Volume III, Treatise VI, Chapter VII

The Preceding Doctrine Confirmed by Examples

WE read in the fourth book of Kings that Naaman, general of the army of the king of Syria, was afflicted with a leprosy, and having heard that the prophet Eliseus, who was in Samaria, infallibly cured it, he went upon this account to the king of Israel with letters of recommendation from the king his master. Eliseus knowing the cause of his coming, desired his servant to meet him; and Naaman being come to his gate with a great retinue, the prophet bid him say to him: “Go and wash yourself seven times in the river Jordan, and your body shall receive perfect health, and you shall be quite cured”. Naaman received the message with indignation, and returned, saying: “I thought he would have come out to meet me, and that, standing, he would have invoked the name of his God upon me, and that he would have touched with his hand the affected parts, and would have cured me in this manner. Are not Abana and Pharpar, which pass by Damascus, better rivers than those of the land of Israel? Might I not rather have washed myself in them, and thereby have been cured?” However, his followers seeing him return very angry, said to him, “My lord, had the prophet commanded you anything that had been very hard, without doubt you would and ought have done it: with how far greater reason therefore ought you to obey him in what he tells you: wash yourself, and you shall be cured”. This reasoning of theirs made such animpression upon him, that he went to Jordan, washed himself there seven times, “and his flesh”, says the Scripture, ‘‘ became like the flesh of a young child, and he was entirely cured”—IV. Kings, v.10, etc. You see that his cure was annexed to what appeared to him to be very frivolous and of little or no importance; and it is often the same in respect to the soul and to our making a progressin virtue. For it is just that our spiritual perfection should consist in those small things which are prescribed by ourrules. Do we not see that the perfection of an engraven plate consists in certain points and strokes which are scarcely perceptible? In order to acquire spiritual perfection, after which you ought to aspire, were you commanded to do something very hard, “without doubt you ought to do it”: with how far greater reason, therefore, ought you to do what is prescribed you for this end, since there is question only of the easiest things in the world, which carry no difficulty at all with them? It ought not, then, to be a subject or occasion of remissness to us to see that what our rules prescribe is so incon-— siderable and so easy in itself; but, on the contrary, nothing ought more strongly excite us to a perfect observance of them, than to see that our perfection is annexed to such small things as we can so easily perform.

The history of the illustrious persons of the Cistercian order-observes, that there was a rule in that order which required that all the religious at the end of every meal should gather together all the crumbs of bread which were before them, and either eat them or put them upon a plate. One day a religious, who was a great observer of the rules, having gathered into his hand all the crumbs that were before him, it happened that he was so engaged in attending to the reading, that whilst he held them the knock was given to rise from table. Coming again to himself he was at a loss to know what to do, because he was not permitted to eat them, nor could he put them upon his plate, which was already taken away. In fine, he imagined that he could not repair his fault better than by going and declaring it to his superior, and by demanding a penance for it; and in effect he did so with very great marks of sorrow and confusion as soon as grace was ended. The superior, after having reprehended him for his negligence, asked him what he had done with the crumbs. The religious answered that he had them still in his hand, and when he opened it to show them, he found that instead of crumbs they were become very fine pearls. The atthor observes in this place, that God by this miracle deigned to ‘show how pleasing to him the fervour of zealous religious is, who, not content with a careful observance of the more important rules, apply themselves also to an exact observance even of the least. Surius relates that the same thing happened to St. Eude before he was abbot, and says that out of humility he related it as if it had happened to another, yet notwithstanding it was for St. Eude himself that God was pleased to work this miracle. Cesarius relates (Jib. iv. Dial., c. 15) that in the time of Frederick the First, emperor of Germany, there happened to become vacant an imperial abbey which the emperors were accustomed to dispose of. The religious having proposed two of their subjects that the emperor might choose which of them he pleased, one of them, in order to obtain the preference, offered great sums of money, which the emperor took, and promised to choose him. However, being afterwards informed that the other religious was a very holy man, and a great observer of religious discipline, he changed his resolution, and as he sought for some expedient to free himself from the engagement he had made, and to elect the more worthy, one of his followers said to him: Sire, I have heard that these religious have a rule which orders that every one should carry a sewing needle about him: when therefore you shall be present at their chapter, find some pretext to ask him whom you wish to exclude to lend you his needle, and as he is no strict observer of his rules, it is very probable he will not have one, and it will be a sufficient reason to exclude him to have detected him in such a fault. This counsel was followed, and it was found that this religious had no needle about him, so that the emperor, applying to the other, asked him for his. The holy man instantly presented it to him. You are a good religious, says the emperor, and deserve to be abbot; I had resolved to prefer, your competitor before you, but he has shown himself unworthy of the dignity by not observing his rule, and it is very easy to judge that he who is negligent in little and easy things, will be far more in those that are very hard and essential; afterwards he declared that he chose the other for abbot; and so the one was punished for his little care in observing his rules, and the other was recompensed for his faithful observance of them.

The same Cesarius relates that a woman of quality, resolving to become religious, made a great feast for all her relations and friends upon the day she was to enter into religion, and invited the superior of the monastery wherein she was to take the habit. They served in flesh for the seculars, but fish for the religious and his companion, because the rule and custom of their order permitted them not to eat flesh. The religious, however, tempted at the sight thereof, and desirous to show he was not scrupulous in small matters, took a bit of roast meat to eat it, but he had no sooner put it into his mouth, than it stuck so fast in his throat that he could nether swallow it nor get it up again. Whilst he was in this condition, and his eyes were already rolling in his head, his companion gave him a blow upon the back with his fist, which made him cast up the piece of meat, which had like to have choked him; and the whole company easily conceived that the extremity to which they had seen this religious reduced was a punishment of his disobedience and of his neglect of his rule. We read also in the order of St. Dominick (Lib. i. c. 60) that this saint being at Boulogne, the Devil on a sudden seized upon a lay brother, and began to torment him in so strange a manner, thatthe religious who were going to rest awoke at the noise, and ran to help him. The saint commanded them to go with him to the church, whither ten religious were scarce able to carry him. It happened also, that as soon as he was entered, with one puff he blew out all the lamps. So that the religious, not being able to see anything, they left him there. The Devil began again to torment him anew, and to bruise him with many blows. Then the saint commanded him, in the name of Jesus Christ, to tell the reason for which he possessed this brother, and why he so cruelly tormented him. The Devil answered, it was because he had drunk over night, without having asked leave, and without having made the sign of the cross upon it, according to the rules and practice of the order. But it having begun to ring matins, I can stay here no longer, says the Devil, for behold the brothers are rising to go sing the praises of God; and, having said this, he left the poor man so bruised and broken in pieces, that it was two days before he was able in any manner to move himself. St. Gregory (Lib. i. Dial., c. 4) relates almost the same example of a religious woman, who, having neglected to make the sign of the cross before she eat a salad of lettuce, was presently possessed by the Devil.

About ReligiousBookshelf.com · A Supernerd Media project