Page:Sermons by John-Baptist Massillon.djvu/240



It is  commonly  believed  that  a  degree  of  indulgence  and  caution had been  used  by  the  legislator  of  the  Jews,  in  publishing  the  law on forgiveness  of  injuries,  that  obliged  to  accommodate  it,  in  some respect to  the  weakness  of  a  carnal  people,  and  otherwise  persuaded that  of  all  virtues,  that  of  loving  an  enemy  was  the  most difficult to  the  heart  of  man,  he  was  satisfied  with  regulating  and prescribing bounds  for  revenge. It was  only  in  order  to  prevent great excesses,  says  St.  Augustine,  that  he  meant  to  give  authority to smaller  ones. That law,  like  all  the  others,  had  its  sanctity,  its goodness, its  justice;  but  it  was  rather  an  establishment  of  polity than a  rule  of  piety. It was  calculated  to  maintain  the  internal tranquillity of  the  state;  but  it  neither  touched  the  heart  nor  struck at the  root  of  hatreds  and  revenge. The only  effect  proposed,  was either to  restrain  the  aggressor,  by  threatening  him  with  the  same punishment with  which  he  had  grieved  his  brother,  or  to  put  a  check upon the  irritation  of  the  offended,  by  letting  him  see,  that,  if  he exceeded  in  the  satisfaction  required,  he  exposed  himself  to  undergo all the  surplus  of  his  revenge.

Philosophers, in  their  morality,  had  also  placed  the  forgiveness of injuries  among  the  number  of  virtues;  but  that  was  a  pretext  of vanity  rather  than  a  rule  of  discipline. It is  because  revenge  seemed to them  to  carry  along  with  it  something,  I  know  not  what,  of  mean and passionate,  which  would  have  disfigured  the  portrait  and  the tranquillity of  their  ideal  sage,  that  it  appeared  disgraceful  to  them to be  unable  to  rise  superior  to  an  injury. The forgiveness  of  their enemies was  solely  founded,  therefore,  upon  the  contempt  in  which they held  them. They avenged  themselves  by  disdaining  revenge; and pride  readily  gave  up  the  pleasure  of  hurting  those  who  have injured us,  for  the  pleasure  which  was  found  in  despising  them.

But the  law  of  the  gospel,  upon  loving  our  enemies,  neither flatters pride,  nor  spares  self-love. In the  forgiveness  of  injuries, nothing ought  to  indemnify  the  Christian  but  the  consolation  of imitating  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  obeying  him;  but  the  claims  which, in an  enemy,  prove  to  him  a  brother;  but  the  hope  of  meeting, before the  eternal  Judge,  with  the  same  indulgence  which  he shall  have  used  toward  men. Nothing ought  to  limit  him  in  his charity, but  charity  itself,  which  hath  no  bounds,  which  excepts neither places,  times,  nor  persons,  which  ought  never  to  be  extinguished. And, should  the  religion  of  Christians  have  no  other proof against  unbelief  than  the  sublime  elevation  of  this  maxim, it would  always  have  this  pre-eminence  in  sanctity,  and  conse-