HOMILY X.] HOMILIES ON THESSALONIANS. 569 point him? And did his number of children ever compel him to have recourse to any dis honest counsel ? What was the case with Abra ham ? With Isaac, had he not also many other children? What then? Did he not possess all he had for the benefit of strangers? Do you see, how he not only did not do wrong, but even gave up his possessions, not only doing good, but choosing to be wronged by his nephew? For to endure being robbed for the sake ofGod is a much greater thing than to do good. Why? Because the one is the fruit of the soul and of free choice, whence also it is easily performed : but the other is injurious treatment and violence. And a man will more easily throw away ten thousand talents voluntarily, and will not think that he has suffered any harm, than he will bear meekly being robbed of three pence against his will. So that this rather is philosophy of soul. And this, we see, happened in the case of Abra ham. " For Lot," it is said, " beheld all the plain ; and it was well watered as the garden of God, and he chose it." (Gen. xiii. 10, n.) And Abraham said nothing against it. Seest thou, that he not only did not wrong him, but he was even wronged by him? Why, O man, dost thou accuse thine own children? God did not give us children for this end, that we should seize the possessions of others. Take care, lest in saying this thou provoke God. For if thou sayest that thy children are the causes of thy grasping and thine avarice, I fear lest thou be deprived of them, as injuring and ensnaring thee. God hath given thee children that they may support thine old age, that they may learn virtue from thee. For God on this account hath willed that mankind should thus be held together, provid ing for two most important objects : on the one hand, appointing fathers to be teachers, and on the other, implanting great love. For if men were merely to come into being, no one would have any relation towards any other. For if now, when there are the relations of fathers, and children, and grandchildren, many do not regard many, much more would it then be the case. On this account God hath given thee children. Do not therefore accuse the children. But if they who have children have no excuse, what can they say for themselves, who having no children wear themselves out about the ac quisition of riches ? But they have a saying for themselves, which is destitute of all excuse. And what is this ? That, instead of children we may have, they say, may have l our riches as a memorial. This is truly ridiculous. Instead of children, one says, my house becomes the im- 1 [The repetition is supported by a good group of documents, and accords with Chrys. s rhetorical manner. The reading is there fore adopted here, though not by Field. J. A. B.] mortal memorial ofmy glory. Not of thy glory, O man, will it be the memorial, but of thy covet- ousness. Dost thou not see how many now as they pass the magnificent houses say one to another, What frauds, what robberies such an one committed, that he might build this house, and now he is become dust and ashes, and his house has passed into the inheritance of others ! It is not of thy glory then that thou leavest a me morial, but of thy covetousness. And thy body indeed is concealed in the earth, but thou dost not permit the memorial of thy covetousness to be concealed, as it might have been 2 by length of time, but causest it to be turned up and disin terred through thy house. For as long as this stands, bearing thy name, and called such an one s, certainly the mouths of all too must needs be opened against thee. Dost thou see that it is better to have nothing than to sustain such an accusation? And these things indeed here. But what shall we do There? tell me, having so much at our disposal here, if we have imparted to no one of our possessions, or at least very little ; how shall we put off our dishonest gains? For he that wishes to put off covetous gain, does not give a little out of a great deal, but many times more than he has robbed, and he ceases from robbing. Hear what Zacchaeus says, " And for as many things as I have taken wrongfully, I restore four fold." (Luke xix. 8.) But thou, takingwrong fully ten thousand talents, if thou give a few drachmas, thinkest thou hast restored the whole, and art affected as if thou hadst given more. And even this grudgingly. Why? Because thou oughtest both to have restored these, and to have added other out of thine own private possessions. For as the thief is not excused when he gives back only what he has stolen, but often he has added even his life ; and often he compounds upon restoring many times as much : so also should the covetous man. For the covetous man also is a thief and a robber, far worse than the other, by how much he is also more tyrannical. He indeed by being con cealed, and by making his attack in the night, cuts off much of the audacity of the attempt, as if he were ashamed, and feared to sin. But the other having no sense of shame, with open face in the middle of the market-place steals the property of all, being at once a thief and a tyrant. He does not break through walls, nor extinguish the lamp, nor open a chest, nor tear off seals. But what? He does things more in solent than these, in the sight of those who are injured he carries things out by the door, he with confidence opens everything, he compels them to expose all their possessions themselves.