Tenth Commandment.
THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOUR'S HOUSE, THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY
NEIGHBOUR'S WIFE NOR HIS MAN-SERVANT, NOR HIS MAID-SERVANT, NOR HIS OX NOR HIS
ASS, NOR ANYTHING THAT IS THY NEIGHBOUR'S.
49. The purport is: Since the Lord would have
the whole soul pervaded with love, any feeling of an adverse nature must be
banished from our minds. The sum, therefore, will be, that no thought be
permitted to insinuate itself into our minds, and inhale them with a noxious
concupiscence tending to our neighbour's loss. To this corresponds the contrary
precept, that every thing which we conceive, deliberate, will, or design, be
conjoined with the good and advantage of our neighbour. But here it seems we
are met with a great and perplexing difficulty. For if it was correctly said
above, that under the words adultery and theft, lust and an intention to injure
and deceive are prohibited, it may seem superfluous afterwards to employ a
separate commandment to prohibit a covetous desire of our neighbour's goods.
The difficulty will easily be removed by distinguishing between design
and covetousness.220 Design, such as we have spoken of in the
previous commandments, is a deliberate consent of the will, after passion has
taken possession of the mind. Covetousness may exist without such deliberation
and assent, when the mind is only stimulated and tickled by vain and perverse
objects. As, therefore, the Lord previously ordered that charity should
regulate our wishes, studies, and actions, so he now orders us to regulate the
thoughts of the mind in the same way, that none of them may be depraved and
distorted, so as to give the mind a contrary bent. Having forbidden us to turn
and incline our mind to wrath, hatred, adultery, theft, and falsehood, he now
forbids us to give our thoughts the same direction.
50. Nor is such rectitude demanded without
reason. For who can deny the propriety of occupying all the powers of the mind
with charity? If it ceases to have charity for its aim, who can question that
it is diseased? How comes it that so many desires of a nature hurtful to your
brother enter your mind, but just because, disregarding him, you think only of
yourself? Were your mind wholly imbued with charity, no portion of it would
remain for the entrance of such thoughts. In so far, therefore, as the mind is
devoid of charity, it must be under the influence of concupiscence. Some one
will object that those fancies which casually rise up in the mind, and
forthwith vanish away, cannot properly be condemned as concupiscences, which
have their seat in the heart. I answer, That the question here relates to a
description of fancies which while they present themselves to our thoughts, at
the same time impress and stimulate the mind with cupidity, since the mind
never thinks of making some choice, but the heart is excited and tends towards
it. God therefore commands a strong and ardent affection, an affection not to
be impeded by any portion, however minute, of concupiscence. He requires a mind
so admirably arranged as not to be prompted in the slightest degree contrary to
the law of love. Lest you should imagine that this view is not supported by any
grave authority, I may mention that it was first suggested to me by
Augustine.221 But although it was the intention of God to prohibit
every kind of perverse desire, he, by way of example, sets before us those
objects which are generally regarded as most attractive: thus leaving no room
for cupidity of any kind, by the interdiction of those things in which it
especially delights and loves to revel.
Such, then, is the Second Table of the Law, in
which we are sufficiently instructed in the duties which we owe to man for the
sake of God, on a consideration of whose nature the whole system of love is
founded. It were vain, therefore, to inculcate the various duties taught in
this table, without placing your instructions on the fear and reverence to God
as their proper foundation. I need not tell the considerate reader, that those
who make two precepts out of the prohibition of covetousness, perversely split
one thing into two. There is nothing in the repetition of the words, "Thou
shalt not covet." The "house" being first put down, its different parts are
afterwards enumerated, beginning with the "wife;" and hence it is clear, that
the whole ought to be read consecutively, as is properly done by the Jews. The
sum of the whole commandment, therefore, is, that whatever each individual
possesses remain entire and secure, not only from injury, or the wish to
injure, but also from the slightest feeling of covetousness which can spring up
in the mind.
51. It will not now be difficult to ascertain the
general end contemplated by the whole Law--viz. the fulfilment of
righteousness, that man may form his life on the model of the divine purity.
For therein God has so delineated his own character, that any one exhibiting in
action what is commanded, would in some measure exhibit a living image of God.
Wherefore Moses, when he wished to fix a summary of the whole in the memory of
the Israelites, thus addressed them, "And now, Israel, what does the Lord thy
God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and
to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, to keep the commandments of the Lord and his statutes which I command
thee this day for thy good?" (Deut. 10:12, 13). And he ceased not to reiterate
the same thing, whenever he had occasion to mention the end of the Law. To this
the doctrine of the Law pays so much regard, that it connects man, by holiness
of life, with his God; and, as Moses elsewhere expresses it (Deut. 6:5; 11:13),
and makes him cleave to him. Moreover, this holiness of life is comprehended
under the two heads above mentioned. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength, and thy neighbour as thyself." First, our mind must be completely
filled with love to God, and then this love must forthwith flow out toward our
neighbour. This the Apostle shows when he says, "The end of the commandment is
charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned," (1
Tim. 1:5). You see that conscience and faith unfeigned are placed at the head,
in other words, true piety; and that from this charity is derived. It is a
mistake then to suppose, that merely the rudiments and first principles of
righteousness are delivered in the Law, to form, as it were, a kind of
introduction to good works, and not to guide to the perfect performance of
them. For complete perfection, nothing more can be required than is expressed
in these passages of Moses and Paul. How far, pray, would he wish to go, who is
not satisfied with the instruction which directs man to the fear of God, to
spiritual worship, practical obedience; in fine, purity of conscience, faith
unfeigned, and charity? This confirms that interpretation of the Law which
searches out, and finds in its precepts, all the duties of piety and charity.
Those who merely search for dry and meagre elements, as if it taught the will
of God only by halves, by no means understand its end, the Apostle being
witness.
52. As, in giving a summary of the Law, Christ
and the Apostles sometimes omit the First Table, very many fall into the
mistake of supposing that their words apply to both tables. In Matthew, Christ
calls "judgment, mercy, and faith," the "weightier matters of the Law." I think
it clear, that by faith is here meant veracity towards men. But in order
to extend the words to the whole Law, some take it for piety towards God. This
is surely to no purpose. For Christ is speaking of those works by which a man
ought to approve himself as just. If we attend to this, we will cease to wonder
why, elsewhere, when asked by the young man, "What good thing shall I do, that
I may have eternal life?" he simply answers, that he must keep the
commandments, "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou
shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy
mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," (Mt. 19:16, 18). For
the obedience of the First Table consisted almost entirely either in the
internal affection of the heart, or in ceremonies. The affection of the heart
was not visible, and hypocrites were diligent in the observance of ceremonies;
but the works of charity were of such a nature as to be a solid attestation of
righteousness. The same thing occurs so frequently in the Prophets, that it
must be familiar to every one who has any tolerable acquaintance with
them.222 For, almost on every occasion, when they exhort men to
repentance, omitting the First Table, they insist on faith, judgment, mercy,
and equity. Nor do they, in this way, omit the fear of God. They only require a
serious proof of it from its signs. It is well known, indeed, that when they
treat of the Law, they generally insist on the Second Table, because therein
the cultivation of righteousness and integrity is best manifested. There is no
occasion to quote passages. Every one can easily for himself perceive the truth
of my observation.
53. Is it then true, you will ask, that it is a
more complete summary of righteousness to live innocently with men, than
piously towards God? By no means; but because no man, as a matter of course,
observes charity in all respects, unless he seriously fear God, such observance
is a proof of piety also. To this we may add, that the Lord, well knowing that
none of our good deeds can reach him (as the Psalmist declares, Psalm 16:2),
does not demand from us duties towards himself, but exercises us in good works
towards our neighbour. Hence the Apostle, not without cause, makes the whole
perfection of the saints to consist in charity (Eph. 3:19; Col. 3:14). And in
another passage, he not improperly calls it the "fulfilling of the law,"
adding, that "he that loveth another has fulfilled the law," (Rom. 13:8). And
again, "All the law is fulfilled in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself," (Gal. 5:14). For this is the very thing which Christ himself teaches
when he says, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye
even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets," (Mt. 7:12). It is
certain that, in the law and the prophets, faith, and whatever pertains to the
due worship of God, holds the first place, and that to this charity is made
subordinate; but our Lord means, that in the Law the observance of justice and
equity towards men is prescribed as the means which we are to employ in
testifying a pious fear of God, if we truly possess it.
54. Let us therefore hold, that our life will be
framed in best accordance with the will of God, and the requirements of his
Law, when it is, in every respect, most advantageous to our brethren. But in
the whole Law, there is not one syllable which lays down a rule as to what man
is to do or avoid for the advantage of his own carnal nature. And, indeed,
since men are naturally prone to excessive self-love, which they always retain,
how great soever their departure from the truth may be, there was no need of a
law to inflame a love already existing in excess. Hence it is perfectly
plain,223 that the observance of the Commandments consists not in
the love of ourselves, but in the love of God and our neighbour; and that he
leads the best and holiest life who as little as may be studies and lives for
himself; and that none lives worse and more unrighteously than he who studies
and lives only for himself, and seeks and thinks only of his own. Nay, the
better to express how strongly we should be inclined to love our neighbour, the
Lord has made self-love as it were the standard, there being no feeling in our
nature of greater strength and vehemence. The force of the expression ought to
be carefully weighed. For he does not (as some sophists have stupidly dreamed)
assign the first place to self-love, and the second to charity. He rather
transfers to others the love which we naturally feel for ourselves. Hence the
Apostle declares, that charity "seeketh not her own," (1 Cor. 13:5). Nor is the
argument worth a straw, That the thing regulated must always be inferior to the
rule. The Lord did not make self-love the rule, as if love towards others was
subordinate to it; but whereas, through natural gravity, the feeling of love
usually rests on ourselves, he shows that it ought to diffuse itself in another
direction--that we should be prepared to do good to our neighbour with no less
alacrity, ardour, and solicitude, than to ourselves.
55. Our Saviour having shown, in the parable of
the Samaritan (Luke 10:36), that the term neighbour comprehends the most
remote stranger, there is no reason for limiting the precept of love to our own
connections. I deny not that the closer the relation the more frequent our
offices of kindness should be. For the condition of humanity requires that
there be more duties in common between those who are more nearly connected by
the ties of relationship, or friendship, or neighbourhood. And this is done
without any offence to God, by whose providence we are in a manner impelled to
do it. But I say that the whole human race, without exception, are to be
embraced with one feeling of charity: that here there is no distinction of
Greek or Barbarian, worthy or unworthy, friend or foe, since all are to be
viewed not in themselves, but in God. If we turn aside from this view, there is
no wonder that we entangle ourselves in error. Wherefore, if we would hold the
true course in love, our first step must be to turn our eyes not to man, the
sight of whom might oftener produce hatred than love, but to God, who requires
that the love which we bear to him be diffused among all mankind, so that our
fundamental principle must ever be, Let a man be what he may, he is still to be
loved, because God is loved.
56. Wherefore, nothing could be more pestilential
than the ignorance or wickedness of the Schoolmen in converting the precepts
respecting revenge and the love of enemies (precepts which had formerly been
delivered to all the Jews, and were then delivered universally to all
Christians) into counsels which it was free to obey or disobey, confining the
necessary observance of them to the monks, who were made more righteous than
ordinary Christians, by the simple circumstance of voluntarily binding
themselves to obey counsels. The reason they assign for not receiving them as
laws is, that they seem too heavy and burdensome, especially to Christians, who
are under the law of grace. Have they, indeed, the hardihood to remodel the
eternal law of God concerning the love of our neighbour? Is there a page of the
Law in which any such distinction exists; or rather do we not meet in every
page with commands which, in the strictest terms, require us to love our
enemies? What is meant by commanding us to feed our enemy if he is hungry, to
bring back his ox or his ass if we meet it going astray, or help it up if we
see it lying under its burden? (Prov. 25:21; Exod. 23:4). Shall we show
kindness to cattle for man's sake, and have no feeling of good will to himself?
What? Is not the word of the Lord eternally true: "Vengeance is mine, I will
repay?" (Deut. 32:35). This is elsewhere more explicitly stated: "Thou shalt
not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people," (Lev.
19:18). Let them either erase these passages from the Law, or let them
acknowledge the Lord as a Lawgiver, not falsely feign him to be merely a
counsellor.
57. And what, pray, is meant by the following
passage, which they have dared to insult with this absurd gloss? "Love
yourenemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray
for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the
children of your Father which is in heaven," (Mt. 5:44, 45). Who does not here
concur in the reasoning of Chrysostom (lib. de Compunctione Cordis, et ad Rom.
7), that the nature of the motive makes it plain that these are not
exhortations, but precepts? For what is left to us if we are excluded from the
number of the children of God? According to the Schoolmen, monks alone will be
the children of our Father in heaven--monks alone will dare to invoke God as
their Father. And in the meantime, how will it fare with the Church? By the
same rule, she will be confined to heathens and publicans. For our Saviour
says, "If ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the
publicans the same?" It will truly be well with us if we are left only the name
of Christians, while we are deprived of the inheritance of the kingdom of
heaven! Nor is the argument of Augustine less forcible: "When the Lord forbids
adultery, he forbids it in regard to the wife of a foe not less than the wife
of a friend; when he forbids theft, he does not allow stealing of any
description, whether from a friend or an enemy," (August. Lib. de Doctr.
Christ). Now, these two commandments, "Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not
commit adultery," Paul brings under the rule of love; nay, he says that they
are briefly comprehended in this saying, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself," (Rom. 13:9). Therefore, Paul must either be a false interpreter of
the Law, or we must necessarily conclude, that under this precept we are bound
to love our enemies just as our friends. Those, then, show themselves to be in
truth the children of Satan who thus licentiously shake off a yoke common to
the children of God. It may be doubted whether, in promulgating this dogma,
they have displayed greater stupidity or impudence. There is no ancient writer
who does not hold it as certain that these are pure precepts. It was not even
doubted in the age of Gregory, as is plain from his decided assertion; for he
holds it to be incontrovertible that they are precepts. And how stupidly they
argue! The burden, say they, were too difficult for Christians to hear! As if
any thing could be imagined more difficult than to love the Lord with all the
heart, and soul, and strength. Compared with this Law, there is none which may
not seem easy, whether it be to love our enemy, or to banish every feeling of
revenge from our minds. To our weakness, indeed, every thing, even to the
minutest tittle of the Law, is arduous and difficult. In the Lord we have
strength. It is his to give what he orders, and to order what he wills. That
Christians are under the law of grace, means not that they are to wander
unrestrained without law, but that they are engrafted into Christ, by whose
grace they are freed from the curse of the Law, and by whose Spirit they have
the Law written in their hearts. This grace Paul has termed, but not in the
proper sense of the term, a law, alluding to the Law of God, with which he was
contrasting it. The Schoolmen, laying hold of the term Law, make it the
ground-work of their vain speculations.224
58. The same must be said of their application of
the term, venial sin, both to the hidden impiety which violates the First
Table, and the direct transgression of the last commandment of the Second
Table.225 They define venial sin to be, desire unaccompanied with
deliberate assent, and not remaining long in the heart. But I maintain that it
cannot even enter the heart unless through a want of those things which are
required in the Law. We are forbidden to have strange gods. When the mind,
under the influence of distrust, looks elsewhere or is seized with some sudden
desire to transfer its blessedness to some other quarter, whence are these
movements, however evanescent, but just because there is some empty corner in
the soul to receive such temptations? And, not to lengthen out the discussion,
there is a precept to love God with the whole heart, and mind, and soul; and,
therefore, if all the powers of the soul are not directed to the love of God,
there is a departure from the obedience of the Law; because those internal
enemies which rise up against the dominion of God, and countermand his edicts
prove that his throne is not well established in our consciences. It has been
shown that the last commandment goes to this extent. Has some undue longing
sprung up in our mind? Then we are chargeable with covetousness, and stand
convicted as transgressors of the Law. For the Law forbids us not only to
meditate and plan our neighbour's loss, but to be stimulated and inflamed with
covetousness. But every transgression of the Law lays us under the curse, and
therefore even the slightest desires cannot be exempted from the fatal
sentence. "In weighing our sins," says Augustine, "let us not use a deceitful
balance, weighing at our own discretion what we will, and how we will, calling
this heavy and that light: but let us use the divine balance of the Holy
Scriptures, as taken from the treasury of the Lord, and by it weigh every
offence, nay, not weigh, but rather recognise what has been already weighed by
the Lord," (August. De Bapt. cont. Donatist. Lib. 2 chap. 6). And what saith
the Scripture? Certainly when Paul says, that "the wages of sin is death,"
(Rom. 6:23), he shows that he knew nothing of this vile distinction. As we are
but too prone to hypocrisy, there was very little occasion for this sop to
soothe our torpid consciences.
59. I wish they would consider what our Saviour
meant when he said, "Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven,"
(Mt. 5:19). Are they not of this number when they presume to extenuate the
transgression of the Law, as if it were unworthy of death? The proper course
had been to consider not simply what is commanded, but who it is that commands,
because every least transgression of his Law derogates from his authority. Do
they count it a small matter to insult the majesty of God in any one respect?
Again, since God has explained his will in the Law, every thing contrary to the
Law is displeasing to him. Will they feign that the wrath of God is so disarmed
that the punishment of death will not forthwith follow upon it? He has declared
plainly (if they could be induced to listen to his voice, instead of darkening
his clear truth by their insipid subtleties), "The soul that sinneth it shall
die," (Ezek. 18:20). Again, in the passage lately quoted, "The wages of sin is
death." What these men acknowledge to be sin, because they are unable to deny
it, they contend is not mortal. Having already indulged this madness too long,
let them learn to repent; or, if they persist in their infatuation, taking no
further notice of them, let the children of God remember that all sin is
mortal, because it is rebellion against the will of God, and necessarily
provokes his anger; and because it is a violation of the Law, against every
violation of which, without exception, the judgment of God has been pronounced.
The faults of the saints are indeed venial, not, however, in their own nature,
but because, through the mercy of God, they obtain pardon.
This document (last modifiedFebruary 03, 1998) from Believerscafe.com
Home | Bible versions | Bible Dictionary | Christian Classics | Christian Articles | Daily Devotions
Sister Projects: Wikichristian | WikiMD
BelieversCafe is a large collection of christian articles with over 40,000 pages
Our sponsors: 
