Homilies on Philippians

For we owe the saints a debt, and are not doing them a favor. For as supplies are due by those who are in peace and not engaged in war to such as stand in the army and fight (for these stand on their behoof), thus too is it here. For if Paul had not taught, who would have cast him into prison? Wherefore we ought to minister to the Saints. For is it not absurd to contribute to an earthly king, when engaged in war, all that he wants, as clothing and food, not according to his need alone, but abundantly, while to the King of Heaven, when engaged in war, and contending against far more bitter foes (for it is written, “our wrestling is not against flesh and blood”), we will not supply urgent necessity? What folly is this! What ingratitude! What base love of gain! But, as it seems, the fear of man has greater force with us than hell, and the future torments. For this cause, in truth, all things are turned upside down; for political affairs are daily accomplished with much earnestness, and one must not be left behind, while of spiritual things there is no account taken at all; but the things which are demanded of us of necessity, and with compulsion, as though we were slaves, and against our wills, are laid down by us with much readiness, while such as are asked from willing minds, and as if from free men, are again deficient. I speak not against all, but against those who are behindhand with these supplies. For might not God have made these contributions compulsory? Yet He would not, for He has more care of you than of those whom you support. Wherefore He would not that you should contribute of necessity, since there is no recompense. And yet many of those who stand here are lower minded than the Jews. Consider how great things the Jews gave, tithes, first-fruits, tithes again, and again other tithes, and besides this thirteenths, and the shekel, and no one said, how much they devour; for the more they receive, the greater is the reward. They say not, They receive much, they are gluttons; which words I hear now from some. They for their part, while they are building houses, and buying estates, still think they have nothing; but if any priest is clothed in dress more bright than usual, and enjoys more than what is necessary for his sustenance, or has an attendant, that he may not be forced himself to act unbecomingly, they set the matter down for riches. And in truth we are rich even at this rate, and they admit it against their will; for we, though we have but little, are rich, while they, though they get everything about them, are poor.

How far shall our folly extend? Does it not suffice to our punishment that we do no good deed, but must we add to it the punishment of evil speaking? For if what he has were your gifts, you lose your reward by upbraiding him for what you gave. In a word, if you gave it, why do you upbraid him? You have already borne witness to his poverty, by saying that what he has are your gifts. Why then do you upbraid? You should not have given, did you intend so to do. But do you speak thus, when another gives? It is then more grievous, in that when you yourself hast not given, you upbraid for another man's good deeds. How great reward do you think those who are thus spoken of will receive? It is for God's sake they thus suffer. How and wherefore? Had they so willed, they might have taken up a trader's life, even though they received it not from their ancestors. For I hear many speaking thus at random, when we say that a certain man is poor. Had he willed, they say, he might have been rich, and then tauntingly add, His father, his grandfather, and I know not who was so; but now see what a robe he wears! But what? Tell me, ought he to go about naked? You then start nice questionings on these points, but see lest you thus speakest against yourself. Listen to that exhortation of Christ, which says, “Judge not that you be not judged.” He might, it is true, if he had willed, have led a trader's or a merchant's life, and would surely not have lacked. But he would not. What then, says one, is he here profited? Tell me, what is he profited? Does he wear silken robes? Does he proudly clear his way through the forum with a troop of followers? Is he borne along on horseback? Does he build houses, having where to dwell? If he act so, I too accuse him, and spare him not, but declare that he is unworthy of the priesthood. For how can he exhort others not to spend their time on these superfluities, who cannot advise himself? But if he has sufficient for support, is he therefore doing wrong? Would you have him lead a vagabond life, and beg? Would you, his disciple, not also be put to shame? But if your father in the flesh did this, you would think shame of the thing. If your spiritual father be compelled so to do, will you not veil your head, and even think you are sinking into the earth? It is written, “A father's dishonor is a reproach to the children.” But what? Should he perish with famine? This were not like a pious man; for God wills it not. But what do they straightway philosophize? It is written, say they, “Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, neither two coats, nor yet staves”, while these men have three or four garments, and beds well spread. I am forced now to heave a bitter sigh, and, but that it had been indecorous, I had wept too! How so? Because we are such curious searchers into the motes of others, while we feel not the beams in our own eyes. Tell me, why do you not say this to yourself? The answer is, Because the command is laid only on our Teachers. When then Paul says, “having food and covering we shall be therewith content”, says he this only to Teachers? By no means, but to all men; and this is clear, if we will begin farther back. For what does he say? “Godliness with contentment is great gain; for we brought nothing into this world, it is certain that neither can we carry anything out”; he then straightway adds, “And having food and covering, we shall be therewith content; but they that desire to be rich, fall into a temptation and a snare, and many foolish and hurtful lusts.” You see that this is spoken to all; and how is it when he says again, “Make not provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof”, is not this said absolutely to all? And what when he says, “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats, but God shall bring to nought both it and them”; or what when he says, “But she that gives herself to pleasure, is dead while she lives”, speaking of a widow. Is then the widow a Teacher? Has not he said himself, “But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man”? But if a widow, in old age, (and age has need of great attendance,) and a woman's nature too, (for the woman's sex, being weak, has need of more refreshment,) if then, where there is both the age and the nature, he suffers her not to live in luxury, but even says that she is dead, (for he did not simply forbid a life of luxury, but said, “she who gives herself to luxury is dead while she lives,”) and thus has cut her off, (for she that is dead is cut off,) what indulgence then will any man have, who does those things, for which a woman and an aged one too is punished?