Commentaria in I Regum (I Samuelis)
WHETHER I HAVE TAKEN ANY MAN’S OX.—So also St. Paul: “I have not coveted any man’s silver, gold, or apparel, yourselves know it,” Acts chap. 20, verse 33. And again: “Receive us,” he says, “we have injured no man, we have corrupted no man, we have overreached no man.” Hence Blessed Peter Damian, book 1, epist. 42, rebukes bishops who are unwilling that they and their acts be examined by their citizens: “What is this swelling of arrogance?” he says; “what haughtiness of elation? what, in fine, so great a pride? that it should be lawful for a bishop to live at the pleasure of his own will, and that he should deign to hear of what is insolently excessive on the part of his subjects.” And a little after, heightening this haughtiness by the contrary examples of the upright: “Blessed Job says: If I have despised to abide judgment with my manservant,” Job chap. 31, verse 13. “And thou sayest: Far be it that I should deign to come to examination with my Cleric. Almighty God cries by Isaias: Come and accuse me,” Isaias chap. 1, verse 18. “He who judges all things disdains not to be accused by servants; thou, a servant, disdainest to come into judgment with a servant? Samuel of his own accord offered himself to be accused, no accusers appearing; and inquired whether he had in anything violently oppressed them. Behold, he says, here I am, speak of me,” etc.
IF I HAVE OPPRESSED ANY MAN.—St. Gregory Nazianzen imitated the justice and modesty of Samuel, in oration 39, he submits himself to the judgment of the people: “Did we,” he says, “circumvent this people by avarice? Did we consult private advantages? Did we afflict the Church with trouble? Nothing, surely, as far as I am conscious. I have kept the priesthood pure and not at all adulterated.”
Presently with grave earnestness he urges the same thing, saying: “If I have been led by zeal for the primacy, or for lofty thrones, or have desired to tread the courts of Emperors, may it never befall me to attain any splendor; or if I shall have attained it, I will at once cast it away and lose it.”
Furthermore Samuel recounts these things of himself before the new king Saul, that he may teach him by his example not to oppress subjects, but to relieve them. So St. Chrysostom, hom. 24 on the 2nd epistle to the Corinthians, in which matter see and imitate the prudence of Samuel.
IF I HAVE TAKEN A BRIBE AT ANY MAN’S HAND,—even if freely and spontaneously offered. It is a sign of great integrity, magnanimity and holiness to refuse gifts. So Daniel to Baltasar, chap. 5, 17: “O king,” he says, “give thy rewards to another.” St. Chrysostom asks
4. THOU HAST NOT WRONGED US, etc. NOR TAKEN AUGHT AT ANY MAN’S HAND.—This is a great and wonderful testimony, and at once judgment, of the whole people concerning the integrity of Samuel. Wherefore St. Gregory of Nyssa compares Meletius, the most upright bishop of Antioch, to Samuel in the Oration delivered at his funeral: “When first that Church saw Meletius,” he says, “it saw gentleness and clemency such as was in David; such as in Solomon, understanding and prudence; such as in Moses, goodness; such as in Joseph, continence and chastity; such as in David, wisdom; such as in Samuel, perfection.”
in Psalm 95: “And what will be the reward of his interpretation to Daniel?” and answers: “The reward will come from God; nay rather this very thing is to me the reward of truth, to interpret the truth and to vindicate the purity that is defamed.”
Furthermore Samuel demands from the people the testimony of his integrity, that he may afterwards the more freely rebuke them for their own misdeeds. So Abraham refused the gifts of the king of Sodom, whom he had freed from the enemies, Gen. chap. 14, verse 22; and Eliseus the gifts of Naaman, whom he had cured of leprosy, 4 Kings 5; and Job, chap. 31, verse 7 [?]. St. Hilarion, refusing the ample gifts of Orion, from whom he had expelled a legion of demons, when he pressed that at least he would take them and give them to the poor, answered: “Thou canst better distribute thine own, who goest about through the cities, and knowest the poor. I, who have left my own, why should I desire another’s? To many the name of the poor is an occasion of avarice; but mercy has no art. No one gives better than he who keeps nothing for himself.” But to him sad and lying on the ground he said: “Be not saddened, son; what I do I do for myself and for thee: for if I shall have received these things, I also shall offend God.” Hence St. Bernard, book 4 On Consideration, wonderfully praises Gaufrid the Apostolic Legate, that he scorned absolutely all gifts, even small ones: “There were none,” he says, “who could say to the Legate: We have enriched Abraham. He himself, however, with Samuel freely addressed all: Speak of me,” etc. St. Bernard adds the example of Cardinal Martin, to whom when a certain bishop had given a horse, and presently asked his support in some matter, he received this answer: “Thou hast deceived me; I did not know that business was impending for thee. Take thy horse, behold it is in the stable.”
Tropologically, each one ought daily to carry out this judgment on himself by a strict examination of conscience. Hear St. Bernard to the Brethren of Mount Dei: “Learn to rule thyself, to order thy life, to compose thy morals, to judge thyself, and to accuse thyself before thyself, often also to condemn, and not to let thyself go unpunished. Let accusing justice sit, let the guilty conscience stand accusing thee thyself; no one loves thee more, no one will judge more faithfully. Ask of thyself an account of the past night and of the coming day; do thou prescribe a rule to thyself, and appoint the government of the night that is coming: so, being strict, thou shalt never have leisure to be wanton elsewhere.”
Hence St. Gregory, book 7 of the Morals, chap. 16: “He ought to be clean from vices who takes care to correct others; because the eye that is weighed down by dust in no way considers a speck in a member, nor can the hand that holds mud wipe away the filth laid upon it. David, a man of blood, is forbidden to build a temple to God,” 1 Paralipomenon chap. 22, verse 8. “Because he who still bends to carnal acts must needs blush to instruct the minds of his neighbors spiritually.” And Tertullian, book On Patience, chap. 10: “It is fitting,” he says, “to direct the constancy of admonishing by the authority of one’s own conversation, lest by the word the deeds of those failing blush.” And St. Ambrose, book 5 on Luke, chap. 6: “Unless thou first,” he says, “hast emptied thy inner self of every stain of sin, thou canst not bring medicine to others. Begin peace, therefore, from thyself, that when thou art thyself peaceable, thou mayest bring peace to others. For how canst thou cleanse the hearts of others unless thou hast first cleansed thy own?”
Wherefore Ferrandus the Deacon of Carthage proposes this example of Samuel to be imitated by leaders of war. For thus he writes, first Rule of military Innocence: “Let the leader,” he says, “in his administration love not to preside but to profit; let him imitate Samuel in good acts; let him obtain for himself a free confidence of modest and honorable liberty, that with an ingenuous brow he may be able to say to those subject to him, as Samuel said: Behold here I am, etc., or have I received from the hand of any man for exhortation or a shoe, etc. And let it be answered him also, as they said to Samuel: Thou hast not injured any of us, etc. O how glorious a leader will he be before the face of the prince who shall have deserved to hear these things!” etc.
11. AND THE LORD SENT JEROBAAL.—This is Gedeon, verse 11. Jerobaal, successor of Baal, Judges chap. 6, verse 32.
AND BADAN.—This is Samson, as the Chaldee renders. So also St. Jerome in the Hebrew Questions, Angelomus, Lyranus, Abulensis, Cajetan, Vatablus and Interpreters everywhere. For Samson was called Badan, as it were bedan, that is, dwelling in Dan. For he was of the tribe of Dan: or as it were ben-dan, that is, son of Dan or Danite, says Clarius, Pagninus, Abulensis and others. Whence some codices add Samson, which, added in the margin for the sake of explaining Badan, afterwards crept into the text; whence the Roman editors deleted it from it. Again, Badan in Hebrew is the same as their garment and strength, says Pagninus; for such was Samson to the Hebrews. Finally, by anagram and alphabetical revolution, which the Hebrews call Athbash, by which the last letters are exchanged with the first in reversed order, e.g. aleph the first is exchanged with tau the last, and beth the second from the beginning with shin, which is second from the end, and daleth the fourth from the beginning is exchanged with mem, which is the fourth from the middle [?]. By this exchange of letters, I say, Badan is Samson; so by the same anagram, Sesach is Babel, Jerem. chap. 25, verse 26. See what was said there. Scripture uses this revolution of letters to signify the change of the strong Samson, by which the most strong man, after the cutting of his hair, became most weak, and, taken by the Philistines, had his eyes put out.