And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

“(Serm. in Mont. i. 13.) As the eye denotes contemplation, so the hand aptly denotes action. By the eye we must understand our most cherished friend, as they are wont to say who would express ardent affection, ‘I love him as my own eye.’ And a friend too who gives counsel, as the eye shews us our way. The right eye, perhaps, only means to express a higher degree of affection, for it is the one which men most fear to lose. Or, by the right eye may be understood one who counsels us in heavenly matters, and by the left one who counsels in earthly matters. And this will be the sense; Whatever that is which you love as you would your own right eye, if it offend you, that is, if it be an hindrance to your true happiness, cut it off and cast it from you. For if the right eye was not to be spared, it was superfluous to speak of the left. The right hand also is to be taken of a beloved assistant in divine actions, the left hand in earthly actions.”

“You have heard that it was said to the ancients: you shall not commit adultery, and so on. Above, he ordered the irascible appetite with respect to its passion; here he orders the concupiscible appetite with respect to the passion which is in its root, namely in the generative power. Now two things are set down here: first, the ordering of the concupiscible appetite as regards its motion; second, the confirmation of marriage itself, given as a remedy for it, at the place: whoever shall have put away his wife. Moreover in the first, he first warns against the disordered motion of concupiscence; second, he removes the occasion or provocation to it, at the place: but if thy right eye scandalize thee. The first contains two things, namely the justice of the old law, which consisted only in the external work; then the explanation of the new justice, which consists also in the internal, at the place: but I say to you, and so on. He says therefore, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, that is, to the Jews living under the precepts of the law a long time now elapsed. Hence Chrysostom: by saying to the ancients, he shows the great length of time since they received this commandment — you shall not commit adultery, that is, you shall not unlawfully mingle with a woman. For adultery properly is the illicit commingling of a man and a woman. Here Chrysostom asks why he does not speak of the first commandment. Response: because he begins from the most general passions, as was said above. But I say to you, that is, in addition to this commandment, which you think must be kept only in act, I add and explain that it must be kept also in the will, according to Augustine. For whoever shall have looked upon a woman, that is, whoever shall have fixed his gaze upon a woman. Now there is a question here, why, besides the other senses, he names only sight. Response: because sight is more ready at hand. Or, according to Bede, by sight he understands every movement of the mind toward delight. Likewise it is asked here, why he does not say, shall have desired, but whoever shall have looked. Response: because to desire is sometimes sudden and not deliberate, and thus it is venial, and is a propassion according to Jerome; but to look with a view to desiring involves deliberation, and therefore it is mortal, and is a passion according to Jerome. In connection with this it is asked, why he does not say to commit adultery, but only to desire her. Response: so as to give one to understand that not only the operation, or the consent to the operation, is damnable, but also the intention or the consent to the delighting. To desire her: according to Augustine and Jerome, that is, so as to look upon her with this end, that he may desire her inwardly, as he would do if the opportunity offered itself. He has already committed adultery with her in his heart, that is, he is guilty of adultery, because he has already passed over into the affection of the heart, according to Rabanus. Gregory: it is not lawful to gaze upon what it is not lawful to desire. Lamentations 3:51: my eye has preyed upon my soul. According to Augustine, under the name of those committing adultery he understands every carnal delight; and when he says shall have looked, sight is put for every movement that tends toward delight, not only bodily but also interior, which is in concupiscence, as Bede says. But if thy eye, and so on. Here he removes the things that provoke to that very motion, which are principally two, namely sight and touch. He removes the first when he says, but if thy right eye scandalize thee; then the second, at the place, and if thy right hand scandalize thee. He says therefore, but if thy right eye scandalize thee; as if to say: above I forbade you adultery in act and in will, but I forbid even more, namely every occasion provoking to it; hence I say, but if thy right eye, and so on. This is expounded in many ways by the saints. According to Jerome, Bede, and Hilary: by eye he means sight and the affection of the mind; hence Jerome: because above he had spoken of desire for a woman, he now rightly calls thought also — turning the sense toward diverse things — the eye. And Hilary: by the eye, and the right eye, is understood the affection of any minds whatsoever. According to Augustine, Rabanus, and Chrysostom, the right eye can here be taken for friends and counselors, who as it were point out the way in matters to be done. Hence Chrysostom: he added right, that you may learn that the discourse is not about members, but about those who have dealt familiarly with us. Likewise, according to Augustine, Bede, and Jerome, the right eye can be taken for parents and relatives. Or, according to one Gloss, for the contemplative life. It is to be understood, then, thus: if thy eye, that is, sense and thought, right, that is, under the appearance of good intention, scandalize thee, by desiring unlawfully, pluck it out, that is, by breaking its evil use, and cast it from thee, that is, by annihilating it entirely. Hence Chrysostom: there was a religious woman, and I looked upon her, and said, I ought to visit her assiduously, that I may instruct her, and confirm her in good: this regard is good, and is the right eye. But while I visited assiduously, I fell into the snare of desire for her; behold, a good regard, and the right eye, became to me an occasion of scandal. I shall therefore cast away that good regard, which is about to generate evil. And he concludes below: therefore every good which scandalizes us, or others, we ought to cut off from ourselves. Likewise if the right eye, that is, a friend and counselor in divine matters, scandalize, by drawing into heresy, such a one is to be plucked out by reproving him, cast away by openly contradicting him. Likewise if parents scandalize, by hindering holiness of life, such an eye is to be plucked out by resisting, cast away by separating oneself from them. Likewise if the contemplative life scandalizes, by turning into tedium or arrogance, it is to be plucked out at times by diminishing it, cast away by passing over into the active life. For it is expedient for thee, that is, it is more necessary and useful for thee, that one of thy members perish, that is, such a sense, or counselor, or relative, or contemplation — hence the Gloss: that which you have as a member — than that thy whole body go into Gehenna, that is, than that thou be sent, wholly in soul and body, into hell. The Gloss: it is better to be saved with that cut off, than to be damned with it. On the contrary: according to the canons, whoever on such an occasion shall have cut off a member of himself is irregular. Moreover another Gloss of Chrysostom and Augustine: no member is commanded to be plucked out according to the letter. On the contrary: this is read to have been done in the Lives of the Fathers. Response to the first: that he does not intend that any member ought to be cut off for this reason; but he calls cutting off or plucking out the removing from oneself, through the effort of a devout labor, of the use or act of this kind, as was said above. To the second, which is objected from the Lives of the Fathers, the response is that this is excused by the Holy Spirit, by whose inspiration it is believed to have been done, as Augustine says of Samson in the book On the City of God; which is not otherwise excused, except because the Holy Spirit secretly commanded this, who through him worked miracles. And if thy right hand, that is, operation, or exterior touch with good intention; or a friend who ministers to thee in good things; or, according to Chrysostom, the right hand is the will of the soul, the left, the will of the body. This bodily hand, however, as the same author says, is the organ of that other hand. But it is asked, why he made no mention of the left eye and the left hand, since it happens that one can suffer scandal through that as well. Response: by removing the one which seemed to offer the lesser occasion, he removes also that which gives the greater occasion. Or, according to Chrysostom, that you may understand that he is not speaking of bodily members, but is speaking of familiars, or friends, as was said above. Scandalize thee, that is, be an occasion of thy ruin, or of scandal, cut it off, namely by dismissing it, or by fleeing it; hence Chrysostom: according to the letter, no member in man is commanded to be cut off, but through the effort of a devout labor, if it does harm, it is to be recalled, and removed, and even put far from oneself, so that it not even be held in memory. Hence he adds, and cast it from thee, that is, by abandoning it entirely. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members perish, than that thy whole body go into Gehenna. The Gloss: that is, it is better for thee to be saved with that cut off, than to be damned with it. It was said, and so on. Here is set down the second point, namely the confirmation of marriage given as a remedy for concupiscence. Hence, since above he removed the unlawful commingling against the law of marriage, here he removes the unlawful separation of those joined in marriage; and by this the confirmation of marriage stands against the heretics. Now two things are said here: first, the permission of the law of Moses; second, the justice and prohibition of the new law, at the place, but I say to you. He says therefore, it was said: he does not say by whom, or to whom, signifying by this that those to whom this was said were as it were estranged from God, Deuteronomy 24:1, where Moses wrote that if a wife should not please her husband on account of some uncleanness, he should put her away. Whoever shall have put away his wife, that is, shall have wished to put her away; and this was permitted by Moses, not commanded; hence Mark 10:4: Moses permitted a bill of divorce to be written, and the wife to be put away. Let him give her a bill of divorce. This was commanded under this condition, if he should put her away. And in the bill of divorce, as they say, the cause of the divorce was written, and the dowry which he was giving her, and the license which she had to marry another. Hence, according to Chrysostom, he renounced her, so that it would not be in his power to return to her. It is asked here, however, why Moses permitted this, since it was not enjoined upon him by the Lord. Response according to Ambrose and Chrysostom: he permitted it, lest, out of hatred or some other cause held against the wife, a greater evil should occur, namely her killing. Hence Ambrose: for it is better to be separated, than that blood be shed out of hatred. But it should be noted that permission is manifold. First, of licit concession, as when a superior grants you leave to visit your parents. Second, of dispensation, when he permits what is not lawful for you otherwise, such as to eat meat. Third, of toleration, as when between two evils the lesser is permitted, lest the greater occur: and such was the permission of Moses. For he is said to have permitted it, because he tolerated it, lest they should commit a greater evil, namely homicide, as was said above. And therefore the Lord says that Moses commanded this because of the hardness of their hearts, below, chapter 19:8. And such a permission is not a sin on the part of the one permitting, because he does this so as to resist a greater evil. Fourth, of indulgence, when something is permitted whose opposite is better: just as the apostles permitted second marriages, 1 Corinthians 7:39, although widowed continence would be better. Fifth, of sufferance, as God permits evils to be done, that he may draw forth good things. But I say to you, and so on, that is, determining this, that a wife is not to be put away for just any cause; and it was tolerated by Moses, lest a greater evil occur, namely homicide. Thus I restrict and explain: because whoever shall have put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, namely bodily fornication, of the man or of the woman, makes her commit adultery, because she marries another. And this is not marriage, but adultery; hence he adds, and whoever shall have married her that is put away, commits adultery, because she ought to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, as the Gloss says. But if he should put her away on account of the cause of fornication, as Augustine says, he himself does not make her commit adultery, but she does, whose is the guilt. Nor can the one putting her away, while she is living, marry another, as is touched on in 1 Corinthians 7:39. Note that whoever puts away, or repudiates his wife, does four evils, as Chrysostom says: because, as regards God, he exists a homicide; second, he puts away one who is not committing fornication; third, he makes her an adulteress; and fourth, he makes the one who receives her commit adultery. Likewise, the woman who commits adultery commits four sins: she disinherits her children, violates the faith, puts away her husband, and fornicates as a result of the adultery. On account of this it is said, Isaiah 50:1: where is the bill of divorce of your mother, with which I put her away? Ecclesiasticus 23:32: every woman who leaves her husband shall sin. Likewise note, on that phrase except for the cause of fornication, the Gloss of Augustine and Chrysostom: the cause of fornication is if the wife compels her husband to idolatry, or to avarice, or to other unlawful desires; for fornication is not only that of illicit intercourse, but generally whatever makes one stray from the law of God. Therefore spiritual fornication dissolves marriage. On the contrary, Jerome: if a woman sins against her own soul, she is not defiled as regards her husband: as if to say: because she sins only against her own soul, she has not sinned against her husband, and thus by this the marriage ought not to be dissolved. Response: the bond of marriage is considered in three ways: either as to mutual restraint, or as to the rendering of the carnal debt, or as to the cohabitation of mutual service. The first bond nothing dissolves except the death of one, or of both, because, the marriage having been consummated, the one cannot contract another marriage while the other lives. The second bond is dissolved in carnal fornication, yet with a distinction: for a certain spiritual fornication corrupts only the one committing it, such as pride, anger, and the like; another corrupts the one cohabiting with the sinner, such as heresy, or theft, and the like. As to the first way, therefore, the bond of cohabitation ought not to be dissolved. As to the second, it ought to be dissolved while that spiritual fornication persists, as if a wife should say she is unwilling to live with her husband unless he commits theft, or the like. Now there are six cases, which are contained in these verses: similar, prostituting, force, death, and believed appearance if it be converted, afterward he knows, he cannot send away. In these cases it is not lawful to put away a wife committing fornication. The first is similarity, that is, if the husband himself is convicted of fornicating; the second, prostitution, that is, if the husband himself prostitutes her; the third is violence, that is, when she is overpowered by another through violence, and this is understood of absolute violence, and not of that which is through fear; the fourth is believed appearance, that is, when she is known by another under the appearance of her own husband, whom she supposed to be her husband; the fifth is death, that is, when she probably believes her husband to be dead, and marries another, and upon her husband's return she immediately withdraws from the latter union; the sixth is conversion, that is, when a believing spouse is put away by an unbelieving one according to the rite of the latter's own sect, afterward, both having been converted to the faith, the Church compels him to receive her back; the seventh is reconciliation, that is, when he has reconciled her to himself after adultery was committed, or has kept her though she commits adultery publicly. In these cases the husband cannot send away, that is, put away, a wife committing fornication. And thus is understood the Gloss of Augustine and Chrysostom. It is asked here, moreover, whether the same reasoning holds for husbands, if they are put away by their wives for the cause of fornication. Response of Jerome: whatever is said to husbands redounds also to wives, for neither is an adulterous wife to be put away, and an adulterous husband to be kept; the laws of Caesar are one thing, those of Christ another; among the former, the reins of chastity are loosened for husbands, but with Christ, what is not lawful for women is equally not lawful for men, because the same servitude is judged under an equal condition. Likewise, on that phrase makes her commit adultery, it is asked why he does not say, and if the woman marries another, she commits adultery. Response: the woman, as Chrysostom says, is weak; therefore, through the threats which she makes against the husband who puts her away, he wishes to correct that man's folly. Just as one who has a prodigal son, in putting him away, rebukes those who make him such, and forbids them to consort with him, or to appear before him. Again you have heard that it was said to the ancients. Above, he ordered the irascible and the concupiscible appetites toward their passions; here he orders the rational power with respect to truth. Now truth is twofold, created and uncreated. He orders, therefore, the rational power toward uncreated truth through due reverence and honor; second, toward created truth through right interpretation, at the place, but let your speech be, yea yea, no no. In the first, two things are said. For first he sets down the justice of the law, which consists in two things, namely in the avoidance of perjury, and the fulfilling of an oath undertaken, at the place, but thou shalt render to the Lord thy oaths. Second, the justice of the Gospel, which consists in two things: in the prohibition of the frequent use of oaths, when he says, but I say to you, swear not at all; and in the explanation of the prohibition, when he says, neither by heaven, and so on. He says therefore, again you have heard that it was said to the ancients, thou shalt not forswear thyself, that is, thou shalt not commit perjury; hence Leviticus 19:12: thou shalt not swear falsely, lest thou pollute the name of thy God. Now Chrysostom asks why, passing over theft, he goes on to false witness. Response: because he who steals sometimes commits perjury, and not the converse, for he who is unwilling to lie, or to swear falsely, will never choose to steal, and by this he draws attention to it. Or it should be said that theft was punished in the law, but lying was not, and therefore, lest it be thought lawful, he here forbids it. But thou shalt render to the Lord thy oaths, Jerome: that is, if it should happen that you swear, you shall swear by the Creator, not by a creature. Hence he says to the Lord, not to an idol, or to a creature, because, as Chrysostom says, he who does not render his oaths to the Lord, but to the elements, sins in two ways: first, because he does not render to God his due; second, because he deifies that by which he swears, and thus commits idolatry. The Gloss of Jerome: just as he commanded victims to be sacrificed to God, lest they sacrifice them to idols, so to little ones it was granted to swear by God. Therefore if to little ones, this is not lawful for the perfect. On the contrary: the Apostle swore, Romans 1:9: God is my witness, and so on. And the angel, Apocalypse 10:6. Response: he calls little ones those who speak the truth, or the humble who fear God. Or, to little ones, that is, for the sake of little ones, that is, for the sake of these temporal things. But I say to you, that is, on the occasion of perjury I forbid oaths as well, commanding you not to swear at all, that is, for any cause whatsoever, or without a legitimate cause, because when one swears without cause, the attestation of the first truth is held in contempt, because it is assumed in vain, which is forbidden, Exodus 20:7: thou shalt not take the name of thy God in vain. On the contrary, Psalm 109:4: the Lord has sworn, and he will not repent; Hebrews 6:16: an oath for confirmation is an end of all controversy. Response: he forbids swearing at all, that is, continually. Or, at all, taken in the composite sense, that is, in every case. Now three things ought to be present in an oath: due matter, namely truth; due form, namely justice; and a right end: hence, according to Augustine, Gregory, and Origen, he did not forbid swearing altogether, but taught, on the occasion of perjury, what is more perfect. According to Alexander, this was commanded only to the apostles in the primitive Church, lest they be held imperfect. Or, when he says, swear not at all, the affection for swearing is forbidden, not the effect, as James 5:12: above all things, my brethren, swear not, that is, do not desire it. Hence Jerome: Christ forbids swearing altogether, lest anyone should desire an oath as though it were a good thing, and, by the constant practice of swearing, slip into perjury. Likewise Augustine, in the book On Lying, says: swear not at all, that is, as far as it is in you, do not love it, nor desire it with any delight. Likewise the same Augustine: swearing is not good, yet it is not evil, when it is necessary. On the contrary, Augustine in the sermon On the Danger of Swearing: false swearing is pernicious, true swearing is dangerous, no swearing is safe. If it is dangerous, therefore it is evil. Response: it is called dangerous with respect to the one swearing, not because it is evil, but because some condition of the oath can easily be omitted, which is threefold, according to that word of Jeremiah 4:2: thou shalt swear, as the Lord lives, in truth, in judgment, and in justice. He swears in truth who swears according to the truth of the matter and of conscience; in justice, who swears lawfully; in judgment, who swears for a sufficient cause. Neither by heaven. Chrysostom: he who swears by heaven deifies heaven, and by heaven he understands every higher natural creature. The Gloss: let us not swear by creatures. On the contrary: Joseph swore by the health of Pharaoh, Genesis 42:15. Response: he swore, knowing that his power and health were from God. Therefore it was not to swear by a creature, but by God, in whose hand is the health of all. For it is the throne of God; Isaiah, last chapter, 1: heaven is my seat. Nor by the earth, by which is understood every lower natural creature, for it is the footstool of his feet; Isaiah, ibid.: the earth is the footstool of my feet. And, as Augustine says, God is said to sit in heaven, and to tread the earth, not because he has his members so situated, but because in the body of the world the greatest appearance is that of heaven, the least that of earth; on account of which he is said to sit in heaven, because he shines forth in his great power. Then he comprehends artificial creation, saying, neither by Jerusalem. It was the custom of the Jews to swear by Jerusalem, and the temple, and things of this kind. Because it is the city of the great king; Psalm 76:14: what god is great like our God? Neither shalt thou swear by thy head. By this is understood every creature which is the same as ourselves. Augustine: when someone swears by my health, he pledges his own health to God. When by my sons, he pledges them to God, so that this may fall upon their head which proceeds from his mouth. Because thou canst not make one hair white or black, namely, naturally; as if to say, this is not your work, but God's. Hence Augustine: to swear by any creatures whatsoever is to call upon their Creator as witness. On account of all these things it is said, Ecclesiasticus 23:9: let not thy mouth be accustomed to swearing. Chrysostom: there is no one who swears frequently who does not sometimes commit perjury. But let your speech be, yea yea, no no. This is the second part, where he orders the rational power toward created truth through right interpretation, namely when truth is expressed in word, according as it is conceived in the mind. Hence he says, thus I forbade swearing even when it is necessary to speak. But let it be, that is: but, let your speech be, yea yea, that is, let your speech, having the reality of the thing, be, yea yea, that is, let it be uttered according to the truth of conscience; no no, that is, of a thing which is not, let it be uttered that it is not. Hence Rabanus: yea yea, no no — he says it twice, so that what you say with your mouth, you may confirm by your works; what you deny in words, you may not confirm by deeds. But that which is more than these is of evil, that is, that which is asserted, or denied, beyond the simple truth of the matter, as through an oath, is of evil: he does not say that it is evil, as Augustine says, but of evil, namely not of you, but from the weakness of the one compelling you to swear, or from unbelief. Hence note that it is lawful to swear for many causes. First, for confirming the truth to unbelievers, 2 Corinthians 1:18: God is faithful, for our word toward you was not yea and nay. Second, for restoring peace, as Jacob swore to Laban, Genesis 31:53. Third, for contracting friendship, Genesis 26:28: the men of Gerar said to Isaac: let there be an oath between us. Fourth, for manifesting the truth, Deuteronomy 19:15: in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word stand. Fifth, for keeping fidelity, 2 Kings 5:3: the elders of Israel came to the king, and he made a covenant with them. Sixth, for the acknowledgment of obedience and subjection: thus the men of Gilead swore to Jephthah. Seventh, for keeping the custom of the Church, as canons do: just as the sons of Israel swore that they would serve the Lord. And these seven causes are for the sake of introducing some good. Likewise there are two other causes for the sake of removing some evil, namely as one swears in the contesting of a lawsuit, that calumny may be put to rest; Hebrews 6:16: an oath for confirmation is an end of all controversy. The other cause is for purging infamy; Deuteronomy 21:1: when the body of a man slain shall be found, and it is not known who is guilty of the murder, the elders and the judges shall go out... and shall say: our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it. Be merciful to thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, O Lord.”

“And if thy right eye offend thee,.... Or "cause thee to offend", to stumble, and fall into sin. Our Lord has no regard here to near and dear relations seeking to alienate us from God and Christ, and hinder us in the pursuit of divine things; whose solicitations are to be rejected with the utmost indignation, and they themselves to be parted with, and forsaken, rather than complied with; which is the sense some give of the words: for both in this, and the following verse, respect is had only to the law of adultery; and to such members of the body, which often are the means of leading persons on to the breach of it; particularly the eye and hand. The eye is often the instrument of ensnaring the heart this way: hence the Jews have a (z) saying, "whoever looks upon women, at the end comes into the hands of transgression.'' Mention is only made of the right eye; not but that the left may be an occasion of sinning, as well as the right; but that being most dear and valuable, is instanced in, and ordered to be parted with: pluck it out, and cast it from thee: which is not to be understood literally; for no man is obliged to mutilate any part of his body, to prevent sin, or on account of the commission of it; this is no where required, and if done, would be sinful, as in the case of Origen: but figuratively; and the sense is, that persons should make a covenant with their eyes, as Job did; and turn them away from beholding such objects, which may tend to excite impure thoughts and desires; deny themselves the gratification of the sense of seeing, or feeding the eyes with such sights, as are graceful to the flesh; and with indignation and contempt, reject, and avoid all opportunities and occasions of sinning; which the eye may be the instrument of, and lead unto: for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. This is still a continuation of the figure here used; and the meaning is, that it will turn to better account, to lose all the carnal pleasures of the eye, or all those pleasing sights, which are grateful to a carnal heart, than, by enjoying them, to expose the whole man, body and soul, to everlasting destruction, in the fire of hell. (z) T. Bab. Nedarim, fol. 20. 1.”

“Infra xviii. 9 ; Mark ix. 46. Bloomfield remarks that the right eye was specially necessary for the purposes of war, as formerly carried on. St. Chr}^sostom observes : " If Christ meant to speak about the meml)ers of the body, He would not have made mention of one eye only, or of one hand, but of both : for it is manifest that he, who suffers scandal from the right, will also suffer it from the left. Why then did He mention the right eye and afterwards the hand 1 That you may understand that He does not speak of the members of the body, but of those who are intimate- ly connected with us. If you love any one, He says, to such a degree as to consider him like your right eye, if you think that he is useful to you as your right hand, and he injure your soul, cut him off." ^The Greek term means to put a stumbling-block in the way so as to cause persons to trip, or fall. It is found in this sense in Judith v. 1. Its metaphorical meaning here is to occasion spiritual ruin, since it is used in connexion with lascivious gazing, and with adulterous disposition.”

“And if thy right eye--the readier and the dearer of the two. offend thee--be a "trap spring," or as in the New Testament, be "an occasion of stumbling" to thee. pluck it out and cast it from thee--implying a certain indignant promptitude, heedless of whatever cost to feeling the act may involve. Of course, it is not the eye simply of which our Lord speaks--as if execution were to be done upon the bodily organ--though there have been fanatical ascetics who have both advocated and practiced this, showing a very low apprehension of spiritual things--but the offending eye, or the eye considered as the occasion of sin; and consequently, only the sinful exercise of the organ which is meant. For as one might put out his eyes without in the least quenching the lust to which they ministered, so, "if thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light," and, when directed by a holy mind, becomes an "instrument of righteousness unto God." At the same time, just as by cutting off a hand, or plucking out an eye, the power of acting and of seeing would be destroyed, our Lord certainly means that we are to strike at the root of such unholy dispositions, as well as cut off the occasions which tend to stimulate them. for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell--He who despises the warning to cast from him, with indignant promptitude, an offending member, will find his whole body "cast," with a retributive promptitude of indignation, "into hell." Sharp language, this, from the lips of Love incarnate!”

“But if according to that of the Prophet, there is no whole part in our body, (Ps. 38:3.) it is needful that we cut off every limb that we have that the punishment may be equal to the depravity of the flesh. Is it then possible to understand this of the bodily eye or hand? As the whole man when he is turned to God is dead to sin, so likewise the eye when it has ceased to look evil is cut off from sin. But this explanation will not suit the whole; for when He says, thy right eye offends thee, what does the left eye? Does it contradict the right eye, and it is preserved innocent?”

“(ord.) Or; the right eye is the contemplative life which offends by being the cause of indolence or self-conceit, or in our weakness that we are not able to support it unmixed. The right hand is good works, or the active life, which offends us when we are ensnared by society and the business of life. If then any one is unable to sustain the contemplative life, let him not slothfully rest from all action; or on the other hand while he is taken up with action, dry up the fountain of sweet contemplation.”

“For as we are every one members one of another, it is better that we should be saved without some one of these members, than that we perish together with them. Or, it is better that we should be saved without one good purpose, or one good work, than that while we seek to perform all good works we perish together with all.”