men personally acquainted with the religion of Jesus Christ. Pertinax was not aware that the majority of mankind, and himself among the rest, werenihilists; practically indifferent to every thing, except to the secularities and perversions superinduced upon the Gospel by human frailty or contrivance. Such is the papal system-such the religion of the Reformation-as too frequently exhibited by the adherents of either scheme to the gaze and compassion of a genuine Christian.

And here I close this lengthened discussion. If it confirm the devout reader in the faith once delivered to the saints, by contrasting with the true religion of Jesus Christ the perverse superstitions of his merely nominal adherents, it is well. Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity!

CHRYSOSTOM'S HOMILIES.

NO. II. DE STATUIS.

(Concluded from page 551.) WOULDST thou build spacious and splendid houses? I do not forbid thee; only not upon earth; build mansions in heaven, such as may enable thee to receive others, such as shall never be taken down. Why dost thou madly pursue things fickle and fugitive, and not removeable from this world? Nothing is more mutable than wealth: to-day with thee, to-morrow against thee; it arms the eyes of envy on every side; it is an enemy within thy tent, a foe in thy household; and ye that possess it bear me witness, for ye are endeavouring in various ways to conceal it under ground. Riches make the present danger more grievous and insufferable to us, for you see the poor free from encumbrances, at their ease, and prepared for all events, but the rich in great anxiety, going about, searching for a place to bury their gold in, or for some person to take care of it for them, Why dost thou seek thy fellow-servants, O man? Christ stands ready to receive and

keep for thee thy deposit; and not only to keep but increase it, and restore it with a great addition: from his hand no one can wrest it. But he does not merely preserve what thou committest to his care, he also delivers thee from dangers on this very account, [for having reposed confidence in him]. With men, indeed, they who take charge of any thing valuable, think they have done us a favour, by guarding what they received: but with Christ it is otherwise; for he, whenever he receives thy deposit, says he has not granted but received a favour; he does not demand from thee, but he bestows upon thee a reward for the care which he takes of thy pro.. perty; how inexcusable then and unpardonable should we be if we pass by him that is able to secure that property, and [so to speak] will be obliged to us for the custody of it, and will give us in return unspeakable rewards.........to put it into the hands of men who cannot secure it, who will think that they do us a favour, and, after all, restore us no more than they receive!

Thou art a stranger here, thy country and thy home are in heaven; thither remit all that thou hast, that even before thy full possession, even here thou mayest enjoy (some earnest of) thy reversion; for he who is sustained by a good hope, he who looks into futurity with confidence, he by that hope and confidence has already a foretaste of the kingdom (of heaven); for nothing does usually recreate and improve the soul so much as a good hope of the (joys of the) world to come, if thither thou transfer thy wealth, and take care of thy soul with becoming as siduity. They who waste all their care and diligence in adorning their houses, while they are rich in external things, neglect the internal, and suffer the (mansion) of the soul to be dark and unfurnished, and full of spiders' webs; would they (but) disregard external things, and spend their zeal upon their own minds, collecting ornaments for them from

every quarter, the souls of such men would (then) become an habitation of Christ (through the Spirit), and what greater felicity can there be than to possess such an inhabitant? Wouldst thou be rich? make God thy friend, and thou shalt be of all men the most affluent. Wouldst thou be rich? be not high-minded; this is necessary not (only) for thy future but thy present welfare; for nothing is so much the butt of envy as a rich man,—and, if haughtiness be superadded, his pre-eminence then becomes a doubly dangerous and slippery precipice, his conflict with all men far more arduous but if thou knowest how to be moderate and self-denying (in the midst of wealth) by that humility, thou wilt undermine the power of envy, and whatever thou dost possess, thou wilt possess in safety; for such is the nature of piety and virtue, not only are future benefits conferred by them, the rewards are also present and immediate.

Let us not then be elated by wealth, nor indeed by any thing else; for if he that is proud of spiritual things is undone and perishes, much more (he that is proud) of things temporal. Let us consider our nature, let us compute our sins, let us learn what kind of persons we are, and this will furnish us with sufficient materials for every species of humility. Do not tell me that you have so many years' rents laid up, ten thousand talents, and fresh profits coming in every day. Whatever grounds (for confidence) you may allege, they are all unfounded; often in a single hour, in a moment, like dust whirled by the blast, are all such things dislodged and dispersed. Life abounds with instances of this nature, and histories are full of these instructive examples; to-day rich, to-morrow poor. Wherefore I have often laughed when I read wills, devising the property of house or land to one man, and the use or tenancy to another; for we are all tenants, none of us proprietors: should we preserve our possessions undiminish

ed, even throughout our whole lives, still, whether we will or not, we shall leave them to others at our decease; after having been (all the while) usufructuaries only, even that (temporary) ownership* we are entirely stript of at our departure out of this life. It is manifest, therefore, that they only are the real (and permanent) proprietors (of wealth) who despise the use, and scorn the enjoyment, of it: for he that casts away his wealth by distributing it among the poor, has had the use of it for all necessary purposes, and when he departs, still retains the property of it: he is not turned out of this possession even by death itself, but recovers all (and much more) at that time when he most wants its protection, in the day of judgment, when an account of our affairs will be demanded of us all. Wherefore if any one wishes to have the full possession and property of things as well as the use, let him (now) divest himself of all his substance; since he who does not do that, will, at his death, separate himself from it altogether, and often before death, in the midst of dangers and various afflictions, will (be obliged to) cast it away. And that this change is both summary and complete is not the whole of the evil; for a rich man comes with a mind unpractised, unprepared, for enduring the hardships of poverty; but it is otherwise with the poor man, for he trusts not in silver and gold, those lifeless substances, but in God who bestoweth all things liberally, so that the rich man is in a much more precarious state than the poor man, as he must be (ever) expecting a succession of changes (for the worse).

But what does this (expression) mean, 'Who giveth richly all things?' God bestows all things liberally, things far more necessary than riches,

Δεσποτεία he here uses in a sense inconsistent with his former assertion, δεσποίειν εδεις έχει, therefore I insert temporary, though a somewhat inconsistent epithet to ownership.

such as air, water, fire, the sun, and all others of the like nature; it cannot be said that a rich man enjoys more and a poor man less of the sun's rays, nor can it be said that the rich man breathes the air more freely than the poor man, but these things are provided for all men alike; and why then, it may be said, has God made those greater gifts common which are necessary and even essential to life, but the inferior and less valuable gifts (wealth I mean) not common? What is the reason? That our life might be provided for and secured, and (also) that there might be an arena for the exercise of virtue: for if those necessary things had not been common, perhaps the rich, actuated by their usual avarice, would have extinguished the life of the poor; for if they do it (now) about money, much more would they have done it about these (other more necessary) things. On the other hand, if wealth had been common to all, had lain open and exposed for general use, almsgiving would have been superseded, and there would have been no opportunity for beneficence. Wherefore, that we might live without fear, he has made those things common on which life depends. On the other hand, that we might have an opportunity of obtaining (higher degrees of) celestial honour and glory, wealth was not made common; in order that we might, by hating covetousness, pursuing charity, and distributing our substance among the poor, obtain by this method some consolation respecting our own personal sins, or some palliation of them: [for so the original I think implies, though the sentiment inclines towards doctrines of a dangerous tendency.] God has made thee rich, why dost thou make thyself poor? God has made thee rich that thou mightest relieve the necessitous, that thou mightest unbind (the burden of) thy sins [Avons ra ἁμαρτηματα τα σεαυτε ] by liberality to others; he gave thee wealth, not that thou shouldst shut it up to thy CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 286.

destruction, but disperse it to thy salvation: and for this reason also he made the possession of it precarious and inconstant, that he might thereby abate the intenseness of (our) frantic passion for it; for if the possessors of wealth, notwithstanding they are unable to have much confidence respecting it, and even see many snares arise out of it, are thus inflamed with avaricious desires, (what would have been their devotion) if no such instability had attached to riches, whom (then) would they have spared, from what (victims) would they have withheld their talons, what widows, what orphans, what paupers ?

Think not then that wealth is any great benefit: a great benefit it is to possess, not wealth, but the fear of the Lord, and perfect godliness. Were there any righteous man (among us) who had much "confidence towards God," though he were the poorest man in the world, he would be sufficient to deliver us from the present calamity: for he need only stretch out his hands towards heaven, and call upon God, and this cloud would blow over; (whereas) our treasures of gold are no better than so much clay, for any power they have to avert the impending evils.-And not in this danger only, at the approach of disease and death, or any severe affliction, the inefficacy of wealth becomes apparent; for out of its own resources, no relief can it produce for the changes and chances (of this mortal life). There is one thing in which riches seem to have the advantage of poverty; in daily luxury, in the perfect enjoyment of convivial pleasures; nevertheless (I aver that) this (pleasure) is (more) conspicuous at the tables of the poor, and that they enjoy it in a greater degree than the rich. Be not surprized, nor think this assertion a paradox, for I will prove it by facts. It is universally acknowledged that the pleasures of the table depend not (so much) on the quality of the viands as the tem4 I

:

perament of the guests; for example, the most ordinary fare, when a man sits down to it with an appetite, will be more grateful to the palate than any meat, or confectionary, or the greatest variety of high-seasoned ingredients. But he who sits down to table, without waiting till necessity induces him, and does not previously sustain (any degree of) hunger, (which is the case with the rich), will derive no pleasure from the delicacies that are set before him, for want of a due excitement of appetite. Your own experience clearly confirms these observations: but let us also hear the testimony of Scripture, (Prov. xxvii. 7.) "The full soul loatheth an honeycomb, but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.' What is sweeter than the honey-comb? yet it is not sweet to the man who is not hungry and what more distasteful than bitter food, yet is it sweet to them that are oppressed with hunger; and it is manifest to every one, that the poor are urged to take their repasts by necessity and hunger, but the rich wait not (for these urgent demands of nature), consequently do not enjoy the genuine pleasure. What has been said of food, may be applied to drink also; for as hunger contributes more to gratification than the quality of the aliments (which relieve it), so thirst makes a draught most grateful, though it be a draught of water only; which is illustrated by those words of the prophet, "He fed them with honey from the rock," Psal. lxxxi. 16*. Although we nowhere read in the Scriptures that Moses brought honey out of the rock, but, in several passages, (that he brought) rivers, and waters, and cooling streams; what is it then which is here asserted, for the Scripture does not give false accounts? [It amounts to this, that] since they fell in with those cooling

The Septuagint and the Vulgate give this sense; but in our two translations it is not an assertion of a fact, but is merely hypothetical, "I would have fed," &c.

streams at a time when they were thirsty, and in great distress, (the prophet) meant to express the delight which drinking would in such circumstances impart, and therefore called the water honey*; not that the element was changed, but the state of the persons who drank it made the water sweeter to them than honey; so you perceive how the pleasantness of the draught arises from the thirst of them that take it. Wherefore, it has frequently happened, that the poor, when worn out with labours and hardships, and parched with thirst, have derived from water only the gratification I am speaking of— while the rich, though they drank wine of the most excellent quality, sweet and fragrant, have not derived the same delight [from it as the poor did from water only].

The same may be said of sleep; not the softest down, nor couches enchased in silver, nor the stillness that reigns in the apartments, nothing of this kind can produce such sweet and gentle sleep as they enjoy who, after labour and fatigue, sink down upon their beds, oppressed with drowsiness and the want of rest.

Besides the testimony of experience, we may here also allege the declarations of Scripture; for Solomon, who was no stranger to a luxurious life, confesses as much in these words,- "The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much." (Eccles. v. 12.) Wakefulness arises both from emptiness and repletion; the one exhausting the moisture of the body, making the eyelids rigid, and suffering them not to close; the other contracting and weighing down the mind, and producing many pains; yet such is the benefit of labour, that whenever either (of these extremes) occur, the labourer is notwithstanding able to sleep; for since he is running about in various directions the whole day, upon his master's business, worn out with

* But I presume the knowledge of the Hebrew tongue would have obviated this

error.