CHAPTER XXVII

COMPLAINTS OF THE PHARISEES.-THEIR TRADITIONS REJECTED.-CURE OF THE CANAANEAN WOMAN'S DAUGHTER.

(a) “AFTER these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judea (1), because the Jews sought to kill him. The Pharisees and some of the Scribes coming from Jerusalem, assembled together unto him; and when they had seen some of his disciples eat bread with common, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews, holding the tradition of the ancients, eat not without often washing their hands; and when they come from the market, unless they be washed, they eat not (2). And many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe, the washing of cups and of pots, and of brazen vessels, and of beds [upon which they take their meals] (3). Thereupon the

(a) St. John, vii. 1; St. Matthew, xv. 1, 2; St. Mark, vii. 1–6.

(1) We have already seen that it was then the paschal season. Jesus Christ did not go to celebrate this passover at Jerusalem, as the law ordained. Besides that, he was not subject to the law; but, inasmuch as he wished so to be, a further reason is given for the dispensation, viz., the design which the Jews had of putting him to death. He might render it useless by his omnipotence; but he might also avail himself of the natural right which he had not to expose his life. We are not, therefore, rigorously obliged to perform external acts of religion, of which we could only acquit ourselves by exposing ourselves to some great peril. We must, nevertheless, except the case wherein the omission of the prescribed duty would be like a declaration of infidelity or apostacy. Then, should it cost life itself, we are not the less bound to the exterior profession than to interior belief.

(2) We may profit by this lesson, and learn from the Pharisees to purify not the body, but the conscience, when we return from human intercourse; for it is rare to return thence without some blemish.

(3) In limiting their religion to these practices, they acted very wrong, and they are justly reproved. From thence occasion has been taken to declaim against superstitious practices. If the practices be such, the declaimers have reason; if they be not, the people should still be taught to connect the mind with them—that is to say, interior piety, without which religion is only a vain shadow, and a body without a soul. But let us stop here, and with these correctives let us always speak in favor of exterior practices, and never to condemn them. We might do without them, if we were pure spirits;

Pharisees and the Scribes asked him: Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread; but they eat bread with common hands."

Here we recognize the Pharisees, who at once set down as a crim inal transgression what was not such; but supposing that it had been, still this reproach was visibly exaggerated. For they only had seen some of the disciples omitting the washing of their hands before meals, and they say to Jesus Christ, thy disciples, as if all were in fault. Then they call the Saviour himself to an account, although he might have had no part in the transaction. They should, therefore, had they wished to act equitably, have contented themselves with saying: We have remarked that some of your disciples do not wash their hands before eating. Is it you that have taught them to do so, or who authorized them so to act? After that they might have examined what fault there was in the like omission. But Jesus took a shorter way to confound them-that was, to reproach them directly with this senseless respect for their traditions which induced them to sacrifice to these trifles the most sacred laws of religion and humanity.

(a) "He answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition (4)? For God said: Hon

(a) St. Matthew, xv. 3-6; St. Mark, vii. 11, 12.

but since we have senses, we require sensible objects. There may be excess in this matter; but too little is another extreme, the consequences of which are, perhaps, more to be dreaded. It is a lesser evil to have religion surcharged with these practices, than to have no religion, which may happen when religion, divested of pious practices, has no longer any hold upon the senses. Here the accident clings so closely to the substance, and the accessory to the principal, that, in removing the one, you often make the other disappear. Let us remark further, that those who have declaimed most strongly against practices, and who have labored most to abolish them, are constantly heretics; whereas those who have multiplied them, if one may say so, to excess, are, after all, Catholics; and amongst those people who have either rejected them, or who have appeared most attached to them, we know which of the two have lost most of religion, or better preserved it. Let us endeavor always to preserve a just medium. (4) We should remark that the Saviour only speaks here of those human traditions which are opposed to the law of God. To conclude from thence with Protestants, that all traditions should be rejected, is concluding from the species to the genus, and from the particular to the general. But, say they, the Catholic traditions are contrary to the word of God. This also is bad reasoning, since they give as a proof

or thy father and mother: and he that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death. But you say: If a man shall say to his father and mother, Corban, which is, whatsoever gift proceedeth from me, shall profit thee [he satisfieth the precept]; and further, you suffer him not to do anything for his father and mother. And he shall not honor them," that is to say, that he does not assist them in their wants, in which act consists the substantial honor and real homage due to them, that without which all the others are but vain ceremonies and a species of mockery: (a) "well you do make void the commandment of God, making void the word of God by your own tradition. Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. For, leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washings of pots and of cups, and other things you do like to these."

many

The people were not within hearing of these answers, which were only addressed to the Pharisees. Yet there resulted from these answers a maxim wherewith it was proper that the world should be instructed. "Jesus therefore calling again the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear me, ye all, and understand: There is nothing from without a man that, entering into him, can defile him; but the things that come from a man, these are they that defile a man (5). (a) St. Matthew, xv. 6; St. Mark, vii. 13; St. Matthew, xv. 7-9; St. Mark, vii. 8, 14-16; St. Matthew, xv. 11.

the very matter in question. There are indifferent traditions which may be preserved : there are bad ones which ought to be rejected, and good ones which should be retained. Our adversaries receive with us the sanctification of the Sunday, the baptism of little children, the validity of baptism by infusion. These points are not to be found in Scripture. If it be true that we must reject all tradition, and only receive what is in Scripture, we must also reject these points with all the rest. Why do they not do so? It is easy to see that, when they wish to reason against us, they talk nonsense; and when they act like us, they contradict themselves.

(5) We know the abuse which the heretics have made of this expression, in order to reject as superstitious the abstinence from flesh-meat prescribed by the Church. There are but too many Catholics who imitate in this point their conduct and their language. It is easy to answer both one and the other. What enters into man doth not defile him of itself and by its own nature, since every creature of God is good; but it may defile him by the violation of the law which interdicts its use. Thus

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear."

The meaning of this maxim is, that meat contains nothing in itself which is capable of staining the conscience of man, and that all blemish of this kind springs solely from the distemper of the heart. This was expressed in a way to enable the truth to be understood by meditating on the maxim; and Jesus Christ exhorts the people to do this. But it might occur to their minds that he wished to remove the distinction so known and so respected between clean and unclean animals. He was soon to do so; but the time was not yet come. The question did not even arise here: the question at issue here was, to know whether, supposing an individual used only the meats which were allowed, his conscience was purer or more sullied, in proportion as he should eat them with more or less cleanliness, rather than with purity. This is the case which was decided by the sentence which Jesus has just pronounced. Thereupon the Pharisees were highly scandalized. To make light of their traditions was fully sufficient to give offence to these proud men. But we may presume, from this Pharisaical spirit, which always contrives to give things the very worst construction, that they accused the Saviour of openly attacking the law which prescribed the choice of meats. The disciples were alarmed; perhaps they also were scandalized; for we shall see that they themselves did not at first comprehend their Master's meaning. Thinking it, therefore, proper to remonstrate with him on the subject, (a) "they came then and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized? But he answering, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up (6): let them alone they

(a) St. Matthew, xv. 12–14.

Adam was defiled by the forbidden fruit, and the Jews were so defiled by the use of the meats which were declared unclean. It is not, therefore, the food which produces the defiling; it is the disobedience which comes from man, that is to say, which the heart engenders when the forbidden meat enters into man.

(6) Every doctrine which comes not from heaven, and which is merely the invention of the human mind: all teachers who have not received their mission from God, like the apostles and their successors.

are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind man lead the blind, both fall into the pit (7)."

Whenever it happens that, in doing good, we scandalize, if the scandal only proceeds from the malice of those who take scandal, we should despise it; but if scandal be taken from ignorance or through weakness, charity then obliges us to remove the apprehensions of the weak, and to enlighten the ignorant. The manner in which Jesus has just spoken of the Pharisees, shows us that he pursued the first line of conduct with respect to them. We have an example of the second in the condescension he evinced, by giving to his disciples the explanation which they demanded. (a) “When he was come into the house from the multitude, they asked him [the meaning of] the parable, and Peter [who usually spoke for all ] said to him: Expound to us this parable. Jesus saith to them: Are you also without understanding? So are you also without knowledge. Understand you not that every thing from without entering into a man cannot defile him, because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy, purging all the meats? But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile him (8); for the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from within out of the heart of men come forth evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lascivi ousness, an evil eye [of envy], blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within; these are the things that defile But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man."

a man.

(a) St. Mark, vii. 17-23; St. Matthew, xv. 15, 18, 20.

(7) The blind man who takes another blind man man for his guide, commits homicide upon himself. The blind man who offers himself to conduct another blind man, commits a double homicide.

(8) It is not necessary, in order that a man may defile himself, that the sin should come forth out of the heart: he may consummate the sin by interior consent, as Jesus Christ informs us, with respect to adultery, and, consequently, all other sins. If, therefore, he makes it here come forth from the heart, the reason is, that he speaks of what usually occurs; for, when the heart hath conceived iniquity, it makes an effort to bring it forth, that is to say, to carry into execution what it hath desired and projected. And if it doth not always commit the act, it is only because it is obstructed by a greater force, to which it yields, yet foaming with rage and vexation.