Commentary on 1 Kings · Book 61

1CHAPTER II.

21. King Saul, who had good beginnings but by no means persevered in the good things he had begun, is presented through the text of sacred History, so that in him we may see what is to be imitated and what is to be avoided. Thus indeed we also pick from badly cultivated fields, which rise up to harvest mixed with thorns. He truly knows how to gather well from them, who takes care to pick the ears of grain while striving to avoid the thorns. So when the care of a garden is neglected, along with the vegetable that refreshes there grows the weed that pricks. For it was as if the Lord was instructing His disciples to enter badly cultivated fields cautiously, when He said: "The princes and Pharisees have sat upon the seat of Moses. Whatever they tell you, do; but what they do, do not do" (Matt. 23:2). As if to say: Because the deeds and words of the wicked are mixed together, they must be used in such a way that what gives life is taken from them, and what kills is avoided. Hence again, foretelling, He says: "They will come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves" (Matt. 7:15). Up to this point, then, we have gladly attended to King Saul vigorously carrying out the care of the kingdom; now let us carefully examine in what respect he, as a despiser of the Lord's command, ought to be avoided and rejected. For the text continues: (Verses 8, 9.) "He captured Agag, king of Amalek, alive, but all the common people he slew with the edge of the sword. And Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best flocks of sheep, and of the herds, and the garments, and the rams, and all that was beautiful, and they were unwilling to destroy them. But whatever was vile and worthless, this they destroyed."

32. The Word of the Lord came: Now go, and strike Amalek, and destroy all that belongs to him. Do not spare him, and do not covet anything of theirs. He therefore plainly stood forth as a transgressor through disobedience, because he refused through pride to fulfill the command of the Lord. The Lord indeed commanded the prophet, saying: Do not spare him, and do not covet anything of his possessions. But this man is shown both to have spared and to have coveted all his choicest things: so that, while the manner of the transgression is shown, it might be demonstrated how detestable is the fault of disobedience.

43. But if we describe the wars of the flesh, we find that the falls of kings are great. Hence the Lord also says in the Gospel: "If the salt has lost its savor, with what shall it be salted?" (Matt. 5:13). The kings of the Church are her preachers, as has already been shown above. Who then is Agag, king of Amalek, if not the carnal sense? For since we possess from the soul both rationality and sensuality, rationality is ascribed to the mind, sensuality to the flesh; and through the former we share kinship with the angels, through the latter with brute animals. In the former, the higher we are raised, the closer we draw to the heavenly citizens. But through the latter, the more we slide toward the enticements of the flesh, the more carnal, so to speak, we are found to be. Hence, when the daughters of men had already been seen and desired, and pleasures had already been fulfilled in luxury, concerning those who by the merit of purity were called sons of God, the Lord threatens in Genesis, saying: "My spirit shall not remain in man forever, because he is flesh" (Gen. 6:3). For man becomes flesh when reason is subjugated to the carnal sense. The king of Amalek, therefore, is the vigor of the carnal sense, which commands through base impulses so as to drag captive reason toward the allurements of obscenity. And fittingly does the name of the Amalekite king suit the carnal sense. For Agag is interpreted as "meditating" or "speaking." To meditate, for him, is to gather the phantasms of wantonness through inner meditation. And to speak, for him, is to arouse the flesh through base impulses to lust. For he has, as it were, a great cry of speech, because by striking the flesh he stirs it more ardently. For by meditating he gathers what he sets forth by speaking: because everyone who is subject to the carnal sense, the more freely he beholds the images of wantonness within, the more powerful the motions of baseness he feels outwardly. He meditates, therefore, through the inner vision of baseness, but he speaks through the outward motion of pleasure. The king of Amalek is therefore called "speaking and meditating," because he can arouse the slippery enticements of the flesh in those whom he deceives through base thoughts, and whom he instructs through the experience of alluring sensation. But it should be noted that the more freely he meditates, the more freely he also speaks: because he stirs the flesh more powerfully the more he holds the causes of his agitation impressed within through thought. For in the manner of fire, the more attentively it is blown upon, the more it is kindled: because if the breath of impure thought is absent, the heat of lustful agitation cannot be present. The king of Israel therefore fights against the king of Amalek when a teacher of the Church argues against fornication. He captures the defeated one when he receives sinners converted to pardon not only as penitents but also as confessors. He therefore holds the king of Amalek already bound, as it were, who sees the carnal sense in converted sinners already subjected to reason through the love of chastity. But what does it mean that the bound one lives, except that there are some who are not moved by their own passions, but upon hearing of the obscenities of others, are moved? They are strong in fighting, but as victors they fall. For he who kept the conquered king alive clearly found pleasure in the person of the captured king in the triumph of that very war.

54. But what else do those do who receive the confession of sins from others? For while they think about what those confessing have done, they burn with desire toward the crimes they hear; for often while they hear the enticements with which others had overwhelmed themselves, they themselves begin to love what those others, now dying to such things through their exhortation, confess. Already therefore Agag has been defeated and captured in his own city, but he is preserved by the victor, when what is detested by the subjects is loved by the prelates: because carnal sense begins to flourish in those in whom it had lost the vigor of its wicked dominion among the others. And because while the pastors rush toward the precipice, the subjects follow along, the king is said to have taken Agag alive, but the same king, and the people subject to the same king, are recorded to have spared the best things of Amalek. For to spare is characteristic of an affected mind, out of love for that which it spares. This certainly befits the vice of lust: because as soon as it begins to please, it draws the mind into love of itself. Because its force is also vehement, it does not know how to remain stationary: because assuredly it quickly accomplishes its work, if the wakening mind does not quickly expel it from itself. For when it invades the mind, it spreads itself through innumerable thoughts of shameful things. Hence also both Saul and the people are rightly recorded to have spared the best of the flocks and herds. The thoughts of lusts are indeed called flocks and herds: because they are both innumerable and are fed in the reprobate heart by the contemplation of uncleanness. They are also the best, not by proof of goodness, but by the appetite of the one choosing them. For in the reprobate heart, because nothing is loved more dearly, they are called the best flocks, to which no others are compared. But they are called the best on account of the blindness of heart, and herds on account of the guilt of transgression. For to reprobate minds it is no great thing to think unclean thoughts; but before God it is no small thing to store unclean things in the temple of God, that is, in the regenerate spirit. He spares therefore not only the sheep, but also the herds: because he who through the love of lust regards the faults of uncleanness as though they were small, spares them as though they were small, but does not find the deserved punishments to be small. Moreover, by the name of sheep the lighter thoughts of lust can be understood, and by herds the stronger and more troublesome ones. The king and the people certainly spare these, when the reprobate teacher and his subjects are subjected to the vexations of unclean thought, both light and strong. But what is it to spare the garments, except for the already condemned mind to deliberate upon unclean things? For if the golden garment is the glory of the virgin bride, what are the garments of Amalek, except the foul defilements of lust? But they are called garments: because by their covering both soul and body are stained. For because the perpetration of lust defiles both soul and body, they are called not a garment, but garments. But, as I said, to spare is to deliberate, and to love unclean things through the affection of the mind. But the unhappy soul thus captured, thus ensnared, because it is driven by wondrous impulses to perpetrate its deliberated depravity, is rightly recorded, after the sheep, herds, and garments, to have spared also the rams. For as it were the horns of rams please it in the gentle blows of lusts, since it strives to retain in itself that one thing by which it may be pierced through to the death of uncleanness. He therefore spares the rams, who gladly receives the blows of his own headlong fall. For he is pricked, that he may serve the desires of his flesh; but that which pricks him sharply, delights him lightly. Because likewise lust entices the mind through innumerable modes of obscenity, they are recorded to have spared not only these named things, but all things that were beautiful. All things which the unclean soul is seen to fashion gladly for itself from the pleasure of lust are called the beautiful things of Amalek. For it could in no way desire these things, if their appearance did not violently please it.

65. But because the fall of the victors is asserted, it is said: 'Nor did they wish to destroy them.' As if to say: They could have destroyed them, if they had wished. For nothing is conquered more easily than lust, if every impure thought is avoided. Therefore it can be destroyed all the more easily, the more each person is able to think of things other than the pleasures of the flesh. For since we cannot imagine two things at the same time, while we think of something else, whatever it may be, we cannot think impure thoughts. Swift and easy, therefore, is the victory over lust through the watchfulness of thought: if, as often as carnal things present themselves, we turn to anything at all that is not an enticement of lust. This I would call easy for those who are standing, not easy for those who have fallen: because he who is made a slave of the impure spirit through the commission of sin can neither freely avoid thoughts of the flesh nor quickly turn to other thoughts. Therefore it is said of the victors: 'They did not wish to destroy them, though they could have,' because before the fall, sins are easily avoided by the free; but if they refuse to avoid them when they can, afterward they cannot even if they wish, because they cannot perfectly will it. To whom indeed Truth Himself says: 'If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed' (John 8:36). As if to say: Because you willingly ceased to be free, you no longer have in yourselves the power to attain freedom. But what does it mean that it is said: 'But whatever was vile and worthless, this they destroyed,' except that some, through the practice of greater pleasures, disdain the lesser ones? What is worthless and vile to them is what they despise by choosing those things that please them more. For because they seek more refined sins, they reject certain ones; and because they approve more precious sins, they consider the lesser ones cheap and small. Rightly therefore it is said: 'Whatever was vile and worthless, this they destroyed.' Because they choose more refined sins, and those that please them less they reject as unfit and despise as cheap.

76. All these things, understood morally, signify the battles and victories over lusts; but according to the historical sense, they designate the swelling pride of the arrogant and disobedient. For the command had been given to Saul by the Lord that he should so destroy Amalek that he would spare none of them and covet nothing. He who is therefore declared to have spared the king of Amalek and all the best things is openly shown to be proud and disobedient. But perhaps he despised the command because he heard it from the prophet, not from the Lord. Yet he certainly ought to have listened to the prophet in such a way as to heed the authority that the prophet set forth beforehand. For the prophet, about to command that he strike the king of Amalek, prefaced it by saying: "Thus says the Lord," so that Saul would not dare to despise the command he had heard through a man, as though it were merely a man's. Lest again the exalted king should treat his ministry with contempt, the prophet likewise prefaced it by saying: "The Lord sent me to anoint you as king." As if to say: The Lord commands you in your royal ministry through the same one through whom He raised you to the dignity of kingship. Therefore he ought to have obeyed all the more humbly, the more clearly he recognized that this man had been sent by God. But while he despised the prophet who was sent, he equally despised the Lord who sent him. Whence it adds: (Verses 10, 11.) "The word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying: I regret that I made Saul king, because he has abandoned me and has not fulfilled my words in deed."

87. He believed that he did not hear the words of the prophet, but the Lord complains that He has been abandoned, when He shows that His words have not been fulfilled in deed. Now the Lord speaks to the Church, saying: "He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me" (Luke 10:16). Therefore, those who through disobedience depart from the word of preachers abandon the Lord, because they withdraw from those through whose ministry they are made present to the divine will. They do not then fulfill the words of the Lord in deed, because outwardly men speak, but inwardly God speaks in men. Therefore it is not they who speak, but the Holy Spirit (Matt. 10:20). In preachers, therefore, the outward lowliness of the flesh is not to be despised, whose minds the sublimity of the Godhead so graciously inhabits. What then does it mean that the Lord is said to repent, when He is not believed to be changed by emotions? But because supreme immutability speaks with mutable beings, after the manner of those with whom He speaks, when He is said to repent, it is indicated that the recklessness of the proud displeases Him. For we are accustomed to repent when those to whom we recall having bestowed honors or gifts repay us with evils. Because, therefore, almighty God complains after our manner about the ingratitude of the proud king, He is said to repent of having conferred royal dignity upon him. This is certainly said to the great increase of damnation for the proud: because what they are, they now are not for merit but for punishment, because they are not in the will of God. Therefore, for God to repent is to not have His will in the reprobate, when He remembers the honors He bestowed, but recognizes that those upon whom He conferred good things make evil use of the good things He conferred. Indeed, God intimates this repentance of His to the Jews in other words through the prophet Malachi, saying: "I have no pleasure in you, and I will not accept an offering from your hand" (Mal. 1:10). How greatly, therefore, we see the fault of disobedience must be guarded against, if we attend to how severely it is struck by these words of the Lord.

98. Now, in the war of Amalek we have described the battle against fornication, which is commanded through the sacred Scriptures to be utterly destroyed by us. Rightly, therefore, what the Lord complains of can be understood concerning teachers who have fallen in the war of the flesh, when He says: "It repents me that I have made Saul king, because he has forsaken me and has not fulfilled my words in deed." For His word is the commandment given to preachers: "Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning in your hands" (Luke 12:35). He, therefore, who has the word in preaching but does not have it in the girding of chastity is seen to be God's by speaking, but is proved to forsake God by his conduct. Outwardly he carries out divine things, but secretly, while he dissolves in the pleasure of the flesh, he is shown not to fulfill the Lord's words in deed. For he has forsaken the Lord by setting forth evil things; he does not fulfill His words by presuming to do what is forbidden. Rightly, therefore, it is said: "It repents me that I have made Saul king." As if He were saying: Him whom I then wished to rule over others, I now do not wish, because him whom I preferred when he was humble, I now see as a proud, haughty transgressor. This, indeed, is not said of any who have fallen whatsoever, but of those whose fall is manifest and whose repentance is in no way foreseen. For concerning the fall of the righteous it is written: "The righteous man falls seven times a day and rises again" (Proverbs 24:16). Their fall is in a certain way their standing, because they are sometimes permitted to fall so that they may always be able to stand more firmly. They are permitted to stumble into evils lest they lose the highest gifts of virtues through pride. These, indeed, even if they sometimes do not fulfill the Lord's words, do not depart from the Lord, because they are abandoned for a time so that they may be held eternally; and they are foolish in a small matter, but after a little while they come to their senses. When, therefore, Saul is reproved not only for not fulfilling the Lord's words in deed but for having forsaken the Lord Himself, whom does he signify better than those who have fallen and are impenitent? Of whom, indeed, it is said through the prophet: "They have struck a covenant with death and with hell" (Isaiah 28:15). To strike a covenant with death is to perpetrate evils boldly and to promise to do them always. For they commit evils unceasingly, but by loving what they do, they pledge themselves, as it were, never to withdraw from friendship with death. The more insensible these become in their covenant with death, the more sharply the heart of mother Church is shaken with compassion. Whence it is well added: (Verse 11.) "And Samuel was grieved, and he cried out to the Lord all night long."

109. Samuel indeed is saddened, because the chief preacher is afflicted over the perdition of his subject. And he cries out to the Lord all night, because he beseeches the divine mercy with devoted prayers for the restoration of the fallen one. For the teacher to cry out is to implore the mercy of almighty God with great longings for the sins of his subjects. He who cries out all night takes upon himself through compassion the entire darkness of that sin, and makes satisfaction to God as a penitent for it, as though for his own crime. Therefore, for the preacher to cry out all night is to take up the entire cause of his subject and to strive to destroy all the darkness of that sin through the affection of devout compunction. But what does it mean that he is said to have cried out and the Lord not to have answered, except that the darkness of an impenitent heart, which I have mentioned, is signified in the fault of Saul, for whom he cries out? The Lord would indeed have answered if He had heard the voice of the one crying out. There follows: (Verse 12.) And when Samuel had risen in the night to go to Saul in the morning, it was reported to Samuel that Saul had come to Carmel and had erected for himself a triumphal arch.

1110. What is the life of a sinner, if not night? And what is the light of the just, other than day? Whence also through Paul it is said to converted sinners: 'You were once darkness, but now light in the Lord' (Eph. 5:8). But for the preacher to rise by night is to raise up the affection of the mind from the taking on of another's fault. For the teacher lies, as it were, in the night when he mourns the darkness of another's sin, because he is brought down from the lofty security of his own innocence, so that in the depths the darkness of sins in the consideration of another may be destroyed. He therefore rises by night when he raises himself from affliction, and arranges to come to the guilty one in the morning, because he laments secretly through compassion and strikes with open rebuke through zeal. The teacher also mourns by night, but comes in the morning to reprove, because inwardly he loves the sinning subject, but is by no means ashamed to reprove the one erring openly. For it is as though morning dawns when the teacher begins to lay open the crime that lies hidden. What then does it mean that the one to whom he came is said to have come to Carmel and to have erected a triumphal arch for himself, except that the advance of evil is clearly proclaimed? Indeed, after the fault of disobedience, to erect a triumphal arch or structure is to do evil deeds and to take pride in the perpetration of those same evils. For they raise, as it were, triumphal signs when with a certain ostentation they bring forth those things by which they think they excel others. This certainly applies to teachers who are arrogant as well as to those who are dissolute. The former indeed, while they speak great things, raise themselves to the height of esteem, and what they see themselves to be within, they make known outwardly through boasting and ostentation. And when they draw even that which others accomplish on their own to the favor of their own praise, what else do they seem to do but display a lofty sign of victory with a notable inscription? But some both live shamefully and speak most honorably; they consider the dignity of their words, yet do not reckon the baseness of their own life. When therefore they desire to appear not by the substance of works but by the splendor of words, they assuredly construct a triumphal arch in which they exalt themselves as if victors. And because by the word of the shameful, many other shameful ones come to their senses, after Amalek has been conquered, for them to come to Carmel and erect a triumphal arch is to glory vainly before the simple over the lust that has been extinguished in their subjects. Carmel indeed is interpreted as "soft" or "tender." For who are understood by this name of "tender," except those who are unformed in holy conduct? And who are called "soft," except those who have not yet been made firm in their begun goodness through the practice of virtue? Therefore in Carmel they raise a sign of victory, because they display themselves to the unformed and weak, lest they be found out by the experienced and strong for what they truly are.

1211. For these men seek the splendor of victory not in words but in works, because they judge trees not by the beauty of their leaves but test them by the flavor of their fruits. Whence the Lord also, teaching, says: 'By their fruits you shall know them' (Matt. 7:20). Because, therefore, they desire to be praised in vain, because they flee the judgments of the most proven men, and to the unskilled and weak they falsely represent themselves as being other than what they are, Saul is said to have come to Carmel and to have erected a triumphal arch for himself. But what does it mean that he passes on to Gilgal, except that in the same manner in which he displays himself to the simple and religious, he desires to become known among the religious and learned? For Gilgal, as I have already said many times, means "wheel." But some within the holy Church are learned in Sacred Scripture yet are not religious, because they do not possess the power of Scripture, namely charity. When these hear eloquent and carnal men speaking, they admire the words they recognize. But they cannot examine their hidden qualities, which they do not know. Rightly therefore Saul is said to pass on to Gilgal, because those who seek favor from eloquent speech find what they desire not among the learned and religious, but among the simple and unskilled, or among the irreligious wise. But great men, when the reprobate teach good things, fear all the more for the elect subject to them—lest those whom they build up by their tongue, they corrupt by their hand, that is, by their conduct. Because, therefore, slippery teachers are not to be left long in the ministry of preaching, it is fittingly added: (Verse 12.) 'Samuel therefore came to Saul, and Saul was offering a burnt offering to the Lord, the first-fruits of the spoils which he had brought from Amalek.'

1312. He came indeed to Saul, to cast down the proud man whom he had raised up as a humble man to the height of the kingdom. He found him as he truly was, not as he had shown himself by the signs of his pride. What then does it mean that he offers the firstfruits of Amalek as a holocaust to the Lord, except that some both live wickedly and think they please God through the advancement of others? And because they believe that what they offer pleases God in no small measure, they are said to offer not a sacrifice or a victim, but a holocaust. They are called the firstfruits of the spoils so that in Samuel the watchful zeal of the highest and chosen priest may be indicated, by whom the beginnings of evils are swiftly suppressed. As if to say: He came in great haste, in whose absence not even the beginning of the holocausts could be freely undertaken. The firstfruits of the spoils can be understood as the choicest things from the plunder. These the slippery offer with open mouth but struck with hidden blindness, when they believe they please God by destroying in their hearers what they allow to live in themselves. As if more openly reproving one who offers indiscriminately, he says: He was offering alive what he would have offered better slain. For if according to the words of the Lord he had destroyed all the spoil in Amalek, he would have offered a wholly acceptable holocaust to almighty God. So indeed the slippery teacher too, if he rejected by willing all the enticements of the flesh that he condemns by speaking, would burn a holocaust that could not be rejected. What then does it mean that it says he was offering the firstfruits of the spoils that he had brought from Amalek, except that the darkness of a blind heart is condemned, because it so esteems what benefits others that it neglects to see what harms itself? As if to say: He rejoiced over that as a victor—a victor in others—which he carried alive and unconquered in himself. And because for the most part they rage so madly that they even attempt to offer a pretext of virtue to the very elect and highest preachers. There follows: (Verse 13.) And when Samuel had come to Saul, Saul said: Blessed are you by the Lord; I have fulfilled the word of the Lord.

1413. The word of the Lord was that he should have destroyed Amalek. But what does it mean that he says, "I have fulfilled the word of the Lord," unless that the sin of fornication, the more shameful it is perceived to be, the more carefully it is concealed by the reprobate? Because therefore those who are subject to this same vice of fornication always desire to remain hidden, in their type Saul both disdained to demolish Amalek and said to Samuel: "I have fulfilled the word of the Lord." As if to say: Both in other matters I have subdued lust, and in myself I have destroyed its enticements. And because he strives to bend the mind of the great man with flattering adulation, he first said: "Blessed are you by the Lord." As if to say: This indeed I have done, but I was able to do it not by my own strength, but by your merits and intercessions. But perfect men can hear their own praises, yet cannot be bent from the rigor of justice. Wherefore it is also added: (Verse 14.) And Samuel said: "And what is this voice of flocks that resounds in my ears, and of herds, which I hear?"

1514. The voice of the flocks and herds of Amalek is the report of shameful deeds. When anyone is defamed for lesser sins of indulgence, the voice of the flocks is said to resound. When likewise one is accused of more criminal and more obscene things, it is the voice of the herds. As if he lays bare what was hidden under the pretense of his false virtue, saying: You justify yourself with your own mouth, but the crowds of your uncleannesses cry out through the mouths of all. But now let us see by what defenses he who has begun to put forward excuses may escape the charge of the infamy brought against him. There follows: (Verse 15.) They brought them from Amalek. The people spared the best sheep and herds, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; the rest we have slain.

1615. What does it mean that he says: "They brought them from Amalek," and did not say, "We brought them"? But when the reprobate are accused, they sometimes conceal their faults by denying them, and sometimes transfer them to others. They conceal them by denying, when they can remain hidden; but when they are caught, as it were, in the open, what they cannot deny they ascribe to others. Indeed, Saul, displaying the ways of such people, says: "They brought them from Amalek. The people spared the best of the sheep and the herds." As if to say: The evil that is heard of should be weighed against the frailty of the people, not against the virtue of the pastor. Indeed, the sins of subjects should be disregarded in comparison with those of prelates. He says therefore: "They brought them from Amalek." As if to say: What resounds about a shameful life is true, but nevertheless that same shamefulness flourished among the little ones, not among the great. Again, still softening the same fault, he says: "The people spared the best of the sheep and the herds, to sacrifice them to the Lord your God." As if to say: The people truly sinned, but not unto death; because the sins of their deeds they now strive, at my exhortation, to blot out through the humility of confession. For the flocks and herds of Amalek are sacrificed to the Lord when the wayward and incontinent come to confession and hasten to blot out by repentance what they have wickedly done. He says therefore: "The people spared"; that is, indulged in sin. "But they brought them to be sacrificed"; because in those matters in which the people recall having fallen, they are now pierced with compunction through confessing and doing penance. The better flocks and herds, as above, designate the choicer sins of lust. As if to say: Even if the people sinned gravely, we ought not to be reproached, because in proportion to the magnitude of the crime they have lamentations of compunction. What does it mean that he says: "To sacrifice them to the Lord your God"? But by this the habit of the deceitful is shown, who, when they seek to hide from great men, resort to flattery. For what does it mean that he claims God is singularly his, except that he shows him to be a familiar friend of God? "To the Lord," he says, "your God." Not mine, but yours; because I am a sinner, you are singularly holy. But with a marvelous practice of fraud, the deceitful so conceal themselves as to reveal, and so justify as to accuse. They also temper the manner of accusation so that by accusing they appear just, lest by excusing they become known. For when he calls God his, he indeed exalts him and diminishes himself. But when he asserts that what was brought from Amalek is to be sacrificed to the Lord, he tacitly brings forth not that for which he ought to be reproached, but praised. And still adding more, he says: "But the rest we destroyed." Indeed, sins that are forgiven are slain. Living sins are those that either still reign in the mind through concupiscence, or those that, though despised through conversion, have not yet been blotted out through penance. The former still live for pleasure, the latter live for punishment; because even if we have now ceased to sin, unless we bewail what we have committed, we are held bound by the obligation of what was committed. But he attributes the greater sins to the lesser people, and the lighter sins to the greater. For what does it mean when he says, "The rest we destroyed," except that there are very small sins among the greater ones, which are washed away by confession alone? These the teachers destroy when, to those who humbly confess, they remit them by apostolic authority. To all these words—because the deceitful strive to conceal themselves, not to expose themselves—there is added the authority of the elect preachers by which they are reproved: (Verse 16.) For Samuel said to Saul: "Allow me, and I will tell you what the Lord has spoken to me this night."

1716. What does it mean when he says: "Let me alone, and I will tell you," unless that while deceitful men persist in verbosity, they do not grant their examining superiors an opportunity to speak? As if to say: While you do not cease from verbosity, you do not permit me to say the things you ought to hear. By this word the intention of the flatterer can also be mocked; for while he believes he is pleasing through the blandishment of praise, he supposes that those whom he praises are, as it were, held fast by those same praises. It is therefore as if the chosen leader were to mock his praiser with honorable gravity, saying: You who praise me—I cannot speak harsh things to you. Let me alone, therefore, that is, permit me to speak, and understand the things I am about to say. And because, as I said, flatterers believe they are pleasing by praising, they by no means expect to hear harsh things from those whom they praise. Therefore, as if about to hear joyful and favorable things, Saul follows up, saying: "Speak." But chosen men, when they hear their own praises, do not grow soft from the rigor of justice amid the encouragements of praise. For those who despise the deeds of the reprobate can by no means accept their words. Because, therefore, they cannot be bent by praises, they both examine dishonest flatterers with subtle reasoning and pursue them with stern judgments. Whence it follows: (Verses 17–19.) And Samuel said: "When you were little in your own eyes, were you not made the head among the tribes of Israel? And the Lord anointed you king over Israel; and the Lord sent you on a mission and said: Go, slay the sinners of Amalek, and you shall fight against them until their utter destruction. Why then did you not listen to the voice of the Lord, but turned to the spoil and did evil in the eyes of the Lord?"

1817. By these words, the disobedience of the proud king is subtly examined: because he first sets before him the gifts that were bestowed, then strikes at the audacity of his transgression through a careful investigation of that same fault. For it is a subtle examination when a crafty sinner is so scrutinized that no excuse for his guilt is left to him, so that God's sentence holds him bound, as it were, to the death of his crime, since no refuge from sin remains for him. Therefore, so that every way of escape may be blocked for the deceitful and proud, both the loftiness of his dignity and the manner of his ministry are recalled to him, when he says: 'Were you not, when you were little in your own eyes, made the head among the tribes of Israel? And the Lord said to you: Destroy the sinners of Amalek.' And so that, now surrounded and besieged by these arguments, he might catch him, he lays upon him the hand of guilt, saying: 'Why then did you not hear the voice of the Lord, but turned to the spoil and did evil in the sight of the Lord?' As if to say: Behold what you were, what you were made, what you ought to have done; behold what you have done; behold how far you have departed from what you ought to have carried out. Therefore, when he pressed further, saying: 'Why did you do evil in the eyes of the Lord?' he seized the deceitful defendant, as it were, by surrounding him on every side.

1918. But in this passage it should be noted that, while the proud king is rebuked, the times of his election are recalled, so that the swelling of his heart may be perceived not to have been present at his choosing, but to have grown from the eminence of his office. He was indeed chosen as a good man by the Lord, but while he grew from his high position, he declined through pride. Therefore He says: 'When you were little in your own eyes, you were made head among the tribes of Israel'; now, turned to plunder, 'you have done evil in the eyes of the Lord.' As if to say: Through the truth of humility you merited the kingdom, but now, humble in pretense yet swollen in truth, you are losing the kingdom. For what are the eyes of the heart, if not the gaze of reason? For he who has unimpaired sight of reason is perfectly illuminated. He is therefore humble in his own eyes who perfectly examines himself and recognizes himself as humble with perfect vision. By these words, then, not only the past humility of the fallen king is commended, but also the keenness of his reason: because he was so great in reason that he knew himself perfectly, and so great in virtue that, examining himself closely, he truly saw himself as humble. Since, therefore, when he is rebuked his past qualities are recalled, what else is described but that he lacks the things he once had? For none can become proud unless they first lose the eyes of the heart. Concerning the lustful, the matter is even more plainly evident: they would never plunge themselves into the abyss of fornication if they had not first grown dim to the light of inward glory. Because they despise the lofty precepts of chastity, they are also convicted of pride. He who had come to depose the king from his office therefore says: 'When you were little in your own eyes, you were made head among the tribes of Israel; now you have done evil in the eyes of the Lord.' As if to say: Proud now and blind, you are justly deposed, you who formerly, seeing and humble, deserved to obtain the kingdom. For the proud Pharisees too are called blind by the Truth itself, who says to the disciples: 'Let them alone; they are blind, and leaders of the blind' (Matt. 15:14). This blindness is especially ascribed to the lustful, because there are no vices that cast thicker darkness upon the mind than lust. But now you may see many who stood firm as clerics fall once they became priests. To these, certainly, through the command of Samuel it is said: 'When you were little in your own eyes, you were made head among the tribes of Israel.' As if to say: When in a lesser rank you kept the precepts of chastity with an illuminated heart; now, having lost your eyes, you have fallen into the abyss of fornication. You have turned to plunder, because you have broken the divine precepts by violent presumption. For since they burst in to violate the sanctuary of chastity while God forbids, and stands armed, as it were, with threats and blocking the way, they lead, as if through the plunder of spoil, Amalek's chosen things into the Lord's land. And because the unchaste hide themselves from preachers as much as they can, Saul is rebuked for having done evil in the sight of the Lord. As if a preacher, threatening and terrifying one who has fallen into carnal pleasure, should say: The crime of impurity is indeed hidden from men, but it is not concealed from Him who sees all things. When the impenitent hear these and similar words, they can by no means be terrified. Hence, even though they are already caught by reasoning, like serpents they strive to slip away through their slipperiness from the hands of those who hold them. They put forth the tail and hide the head: because the outward results of their deeds are now visible, but the true quality of those same actions is concealed. Whence it also follows: (Verse 20.) 'And Saul said to Samuel: On the contrary, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and I have walked in the way by which the Lord sent me, and I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have destroyed Amalek.'

2019. For as if concealing his own hidden faults while bringing forth the exposed faults of others, the slippery teacher commends himself on the success of his preaching, saying: I ought not to be rebuked for the fault of my subjects, but rather praised, since I have destroyed it in the offenders by preaching. I struck Amalek: because the spirit of fornication fell by the sword of my tongue in the hearts of my hearers. The king, even if he lives, has been brought captive: because even if the sense of the flesh, as long as we are in the flesh, cannot be entirely destroyed, it has been captured, as it could be captured, because it cannot prevail over reason. Eager to show that his subjects themselves have been corrected and are confessing their sins, he added, saying: (Verse 21.) But the people took from the spoil sheep and oxen, the firstfruits of those things which were slain, to sacrifice to the Lord their God in Gilgal.

2120. When something belonging to someone is taken away by the violence of armed men, it is called plunder. But the vices of the flesh and soul, because they are propagated at the devil's suggestion, are as it were his own property. Whoever therefore, recently lax within himself but now violent, destroys vices, takes plunder; because he powerfully seizes what belongs to another. And it should be noted that both slaughter and plunder are mentioned, so that it may be taught that some things are left behind dead while others are carried away alive. Indeed, the pleasures of lust are slain when they are driven from the heart by the power of heavenly intention and cut away from the body by contrition of spirit. But they are brought alive for sacrifice; because even if by the conversion of the sinner the delight of the flesh or mind is abandoned, the punishment of past delight is not entirely destroyed. Let vices therefore be slain, and let the living firstfruits by no means be kept from sacrifice: so that he who powerfully destroys the force of sin in contempt of pleasures may fear that the punishment of delight remains alive for him to sacrifice. What then are the firstfruits of the slain, if not the delights of sins? He is said to offer these who confesses before God to the priests. And the offerings are sacrificed when their punishment is destroyed through repentance. For they are, as it were, offered slain as firstfruits, yet live on through what follows: when someone confesses sins but does not strive to sacrifice them, that is, to slay them before God, through repentance. Therefore, when the firstfruits of the slain are said to be reserved for sacrifice, the error of certain people is confounded—those who abandon sins but do not nevertheless bewail them. Because therefore sins must not only be confessed but also destroyed by the severity of penance, while Saul feigns the figure of a good teacher, he asserts that his subjects brought the firstfruits of the slain to be sacrificed. Because the measure of penance must also be determined by the reasoning of the Scriptures, the firstfruits to be sacrificed are brought to Gilgal. Moreover, not only oxen but also sheep are kept for sacrifice: so that those who are concerned about their salvation may strive to destroy great sins through repentance in such a way that they do not neglect to bewail lesser ones. But concerning the proud it is clear: because, while they always desire to appear great, they are ashamed to be marked as sinners. Even when caught they resist, and they desire to appear just even in those things which they do. What then does it mean that he says: "Indeed, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord"? But Samuel says: "Let me alone, and I will tell you what the Lord spoke to me in the night." And after a little: "Why have you turned to the plunder, and done evil before the eyes of the Lord?" It is clear therefore how wondrously swollen with pride is he who seeks to justify himself at the very time when he recognizes that the Lord is rebuking him for sin.

2221. But if he is believed to have responded thus because he thought the words were the prophet's, not the Lord's, but the prophet's, we still see imitators of Saul who, while trusting in their own learning, both despise through pride the commands of their superiors that they hear, and believe they can improve them by changing them. What then does he mean when he says: "Indeed I heard the voice of the Lord, and I brought Agag the king of Amalek"? But it is as if he were saying: Both what was commanded I strove to fulfill, and what was lacking I supplied. It was necessary that Amalek be struck down; but because, with God's help, he is conquered, it was fitting to supplement this by preserving what could be offered in sacrifice to Him. This clearly appears in the proud: because when they cannot conceal open fault, they attempt to alter or diminish it. As if to say: Even if you judge the open faults of the deed, the hidden simplicity of intention ought to be considered. It would indeed be a fault to bring anything from Amalek, unless what was brought ought to be sacrificed to God. This indeed often happens in monasteries, when any overly devout subject presumes to add to the commands of spiritual superiors; when he despises the common regular life and follows the judgment of his own will. For while he strives to improve his life by choosing rather than by obeying, what else is shown but that he colors open disobedience with the appearance of virtue? Indeed, not only subjects but also superiors ought to examine this matter carefully. Subjects ought to note carefully that Saul displeased God because he attempted to sacrifice to God contrary to the prophet's command. Let superiors note carefully that the prophet gave the king the command to destroy Amalek. For thus a teacher ought to praise the common life without despising the particular gifts of individuals. That common life indeed is praised which is joined by charity and is not darkened by intervening vices. The Apostle's judgment is: "Each one has his own gift from God, one indeed in this way, another in that way" (1 Cor. 7:7). Those, therefore, whose food and table are common ought to attend not only to the common good of refreshment but to the particular nature of their struggle: so that they eat together, but do not equally contend to fight against the stings of fornication through abstinence. For his flesh must be subdued more whose thorn of the flesh is more troublesome. Therefore the common life is no longer merely to be stirred up where the community of meals is observed, but each is said to fight individually against his individual battle. Nor does a teacher command well if he does not command that by which Amalek is struck down, but rather that by which he lives. Therefore let the teacher command, but so that the spirit of fornication may be overcome. Let subjects not refuse to obey, but only where the crime of pride is incurred, not where the abyss of death is avoided. But the disobedient, while with swelling heart they fail to carry out the commands of their superiors, when they attempt to improve what is enjoined upon them, while they desire to offer their own works to God, they destroy themselves. For through other virtues we render Him what is ours; through obedience we offer Him ourselves. Therefore Samuel adds, saying: (Verse 22.) "Does God desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord be obeyed?"

2322. For what are the good works of the elect but sacrifices and burnt offerings? Since therefore the Lord had commanded burnt offerings and sacrifices to be offered through the law, what does it mean that the Lord is said not to want burnt offerings and sacrifices, yet promises that He wants to be obeyed, unless that those things which are done apart from obedience are not burnt offerings and sacrifices? As if to say: Good works are then good when they do not disagree with the judgment of those set over them. But if this is said in order to commend the virtue of obedience, it is clear how sublime a good it is, which surpasses sacrifices and offerings. What then does it mean that He wills obedience to the voice of the Lord, unless that all good works must be set below those goods which are commanded? For when superiors rightly command, the goods which subjects choose of their own judgment are set below the commands of their superiors. Those very works set below them are called burnt offerings and sacrifices, so that not only may the small works of inferiors be perceived as not to be compared with the commands of superiors, but the greatest burnt offerings indeed belong to those who wish to withdraw themselves entirely from public work, so as to offer themselves wholly consumed by love to God in the secret of contemplation. Sacrifices belong to those who by no means separate themselves from the common public life, but act with singular virtue, so as to surpass the virtues of others by living more strictly. These things indeed, and things of this kind, when they are done with the permission of good rulers, are sacrifices and burnt offerings which God approves; but when they are done in such a way that through them the commands of superiors are neglected, let those who offer hear what the prophet sent by the Lord says to the disobedient king: Does God desire burnt offerings and sacrifices, and not rather that the voice of the Lord be obeyed? As if to terrify those who despise the commands of their fathers as lesser things, and present their own as greater, saying: Because you think you do something great, you despise what is small and lowly; but if you see clearly, through this you do not please the Lord. And rightly, while the work of the proud is examined, the prophet keenly inquires, saying: Does God desire burnt offerings and sacrifices, and not rather that the voice of the Lord be obeyed? He inquires indeed so that the swelling of pride may be struck by pastoral authority. He says: Does God desire burnt offerings and sacrifices? Because those who choose to follow their own will think they please God; but God by no means approves their works, even when they are great and mighty. But now he added with what praises obedience ought to be proclaimed, and said: (Verse 22.) For obedience is better than sacrifices, and to hearken is more than to offer the fat of rams.

2423. For since he said above: "Does God desire holocausts and victims?" does he not subject both to the praises of obedience, so that when he set forth victims and the fat of rams, he understood the holocaust in the fat? Whatever is better is certainly better than something good. But those holocausts and victims which God does not want are by no means good. What, then, does it mean when it is said in praise of obedience, "Obedience is better than victims, and to hearken than to offer the fat of rams," unless that obedience is then better when the holocaust and victim is not evil? As if, therefore, he brings back the proud and disobedient to the consideration of so great a good, saying: Even if nothing were done by you through presumption, the virtue of obedience would be better than the works you choose. It is clear, therefore, on what summit it is placed, which the prophet saw as higher than divine oblations. But if, as above, we follow the spiritual sense, victims are to be referred to the austerity of a great way of life, and holocausts to the compunction of a more secluded life. For obedience is better than victims, and to hearken is more than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is of far higher merit always to subject one's own will to another's will than to wear down the body with great fasts, or to slay oneself through compunction in a more secret sacrifice. For what is the fat of rams but the rich and interior devotion of the elect? He therefore offers the fat of rams who, in the pursuit of a secret way of life, possesses the affection of devout prayer. Nevertheless, obedience is better than victims, and than to offer the fat of rams. Because he who has perfectly learned to fulfill the will of his superior excels in the heavenly kingdom both those who abstain and those who weep. Certainly, because he says this against one who is proud and openly contemning the Lord's commandments, he does not compare the good that he did with the good that he despised; but he destroys the pretense of good by showing the truth of a better good. As if he were saying: Even if you were seeking an excellent good for the more excellent glory of virtues, you ought rather to have chosen the good of obedience, which excels even excellent things. Speaking thus, he indeed destroys the pretense of good by argumentation; but by adding what follows, he openly confounds the parent evil of disobedience, saying: (Verse 23.) "For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as the wickedness of idolatry."

2524. What is it that those who resist and refuse to comply are likened by the prophet to diviners and idolaters, except that diviners strove to know divine things and to divine hidden matters, while idolaters subjected themselves to figments by venerating them? But those who resist the commands of their superiors resist precisely because they judge that they know the divine will better. To resist is therefore like the sin of divination: because, as if despising the divine altar, they receive responses at the altars of demons, when they trust in the deceitful and proud inventions of their own heart, and oppose by contrary thinking the salutary counsels of their superiors. To refuse to comply, moreover, is said to be like the crime of idolatry; because surely no one would persist in the obstinacy of his disobedience if he did not carry in his heart the figment of his own purpose as though it were an idol. For when he conceives in his heart what he intends to do, he makes, as it were, an idol, and when he resolves that he will carry out the purpose conceived in his mind, he bows down, as it were, to adore a graven image. To refuse to comply is therefore like the crime of idolatry: because whoever is obstinate in his own resolve is raised up outwardly in contempt of his superiors precisely because inwardly he is bowed down to the graven images of his own purpose which he has established by his own devising. But it must be carefully asked why resisting is compared to the sin of divination, and refusing to comply to the crime of idolatry. For "crime" is used only of a great sin, while "sin" is the term used even for what is slight; but if diviners were so called from "altar," because they were accustomed to receive responses by consulting, the sin of idolatry was a crime in comparison with it, because it was more insane to worship stones than to receive false responses about how to live well under the guise of divine things. Why then is resisting said by comparison to be a sin, while refusing to comply is called a crime? But to resist is to dissent from the will of one who commands. Many indeed seem to resist for a time, when they do not immediately accept the commands of their superiors, yet after a little while they comply with those same commands. But to refuse to comply—what is it but both to resist an enjoined obedience and to persist in the obstinacy of that very resistance? For those do not comply who are unconquerable in their heart's resolve and who omit nothing of what they determine to do on account of anyone's authority. Rightly therefore, in comparison with resisting, refusing to comply is called a crime, because it appears to be a far greater and more horrible sin. Because, then, those who are of this sort are not overcome by reasoning, the prophet added what punishment should restrain them, saying: (Verse 23.) Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord has rejected you from being king.

2625. For what does it mean that Saul is cast off, except that he is judged incorrigible? It is as if He were saying: Because you reject all counsels of salvation, for the guilt of obstinacy you ought no longer to be corrected by words, but condemned with the punishment of rejection. How greatly the guilt of disobedience ought to be feared is shown, if one considers attentively that on account of it even kings are deposed. What does it mean when he says: "Because you have cast away the word of the Lord, the Lord has cast you away"? But the word is cast away when it is not reverently preserved in its sublimity; for to cast away is to let something slip from the hand to the ground, whether through negligence or through violent throwing. Now the word of the Lord, because it speaks salutary things, is heavenly or sublime; it is negligently cast to the ground when through sloth it is not fulfilled. But it is cast away through contempt when the proud and disobedient repel it with swelling heart and disdain to observe it with the hand of action. But because he is reproved not for casting away but for rejecting the word, this signifies that while the proud follow their own will, they become far from the Lord. For to reject is to repel something far away. For those who worthily undertake the guidance of others are not only near to God through obedience, but also make those near to Him who through vices and crimes are far from Him. It is therefore as if He were saying: You are expelled far from the order of dignity, because you were unwilling to be present to the merit of that same dignity. For the merit of dignity is the observance of the divine word. When this is rejected, because the merit of dignity is lost, the dignity itself is also removed. It is fitting, then, to observe how much the proud lose through disobedience, and how much the humble gain. The former, while they rejoice in fulfilling the judgment of their own will, offer God great labors of works, yet have no rewards for their labors; the latter, while they abandon themselves, while they follow the judgment of another's will, earn the glory of eternal sublimity; whence also through the most blessed Mary, Mother of the Lord our Redeemer, it is said: "He has put down the mighty from their seat, and has exalted the humble" (Luke 1:52). Indeed the Lord puts down the mighty from their seat when He casts off the disobedient proud, and He exalts the humble, because He glorifies the obedient with eternal glory. But words do not correct the proud; rather, only while they tremble at losing their honors do they feign the humility they do not possess, lest they lose the summit of glory; whence it is added: (Verse 24.) And Saul said to Samuel: "I have sinned, because I have transgressed the words of the Lord and your words."

2726. What does it mean that Saul is rebuked by the prophet for not having heard the voice of the Lord and for having done evil in His eyes, and yet he does not at all confess that he has sinned; but when he sees himself rejected from the kingdom, he confesses that he has sinned and transgressed the word of the Lord and His commands? It is because the proud are bold in despising the words of the humble, yet they cannot, in the manner of the elect, despise the honors they covet. They are indeed bold enough to scorn the commands of their superiors, but they are not prepared to relinquish high positions. On the contrary, the humble are ready to obey the commands of their superiors and secure in losing high positions. For since they desire not earthly but heavenly things, they despise the heights of earthly exaltation, they strive to labor for heavenly things; they willingly submit, and they shrink from being placed above others. Saul, therefore, refusing to obey God yet fearing to lose the kingdom—what else does he show us but the character of the proud, who, when they prevail, avoid being seen as lowly or as sinners, but when they are compelled, feign the virtue of humility? But when, under compulsion, they confess, they diminish by their words the sin they accuse. For although he declared that he had sinned by transgressing the word of the Lord, he recalled that he had incurred that same transgression by necessity rather than by will, saying: 'I feared the people and obeyed their voice.' As if to say: The sin for which I am rebuked ought to be struck with a lighter punishment, inasmuch as it was committed not through malice but through weakness. Now, to sin by deliberate purpose and will is a great transgression; but to sin through weakness is the more tolerable, the more the one who lies subject to the sin is unequal to the forces of that same sin. And because by the same craftiness of their heart they suppose themselves to prevail over the humility of simple teachers, he added, as if already having persuaded: (Verse 25) 'But now, I pray, bear my sin and return with me, that I may worship the Lord.'

2827. Correctable sins are indeed borne, because after they depart from the will of the one who committed them, they can be wholesomely purged through satisfaction. But the sins of those in whose minds they have become ingrained through impenitence are not borne. Whence John also says: "There is a sin unto death; I do not say that one should pray for that" (1 John 5:16). A sin unto death is that which is committed by one who can never come to his senses. This sin is assuredly not borne by superiors, because it is not wiped away by the prayers or offerings of priests. But Saul, representing in all things the proud and obstinate, does not cease to swell with pride, and yet begs that his sin be borne; he heaps up an unbearable burden, and asks that it be carried as though it were light. This indeed happens as often in the Church as those who willingly commit great crimes fail to consider their magnitude. They gather up unbearable things, and reckon them to be trivial and of no weight. They hide their sins from their superiors, and so that they can scarcely be discovered and rebuked, they minimize those same sins as much as they can, lest those who preside over them recognize their enormity. They are also strong for sinning, but weak for weeping over their sins; they want to be dissolved in the pleasures of sin, but they refuse to be purged by the bitterness of penance. What then does it mean when he says, "Bear my sin," except that they receive the sweetness of sins in themselves, but want to burden their prelates with the weight of those same sins? Some even come voluntarily to confess, but they themselves do not mourn for the things of which they accuse themselves; instead they beg others to do penance, they think they are saved by faith alone, and they do not care to return through penance once they have been cast down. Whence Saul also adds, saying: "And return with me, that I may worship the Lord." For the preacher is, as it were, departing when he rejects the shameless; therefore he says: "Return with me, that I may worship the Lord." He thinks that he is not divided from the communion of the elect solely because he preserves the common faith; or certainly, to worship the Lord is to submit oneself to the discipline of faith and the keeping of good works. But because Saul represents feigning hypocrites, there follows: (Verse 26.) Samuel said to Saul: "I will not return with you, because you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king."

2928. What then does it mean that the prophet refused to bear the sin of the penitent king, except that he saw him not truly penitent? To whom he first responded with those words of rejection, because he recognized that the king would by no means be changed. By this steadfastness of the prophet, certain overly lenient priests of this present time are reproved, who are weak in their conduct yet bold in their recklessness. They can scarcely sustain themselves, yet dare to take up the burdens of others to be carried; they do not bear their own light burdens, yet subject themselves to unbearable ones. Behold, the mighty prophet fled from taking up the burden of the king's sin, so that the priest of the Church may fear and dread to undergo the weight of unbearable sins. For the most part, however, let him so take up the sins of others that he nevertheless permits the one by whom they were committed to weep over those sins he undertakes to expiate. Hence Samuel by no means promised to bear the king's sin, yet he mourned for him whom he had declared rejected. For concerning him it is written shortly after: 'Samuel mourned for Saul, because the Lord repented that He had made him king over Israel.' He did not indeed promise to bear the king's sin, so that the king would strive to weep over it himself. But nevertheless he wept for the one he had declared rejected, so that he might render the Lord favorable toward him. In the literal sense, indeed, when the prophet repeats the sentence, he shows the irrevocable sentence of divine justice by which the sinner is so cast away that he is never permitted to return to the hand of divine mercy. It can also be understood in another way, that he asks the prophet to return with him to worship the Lord. For holy men who do not abandon the Lord by sinning have no need to return to Him through repentance. For to return belongs to one who has departed. This indeed befits sinners who withdraw from the Lord through sin; it does not befit the just who remain steadfast. What then does it mean that the just Samuel is asked to return with Saul the sinner, except that chosen preachers are afflicted like penitents on behalf of their fallen subjects, and come as if returning, when they accompany fallen subjects with fatherly affliction? They therefore return with them, when the sins of their subjects are equally mourned both by the subjects who sinned and by the prelates who stood firm. It is therefore as if he were saying: I have now recognized through the rebuke of preaching that you cling to me with fatherly affection, you whom I did not leave to sin further. Since therefore I have come to my senses through your reproach, I ask you to return with me, because by my own strength I am by no means sufficient to blot out so great a magnitude of wickedness. But such prayers of affection would deserve to be received if they proceeded from truth of heart; fittingly therefore it was answered to the hypocrite: 'I will not return with you.' As if to say: I do not know how to sacrifice to God on your behalf, since I do not perceive you to be subject to God in the truth of humility; and repeating the earlier words, he says: 'Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord has rejected you from being king;' and because the crafty must be rejected and abandoned, there follows: (v. 27) 'And Samuel turned to depart.' In this departure of the elders, indeed, hypocrites fear the loss of temporal honor more than the loss of their eternal inheritance. Hence even when abandoned they cannot be at rest, but what they dare not accomplish by themselves, they strive to obtain through the intervention of others. Fittingly therefore it is added: (v. 27) 'But he seized the edge of his cloak, and it was torn.'

3029. What are the garments of a teacher, if not to teach the qualities of the subjects adhering to him? Concerning these garments, indeed, a promise is made to the great shepherd through the prophet: 'As I live, says the Lord, you shall clothe yourself with all these as with a garment' (Isa. 49:18). And through the Psalmist it is sung: 'The Lord has reigned, He has put on beauty; the Lord has put on strength' (Ps. 93:1). For He put on beauty, who joined to Himself the splendid minds of the faithful, as it were garments. Saul therefore seized Samuel's cloak, when any proud and rejected person seeks the honor of high office to be conferred upon himself by great men through those dear ones and intimates who cling to him; and because no one intercedes on behalf of the reprobate among perfect hearers, he is said to have seized not the cloak, but the edge of the cloak, that is, the extremity; but that edge is torn, because he who suggests useless things is rejected. For when a lesser person making an indiscriminate request is repelled, it is as though the edge of the garment is said to be torn. For it was as though a part of the great prophet's cloak was torn, when He answered Peter who was making a bad suggestion, saying: 'Get behind me, Satan, for you do not savor the things that are of God, but the things that are of men' (Matt. 16:23). Hence He likewise commands, saying: 'If your hand or your foot scandalizes you, cut it off and cast it from you; likewise, if your eye scandalizes you, pluck it out and cast it from you' (Matt. 5:30). By these words, assuredly, not only the edge of the cloak but even the middle portion is designated as needing to be cut away: because when they suggest evil things, even perfect hearers must be disregarded. For this is why the sons of Zebedee together with their mother ask that one sit at the right hand and the other at the left of the Redeemer; but as though ignorant of what constitutes a good request, they are repelled (Matt. 20). For it was as though the Lord tore a part of the cloak, when He rebuked and confuted those members who were causing scandal. And it should be noted that the whole cloak is not torn, but a part of the cloak is torn: because when a good person suggests evil things, he ought to be repelled in that which he suggests wrongly, and in that in which he is otherwise good, he ought to be retained out of love.

3130. By the garment, the conduct of the ruler is also signified, as the Psalmist attests, who says: "Let your priests be clothed with justice" (Ps. 131:9). The edge of the cloak is therefore seized when the teacher is praised for great holiness, when that which displays outward beauty is spoken in his praise. But because the good qualities of the just that lie hidden are more numerous, only the edge of the cloak can be grasped: because what is seen of the chosen teacher's justice is little, while much indeed is concealed. But that very little which is known, when it is grasped, is torn: because the just are not held by their own praises. For because they despise them in a moment, they cannot be held, as it were, by the tearing of the cloak. The torn part of the garment is indeed held, but the prophet is not held: because what is said in praise of the just person is true, and yet the just, while they despise what they hear, leave, as it were, the torn piece in the hands of the one holding it. Of the greater ones, therefore, because certain things can be known, a part is, as it were, grasped. But when all that is done is known by the little ones, if it is praised, it must nonetheless be cast aside; because nothing of good works should be held onto through vanity. For hence it is that while John, still a youth, follows the Lord already seized, and is held by his garment, he is described as having fled naked, leaving the garment behind (Mark 14). For the youth is caught by the garment when he is praised for the beginning of his good conduct; but he who despises the praises he hears flees naked, leaving the linen cloth behind. For to flee naked is to have a praiseworthy life, but to despise the praise of a chosen life. For he flees as if naked who ascribes nothing to himself through vainglory from the adornment of virtues. He can also be understood to have fled naked for this reason: because he who is said to have been caught by part of the linen cloth is reported to have left the cloth behind; because it frequently happens in the conscience of the elect that, through the fact that they are praised in part, they suspect that they have lost not a part of their merits, but all the merit of a good life. Samuel's cloak is therefore torn, because chosen teachers despise their own praises. And because they are not swayed by praises, he repeats the severity of the former sentence, saying: (v. 28) "The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from your hand this day."

3231. For perfect men, because they are softened by no praise from the rigor of justice, are the same before as after the testimony of their praise, and they confirm by repeating afterward the same things they had said before. But we must ask what this signifies, that which is said: 'Today'. For if the life of the reprobate is night, what does it mean that Saul's kingdom is torn away in the day? But if the life of a reprobate pastor is night, when his kingdom is torn away, it makes day. For day does not come unless night departs. He says, therefore, 'Today', because the darkness of the disobedient one is declared to be condemned. Whence also, when Judas went out, the Lord says: 'Now is the Son of Man glorified' (John 13:31); because He saw the night of that man's life depart, and the pure light of justice remain in the other disciples. It is also said 'Today', because with the proud one removed, the kingdom was being handed over to the humble king. Whence it is also added: (Verse 28) 'And He has given it to your neighbor who is better than you.' When therefore "today" is said, nothing bright is seen in the rejected king, but the glory of his successor is proclaimed, who from the height of the kingdom was to shine with the splendor of great virtue. And asserting the immutability of the divine sentence, he adds, saying: (Verse 29) 'Moreover, the Triumphant One of Israel will not spare, and will not be moved by repentance.'

3332. For who is to be understood by the name of this triumphant one, except the Creator of the human race? For whoever overcomes hidden adversaries conquers by His power, who bestows upon him the grace of overcoming temptation. What does it mean that the triumphant one is said not to spare, when Samuel is being entreated? Because when preachers grow angry at sinning subjects, when they strike the proud or the dissolute with divine judgment, they do not act by the impulse of their own fury, but carry out the decision of the divine will. As if he were clearly saying: I indeed pronounced not my own sentence, but His, whose decree, once issued, cannot be revoked. Therefore He does not spare, and is not moved by repentance—but toward those who can neither cease from their sins nor repent of the sins they love. And adding the reason, he says: (Verse 29.) "For He is not a man, that He should repent." As if to say: His very being belongs to Him in whom there is no changeableness. By the name of the triumphant one, the perfection of the substitute king can also be designated, who was destined to have the glory of many triumphs and who would not dare to spare anyone against the will of the Creator. Whence also in this very same book it is written of him: "And David struck the whole land, and left alive neither man nor woman" (1 Kings 27:9). Of him also it is said: "For He is not a man, that He should repent." For what is designated in this place by "man," except one subject to carnal passions? As if he were still stinging the proud one, saying: You now repent of your sins when you receive the sentence upon your boldness; but he will not repent who, being a man, is not subject to disobedience and pride. And Saul still confesses with his mouth, saying: (Verse 30.) "I have sinned." But he reveals the quality of that confession, because he added, saying: (Verse 30.) "But now honor me before the elders of my people, and before Israel."

3433. It is clear what kind of repentance he bears who still desires to be honored. For if he truly repented of his sin, he would have desired to be dishonored rather than honored. It is fitting, therefore, to marvel at the hardness of his cast-off heart. As the man of God, carrying out the command of the Creator, says: "The Lord has cast you off, that you should not be king," on the contrary, he who receives the sentence of rejection seeks honors through the desire for exaltation. What does it mean, then, that he says: "I have sinned"? Indeed, confession of sin should be followed not by honor or glory, but by profit and self-contempt. For what does it profit to confess sins if the affliction of repentance does not follow the voice of confession? For three things must be considered in everyone who truly repents, namely: conversion of the mind, confession of the mouth, and punishment for sin. For he who is not converted in heart, what does it profit him if he confesses his sins? A sin that is loved is by no means erased by confessing it. Indeed, there are some who reveal their sins by confessing but, by not converting, in no way detest them. These indeed accomplish nothing by confessing, because what they cast out by speaking, they bring back in by loving. Whence Scripture also suggests to those wishing to confess profitably, saying: "With the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. 10:10). What is it to believe with the heart unto righteousness, except to direct the will toward faith working through love? Therefore, when someone directs the intention of the heart toward righteousness through love, through the beginning of good will he has the fruit of good conversion. This one certainly now confesses unto salvation, because by speaking he casts out from the wound more than conversion has pierced. The third kind, therefore, that is punishment, is like a necessary medicine, so that the abscess of guilt, which is lanced by conversion, may be purged by confessing and healed by the medicine of affliction. Therefore, he who does not believe in his heart unto righteousness by no means makes confession unto salvation, because he displays, as it were, the leaves of a bad tree whose deep roots he fixes in his heart. The sign of true confession, therefore, is not in the confession of the mouth but in the affliction of repentance. For then we perceive a sinner to be well converted when he strives to blot out with worthy severity of affliction what he confesses by speaking. Whence John the Baptist, rebuking the badly converted Jews flocking to him, says: "O generation of vipers, who has shown you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance" (Matt. 3:7). Therefore, repentance is to be recognized in fruit, not in leaves or branches. For good will is, as it were, a tree. What then are the words of confession other than leaves? Therefore, leaves are not to be sought by us for their own sake but for the sake of fruit, because every confession of sins is received for this reason: that the fruit of repentance may follow. Whence also the Lord cursed the tree adorned with leaves but barren of fruit (Mark 11), because he does not accept the ornament of confession without the fruit of affliction. Therefore Saul, who confesses and wishes to be honored, not afflicted and humbled—what does he signify except those who have a sterile confession and bear no fruit, who display the beauty of confession with humble words but pursue the greenness of words, not the humility of repentance?

3534. But why do we look to the ancients, when now we see such a great multitude of fallen rulers? For now they rush headlong into disgraceful deeds in droves—not only the weak who are subject to authority, but also negligent prelates and priests. Those who by the rank of their ministry have been assigned to heavenly sacraments act with slippery sinfulness. But many of them, when they somehow come to their senses, confess that they have erred. Yet they wish to bring forth their sins against themselves in such a way that they still desire to be honored on account of their sacred office; in secret they declare themselves shameful, but outwardly they blush to appear humble beyond the dignity of their rank. What then are these men but those who see themselves as cast down, and yet dare to wish to be honored? Often, moreover, they do not come of their own accord, but are seized against their will; they receive the commands of their own abjection, and yet they ask to be honored. They wish indeed to do unclean things, yet dare to cling to the sacred altars. Behold how many Sauls we observe, how many fallen rulers we contemplate from the height of Holy Church. To each of them individually it must surely be said: 'Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord has rejected you from being king'—so that those whom earthly disgraces do not cease to defile may not perform the heavenly ministry. But this indeed we can say, yet we cannot persuade slippery ministers of it. For Saul both heard that he was rejected and continued to reign; because unclean priests recognize that they have been cast down from the priestly summit through the defilements of luxury, and yet they do not cease to handle the sacred mysteries against God's will. But a king reigning against the Lord's will was not a king but a tyrant; because an unworthy priest, who is rightly cast out on account of his defilement, when he presumes to minister, ascends to the summit of so great a glory only to be condemned. Hence also that great senator of heaven, wishing to terrify such tyrants, says: 'Whoever eats the bread and drinks the blood of the Lord unworthily, eats and drinks judgment upon himself' (1 Cor. 11:27). Often, however, it happens through urgent confession that those who confess are also believed to have undergone a conversion of heart. Sometimes the chosen preachers accept the false humility of the reprobate, so that by their example others may be led to salvation. For they recognize two things in hypocrites: one within, the other without. Within, indeed, pure evil; without, a pretense of good. They detest both, but they often feign approval of the outward show of good in them, so that those who see the good on the outside and do not know the evil within may follow the examples of good that they behold. Rightly therefore it is added: (Verse 31.) 'So Samuel turned back and followed Saul, and Saul worshiped the Lord.'

3635. For on account of the evil that lay hidden within, he deserved to hear: "The Lord has cast you off from being king." But so that under the pretext of good he might draw others to the truth of that same good, Samuel wished to follow Saul, and saw him worship the Lord. Sometimes even the evils of kings and the great ones of the earth must be tolerated, lest being provoked they slip into worse things. For the children of Israel often worshiped the gods of the nations. Whence also it was said above concerning those converted by Samuel: "The children of Israel removed from their midst the Baals and the Ashtaroth" (1 Sam. 7:4). And perhaps if the rejected king did not see the prophet returning with him to worship the Lord, he would worship the images of demons. And so he casts him off, yet returns with him; because in the powerful of this age, iniquity must be condemned in such a way that the good they possess is not lost through provocation. For often they are evil in secret, and the good that is seen, others imitate more devoutly. Certainly the evils of the powerful of the age are great evils for them; but the good things they put forth benefit the example of the faithful more than the good deeds of others. Rightly therefore Samuel returns with the rejected king; because the elect preachers both strike the powerful of the age for their iniquity, and permit them to do certain good things for the sake of example. Whence it also follows: (Verse 32.) And Samuel said: "Bring here Agag, king of Amalek." And Agag was brought to him, very fat and trembling.

3736. Kings adore the Lord when the proud and scornful humble themselves to carry out the Lord's commands. The unchaste adore when they are subjected to God through the obedience of chastity. But sometimes they pretend to adore, because some have a pretext of humility or chastity, yet while they are believed to truly possess the good, others through the good they believe them to have lose the practice of good works. Therefore they hand over King Agag to Samuel, because by confessing they bring forth the vigor of their sensuality. For when they confess the sins of lust which they committed through the vigor of the flesh, what else do they do but offer the king of Amalek to the prophets to be slain? But what does it mean that Agag is called very fat, when the vigor of sensuality is fat in some and lean in others? What then does it mean that he is offered fat, except that he was led forth by the subjects of the reprobate king? For subjects are often negligent; but when they behold the examples of their chosen pastor, they groan amid the evils they commit. Through the frailty of the flesh they fall into impurities; but struck by the examples of their superiors, they cannot fully rejoice amid the pleasures of impurity. In whom then is Agag fattest, if not in those of whom it is said: "They rejoice when they have done evil, and exult in the worst things" (Prov. 2:14)? For the subjects of a lustful teacher sin all the more boldly, the fewer examples of their superiors they have placed before them to see. But they cast themselves down far more madly when they do not see in their pastors a good that they might follow, and they do see an evil by whose example they perish. In these indeed Agag grows fat, because joyfully, securely, and freely the vigor of the flesh is stretched out in the pleasure of lust, which, with nothing standing in the way, is not deprived of the practice of allurement. Therefore the fattest is offered to be slain when those are converted who greatly rejoiced in the pleasure of lust; for the king is, as it were, handed over when the carnal sense which ruled the mind is revealed to the priests of Christ through confession. Fat also customarily nourishes fire. Rightly therefore this is ascribed to the Amalekite king, because while the spirit of fornication possesses the mind, the more sweetly and frequently it feeds there through shameful thoughts, the more abundant fuel is supplied to it for increasing the fire of concupiscence. But he is said to be trembling, because the carnal sense, when it is handed over to spiritual men through confession, is weakened. Therefore trembling gives a sign that it does not have the strength of its members. When therefore the vigor of sensuality begins to be weakened, what else trembles but the king of the Amalekites? Or he is said to tremble because many, when they begin to be converted, are terrified by the rigor of penance. And because all carnal people cannot abandon the customary pleasures of the flesh without grief, there follows: (Verse 32) And he said: "Does bitter death thus separate?"

3837. For to say this to the carnal sense is to strike the mind with the turning of sorrow over the loss of accustomed pleasure. For because the recently converted suffer great darts of bitterness, the king whom they had served, as it were, complains about death: because in them carnality is by no means slain without great tribulation. Therefore to ask the carnal sense about the separation of death is to strike the still-sorrowful mind of the converted person over the loss of past delight. But also the manner of separation is inquired about, when he says: "Is it so?" For as though, having seen the austerities to which it must be subjected, his sensuality says to the mind: "Do you spurn joyful things for such sorrowful ones?" Samuel certainly hears this voice: because the chosen preacher recognizes the tempted heart of his subject by certain signs. But what does it profit to recognize, if he himself says nothing against that which rages within in the heart of the subject? Therefore there follows: (Verse 33) And Samuel said: As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.

3938. What is the mother of carnal sense, if not original sin? For since before the sin of the first man no lust was present in the members, the Amalekite king did not exist. There was indeed the sense of the flesh, but it was not shameful and lustful; but as soon as he fell into sin, he felt the itching of his members, because he could not have obedient movement of the flesh when he himself was disobedient to God. Original sin, therefore, is rightly understood as the mother of the shameful sense of the flesh, because from it there comes forth by birth that which began to exist from it. Whence also the Apostle, as if abhorring the law of carnal sense as that of a most severe tyrant, showed not only the king himself but the mother, saying: "Therefore it is no longer I who work that, but sin which dwells in me" (Rom. 7:20). For the sin which he declared he did not work, he understood as the movement of the flesh; but the sin dwelling in him, as original sin. Because therefore from original sin comes the sin of the movement of the flesh, when we consider the carnal sense as king, we rightly name his mother as the first sin. Moreover, the children of this mother are all concupiscences, sins, and vices. The mother is surely made without children when every fault from the flesh and every fault from the mind now seems merely to remain. For she is then without children, because even if no shameful thing now comes from the flesh, if no concupiscence now reigns in the mind, nevertheless that sin remaining in us cannot now be destroyed by the power of a teacher. For what does the Apostle mean when he says: "It is no longer I who work that, but sin which dwells in me"? From that sin indeed, which we contract from the corrupt root of our nature, we have the capacity to be corrupted by the passions of vices. The disordered law of the members, therefore, when it moves the members contrary to our will—we do not work this, but sin which dwells in us. The will indeed is then present with us, but we do not yet find the ability; since we would wish that nothing could be moved in us against our will. And these are perhaps the conceptions of the worst mother, by which that sin is impregnated; if they are allowed to pour forth into shameful and obscene acts, they are said to be, as it were, nourished. The children, therefore, are the movements which are not only naturally within, but which are manifested in shameful and obscene works. The mother of Agag is therefore made without children when original sin is so restrained that it is not permitted to produce any acts or movements. Or perhaps she is made without children because she once had children. When, therefore, converted sinners cease to be shameful both in act and in the gestures of luxury, the fault dwelling in them, as a mother, is as it were bereft of children.

4039. And it should be noted that the mother is said to be made without children by way of comparison. As he says, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." The virtues of the mind, from which good works proceed, are mothers; but the sword of Agag is called the weapon of lust, which indeed makes women childless, because lust destroys all good works. Or certainly the women are understood as the minds of the faithful, while the children of holy minds are good thoughts, virtues, and good works. But the sword of Agag made mothers childless, because the delight of lust, if it is allowed to be unsheathed like a sword, slays from them indeed all good thoughts, all virtues, and good works. For the sharp pleasure of this pestilence, if it is received into the mind, while it delights one to gaze more intently upon what is impure, can think of nothing clean and holy; and while it ardently drags one toward the fulfillment of wicked deeds, it permits one to do nothing of virtue. And because through its burning all things perish, not only the children of Agag but all the children of the women are slaughtered. Therefore it makes mothers childless, because the delight of lust, like a sword, while it strikes the fruits of minds, by no means allows thoughts of virtue or the good of work to live. Just as therefore it made mothers childless, so also his own mother is made childless, when the sinner is so converted that, apart from the guilt naturally implanted in us, nothing of obscene works or impulses appears to remain in those who are converted. Whence it is also fittingly added: (Verse 33.) And Samuel cut Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.

4140. That he is cut into pieces means that, once dead, he is divided into small parts. For Agag is slain when the vigor of the flesh is so crushed by fasting, vigils, and spiritual meditations that nothing wanton, nothing lustful is felt to stir. For to slay him is to render the flesh unable to move shamefully. But the corpse of the slain one remains whole when its movement remains. Lust does not remain when it weighs down the mind by its mere heaviness alone; that is, when a simple and natural motion of the flesh resides in the members, but has nothing of lustful ardor. But because the minds of the elect bear this very thing with difficulty, they carry, as it were, the whole corpse of a dead king. But what does it mean that he is cut into pieces, except that they do not wish to leave even that natural motion its strength? He is therefore cut into pieces, because each time it strikes, it is slain. Therefore, while the alternating movements are not allowed to come together, the corpse of Agag is, as it were, cut into pieces. Or perhaps this Agag is of such a nature that he cannot die unless cut into pieces. For as I said above, lust is kindled after the manner of fire; and if it is extinguished carelessly, the nearby stubble is quickly set ablaze. A great fire, too, can often be better extinguished when dispersed. For when many coals come together into one, they make an enormous mass of embers. Lest therefore the one extinguishing it be burned, the mass of embers is first wisely scattered, so that it may be quickly extinguished through the individual pieces of coals. For what are thoughts of luxury, what are lustful motions of the body, but coals of fire? Which indeed, if they come together in the heart or in the flesh, can quickly burn, but can never easily be extinguished. Let the fire therefore be scattered, let Agag be cut into pieces, and let the mind be guarded so that it disperses unclean thoughts and does not allow one to cling to another. For since one cannot bring it about that one never thinks harmful things, let one do what one can: immediately cast out the thought that carelessly enters the mind. Thus indeed one divides a very great fire quickly into individual coals and swiftly extinguishes it, if one separates all the flames of thoughts in such a way as not to allow them to be joined together in the mind, neither through negligence nor through desire. Thus indeed the vigor of the mind also represses the motions of the body, when it does not allow them to come together with one another. For an enticing motion of the flesh, if it is not at all nourished by thought, does not seem to come together with another. For the glue of enticing motions is unclean thought: because whoever willingly looks upon unclean things immediately moves the flesh violently toward the things loved by lusting after them; the more willingly and lingeringly one thinks, the more, as coals to coals, one binds shameful motions to even more shameful ones. Let him therefore maintain a strong guard over his soul who wishes to powerfully scatter the motions of the flesh. For within, Agag is first divided, so that outwardly he may likewise be divided into pieces; because for one who does not allow evil thoughts to come together, the shameful motions of the flesh are also, as it were, divided into pieces. Thus indeed the very fat Agag is slain, if he is divided into pieces; because we powerfully extinguish the sense of the flesh along with its unclean motions, both in the body and in the soul, if we keep watch against each of its individual snares with singular attention. Hence that Wise Man also carefully admonishes, saying: "With all watchfulness keep your heart, because from it life proceeds, and from one that is neglected, death comes forth" (Proverbs 4:23). For life proceeds when the heart is guarded, because when all uncleanness is repelled, the spirit of the converted is enlivened toward virtues. Therefore Agag is cut into pieces by the prophet when, through the counsel of teachers, individual particles of uncleanness are destroyed both in the body and in the mind of the hearers. Moreover, it is rightly said that he was cut to pieces both before the Lord and in Gilgal; because those who know how to think wisely both about almighty God and about the Holy Scriptures can powerfully divide the minute particles of enticing thoughts and shameful motions. But, as I said, teachers often tolerate the feigned good deeds of the wicked not for their own sake, but for the sake of others; because what they do in pretense benefits not the pretenders, but the onlookers. Indeed, the elect often see the feigned good deeds of the wicked; but because they do not know their hearts, they imitate the good that appears to shine outwardly. Saul asked Samuel to return with him to worship the Lord; but he, having returned, cut Agag into pieces, because elect teachers, through the works that the reprobate perform, turn the elect toward the pursuit of living well. But because they do this very thing by way of dispensation, that is, for the sake of something else, when the necessity of the dispensation passes, they abandon those very reprobate whom they had, as it were, followed toward good works, once they have lapsed into the impenitence of a reprobate heart. And so it is well added: (Verses 34, 35.) And Samuel went away to Ramah, but Saul went up to his house in Gibeah, and Samuel did not see him again until the day of his death.

4241. What is the house of the transgressor, if not the habit of wicked work? For whoever is enclosed in a perverse habit dwells, as it were, in a house. Saul therefore ascended to his house, when any reprobate, after the rebuke of teachers, returns to the practice of evil work. For he descended, as it were, to the plains when he feigned humility in order to learn the commands of his superiors. But what does it mean that Samuel is said to have departed before Saul ascended to his house? Yet, as I said, when there is no need on behalf of others, the chosen preacher cannot remain with the crafty man; and because the pretender advances in the absence of the teacher, Saul did not go away to his house, but ascended. For to ascend, for the reprobate, is to advance from bad to worse. Likewise, when the proud man is said to descend, he is declared to ascend. For to ascend to his house, for the proud man, is to exalt himself through pride up to the measure by which he is to be condemned. For the house of the proud man is the measure of his own wickedness. For when they are permitted, through the prosperities of this world, to exercise tyranny, to disturb the earth, to oppress the good, and to afflict the innocent, what else do the proud appear to do but ascend? But because it is predetermined by God how much they may harm, how much they may rage, how much they may exalt themselves through tyranny, they are permitted to ascend only up to their house. For their house is the measure of wickedness in which they will always remain: because when they have arrived at the fullness of their crimes, they are snatched away by death and punished with eternal torments. For he remains, as it were, in his house, who can never escape from the punishments of his way of life. This can fittingly be understood not only of the proud, but also of the lustful and all the reprobate. For they were still in the ascent and not yet in their house, those of whom it is said: 'The iniquities of the Amorites are not yet full' (Gen. 15:16). Hence likewise the blessed apostle Paul says: 'To fill up their sins' (1 Thess. 2:16). Therefore they ascend to their house when, by the advancement of evil, they advance to more wicked works, for which they will endure eternal torments.

4342. Moreover, Samuel is said to depart to Ramah. For teachers separated from the reprobate do not merely go, but depart. They go when they leave those who are to be corrected, because those whom they dismiss as if in anger, they afterward return to, invited by their good amendment. Therefore, for a teacher to depart is to abandon the impenitent wicked with perpetual condemnation. For they so abandon those who work sins unto death through impenitence that they are not compelled to return to them any further. Well therefore it says: 'Saul did not see Samuel again until the day of his death.' And because they perceive that this must be done in the contemplation of the highest truth, he is recorded as departing to Ramah. For a consummated vision is the perfected understanding of innermost truth. Lest therefore the severity of preachers be judged excessive by the carnal-minded when they separate the reprobate from the communion of the Church in perpetuity, let them hear that after Samuel came to Ramah, he saw Saul no more—because the teacher eternally separates the one whom he does not recognize as belonging to the number of the elect. But this is believed with confidence if in the figure of Samuel the affection of charity among the preachers of the holy Church is perceived alongside their severity. For the zeal of severity is shown in that it is recorded he did not see Saul until the day of his death. But concerning the affection of charity, it is added: (Verse 35) 'Nevertheless, Samuel mourned for Saul, because the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.'

4443. For what is it that he mourns for one whom he disdains to look upon, except that even with their zeal for righteousness, the holy teachers possess a disposition of great charity, and the very greatness of that charity is shown by the fact that he is said to weep for the rejected king? With what affection, then, do they weep for the sins of their elect subjects, who have learned to weep so tenderly even for the cast-off reprobate? For the urgency of the mourning is shown by what is added next: