Can someone help me decipher what this citation is referring to?

[rpavich]

I was researching the ECF for their view on pacifism.

I came across this quote:

Just war theory was founded in part on a misinterpretation of “Resist not evil” (Matt. 5:39), which Augustine regarded as an absolute command to non-resistance of evil. No Christian, he argued, can take up arms in self-defense, therefore, but must submit passively even to death. Nor can Christians defend themselves against injustice, but must willingly collaborate in their own ruin. But what, asked Augustine, if my neighbors are being thus treated? Then the love commandment requires me to take up arms if necessary to defend them.³⁹

And then footnote 39 refers me to this information: (emphasis by bolding is mine)

³⁹ Augustine, Sermon on the Mount I. 19.56–68; Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 22.76; On Lying 27; Letters 47.5 (NPNF First Series, 1:293). Reinhold Niebuhr exactly mirrored this view (Christianity and Power Politics [New York: Chas. Scribner’s Sons, 1940], 10; An Interpretation of Christian Ethics [New York: Harper, 1935], 50, 62–83).

 

 

My question is: to what document does this refer?

 

I've searched and searched until I'm blue in the face but can't figure it out. Can someone with more knowledge help?

[Peter Brylov Christensen]

The document is called "Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount" (or in Latin: De sermone Domini in monte).

 

With kind regards

 

Peter Christensen

 

Here is the Latin text (19.56-20.68):

 

19. 56. Sequitur ergo Dominus et dicit: Audistis quia dictum est: oculum pro oculo et dentem pro dente. Ego autem dico vobis non resistereadversus malum; sed si quis te percusserit in dexteram maxillam tuam,praebe illi et alteram; et qui voluerit tecum iudicio contendere et tunicam tuam tollere, dimitte illi et vestimentum; et qui te angariaverit mille passus, vade cum eo alia duo. Omni petenti te da, et qui voluerit a te mutuari ne aversatus fueris. Pharisaeorum iustitia minor est non excedere in vindicta modum, ne plus rependat quisque quam accepit; et magnus hic gradus est. Nemo enim facile invenitur qui pugno accepto pugnum reddere velit, et uno a conviciante verbo audito unum et quod tantundem valeat referre contentus sit, sed sive ira perturbatus immoderatius vindicat, sive quia iustum putat eum qui laesit prior gravius laedi, quam laesus est qui non laeserat. Talem animum magna ex parte refrenavit lex, in qua scriptum est: Oculum pro oculo et dentem pro dente, quibus nominibus significatur modus, ut iniuriam vindicta non transeat. Et haec est pacis inchoatio; perfecta autem pax est talem penitus nolle vindictam.

A summa discordia ad summam concordiam pro temporum distributione transitus.

19. 57. Inter illud ergo primum quod praeter legem est, ut maius malum pro minore malo reddatur, et hoc quod Dominus perficiendis discipulis dicit, ne pro malo ullum reddatur malum, medium quemdam locum tenet, ut tantum reddatur quantum acceptum est, per quod a summa discordia ad summam concordiam pro temporum distributione transitus factus est. Quisquis ergo malum infert prior studio laedendi et nocendi, vide quantum distet ab eo qui nec laesus rependit! Quisquis autem nulli prior male fecit, sed tamen laesus rependit gravius vel voluntate vel facto, recessit aliquantum a summa iniquitate et processit ad summam iustitiam, et tamen nondum tenet quod lex quae per Moysen data est imperavit. Qui ergo tantum reddit quantum accepit, iam donat aliquid, non enim tantam poenam meretur nocens quantam ille qui ab eo laesus innocens passus est. Hanc ergo inchoatam non severam sed misericordem iustitiam ille perficit qui legem venit implere non solvere . Duos ergo adhuc gradus qui intersunt intellegendos reliquit, et de ipso summo misericordiae culmine dicere maluit. Nam est adhuc quod faciat, qui non implet istam magnitudinem praecepti, quae pertinet ad regnum caelorum, ut non reddat tantum sed minus, velut pro duobus pugnis unum aut pro avulso oculo aurem praecidat. Hinc ascendens qui omnino nihil rependerit propinquat praecepto Domini, nec tamen adhuc ibi est. Parum enim adhuc videtur Domino, si pro malo quod acceperis nihil rependas mali, nisi etiam amplius sis paratus accipere. Quapropter non ait: Ego autem dico vobis non reddere malum pro malo, quamquam hoc etiam magnum praeceptum sit, sed ait: non resistere adversus malum, ut non solum non rependas quod tibi fuerit irrogatum, sed etiam non resistas, quo minus aliud irrogetur. Hoc est enim quod etiam consequenter exponit: Sed si quis te percusserit in dexteram maxillam tuam, praebe illi et alteram . Non enim ait: Si quis te percusserit, noli tu percutere, sed: parate adhuc percutienti.Quod ad misericordiam pertinere hi maxime sentiunt, qui eis quos multum diligunt tamquam filiis vel quibuslibet dilectissimis suis aegrotantibus serviunt vel parvulis vel freneticis, a quibus multa saepe patiuntur et, si eorum salus id exigat, praebent se etiam ut plura patiantur, donec vel aetatis vel morbi infirmitas transeat. Quos ergo Dominus medicus animarum curandis proximis instruebat, quid eos aliud docere posset, nisi ut eorum quorum saluti consulere vellent imbecillitates aequo animo tolerarent? Omnis namque improbitas ex imbecillitate animi venit, quia nihil innocentius est eo qui in virtute perfectus est.

Quid sibi velit dextera maxilla.

19. 58. Quaeri autem potest, quid sibi velit dextera maxilla. Sic enim in exemplaribus graecis, quibus maior fides habenda est, invenitur. Nam multa latina maxillam tantum habent, non etiam dexteram. Facies est autem qua quisque cognoscitur. Et legimus apud Apostolum: Toleratis enim si quis vos in servitutem redigit, si quis devorat, si quis accipit, si quis extollitur, si quis in faciem vos caedit ; deinde continuo subiungit: Secundum ignobilitatem dico, ut exponat, quid sit in faciem caedi, hoc est contemni ac despici. Quod quidem non ideo dicit Apostolus, ut illos non sustinerent, sed ut se magis, qui eos sic diligeret ut se ipsum, pro eis vellet impendi . Sed quoniam facies non potest dici dextera et sinistra, et tamen nobilitas et secundum Deum et secundum hoc saeculum potest esse, ita tribuitur tamquam in maxillam dexteram et sinistram, ut in quocumque discipulo Christi contemptum fuerit quod christianus est, multo magis in se contemni paratus sit, si quos huius saeculi honores habet. Sicut idem Apostolus, cum in eo persequerentur homines nomen christianum, si taceret de dignitate quam habebat in saeculo, non praeberet alteram maxillam caedentibus dexteram. Non enim dicendo: Civis Romanus sum , non erat paratus hoc in se contemni, quod pro minimo habebat, ab eis qui in illo nomen tam pretiosum et salutare contempserant. Numquid enim ideo minus postea vincula toleravit, quae civibus Romanis non licebat imponi, aut quemquam de hac iniuria voluit accusare? Et si qui ei propter civitatis Romanae nomen pepercerunt, non tamen ille ideo non praebuit quod ferirent cum eos a tanta perversitate corrigere cuperet patientia sua, quos videbat in se sinistras partes magis quam dexteras honorare. Illud est enim tantum attendendum, quo animo faceret omnia, quam benivole et clementer in eos a quibus ista patiebatur. Nam et pontificis iussu palma percussus quod contumeliose visus est dicere, cum ait: Percutiet te Deus, paries dealbate , minus intellegentibus convicium sonat, intellegentibus vero prophetia est. Paries quippe dealbatus hypocrisis est, id est simulatio sacerdotalem praeferens dignitatem, et sub hoc nomine tamquam candido tegmine interiorem quasi luteam turpitudinem occultans. Nam quod humilitatis fuit, mirabiliter custodivit, cum ei diceretur: Principi sacerdotum maledicis?, respondit: Nescivi, fratres, quia princeps est sacerdotum; scriptum est enim: Principi potuli tui non maledices . Ubi ostendit,quanta tranquillitate illud dixisset quod iratus dixisse videbatur, quod tam cito, tam mansuete respondit, quod ab indignantibus et perturbatis fieri non potest. Et in eo ipso intellegentibus verum dixit: Nescivi quia princeps est sacerdotum, tamquam si diceret: Ego alium scivi principem sacerdotum, pro cuius nomine ista sustineo, cui maledicere fas non est, et cui vos maledicitis, cum in me nihil aliud quam eius nomen odistis. Sic ergo oportet non simulate ista iactare, sed in ipso corde esse ad omnia praeparatum, ut possit canere illud propheticum: Paratum cor meum, Deus, paratum cor meum . Multi enim alteram maxillam praebere noverunt, diligere vero illum a quo feriuntur ignorant. At vero ipse Dominus, qui utique praecepta quae docuit primus implevit, percutienti se in maxillam ministro sacerdotis non praebuit alteram sed insuper dixit: Si male locutus sum, exprobra de malo; si bene, quid me caedis? Non tamen ideo paratus corde non fuit non solum in alteram maxillam caedi pro salute omnium, sed etiam toto corpore crucifigi.

Domini praeceptum in omnibus observandum est quae aliquo iure temporaliter nostra esse dicimus.

19. 59. Ergo et illud quod sequitur: Et qui voluerit tecum iudicio contendere et tunicam tuam tollere, dimitte illi et vestimentum , ad praeparationem cordis non ad ostentationem operis praeceptum recte intellegitur. Sed de tunica et vestimento quod dictum est, non in eis solis sed in omnibus faciendum est quae aliquo iure temporaliter nostra esse dicimus. Si enim de necessariis hoc imperatum est, quanto magis superflua contemnere convenit! Verumtamen ea quae nostra dixi eo genere includenda sunt, quo Dominus ipse praescribit dicens: Si quis vult iudicio tecum contendere et tunicam tuam tollere. Omnia ergo illa intellegantur de quibus iudicio nobiscum contendi potest ita ut a nostro iure in ius illius transeant qui contendit vel pro quo contendit, sicuti est vestis, domus, fundus, iumentum et generaliter omnis pecunia. Quod utrum etiam de servis accipiendum sit, magna quaestio est. Non enim christianum oportet sic possidere servum quomodo equum aut argentum, quamquam fieri possit ut maiore pretio valeat equus quam servus, et multo magis aliquid aureum vel argenteum. Sed ille servus, si rectius et honestius et ad Deum colendum accomodatius abs te domino educatur aut regitur, quam ab illo potest qui eum cupit auferre, nescio utrum quisquam dicere audeat ut vestimentum eum debere contemni. Hominem namque homo tamquam se ipsum diligere debet, cui ab omnium Domino, sicut ea quae sequuntur ostendunt, etiam ut inimicos diligat imperatur.

Vestimenti nomen plura significat quam nomen tunicae.

19. 60. Sane animadvertendum est omnem tunicam vestimentum esse, non omne vestimentum tunicam esse. Vestimenti ergo nomen plura significat quam nomen tunicae. Et ideo sic dictum esse arbitror: Et qui voluerit tecum iudicio contendere, et tunicam tuam tollere, remitte illi et vestimentum; tamquam si diceret: Qui voluerit tunicam tuam tollere, remitte illi et siquid aliud indumenti habes. Ideo nonnulli pallium interpretati sunt, quod graece positum est ἱμάτιον.

Meminerimus perfectam nos implere iustitiam misericorditer perferendo infirmitates eorum quos volumus sanos fieri.

19. 61. Et qui te angariaverit, inquit, mille passus, vade cum illo alia duo, et hoc utique non tam ut pedibus agas, quam ut animo sis paratus. Nam in ipsa christiana historia, in qua est auctoritas, nihil tale invenies factum esse a sanctis vel ab ipso Domino, cum in homine quem suscipere dignatus est, vivendi nobis praeberet exemplum; cum tamen omnibus fere locis eos invenias paratos fuisse aequo animo tolerare quidquid eis improbe fuisset ingestum. Sed verbi gratia dictum putamus: Vade cum eo alia duo? An tria compleri voluit, quo numero significatur perfectio, ut meminerit quisque, cum hoc facit, perfectam se implere iustitiam misericorditer perferendo infirmitates eorum quos vult sanos fieri? Potest videri propterea etiam tribus exemplis haec praecepta insinuasse, quorum primum est, si quis te percusserit in maxillam; secundum si quis tunicam tollere voluerit; tertium si quis mille passus angariaverit, in quo tertio exemplo simplo duplum additur, ut triplum compleatur. Qui numerus hoc loco si non, ut dictum est, significat perfectionem, illud accipiatur quod in praecipiendo tamquam tolerabilius incipiens paulatim creverit, donec perveniret usque ad duplum aliud perferendum. Nam primo praeberi voluit alteram maxillam, cum fuerit dextera percussa, ut minus perferre paratus sis quam pertulisti -quidquid enim dextera significat, et carius est utique quam id quod sinistra significat, et qui in re cariore aliquid pertulit, si et in viliore perferat, minus est -; deinde illi qui tunicam vult tollere iubet et vestimentum remitti, quod aut tantundem est aut non multo amplius, non tamen duplum; tertio de mille passibus, quibus addenda dicit duo millia, usque ad duplum aliud perferas iubet; ita significans, sive aliquanto minus quam iam fuit, sive tantundem, sive amplius quisque improbus in te esse voluerit, aequo animo esse tolerandum.

Misericorditer perferenda alterius infirmitas.

20. 62. In his sane generibus trium exemplorum nullum genus iniuriae praetermissum esse video. Namque omnia in quibus improbitatem aliquam patimur in duo genera dividuntur; quorum alterum est quod restitui non potest, alterum quod potest. Sed in illo quod restitui non potest vindictae solatium quaeri solet. Quid enim prodest quod percussus repercutis? Numquid propterea illud quod in corpore laesum est restituitur in integrum? Sed tumidus animus talia fomenta desiderat; sanum autem firmumque ista non iuvant, quin potius misericorditer perferendam alterius infirmitatem iudicat, quam alieno supplicio suam mitigandam, quae nulla est.

Neque hic ea vindicta prohibetur quae ad correctionem valet.

20. 63. Neque hic ea vindicta prohibetur quae ad correctionem valet. Etiam ipsa enim pertinet ad misericordiam, nec impedit illud propositum quo quisque paratus est ab eo quem correctum esse vult plura perferre. Sed huic vindictae referendae non est idoneus nisi qui odium, quo solent flagrare qui se vindicare desiderant, dilectionis magnitudine superaverit. Nonenim metuendum est, ne odisse parvulum filium parentes videantur, cum ab eis vapulat peccans, ne peccet ulterius. Et certe perfectio dilectionis ipsius Dei Patris imitatione nobis proponitur, cum in sequentibus dicitur: Diligite inimicos vestros, bene facite his qui vos oderunt, et orate pro eis qui vos persequuntur. Et tamen de ipso dicitur per prophetam: Quem enim diligit Dominus, corripit, flagellat autem omnem filium quem recipit. Dicit et Dominus: Servus qui nescit voluntatem Domini sui et facit digna plagis, vapulabit pauca; servus autem qui scit voluntatem Domini sui et facit digna plagis, vapulabit multa . Non ergo quaeritur nisi ut et ille vindicet cui rerum ordine potestas data est, et ea voluntate vindicet qua pater in parvulum filium, quem per aetatem odisse nondum potest. Hinc enim aptissimum exemplum datur, quo satis appareat posse peccatum amore potius vindicari quam impunitum relinqui, ut illum in quem vindicat non poena miserum sed correctione beatum velit; paratus tamen, si opus sit, aequo animo plura tolerare ab eo illata quem vult esse correctum, sive in eum habeat potestatem coercendi sive non habeat.

Animadvertemus amore correctionem non odio desiderare vindictam.

20. 64. Magni autem et sancti viri, qui iam optime scirent mortem istam, quae animam dissolvit a corpore, non esse formidandam, secundum eorum tamen animum qui illam timerent nonnulla peccata morte puniverunt, quo et viventibus utilis metus incuteretur, et illis qui morte puniebantur non ipsa mors noceret sed peccatum, quod augeri posset si viverent. Non temere illi iudicabant, quibus tale iudicium donaverat Deus. Inde est quod Elias multos morte affecit et propria manu et igne divinitus impetrato, cum et alii multi magni et divini viri eodem spiritu consulendo rebus humanis non temere fecerint. De quo Elia cum exemplum dedissent discipuli Domino, commemorantes quid ab eo factum sit, ut etiam ipsis daret potestatem petendi de caelo ignem ad consumendos eos qui sibi hospitium non praeberent, reprehendit in eis Dominus non exemplum prophetae sancti sed ignorantiam vindicandi, quae adhuc erat in rudibus, animadvertens eos non amore correctionem sed odio desiderare vindictam. Itaque posteaquam eos docuit, quid esset diligere proximum tamquam se ipsum, infuso etiam Spiritu Sancto, quem decem diebus completis post ascensionem suam desuper ut promiserat misit, non defuerunt tales vindictae, quamvis multo rarius quam in Veteri Testamento. Ibi enim ex maiore parte servientes timore premebantur, hic autem maxime dilectione liberi nutriebantur. Nam et verbis apostoli Petri Ananias et uxor eius, sicut in Actibus Apostolorum legimus, exanimes ceciderunt, nec resuscitati sunt sed sepulti.

Quod scriptum est in libris non canonicis de apostolo Thoma iniuste percusso.

20. 65. Sed si huic libro haeretici qui adversantur Veteri Testamento nolunt credere, Paulum apostolum, quem nobiscum legunt, intueantur dicentem de quodam peccatore, quem tradidit satanae in interitum carnis: Ut anima salva sit. Et si nolunt hic mortem intellegere - fortasse enim incertum est -, quamlibet vindictam per satanam factam ab Apostolo fateantur, quod non eum odio sed amore fecisse manifestat illud adiectum: Ut anima salva sit. Aut in illis libris quibus ipsi magnam tribuunt auctoritatem, animadvertant quod dicimus, ubi scriptum est apostolum Thomam imprecatum cuidam a quo palma percussus esset atrocissimae mortis supplicium, animam eius tamen commendat, ut in futuro ei saeculo parceretur. Cuius a leone occisi a cetero corpore discerptam manum canis intulit mensis in quibus convivabatur apostolus. Cui scripturae licet nobis non credere - non enim est in catholico canone -, illi tamen eam et legunt et tamquam incorruptissimam verissimamque honorant, qui adversus corporales vindictas quae sunt in Veteri Testamento, nescio qua caecitate acerrime saeviunt, quo animo et qua distributione temporum factae sint, omnino nescientes.

Aliud iniuriarum genus est quod in integrum restitui potest.

20. 66. Tenebitur ergo in hoc iniuriarum genere quod per vindictam luitur iste a christianis modus ut accepta iniuria non surgat odium, sed infirmitatis misericordia paratus sit animus plura perpeti; nec correctionem neglegat, qua vel consilio vel auctoritate vel potestate uti potest. Aliud iniuriarum genus est quod in integrum restitui potest, cuius duae species: una ad pecuniam, altera ad operam pertinet. Quapropter illius de tunica et vestimento, huius de angaria mille passuum et duum millium exempla subiecta sunt; quia et reddi vestimentum potest, et quem adiuveris opera, potest te etiam ipse, si opus fuerit, adiuvare. Nisi forte ita potius distinguendum est, ut prius quod positum est de percussa maxilla omnia significet quae sic ingeruntur ab improbis, ut restitui non possint nisi vindicta; secundum quod positum est de vestimento omnia significet quae possunt restitui sine vindicta, et ideo forte additum est: Qui voluerit tecum iudicio contendere, quia quod per iudicium aufertur non ea vi putatur auferri cui vindicta debeatur; tertium vero ex utroque confectum sit, ut et sine vindicta et cum vindicta possit restitui. Nam qui operam indebitam violenter exigit sine ullo iudicio, sicut facit qui angariat hominem improbe et cogit se illicite adiuvari ab invito, et poenam improbitatis potest luere et operam reddere, si hanc ille repetat qui improbum pertulit. In his ergo omnibus generibus iniuriarum Dominus docet patientissimum et misericordissimum et ad plura perferenda paratissimum animum christiani esse oportere.

Parum est non nocere, nisi etiam praestes beneficium quantum potes.

20. 67. Sed quoniam parum est non nocere, nisi etiam praestes beneficium quantum potes, consequenter adiungit et dicit: Omni petenti te da, et qui voluerit a te mutuari ne aversatus fueris. Omni petenti, inquit, non: omnia petenti, ut id des quod dare honeste et iuste potes. Quid si enim pecuniam petat, qua innocentem conetur opprimere? Quid si postremo stuprum petat? Sed ne multa persequar, quae suntinnumerabilia, id profecto dandum est quod nec tibi nec alteri noceat, quantum sciri aut credi ab homine potest. Et cui iuste negaveris quod petit, indicanda est ipsa iustitia, ut non eum inanem dimittas. Ita omni petenti te dabis, quamvis non semper id quod petit dabis. Et aliquando melius aliquid dabis, cum petentem iniusta correxeris.

Aut donamus quod damus benivole, aut reddituro commodamus.

20. 68. Quod autem ait: Qui voluerit a te mutuari ne aversatus fueris, ad animum referendum est: Hilarem enim datorem diligit Deus. Mutuatur autem omnis qui accipit, etiam si non ipse soluturus est. Cum enim misericordibus Deus plura restituat, omnis qui beneficium praestat feneratur. Aut si non placet accipere mutuantem nisi eum qui accipit redditurus, intellegendum est Dominum ipsa duo genera praestandi esse complexum. Namque aut donamus quod damus benivole, aut reddituro commodamus. Et plerumque homines, qui proposito divino praemio donare parati sunt, ad dandum quod mutuum petitur pigri fiunt quasi nihil recepturi a Deo, cum rem quae datur ille qui accipit exsolvat. Recte itaque ad hoc beneficii tribuendi genus nos divina hortatur auctoritas dicens: Et qui voluerit a te mutuari ne aversatus fueris, id est ne propterea voluntatem alienes ab eo qui petit, quia et pecunia tua vacabit, et Deus tibi non redditurus est, cum homo reddiderit. Sed cum id ex praecepto Dei facis, apud illum qui haec iubet, infructuosum esse non potest.

Etiam inimicos et persecutores nostros diligere iubemur.

And here's an English translation by Phillip Schaff (19.56-20.68)

19

56. Hence the Lord goes on to say: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat [tunic, undergarment], let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” It is the lesser righteousness of the Pharisees not to go beyond measure in revenge, that no one should give back more than he has received: and this is a great step. For it is not easy to find any one who, when he has received a blow, wishes merely to return the blow; and who, on hearing one word from a man who reviles him, is content to return only one, and that just an equivalent; but he avenges it more immoderately, either under the disturbing influence of anger, or because he thinks it just, that he who first inflicted injury should suffer more severe injury than he suffered who had not inflicted injury. Such a spirit was in great measure restrained by the law, where it was written, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;” by which expressions a certain measure is intended, so that the vengeance should not exceed the injury. And this is the beginning of peace: but perfect peace is to have no wish at all for such vengeance.

57. Hence, between that first course which goes beyond the law, that a greater evil should be inflicted in return for a lesser, and this to which the Lord has given expression for the purpose of perfecting the disciples, that no evil at all should be inflicted in return for evil, a middle course holds a certain place, viz. that as much be paid back as has been received; by means of which enactment the transition is made from the highest discord to the highest concord, according to the distribution of times. See, therefore, at how great a distance any one who is the first to do harm to another, with the desire of injuring and hurting him, stands from him who, even when injured, does not pay back the injury. That man, however, who is not the first to do harm to any one, but who yet, when injured, inflicts a greater injury in return, either in will or in deed, has so far withdrawn himself from the highest injustice, and made so far an advance to the highest righteousness; but still he does not yet hold by what the law given by Moses commanded. And therefore he who pays back just as much as he has received already forgives something: for the party who injures does not deserve merely as much punishment as the man who was injured by him has innocently suffered. And accordingly this incomplete, by no means severe, but [rather] merciful justice, is carried to perfection by Him who came to fulfil the law, not to destroy it. Hence there are still two intervening steps which He has left to be understood, while He has chosen rather to speak of the very highest development of mercy. For there is still what one may do who does not come fully up to that magnitude of the precept which belongs to the kingdom of heaven; acting in such a way that he does not pay back as much, but less; as, for instance, one blow instead of two, or that he cuts off an ear for an eye that has been plucked out. He who, rising above this, pays back nothing at all, approaches the Lord’s precept, but yet he does not reach it. For still it seems to the Lord not enough, if, for the evil which you may have received, you should inflict no evil in return, unless you be prepared to receive even more. And therefore He does not say, “But I say unto you,” that you are not to return evil for evil; although even this would be a great precept: but He says, “that ye resist not evil;” so that not only are you not to pay back what may have been inflicted on you, but you are not even to resist other inflictions. For this is what He also goes on to explain: “But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also:” for He does not say, If any man smite thee, do not wish to smite him; but, Offer thyself further to him if he should go on to smite thee. As regards compassion, they feel it most who minister to those whom they greatly love as if they were their children, or some very dear friends in sickness, or little children, or insane persons, at whose hands they often endure many things; and if their welfare demand it, they even show themselves ready to endure more, until the weakness either of age or of disease pass away. And so, as regards those whom the Lord, the Physician of souls, was instructing to take care of their neighbours, what else could He teach them, than that they endure quietly the infirmities of those whose welfare they wish to consult? For all wickedness arises from infirmity of mind: because nothing is more harmless than the man who is perfect in virtue.

58. But it may be asked what the right cheek means. For this is the reading we find in the Greek copies, which are most worthy of confidence; though many Latin ones have only the word “cheek,” without the addition of “right.” Now the face is that by which any one is recognised; and we read in the apostle’s writings, “For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face:” then immediately he adds, “I speak as concerning reproach; so that he explains what striking on the face is, viz. to be contemned and despised. Nor is this indeed said by the apostle for this reason, that they should not bear with those parties; but that they should bear with himself rather, who so loved them, that he was willing that he himself should be spent for them. But since the face cannot be called right and left, and yet there may be a worth according to the estimate of God and according to the estimate of this world, it is so distributed as it were into the right and left cheek that whatever disciple of Christ might have to bear reproach for being a Christian, he should be much more ready to bear reproach in himself, if he possesses any of the honours of this world. Thus this same apostle, if he had kept silence respecting the dignity which he had in the world, when men were persecuting in him the Christian name, would not have presented the other cheek to those that were smiting the right one. For when he said, I am a Roman citizen, he was not unprepared to submit to be despised, in that which he reckoned as least, by those who had despised in him so precious and life-giving a name. For did he at all the less on that account afterwards submit to the chains, which it was not lawful to put on Roman citizens, or did he wish to accuse any one of this injury? And if any spared him on account of the name of Roman citizenship, yet he did not on that account refrain from offering an object they might strike at, since he wished by his patience to cure of so great perversity those whom he saw honouring in him what belonged to the left members rather than the right. For that point only is to be attended to, in what spirit he did everything, how benevolently and mildly he acted toward those from whom he was suffering such things. For when he was smitten with the hand by order of the high priest, what he seemed to say contumeliously when he affirms, “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall,” sounds like an insult to those who do not understand it; but to those who do, it is a prophecy. For a whited wall is hypocrisy, i.e. pretence holding forth the sacerdotal dignity before itself, and under this name, as under a white covering, concealing an inner and as it were sordid baseness. For what belonged to humility he wonderfully preserved, when, on its being said to him, “Revilest thou the high priest?” he replied, “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shall not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” And here he showed with what calmness he had spoken that which he seemed to have spoken in anger, because he answered so quickly and so mildly, which cannot be done by those who are indignant and thrown into confusion. And in that very statement he spoke the truth to those who understood him, “I wist not that he was the high priest:” as if he said, I know another High Priest, for whose name I bear such things, whom it is not lawful to revile, and whom ye revile, since in me it is nothing else but His name that ye hate. Thus, therefore, it is necessary for one not to boast of such things in a hypocritical way, but to be prepared in the heart itself for all things, so that he can sing that prophetic word, “My heart is prepared, O God, my heart is prepared.” For many have learned how to offer the other cheek, but do not know how to love him by whom they are struck. But in truth, the Lord Himself, who certainly was the first to fulfil the precepts which He taught, did not offer the other cheek to the servant of the high priest when smiting Him thereon; but, so far from that, said, “If I have spoken evil, hear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?” Yet was He not on that account unprepared in heart, for the salvation of all, not merely to be smitten on the other cheek, but even to have His whole body crucified.

59. Hence also what follows, “And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also,” is rightly understood as a precept having reference to the preparation of heart, not to a vain show of outward deed. But what is said with respect to the coat and cloak is to be carried out not merely in such things, but in the case of everything which on any ground of right we speak of as being ours for time. For if this command is given with respect to what is necessary, how much more does it become us to contemn what is superfluous! But still, those things which I have called ours are to be included in that category under which the Lord Himself gives the precept, when He says, “If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat.” Let all these things therefore be understood for which we may be sued at the law, so that the right to them may pass from us to him who sues, or for whom he sues; such, for instance, as clothing, a house, an estate, a beast of burden, and in general all kinds of property. But whether it is to be understood of slaves also is a great question. For a Christian ought not to possess a slave in the same way as a horse or money: although it may happen that a horse is valued at a greater price than a slave, and some article of gold or silver at much more. But with respect to that slave, if he is being educated and ruled by time as his master, in a way more upright, and more honourable, and more conducing to the fear of God, than can be done by him who desires to take him away, I do not know whether any one would dare to say that he ought to be despised like a garment. For a man ought to love a fellow-man as himself, inasmuch as he is commanded by the Lord of all (as is shown by what follows) even to love his enemies.

60. It is carefully to be observed that every tunic is a garment, but that every garment is not a tunic. Hence the word garment means more than the word tunic. And therefore I think it is so expressed, “And if any one will sue thee at the law, and take away thy tunic, let him have thy garment also,” as if He had said, Whoever wishes to take away thy tunic, give over to him whatever other clothing thou hast. And so some have interpreted the word pallium, which in the Greek as used here is ἱμάτιον.

61. “And whosoever,” says He, “shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him other two.” And this, certainly, not so much in the sense that thou shouldest do it on foot, as that thou shouldest be prepared in mind to do it. For in the Christian history itself, which is authoritative, you will find no such thing done by the saints, or by the Lord Himself when in His human nature, which He condescended to assume, He was showing us an example of how to live; while at the same time, in almost all places, you will find them prepared to bear with equanimity whatever may have been wickedly forced upon them. But are we to suppose it is said for the sake of the mere expression, “Go with him other two;” or did He rather wish that three should be completed,—the number which has the meaning of perfection; so that every one should remember when he does this, that he is fulfilling perfect righteousness by compassionately bearing the infirmities of those whom he wishes to be made whole? It may seem for this reason also that He has recommended these precepts by three examples: of which the first is, if any one shall smite thee on the cheek; the second, if any one shall wish to take away thy coat; the third, if any one shall compel thee to go a mile: in which third example twice as much is added to the original unit, so that in this way the triplet is completed. And if this number in the passage before us does not, as has been said, mean perfection, let this be understood, that in laying down His precepts, as it were beginning with what is more tolerable, He has gradually gone on, until He has reached as far as the enduring of twice as much more. For, in the first place, He wished the other cheek to be presented when the right had been smitten, so that you may be prepared to bear less than you have borne. For whatever the right means, it is at least something more dear than that which is meant by the left; and if one who has borne with something in what is more dear, bears with it in what is less dear, it is something less. Then, secondly, in the case of one who wishes to take away a coat, He enjoins that the garment also should be given up to him: which is either just as much, or not much more; not, however, twice as much. In the third place, with respect to the mile, to which He says that two miles are to be added, He enjoins that you should bear with even twice as much more: thus signifying that whether it be somewhat less than the original demand, or just as much, or more, that any wicked man shall wish to take from thee, it is to be borne with tranquil mind.

20

62. And, indeed, in these three classes of examples, I see that no class of injury is passed over. For all matters in which we suffer any injustice are divided into two classes: of which the one is, where restitution cannot be made; the other, where it can. But in that case where restitution cannot be made, a compensation in revenge is usually sought. For what does it profit, that on being struck you strike in return? Is that part of the body which was injured for that reason restored to its original condition? But an excited mind desires such alleviations. Things of that sort, however, afford no pleasure to a healthy and firm one; nay, such an one judges rather that the other’s infirmity is to be compassionately borne with, than that his own (which has no existence) should be soothed by the punishment of another.

63. Nor are we thus precluded from inflicting such punishment [requital] as avails for correction, and as compassion itself dictates; nor does it stand in the way of that course proposed, where one is prepared to endure more at the hand of him whom he wishes to set right. But no one is fit for inflicting this punishment except the man who, by the greatness of his love, has overcome that hatred wherewith those are wont to be inflamed who wish to avenge themselves. For it is not to be feared that parents would seem to hate a little son when, on committing an offence, he is beaten by them that he may not go on offending. And certainly the perfection of love is set before us by the imitation of God the Father Himself when it is said in what follows: “Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which persecute you;” and yet it is said of Him by the prophet, “For whom the Lord loveth He correcteth; yea, He scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.” The Lord also says, “The servant that knows not his Lord’s will, and does things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes; but the servant that knows his Lord’s will, and does things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with many stripes.” No more, therefore, is sought for, except that he should punish to whom, in the natural order of things, the power is given; and that he should punish with the same goodwill which a father has towards his little son, whom by reason of his youth he cannot yet hate. For from this source the most suitable example is drawn, in order that it may be sufficiently manifest that sin can be punished in love rather than be left unpunished; so that one may wish him on whom he inflicts it not to be miserable by means of punishment, but to be happy by means of correction, yet be prepared, if need be, to endure with equanimity more injuries inflicted by him whom he wishes to be corrected, whether he may have the power of putting restraint upon him or not.

64. But great and holy men, although they at the time knew excellently well that that death which separates the soul from the body is not to be dreaded, yet, in accordance with the sentiment of those who might fear it, punished some sins with death, both because the living were struck with a salutary fear, and because it was not death itself that would injure those who were being punished with death, but sin, which might be increased if they continued to live. They did not judge rashly on whom God had bestowed such a power of judging. Hence it is that Elijah inflicted death on many, both with his own hand and by calling down fire from heaven; as was done also without rashness by many other great and godlike men, in the same spirit of concern for the good of humanity. And when the disciples had quoted an example from this Elias, mentioning to the Lord what had been done by him, in order that He might give to themselves also the power of calling down fire from heaven to consume those who would not show Him hospitality, the Lord reproved in them, not the example of the holy prophet, but their ignorance in respect to taking vengeance, their knowledge being as yet elementary; perceiving that they did not in love desire correction, but in hated desired revenge. Accordingly, after He had taught them what it was to love one’s neighbour as oneself, and when the Holy Spirit had been poured out, whom, at the end of ten days after His ascension, He sent from above, as He had promised, there were not wanting such acts of vengeance, although much more rarely than in the Old Testament. For there, for the most part, as servants they were kept down by fear; but here mostly as free they were nourished by love. For at the words of the Apostle Peter also, Ananias and his wife, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, fell down dead, and were not raised to life again, but buried.

65. But if the heretics who are opposed to the Old Testament will not credit this book, let them contemplate the Apostle Paul, whose writings they read along with us, saying with respect to a certain sinner whom he delivered over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, “that the spirit may be saved.” And if they will not here understand death (for perhaps it is uncertain), let them acknowledge that punishment [requital] of some kind or other was inflicted by the apostle through the instrumentality of Satan; and that he did this not in hatred, but in love, is made plain by that addition, “that the spirit may be saved.” Or let them notice what we say in those books to which they themselves attribute great authority, where it is written that the Apostle Thomas imprecated on a certain man, by whom he had been struck with the palm of the hand, the punishment of death in a very cruel form, while yet commending his soul to God, that it might be spared in the world to come,—whose hand, torn from the rest of his body after he had been killed by a lion, a dog brought to the table at which the apostle was feasting. It is allowable for us not to credit this writing, for it is not in the catholic canon; yet they both read it, and honour it as being thoroughly uncorrupted and thoroughly truthful, who rage very fiercely (with I know not what blindness) against the corporeal punishments which are in the Old Testament, being altogether ignorant in what spirit and at what stage in the orderly distribution of times they were inflicted.

66. Hence, in this class of injuries which is atoned for by punishment, such a measure will be preserved by Christians, that, on an injury being received, the mind will not mount up into hatred, but will be ready, in compassion for the infirmity, to endure even more; nor will it neglect the correction, which it can employ either by advice, or by authority, or by [the exercise of] power. There is another class of injuries, where complete restitution is possible, of which there are two species: the one referring to money, the other to labour. And therefore examples are subjoined: of the former in the case of the coat and cloak, of the latter in the case of the compulsory service of one and two miles; for a garment may be given back, and he whom you have assisted by labour may also assist you, if it should be necessary. Unless, perhaps, the distinction should rather be drawn in this way: that the first case which is supposed, in reference to the cheek being struck, means all injuries that are inflicted by the wicked in such a way that restitution cannot be made except by punishment; and that the second case which is supposed, in reference to the garment, means all injuries where restitution can be made without punishment; and therefore, perhaps, it is added, “if any man will sue thee at the law,” because what is taken away by means of a judicial sentence is not supposed to be taken away with such a degree of violence as that punishment is due; but that the third case is composed of both, so that restitution may be made both without punishment and with it. For the man who violently exacts labour to which he has no claim, without any judicial process, as he does who wickedly compels a man to go with him, and forces in an unlawful way assistance to be rendered to himself by one who is unwilling, is able both to pay the penalty of his wickedness and to repay the labour, if he who endured the wrong should ask it again. In all these classes of injuries, therefore, the Lord teaches that the disposition of a Christian ought to be most patient and compassionate, and thoroughly prepared to endure more.

67. But since it is a small matter merely to abstain from injuring, unless you also confer a benefit as far as you can, He therefore goes on to say, “Give to every one that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” “To every one that asketh,” says He; not, Everything to him that asketh: so that you are to give that which you can honestly and justly give. For what if he should ask money, wherewith he may endeavour to oppress an innocent man? what if, in short, he should ask something unchaste? But not to recount many examples, which are in fact innumerable, that certainly is to be given which may hurt neither thyself nor the other party, as far as can be known or supposed by man; and in the case of him to whom you have justly denied what he asks, justice itself is to be made known, so that you may not send him away empty. Thus you will give to every one that asketh you, although you will not always give what he asks; and you will sometimes give something better, when you have set him right who was making unjust requests.

68. Then, as to what He says, “From him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away,” it is to be referred to the mind; for God loveth a cheerful giver. Moreover, every one who accepts anything borrows, even if he himself is not going to pay it; for inasmuch as God pays back more to the merciful, whosoever does a kindness lends at interest. Or if it does not seem good to understand the borrower in any other sense than of him who accepts of anything with the intention of repaying it, we must understand the Lord to have included those two methods of doing a favour. For we either give in a present what we give in the exercise of benevolence, or we lend to one who will repay us. And frequently men who, setting before them the divine reward, are prepared to give away in a present, become slow to give what is asked in loan, as if they were destined to get nothing in return from God, inasmuch as he who receives pays back the thing which is given him. Rightly, therefore, does the divine authority exhort us to this mode of bestowing a favour, saying, “And from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away:” i.e., do not alienate your goodwill from him who asks it, both because your money will be useless, and because God will not pay you back, inasmuch as the man has done so; but when you do that from a regard to God’s precept, it cannot be unfruitful with Him who gives these commands.

[rpavich]

The document is called "Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount" (or in Latin: De sermone Domini in monte).

 

With kind regards

 

Peter Christensen

 

 

Thanks very much.

 

I can't figure out how I missed that in searching the phrase; but now at least I know how to look up the reference...thanks.

Edited January 21, 2015 by rpavich