Matthew — Chapter 7

Therefore , if thou bring thy gift, Ac. If thy brother have anything to complain of in thee, any wrong for which to expostulate with thee, as that thou hast called him raca, or fool . This is the force of therefore in this passage. It would appear that the Scribes taught that all sins, and especially violations of the Sixth Commandment, were expiated by sacrifices and offerings at the altar of God, even when no satisfaction was made for a wrong done to one’s neighbour. But Christ teaches the contrary, and sanctions the law of justice and charity, by which He bids that satisfaction must first be made to our neighbour who has been injured by us either in word or deed. Wherefore he subjoins, Leave there thy gift , Ac. This is a precept, both of law and of natural religion, which has been by Christ in this place most strictly sanctioned, both because by the Incarnation of Himself He has, in the very closest manner, united us all to Himself and to one another. This greater union, which we have therefore through Christ, demands greater love and unity among Christian brethren : so He has said, “ A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another.” Furthermore, the sacrifice of the Eucharist is more holy than the ancient sacrifices. It is the gathering together and the communion of the Body, of which we 222 WHO IS OUR ADVERSARY? all partake ; and therefore we are all mutually united to Christ and one another. Hence it is called communion, that is, the common union of all. Since therefore the Eucharist is a sacrifice, as well as a Sacrament and profession of mutual love and peace, it is necessary that all discord should be done away, and that those who have offended should reconcile themselves to those whom they have offended before this holy Synaxis, lest they be found liars. For in truth he is a liar who takes the Sacrament of union, that is, the Eucharist, and is not in union with, but bears a grudge or rancour against, his neighbour. This is why it used to be the custom at Mass, that before Holy Communion, Christians were wont to give one another a holy kiss, as a symbol of reconciliation and union, in place of which what is called the Pax is now bestowed, S. John the Almoner, Patriarch of Alexandria, to fulfil literally this precept or counsel of Christ, was once standing at the altar to say Mass, when he remembered that a certain cleric had con- ceived a hatred for him, and although he was the offended party, yet he asked his pardon first, and being thus reconciled, he went with him joyfully to the altar and finished the sacrifice, saying with confidence to God, “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors," as Leontius records in his Life, He adds that the same John repelled Damianus, a deacon, from Communion, and said to him, “ Go first and be reconciled to thy brother." Damianus promised so to do, when the Patriarch gave him the Sacred Mysteries. Agree y Gr. tvvowv, i>., be of good will , Syriac, a friend; with thitie adversary , Gr. r<5 SarrtZuctp <rov, i>., thine accuser , thy prosecutor, Syriac, Beet dinochy “ the master, or lord of thy lawsuit," Arabic, with him who is at law with thee : the uttermost farthing , i>., of thy debt You will ask, who is this adversary i I. Tertullian (lib. de Animd), answers, it is the devil. He is Satan, i>., our adversary. 2 . S. Athanasius, or whoever be the author of Quasi. S. Script, ad Antioch, (quasi. 2 6), thinks the adversary means the flesh : for it is an adversary to the soul. “ For the flesh lusteth against the WHAT IS THE PRISON ? 223 spirit, and the spirit against the flesh ” (Gal. v. 1 7). But we must not agree either with the devil, or the flesh, which is what we are here told to do by Christ. 3. The same Athanasius says with better reason, elsewhere, that it is our conscience, for this is our adversary, and stings us when we do ill, until we agree with it, by following its dictates. 4. SS. Augustine, Anselm, and Bede are of opinion that God, or the law of God is meant, for these fight against our lusts. Wherefore clearly we ought to consent unto them, lest we incur the punishments with which they threaten us. But these are mystical, or symbolical interpretations. Wherefore I say with SS. Jerome, Hilary, and Ambrose, that by our adversary is here meant any one who has been unjustly offended, or injured by us, and is therefore in a position to be able to accuse us before God. With such a one Christ in the preceding verse bade us be reconciled. Note that there is here a Hebraism, and a parabolical form of expression, in which it is not necessary to adapt every word, but the general scope and meaning is what must be chiefly considered. And these, in this case, are rather hinted at than expressed. The sense then is this : — As a debtor, or one who is accused by a prosecutor before a judge, acts prudently if he agree with his adversary before judgment, and so escape the condemnation of the judge, prison, or infamy, so in like manner do thou act ; and if thou hast injured thy brother in any way, as for instance by calling him raca, or a fool \ thou hast made thyself a debtor, as it were, to restore him to honour : come in then, and be reconciled with him speedily, before thou be delivered as guilty to God the Judge, who by a righteous vengeance shall deliver thee to prison, until thou shalt pay all thy debt. That prison is hell, or purga- tory, according to the greater or less heinousness of thy sin. The word until, seems to bear a reference to purgatory, as though it signified terminable punishment, which is purgatory, whereas the punishment of hell has no end. Farthing • Greek, KoSpayrry. This is a word which has been 224 THE LAST FARTHING. borrowed from the Latin, like many others which are found in the Evangelists, such as prcetorium, ceniurio , &c. The quadrans , here translated farthing , was the fourth part of the Roman as, and is put for any very small coin. And the spiritual application is, that every debt, even the very least of the fault of anger, must be paid and atoned for after this life, in the place of justice. Wherefore in this life, where is the place for mercy, agreement, and pardon, let us be reconciled to our ad- versary — t\e., whomsoever we have injured, either by word or deed. I have read in a history that a certain servant who had departed this life appeared to his master, who asked him of his state and condition. The servant answered, “ I am in that place where every debt is exactly and rigidly reckoned, and where not so much as a straw is overlooked.” Doctor Jacobus also relates that a certain religious man, who had departed this life, appeared in vile raiment and with a sad countenance, and said to a com- panion, “ No one believes, no one believes, no one believes how strictly God judges, and how severely He punishes.”

and 28. — Ye have heard \ &c. . . . to lust after her — » that is, with the design and object of indulging sinful passion with her — hath already committed adultery with her in his heart . Because by adultery he hath already corrupted her in his mind, and there- fore before God, who beholds the heart, he is an adulterer, and as an adulterer he will be punished by Him. Christ passes from anger to concupiscence, because these two passions have the greatest influence over men. And as He ex- plained the commandment, Thou shalt not Ml, to forbid anger, so He here explains Thou shalt not commit adulteiy to forbid con- cupiscence. For many of the Scribes and Pharisees greatly erred in their exposition of this precept, as well as of the former. For although they knew that it was commanded by the tenth precept of the Decalogue, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, never- theless they erred — 1. Because they understood it of concupiscence, not altogether internal, but such as is wont to break out in touch, kisses, lascivious words, and such like, according to the maxim, FREE-WILL THE CRITERION OF VIRTUE. 225 “The law prohibits the hand, not the mind.” But this is true of civil and state law, which only punishes external wrongdoing, but not of the law of God, which weighs and chastises the inmost thoughts of the heart. Josephus, the Jewish historian, fell into this very mistake, when, in the twelfth book of his Antiquities, he cites Polybius as saying that Antiochus Epiphanes perished miserably because he had wished to spoil the temple of Diana. Josephus finds fault with Polybius, saying, “ To have wished merely, and not to have effected the sacrilege, does not seem a thing worthy of punish- ment.” And R. David Kimchi, cited by Gerebrard (Ps. lxvi.), says, “ Even if I should see iniquity in my heart, which I was even prepared to carry out in act, that it should be in the presence of God, and if I should utter it with my lips, yet will not God hear it — i.f., it will not be imputed to me for wickedness. For God does not reckon an evil thought as a work, unless it be against the faith of God and religion.” Thus, too, there are many in this day who say, “ To think evil is not a sin, but to do evil.” But this is a crass error, known and confuted by Aristotle and other heathens. For free will is the proper test and criterion of goodness and wickedness, of virtue and vice. For if free will seeks what is good and honest, it is itself good and laudable; but if evil, it is evil and blameworthy. Wherefore the external act, as, for instance, of adultery, is not, speaking precisely, a sin in itself (as is plain from the case of idiots being adulterers), unless it proceed from free will. For from free will it derives all its formal sin- fulness. 2. The Scribes erred in thinking that immodest looks, touch, kisses, &c., were not sins of adultery and fornication, but of concu- piscence, and so were done against the Tenth Commandment, Thau shall not covet thy neighbour’s wife , but not against the Seventh. In opposition to this Christ here teaches the contrary, and so ex- pounds the Seventh Commandment that all impurity is forbidden by it, because all such things are the road to adultery, and so a kind of beginning of adultery. 3. They were in error who thought that by this commandment Q i 226 THE EIGHT EYE. only concupiscence in respect to another man’s wife, but not of any unmarried woman, was forbidden. This error Christ here corrects, and teaches that all impurity between the sexes is forbidden by this law.

and 30. — But if thy right eye , &c. It is plain that there are here two parables, taken from the two most excellent and most useful of our bodily members — the right eye and the right hand. And Christ signifies that everything which entices us to sin must be cast away, however dear, precious, and necessary it may be to us. He makes mention of the eye first, because he had just before said, Whoso looketh upon a woman, &c. 1. Thus, S. Chrysostom (Horn. 17), by the right eye and hand, understands a woman beloved, such a one as he had just been speaking of, that she must be cast off, if by her look, voice, or gesture she provoke to lust. 2. S. Augustine {lib. de Serm. Dom. in Mont., lib. 1), under* stands any friend and minister, even one who is necessary. 3. S. Hilary, Theophylact (in loc.), Cyril, Pacian (Epist. 3), understand parents and relations, that intercourse with them must be cut off, if it leads us into sin. 4. S. Jerome understands affections and ices of the mind. 5. Auctor Imperfecti considers that by the right eye and hand the mind and will are meant, which must be called away from carnal pleasures. But more simply and plainly you may take the right eye and hand to be actually meant, but in such a sense as to subserve the meaning of the parable, and to be parabolically explained. For there is here a continuous parable, in which Christ has regard to concupiscence of sight. Christ is dealing with such an implied objection as this which follows: “You may urge that if the eye and the sight are adulterous when they look upon a woman to lust after her, what then shall I do with the eyes which God has given me to see with ? ” Again, it is a metaphor taken from surgery. As those who are sick and injured take care that a surgeon should amputate or remove the most noble and useful of our members, if their remain- ing imperil the safetyof the whole body ; so, also, I admonish THE RIGHT HAND. 227 you, O my faithful people, that ye endure any loss whatsoever, rather than commit a sin, especially a deadly sin ; that, indeed, whatever is a stumbling-block to you and draws you to sin, although it be as dear and necessary to you as your right eye, you should altogether pluck it out and cast it from you, at what- ever cost to you of pain and inconvenience ; for example, that ye should put away the sight of an eye, even if modest in other respects, that is, the friendship and society of female relations, a wife, a son, a parent, if they bring upon you peril of sin, t\e., if by other means you are not able to escape sin, for it is better to enter into heaven having one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell. But because it is always possible to escape from sin in some other way than by cutting off a member, it is not lawful to cut it off and so mutilate oneself. Thus it was that Origen, who made himself a eunuch for the sake of chastity, was condemned by the Church. Finally, the concupiscences which have to be cut off and mortified by every one so tenaciously cleave to the eyes and the body, yea, to the soul itself, that they cannot be rooted out without great force and sense of pain, so that they who cut them off suffer as much as if they plucked out an eye or a tooth. They who have gone through it know what it is. Whence it is called mortification, because it produces the feeling and pain of death. Thus according to the letter, SS. Aquilinus and Andomarus, as is related in their Lives in Surius, who had been blind, and recovered their sight by a miracle, asked of God that they might be again deprived of sight, that they might be free from the distractions and temptations to which sight gives rise. Furthermore it was by a special leading of God that the virgin mentioned in the Spiritual Meadow of Sophronius, plucked out her eyes and sent them to her lover, who persecuted her with his attentions, because he was ravished with the- beauty of her eyes. When he received this gift the lover was smitten with compunction, and exchanged his secular for a monastic life. S. Antonius asked Didymus, a blind man, whom S. Jerome calls his seer, that is, his teacher, if he grieved over his blindness. He Q 2 228 LAW OF DIVORCE. was silent or a little while, and nodded; then he said, “A prudent man ought not to grieve because he is without eyes, which are possessed by flies and bees ; but he ought to rejoice, because he has greater opportunities for opening the eyes of his mind, by which he may see God and divine things."

Also if the wife practise sorcery, or compass her DIVORCED PERSONS MAY NOT RE-MARRY. 229 husband’s death ; so that it is lawful to put a wife away for other causes besides fornication. I answer, what you say is true, but Christ here assigns fornication as the only cause of divorce, both because it is the only proper cause of divorce, speaking* in a strict sense, from marriage, as being immediately destructive of it, whilst the others are general causes, and would absolve a Christian from any union whatever ; also because the divorce of even a repentant adulteress is conceded in perpetuity, so that although the wife repent of her adultery the husband is not bound to receive her again to his house, whereas in the other cases he is bound to receive her back again to favour ; lastly, because Christ here wishes entirely to exclude all such causes of divorce as the wife’s deformity, poverty, disagreeableness, &c., which were common among the Jews. And to them He is here addressing Himself. And whoso shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery . Cajetan and others here repeat the words, excepting for the cause of fornication, as though it were lawful for the man putting away the adulterous wife, and for the adulteress herself, to enter again into matrimony. But what S. Paul says (i Cor. vii. u), is plainly repugnant to this idea. For he there bids the innocent wife remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her adulterous hus- band. See what I have there said; and this is the constant usage and interpretation of the Church, of which more on chap. xix. 9.

It has been said , &c. See what I have written upon the giving a bill of divorce in Deut. xxiv. 1.

But I say unto you , &c. Christ here corrects and settles the law of divorce. 1. Because the law easily conceded divorce for various causes. But Christ permits it only on account of fornication, if a wife be an adulteress ; and from an adulterer the innocent wife is at liberty to depart, according to that maxim, “ If a man break his marriage vow that may be broken with him." 2. The Law conceded both to the woman who was put away, and to the husband who repudiated her, the liberty of contracting a second marriage. But Christ denies it to both. 3. The Law conceded to the husband alone the power of giving a writing of divorcement But Christ, with respect to this matrimonial right places the man and the woman upon a perfect equality, as S. Paul teaches, I Cor. vii. 4. Except for the cause of fornication. By fornication here some understand any sin whatever, that is, in the form of a sort of spiritual fornication with any creature, leaving God, the Creator and Husband of the Soul. Thus S. Augustine, Origen, in loc. But this is taking it in too loose a sense. By fornication others understand infidelity. For this is constantly called fornication by the prophets, that is to say, spiritual and mystical fornication. But expositors, ancient and modern, passim , understand forni- cation here in its strict, literal sense, as denoting all illicit sexual intercourse. You will say it is lawful to put away a wife if she endeavour to draw her husband into any sin, as is laid down in the chapter, Qucesivi de divoriiis , and as Christ Himself sufficiently indicates,

Again, ye have heard, &c. Thou shalt perform, £*., Thou shalt pay, shalt fulfil what thou hast sworn unto the Lord, or by the Lord that thou wilt do. So S. Chrysostom properly explains that by oaths are here meant vows confirmed by an oath, that we are bound to render them, that is, perform them unto God. Suarez explains differently. “ If thou desirest to swear, swear by the true God, not by idols."

But I say unto you, &c. Christ here explains and perfects the third precept of the Decalogue, which the Scribes and Pharisees had explained falsely. For I. they asserted that an 230 IS IT LAWFUL oath became an oath, and was binding, if it were made by God, and called Him to witness, but not so if it were sworn by creatures, Christ here teaches the contrary. For in creatures the Creator is understood, for they were made by God, and all that they have and are is from God. For he who swears, calls God, who is the prime Verity, to witness his oath. He therefore who swears by a creature, either makes that creature a God, which is the sin of idolatry, or else it behoves to understand God the Creator in the oath. 2. The Scribes erred, who thought that by this precept perjury only was forbidden. On the contrary Christ here teaches that by it every oath is forbidden, all irreverence and abuse of the name of God. But I say unto you, &c. From this passage, the Pelagians, as S. Augustine testifies ( Epist . 89, q. 5.) taught that no oath was lawful for Christians. The Waldenses thought the same, as we see from the Council of Constance, and the Anabaptists of the present day hold the same opinion, who will not swear in a trial at the bidding of the judge. But this is an error of faith, which the perpetual practice of the Church, as well as the example of God Himself, of S. Paul, and the Saints condemns, as is plain from Ps. cx. 4 ; Rom. i. 9 ; Philip, i. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 31, &c. Reason itself shows us the same thing; for an oath is an honour to God as the prime Verity, because he who swears appeals to Infallible Truth as his witness. Where- fore an oath is an act of religion, and the highest worship, so that it be done in truth and justice, as Jeremiah says, iv. 2. You will ask, Why, then, does Christ say, Swear not at all? 1. S. Bernard answers (Serm. 65 in Cant.) that this is not of precept, but only of counsel. 2. Others allow that this is a precept, but one which only forbids peijury. 3. Others think that the command, Swear not at all, applies only to swearing by creatures, not by God. To this opinion S. Jerome inclines. FOR CHRISTIANS TO SWEAR? 231 But all these explanations are forced and incorrect, and are refuted by what follows ; for Christ bids us swear not at all , (1) because, as S. Augustine says (de Verb . Apostoli ), " False swearing is destructive, true swearing is perilous, swearing not at all is safe/’ Not at all — i.e., “ As far as lieth in thee, that thou shouldst not affect nor love swearing, nor take any pleasure in an oath, as though it were a good thing.” Again, to swear is, perse, a moral evil of irreverence with respect to God; just as it is a moral evil, per se, to kill any one ; yet there are cases in which it is a duty. So it is with an oath. In Paradise it was not lawful to swear, nor will it be lawful in heaven. So great is the majesty of the Name of God that It must not be called to witness unless necessity compel. For to invoke It about small and worthless things is to make It small and vile, just as would be the action of one who should call the king as witness about a single guinea. Hence the saints were cautious about swearing. In the Life of S. Chryso- stom it is recorded as a notable thing that he never swore. The same is testified of S. John the Almoner. You will ask whether also for Christians it is lawful to swear ? For (1) many of the Fathers seem to say that it is not. SS. Jerome, Chrysostom, Euthymius, say that swearing was permitted by God to the Jews, lest they should swear by idols, but is not permitted to Christians. (2) Theophylact and Euthymius are of opinion that an oath was a legal precept of the old law, like cir- cumcision. Wherefore, as the latter has been done away by Christ, so has the former. (3) Others think that an oath was allowed by God to the Jews, as being uninstructed, imperfect, and hard of belief, but has been forbidden to Christians because more perfect things become them as being more perfect, and because they ought to beware of the slightest peril of perjury. That in the same way divorce was permitted to the Jews, lest they should kill the wives whom they hated ; and yet Christ takes away this permission from Christians. Thus think S. Hilary ( mloc ., Can . 4), S. Ambrose (in Ps. 119, Serm. 1), S. Basil (in Ps. 13), Chromatius and Origen (in loc., Tract. 35), Epiphanius (Hares. 19), S. 232 VARIOUS OPINIONS Athanasius (Serm. de Passions et Cruce Donum) , S. Chrysostom ( Horn . ad pop ,) . If you object that in Holy Scripture God took an oath, as in Gen. xxii. 16, SS. Athanasius, Basil, .and Ambrose answer that such oaths of God were not strictly speaking* oaths, but assevera- ions only — or promises; or, as S. Ambrose says, God may swear because He is able to fulfil that which He swears, and He cannot repent of it. But a man ought not to swear because he has not any certain power of doing that to which he pledges his oath. If, further, you object that surely S. Paul swore when he said (2 Cor. i. 23), “I call God to witness upon my soul” (Vulg.), S. Basil answers that this is not really an oath, but only a simple mode of speech, uttered with the appearance and form of an oath as a stronger affirmation. But I say that not to the Jews only, but to Christians, is it lawful to swear. This is of faith, as is plain from the perpetual sense, use, and practice of the Church. “ For of all strife among men * —even Christians — “an oath for confirmation is the end,” says the Apostle to the Hebrews (vi. 16). Moreover, in Scripture there is no affirmative precept for swearing, as there is for praying, sacrificing, loving and praising God, honouring parents, &c., because an oath is not, per se, desirable, but only for the sake of something else, and, as it were, per accidens , in such sort that it is a kind of medicine for unbelief. And there is a negative precept for swearing, namely that you shall not commit perjuiy or swear by false gods, but only by the true God. There is also a condi- tional precept that if you swear you shall only swear what is just, true, and necessary. You may say, Christ here solemnly says to Christians, Swear not at all. I answer, this is true because, per se, it is unbecoming and improper to call the Great and Good God to witness about human disputes on account of men's mutual distrusts, unless this impro- priety may be excused by mutual necessity, as it is often excused by the want of witnesses and other judicial proofs. OF THE FATHERS. 233 To the Fathers who have been cited, I reply that they seem to have spoken in the same sense that Christ did, because they saw men often swearing falsely or unjustly, and, still more frequently, lightly, foolishly and rashly; hence on account of the peril of these things, they forbade an oath to Christians, that they should refrain from it as much as possible. But if any one is careful to avoid such dangers, then it is lawful for him to swear in a case of necessity. This is plain from S. Chrysostom, who, in his homilies to the people of Antioch, frequently and sharply rebuked their habit of rash swearing. And to those who wondered at his so doing, he thus replies : “ I say and repeat, as I am accustomed, because ye say and repeat what ye are accustomed." And he declares that he will not cease from this repetition until they leave off swearing. “ For a hard knot a hard and constant wedge must be used" Neither by heaven, &c. It seems that the Jews were wont to swear by heaven and earth, and similar oaths. And because the Pharisees thought that these oaths, being made by creatures, were of small account, Christ here teaches the contrary — viz., that he who swears by heaven or earth, swears by God their Creator, who has placed the throne of His glory in heaven, and his footstool on •earth.

But let your communication be, &c. — t\e., a simple affir- mation, or negation. For what is more than these, Gr. irtpimrov. The Syriac has, what is added beyond these . In the Hebrew Gospel ascribed to S. Matthew, we have pK p« ain, ain, p p ken, ken — that is no, no, so, so . In this passage a simple affirmation or negation is opposed to an oath; so in S. James (v. 12) ; and it means that whatever is added to these in the way of swearing, is of evil. So S. Chrysostom and S. Jerome, or rather Paulinus, Epist. ad Celantium . Of evil . Evil here may be taken either in the masculine or the ■neuter gender. If the masculine the devil is meant, who, as a ringleader of ail iniquity, incites thee to swear without necessity, and so draws thee on by degrees to swear falsely, which is the sin 234 LEX TALIONIS. of perjury. So Theophylact, Maldonatus, and others. If you take the neuter, it means cometh of vice , either your own or another's — that is to say, the custom of swearing arises either from your own vice of levity or irreverence, or else from another man's incre- dulity and distrust. Because a man does not believe my simple* assertion, I confirm my words by an oath, which, however, is a fault become necessary since the fall of man. So S. Augustine.

and 39. — You have heard, &c. This was the law of retaliation. But Isay unto you, Resist not evil . That is, an evil or unjust thing, or an injury done to thee by a wicked man. That is, do not requite evil by evil, injury by injury. Or better, resist not evil, taking evil in the masculine — t\e., the evil man who injures you- The Greek is T<g irovrjpv, though both meanings amount to much the same thing. Note — I. That the ancient lex talioms was just, but in practice it was often unjust, and sprang from a desire of revenge, by which one who had had an eye or tooth plucked out brought before the magistrate the person who had injured him, and demanded, by way of retaliation, that his eye or tooth should be plucked out- But Christ supplies the deficiency of this law and perfects it. by opposing to the lex talioms the law and counsel of patience, and to- a disposition thirsting for revenge the law of meekness. Note— 2. That this law of Christ has not regard to magistrates, as Anabaptists say, that all war not only offensive, but even- defensive, is forbidden to Christians by Christ, but has regard to- private persons ; for it is the office of the magistrate to scourge the guilty and to put murderers to death. Note — 3. This law of Christ does not take away from private individuals the lex talioms, which is of the law of nations and of nature, both for the reparation of offended justice and for the correction of the guilty person who has offended ; much less does it take away the right of defending ourselves when we are attacked by an enemy, but only forbids the desire of vengeance. Note — 4. That Christ here wishes to imprint upon us a dispo- sition to meekness and patience, that however much thou mayest JOHN FERNANDEZ, THE JESUIT. 235 De injured, yet still that thou shouldst not depart so much as a hair's breadth from inward peace and charity; and that if love of your neighbour and the glory of God, in any conjuncture of cir- cumstances, should absolutely require that you resist not evil, but patiently accept it, that you should in such a case do as the first Christians did — suffer joyfully the spoiling of your goods, or even the deprivation of life itself. I say then, with regard to these three cases spoken of by Christ, If any one mite thee on thy right, cheek , turn to him the other also ; If any one will take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also ; Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain , that they are, speaking generally, matters of counsel, not of direct precept ; but if the salvation of our neighbour and the glory of God require them to be done, then they are of precept. For instance, if the Indians or the Japanese knew that Christ has commanded Christians to turn the other cheek to him who smote them upon one cheek, and unless they did so those heathens would be scandalized and turned away from embracing the faith of Christ, then I say that it would be the bounden duty of any Christian, but especially of a preacher, to turn the other cheek to him who smote him upon one. There is a literal example of this in the life of S. Francis Xavier, the Apostle of India and Japan. When the Japanese were laughing at him as a foreigner, and at his new doctrine concerning Christ crucified, it happened that a certain Japanese, hearing John Fernandez, a companion of Xavier, preaching in the street, out of petulance spat in his face. Fernandez, in no way disturbed, quietly wiped away the spittle, and proceeded with his discourse. The Japanese were so filled with admiration at his patience and struck with the wisdom of the new preachers, that they gave themselves to them as disciples, and in great numbers embraced the faith of Christ. Lastly, it is a distinguishing characteristic of a martyr not to resist, not to defend himself, but to suffer himself to be slain for Christ. For, “ a soldier fights, not a martyr." A martyr is a sharer in the Passion of Christ, as the martyrs write to S. Cyprian, 236 SAINT SPIRIDION. (lib. 5, Efts/. 12.) For the passion of Christ is the pattern of all martyrdom. Wherefore that Theban Legion of very many and very brave soldiers, being condemned to death by the Emperor Maximian, because they would not sacrifice to idols, when soldiers were sent amongst them to slay them, would not defend themselves, even though they might have sold their lives dear and made an immense . slaughter of their enemies. But at the instigation and exhortation of S. Mauritius, they piled their arms and suffered themselves t q be immolated like a flock of lambs, for the sake of Christ. It was Christ who taught this new philosophy, a paradox to the world, unknown to the philosophers, unheard of among men, but heavenly and divine, and confirmed the same by His own example, when He willingly gave Himself up to the Jews to be bound, scourged, and crucified. Whence He says Himself, “ I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair." (Is. 1 . 6.) Whosoever shall smile thee on thy right cheek, &c. This is, as I have said, a matter sometimes of precept, sometimes of counsel. Com- pliance with it flows from a generous mind, prompt to suffer, and earnestly desirous of imitating the Life and Passion of Christ. Hence S. Ambrose by the right cheek mystically understand! patience, which conquers all things. “ For as,” saith he, “ Samson by the jaw-bone of an ass slew a thousand Philistines, so Chris! by His patience overthrew the demons and all His enemies.” Thus that glorious Spiridion, Bishop of Trimituns, in Cyprus, being invited by the Emperor Constantine to visit him on account of the fame of his sanctity, when he was entering the imperial palace in a mean and foreign garb, was derided by one of the servants and slapped on the cheek. On receiving it he imme- diately turned the other cheek, on which the servant was so struck with his virtue, that he became ashamed, and falling down on the ground at his feet begged him to forgive him. (See Spiridion's Life in Surius, Decemb. 12.) Similarly, a monk who was slapped on one cheek by an SAINT EULOGIUS. 23 ? energumen, offered her the other; and by this drove out the devil. Hear the account (Auc/or. Doctrines Pat. Tract . de humilitate n. 5) ; “ When the monk entered into the house, there came the girl who was vexed by the devil, and gave the monk a slap in the face, but he, according to the Divine precept, offered her his other cheek to slap. The devil, being constrained, began to cry out, *Ol The power of the precepts of Jesus Christ drives me hence/ And immediately the girl was cleansed. When the monk came to some old men, he told them what had been done, and they glorified God, saying, Tt is the habit of diabolical pride to fall before the lowliness of the commands of Jesus / 99 Cassian celebrates the patience of a certain religious man, who in order to try his virtue, received a very sharp slap on his cheek from his Abbot Paul in a large assemblage, and so severe was the blow that it was heard by a number of persons who were sitting a considerable distance off. Yet not only did not the monk murmur, but his face was not even suffused with a blush, as is usual. Lastly, S. Eulogius, presbyter and martyr of Cordova, being sentenced to death by a Saracen prince because he had spoken evil of Mahomet, whilst he was being led to martyrdom, was struck by a Saracen on his cheek. He offered him the other, when he received another slap upon that. Soon afterwards he was beheaded, when a dove came and sat upon his body, a sign and a vindication of his dove-like meekness,’ innocence, and patience. This happened a . d . 859, on the 1 ith day of March. And if any man will sue thee at the law, &c. The cloak is an outer garment, and often of considerable value; the coat in this passage is an inner garment, whence the saying, “Your coat is nearer than your cloak.” Wherefore the coat cannot be plucked away until the cloak has been taken off. So S. Luke rightly inverts the order of the two, and says, And him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take away thy coat also . But the meaning is the same in both. If any one shall take one garment away from thee, do not go to law with him to recover it, but rather let him take 2 3 8 S. ELIZABETH OF HUNGARY. possession of another, if he will. S. Francis did this literally. On account of his profuse almsdeeds he was taken by his father before the Bishop of Assisi, that he might be made to give up his property. Not only did he yield up his other goods, but he resigned even his clothes to his father, saying, “ Now shall I say more boldly, ‘Our Father, which art in heaven/ ” S. Elizabeth, daughter of the King of Hungary, afforded in this matter a rare example of patience and poverty. After the death of her husband, the Landgrave of Hesse, she was expelled with the utmost indignity by his vassals and relations from her home, she was despoiled of all she had, and reduced to the most extreme poverty. With joy and alacrity she went to a Franciscan convent; and there she asked the brethren to sing Te Deum laudamus in thanksgiving to God. Afterwards she wandered from house to house, like a beggar, with her children, and at last entered a hut, where she was tormented with the smoke, heat, wind, and rain, yet always did she give God thanks. The insults, reproaches, and scoffs of her relations she joyfully endured, being glad that she was counted worthy to suffer such things for God. At length, her father, King Andrew, begged her to go back to Hungary to share in the royal splendour. She would not, but in great poverty, gaining her own living by spinning wool, she spent the rest of her life, performing the most menial offices for poor, ulcerated, and leprous people. And so, a little before her death, she heard the singing of the angels, and the sweet voice of Christ calling her to His heavenly kingdom — “Come, My chosen one, and enjoy the bed in heaven which I have destined for thee from all eternity/' (See her Life in Surius, Nov . 19.) And whoso shall compel thee to go a mile, Gr. <iyyiapi£ctv. Angiare is a Persian word. The Persian royal messengers and postmen were called angari. They had the right of seizing horses, men or ships, and enforcing their service, so that angiare has the same meaning as to impound \ compel . Hence the words Angaria and Parangarice in law books. In Hebrew iggheret means a Utter, that which is carried by angari or runners . BROTHER JUNIPER* 239 The meaning is — If any one shall force thee to go one mile with him, go to the second mile-post rather than contend ; so will you keep peace, exercise patience, and conquer by your charity him who compels you, and make him your friend. And let not believers think that this is too difficult for them to do. S. Basil (in his Homily on reading heathen books) shows that philosophers taught and did as much. For instance, Pericles, who, upon a certain occasion, had suffered abuse from a person during a whole day, took him home in the evening with a light. Of Julius Caesar, Cicero says that he forgot nothing except injuries. But those things were but shadows of Christian virtues, which existed in a far greater and more solid degree in S. Paul, S. Laurence, S. Vincent, who gave thanks to their tormentors for weaving for them their martyrs' crowns. S. Cyprian ordered twenty pieces of gold to be given to the executioner who was to behead him. Brother Juniper, the companion of S. Francis, received taunts as Christ's jewels. Once to him who reproached him, he cried, “Cast your jewels into my lap; would that I might be stoned with precious stones like these all the way to Rome I" In the Lives of the Fathers we read of a certain religious man, who the more any one vexed him, or laughed at him, the more he rejoiced, saying, “These are the men who afford us an opportunity of becoming perfect; but they who commend us disturb our minds, for it is written, ‘They who speak well of you are those who deceive you.' " Climacus ( Gradu 4 de ObedieniiA) says that a certain religious, named Abbakirus, suffered divers trials and tribulations at the hands of his brethren for fifteen years. He was even driven from table by the servants. But he bore all patiently, and took none of the indignities offered to him seriously, but as proving him. And when he lay a-dying he said, “ I give thanks to Jesus Christ the Lord, and to you, that ye have tried me unto salvation, for, io! for these seventeen years I have remained untempted of the devil." The same Climacus relates that an old man, named Macedonius, who by his own desire had been sent among the novices, said, “ Never 240 S. JOHN THE ALMONER. have I felt freedom from all strife and the sweetness of divine light within my soul as I do now.” Give to him that asketh, &c. At first sight the precept might not seem to be in harmony with what has gone before concerning the lex talionis, but it is indeed in perfect harmony. The meaning is this — I, Christ, instead of the law of retaliation, appoint a law of love and kindness. Wherefore, whosoever asketh anything of thee, be he friend or be he enemy who has injured thee, or smitten thee on the cheek, or taken away thy cloak, give him what he asks ; and if he should desire to borrow from thee, turn not thy face away from him, as people are wont to do, but treat him kindly as a neighbour, and lend him that he requires, as though he had never injured thee. In fine, the sermon and sanction of Christ here does not decrease but increases, for although it may be easier per se to give to every one that asketh thee, than when thou art smitten upon one cheek to offer the other to the smiter, yet it is more difficult in the connec- tion, which implies both the patience which suffers such things and such men, and the beneficence by which we give or lend to those who ask us. For it is more difficult to do a kindness to one who has injured us, than simply to bear an injury patiently. So S. Augustine, lib . de Serm. Dorn ., c. 40. The liberality of S. John, Patriarch of Alexandria, is well known. Encouraged by these words of Christ, he gave large alms to all who asked him, whence he derived his name of the Almoner. And the more he gave the more he received, so that it seemed as though there were a strife between God and him who should be the more liberal. For John overcame God, but much more did God overcome John. John would not examine those who asked him, whether they were rich or poor, worthy or unworthy, few or many. “I am persuaded,” he said, “that if the whole world should come to Alexandria, needing alms, they would be very far from exhausting the treasury of God.” S. Francis, upon one occasion, shortly after his conversion, refused, contrary to his custom, to give an alms to a poor man. WHO OUR NEIGHBOUR. 241 But he very soon afterwards repented of his refusal, and gave the man a large alms ; and he made a vow that in future he would never refuse to give when he was asked. By this his liberality, he drew down upon him that abundant grace of God by which he attained to such eminent sanctity. That is a rare thing which we read in the Chronicles of the Franciscans concerning Alexander Aleusis, who was called a fountain of life, and who was the teacher of S. Bonaventura. His affection for the Mother of God was so great that he would never deny anything to any one who asked him in her name. A certain Franciscan got to know of this, and, seeing that he was by far the the most celebrated Doctor of the University of Paris, came to him and said, “ By S. Mary, I beg of you to become one of us." He believed the man was sent by God, and immediately followed him, and became a Franciscan Brother.

Ye have heard \ &c. It has been asked, where is it said, “ Thou shalt hate thine enemy ?" Maldonatus replies, in Deut. xxv. 19, “Thou shalt blot out his name from under heaven." God had commanded Joshua and the Hebrews utterly to destroy the im- pious Canaanites, and to seize their land. But the Law bade only the Canaanites to be slain, not other nations, and even them, not out of hatred : just as a judge might order a guilty person to be put to death, not because he hated him, but even one whom he loved. I maintain, therefore, that this saying was not in the Law, but was said by the Scribes who interpreted the Law. For they, because they found in Lev. xix. 18, “Thou shalt love thy neigh- bour," or “thy friend," as the Vulgate translates, inferred from thence that they should hate their enemies. Wherefore Christ here corrects this interpretation of theirs, and explains the Law, that by neighbour or friend every man is meant, even a foreigner, a Gentile, and an enemy. For all men are neighbours, through their first forefather, Adam, and brethren one of another. We are also brethren through our second Father, Christ, through whom we have been born again, and, as it were, created anew in the R 242 IMITATION OF GOD. likeness of God, and called to the common inheritance of God, our Father in heaven. So S. Jerome, Augustine, Theophylact, and others. But I say unto you, &c. Christ here bids us love our enemies in heart, in word, and in deed. In heart, when He says, “ Love your enemies ;” in word, “ Bless them that curse you;” in deed, by adding, “Do good to them that hate you.” That ye may he the children of your Father, &c. Christ bids that in loving our enemies we should imitate God, who does good to his impious enemies, giving them rain and sunshine, corn and fruits. For the mind of God is so lofty, that He regards no injury or blasphemy of any one, however impious, as done against Him- self. He perceives no diminution of His honour and glory. He is so impassible and so holy that no anger or revenge Can affect Him, and so good and clement that He showers His gifts upon His enemies, preventing them with His grace, and alluring and drawing them to reconciliation. Yea, He gave up His only Son to be crucified, that He might reconcile them and save them. Let us imitate these things as far as we can. For if ye love them, &c. The publicans were so called because they farmed and collected the public taxes. And they extorted from the poor with the utmost rigour more than they had a right to pay. For this reason they were accounted by the Jews iniqui- tous and infamous. What reward have ye ? None: for if ye love your friends only, not your enemies, ye only do as the publicans do, and God will give you no reward in heaven. For such love is of nature, not of grace and charity, which latter love extends itself even to enemies. And ye do receive a reward from your friends, namely, reciprocal love. But if ye love your enemies as well as your friends, ye will deserve and obtain great grace and glory from God, since both kinds of love are the fruit of charity. Charity therefore bids us love both friends and enemies, corrupt nature our friends only. Publius Sulla was wont to boast that he surpassed his friends EXAMPLE OF LYCURGUS. 243 in benefits, his enemies in injuries. Other heathen did the same. There were indeed a few among them who did love even their enemies. Such was Phocion, who being condemed to death, and at point of execution, being asked what message he would send to his son, made answer, “ I wish him to forget this injury which the Athenians have done to me.” Lycurgus, King of the Lacedaemonians, being deprived of an eye by a certain young man, the youth was presented to him by the people that he should punish him in any way he pleased. Lycurgus took the youth, and gave him excellent instruction ; and when he had quite reformed his character, he brought him into the theatre, and presented him to the people, saying, “Lol him whom I received from you violent and injurious I restore to you profitable and acceptable.” See Plutarch in Life of Lycurgus. If the Gentiles, led by nature and reason, did such things as these, for the sake of temporal glory, what ought not Christians to do, led by faith and grace for the reward of a blissful eternity ? And if ye salute your brethren only, &c. Brethren, i.e., relations, kinsfolk , friends . Salute . Gr. Sucnraxrrpi)* salute with a kiss and embrace, which was the customary method of salutation among the Greeks and Romans, and indeed amongst the first Christians, according to those words of S. Paul, “ Salute one another with an holy kiss.” (2 Cor. xiii. 12.) Be ye therefore perfect, &c. The emphasis here is upon the word ye. Because ye are separated from the heathen, and chosen of God, that ye should be His faithful ones, His friends, His sons and heirs, therefore imitate the holiness and perfection of your Heavenly Father. The word therefore refers partly to what immediately precedes concerning love of our enemies. “ Do ye therefore, O faithful, who are the friends of God, and who ought therefore to be better than the heathen, do you love all men, enemies as well as friends, even as your Father wholly extends His love to all.” But the therefore also partly refers to all that has gone before. For this maxim is the end and completion of all the sayings of this r 2 244 PERFECTION. chapter, as though Christ said, “ Thus far I have unfolded the commandments of God, which are the sanction of the perfection of all virtue. Be ye therefore perfect in meekness, in purity of heart, in patience, in chastity, in charity, and in every virtue which the Law of God enjoins.” You will ask whether this perfection be of counsel or of precept? I reply, partly of counsel, partly of precept. First, it is of precept that every believer in Christianity should endeavour to be perfect, in such wise that he should perfectly love his enemies as well as his friends, and keep perfectly all the other commandments of God. For Christ is here speaking to all the faithful, as is plain from what precedes. Hence we learn from this passage that all Christians are under obligation to be advancing towards per- fection according to their state and condition. For this is required that they should be the children of their Heavenly Father, as Christ says. Whosoever therefore desires to be the child and heir of this Father ought to imitate Him in perfection ; because, as S. Cyprian says ( Strm . debono Patient.), “The children of such and so great a Parent ought not to be degenerate.” Moreover, S. James (chap, i.), addressing not religious, but all believers, says: “That ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.” For if soldiers in battle wish to be most brave, disciples in a school most learned, workmen, each in their own craft, most exact, servants in obeying their own masters most diligent, why should not Christians, who are called by Christ to holiness and perfection, wish to be most holy and most perfect? Blessed Theresa was wont to say that God has an especial love for those who are perfect, and makes them, as it were, captains and generals of others, that they should convert, save, and perfect many. Wherefore she herself made a vow that in every work she would do that which should be more perfect, and for the greater glory of God. See S. Chrysostom (lib. 3. de Vitupcrat. vita Monas/. J, where he teaches that the precepts of Christ bind seculars as well as religious, and that therefore both ought to aim at perfection, each in his own state and rank, according to that which God said GOD LOVES ALL MEN. 24$ to Israel, “Thou shalt be perfect and without spot before the Lord thy God.” (Deut. xviii. 13.) 2. This perfection is of counsel so far as it extends itself to the observance, not only of commands, but of evangelical counsels, such as voluntary poverty, chastity, and religious obedience; such, I mean, as when Christ said, “ If thou wilt be perfect, sell that thou hast and give to the poor.” (Matt. xix. 21.) Moreover, this perfection mainly consists in charity and love, especially of our enemies. For this is the perfection of life , since the perfection of the country consists in the vision and fruition of God. Christ here tacitly intimates that the way of attaining per- fection and eminent sanctity is for any one to exercise himself in love of his enemies, both because this is the highest and most difficult act of charity, as because it is the greatest victory over ourselves. For he who does this generously vanquishes anger, revenge, and the other passions of the soul ; and God requites his charity with far more abundant gifts of grace. So that holy virgin mentioned by D. Tauler, when asked how she had attained to so great sanctity, replied, “I have ever loved with a special love any who have been troublesome to me ; and to any one who has injured me, I have always endeavoured to show some special mark of kindness.” As your Father which is in heaven , &c. For He with a perfect love loves all men. Upon all He sheds the beams of His beneficence, as it were a perennial sun of kindness, Who expects not to derive any advantage from any one, but out of pure love desires to communicate His benefits to others, that thus He may contend with the wickedness and ingratitude of man ; for few indeed are they who love Him, their Benefactor, in return as they should do. The word as signifies likeness, not equality ; for we cannot come up to the perfection of God, for that infinitely transcends all our perfection ; but we ought to imitate it as far as we are able. The perfection then which Christ here requires of a Christian is not merely human but Divine perfection, and similar to God’s perfection. For he is our Father not only by nature, but by 246 WAYS AND MEANS grace, for by it “ we are partakers of the Divine nature,” as S. Peter says. Therefore we are made to be really sons of God, and as it were gods upon earth. And so S. Peter proposes the words in Lev. xi. 44 as a kind of mirror for Christians saying, “ Ye shall be holy, for I am holy.” (1 Pet. i. 16.) And S. Paul says, “Be ye imitators of God as dear children.” (Eph. v. 1.) Beautifully says S. Cyprian, “ If it be a pleasure and glory to men to have children like themselves, how much more is there gladness with God our Father, when any one is so born spiritually, that the Divine nobility is manifest in his actions ?” 1. The perfection of God consists in the most ample love of all men, bad as well as good. And it is to this Christ has special reference in this passage. 2. It consists in the highest forbearance, kindness, and tran- quillity, and the impossibility of being affected by injury, wrath, or revenge, so that He is imperturbable and without passions. So in like manner must we, if we would be perfect, be meek and tranquil, and to that end must mortify anger and all other mental passions. Whence S. Ambrose says (lid. de Jacob et vita beatd ), “ It is the part of a perfect man to sustain like a brave soldier the onset of the most terrible misfortunes, and like a wise pilot to manage his ship in a storm, and as he runs through the surging billows, to avoid shipwreck rather by facing the waves than by shrinking from them.” Hence we shall find it a singularly efficacious means of attaining perfection for every one to search carefully into the state of his own soul, and find out his chief vice, from which, like branches from a root, all his other faults spring, and to strive against this with all his might until he root it out. For example, the radical and dominating vice in Peter is pride, in Paul gluttony, in James luxury, in John acerbity, in Philip anger, in Andrew sadness, in Matthew pusillanimity. Let every man know his own vice, and when it is known, let him fight against it with suitable weapons and mortify it. 3. God looks down from on high upon all earthly things as OF ATTAINING PERFECTION. 247 mean and poor, and gloriously presides over heaven and heavenly things. So in like manner, ought the man who is aiming at perfection to despise earthly honours and pleasures as worthless matters, pertaining to flies and gnats and fleas, and ought to look up to and covet the heavenly things, which are God's. 4. The mind and will of God are most just, holy, and perfect. With this mind, then, ought we to be clothed, that we may be like God — yea, one with God. Hear what S. Bernard says about this: “The unity of a man's spirit with God is his having his heart lifted up towards God, and entirely directed to Him ; when he only wills what God wills; when there is not only affection, but perfect affection for God, so that he cannot will anything save and except what God wills. For to will what God wills is to be already like God. But not to be able to will except what God wills, this is to be what God is, to whom to will and to be are the same thing. 5. God is of a great and lofty mind, which transcends all things, and which ever abides and is established in His own blessed and tranquil eternity, and so converts and draws all things to Himself. Hear, again, S. Bernard (ad Fratres de Monte Dei ) : “Thou shalt, amid the adverse and prosperous changes and chances of the world, hold fast as it were an image of eternity ; I mean an in- violable and unshaken constancy of mind, blessing God at all times, and vindicating for thyself, even in the uncertain events of this changeful world, and in its certain troubles, to some extent at least, a condition of abiding unchangeableness, so shalt thou begin to be changed and formed anew into the image and like ness of the eternal God, with whom is no changeableness, neither shadow of turning; for as He is, so also shalt thou be in this world, neither fearful in adversity nor dissolute in prosperity." Lastly, all perfection in this life is begun only, and is imperfect. For concupiscence, like a Jebusite, dwelleth in our members, and can be kept under, but not entirely extirpated ; but in heaven, perfection shall be full and complete, where this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on a blessed im- 248 WHAT S. PAUL SAYS, mortality, where death and concupiscence shall be swallowed up of glory, and God shall be all in all. There shall be no covetous- ness, where love shall fill all things. Whence the Apostle says of himself (Philip, iii. 12) : — “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended : but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”