Homilies on First Corinthians 20

Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge.

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

It is necessary first to say what this passage means for him;

for thus the argument will be easy for us to grasp.

For he who sees a man being accused, unless he first perceives the nature of the offense, will not know what the things spoken are.

What then was it that he was charging the Corinthians with at that time? A great charge, and the cause of many evils.

What kind of thing was this? Many among them, having learned that it is not the things which enter in that defile the man, but the things which proceed out, and that idols—being wood and stones and demons—can neither harm nor profit, made an immoderate use of this perfection of knowledge, both to the injury of others and to their own.

For they even went into idol temples, and partook of the tables there, and from this begot a great destruction.

For those who still had the fear of idols, and did not know how to despise them, partook of those banquets because they saw the more perfect doing this, and were greatly injured thereby; for they did not touch what was set before them with the same mind as those others, but as of things sacrificed to idols, and the thing became a road to idolatry.

And these very ones again, the supposedly more perfect, were injured in no ordinary way, enjoying the tables of demons. This, then, was the charge.

But this blessed man, being about to correct it, does not straightway use vehement language;

for the thing done was rather of folly than of wickedness.

Wherefore also at the outset it rather needed exhortation than sharp rebuke and wrath.

Consider, then, his discretion, how at once he begins his admonition.

Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge.

Leaving the weak—which he always does—

he addresses himself first to the strong.

For this he did also in the Epistle to the Romans, saying:

But you, why do you judge your brother? For this is the one who is also able readily to receive reproof.

And he empties out their conceit first, for what they thought was their own peculiar distinction—to have perfect knowledge—this he declares to be common to all;

For we know, he says, that we all have knowledge.

For indeed, if leaving them to be high-minded he had first shown the thing to be injurious to others, he would not have profited them so much as he would have harmed them.

For the ambitious soul, when it prides itself upon something, even though this injure others, clings to it exceedingly through the tyranny of vainglory.

For this reason Paul first examines the matter by itself, in and of itself, as he also did in what went before concerning the wisdom that is from without, overthrowing it with vehemence.

But there indeed he did this reasonably;

for the whole thing throughout was worthy of condemnation, and great was the facility of it;

wherefore he shows it to be not merely superfluous, but even contrary to the preaching.

But here it was not possible to do this;

for it was knowledge that was in question, and perfect knowledge.

Neither, then, was it safe to cast it down, and yet it was not otherwise possible to expel the conceit that rested upon it.

What then does he do? First, by showing it to be common, he abates their swelling.

For those who have something great and good, when they alone possess it, are the more lifted up;

but if they appear to possess it together with others, they no longer experience this in the same way.

First, then, he makes it common, since those men supposed it to belong to themselves alone;

then, having made it common, he does not place himself alone in the fellowship, since in that way too he would rather have exalted them.

For just as to have it alone lifts one up, so to have one or two of the eminent as sharers does this no less.

For this reason he does not set down himself, but all.

For he did not say, 'I too have knowledge,' but, 'We know that we all have knowledge.'

By this one thing, then, first, he cast down their pride; and by a second more forcibly.

By what second thing? By showing that not even the thing itself is complete, but even very imperfect;

and not only imperfect, but even harmful, if there be not another thing joined together with it.

For having said, 'that we all have knowledge,' he added:

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

So that, when it is without love, it even lifts one up to arrogance.

But neither, he says, has love any gain apart from knowledge;

yet, dismissing this as admitted, he shows that this latter greatly needs the former.

For he that loves, inasmuch as he fulfills the commandment that is chief of all, even if he have some deficiencies, will speedily attain to knowledge because of his love, just like Cornelius and many others;

but he that has knowledge, yet has not love, not only will gain nothing more, but will even fall from that which he has, often falling into arrogance.

So that knowledge is not productive of love, but on the contrary even severs off the one who does not give heed, puffing him up and lifting him high.

For arrogance is wont to divide;

but love both gathers together and leads to knowledge.

Which very thing, then, making plain, he said:

But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

So that it is not this I forbid, he says—the having of perfect knowledge—but the having of it with love, this is what I enjoin;

since otherwise there is no gain, but even harm.

Do you see how already he strikes the prelude of his discourse on love? For since all these evils came to pass from this—not from perfect knowledge, but from not loving intensely nor sparing one's neighbors, from which sprang both their being torn asunder and their being lifted up, and all the other things which he charged against them, both before this and after—he continually gives heed to it, correcting the fountain of good things.

Why then are you puffed up, he says, over your knowledge? For if you have not love, you will even be harmed thereby;

for what is worse than arrogance? But if that other be present, this too will be in safety.

For even if you know something more than your neighbor, loving him you are not lifted up, but lead him too on to this.

Wherefore also, having said, 'Knowledge puffs up,' he added, 'But love builds up.'

He did not say, 'It makes one moderate,' but something far greater.

For knowledge did not merely puff up, but it also tore apart.

For this reason he set this over against that.

Then he adds a third consideration also, one capable of pulling them down.

And what kind of thing is this? That even if love be joined to it, not even so is this knowledge perfect and complete.

'But if anyone thinks that he knows something, he does not yet know anything as he ought to know.'

For I do not say, he means, that knowledge is common to all;

I do not say that in hating your neighbour and being puffed up with conceit you do yourself the greatest harm.

For even if you possess it alone, even if you are moderate, even if you love your brother, even so you are imperfect in respect of knowledge;

for you do not yet know anything as one ought to know.

But if we do not yet have exact knowledge of anything, how have some driven themselves to such a pitch of madness as to say that they know God with all exactness? Whereas even if we had exact knowledge of all other things, not even so would it be possible to have this knowledge in that manner.

For how great the distance between Him and all things, it is not even possible to tell.

And observe how he pulled down their swelling pride.

For he did not say that 'Concerning the matters at hand you do not have the fitting knowledge,' but concerning every matter whatsoever.

And he did not say, 'You,' but, 'No one whosoever'—even if it be Peter, even if Paul, even if anyone at all.

For by this he both consoled them and restrained them with exactness.

'But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.'

He did not say, 'He has known Him,' but, 'He is known by Him.'

For it is not we who have known Him, but He who has known us.

Wherefore Christ also said, 'You did not choose Me, but I chose you.'

And Paul in another place, 'But then I shall know fully, even as also I was fully known.'

Consider, then, by how many means he brought down their high-mindedness.

First he showed that they are not the only ones who know the things which they know;

'For we all,' he says, 'have knowledge;'

then, that the thing is harmful when it is apart from love;

'For knowledge,' he says, 'puffs up;'

then, that even when it is with love, it is not complete nor perfect;

'For if anyone thinks that he knows something, he does not yet know anything,' he says, 'as he ought to know.'

In addition to these, that they do not have even this very thing of themselves, but because God has bestowed it;

for he did not say, 'He has known God,' but, 'He is known by Him;'

then, that this very thing comes from love, which they do not have as they should;

'For if anyone,' he says, 'loves God, this one is known by Him.'

Having, then, through so many means smoothed down their inflammation, he begins to lay down doctrine, speaking thus:

'Concerning the eating, then, of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no idol in the world, and that there is no other God but one.'

Behold into how great a strait he fell.

For he wishes to establish both points: both that one ought to abstain from such a table, and that it has no power to harm those who partake of it;

which points were not very consistent with each other.

For having learned that it has no harm in it, they were likely to run to it as to things indifferent;

but being forbidden to touch these things, they again suspected that they were forbidden as though the idols had power to harm.

For this reason, therefore, having overthrown the false notion concerning the idols, he sets down as the first cause for abstaining the stumbling-blocks of the brethren, speaking thus:

'Concerning the eating, then, of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no idol in the world.'

Again he makes this knowledge common, and does not allow it to belong to those alone, but extends the knowledge everywhere throughout the world.

For not among you alone, he says, but everywhere on earth this doctrine prevails;

And what kind of thing is this? That there is no idol in the world, and that there is no other God but one. Are there then no idols? Are there no carved images? There are indeed, but they have no power, nor are they gods, but stones and demons.

For he is now directing his words against both parties: both against the grosser sort among them and against those who seem to be philosophers.

For since some know nothing more than the stones, while others say that certain powers dwell in them, which they also call gods, to the former he says that 'There is no idol in the world;'

and to the latter, that 'There is no other God but one.'

Do you see how he does not write these things merely as laying down doctrine, but by way of contrast with those outside? For this too one must everywhere observe, whether he says something absolutely, or as taking a stand against certain persons.

For it is no ordinary contribution to our exactness in doctrine

that this contributes, and to the very understanding of what is said.

'For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords;'

'yet to us there is one God, the Father, from 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 there is no idol and no other God, but there were both idols and so-called gods;

in order that he might not seem to contradict things manifest, he adds, saying (for even if there are so-called gods, as indeed there are, they are not gods simply, but so-called, having this not in reality but in name)—

'Whether in heaven or on earth;'

in heaven meaning the sun and the moon and the rest of the choir of stars;

for these too the Greeks worshipped;

and on earth, the demons, and all those men who had been made into gods.

'But to us there is one God, the Father.'

Having first set down the Father apart, and having said, 'There is no other God but one,' now he adds this also, after he had wholly cast out those others.

Then he adds that also which is the greatest proof of Godhead:

for this shows that those others are not gods.

'For the gods,' he says, 'who did not make the heaven and the earth, let them perish.'

Then he adds that also which is not less than this:

For when he says, 'From whom are all things,' he speaks of the creation and the bringing forth from non-being into being;

but when he says, 'And we unto Him,' he speaks of the principle of faith and of our appropriation to Him.

'But of Him are you also in Christ Jesus.'

For we are of Him in a twofold manner: both by our coming into being from non-being, and by our becoming faithful;

for this too is a creation.

That He might create in Himself of the two one new man.

And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him.

And in the case of Christ, again, this must be understood in the same way.

For through Him the race of men was both brought out of non-being into being, and returned from error to the truth.

So that the phrase 'of whom' does not mean 'apart from Christ';

for it is out of Him, through Christ, that we were created.

Nor, then, did he divide up the names as though they were allotted exclusively, assigning to the Son 'Lord' and to the Father 'God'.

For Scripture knows also often to interchange them, as when it says:

'The Lord said unto my Lord';

and again, 'Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee';

and, 'Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God.'

And in many places you may see these names passing over from one to the other.

But if they had been allotted exclusively to each nature, and if the Son were not God, and God even as the Father, while remaining Son;

then in saying, 'But to us there is one God,' he would have added 'the Father' superfluously, wishing to make known the Unbegotten;

for the word 'God' would have sufficed to indicate this, if indeed it were distinctive of Him alone.

And not this only, but there is yet another thing to be said.

For if you should say that, since 'one God' has been spoken, the title 'God' does not befit the Son, consider that the same thing is laid down concerning the Son also.

For the Son too is called 'one Lord,' and yet we do not on that account say that 'Lord' befits Him alone.

So that whatever force 'One' has in the case of the Son, this it has in the case of the Father also;

and just as it does not thrust the Father out from being Lord, in the way that the Son is Lord, because the Son is called one Lord;

so neither does it cast the Son out from being God, in the way that the Father is God, because the Father is called one God.

For what reason did he make no mention of the Spirit? This we would say: that his discourse was directed against idolaters, and the contest was concerning many gods and many lords.

Therefore, having called the Father God, he called the Son Lord.

If, then, he did not venture now to call the Father Lord together with the Son, lest he should be suspected by those men of speaking of two Lords, nor the Son God together with the Father, lest he should be thought to speak of two gods;

why do you wonder if he made no mention of the Spirit? For his contest was for the time being against those men, and to show that there is no polytheism among us.

For this reason he continually holds fast this word 'One,' saying:

'There is none other God but one';

and, 'To us there is one God and one Lord.'

Whence it is plain that, sparing the weakness of his hearers, he employed this arrangement, and for this reason did not [mention the Spirit].

For if this be not so, then neither ought the Spirit to be mentioned elsewhere, nor to be ranked together with the Father and the Son.

For if He is cast out from the Father and the Son, much more ought He not to be ranked together with them in baptism, where above all the dignity of the Godhead is manifested, and where gifts are given which it belongs to God alone to bestow.

I, then, have stated the cause on account of which He has here been passed over in silence;

but you, if this be not the cause, tell why He is ranked together with them in baptism.

But you could allege no other cause than this: that He is of equal honor.

At any rate, whenever he is under no such constraint, observe how he ranks Him together with them, speaking thus:

'The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all';

and again, 'Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit;

and there are diversities of ministrations, but the same Lord;

and there are diversities of workings, but the same God.'

But since now his discourse was directed against Greeks and against those from among the Greeks who were weaker, on this account he reserves it for the present;

just as also the prophets do concerning the Son, nowhere plainly making mention of Him, because of the weakness of their hearers.

'But not in all men is there this knowledge,' he says.

What knowledge is this? That concerning God, or that concerning things sacrificed to idols? For either he is here hinting at the Greeks, who speak of many gods and lords, and know not the true God;

or those from among the Greeks who are still weaker, who do not yet clearly know that one ought not to fear the idols, and that no idol is anything in the world.

And in saying this, he gently consoled and lifted up these men.

For neither ought he to reprove them in everything, especially when he was again about to fall upon them more severely.

'But some, with conscience of the idol until now, eat it as a thing sacrificed to idols, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.'

'They still tremble at the idols,' he says.

For do not speak to me of the present condition, and that you received godliness from your forefathers;

but send your thought back to those times, and consider, when the preaching was but newly established, and impiety still held sway, and altars were kindled, and sacrifices and libations were being performed, and the greater part were Greeks: how likely it was that those who had received impiety in succession from their forefathers, and were the offspring of such fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers, and had suffered many evils from the demons, should be disposed, having all at once changed;

and how likely they were to dread and tremble at the plots of the demons;

on account of whom, hinting at them, he also said:

'But some, with conscience of the thing sacrificed to idols...'

For neither does he expose them plainly, lest he should wound them, nor does he pass them by altogether, but mentions them indefinitely, saying:

'But some, with conscience of the thing sacrificed to idols, eat it until now as a thing sacrificed to idols';

that is, with the same mind with which they did before;

'and their conscience, being weak, is defiled';

not yet being able to despise them, nor once for all to laugh them to scorn, but still being in doubt.

Just as if someone, thinking after the Jewish custom that he defiles himself by touching a corpse, then, seeing others touching it with a clean conscience, and himself not touching it with the same conviction, should be defiled;

so also those men suffered at that time.

'For some,' he says, 'with conscience of the idol until now.'

Not without reason did he set down the phrase 'until now,' but that he might show that they gained nothing by not conforming.

For neither ought one to lead them on in this way, but rather somehow otherwise, by persuading them with reasoning and teaching.

'And their conscience, being weak, is defiled.'

Nowhere for the present does he rest his argument upon the nature of the matter, but up and down he keeps turning about the conscience of the partaker.

For he fears lest, in wishing to correct the weak, he should wound the strong, and make him too become weak.

Wherefore he spares this one no less than that.

And he does not allow the matter to be reckoned as anything, but constructs a lengthy argument, so that it may not be thus suspected.

'But food commends us not to God.'

'For neither, if we eat, are we the better.'

nor, if we do not eat, are we the worse for it.

Do you see how once again he lays low their self-conceit? For having said that not only those men, but all of us,

have knowledge; and that no one has yet known anything as he ought to know it; and that knowledge puffs up;

then, having comforted them and said that knowledge is not in all men, and that it is through weakness that these are defiled;

lest those men should say, 'And what is that to us, if knowledge is not in all? For why does such a one not have knowledge? Why is he weak?'—so that they might not raise such objections in reply, he did not immediately proceed to show plainly that one must abstain because of the harm done to that other man;

but having first skirmished against him on that point alone, he then shows what is greater than this.

And what is that? That even if no one were harmed, nor were any perversion caused to one's neighbor, not even so ought one to do this;

for this is but to labor in vain.

For he who hears that another is harmed, while he himself has the gain, does not readily abstain; but rather does so then, when he learns that he himself derives no benefit at all from the matter.

For this reason he first sets down this, saying:

But food does not commend us to God.

Do you see how he makes cheap that which seemed to proceed from perfect knowledge? For neither, if we eat, do we abound;

that is, we do not stand in good repute with God, as having done some good and great thing;

nor, if we do not eat, are we the worse for it;

that is, we have nothing the less.

So then, for the present he showed it to be superfluous and nothing;

for that which, when done, does not profit, nor, when left undone, does harm, would be superfluous;

but as he proceeds, he also uncovers all the harm of the matter.

Now, however, he speaks of the harm that comes upon the brethren:

For take heed, he says, lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those of the brethren who are weak.

He did not say that 'your liberty becomes a stumbling block,' nor did he pronounce it flatly, lest he should make them more shameless;

putting them in fear and shaming them, and leading them to a denial, that they should not do it.

And he did not say, 'This knowledge of yours,' which would rather have been praise;

nor, 'This perfection of yours';

which would rather have seemed to be recklessness and self-will and arrogance.

And he did not say, 'To the brethren,' but, 'To those of the brethren who are weak';

heightening the accusation, that they spare not even the weak, and these being brethren.

For grant it, you do not correct nor raise him up;

why do you also trip him up and cause him to stumble, when you ought to stretch out a hand? But you are not willing to do this.

For if he were wicked, he would have needed chastisement;

But as it is, he is not only weak, but also a brother.

For when someone sees you who have knowledge reclining in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat things offered to idols? Having said, 'Take heed lest this liberty of yours become a stumbling block,' he tells how and in what manner it comes to pass.

And everywhere he lays down the weakness, lest the harm should seem to belong to the nature of the thing itself, and the demons appear fearsome.

For now, he says, that man is near to departing entirely from the idols;

but seeing you lingering among them, instead of taking it as an exhortation he accepts the practice, and himself also remains behind.

So that the mischief is not only of his weakness, but also of your unseasonableness;

for you make him weaker.

And through your knowledge the weak brother perishes, for whom Christ died.

For you have two things that deprive you of pardon in this harm: both that he is weak, and that he is a brother;

or rather a third also, and more fearful than all.

And what is that? That Christ refused not even to die for him, yet you cannot bear even to condescend to him.

By these things also he reminds the perfect one of what he himself formerly was, and that Christ died for him.

And he did not say, 'For whom you also ought to have died,' but what was far greater, that even Christ died for him.

Then, your Master refused not to die for him, and will you make so little account of him as not even to abstain for his sake from an accursed table?

But you suffer him to perish, after such a salvation has been wrought, and—what is indeed most grievous—for the sake of food? For he did not even say, 'At your perfection,' nor, 'At your knowledge,' but, 'At your eating.'

So then there are four charges, and exceedingly great ones: that he is a brother, and weak, and one of whom Christ made so great account as even to die for him;

and that, after all these things, he perishes for the sake of food.

And thus sinning against the brethren, and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

Do you see how gently and little by little he has raised the offense up to the very summit of transgression? And again he makes mention of their weakness.

For that very thing which these men supposed to be in their favor, this he everywhere turns back upon their own head.

And he did not say, 'Causing to stumble,' but, 'Wounding,' so that by the force of the word he might display their cruelty.

For what could be more brutal than a man who wounds one that is sick? For indeed to cause to stumble is more grievous than any blow;

at all events, this has oftentimes even wrought death.

And how do they sin against Christ? In one way, because He makes His servants' concerns His own;

in a second, because those who are wounded are counted as belonging to His body and to His member;

thirdly, because His work, which He built up through His own slaughter, this they pull down for the sake of their own vainglory.

Wherefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore.

This is the mark of a most excellent teacher: to teach through himself the things which he says.

And he did not say, 'Whether justly or unjustly.'

And I do not speak, he says, of things offered to idols, which are forbidden for yet another reason as well;

but if anything even among things lawful and permitted causes offense, from those also will I abstain;

and not for one day nor for two, but for the whole time of my life;

'For I will eat no flesh,' he says, 'for evermore.'

And he did not say, 'That I may not destroy the brother';

but, 'That I may not even so much as cause to stumble.'

For indeed it is the utmost folly to esteem so contemptible the things that are earnestly sought by Christ, and such as even to choose death for their sake, as not even to abstain from meats for their sake.

And these things may be said in season not only to those men, but also to us, who despise the salvation of our neighbors, and utter those satanic words.

For to say, 'And what does it matter to me if such a one is caused to stumble, and such a one perishes?' belongs to that man's cruelty and inhumanity.

And yet in that case what happened belonged also to the weakness of those who were caused to stumble;

for such are the sins we commit as cause even the strong to stumble.

For when we strike and plunder and overreach, and treat free men as though they were slaves, whom would such deeds not be enough to cause to stumble? Do not say, 'So-and-so is a cobbler,' nor 'This other man is a dyer,' nor 'That one is a coppersmith';

but consider that he is a believer and a brother.

For we are disciples of those fishermen, of those tax-collectors, of those tent-makers, and of Him who was reared in the house of a carpenter, who deigned to have as His mother one betrothed to that man, who from His swaddling-clothes lay in a manger, who had no place to lay His head, who journeyed so much that He grew weary from the road, and who was fed by others.

Consider these things, and reckon human pride to be nothing;

but consider that both the tent-maker and the man borne upon a chariot, who has countless servants and struts about in the marketplace, are your brothers—

or rather, consider this one more a brother than that one.

For he indeed might more fittingly be called a brother who more closely resembles Him.

Who then resembles the fishermen? The man who is fed from his daily labour, who has neither a household servant nor a lodging, but is on every side crucified to the world; or that man clothed in so much pomp, and doing the very opposite of God's laws? Do not, then, despise the one who is more truly a brother;

for this man stands nearer to the apostolic image.

'But it is not willingly,' one says, 'rather he does it under compulsion';

for he does not do this by his own choice.

Whence do you know this? Have you not heard, 'Judge not, that you be not judged'? But that you may learn that it is not against his will, approach and offer him countless talents of gold, and you will see him refuse them.

So that even if he did not inherit wealth from his forefathers, yet whenever, though he might have taken it, he does not accept it nor add to what he has, he gives the greatest proof that he despises riches.

Since John also was the son of Zebedee, a very poor man;

shall we then, on this account, say that his poverty was forced upon him?

When, therefore, you see a man hewing wood, wielding the hammer,

begrimed with soot, do not on this account despise him, but on this account admire him;

since Peter too both girded himself and handled the drag-net and went fishing after the resurrection of the Master.

And why do I speak of Peter? For Paul himself, this very man, after countless journeyings and after so many miracles, standing at a tent-maker's workshop, stitched hides; and angels stood in awe of him, and demons trembled.

'These hands ministered to my necessities, and to those who were with me.'

And why do I say he was not ashamed? Nay, he even gloried in this.

'And who now,' one says, 'is like Paul in virtue?' I too know that there is no one; but this is no reason why those who now exist should be worthy of contempt.

For if you honour a man for Christ's sake, even though he be the lowest, provided he is a believer, he would justly be worthy of honour.

For if, when both a general and a mere common soldier arrive, both being friends of the king, you open your house to each of them, through which of them would you be thought to honour the king more? Clearly through the soldier.

For the general had, apart from the king's friendship, many things sufficient to induce you to render him this honour;

but the soldier had nothing else save the king's friendship.

For this reason God has commanded that the lame and the maimed and those who cannot repay be called to our suppers and banquets, because these above all are properly the good deeds done for God's sake.

But if you entertain some great and much-regarded man, what is done is not so pure an act of mercy;

rather, vainglory often claims a share in you, and the receiving of good treatment and becoming more conspicuous in many men's eyes comes about through him.

At any rate, I could point to many who for this very reason wait upon the more conspicuous of the saints, that through them they may enjoy greater freedom of access with rulers, and thereby become more useful to their own affairs and households;

and they demand many such favours of those saints;

which mars for them the recompense of their hospitality, when they pursue it with such an intent.

And why need one say this concerning the saints? For he who seeks here from God the requitals of his labours, and pursues virtue for the sake of present things, has diminished his own reward;

but he who demands his crowns whole and entire yonder appears far more admirable, like that Lazarus who received all his good things there, like the three children who, when about to be cast into the furnace, said, 'There is a God in heaven able to deliver us;

and if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up.'

like Abraham, who both brought up his son and slew him, and did this not for any reward, but reckoning obedience to the Master to be the one greatest recompense.

Let us also imitate these men.

For thus the recompense of good things will come to us in abundance—because we do all things with such a disposition—and we shall attain to more resplendent crowns;

which may it be granted us all to attain, by the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father together with the Holy Spirit be glory, might, honour, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.