There is no need for us to refute those who judged that this homily should be taken away from Saint Maximus and ascribed to Saint Ambrose. For their opinion is refuted and overthrown both by the authority and abundance of the ancient manuscript codices, and by the character of the style. The title affixed to this homily in the printed books does indeed call for investigation, which is of this kind: 'On the solemnity of the divine Michael the archangel, concerning that which is written,' etc. Here first are to be reviewed the older codices, which are wholly without any mention of that solemnity, and prefix to the homily the passage of the Gospel of Matthew, chapter XVIII, though not in the same words. For the codices of Santa Croce in Jerusalem, 90 homily 47, and 99 sermon 10, have: 'Here begins: concerning that which is written:'
'Who, do you think, is greater in the kingdom of heaven?' The Saint-Gall codex, homily 44: 'Concerning that which is written: Who, do you think, is greater,' etc. The Vercelli codex 81: 'Homily of the blessed Maximus the bishop on the Gospel of Matthew: The disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who, do you think, is greater in the kingdom of heaven?' The Vatican codices 6490, p. 190, and Palatine 477, p. 187, as well as the Vallicellan XV, p. 113, have the like: 'On the Gospel of Matthew: Who, do you think, is greater in the kingdom of heaven? Sermon of the blessed Maximus the bishop.' Conformable to these is the Casanatense codex of homilies, part 1, and from these differs little codex XII of Santa Croce in Jerusalem, adding this: 'Sermon on the feasts, of Saint Maximus, bishop of Turin. Upon that of the Gospel of Matthew:'
'At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who, do you think, is greater?' etc. But the remaining not-few codices, written in a later age, exhibit the memory of the solemnity or dedication of Saint Michael the archangel; among which are counted the Lucca codex 89: 'On the dedication of Saint Michael the archangel, a homily of Saint Maximus the bishop'; the Monte Cassino 102, p. 156 on the reverse; the Regensburg of Saint Emmeram; and two Laurentian, 36 and 43 Plut. XVII: 'On the solemnity of the divine Michael the archangel: concerning that which is written: Who, do you think, is greater in the kingdom of heaven?' etc. The Reichenau codex XV also differs in title, which has only: 'On the feast of the holy angel,' from the Cistercian codex of Monte Amiata, on whose front is read:
'On the feast of Saint Michael the archangel. In the Gospel: The disciples came to Jesus, saying,' etc.: 'Who, do you think, is greater?' etc. 'A homily of the same blessed Maximus the bishop.' But since the apparition of Saint Michael the archangel on Mount Gargano occurred in the time of Saint Gelasius I, who was Roman pontiff from the year 492 to the year 496, and since the dedication of his first basilica at Rome in the Circus Maximus was made by Boniface II even long after the death of Saint Maximus, it is most clearly plain that this homily could not have been recited by the holy bishop of Turin on the solemnity of Saint Michael the archangel, which had not yet been instituted in the Church. From the Gospel of Matthew, which is read on that day, the unskilled copyists affixed that title of Maximus's homily.
We, leaving aside the editors who did not guard against so manifest an error, have more correctly transferred it among the homilies on various subjects. If you have diligently heard the Gospel reading, you can understand what reverence is owed to the ministers and priests of God, or how the clergy themselves ought to anticipate one another by the assiduity of humility. The Lord said to the disciples inquiring which of them would be greater in the kingdom of heaven, setting a little boy before them all: 'Whoever shall humble himself as this child, this one shall be greater in the kingdom of heaven' (Matt. XVIII); whence we understand that by humility one arrives at the kingdom, by simplicity one penetrates to heaven.
Whoever, therefore, desires to hold the heights of Divinity, let him pursue the depths of humility; whoever wishes to anticipate his brother in reigning, let him first anticipate him in serving, as the Apostle says: 'In honor anticipating one another' (Rom. XII); let him conquer him by services, that he may be able to conquer him by holiness. For if your brother has not injured you, he deserves service, that you should love him; but if perchance he has injured you, he deserves your good office all the more, that you should conquer. For this is the sum of our Christianity, that we should repay reciprocity to those who love us, and patience to those who injure us. He, then, who is more patient toward injury will be established more powerful in the kingdom; for one does not arrive at the empire of the heavens by pride, riches, prefecture, but by humility, poverty, gentleness.
For narrow and strait is the way that leads to the kingdom (Matt. VII). Whoever, therefore, has been puffed up with honors and enlarged with treasures of gold, like a burdened and hampered beast, will not be able to pass through the narrow road of the kingdom; and likewise, even as he thinks he has arrived, the little gate, not admitting his baggage, striking against the threshold, he will be compelled to go back. For the heavenly gate is as narrow to the rich man as the tiny hole of the needle is to the camel; whence the Lord says: 'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven' (Matt. XIX). For as the tiny opening does not allow the camel—a crooked and misshapen animal—to pass through,
so too the narrow gate of heaven by no means permits the rich, greedy, and lying man to enter. For this reason we are born naked into the world, we approach the font naked, and naked too and unencumbered we hasten to the gate of heaven. But how incongruous and absurd it is that one whom his mother bore naked, whom the Church receives naked, should wish to enter into heaven rich? Therefore it is said by the Savior in the Gospel to that rich young man: 'If you wish to be perfect, sell all that is yours, and give to the poor.' For virtue is so far naked and fit for heaven that, however just, however holy a man may be, if he possesses gold or riches, he cannot be perfect.
For the Lord willed that young man to return to paradise such as Adam had been when cast down from the loftiness of paradise; for Adam was naked while a dweller of paradise: at length, after his sin, perceiving his nakedness, he covered his shame with a leaf. For before he sinned he was clothed with the color of honorableness; and therefore it was not nature that instituted dishonorable nakedness, but the guilt of transgression that discovered it. For do the holy angels too, established in most splendid apparel, cover themselves with tunics and cloaks? Yet although in them there is the naked substance of their own nature, they seem to be clothed, in that they are holy.
So then Adam too, guarding the dignity of angelic honorableness, was indeed naked of worldly garments, but was clothed with the splendor of immortality. His eyes looked upon nothing depraved; his heart thought nothing base; among honorable minds nakedness itself was clothed. For as among wicked men a base thought is not kept from concupiscence by garments, so among holy men honorable simplicity is not drawn to lust by nakedness; but as to the vicious all things are naked unto corruption, so to the religious all things are veiled unto chastity. But what does the Gospel reading say? 'Whoever shall scandalize one of these little ones who believe in Me:'
it would be better for him that an ass's millstone be hung about his neck, and that he be plunged into the depth of the sea' (Matt. XVIII). He here calls them little ones not children in age, but the small in malice; as the Apostle says: 'In malice be children, that in your senses you may be perfect' (1 Cor. XIV, 20). Who are these but suitable clerics, religious monks, or laymen? Whoever, therefore, has been irreverent or contumelious toward these will be punished with this beastly penalty, that with a shapeless stone banished to his neck he be cast headlong into the sea. But let us consider why this penalty has been decreed for those who scandalize Christians, or what the sentence itself may mean; for I think it contains some mystery:
as if indeed for a man to be drowned in the sea any stone whatsoever, not large or huge, would not suffice, but the stone of an ass's millstone should be banished to his neck, so that with the man about to perish there should perish also a thing necessary for use. But I think this rather to be the point, that in the Scriptures the people of the Gentiles is designated by the figure of an ass, which, with closed eyes, is dragged around the millstone of ignorance in the circuit of its own error, and, without any direction of its course, its footsteps often returning upon themselves, labors unwillingly for another's use. For does not the Gentile people seem to you to turn an ass's millstone, so long as it is engaged in the labor of its own ignorance?
bound indeed by the chains of nature, so that it grinds the word of God, seeks the Lord of heaven, but, overspread with the blindness of a covered mind, cannot lift the countenance of its soul to God, nor raise the eyes of its heart to heaven. But since it is established that an ass's millstone is a stone, let us consider whether the pagans' millstone is such too. It is plainly such; for the pagans' millstone is a stony Jupiter, and stone Herculeses, around which with blind eyes they go about in frequent error. Blind, I say, I would call the eyes of those who think they see what they do not see; for, looking upon a stone, they are confident that they see God. Yet he who turns the millstone has at some time an end of completing the work, bears the hope of getting out from his labor:
but he to whom a true ass's millstone is hung about the neck bears a stone, who ought to have borne the yoke of Christ. The ass, then, to the millstone; the blind man to the stone; the Gentile to the rock—he who worships one whom he neither sees nor knows. For God does not dwell in things made by hands, nor is He known in metal or stone. Therefore this Gentile people, when it has brought persecution upon a Christian, is punished with this penalty, that with its own sacrilegious millstone it be plunged into the waves of the world that is to be judged.