What is yet wanting to me?_ which in itself was a proof of his eagerness. His thinking himself to be still wanting in something, and his deeming that the things already specified were not sufficient, was no small step towards gaining what he desired. What does Christ say? As He was about to accomplish a great work, He put the prize before the youth and said, _If thou wouldst be perfect, go, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have a treasure in heaven, and come and follow Me_. Do you see what rewards and crowns He sets for this career? If the young man had been tempting, he would not have spoken these things to Him. But now He does speak, and, as it were, draws him to Himself, shows him the reward to be exceedingly great, and unfolds the whole before his mind, hiding throughout the semblance of irksomeness in the advice. Therefore, before speaking of the combat and the labour, He shows him the reward, saying, _If thou wilt be perfect_; then He adds, _Go, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and_, again returning to the rewards, _thou shalt have a treasure in heaven, and come and follow Me_. For the following Him is a great compensation. _And thou shalt have a treasure in heaven._ Hence, as the matter turned on money, and He was exhorting the young man to strip himself of everything, He points out that He does not take away possessions, but adds to them, and that He gives more things than those of which He commanded the sacrifice; and not merely are they more, but they are as much greater as heaven is than earth, and even more. He spoke of a treasure which is double the thing given, showing it to be abiding and secure, intimating thus through human things what His listener was to understand. Indeed, it is not enough to despise money, but a man must also feed the poor and follow Christ above all things; that is, he must carry out all His commandments, hold himself in readiness to be slaughtered and to suffer death any day. _If any man wish to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me._ As this command was a much higher one than the giving up of money—even the shedding of blood—so the giving up of money is no slight help towards its fulfilment. And when the young man had heard this word, _he went away sad_. Then, as if to show that he had felt nothing unreasonable, the Evangelist said, _for he was very rich_. Those who possess a little and those who are steeped in abundance are not equally restrained; then it is that love becomes more tyrannical. So I will not cease to say that the addition of superfluities is fuel to the fire, that it makes their possessors poorer, that it increases, indeed, their desires, and makes them conscious of greater needs. See how, in this case, passion showed its strength. For when Our Lord commanded the man, who came to him with joyful readiness, to renounce his money, he was so cast down and perturbed as to go away without giving any answer at all; and having become silent and sad and gloomy, he thus departed.

· · · · · · ·

Different Kinds of Friendship.
(_Homilies on St. Matthew_, lx., vol. ii., p. 199.)

· · · · · · ·

Let us now consider the various forms which friendship takes with the majority of men. One man loves because he is loved; another because he has been honoured; another shows a liking for a man who has been of use to him in some practical matter or other; another, again, for some such similar reason; but it is difficult, indeed, to find a man who loves his neighbour thoroughly and as he ought for Christ’s sake. For in most cases it is temporal business which brings men together. St. Paul did not love in this way: he loved for Christ’s sake, so that he loved others whether he was loved by them or not, and did not break charity, since he had laid a strong foundation for his love-charm. It is not so now; indeed, if we search diligently, we shall find in most men a fictitious friendship rather than this. And if anyone gave me power to enquire into the matter in so great a multitude, I could show that the majority are bound to each other for worldly reasons. This is apparent from the causes which produce enmity. Since, then, men are bound to each other for motives so paltry, there is neither warmth nor fidelity in their mutual dealings; but contempt, and money losses, and jealousy, the love of honour, or any similar thing showing itself, destroys the love-charm. It rests not upon a spiritual foundation. If it were so, worldly things would never break up spiritual things. The love, indeed, which is born of Christ is strong and enduring and invincible, and nothing has power to dissolve it—neither calumnies, nor dangers, nor death, nor any other of these things whatsoever. If a man who thus loves should suffer in a thousand ways, contemplating that on which love rests, he stands unmoved. But the man who loves because he is loved, if he should suffer some foolish thing or other, breaks up his friendship, whilst the former is firm to the end. This is why St. Paul said, _Charity never falleth away_. What answer would you make? That the man whom you have honoured is a reviler? or that the one whom you have benefited would wish to put you to death? But if you love for Our Lord’s sake, this encourages you to love all the more. For those things which are destructive to love in other cases become productive of it in this particular one. How so? In the first place, because the man so loved is the cause of your reward; secondly, because one thus situated requires special help and much care. On this account a man who loves for Our Lord’s sake does not enquire about family, or country, or riches, or demand love in return: he concerns himself about none of these things, but even if he be hated, or despised, or destroyed, he still loves, because his affection is built on a strong foundation—Christ. Hence he stands firm, steadfast, immutable, with his eyes on Our Lord. So it was that Christ loved His enemies—harsh men, scoffers, blasphemers, haters, those who wished not even to see Him, those who preferred stones and wood to His love, and He loved them with the charity from above, in comparison with which there is no other charity to be found. _For_, He says, _no man hath greater charity than this, that he giveth his life for his friends_. See how loving He ceases not to be towards the very men who crucified Him and reviled Him. He even spoke for them to His Father, saying, _Forgive them, for they know not what they do_. And, later on, He charged His disciples with those same men. Let us, then, be zealous for this same charity, and strive to possess it, that, being made the imitators of Christ, we may enjoy both present and future good things by the grace and tenderness of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The Buyers and Sellers in the Temple.
(_Homilies on St. Matthew_, lxvii., vol. ii., p. 277.)

_And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the chairs of them that sold doves. And He saith to them: It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves._ John says the same thing, but he says it in the beginning of his gospel, whereas Matthew says it towards the end. Hence it is evident that the thing recounted took place twice and at different times. This is clear from the time and from the answer. In St. Matthew it happened at the very time of the Pasch; in St. John a good deal before it. In the latter the Jews say, _What sign dost Thou show us?_ but in the former they are silent as if rebuked, because He was an object of wonder to all men. His doing the same action twice, and this in an authoritative way, strengthens the charge against the Jews, for they remained at their traffic, and called Him God’s enemy, when they should have learnt from this His action how much He honoured His Father and what His own power was. For He was working wonders, and they saw a correspondence between His words and His deeds. Still they were unmoved and discontented, and this in the face of the loud testimony of the Prophet and of children witnessing to Him, with a wisdom beyond their years. This is why He Himself uses as an arm against them the accusing words of Isaias: _My house shall be called the house of prayer_. He shows His power not only in this way, but in the curing of many kinds of diseases; for the lame and the blind came to Him and He cured them, and He shows forth His power and His authority. They, however, were not persuaded in this way; but after seeing these wonders, and listening to children bearing witness to Him, they say, _Dost Thou not hear what these say?_ This was what Christ might have said to _them_: ‘Do you not hear what these say?’ for they sang to Him as to God. What does He do? Since they spoke against visible signs, He makes use of a stronger correction, saying, _Have you never read, Out of the mouths of infants and of sucklings Thou hast perfected praise?_ He said well, _out of the mouths_. For that which they said did not come from themselves, but from that power of His which controlled the words of their tongues. This indeed was a type amongst the nations of those who faltered and cried out confusedly, speaking great things with discernment and faith. Hence it was no small encouragement to the Apostles also. In order that they should not be perplexed as to how they, being unlearned, are to announce the Gospel tidings, these children by anticipation have cast out their fear, because He who has caused the children to sing will give them also reasoning powers. This was not all that the wonder made manifest: it showed Him to be the Lord of creation. These children of unripe age, on the one hand, gave voice to words of good omen which were in harmony with the things above; but men, on the contrary, to outbursts of folly and madness. Such was their badness. Whilst then, they had many incitements to anger, the attitude of the crowd, the throwing over of the tables of the buyers, the voice of His wonders, that of the children, He again leaves them, allowing their passion to cool, and not wishing to begin His teaching lest, boiling over with jealousy, they should be still more angered at what had been said.

· · · · · · ·

The Voice of Good Deeds.
(_Homilies on St. Matthew_, xlvi., vol. ii., p. 14.)

· · · · · · ·

If twelve men leavened the whole world, consider what _our_ wickedness must be, inasmuch as we, being so many, are unable to convert the remainder, when we ought to suffice for the leavening of a thousand worlds. ‘But,’ some one says, ‘they were apostles.’ What does this matter? Had not they the same surroundings as you? Were they not reared in cities? Did they not lead the same sort of life? Did they not follow a trade? Were they angels? Did they come down from heaven? ‘But,’ you say, ‘they worked wonders.’ It was not the wonders which made them famous. How long shall we use our own softness as a pretext for not considering those wonders? For many who cast out devils, since they afterwards worked iniquity, did not become renowned, but were even chastised. And what is it, you ask, which pointed them out as great? The despising of money and of reputation, and the withdrawal from worldly business. If they had been without these things, and had been slaves to their passions, even if they had raised up a thousand dead men, not only they would have done no good, but they would have been looked upon as deceivers. Thus, it is the life in every case which is resplendent, and which draws upon itself the unction of the Spirit. Did not John work a sign when he made so many cities hang upon his words? Yet listen to the Evangelist saying that he worked no wonder: _John did no wonder_. How did Elias become renowned? Was it not by his outspokenness with the king—by his zeal for God’s service—by his possessing nothing—by his sheep-skin, and his cavern, and his mountains? For he worked his wonders after all these things. What sign did the devil see Job doing when he was struck with amazement? Not any at all, but he found him leading a resplendent life, which showed forth an endurance firmer than adamant. What sign had David accomplished for God to say of him, when still a youth, _I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart_? What dead man did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob raise to life? What leper did they cleanse? Do you not know that, if we are not watchful, wonder-working is often harmful? Thus it was that many of the Corinthians fell into schism and many Romans lost their right mind. Thus, too, that Simon was cast out, and that the man who desired to follow Christ refused the call when he heard that _foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests_. Each of these, the one seeking money, and the other glory from the working of signs, fell away and were lost. But purity of life and the love of goodness not only do not produce this desire, but they take it away where it exists. And what did He Himself say when He was laying down the law to His disciples? Did He say, ‘You shall do signs in order that men may see’? Not at all, but, rather, _Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Who is in heaven_. Nor did He say to Peter, ‘If thou lovest Me, work wonders,’ but, _Feed My sheep_. And, honouring Peter, with James and John, in every instance more than the rest, how does He show this honour, tell me? Is it in the doing of wonders? No; for they all cleansed lepers, and raised the dead to life, and to all He gave authority in equal measure. How then were those three distinguished? By interior virtue. Do you see that, everywhere, life is the need, and the manifestation of works? _By their fruits_, He said, _you shall know them_. What is it which approves our life? Is it the manifestation of wonders or an irreproachable conduct? Clearly it is the latter; for the reason which calls forth signs belongs to this world, and they cease in the next. The man who gives an example of a good life draws this charity upon himself; and he who shines by charity shines in this way, in order that he may correct the life of others. Since Christ also worked those wonders in order that He might appear worthy of confidence in this world, and, drawing men to Himself, might introduce virtue into life; therefore, more stress is laid upon this point. For He is not contented with signs alone, but He threatens hell, and He preaches the kingdom, and He enacts those marvellous laws, and everything is done with a view to His making men like to angels. But why do I say that Christ does everything unto this end? Tell me, if anyone gave _you_ your choice either to raise up the dead in His name or to die for His name’s sake, which would you choose? The latter surely; for the one is a sign and the other is a deed. Again, if anyone offered you the power of turning grass into gold, or that of looking down upon all gold as if it were grass, would you not rather choose the latter, and with good reason? It would be this which would attract men. For if they were to see food turned into gold, and were even desirous of taking the same power into their own hands, as Simon was, the love of money would be increased in them; but if they were to see all men looking down upon money as upon grass, and making little of it, they would be cured of this disease.

· · · · · · ·

The Best Controversy.
(_Homilies on St. Matthew_, xv., vol. i., p. 201.)

· · · · · · ·