Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| To Jerome
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Letter CLXVII.
(a.d. 415.)
From Augustin to Jerome on James
II. 10.
Chap. I.
1. My brother Jerome, esteemed worthy to be
honoured in Christ by me, when I wrote to you propounding this
question concerning the human soul,—if a new soul be now created
for each individual at birth, whence do souls contract the bond of
guilt which we assuredly believe to be removed by the sacrament of
the grace of Christ, when administered even to new-born
children?—as the letter on that subject grew to the size of a
considerable volume, I was unwilling to impose the burden of any
other question at that time; but there is a subject which has a
much stronger claim on my attention, as it presses more seriously
on my mind. I therefore ask you, and in God’s name beseech you,
to do something which will, I believe, be of great service to many,
namely, to explain to me (or to direct me to any work in which you
or any other commentator has already expounded) the sense in which
we are to understand these words in the Epistle of James,
“Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
he is guilty of all.”2746
This subject is of such importance
that I very greatly regret that I did not write to you in regard to
it long ago.
2. For whereas in the question which I thought it
necessary to submit to you concerning the soul, our inquiries were
engaged with the investigation of a life wholly past and sunk out
of sight in oblivion, in this question we study this present life,
and how it must be spent if we would attain to eternal life. As an
apt illustration of this remark let me quote an entertaining
anecdote. A man had fallen into a well where the quantity of water
was sufficient to break his fall and save him from death, but not
deep enough to cover his mouth and deprive him of speech. Another
man approached, and on seeing him cries out in surprise: “How did
you fall in here?” He answers: “I beseech you to plan how you
can get me out of this, rather than ask how I fell in.” So, since
we admit and hold as an article of the Catholic faith, that the
soul of even a little infant requires to be delivered out of the
guilt of sin, as out of a pit, by the grace of Christ, it is
sufficient for the soul of such a one that we know the way in which
it is saved, even though we should never know the way in which it
came into that wretched condition. But I thought it our duty to
inquire into this subject, lest we should incautiously hold any one
of those opinions concerning the manner of the soul’s becoming
united with the body which might contradict the doctrine that the
souls of little children require to be delivered, by denying that
they are subject to the bond of guilt. This, then, being very
firmly held by us, that the soul of every infant needs to be freed
from the guilt of sin, and can be freed in no other way except by
the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, if we can ascertain
the cause and origin of the evil itself, we are better prepared and
equipped for resisting adversaries whose empty talk I call not
reasoning but quibbling; if, however, we cannot ascertain the
cause, the fact that the origin of this misery is hid from us is no
reason for our being slothful in the work which compassion demands
from us. In our conflict, however, with those who appear to
themselves to know what they do not know, we have an additional
strength and safety in not being ignorant of our ignorance on this
subject. For there are some things which it is evil not to know;
there are other things which cannot be known, or are not necessary
to be known, or have no bearing on the life which we seek to
obtain; but the question which I now submit to you from the
writings of the Apostle James is intimately connected with the
course of conduct in which we live, and in which, with a view to
life eternal, we endeavour to please God.
3. How, then, I beseech you, are we to
understand the words: “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and
yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all”? Does this affirm
that the person who shall have committed theft, nay, who even shall
have said to the rich man, “Sit thou here” and to the poor man,
“Stand thou there,” is guilty of homicide, and adultery, and
sacrilege? And if he is not so, how can it be said that a person
who has offended in one point has become guilty of all? Or are the
things which the apostle said concerning the rich man and the poor
man not to be reckoned among those things in one of which if any
man offend he becomes guilty of all? But we must remember whence
that sentence is taken, and what goes before it, and in what
connection it occurs. “My brethren,” he says, “have not the
faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, with respect of
persons. For if there come into your assembly a man with a gold
ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile
raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing,
and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the
poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool; are ye not
then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this
world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He hath
promised to them that love Him? But ye have despised the poor,”2747
—inasmuch
as you have said to the poor man, “Stand thou there,” when you
would have said to a man with a gold ring, “Sit thou here in a
good place.” And then there follows a passage explaining and
enlarging upon that same conclusion: “Do not rich men oppress you
by their power, and draw you before the judgment-seats? Do not they
blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfil
the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect to
persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as
transgressors.”2748
See how the apostle calls those
transgressors of the law who say to the rich man, “Sit here,”
and to the poor, “Stand there.” See how, lest they should think
it a trifling sin to transgress the law in this one thing, he goes
on to add: “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in
one point, he is guilty of all. For He that said, Do not commit
adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou do not kill, yet, if
thou commit adultery, thou art become a transgressor of the law,”
according to that which he had said: “Ye are convinced of the law
as transgressors.” Since these things are so, it seems to follow,
unless it can be shown that we are to understand it in some other
way, that he who
says to the rich man, “Sit here,” and to the poor, “Stand
there,” not treating the one with the same respect as the other,
is to be judged guilty as an idolater, and a blasphemer, and an
adulterer, and a murderer—in short,—not to enumerate all, which
would be tedious,—as guilty of all crimes, since, offending in
one, he is guilty of all.”
Chap. II.
4. But has he who has one virtue all virtues?
and has he no virtues who lacks one? If this be true, the sentence
of the apostle is thereby confirmed. But what I desire is to have
the sentence explained, not confirmed, since of itself it stands
more sure in our esteem than all the authority of philosophers
could make it. And even if what has just been said concerning
virtues and vices were true, it would not follow that therefore all
sins are equal. For as to the inseparable co-existence of the
virtues, this is a doctrine in regard to which, if I remember
rightly, what, indeed, I have almost forgotten (though perhaps I am
mistaken), all philosophers who affirm that virtues are essential
to the right conduct of life are agreed. The doctrine of the
equality of sins, however, the Stoics alone dared to maintain in
opposition to the unanimous sentiments of mankind: an absurd tenet,
which in writing against Jovinianus (a Stoic in this opinion, but
an Epicurean in following after and defending pleasure) you have
most clearly refuted from the Holy Scriptures.2749
| 2749 Jerome, Contra Jovinianum, lib. ii. | In that most delightful and noble
dissertation you have made it abundantly plain that it has not been
the doctrine of our authors, or rather of the Truth Himself, who
has spoken through them, that all sins are equal. I shall now do my
utmost in endeavouring, with the help of God, to show how it can be
that, although the doctrine of philosophers concerning virtues is
true, we are nevertheless not compelled to admit the Stoics’
doctrine that all sins are equal. If I succeed, I will look for
your approbation, and in whatever respect I come short, I beg you
to supply my deficiencies.
5. Those who maintain that he who has one virtue has
all, and that he who lacks one lacks all, reason correctly from the
fact that prudence cannot be cowardly, nor unjust, nor intemperate;
for if it were any of these it would no longer be prudence.
Moreover, if it be prudence only when it is brave, and just, and
temperate, assuredly wherever it exists it must have the other
virtues along with it. In like manner, also, courage cannot be
imprudent, or intemperate, or unjust; temperance must of necessity
be prudent, brave, and just; and justice does not exist unless it
be prudent, brave, and temperate. Thus, wherever any one of these
virtues truly exists, the others likewise exist; and where some are
absent, that which may appear in some measure to resemble virtue is
not really present.
6. There are, as you know, some vices opposed
to virtues by a palpable contrast, as imprudence is the opposite of
prudence. But there are some vices opposed to virtues simply
because they are vices which, nevertheless, by a deceitful
appearance resemble virtues; as, for example, in the relation, not
of imprudence, but of craftiness to the said virtue of prudence. I
speak here of that craftiness2750
which is wont to be understood and
spoken of in connection with the evilly disposed, not in the sense
in which the word is usually employed in our Scriptures, where it
is often used in a good sense, as, “Be crafty as serpents,”2751
and again,
to give craftiness to the simple.”2752
It is true that among heathen
writers one of the most accomplished of Latin authors, speaking of
Catiline, has said: “Nor was there lacking on his part craftiness
to guard against danger,”2753
| 2753 Sallust, De Bello Catilinario. | using “craftiness” (astutia)
in a good sense; but the use of the word in this sense is among
them very rare, among us very common. So also in regard to the
virtues classed under temperance. Extravagance is most manifestly
opposite to the virtue of frugality; but that which the common
people are wont to call niggardliness is indeed a vice, yet one
which, not in its nature, but by a very deceitful similarity of
appearance, usurps the name of frugality. In the same manner
injustice is by a palpable contrast opposed to justice; but the
desire of avenging oneself is wont often to be a counterfeit of
justice, but it is a vice. There is an obvious contrariety between
courage and cowardice; but hardihood, though differing from courage
in nature, deceives us by its resemblance to that virtue. Firmness
is a part of virtue; fickleness is a vice far removed from and
undoubtedly opposed to it; but obstinacy lays claim to the name of
firmness, yet is wholly different, because firmness is a virtue,
and obstinacy is a vice.
7. To avoid the necessity of again going over
the same ground, let us take one case as an example, from which all
others may be understood. Catiline, as those who have written
concerning him had means of knowing, was capable of enduring cold,
thirst, hunger, and patient in fastings, cold, and watchings beyond
what any one could believe, and thus he appeared, both to himself
and to his followers, a man endowed with great courage.2754
But this
courage was not prudent, for he chose the evil instead of
the good; was
not temperate, for his life was disgraced by the lowest
dissipation; was not just, for he conspired against his country;
and therefore it was not courage, but hardihood usurping the name
of courage to deceive fools; for if it had been courage, it would
not have been a vice but a virtue, and if it had been a virtue, it
would never have been abandoned by the other virtues, its
inseparable companions.
8. On this account, when it is asked also concerning
vices, whether where one exists all in like manner exist, or where
one does not exist none exist, it would be a difficult matter to
show this, because two vices are wont to be opposed to one virtue,
one that is evidently opposed, and another that bears an apparent
likeness. Hence the hardihood of Catiline is the more easily seen
not to have been courage, since it had not along with it other
virtues; but it may be difficult to convince men that his hardihood
was cowardice, since he was in the habit of enduring and patiently
submitting to the severest hardships to a degree almost incredible.
But perhaps, on examining the matter more closely, this hardihood
itself is seen to be cowardice, because he shrunk from the toil of
those liberal studies by which true courage is acquired.
Nevertheless, as there are rash men who are not guilty of
cowardice, and there are cowardly men who are not guilty of
rashness, and since in both there is vice, for the truly brave man
neither ventures rashly nor fears without reason, we are forced to
admit that vices are more numerous than virtues.
9. Accordingly, it happens sometimes that one vice
is supplanted by another, as the love of money by the love of
praise. Occasionally, one vice quits the field that more may take
its place, as in the case of the drunkard, who, after becoming
temperate in the use of drink, may come under the power of
niggardliness and ambition. It is possible, therefore, that vices
may give place to vices, not to virtues, as their successors, and
thus they are more numerous. When one virtue, however, has entered,
there will infallibly be (since it brings all the other virtues
along with it) a retreat of all vices whatsoever that were in the
man; for all vices were not in him, but at one time so many, at
another a greater or smaller number might occupy their place.
Chap. III.
10. We must inquire more carefully whether
these things are so; for the statement that “he who has one
virtue has all, and that all virtues are awanting to him who lacks
one,” is not given by inspiration, but is the view held by many
men, ingenious, indeed, and studious, but still men. But I must
avow that, in the case—I shall not say of one of those from whose
name the word virtue is said to be derived,2755
| 2755 Virum a quo denominata dictur virtus. | but even of a woman who is
faithful to her husband, and who is so from a regard to the
commandments and promises of God, and, first of all, is faithful to
Him, I do not know how I could say of her that she is unchaste, or
that chastity is no virtue or a trifling one. I should feel the
same in regard to a husband who is faithful to his wife; and yet
there are many such, none of whom I could affirm to be without any
sins, and doubtless the sin which is in them, whatever it be,
proceeds from some vice. Whence it follows that though conjugal
fidelity in religious men and women is undoubtedly a virtue, for it
is neither a nonentity nor a vice, yet it does not bring along with
it all virtues, for if all virtues were there, there would be no
vice, and if there were no vice, there would be no sin; but where
is the man who is altogether without sin? Where, therefore, is the
man who is without any vice, that is, fuel or root, as it were, of
sin, when he who reclined on the breast of the Lord says, “If we
say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not
in us”?2756
It is not
necessary for us to urge this at greater length in writing to you,
but I make the statement for the sake of others who perhaps shall
read this. For you, indeed, in that same splendid work against
Jovinianus, have carefully proved this from the Holy Scriptures; in
which work also you have quoted the words, “in many things we all
offend,”2757
from this
very epistle in which occur the words whose meaning we are now
investigating. For though it is an apostle of Christ who is
speaking, he does not say, “ye offend,” but, “we offend;”
and although in the passage under consideration he says,
“Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
he is guilty of all,”2758
in the words just quoted he
affirms that we offend not in one thing but in many, and not
that some offend but that we all offend.
11. Far be it, however, from any believer to
think that so many thousands of the servants of Christ, who, lest
they should deceive themselves, and the truth should not be in
them, sincerely confess themselves to have sin, are altogether
without virtue! For wisdom is a great virtue, and wisdom herself
has said to man, “Behold the fear of the Lord, that is
wisdom.”2759
| 2759 Job xxviii. 28, Sept. ver. | Far be it
from us, then, to say that so many and so great believing and pious
men have not the fear of the Lord, which the Greeks call
εὐσέβεια, or more literally
and fully, θεοσέβεια. And what is the fear of the Lord but
His worship? and whence is He truly worshipped except from love?
Love, then, out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned, is
the great and true virtue, because it is “the end of the
commandment.”2760
Deservedly
is love said to be “strong as death,”2761
| 2761 Song of Sol. viii. 6. | because, like death, it is
vanquished by none; or because the measure of love in this life is
even unto death, as the Lord says, “Greater love hath no man than
this, that a man lay down his life for his friends;”2762
or,
rather, because, as death forcibly separates the soul from the
senses of the body, so love separates it from fleshly lusts.
Knowledge, when it is of the right kind, is the handmaid to love,
for without love “knowledge puffeth up,”2763
but where love, by edifying, has
filled the heart, there knowledge will find nothing empty which it
can puff up. Moreover, Job has shown, what is that useful knowledge
by defining it where, after saying, “The fear of the Lord, that
is wisdom” he adds “and to depart from evil, that is
understanding.”2764
Why do we not then say that the
man who has this virtue has all virtues, since “love is the
fulfilling of the law?”2765
Is it not true that, the more love
exists in a man the more he is endowed with virtue, and the less
love he has the less virtue is in him, for love is itself virtue;
and the less virtue there is in a man so much the more vice will
there be in him? Therefore, where love is full and perfect, no vice
will remain.
12. The Stoics, therefore, appear to me to be
mistaken in refusing to admit that a man who is advancing in wisdom
has any wisdom at all, and in affirming that he alone has it who
has become altogether perfect in wisdom. They do not, indeed, deny
that he has made progress, but they say that he is in no degree
entitled to be called wise, unless, by emerging, so to speak, from
the depths, he suddenly springs forth into the free air of wisdom.
For, as it matters not when a man is drowning whether the depth of
water above him be many stadia or only the breadth of a hand or
finger, so they say in regard to the progress of those who are
advancing towards wisdom, that they are like men rising from the
bottom of a whirlpool towards the air, but that unless they by
their progress, so escape as to emerge wholly from folly as from an
overwhelming flood, they have not virtue and are not wise; but
that, when they have so escaped, they immediately have wisdom in
perfection, and not a vestige of folly whence any sin could be
originated remains.
13. This simile, in which folly is compared to
water and wisdom to air, so that the mind emerging, as it were,
from the stifling influence of folly breathes suddenly the free air
of wisdom, does not appear to me to harmonize sufficiently with the
authoritative statement of our Scriptures; a better simile, so far,
at least, as illustration of spiritual things can be borrowed from
material things, is that which compares vice or folly to darkness,
and virtue or wisdom to light. The way to wisdom is therefore not
like that of a man rising from the water into the air, in which, in
the moment of rising above the surface of the water, he suddenly
breathes freely, but, like that of a man proceeding from darkness
into light, on whom more light gradually shines as he advances. So
long, therefore, as this is not fully accomplished, we speak of the
man as of one going from the dark recesses of a vast cavern towards
its entrance, who is more and more influenced by the proximity of
the light as he comes nearer to the entrance of the cavern; so that
whatever light he has proceeds from the light to which he is
advancing, and whatever darkness still remains in him proceeds from
the darkness out of which he is emerging. Therefore it is true that
in the sight of God “shall no man living be justified,”2766
and yet
that “the just shall live by his faith.”2767
On the one hand, “the saints are
clothed with righteousness,”2768
one more, another less; on the
other hand, no one lives here wholly without sin—one sins more,
another less, and the best is the man who sins least.
Chap. IV.
14. But why have I, as if forgetting to whom I
address myself, assumed the tone of a teacher in stating the
question regarding which I wish to be instructed by you?
Nevertheless, as I had resolved to submit to your examination my
opinion regarding the equality of sins (a subject involving a
question closely bearing on the matter on which I was writing), let
me now at last bring my statement to a conclusion. Even though it
were true that he who has one virtue has all virtues, and that he
who lacks one virtue has none, this would not involve the
consequence that all sins are equal; for although it is true that
where there is no virtue there is nothing right, it by no means
follows that among bad actions one cannot be worse than another, or
that divergence from that which is right does not admit of degrees.
I think, however, that it is more agreeable to truth and consistent
with the Holy Scriptures to say, that what is true of the members
of the body is true of the different dispositions of the soul
(which, though not seen occupying different places, are by their
distinctive workings perceived as plainly as the members of the
body), namely, that as in the same body one member is more fully
shone upon by the
light, another is less shone upon, and a third is altogether
without light, and remains in the dark under some impervious
covering, something similar takes place in regard to the various
dispositions of the soul. If this be so, then according to the
manner in which every man is shone upon by the light of holy love,
he may be said to have one virtue and to lack another virtue, or to
have one virtue in larger and another in smaller measure. For in
reference to that love which is the fear of God, we may correctly
say both that it is greater in one man than in another, and that
there is some of it in one man, and none of it in another; we may
also correctly say as to an individual that he has greater chastity
than patience, and that he has either virtue in a higher degree
than he had yesterday, if he is making progress, or that he still
lacks self-control, but possesses, at the same time, a large
measure of compassion.
15. To sum up generally and briefly the view
which, so far as relates to holy living, I entertain concerning
virtue,—virtue is the love with which that which ought to be
loved is loved. This is in some greater, in others less, and there
are men in whom it does not exist at all; but in the absolute
fulness which admits of no increase, it exists in no man while
living on this earth; so long, however, as it admits of being
increased there can be no doubt that, in so far as it is less than
it ought to be, the shortcoming proceeds from vice. Because of this
vice there is “not a just man upon earth that doeth good and
sinneth not;”2769
because of
this vice, “in God’s sight shall no man living be
justified.”2770
On account
of this vice, “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”2771
On account of this also, whatever
progress we may have made, we must say, “Forgive us our
debts,”2772
although
all debts in word, deed, and thought were washed away in baptism.
He, then, who sees aright, sees whence, and when, and where he must
hope for that perfection to which nothing can be added. Moreover,
if there had been no commandments, there would have been no means
whereby a man might certainly examine himself and see from what
things he ought to turn aside, whither he should aspire, and in
what things he should find occasion for thanksgiving or for prayer.
Great, therefore, is the benefit of commandments, if to free will
so much liberty be granted that the grace of God may be more
abundantly honoured.
Chap. V.
16. If these things be so, how shall a man who
shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, be guilty of
all? May it not be, that since the fulfilling of the law is that
love wherewith we love God and our neighbour, on which commandments
of love “hang all the law and the prophets,”2773
he is justly held to be guilty of
all who violates that on which all hang? Now, no one sins without
violating this love; “for this, thou shalt not commit adultery;
thou shall do no murder; thou shall not steal; thou shalt not
covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly
comprehended in this saying, Thou shall love thy neighbour as
thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is
the fulfilling of the law.”2774
No one, however, loves his
neighbour who does not out of his love to God do all in his power
to bring his neighbour also, whom he loves as himself, to love God,
whom if he does not love, he neither loves himself nor his
neighbour. Hence it is true that if a man shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point, he becomes guilty of all, because he
does what is contrary to the love on which hangs the whole law. A
man, therefore, becomes guilty of all by doing what is contrary to
that on which all hang.
17. Why, then, may not all sins be said to be
equal? May not the reason be, that the transgression of the law of
love is greater in him who commits a more grievous sin, and is less
in him who commits a less grievous sin? And in the mere fact of his
committing any sin whatever, he becomes guilty of all; but in
committing a more grievous sin, or in sinning in more respects than
one, he becomes more guilty; committing a less grievous sin, or
sinning in fewer respects, he becomes less guilty,—his guilt
being thus so much the greater the more he has sinned, the less the
less he has sinned. Nevertheless, even though it be only in one
point that he offend, he is guilty of all, because he violates that
love on which all hang. If these things be true, an explanation is
by this means found, clearing up that saying of the man of
apostolic grace, “In many things we offend all.”2775
For we all
offend, but one more grievously, another more slightly, according
as each may have committed a more grievous or a less grievous sin;
every one being great in the practice of sin in proportion as he is
deficient in loving God and his neighbour, and, on the other hand,
decreasing in the practice of sin in proportion as he increases in
the love of God and of his neighbour. The more, therefore, that a
man is deficient in love, the more is he full of sin. And
perfection in love is reached when nothing of sinful infirmity
remains in us.
18. Nor, indeed, in my opinion, are we to esteem it
a trifling sin “to have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons,” if
we take the difference between sitting and standing, of which
mention is made in the context, to refer to ecclesiastical honours;
for who can bear to see a rich man chosen to a place of honour in
the Church, while a poor man, of superior qualifications and of
greater holiness, is despised? If, however, the apostle speaks
there of our daily assemblies, who does not offend in the matter?
At the same time, only those really offend here who cherish in
their hearts the opinion that a man’s worth is to be estimated
according to his wealth; for this seems to be the meaning of the
expression, “Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are
become judges of evil thoughts?”
19. The law of liberty, therefore, the law of
love, is that of which he says: “If ye fulfil the royal law
according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit
sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.2776
And then
(after the difficult sentence, “Whosoever shall keep the whole
law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all,”
concerning which I have with sufficient fulness stated my opinion),
making mention of the same law of liberty, he says: “So speak ye,
and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”
And as he knew by experience what he had said a little before,
“in many things we offend all,” he suggests a sovereign remedy,
to be applied, as it were day by day, to those less serious but
real wounds which the soul suffers day by day, for he says: “He
shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy.”2777
For with
the same purpose the Lord says: “Forgive, and ye shall be
forgiven: give, and it shall be given unto you.”2778
After
which the apostle says: “But mercy rejoiceth over judgment:” it
is not said that mercy prevails over judgment, for it is not an
adversary of judgment, but it “rejoiceth” over judgment,
because a greater number are gathered in by mercy; but they are
those who have shown mercy, for, “Blessed are the merciful, for
God shall have mercy on them.”2779
20. It is, therefore, by all means just that
they be forgiven, because they have forgiven others, and that what
they need be given to them, because they have given to others. For
God uses mercy when He judgeth, and uses judgment when He showeth
mercy. Hence the Psalmist says: “I will sing of mercy and of
judgment unto Thee, O Lord.”2780
For if any man, thinking himself
too righteous to require mercy, presumes, as if he had no reason
for anxiety, to wait for judgment without mercy, he provokes that
most righteous indignation through fear of which the Psalmist said:
“Enter not into judgment with Thy servant.”2781
For this reason the Lord says to a
disobedient people: “Wherefore will ye contend with me in
judgment?2782
For when
the righteous King shall sit upon His throne, who shall boast that
he has a pure heart, or who shall boast that he is clean from sin?
What hope is there then unless mercy shall “rejoice over”
judgment? But this it will do only in the case of those who have
showed mercy, saying with sincerity, “Forgive us our debts, as we
forgive our debtors,” and who have given without murmuring, for
“the Lord loveth a cheerful giver.”2783
To conclude, St. James is led to
speak thus concerning works of mercy in this passage, in order that
he may console those whom the statements immediately foregoing
might have greatly alarmed, his purpose being to admonish us how
those daily sins from which our life is never free here below may
also be expiated by daily remedies; lest any man, becoming guilty
of all when he offends in even one point, be brought, by offending
in many points (since “in many things we all offend”), to
appear before the bar of the Supreme Judge under the enormous
amount of guilt which has accumulated by degrees, and find at that
tribunal no mercy, because he showed no mercy to others, instead of
rather meriting the forgiveness of his own sins, and the enjoyment
of the gifts promised in Scripture, by his extending forgiveness
and bounty to others.
21. I have written at great length, which may
perhaps have been tedious to you, as you, although approving of the
statements now made, do not expect to be addressed as if you were
but learning truths which you have been accustomed to teach to
others. If, however, there be anything in these statements—not in
the style of language in which they are expounded, for I am not
much concerned as to mere phrases, but in the substance of the
statements—which your erudite judgment condemns, I beseech you to
point this out to me in your reply, and do not hesitate to correct
my error. For I pity the man who, in view of the unwearied labour
and sacred character of your studies, does not on account of them
both render to you the honour which you deserve, and give thanks
unto our Lord God by whose grace you are what you are. Wherefore,
since I ought to be more willing to learn from any teacher the
things of which to my disadvantage I am ignorant, than prompt to
teach any others what I know, with how much greater reason do I
claim the payment of this debt of love from you, by whose learning
ecclesiastical literature in the Latin tongue has been, in the
Lord’s name, and by His help, advanced to an extent which had
been previously unattainable. Especially, however, I ask attention
to the sentence: “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and offend
in one point, is guilty of all.” If you know any better way, my
beloved brother, in which it can be explained, I beseech you by the
Lord to favour us by communicating to us your exposition.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
