Annotation LXVII

”When Jesus had passed thence, he came beside the sea of Galilee.” — Matthew 15:29

Chrysostom, in homily 53 on Matthew near the end, speaking about restitution, openly asserts that it is not enough for robbers, for the expiation of the crime, to restore just as much as they plundered; but that it is needful that they render more than tenfold. Which opinion he supports also by two arguments — namely, by reason of the insult which, beyond the loss, [the robber] inflicted, and by reason of the evangelical law, which in this matter exacts more from its own [followers] than the Mosaic law, [which was] content with fourfold restitution.

Whether restitution ought to exceed the [thing] plundered.

His words express this sense thus: “Do not tell me, ‘If I have taken away from another, to this [other] I have [merely] given the same amount.’ For this is certainly the worst [thing]. Do not believe it possible, by giving in the same measure by which you plundered, to heal that wound which through avarice was inflicted by you. For he who plundered a mina will not have [done] enough for himself as a remedy for this ulcer, if — struck by penitence — he mercifully gives [back] a mina; but he will need a talent — on which account [one] condemned of theft restores fourfold. Since, then, the plunderer is much worse than the thief, and since that [thief] restores fourfold: tenfold, nay rather much more, this [plunderer] ought to restore; and would that even so we might wholly wipe away the filth of plunder. For I do not think that this is that [true] mercy, for which a great heap of merits is reserved. Wherefore Zacchaeus was saying:¹ ‘If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give fourfold, and I will offer the half part of my goods to the needy.’ But if fourfold is rendered in the time of the [Mosaic] law, how much more under grace? And if a thief must restore only as much [as he stole], [how much more] the plunderer? For, beyond the loss, plundering is an insulting thing. Wherefore, even if you give a hundredfold, you have scarcely rendered the whole. Not rashly, therefore, did we say that a talent is to be offered, if a mina has been plundered from you.”

All the schools of the theologians seem to protest against this opinion — in which it is decreed that no one is to be compelled, by reason of the thing taken away, to restore more than he took; because the aim of restitution is to recall to equality that which was unequally taken away. I think that the interpretation of these words is to be taken not from the nature of the thing taken away, but from the manner of the seizing. For, if we regard the thing taken away, the theologians rightly define that the justice of restitution demands back nothing further from the robber than what he plundered, and as much as he plundered. But if we look to the insult and injury which one inflicted on him whom he despoiled, it is not enough to restore just as much; but, when he shall have been condemned, he ought to restore as much as an equitable judge shall have pronounced must be restored by reason of the unjust taking away — whether that be tenfold, or more than tenfold. And this sense, unless I am mistaken, the words of Chrysostom exhibit.