|
You know, Theotimus, what was Jacob's love for his
Rachel. And what did not he do to testify its
greatness, force and fidelity, from the hour he had
saluted her at the well?
For from that time he never ceased to love her,
and to gain her in marriage he served seven whole
years with incredible devotion; yet he considered
that all this was nothing, so much did love sweeten
the pains which he supported for his beloved Rachel.
And when he was, after all, disappointed of her,
he served yet other seven years to obtain her; so
constant, loyal and courageous was he in his
affection; and having at length obtained her he
neglected all other affections, scarcely even taking
any account of the duty he had to Lia, his first
spouse, a woman of great merit and very worthy to be
cherished, whom God himself compassionated for the
contempt she suffered, so remarkable was it.
But after all this, which was enough to bring down
the haughtiest woman in the world to the love of so
loyal a lover, it is verily a shame to see the
weakness which Rachel showed in her affection to
Jacob.
The poor Lia had no tie of love with Jacob except
the fact that she was the mother of his four sons.
Reuben the first of these had gone into the fields at
harvesttime and found some mandrakes, which he
brought as a present to his mother.(1) Rachel asked
for some of them, and when poor Lia said: Dost thou
think it a small matter that thou hast taken my
husband from me, unless thou take also my son's
mandrakes, - Rachel sold, as it were, the favours and
love of her husband for the mandrakes. But Jacob was
distressed, and his heart sank, when he understood
the weakness and inconstancy of Rachel, who for so
trifling a thing sacrificed for a time the honour and
pleasure of his special love.
For, tell me truly, Theotimus - was it not a
strange and most fickle levity in Rachel, to prefer a
heap of little apples to the chaste company of so
amiable a husband? If it had been for kingdoms, for
monarchies! - but for a miserable handful of
mandrakes! - Theotimus, what think you of it?
And yet, returning to ourselves, good God! how
often do we make elections infinitely more shameful
and wretched?
The great S. Augustine upon a time took pleasure
in leisurely viewing and contemplating mandrakes, the
better to discern the cause why Rachel had so
passionately coveted them, and he found that they
were indeed pleasing to the sight, and of a
delightful smell, yet altogether insipid and without
flavour.
Now Pliny relates that when the surgeons bring the
juice of them to be drunk by those on whom they wish
to make an incision, that they may not feel the
operation, it happens often that the very smell works
the effect and puts the patient sufficiently to
sleep. Wherefore the mandrake is a bewitching plant,
which enchants the eyes, and charms away pains,
sorrows, and all passions by sleep. Besides, he who
smells the scent of them too long turns mute, and he
who drinks too much of them dies without remedy.
Theotimus, could worldly pomps, riches and
delights be better represented?
They have an attractive outside, but he who bites
this apple, that is, he who sounds their nature,
finds neither taste nor contentment in them,
nevertheless they enchant us and put us to sleep by
the vanity of their smell; and the renown which the
children of the world attach to them, benumbs and
destroys those who give themselves up to them too
intently, or take them too abundantly.
And it is for such mandrakes, chimeras and
phantoms of content, that we cast off the love of the
heavenly beloved; and how then can we say that we
love him above all things, since we prefer such empty
vanities before his grace?
Is it not a marvel, but one worthy of tears, to see
David, so noble in surmounting hatred, so generous in
pardoning injuries, and yet so furiously unjust in
love, that not content with possessing justly a great
multitude of wives, he iniquitously usurps and takes
away the wife of poor Urias, and by an insupportable
cruelty causes the husband to be slain, that he may
the better enjoy the love of the wife?
Who would not wonder at the heart of a S. Peter,
which was so bold amidst the armed soldiers that he
alone of all his master's company takes sword in hand
and strikes; and yet a little afterwards he is so
cowardly amongst the women, that at the mere word of
a maid he denies and forswears his master?
And how can it seem so strange to us that Rachel
could sell the chaste favours of her Jacob for the
apples of the mandrake, since Adam and Eve actually
forsook grace for an apple which a serpent offers
them to eat?
In fine, I say to you this word, worthy of note.
Heretics are heretics and bear the name, because out
of the articles of faith they choose at their taste
and pleasure those which it seems good to them to
believe, rejecting and denying the others. And
Catholics are Catholics, because without any choice
or election they embrace, with an equal assurance and
without exception, all the faith of the Church.
Now it is the same in the articles of charity. It
is a heresy in sacred love to make choice among God's
commandments, which to observe, and which to violate:
he who said: Thou shalt not kill, said also: Thou
shalt not commit adultery. If then thou kill not, but
commit adultery, it is not for love for God that thou
killest not, but it is from some other motive, which
makes thee rather choose this commandment than the
other; a choice which makes heresy in matter of
charity.
If a man told me that he would not cut off my arm
on account of his love for me, and yet proceeded to
pluck out my eye, to break my head, to run me
through; Ah! should I cry, how do you say that it is
for love you do not cut off my arm, since you pluck
out my eye which is no less precious to me, or run my
body through with your sword, which is still more
dangerous to me?
It is a maxim that good comes from an entirely
sound cause, evil from some defect. To make an act of
true charity, it must proceed from an entire, general
and universal love, which extends to all the divine
commandments, and if we fail in any one commandment,
love ceases to be entire and universal, and the heart
wherein it is cannot be called truly loving, nor,
consequently, truly good.
|