Proposed questions about the books of the Samuel

PREFACE

I think I have responded with enough amplitude to the questions proposed about some passages of Saint Paul; now I will go into the subject of the second volume to solve the ones you have proposed about the books of the Kings, which, as much and even almost everything contained in the old books, are full of figures and wrapped in veils of mysteries. Although already, by the revelation of Christ, the veil has been removed (Cf 2Co 3,16), nevertheless, we still see in enigma, and then the perfect vision will come. Because, in all ways, the veil prevents the sight of a thing; but the enigma, in the style of the mirror, according to the same Apostle: Now we see by mirror in enigma (1Co 13,12), neither let the truth clearly or completely obscure it. I want, then, to put hands to the work, with the help of the Lord, because I am relieved more by your prayers that weigh your mandate. Mostly because of your letter I have gathered that you do not ask me to unravel the meaning of the prophecies; and in truth that to obey you in this would be very difficult for me, since we would have to make a complete study of the context of the books themselves and deduce the purpose they have, and even if it were not difficult to understand, however, the magnitude of the task I would be overwhelmed, since this requires more rest and time; but you have wanted to know and to show you by letter how I understand some particularities of the events that are expressed by the words you quote.

QUESTION I

The Spirit of God influences variously in the prophets. Perpetual habitual manifestations and transitory manifestations of prophecy. The Spirit of God, without further ado, is understood by the good. With this name should be understood the Holy Spirit, consubstantial with the Father and the Son? Manifestations of the good and bad Spirit in Saul. Saul, in persecuting David, is corrected by a good prophetic spirit. Some gifts of the Holy Spirit can be possessed without charity, but nothing avails. Can the gift of prophecy be held without charity? The heretics and schismatics have other gifts of the Holy Spirit, but not charity. Why is the evil spirit called the spirit of the Lord?

1. The first explanation you ask me about the first book of the Kings is about that passage that says: The spirit of God burst upon Saul (1Sam. 10,10), while in another place it says: Disturbed Saul a bad spirit of God (1Sam. 16,14). Well that's it written: As soon as Saul came back to depart from Samuel, he felt another, and all the signs happened to him the same day. When they reached the hill, they met with a troop of prophets, and snatched the spirit of God and began to prophesy in their midst. (1Sam. 10,9-10)

Samuel had foretold all these things when he anointed him on behalf of the Lord. I do not think this presents any difficulty. For the Spirit encourages where it wants (Jn 3,8), and the spirit of prophecy can not be stained with any contact of souls, because everywhere it comes because of its purity (Cf Sab 7,24). But not everyone affects in the same way, but to some for impression in the human fantasy, where the images of things are painted; to others it gives them to savor the fruit of intelligence; in others it combines the two forms of inspiration; some inspires them without knowing them.

Action on fantasy can occur in two ways: or through dreams, as we see, not only in many saints, but in Pharaoh and King Nebuchadnezzar, who saw by dreams what no one could understand, but they could see ; or by ecstatic manifestation, which some Latinos call stupor, perhaps without property, but with some analogy, for it is an alienation of the mind that departs from the senses, so that the spirit of man, raptured by God's, give to the capture and contemplation of the images. Thus Daniel was shown what he did not understand, and St. Peter saw a large canvas suspended by the four angles, (Acts 10,11) and then he understood the significance of what had been shown to him.

Intellectual prophecy is presented in a way when the meaning of the images and the order to which they are ordered are known by revelation. This is the safest kind of prophecy and to which the Apostle gives the name of such (Cf 1Co 13,2). Thus Joseph deserved to understand what was dark vision for Pharaoh, and Daniel explained to the king what he had seen without understanding it.

But when the mind is affected in such a way that it is not reduced to mere conjectures of interpretation of the images, but covers the same real objects, as it is understood what is wisdom, justice and all other absolute and divine perfections, then there is no place for the prophecy that we are dealing with here.

Both lights of prophecy receive those who contemplate in spirit the representation of things and at the same time understand their meaning, or they are clearly explained the sense of the vision when they have it, as some things are stated in the Apocalypse.

It also blows the spirit of prophecy in some, without being aware of it, as Caiaphas, who, as pontiff that year, prophesied the convenience of one's death for the salvation of all the people, (Jn 11,49-50) without realizing the scope of their words, without noticing that he did not speak on his own.

Examples of this kind abound in the Holy Books, and I speak of very wise things for your erudition. Well, you do not learn these things from me, but with your interrogation you put me to the test to see the progress I am making and are willing to correct my mistakes.

But with the expression that the Sacred Scripture uses: The spirit of God burst upon Saul, it indicates as a sudden breath emanating from the mysterious depths of the divine Being. And what was the effect of this motion on Saul, declare the words that are written there: God struck the heart of Saul in another (1Sam. 10,9). It implies the change of dispositions with which God changed him and made him capable of receiving the expressive and prefigurative images for prophetic divination.

2. But there is so much difference between the prophetic spirit of Isaiah, Jeremiah and the other prophets of the same class and the transitory breath that manifested itself in Saul, as there is between the ordinary language of men and the words that for a circumstantial prodigy pronounced the donkey that mounted the prophet Balaam (Cf Nm 22,28). In fact, this animal was temporarily endowed with the faculty of speaking, to fulfill the designs of God, not so that it enjoyed habitual and perpetual conversation among men. Or if this example is too remote and diverse, much less we should admire seeing a reprobate man transitorily possessed by the prophetic spirit, for having given it to him who, when he wanted, made human words speak to a borrica. For much more remote is a man of a beast than a reprobate of a chosen one, for being both men. Well, not because someone has said some wise words should be counted among the wise. Nor should it be among the prophets that he has ever prophesied, when the Lord himself tells us in his Gospel that some receive the divine word with joy, but it does not take root in them, because they live dedicated to temporal things. , as the text warns below, this proverb became: Did Saul also among the prophets? (1Sam. 10,12)

Let us not be surprised, then, of these divine manifestations in men who do not deserve them and are superior to their strengths, when God wants perhaps with particular designs to reveal something in this way.

3. But if we are surprised that Saul, after having possessed the prophetic gift, was suffocated by the evil spirit, there is no reason for admiration in this either. Because in the first thing God used him to reveal something to us, and the second came as a well-deserved punishment. Nor should such alternatives be astonished in the human spirit, for being a changeable creature, above all in the time when the weight of a corruptible and mortal flesh weighs upon it. Do we not know from the Gospel that Peter himself made such a beautiful confession that he deserved to hear: Blessed are you, Simon, son of John, because flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my heavenly Father (Mt 16,17); and soon after he manifested such carnal feelings about the passion of the Lord, that he immediately heard from this one: "Withdraw from me, Satan; you make me a scandal, because you do not feel the things of God, but those of men? (Mt 16,23)

Perhaps, for those who have some intelligence of higher things, the same value has, with respect to those intellectual visions, this variation of Peter to know, by revelation of the heavenly Father, the divine filiation of Christ and to oppose after his death , that which offers to discern the imaginary visions that are formed in the spirit of man, accompanied by mental alienation, the prophetic spirit that first seized Saul and the disturbance of the evil spirit that oppressed him later.

4. Now, if the evil spirit was called the spirit of the Lord, it must be understood in the same sense in which it was said: The earth is of the Lord (Ps. 23,1), like a creature placed under its power. Or if this example of comparison is not valid, because the earth is not bad, because every creature of God is good, it is worth the fact that Saul himself, reprobate already, criminal and ungrateful to the pious David, his persecutor, when he raging anger of a very envious, however, this was called the Christ of the Lord, name that gave him David to avenge his death. But, in my opinion, rather the evil spirit that tormented Saul was called the spirit of the Lord, because by hidden judgment of God was the scourge for his punishment. For God uses the evil spirits as ministers to punish the wicked and test the good, albeit in different ways in both cases. For although an evil spirit is because of its evil will to harm, but even this very faculty of harming is subordinate to Him under whose power all things are arranged according to certain and just degrees of merit.

Because just as no ill will comes from God, so there is no power that does not come from Him. And although each one is master of wanting what he pleases, it is not, however, in one's power what one can do to another anyone or what can suffer from it. For the same only Son of God, at the time of suffering the Passion, responded humbly to the proud words of a man who arrogated to himself the power to kill him or let him free: You would not have, he said, any power over me if it had not been given from above (Jn 19,11).

Also the devil, wanting to harm the holy man Job-and indeed he did not lack the will to do so-yet, he asked the Sovereign God for permission, saying, "Stretch out your hand and touch it in your flesh", (Jb 2,5) permission, he had to do this himself. It was a way of asking permission, and after having obtained it, the Lord's hand called to his own hand, that is, to the same power he wanted to receive. Agree this with the Gospel, where the Lord said to the disciples: Satan has claimed you tonight to sift you like wheat (Lc 22,31).

Thus, it was called the evil spirit of God, that is, an instrument of God to execute in Saul the punishment that he must carry according to the judgment of the almighty judge. Inasmuch as he wanted evil, it was not that spirit of God, but as a chrism of his that owed him being and as endowed with a power that was not his, but received from the justice of the Lord of all things. The Holy Scripture itself expresses itself in this way: Samuel got up and turned to Rama. And the spirit of God withdrew from Saul, and an evil spirit, sent by Yahweh, suffocated him. And Saul said to his servants: He is suffocating you an evil spirit of God (1Sam. 16,13-15).

The expression used by the servants: the evil spirit of the Lord, is declared by the previous narration of the Sacred Scripture, when it says: an evil spirit commanded by God. For it is the spirit of the Lord as soon as he fulfills his orders. This spirit had in it the will to harm Saul, that is, to seize him; but I could not use it without the permission of sovereign justice. Indeed, if God punishes with justice, delivering, according to the Apostle, men to the appetites of his heart, it will not be surprising that he also gives them, by a just punishment, to the wishes of those who want to harm him, although always within the rules of its immutable equity.

5. It should be noted that the word spirit of God is added badly. For when it is simply said God's spirit, without adding good, it is understood that it is the good. Where it is clear that it is called good if it is attended to its nature, and bad for the ministry it exercises.

Although it could also be asked if, when it speaks of the spirit of God, and for the same good, without any addition, it must be understood by the Holy Spirit, who in the Trinity is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, of whom it is said: there is the Spirit of the Lord, there is freedom (2Co 3,17); and in another place it is said: But he revealed it to us by his Spirit (1Co 2,10); and in another: The things that are of God nobody knows more than the Spirit of God (1Co 2,,11).

And in many other places it is called the Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit is understood, even if nothing is added, because the context sufficiently conveys who is speaking; so that sometimes it is simply called Spirit, and that Spirit of God is understood to be mainly holy. For what other spirit speaks when he says: The same Spirit testifies to ours that we are children of God (Rm 8,16); and when it is written: The same Spirit helps our weakness (Rm 8,26); and in another place: All these things are made by the same and identical Spirit, distributing their gifts to each one according to his or her pleasure (1Co 12,11). There is a diversity of gifts, but the Spirit itself is one? (1Co 12,4)

In all these passages, the Spirit, without any addition of God or holy, is understood by the Holy Spirit. But I do not know if it will be possible to demonstrate with some clear example that in some part of Sacred Scripture the Spirit of God is simply said, without more, where it is not the same Holy Spirit, but of another good spirit, although created and formed. For the texts that are adduced for this purpose are ambiguous and require greater clarity, for example, this one: The spirit of God fluttered on the water (Gn 1,2). I have no difficulty in understanding it from the Holy Spirit. For as with the name of waters it seems to designate here the formless matter, which was created from nothing and from which all things were formed, what prevents us from understanding that the Holy Spirit of the Creator was stirring over these waters, not in a way local and by intervals of spaces -because in no way can such a thing be said of an incorporeal being-, but by a predominance and sovereignty of his will, which extended to all things to form them? Especially when this style, usual in Sacred Scripture, lends itself to a prophetic sense and prefigures the sacrament of the future baptism of the people who were to be born of the water and the Holy Spirit. Then the words: The spirit of God was hovering over the water, should not necessarily be understood of that spirit by which, in the opinion of many, it is as animated the immense corporeal mass of this world to have a part in the generation and conservation of all the creatures according to their species. A spirit of this kind would also be a creature. There are also those who apply the text: The Spirit of the Lord filled the whole earth (Sab 1,7), to the mentioned spirit, an invisible creature that with some universal harmony drives and contains all the visible creation.

But I do not see here any difficulty in applying those words to the Holy Spirit, when God himself says by his prophet: I fill heaven and earth with my presence (Jr 23,24). For God does not fill heaven and earth without his Holy Spirit. Then what is the wonder that it has been said of the Holy Spirit: He filled the earth with the orb? For in a way he fills when he sanctifies, as it is said of Saint Stephen: He was filled with the Holy Spirit (Hch 7,55); and the same speaks of other saints. On the other, when filled with sanctifying grace, as for some righteous; and in a different way it also penetrates all things with its foresighted and orderly presence. In conclusion, I do not know a certain document of the Sacred Scripture with which it can be proved that, when speaking without any aditment of the Spirit of God or Spirit of the Lord, it does not refer to the Holy Spirit. But if perhaps there was some testimony, which now does not come to mind, I think it can be affirmed with a foundation that when in the Holy Books the Spirit of God is mentioned, and nothing else is added, let it be understood of the Holy Spirit, consubstantial to the Father and the Son; Now, if there is an invisible creature, it should not be taken for a bad spirit if it is not expressly stated. Well, using God of the evil spirit to execute his justice, this spirit of God is also called, as an instrument used for the punishment of the bad and correction and proof of the good.

6. Nor in reading the following: That Saul Himself prophesied with the spirit of God that came upon him, it should amaze us how after the good spirit the evil one returned and after the bad one again the good one. For this is due not to the inconstancy of the Holy Spirit, which is immutable with the Father and the Son, but to the mutability of the human spirit and to the providence of God, who commands everything, to the bad to condemn and correct them according to their deserved, and good ones, according to the liberality of his grace. Although perhaps one can believe that Saul was always the same Spirit of the Lord, although it was bad for him, because he was not able to receive anything so holy. But this opinion does not seem right. Safer and more truthful is to say that the good Spirit of God, according to the inconstancy of human affections, communicates its inspirations, sometimes to prophesy, or to perform some good work, according to the dispensation of God; and that the evil spirit is the one that drives evil, and it is called the spirit of God because it serves to fulfill the designs of his justice, distributing everything and handling all things well. It is based particularly on this passage: The Spirit of God was withdrawn from him and the evil spirit seized him by order of the Lord (1Sam. 16,14). For it can not be admitted that the same spirit has withdrawn and taken possession of him.

But in some copies, and especially in those that contain the most literal version of the Hebrew text, the spirit of God is added without any addition, and is understood by the bad, because it snatched Saul and calmed him David playing the harp. However, it is clear that the bad qualifier was not added because he had said it shortly before and, due to the proximity of the passage, it could be assumed and understood. Here is what is read in the abovementioned copies: Whenever the Spirit of the Lord seized Saul, David would take the harp and beat it with his hand, and Saul would calm down and receive relief, because the spirit of the bad man would depart from him. (1Sam. 16,23) So, now do not say the Spirit of God, but only the evil spirit (and what there expressed less here appears manifest), because it was written above: And the servants of Saul said to him: I have here that the evil spirit of God disturbs you; send, the lord and your servants will look for a good harp player, who, when the evil spirit of God takes hold of you, touches you and you find relief (1Sam. 16,15-16), it was not necessary to repeat it: Whenever the spirit of God seized of Saul, it was added that it was bad, because you already knew what it was.

7. However, there is a thorny question worthy of further examination: it is when Saul persecuted the innocent David, full of envy and attacked with insane fury: And the Spirit of God rested on him and walked in and prophesied (1Sam. 19,23). Here one can not understand but the good spirit, by whom the holy prophets saw future events in images and visions. And this not only because of the expression that is used there: And he prophesied. For translated copies of the Hebrew also read of the evil spirit: The next day Saul seized the evil spirit and prophesied in his house (1Sam. 18,10). And in many other places of the Holy Scripture is often seen that the prophecy is taken in good or bad part; and prophets are called the servants of Baal; and in another place certain prophets are rebuked for having become fortune tellers of Baal. Therefore it is not necessary to understand by a good spirit who descended on Saul, to say: And he walked and prophesied, but because he simply wrote without further addition: The Spirit of God was made upon him (1Sam. 19,23). It was not said here as above: Evil spirit of God, so that's why we should suppose in what follows. On the contrary, what precedes fully demonstrates that it was the good spirit of God and truly prophetic. Because David was with Samuel, and Saul sent people to seize him.

But when Samuel was among the prophets, and in the gathering of the prophets, who then praised God, the messengers who were sent, moved by the same spirit, prophesied, and the same thing happened with new envoys and a third time with others; then Saul himself came in person, and the Divine Spirit seized him and entered and was prophesying (1Sam. 19,20). When, then, it is said that the Spirit of God seized them and they also prophesied (1Sam. 19,23), it was evidently the same Spirit that moved the prophets, in the midst of whom was Samuel; from which it is inferred that he was a good spirit.

We must therefore discuss this question diligently: how those who were sent to arrest a man and give him death deserved to receive such a spirit? And how did Saul, who had sent them, come after himself in order to shed innocent blood, deserved to receive that spirit and prophesy?

8. At this point we have a doctrine very clearly expounded by St. Paul, which shows us the best way: Yes, speaking the tongues of men and angels, I do not have charity, I am like bronze that sounds or cymbal that retires. And if, having the gift of prophecy and knowing all the mysteries and all the science, I would have such great faith that I would move the mountains, if I do not have charity, I am nothing. And if I distribute all my property and give my body to the fire, not having charity, nothing benefits me (1Co 13,1-4).

It is seen that in this place the Apostle has mentioned the gifts distributed by the Holy Spirit, as he says above: To each one there is the manifestation of the Spirit for common use. To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another, the word of science according to the same Spirit; to another, faith in the same Spirit; to another, the gift of cures in the same Spirit; to another, operations of miracles; to another, the prophecy; to another, the discretion of spirits; to another, variety of languages. All these things are worked by the one and the same Spirit, which distributes each one according to his desire (1Co 12,7-10).

It is well seen, then, how the prophecy appears among the gifts of the Holy Spirit; but if someone possesses it without having charity, nothing is worth it. Hence the possibility that some men, unworthy of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, are sprinkled with some gifts of the Holy Spirit, without having charity, and without it, although they are worth nothing, take advantage. Because prophecy without charity, as has been proven, does not lead to the kingdom of God; and, on the other hand, it does bring charity to him without prophecy. For when the Apostle, speaking of the members of Christ, asks: Are all of them apostles, all prophets? It clearly shows that one can be counted among the members of Christ without having the gift of prophecy; but what place would he have in him lacking charity, without which nothing is man? And in dealing with the members that make up the body of Christ, I would not have asked in any way: Do all have charity ?, As he asked: Are all of them apostles, all prophets? Do all have the gift of miracles and healing? (1Co 12,29-30.), and the rest he says there.

9. But perhaps one will say that it is possible that one does not have the gift of prophecy and yes charity, and for this reason is united and incorporated into the members of Christ; but it is impossible for him to have prophecy and not have charity, because nothing is the man who has the prophecy without charity. It is as if we were saying: nothing is the man who has a soul without intelligence, not because a man can be found who, having a soul, does not have intelligence, but because nothing would be if it could be found.

Analogously it could also be said: If a body had a figure, but no color, it would not be visible, not because there are bodies lacking color, but because, if they existed, they could not be seen. For in the same sense it was said perhaps that if anyone has the gift of prophecy, but lacks charity, nothing is, not because there can be prophecy in someone without charity, but because, if given, it would be useless.

To resolve this question, then, it is necessary to prove that some reprobate has had the gift of prophecy, and in the absence of another case, Saul would have enough to prove it. But we also have Balaam, who was reproved, because the Scripture declares that he was condemned by divine judgment. However, he had the gift of prophecy; and by default of charity, he had the will to execrate the people of Israel, the will that the enemy had bought him, paying him to curse him. However, thanks to the prophetic charism that he was endowed with, he blessed against his will.

The words of the Gospel, which many will say in that day, also lend good support to this sentence: Lord, Lord, we ate and drank in your name, and in your name we prophesied, and in your name we did many miracles. But the Lord will answer them: I do not know you; depart from me, workers of evil (Mt 7,22-23).

We do not believe that they will lie when speaking thus in that judgment, where there will be no lie, nor will we read what any one will say: We have loved you. They may then say: In your name we have prophesied, being evil and reprobate; but they can not say: we observe the commandment of your love. Because if they say it, they would not be answered: I do not know you, because Christ says: In this it will be known that you are my disciples, if you love one another (Jn 13,35).

10. The case, then, of Saul refutes the opinion of some proud heretics, who deny that those who do not belong to the communion of the saints may be given some good of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We tell them that they can have the sacrament of Baptism, which must be respected, when they come to the Catholic Church, nor should it be repeated, as if they did not; however, they should not trust in their salvation, because we do not condemn what they have really received, but they must recognize the Church, founded on unity, and embrace it with the bond of charity, because without it, for saints and venerable in themselves the gifts they received, they are nothing, having become so unworthy of the prize of eternal life as they abused those gifts with which they were favored in this fleeting life. Now, only charity uses well, and everything tolerates it, and does not break the unity; before she is his strongest bond. The servant of the Gospel also received his talent, and by talent is understood here any gift of God: but to the one who has will be given, and to the one who does not have will even be taken away what he has (Mt 25,29). He can not take away what he does not have ; but this servant lacks something, and therefore deserves to deprive him of what he possesses: he lacks the charity to use well the gifts, and everything else will be taken away from him, for without charity nothing avails.

11. It is not, therefore, strange that King Saul, when he was anointed at the beginning, received the prophetic spirit, and that afterwards, reprobated for his disobedience, and the Lord withdrew from him, he fell into the hands of the evil spirit by righteous judgment of God, who also receives the name of the spirit of the Lord, for being an instrument of his. Because the Lord knows how to use well of all evil spirits, or for the condemnation of some, or for correction or proof; and though ill will does not come from God, but all authority comes from Him. It was also called the dream of the Lord who seized Saul's own soldiers when David took his spear and his glass, which were at his head, while I slept This does not mean that the Lord sleeps, but that the dream that seized those men was infused by God's will, so that they would not notice in that place the presence of his servant David.

Nor is it a strange thing that Saul himself received the prophetic spirit again when he persecuted the innocent, and, with the intention of apprehending and killing him, he joined the assembly of the prophets. Thus it became clear that no one should be sure of that gift, nor should he consider himself a person who accepts God if he lacks charity; for that gift could undoubtedly have been given to Saul with some mysterious design, and notice that he was a reprobate man, envious, ungrateful, who returned evil for good, and he did not correct himself and change even after receiving the gift of prophecy.

QUESTION II

Nothing is predicated worthy of God. If prescience properly exists in God. What is science and how is attributed to God. The anger, the mercy, the zeal in God. Human words are applied to divine things, but removing the imperfections that they entail. Difference between science and wisdom. Can God repent? How zeal and repentance seem to suit God less than prescience, anger and other similar passions.

1. And, let's see now the meaning of the words: I regret having made Saul king (1Sam. 15,11). You ask me -not because you do not know the value of such expressions, but to test my inexperience with paternal solicitude and kindness- how can repentance of something in God knowing everything beforehand. To me this language would seem unworthy of applying to God if there was something worthy of being attributed to Him in the repertoire of our concepts.

Now, as eternal power and divine perfection surpass, without a doubt, wonderfully all the resources of the words that make up human conversation, how much is said of God in the human way, even though the expressions seem vulgar to us, it is a warning to our weakness, so that we understand that even the very words that in the Sacred Scriptures seem conveniently applied to God, are more suited to our capacity as men than to divine greatness; and, therefore, it is necessary to rise above them, aspiring to a brighter intelligence, as it has risen above the vulgar others, whatever they may be.

2. For what man does not attain that repentance revolts in God, since everything overcomes him with his foreknowledge? Here are two words -prescience and penance or repentance-, and by believing that one of them suits God-foreknowledge-we deny repentance.

But if somebody submits this point to a more refined analysis, and inquires how the same foreknowledge can be attributed to God, and discovers that the very concept implied in this word is immeasurably surpassed by the inexplicable greatness of the Lord, it is not surprising that both expressions , inadequate to apply to God, they have, nevertheless, been able to be used for the purpose of looking at human frailty.

In effect, what is prescience but the science of future things? But can there be something future for God that transcends all times? For if the science of God contains all things, they are not future for it, but present; then it can not be called prescience, but simply science. But if, as they unfold in the order of temporal succession, things are not present in God as present, but they know them beforehand, then they know them in two ways: by their prescience as future, by their science as presents . Then the second way of knowing temporarily adds something to the science of God, which is very absurd and false. Well, then, you can not know what you foresee as a future, but for a double story: foreseeing it before it exists, and seeing it when it exists. From which results a very erroneous consequence: that there is something in the process of time that is enriching the divine science, when temporal things, which were previously only known by foreknowledge, are encompassed in their present reality, something that did not happen when they did not exist in their own reality, if only they were the object of a foresight.

And if, when coming into existence, the things that were foreseen as future, nothing new added to the science of God, but that his foreknowledge is now the same as before the predicted things happen, what is to be called prescience then, if Is not it about future things? Because those that were foreseen as future are already present, and soon after will be past. And the knowledge of past things, as well as that of the present, can not be called prescience in any way. We must return, then, to say that science is made with respect to present things that was foreknowledge with respect to those to come, and as what was foreknowledge before, then science is made in God, it turns out that it admits change and variation, being that, as true and supreme being, it is absolutely immutable and alien to any temporal oscillation.

I am pleased, then, that we do not speak of foreknowledge, but of the science of God alone; Let's find out why.

We call science in us the conservation in the memory of everything we have felt and understood; by it we reproduce the content of our impressions and ideas when we want to represent it. But if the same thing happens in God, so that it can be said of Him that he understands and understood, feels and felt, then he is subject to time and that mutability that we should reject in the divine being slips into us. And yet, God knows and foresees in an inexplicable way, just as he repents in an ineffable way. In spite, then, that the divine science is so far from the human that all comparison is laughable, yet both are given the same name of science; and the human being is of such a nature that, according to the Apostle, it will be destroyed, which can not be said in any way of God's.

Analogously, anger in man is turbulent and full of torture; instead, the wrath of God, which is read in the Gospel: The wrath of God weighs on the one who does not believe (Jn 3,36), and on the Apostle: The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness (Rm 1,18), remaining He in unshakable calmness, he imposes punishment on the creature with admirable equity.

Mercy also implies a certain misery of the heart, from which it has received its name in Latin; and for that reason the Apostle recommends us to rejoice with the happy ones and to mourn with those who mourn. But who with sound judgment will say that misery affects the heart of God, although the Sacred Scripture in all its pages preaches its mercy?

Likewise, human zeal covers the face of lividity, but divine zeal is not like that; the word is the same, but it designates a very different thing.

3. It would be long to record other expressions, since they are innumerable, and with them it is shown that many things of God are designated with the same words we use for human things, despite the incomparable distance that separates them. And yet, not without reason, for both categories of things identical names have been put, because the knowledge of the things offered by daily life and the most common experiences trace us as a certain way to move to the sublime realities of God. Well, if I deprive human science of its variable condition and the changes that occur in our thoughts when we pass from one to another and strive to bring before the eyes of the mind what is hidden a short time before, and so we jump from a representation to another with frequent acts of memory -which makes the Apostle say that we know partially-; If I take away these imperfections and leave them there, or rather I leave them - as this is not typical of human science - if I strive to represent, according to my scope, the living reality of a certain and indubitable truth, which encompasses everything with a unique and eternal look, then I get a glimpse of what is the science of God, since this name, insofar as it means that a thing by science is discovered in the eyes of man, can be commonly applied to both.

However, even among men the wisdom of science is often distinguished, as the Apostle also says: To one is given the language of wisdom by the Spirit; to another, the language of science according to the same Spirit (1Co 12,8), but in God the two things are one.

They tend to distinguish probably saying that wisdom belongs to the knowledge of eternal things, while science has as its object what we understand with the experience of the senses of the body. But even if someone points out another difference between the two, St. Paul would not have distinguished them if there were no distinction between them. And if it is true that the name of science comprises the knowledge acquired by the senses, then there is no science in God at all, because its nature is not composed of body and soul like man. It is more reasonable to say that very different is the science of God is not the same gender as that of man, as the very name of God, and that is very different from that expressed in the psalm when he said: He was in the council of gods (Ps. 81,1).

Notwithstanding what has been said, the idea of ​​science comprises in a certain way something common to the human and divine, it is convenient to know, the revelation of a thing.

So also from the wrath of man I remove all turbulent movements, so that only the vigor of vindictive justice remains, and somehow I get to the glimpse of what is called the wrath of God. Likewise, if out of mercy I suppress the pain of shared misery with that of whom you sympathize, so that only the quiet goodness remains to succor and rid of misfortune, there will be some remote idea of ​​divine mercy.

Let us neither repudiate nor discard the zeal of God when we find it in Scripture, but we strip of the human zeal the pale scourge of suffering and the morbid disturbance that it produces in the spirit, so that there remains only the judgment that does not allow to leave unpunished. violation of chastity, and we will begin to have some slight hint of God's zeal.

4. Therefore, when we read what God says: I am repentant, (1Sam. 15,11) let us examine what is the repentance of man. In him the will to change certainly dominates, but in man it is accompanied by pain, because he reproaches himself for having acted recklessly. We suppress these imperfections, attached to human weakness and ignorance, and leave the pure will to change a thing so that it is not as it has been up to here; thus we can glimpse in some way how divine repentance should be understood. For when it is said that God repents, he manifests his will that something should not continue to be what it was when it was made, and yet, when it was so, it must be so; and when he is not allowed to be as he was, it is because he must not be either, according to God's disposition with an eternal, tranquil and just judgment, by which, with his immutable will, he orders everything that is subject to change.

5. But as we usually speak with praise of the science and foreknowledge of man, and the human race tends to fear more than to reprimand anger in the very powerful, we believe that such concepts agree with God. But as for the zeal and repentance, as the first one is considered guilty and the second supposes a fault that has to be corrected, and, therefore, both involve a reproach for men, we are surprised to read that they attribute to God effects similar. But the Sacred Scripture, which watches over the good of all, appropriates even these things to God, so that the things that please the human do not apply to God in the same sense in which they apply to men. For these things that we dislike to put in God, as they are in men, we also learn to refine the concepts that we thought most appropriate and convenient for the divine being. That if we can not attribute this or that thing to God because it displeases us in man, then we do not call it being immutable either, because of men it is said reprimanding them: Because there is no change in them (Ps. 54,20). Likewise, there are laudable things in man that they can not be in God, like modesty, which is the main ornament of youth; or the fear of God, which not only praise the ancient books, but also the Apostle: Finishing the work of sanctification in the fear of God (2Co 7,1). But this does not exist in God. Then as laudable human things do not apply well to God, so some other guilty in men are rightly attributed: they are not found in Him as in men, and, although the words are common, they must be understood in different ways.

Because shortly after Samuel himself, whom God had said to him: I regret having made Saul king, he said to him speaking of God: Well, it is not like a man to repent (1Sam. 15,11). He gives us to understand with this that when God says: I repent, these expressions should not be taken in a purely human sense, as we have stated as we could.