羅馬書講道集 第 6 章

Behold, you are called a Jew, and rest in the law, and make your boast in God, and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law.

Having said that the Greek lacks nothing for his salvation if he be a doer of the law, and having made that admirable comparison, he next sets forth also the venerable prerogatives of the Jews, from which they prided themselves over the Greeks.

And first that very name, which was exceedingly venerable, just as now the name of Christian is;

for even then there was a great distinction arising from the appellation.

And observe how he takes it down.

For he did not say, You are a Jew, but, You are called a Jew, and make your boast in God;

that is, as being loved by Him, and preferred before other men.

And here he seems to me quietly to be taunting them for their arrogance and their great craving for glory, in that they had used this gift not for their own salvation, but for rising up against others and looking down on them.

And you know His will, and approve the things that are excellent.

And indeed this too is a defect, when it is without works;

nevertheless it seemed to be an advantage;

wherefore also he states it with exactness.

For he did not say, You practise, but, You know and approve—you do not pursue and do them.

And you are confident that you yourself are a guide of the blind.

Here again he did not say, You are a guide of the blind, but, You are confident—so you vaunt yourself, he says;

for great was the arrogance of the Jews.

Wherefore also he utters almost the very words which they in their boasting used to say.

See, at all events, what they say in the Gospels.

You were altogether born in sins, and do you teach us? And they thought highly of themselves against all men.

This it was that Paul persisted in exposing, exalting these while abasing those, that he might thus the more take hold of them and make the accusation heavier.

Wherefore also he goes on augmenting this very thing, and enlarging upon it by announcing it in varied terms.

For you are confident that you yourself are a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.

He did not say again, In your conscience, and in your deeds, and in your right actions, but, In the law.

And having said this, what he did in the case of the Gentiles, that he does here also.

For as there he says, In that you judge the other, you condemn yourself;

so here also he says, You then that teach another, do you not teach yourself? But there more severely, here more gently.

For he did not say, And truly you are deserving of greater punishment for this, that having been entrusted with so much you have used none of it for your need;

but he advances his argument by way of question, putting them to shame and saying:

You then that teach another, do you not teach yourself? And observe with me from another side also the wisdom of Paul.

For he sets down these advantages of the Jews, which were not owing to their own diligence, but to the gift from above; and he shows that they were not only superfluous to those who neglected them, but even brought an increase of punishment.

For to be called a Jew was not their own achievement, nor to receive the law, nor the other things which he has just enumerated, but of the grace from above.

And at the outset he said that the hearing of the law profits nothing, unless practice be added to it;

For not the hearers of the law, he says, are just before God;

but now he shows much more, that not only the hearing, but even that which was more than the hearing—namely the teaching—not even this will be able to stand up for the teacher who does not do the things which, he says, he teaches;

and not only will it not stand up for him, but it will even punish him the more.

And well has he used his expressions;

for he did not say, You have received the law, but, You rest in the law;

for the Jew did not toil in going about and seeking what he ought to do, but with ease had the law showing him the way that leads to virtue.

For even if the Gentiles have the reasoning of nature, whence they even have an advantage, as doing all things without hearing, yet nevertheless the ease was greater there.

But if you say, I do not only hear, but also teach;

this very thing too is an addition to your punishment.

For since they prided themselves greatly on this, it is precisely from this that he especially shows them to be ridiculous.

And when he says, A guide of the blind, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, he is describing their conceit;

for they used the proselytes with great contempt, and it was by these names that they called them.

Wherefore he lavishly heaps up what seem to be their commendations, knowing that what is said furnishes ground for a greater accusation.

Having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.

It is as though one, having the royal portrait, should paint nothing after its likeness;

while those who were not entrusted with it should, even without the original, imitate it with exactness.

Then, having stated the advantages which they had from God, he tells their defects, which the prophets denounced, bringing these into the midst;

You then that teach another, do you not teach yourself? You that preach a man should not steal, do you steal? You that say a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you commit sacrilege? For it was strongly forbidden to touch the goods that were in the idol-temples, on account of their abominableness;

but the tyranny of avarice, he says, persuaded you to trample even this law under foot.

Then he brings in afterwards what is far heavier, saying:

You who make your boast in the law, through your transgression of the law do you dishonour God? He has laid down two charges, or rather three;

that they dishonour Him, and that they do so through the very things by which they were honoured, and that they dishonour Him who honoured them—which was the extreme height of ingratitude.

Then, that he might not seem to accuse them on his own authority, he brought forward the prophet as their accuser—now indeed briefly and concisely and as it were in summary, but afterwards in detail also; and now Isaiah, but after these things David, when he displayed still more of the reproofs.

For that it is not I, he says, who in reviling say these things to you, hear what Isaiah says, that The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.

Behold here again yet another twofold accusation.

For it is not only that they themselves commit outrage, he says, but they also dispose others to do the same.

What profit, then, is there in your teaching, when you do not teach yourselves? Yet earlier he had said this much only, whereas here he has turned it round to the very opposite.

For you do not teach even yourselves, nor do you teach others what ought to be done.

And what is far more grievous: not only do you fail to teach the things of the Law, but you even teach the very contrary — to blaspheme God, which is opposed to the Law.

But circumcision is a great thing, he says.

I too confess it, but only then, when it possesses the inward circumcision.

And mark his prudence, how opportunely

he introduced the discourse concerning it.

For he did not begin with it at once, since the estimation of it was great among them;

but when he had shown that they had stumbled in the greater matter, and were guilty of blasphemy against God, then at last, having brought his hearer to a condemnatory verdict against them, and having stripped them of their precedence, he introduces the discourse on circumcision, confident that no one would any longer cast a vote in its favor; and he says:

For circumcision indeed profits, if you keep the Law.

And yet it was possible to set it aside in another way, and to say: What then is circumcision? Is it any achievement of the one who has it? Is it any demonstration of a good disposition? For it is performed at an immature age, and all those in the wilderness remained uncircumcised for a long time;

and from many other quarters as well one might see that it was not greatly necessary.

Yet nonetheless he does not cast it out from this consideration, but from the very source whence it was most fitting — from Abraham.

For this is the surpassing greatness of the victory: to show from that very source, whence it was held in reverence by them, that it is easy to think lightly of.

And yet he might have said that even the prophets call the Jews uncircumcised;

but this is not yet a defect of circumcision itself, but of those who wrongly make use of it.

But the thing sought is to show that even in the best manner of life it has no strength;

and this indeed he now goes on to establish.

And here he does not bring forward the patriarch, but having first undermined it from another quarter, he reserves that man for later, for when he shall have introduced the discourse concerning faith, speaking thus:

How then was faith reckoned to Abraham? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? For so long as this contends against the Gentile and the uncircumcised, he does not wish to say any of these things, lest he be too burdensome;

but when he does battle against faith, then he strips himself for the contest against it more vigorously.

For the present, however, the contest is against uncircumcision;

wherefore also he advances his argument with reserve, and says:

For circumcision indeed profits, if you practise the Law;

but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

For here he speaks of two uncircumcisions and two circumcisions, just as also of two laws.

For there is the law that is natural, and there is the one that is written;

but between these there is also the one that is through works.

And observe how he shows these three, and brings them into the midst.

For when the Gentiles, who do not have the Law, he says —

Which Law, tell me? The written one.

How? By making use of the natural one.

Who show the work of the Law.

Of which Law? Of the one that is through deeds.

For that one lies outside, the one through letters, but this one is within, the one through nature, and the other is in deeds;

and the letters dictate the one, nature the other, and deeds the third.

Now there is need of this third, for the sake of which those two also exist, both the one from nature and the one from the letters;

and if this be not present, there is no profit from those, but even the greatest harm.

And this he shows, speaking of the natural one:

For in that in which you judge the other, you condemn yourself;

You who proclaim that men should not steal, do you steal? So also there are two uncircumcisions: one the natural, the second the one from deeds;

and there is one circumcision in the flesh, and a second one from the will.

A man was circumcised on the eighth day;

a man practised all the ordinances of the Law;

this is the circumcision of the mind, which Paul especially seeks, or rather which the Law also seeks.

See therefore how, having conceded it in word, he demolished it in fact.

For he did not say, Circumcision is superfluous, circumcision is unprofitable, circumcision is useless;

but what? For circumcision indeed profits, if you keep the Law.

He accepted it for the time, saying:

I confess, and I do not gainsay, that circumcision is good;

but when? When it also has the keeping of the Law.

But if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

in order that he might not seem to insult it;

but having stripped the Jew of it, then at last he strikes him.

Which was no longer an insult to circumcision, but to the one who through his own sloth had lost it.

Just as, then, in the case of those who are in high offices, and are then convicted of the greatest crimes, the judges, having first stripped them of the honor of their dignities, then punish them;

having taken away the honor of their dignities, then they punish them;

For having said, But if you are a transgressor of the Law, he added:

Your circumcision has become uncircumcision;

and having shown him to be uncircumcised, he then condemns him without any misgiving.

When therefore the uncircumcision keeps the requirements of the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision? See what he does;

He does not say that uncircumcision conquers circumcision;

for this would have been exceedingly offensive to those who then heard it;

but that uncircumcision has become circumcision.

And henceforth he inquires what circumcision is, and what uncircumcision;

and he says that circumcision is a good deed, and uncircumcision an evil deed;

and having first transferred into circumcision the uncircumcised man who has good deeds, and thrust out into uncircumcision the circumcised man who lives a corrupt life, he thus gives the victory to the uncircumcised.

And he does not say, To the uncircumcised man, but he passes over to the thing itself, speaking thus:

Shall not your uncircumcision be changed into circumcision? And he did not say, Shall be reckoned, but, Shall be changed, which was more emphatic;

Just as above too he did not say, 'Thy circumcision is reckoned as uncircumcision,' but, 'It has become so.'

And the uncircumcision which is by nature shall judge.

Do you see that he knows two kinds of uncircumcision, the one by nature, the other by deliberate choice? Here, however, he speaks of the one by nature; yet he does not stop at this, but adds:

Shall it not judge thee, who fulfillest the law, a transgressor of the law through the letter and circumcision? Observe his most subtle discernment.

He did not say that the uncircumcision which is by nature judges the circumcision; but where the victory lay, there he brings forward the uncircumcision;

but where the defeat lay, he no longer shows the circumcision as being worsted, but the Jew who possesses it — sparing, by his choice of words, to strike the hearer.

And he did not say, 'Thee who hast the law and circumcision,' but still more gently, 'Thee, a transgressor of the law through the letter and circumcision.'

That is to say, such an uncircumcision even avenges the circumcision, for it has been wronged;

and it comes to the aid of the law, for the law has been outraged;

and it sets up a conspicuous trophy.

For the victory is then brilliant, when the Jew is judged not by a Jew, but by one uncircumcised.

The men of Nineveh shall rise up and shall condemn this generation.

Therefore he does not dishonor the law;

for he reverences it exceedingly;

but rather the one who insults the law.

Then, when he had established these things clearly, taking courage he now proceeds to define what exactly the Jew is, and shows that it is not the Jew nor the circumcision, but the one who is not a Jew and the uncircumcised that he casts out.

And he seems indeed to be defending it, but he overthrows the general opinion of it, drawing his verdicts from what actually happens.

For he shows not only that there is nothing intermediate between the Jew and the uncircumcised, but even that the uncircumcised is superior, if he attends to himself, and that this man is precisely the Jew.

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward, in the flesh.

Here he strikes them, as doing all things for display.

But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter.

And in saying this, he cast out all the bodily observances.

For the outward circumcision, the sabbaths, the sacrifices, and the purifications —

all these he hinted at through a single word, when he said, 'For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly.'

But since the discourse about circumcision was extensive — seeing that even the Sabbath gave place to it — he reasonably directs the greater part of his argument toward it.

And by saying 'in the spirit,' he now paves the way for the polity of the Church, and introduces faith;

for this too has its praise from God in the heart and in the spirit.

And why did he not show that the Greek who does right is not inferior to the Jew who does right, but rather that the Greek who does right is better than the Jew who transgresses? In order to make the victory beyond dispute.

For once this is conceded, the circumcision of the flesh is of necessity cast out, and it is shown that everywhere there is need of a right life.

For when the Greek is saved without these things, while the Jew is punished with them, Judaism stands idle.

By 'Greek' again he means not the idolater, but the one who worships God and is virtuous and freed from the legal observances.

— freed, he says, from the legal observances.

What then is the advantage of the Jew? Since he had cast out everything — the hearing, the teaching, the name of Jew, the circumcision, and all the rest — by saying that it is not the outward Jew, but the inward one, he now sees an objection arising.

And what is the objection? If, he says, these things profit nothing, for what reason was the nation called, and circumcision given? What then does he do, and how does he resolve it? By the same means with which he resolved the earlier points.

For just as there he did not speak of their own praises, but of God's benefits, not of their own good deeds;

for to be named a Jew, and to know the will, and to approve the things that are excellent, was not their own achievement, but of the grace of God;

which the prophet also said when reproaching them:

He hath not dealt so with any nation, and as for his judgments, he hath not made them known unto them.

And Moses again: Ask, he says, whether it has happened according to this word — whether any nation has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, and lived;

this same thing he does here also.

For just as, when he spoke about circumcision, he did not say, 'But circumcision profits nothing without a right life,' but, 'Circumcision profits if joined with a right life' — signifying the same thing, but more gently;

and again, 'But if thou be a transgressor of the law,' he did not say, 'Thou circumcised one profitest nothing,' but, 'Thy circumcision has become uncircumcision';

and after that again he says, 'The uncircumcision shall judge' — not the circumcision, but 'thee, the transgressor of the law' — sparing the legal ordinances, but striking the men;

for having set this objection against himself, and having said, 'What then is the advantage of the Jew?' he did not say, 'None,' but ran along with the argument, and again by what follows he did away with it, and showed them even being punished on account of this precedence.

And how? Let me tell, bringing the objection into the midst.

What then is the advantage of the Jew, he says, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way.

First indeed, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

You see, as I said before, that nowhere does he enumerate their own good deeds, but God's benefits? And what is meant by 'were entrusted'? That they had the law committed to them, that He deemed them worthy of so great a thing as to entrust to them the oracles brought down from above.

And I know indeed that some understand 'were entrusted' not of the Jews, but of the oracles — that is, that the law was believed;

but what follows does not permit this to be supposed.

For first, he says these things in accusation of them, showing that though they had enjoyed great benefit from above, they had displayed great ingratitude.

And then what follows also makes this clear;

For what if some did not believe? But if they did not believe, how, some say, is it that they 'were entrusted with the oracles'? What then does he say? That God entrusted these to them, not that they themselves believed the words;

since otherwise, how does what follows have its sense? For he added:

For what if some did not believe? And what comes after this makes the same thing clear;

for he added again, saying:

Shall their unbelief make the faithfulness of God of none effect? God forbid.

This then — that they 'were entrusted' — proclaims the gift of God.

But do you observe his discernment here also.

For the accusation against them he does not again introduce of himself, but as though from an objection:

And what is the benefit of this circumcision? For they did not use it for its proper purpose;

for they were entrusted with the law, and they disbelieved.

And for the time he is not a vehement accuser, but, as one acquitting God of the charges, so he turns the whole accusation back upon them.

For why do you make it a charge, he says, that they disbelieved? and what is this to God? Does the ingratitude of those who received the benefit overturn His benefaction? or does it make the honor to be no honor? For this is the meaning of, 'Shall their unbelief make the faithfulness of God of none effect? God forbid.'

But if that one did not accept the honor, this brings no accusation against me, nor does it harm my benevolence, but rather exposes his own insensibility.

But Paul says not this only, but something far greater;

not only does their unbelief fasten no charge upon God, but it even shows His honor and His benevolence to be greater, when He is seen honoring even the one who was going to dishonor Him.

Do you see how he made them accountable for the very charges out of which they used to preen themselves? seeing that God treated them with such great honor as not to withhold His good will toward them even when foreseeing the future;

while they insulted Him who had honored them, by the very things through which they had been honored.

Then, since he had said, 'For what if some did not believe?' — whereas all appear to have disbelieved —

So that he might not again, by speaking after the manner of history, seem to be a vehement accuser of them, as an enemy, he sets down what actually took place in the form of a reasoning and a syllogism, speaking thus:

Let God be true, but every man a liar.

And what he means is this:

I do not say, he means, that some disbelieved, but, if you will, grant that all disbelieved;

conceding for the sake of argument the very thing that took place, so that he might appear inoffensive and free from suspicion.

For thus, he says, is God the more justified.

What is 'is justified'? If there should be a judgment and an examination of the things done by Him for the Jews, and of the things done by them toward Him, the victory will rest with God, and all the acts of righteousness will be His.

And having shown this plainly from what was said before, he then also brings in the prophet as casting his vote in agreement with these things and saying:

That You might be justified in Your words, and might overcome when You are judged.

For He indeed did all that lay in His power, but they, even so, became no better.

Then from this he again brings into the midst another objection which arises, and says:

But if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who inflicts wrath? I speak after the manner of men.

But since this is obscure, it is necessary to state it more clearly.

What then is it that he says? God honored the Jews, but they insulted Him.

This causes Him to be victorious, and displays His great love toward mankind, in that He honored them even while they were such as they were.

Since therefore, one says, it was because we insulted and did wrong that God overcame and His righteousness appeared resplendent, why then am I punished, seeing that I became to Him the cause of His victory through the very things by which I insulted Him? How then does he resolve this? By another absurdity, as I said before.

For if, he says, you became the cause of the victory, and are afterwards punished, then what has been done is an injustice;

but if He is not unjust—and yet you are punished—then you are no longer the cause of His victory.

And observe the apostolic reverence.

For having said, 'Is God unrighteous who inflicts wrath?' he added, 'I speak after the manner of men.'

As one might argue, he says, according to human reasoning;

for the righteous judgment of God far surpasses even those things which among us seem to be just, and it possesses certain other unspeakable reasons.

Then, since it was obscure, he states the same thing yet a second time:

For if the truth of God has abounded through my lie unto His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? For if God, he says, has appeared loving toward mankind and righteous and good out of the very things wherein you disobeyed, you ought not only not to be punished, but even to be rewarded.

But if this were so, that absurd notion which is bandied about by many would be found to hold—namely, that good things come from evil, and that evils are the cause of good things;

and one of two things must necessarily follow: either He appears unjust in punishing, or, in not punishing, He gains His victory out of our evils;

both of which are absurd beyond all measure.

And showing this, he himself brought in the Greeks as the fathers of such doctrines, deeming that the character of the persons who say these things is sufficient for a condemnation of what has been said.

For at that time, mocking us, they used to say, 'Let us do evil, that good may come';

wherefore he also set it down plainly, saying thus:

And not rather (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that good may come?

whose condemnation is just.

For since Paul had said, 'Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound,' those who mocked him and distorted the saying with another meaning used to say that one ought

to cleave to wickedness, that we may enjoy good things.

But Paul did not say so;

and so, setting it right, he says:

What then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid!

For I spoke, he says, concerning times past, not that we should make a practice of this.

So then, leading them away from this suspicion, he declared it to be henceforth even impossible.

For how, he says, shall we who died to sin live any longer therein?

The Greeks, then, he ran down with ease;

for their manner of life was exceedingly corrupt;

but as for the Jews, even though their manner of life seemed to be neglected, yet there were great screens for these things—the law and circumcision, and God's having conversed with them, and their being all in all and being the recipients of His benefits.

But if this were so, that absurd notion which is bandied about by many would be found to hold—namely, that good things come from evil, and that evils are the cause of good things;

and one of two things must necessarily follow: either He appears unjust in punishing, or, in not punishing, He gains His victory out of our evils;

both of which are absurd beyond all measure.

And showing this, he himself brought in the Greeks as the fathers of such doctrines, deeming that the character of the persons who say these things is sufficient for a condemnation of what has been said.

For at that time, mocking us, they used to say, 'Let us do evil, that good may come';

wherefore he also set it down plainly, saying thus:

And not rather (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that good may come?

whose condemnation is just.

For since Paul had said, 'Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound,' those who mocked him and distorted the saying with another meaning used to say that one ought to cleave to wickedness, that we may enjoy good things.

But Paul did not say so;

and so, setting it right, he says:

What then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid!

For I spoke, he says, concerning times past, not that we should make a practice of this.

So then, leading them away from this suspicion, he declared it to be henceforth even impossible.

For how, he says, shall we who died to sin live any longer therein?

The Greeks, then, he ran down with ease;

for their manner of life was exceedingly corrupt;

but as for the Jews, even though their manner of life seemed to be neglected, yet there were great screens for these things—the law and circumcision, and God's having conversed with them, and their being the teachers of all.

For this reason he stripped them also of these things, and rather showed them to be punished on account of these very things, unto which point he here also closed up his argument.

For if, he says, those who do such things are not punished, that blasphemous saying must needs be bandied about—namely, 'Let us do evil, that good may come.'

But if this is impious, and those who say it shall pay the penalty (for this is what he indicated in saying, 'Whose condemnation is just'), it is quite plain that they are punished.

For if those who merely say it are worthy of punishment, much more those who do it;

and if they are worthy of punishment, they are worthy of it as having sinned.

For it is not a man who punishes, that anyone should call the verdict into suspicion, but God, who does all things justly.

And if they are justly punished, then they said those things unjustly which they said who mocked us;

for God did and does all things, so that our manner of life may shine forth and be set upright on every side.

for thus we shall also be able to draw the Greeks away from their error.

But when we play the philosopher in words, yet in our deeds behave shamefully, with what eyes shall we look upon them? With what mouths shall we discourse concerning doctrines? For each of them will say to us:

You who have not set right the lesser matter, how do you presume to teach about the greater? You who have not yet learned that covetousness is an evil, how is it that you philosophize about the things in the heavens? But you know that it is an evil? Then the charge against you is the greater, that even knowing it you transgress.

And why do I speak of the pagan? For not even our own laws permit us to enjoy this freedom of speech, when our life has become corrupt.

For to the sinner, it says, God has said:

Why do you declare my ordinances? Once the Jews were led away as captives, and when the Persians pressed upon them and demanded that they sing to them the divine songs,

How shall we sing the song of the Lord in a strange land? Now if in a foreign land it was not lawful to sing the oracles of God, how much more the barbarian soul? For the soul without mercy is barbarian.

For if the Law made those who were captives, and had become the slaves of men in a foreign land, to sit in silence,

how much more just is it that those who are slaves of sin and have come to dwell in a strange citizenship should have their mouths stopped.

And yet those men still had their instruments at that time;

For upon the willows in the midst of it, it says, we hung up our instruments;

Therefore neither is it lawful for us, though we have a mouth and a tongue, which are the instruments of speech, to speak with boldness, so long as we are enslaved to sin, which is more tyrannical than all barbarians.

For tell me, what will you say to the pagan while you are robbing and grasping for more? Depart from idolatry; acknowledge God; do not cling to silver and gold? Will he not then laugh and say:

Speak these things to yourself first? For it is not the same thing for a pagan to worship idols, and for a Christian to commit this very same offence.

For how shall we be able to lead others away from that idolatry, when we do not lead ourselves away from this? For we are nearer to ourselves than to our neighbour.

When therefore we do not persuade ourselves, how shall we persuade others? For if he who does not preside well over his own household will not care for the Church either,

how shall he who does not preside even over his own soul be able to set others right? For do not say this to me, that you do not worship a golden idol;

but show me this, that you do not do these things which gold commands.

For indeed there are different modes of idolatry;

and one accounts mammon his lord, another his belly a god, and another some other most grievous lust.

But you do not sacrifice oxen to them, as the pagans do? But what is far more grievous, you slaughter your own soul.

But you do not bend your knees and worship? But with greater obedience you do everything that your belly and your gold and the tyranny of lust command;

since indeed the pagans are abominable for this very reason, that they deified the passions, calling lust Aphrodite, wrath Ares, and drunkenness Dionysus.

But if you do not carve idols, as they do, yet with much eagerness you bow beneath the same passions, making the members of Christ the members of a harlot, and defiling yourself with all the other lawless deeds.

Wherefore I exhort you, considering the excess of this absurdity, to flee idolatry;

for so Paul calls covetousness;

and to flee not only the covetousness that is in money, but also that which is in evil lust, and that in garments, and that at the table, and that in all other things.

For indeed we shall pay a far more grievous penalty, we who do not obey the laws of the Lord.

For the servant, it says, who knows his Lord's will and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.

In order therefore that we may both escape this punishment, and become useful both to others and to ourselves, let us cast out all wickedness from the soul and choose virtue.

For thus shall we also attain the good things to come;

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