POLEMIC
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 102. AGAINST NOVATIAN. — The disciples say to Jesus, "Lord, do you want us to command the fire of heaven to come down and consume them? And Jesus answered them, You know not what spirit you belong to; for the son of man has not come to lose souls, but to save them.” (Luke 9:54-55) The Samaritans, who did not want to receive him, certainly deserved to be punished, but Our Lord, who had come to exercise his mercy, dismissed the sentence that was suggested to him for to give them the opportunity to repent and correct themselves. When the prophet Elisha, angry with children who outraged him, cursed them, the righteousness of God avenged him, and they were devoured by bears in a place where we do not see that there was any forest. (2 Kings 2:23) But the Savior forgives the woman of bad life who is presented to her and whom the elders of the Jews claim to have surprised in adultery (Jn. 8:10), because the law of mercy which he began preaching taught to forgive and not to condemn. The law given by Moses, whose sanction was vindictive justice, was severe in the beginning. It punished with death the one who had gathered wood on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32), it commanded to stone the son of the Egyptian who had blasphemed against God (Lev. 24:21) and put to death many of the children of Israel who had worshiped the golden calf. (Exod. 32:27) Each of these two laws first of all made known to the character that was proper to it. Thus the ancient law, more inclined to punish the culprit, appeared more severe in the beginnings than the fear it inspired made the men more attentive and more vigilant. The new law, on the other hand, whose character is kindness and mercy, has shown itself in the beginning, full of gentleness and clemency, to dispose the minds of indulgence by the charm and attraction of its love. Subsequently, the law, whose greater severity had been motivated by the fragility of the human race, not only softened this rigor, but was a proof of gentleness and goodness, and the law of mercy was severe in punishment. Thus the righteousness of God struck Ananias and Sapphira with death. (Acts 5:5,10) Elimas, that unbelieving magician who resisted the law of God, became blind through an effect of God's judgment and power. (Acts 13:8) King Herod, for not having given glory to God, was struck by the angel of God and died devoured by worms. (Acts 12:23) The preaching of mercy could have made men believe that impunity was guaranteed to their crimes; God, therefore, tempered this assurance with fear, showing that the forgiveness of the sins that he bestowed upon men had for the purpose of passing them from death to life, to preserve them with care from relapses into sin and from misfortune. to come out of this life and to appear before their judge conscience charged with crimes; for everyone is judged according to the state in which he died. The new law which has in it the plenitude of mercy so as not to become an object of contempt for the fishermen has exerted on them a severe revenge. The ancient law, on the contrary, although it was given with punishment for punishment, has sometimes pardoned not to appear too cruel; but it has cheated the greatest number of sinners, because its nature was more inclined to severity. The grace of the new law is therefore much more abundant than was the grace of the old law. Now, if this grace is more abundant, how can it be denied that it can give what was given by the ancient law, in which grace was much less, for it was much more inclined to severity? If, then, it is shown that the ancient law has forgiven repentant sinners, how can one suppose that the law of mercy is inflexible for them? The Jews were called the children of God, and the Apostle Paul tells us that they were baptized under Moses' guidance in the cloud and in the sea. (1 Cor. 10:2) Before they were here, they were purified so that they could then give an account of the law they had received and if they came to sin, they could return to God through penance, following the invitation he do them: “penance, you who go astray, and convert." (Isa. 45:22) But, may it be said, God invites to penance but does not promise forgiveness. If God invites sinners to penance, their repentance cannot be barren, and God would not have made this call to fishermen unnecessarily. It was therefore because he knew that repentant sinners would obtain forgiveness for their sins that he gave them this command, for he said in express words, "I do not want the sinner's death, but rather that he converts and lives.” (Ezek. 18:32) The fruits of penance are thus assured, we have the proof, to those who are converted to God. We must therefore reject the impious assertion of Novation, which distorts the meaning of the words of the Lord by saying: The Lord expresses himself thus: "Whoever has denied me, I will deny him myself," (Matt. 10:33) that is to say, if a Christian comes to deny the Lord for any motive, any return is impossible to him, and that, if he returns, he has no hope of being welcomed. And what becomes of the obligation to do penance? Let us not forget that after this sentence the Savior did not, however, deny his Apostle Peter, who had denied him. Why? Because, under the inspiration of repentance, he cried his fault with bitter tears (Matt. 26:75), because he knew that God forgave repentant sinners and that penance changed the dispositions of their hearts. Novatian himself assumes that one must do penance. Pressed that he is by the law, he does not dare to deny openly that one must refuse penance: he therefore tries by his subtleties to deprive it of its fruits. Since he dares to say that he who has denied God has no longer any hope of forgiveness, but that he will be denied even in the presence of the angels of God, is there not hypocrisy on his part to recommend to do penance? But his bad faith appears throughout his day when he adds: "He that has sinned against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be given him in this world or in the other." (Matt. 12:32) Although the sin against the Holy Spirit is quite different from that by which the Lord Jesus is denied, yet Novatian, to close the door of forgiveness to this last sin, confuses sin against the Holy Spirit with the one who denies the Lord, to cut off from this confusion the fruit of penance with the hope of forgiveness. If to deny the Lord is to sin against the Holy Spirit, those who are guilty of this denial cannot hope for any forgiveness, any fruit of their penance, since the Lord declares that this sin cannot be put back in this world, neither in the other. Novation therefore commits an act of duplicity by exhorting to do penance, for why this penance if it denies that sin can be erased? It is the groans, the tears, the complaints of repentance that get the sinner forgiveness and the change of life. It is because David repented and confessed his sin that he deserved his pardon and returned to all his old rights, for he remained on the throne and was endowed with prophetic spirit. (2 Sam. 12:13) Scripture gives us certain proofs; we see in the 50th Psalm his repentance and after the persecution directed against him by his son his prophetic oracles, because historically the third Psalm comes after the 50th. Shall we say that it was necessary to grant pardon to a king, but that we must not forgive people of a more humble condition? And it is not rather to those who have the power of sharing that it is necessary to forgive more with difficulty, for God does not respect people. (Rom. 2:11) The more dignified one becomes, the more serious the fault becomes, however slight it may appear in itself. Just as humility in the influential ones of the earth, participates in the elevation and brilliance of their position, so their faults are much more reprehensible. Not to mention the sin that is forbidden to all men; there are things which are permitted to persons of a more obscure condition, and who are not so to those who are elevated in dignity. Thus they cannot without inconvenience neither trade nor enter a low-class eating house. A senator cannot also be interested without losing his dignity. Now, if those who commit these slight improprieties are worthy of blame, how much more are they reprehensible if they are guilty of real faults? We must conclude from this that the crime of David was extremely serious and from a double point of view; however, his repentance won him the pardon of his homicide and adultery, and more importantly, his tears deserved a new life. When the prophet Nathan came to him, David dared not hide his crime, he confessed publicly, saying, "I have sinned against the Lord." And the Prophet replied, "The Lord has forgiven you your sin, and you do not die, because you have repented.” (2 Sam. 12:13) And as we then see him prophesied, there is no doubt that he has completely changed his life. See again Achab; the Prophet reproached him for the death of Naboth; This prince shed tears, he tears his clothes, he puts on a hair shirt, and the Lord speaks to Elijah and says to him: "Have you not seen Ahab humbled before me? I will not bring upon him in his days the evils of which I have threatened him." (1 Kgs. 21:27) The Ninevites mourn their crimes, and God saves them from death hanging over their heads and gives them life. (Jonah 3:5) These are the abundant fruits of penance, but this objection is made: Yes, God forgave, but not to the sin of idolatry, for however great these crimes may be, they are not so great as the crime of idolatry. The assertion of Novatian, who admits penitence for two enormous crimes, is thus largely destroyed, for if fornication is unworthy of pardon, as Novatian asserts, how much more homicide and adultery; but what brings out all the futility of his opinion is that he grants pardon to crimes which, by the admission of all, have a much greater gravity. Let us now examine whether God has promised to forgive idolaters. All that is not legitimately forgiven in this life will not be forgiven in the other. It is here below, as Our Lord declares, that sins are bound or loosed (Matt. 16:19); in the other life there will be only reward or condemnation. Every man justly condemned here below cannot hope to be admitted to the number of the elect in the other life. Let us hear what the Lord says about the idolaters to the prophet Jeremiah: "Go and make these words heard. Return to me, O people of Israel, says the Lord, and I will not hold my face against you, because I am merciful, says the Lord, and I will not be angry with you forever. But acknowledge your iniquity, you have committed ungodliness, you have directed your paths to foreign gods under all trees laden with foliage.” (Jer. 3:12-13) These are the promises that God makes to those who become converted after their fall; if they return to him after their apostasy, he forgives them of their sins. Here is what Jeremiah says: "My most delicate children have walked in difficult ways; they were brought as a flock delivered to his enemies. Do not be afraid, my children, and cry to the Lord, for he who has led you will remember you. As your mind has made you wander far from God, on returning to him you will seek him with ten times more ardor; for he that brought upon you these evils shall fill you with everlasting joy in saving you." (Baruch 4:26) Oh, how great is the goodness of God, how it excites those who have fallen. As it urges the idol worshipers to return to him, as a tender father, he promises his children the eternal joy of salvation if they consent to change their lives. We still read in the same Prophet: “and I will bring them back to this land, I will restore them and I will not destroy them, I will plant them and tear them no more." (Jer. 24:6) This threat he had made: “He who will sacrifice to foreign gods will uprooted," could bring down into despair those who had been guilty of this ungodliness, if those who had sacrificed to idols could not be replanted, he therefore exhorts them to repent if they want to return to their first state. If the sin is not expiated, the sentence remains. God made the Ninevites announce that in three days their city would be destroyed. (Jonah 3:4) Why in three days? to give them time to repent and revoke this sentence, or that if they persevered in their impiety, their ruin was even more just. This is what God says through his Prophet: "I do not want the death of the fisherman, but rather that he will convert and live." (Ezek. 18:32) This is why penance came to the Ninevites the forgiveness of the sins that were to be the cause of their death. Why did Noah take a hundred years to build the ark? (Gen. 6:3) It was so that those who saw him and heard from his mouth the danger which threatened them, had time to recognize themselves. God does not want anyone to perish. "The Lord,” said Solomon, “pities those who repent." (Eccl. 12:3) And in another place: "You have mercy on all men, because you can do anything, and you hide their sins because of repentance." (Wis. 11:24) It is in this same feeling that Our Lord, deeply saddened by the perfidy of the Jews, exclaims: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem who slay the prophets and stone those who are sent to you, how many times did I want to gather your children, as a hen gathers her little ones under her wings, and you did not want it." (Matt. 23:37) The Lord in all the course of the law therefore never ceases to exhort sinners to convert, because he does not want his work to perish. The only purpose which he proposed, in giving the law, was to bring men back to the truth, with the difference, however, that under the New Testament the author of the law is more merciful because He wanted his mercy to be fuller and more abundant at the time when his Son Our Lord deigned to manifest himself to men in his incarnation, so that the preaching of the Son might be more fruitful in grace than that of the servants. It was just and worthy, indeed, that the Son was for men the source of graces more abundant than the servants had been. So he immediately condemns all sins to those who convert and who believe in him, without even demanding the groans of penance. What makes the Apostle say: "The gifts and the vocation of God are without penance.” (Rom. 9:29) If they come to sin afterwards, they may deserve their pardon through penitence; for it is just that, having sinned after having received mercy, it is no longer given to them with so much liberality, but that they can obtain their pardon only by moans and tears. It is impossible for man not to sin. Let us listen to the apostle Saint John: "If we say that we are without sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to deliver them and to cleanse us of all unrighteousness.” (1 Jn. 1:8) Thus did David, by the admission of his sin, merit his forgiveness and the grace of a new life. It is certainly to Christians that St. John speaks here, for he adds a little lower: "My little children, I write this to you, that you may not sin. However, if someone happens to sin, we have Jesus Christ as advocate with the Father.” (1 Jn. 2:1) The Apostle reminds us of this truth, so that if we come to sin after our baptism, we humbly beg our advocate to pray for us to his Father. If penance existed under the old law, how would it have lost its strength under the new law which is as good as the first a law of mercy? How will God, who has pitied his enemies by calling them to the benefit of grace, show mercy to his friends to reward them (for the tribulation of the heart is the reward of repentance)? If it were otherwise, men would have reason to sadden themselves for having ceased to be the enemies of God to become his friends. What idea would we have of God, if he had mercy on his enemies without demanding penance, and refused it to his repentant friends? Moreover, the Lord knows that the devil attacks the friends and servants of God with more violence and perseverance, as the Apostle Saint Peter recalls in these terms: "Be sober and watch, because the devil your enemy moves around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour.” (1 Pet. 5:8) He knows we have to to fight against an enemy whose cruelty equals strength; if, therefore, we come to be conquered, he wants us to seek refuge in his powerful protection; he has compassion for the sad state in which we are reduced, and puts on his strength so that we can resist with new courage. As if the days of which the Lord spoke were not abridged (Matt. 24:22), all flesh would be destroyed; thus no one can be saved if men are closed to the ways of penance. If no one, says the Holy Spirit, can boast of having a pure heart (Prov. 20:9); if no one, as he says elsewhere, is undefiled, not even the child whose life is only one day (Job 19:4), who can escape the justice of God, if the value of penance is contested? And what do these words of the Lord become: "That there will be joy in heaven for a sinner who does penance?” (Luke 15:7) But great crimes, says Novatian, are unworthy of forgiveness, for example fornication and idolatry, and what will become of this word of the Lord, where he promises that all sins, all blasphemies will be handed to men? "Blasphemy alone against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven them." (Matt. 12:31) According to this testimony of the Savior, all sins will be forgiven except one. Choose now, Novatian, and say to whom these words apply; Is it to those who do not believe yet, or to those who have embraced the faith? If it be to those who do not believe, how are they forgiven of sins, though it is certain that before believing in God, they have sinned against God and the Holy Spirit? Some of them, in fact, treat the Savior's actions with magical operations, and ascribe to demons the works of the Holy Spirit. If you apply these words to the faithful, your assertion is destroyed because "all sins will be forgiven; and whosoever shall speak against the son of man, he shall be forgiven." (Matt. 13:12) Any sin against God or against Jesus Christ will be forgiven of men; for the Savior understood them all except the sin against the Holy Spirit. He does not here confound the sin against God with the sin against the Holy Spirit, for if it were his intention, he would not have nominally excepted this sin. He therefore wanted to signify another sin by this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (and here we must understand the person and not the nature of the Holy Spirit); therefore all sins will be delivered either by means of penance to those who believe, or by baptism to those who are ready to embrace the faith. As for the sin that the Jews committed against the Holy Spirit, it is of another kind in relation to the time in which they lived. Our Lord declares that this sin will not be forgiven them in this life or the other; for it is not by error, but by malice, that they have sinned against the Holy Spirit. They knew from their understanding that the works of the Savior were the works of God, and to distract the people from believing in him they attributed them to the prince of demons. This is why Our Lord said to them, "for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering." (Luke 11:52) This sentence has therefore been pronounced against malevolent spirits who have no longer any hope of salvation. For nothing is more enormous than this crime, for it pretends to present as false what it knows to be the truth under the law of God, and to whom Christ had been promised, saw the wonders which he performed, and recognized in him the fulfillment of the promises which God had made to them, but jealousy blinded them to the point of denying them the truth of these wonders, even more, even to persecute him and put him to death, so it is not right that this sin be ever given to them, since at the very judgment of their conscience they have dared to resist God, whose faithful servants they called themselves, but the sins against God or against Jesus Christ have different causes. So you envy the happiness of others, the pain of your darkness makes you exhale complaints against the Creator; or a sudden misfortune that melt on you excites your anger and makes you unfair to your Father. It is same as the incarnation of Jesus Christ leads to insult God. In ignorance where they are of the mystery of Christ incarnate, they are the object of their blasphemies, and regard it as unworthy that the Son of God, who is of an incorporeal and simple nature, has consented to be born as an ordinary man. They blaspheme this mystery because they do not know it. So they must be reached when they convert, because they are against the truth, while believing to defend their interests. After being tested and disarmed, they proclaim the truth of what they were doing. But for the Jews of whom we have spoken, their feelings as their actions have been very different; without another judge and without any other executioner, they are tormented and punished by the testimony of their own conscience. The one whom error makes enemies of the truth, comes to be converted, he rejoices to have known the truth; but for the evil spirit he has nothing he can correct; for if he converts, he will recognize as true what he previously knew was false. But as for the Holy Spirit, there is no reason for injustice to him; his action cannot displease anyone, since it is revealed only in the power that works miracles and wonders. Who would dare to attack him on seeing him raise the dead? Who would dare to be angry with him when he sees that his power renders movement to the paralyzed, sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf? How rather not to love the one whom he sees driving away foul spirits, to purify the lepers, and to heal all the ills? However, the Jews preferred to outrage him by attributing his works to the demons, because they thus found the means of appeasing their hatred and their envy against the Savior. So he declares that this sin will not be forgiven them in this world or the other. But Novatian claims that larger crimes are handed over after baptism, and he cites idolatry and fornication by name. All sins, he says, are set in baptism; but if the faithful then come to commit a grave error, they have no more pardon to hope for, because after having received the Holy Spirit, one must no longer sin against the Holy Spirit. Who will deny that one should never sin, if it were possible? But God, who knew the fragility of the human race, has always prepared for men salutary remedies, where they would find a way to recover from their falls. If, on the contrary, the Holy Spirit forbids giving sinners the benefit of penance, we come to doubt of Divine Providence under the new covenant, and those who lived under the old will appear much more favored, since this remedy they were not refused. And how then will grace be more abundant under the New Testament than under the Old? God would have treated men as enemies, if, knowing that penance was for them an indispensable condition of salvation, he would have given them the Holy Spirit, but without any hope of forgiveness or reparation, if they came to offend by the effect of fear or error. He would have looked for an opportunity to lose men rather than save them. But far from us this thought, for Our Lord said: "The Son of man did not come to lose souls, but to save them.” (Luke 9:56) If God makes it our duty to forgive us up to seventy times seven times the sins we commit against each other, on the sole condition that we repent (Matt. 18:22), how much more will he forgive those who have offended him and come back to him? God wants the conversion of every sinner. The Apostle teaches us that forgiveness was granted to the fornicators and filthy, when he said, "and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned before and have not repented of the impurity, immorality, and licentiousness which they have practiced.” (2 Cor. 12:21) He thus proves that some who are for him a subject not of sadness but of joy, have done penance for these crimes; some others, on the contrary, have not made penance of their fornications, which is why the Apostle weeps, because their impenitence has closed the doors of life to them. For if the penance of these crimes should last all this life, he would not say that he weeps because they have not done, but because they do not do penance. But because he knows that penance begins and ends here, he purposely says, "They have not done penance." He wanted that by coming to find them he could have peace by entering into communion with them. Here is a proof that we can be in communion with the fornicators after they have done penance, One cannot communicate with them as long as they do penance, this communion is permitted only when they cease to be subject to the judgment of the Church. It remains to be seen whether we can establish that forgiveness should be given especially to idolaters, and we read in the Apocalypse of the apostle St. John that penance is preached to the bishops to whom he gives the name of angels, that is to say, of envoys, in the same sense that St. Paul says to the Galatians: "You have received me as an angel of God” (Gal. 4:14), receive the order to admit the sinner to penance, and do not leave without warning about those who are stumbling blocks who bring scandal in the Church, since they themselves are of the Church. Here is what is said to St. John: ""And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: `The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword. I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is; you hold fast my name and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality. So you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans.” (Rev. 2:12 etc.) This doctrine of the Nicolaites was similar to that of Balaam, that is to say, a compound of idolatry and fornication (Num. 24:14, 25: 2), and he commanded to do penance. Now he speaks to those who are part of the Church, as these words prove: "This is what the Spirit says to the churches," and he indicates what will be the fruit of penance: he says, “I will give to him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna,” that penance might make him victorious over his sins. What is, in fact, true repentance, in the grief of the faults committed with the firmest intention? to stop committing them in the future? "And again to the angel of the church of Thyatira write, This is the saying of the Son of God, whose eyes are like flames of fire, and their feet like the finest brass. I know your works, your charity, the care you take for the poor, your patience and your last works more abundant than the first. But I have something to reproach you for: you allow Jezebel, this woman who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants, to lead them into fornication and to make them eat meats sacrificed to idols. I gave her a time to do penance, and she does not want to repent of her prostitution. Behold, I will reduce her to her bed, and those who commit adultery with her will be in great affliction if they do not do penance for their works. I will strike her children with death, and all the churches will know that I am he who searches the reins and the hearts, and I will render to each of you according to his works. But I say to you and to the others who are at Thyatira, to all who do not follow this doctrine, and who, according to their language, do not know the depths of Satan; I will not put any other weight on you. However, keep what you have until I come. He who will be victorious and keep my works until the end, I will give him power over the nations.” In this single letter to the Church of Thyatira, he confounds and condemns the double error of the Novatian heresy; he promises the fruits of penance to those who repent of their idolatry, and he shows that in the same church the contact of the wicked does not defile the good, since they are part of the same communion; for it is not to those outside the church that he wrote: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” It is in the same sense that St. Paul said: "We know that all that the law says is to those who are under the law that it says it.” (Rom. 3:19) And in another place: "Why would I want to judge those who are out of the Church?" (1 Cor. 6:12) The Son of God through the mouth of Saint John, therefore, it is addressed to the members of the same church to exhort some to penance and to give the others the praise they deserve: "But I say to you, and to the rest of you are in Thyatira, to all who do not follow this doctrine, that is, the doctrine of idolatry: "Keep what you have unceasing until I come," (Rev. 2:24), that is, persevere until the end, for whoever perseveres until the end will be saved." (Matt. 10:22) For the same reason, he who persevered in evil will be condemned. Thus, justly, the righteousness of the righteous will not deliver him in the day when he departs from the right path. In the same way the iniquity of the sinner will not hurt him, as soon as he becomes a convert. This is why God says through his prophet, "He who sacrifices to the gods will be uprooted, but if he converts, he will live.” Our Lord expresses the truth when he says, "He who denies me, I will deny him.” (Matt. 10:33) But if he converts he cannot be denied by him whom he has publicly confessed. This is why the Psalmist said: "No living man will be justified in your presence.” (Ps. 142:2) For every man is judged according to the state in which he died. God Himself teaches us that in the Church the wicked are mingled with the good until the day of judgment. "The kingdom of heaven," says he, "is like a net thrown into the sea, and contains all kinds of fish, and when they sat down on the shore, they will gather the good in a vessel, and cast out the wicked, so it will be at the end of the world: the angels will come out and separate from the kingdom of God all scandals and all those who commit iniquity." (Matt. 13:47) The same truth is expressed to us in this man who is surprised among those who were at table, not having the wedding garment." (Matt. 22:12) He is the only one who is rejected from the bosom of the Church, because the crime of his indignity does not defile others, he is known to all of them because the cause of this indignity is expressed, that is, say the defect of the wedding garment. Indeed, they all saw him wearing a garment different from that of other guests. This is what makes St. Paul say: "In a great house there are not only vases of gold and silver, but also of wood and glass." (2 Tim. 2:20) Spoke thus because of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who, while part of the Church, professed grave errors in the resurrection, and even denied it, like some of the faithful of the Church of Corinth: Novation claims that by this house one must understand the world and not the Church, for fear of being forced to admit into the same Church the mixture of the good and the bad, those who are pure with those who are not. They are not, but it is easy to reverse this interpretation. For in one house all are under the same name, and although they are of different customs, they are all known by the name of their master. The world, on the contrary, contains men of opposite professions, until they recognize gods and masters quite different. You see, then, that these words must be understood, not of the world, but of the Church in which those who live under one name lead a very different life. I am convinced that Novatian was not ignorant of this truth; but as he could not motivate his separation on just complaints; to escape a certain shame, he asked a false interpretation of the law for some bad reasons by which he tries to excuse and cover up his hatred and malignity. Here is what he answers to what we have just said: I do not deny that we must admit to penitence those who are guilty of idolatry, but I dare not say that this sin will be forgiven them, because it can only be forgiven by the one against whom it has been committed. This answer is full of bad faith, these interpretations discover and update its deceits. When he comes to tell us: It is written, "He who denies me, I will deny him.” (Matt. 10:33), words out of a mouth that cannot lie, he declares vain and unsuccessful penance from which he maintains the obligation. If the sentence has been pronounced, and by a mouth that cannot deceive, why necessarily impose on man the torture of moans and tears, you who deny its value, or who confess not to know it. Any man who gives advice to another, gives it with the clear intention that he can take advantage of it. But at home, Novatian, this confession is not sincere, and it is for you to play the minds of men that you say that we must do penance. You know perfectly well that this truth cannot be denied; you then resort to subtleties to cancel the penance not of mouth, but in reality. You declare that every man who sacrificed to idols commits sin against the Holy Spirit, a sin which, according to the words of the Gospel, you claim to have to be handed over neither in this world nor in the other. Why then say that we must do penance for this sin? Is it not obviously to make illusion. as I demonstrated. You are still trying to hide your character under other artifacts; you say that it is in the same sense that the Apostle St. Peter said to Simon: “and do penance for such a great sin, that God may forgive you, if it be possible.” (Acts 8:22) But Peter considered the hardened malice, full of venom and bitterness of this man, and that is why he does not give him a certain promise. For what man has ever been so far as to want to buy the gift of God for money? This answer was therefore made to malignity rather than error. This malignity is without remedy because it cannot be excused either for error or for the necessity of being pardoned by the tears of penance. Let those who are guilty of the same crime hear the words that Peter addresses to Simon. That is why he gives him a dubious answer, because, he adds, “I see that you are full of a bitter affair, and bound to iniquity." So if after such a huge crime, Peter, however, gives a dubious answer, and no doubt God forgives those who have been dragged into sin by error or necessity, if they do a proper penance. He has given his Church the right of admitting to penance and after penance to reconciliation. Novatian still blames us. Why, he says, is the body of the Lord given to those who are known to be sinners? Can those who are judges be accusers? They should be accused and they should be known, and then they can be separated from the communion of the faithful, but what judge never takes on the role of accuser? The Lord Himself defiled in his company by Judas, whom he knew to be a thief who stole the alms given to him, and he did not send him away because no one accused him; Should we not imitate this example, and not reject the Church whose crime has not been publicly disclosed? Now I speak to the consciousness of Novation, who never ceases to accuse us, and I beseech him to tell me if he is certain of the holiness of all those who are with him. His anger against us goes so far that he even refuses us the title of Christians, although he knows that we have received this faith which he claims to have to the exclusion of others. What makes the Christian is belief and life. If, then, you see a man profess the same faith as you, and live in the same way, why refuse him to be what you are yourself? It is certain that he who says: Jesus is the Lord, says it by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3), because he speaks the truth; but all truth comes from God. Why do not you go to the one who speaks the truth, and answer him only by your negations? This is not the reason, it is the anger that contradicts here who makes profession to believe in God. Do you not declare to yourself the enemy of God, declaring yourself against him whose faith in God is according to the truth? Is a pagan who hears a man claim that idols are gods, deny that he is a heathen? Why challenge the title of Christian to one who professes true faith, while St. Paul says to you: "We must believe in our hearts to obtain justice, and confess with our mouths to obtain salvation.” (Rom. 10:10) But you, driven by a secret hostility on which your anger blinds you, oppose God by denying that he who confesses by mouth can obtain salvation against this formal declaration of the Lord: "Whoever confess me before men, I will confess him myself.” (Luke 12:8) Did he say: If Novatian confesses to me? And yet, you formulate your assertions as if you had to defend only one thing, it is that to be saved it is not enough to be a Christian, it must be Novation. But if, on the contrary, the public profession of faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient to obtain salvation, wherever this profession is found, it produces this fruit of salvation. If the tradition of this faith has been corrupted among us, if the meaning has been altered, you are right to accuse us. If, on the contrary, it is wholly in us as it is in you, in denying us you deny yourself. But you accuse the ministers of faith; Suppose your accusation is well-founded, though you cannot prove it, yet have those who have received from them the teachings of faith learned the truth or the lie? The truth spoken by a vicious man is none the less the truth, for faith and works are two different things. What does the persecutor of the Christian name pursue from his hatred? It is the profession of faith and not life. He knows that nothing is more advantageous to religion than the profession we make of being Christians, and this sacrilegious persecutor believes in this profession, which he does not want to hear because it is hated by him. But you, who profess the same religion and bear the same character, refuse to believe in the confession that we make of the truths that you confess yourself. If you are certain that we are born to a new life, all other than you were born yourself, you would be right to believe that we are not what you are. Why am I the object of sacrilegious persecution if I am not what you are? For if I professed what you attribute to me, I would not be subject to persecution. In short, I believe in what concerns me rather than you. This is my statement that the judge asks, not yours when it comes to me. Why then challenge this statement when in this matter, by the confession of all, it is not a foreign testimony, but my personal statement that is asked either for me or against me? I did not want to turn against you for a simple name, to see if you would be falsely against me when my profession of faith would be true to the truth, or as if we did not know who to relate to. You act in bad faith here to correct your schism; for you are not ignorant that here it is my testimony that one is asking, and not a foreign attestation, and that one will regard as true what I have confessed, and not what another has denied. It is also certain that we must recognize the liberty of those who, led by the love of Jesus Christ, without examining the actions of men, hasten to embrace the faith, contenting themselves with approving in themselves what they know how to be useful to them, that is to say the true teaching of faith in Jesus Christ. Whoever believes that man needs anything else apart from the mystery of faith, insults him, it is an insult to tradition and does not have the feelings it should have on the grace of God. By demanding the personal merit of man for the gift of God to be useful to the one who receives it, he makes man a being superior or equal to the tradition of faith, whereas, however, man is far from deserving such a title. Here is what St. Paul says about this same matter: "I planted, Apollo watered, but God gave increase. Now, he who plants is nothing, neither is he who waters, but it is God who gives increase.” (1 Cor. 3:6) What can we expect from man here, since he himself has received the teachings he transmits? Let us examine then what advantages will result from his holy life, or what infuriating effects of his guilty conduct. He who introduces himself desires to hear the words of God, and by believing in them he firmly believes that he will be saved. What does the good or bad life of one who transmits the teachings of faith do here? Only one thing is necessary; it is the living faith that inspires the person who receives it to believe with all his heart what he has heard. That the life of the one who teaches is reprehensible, will it be an obstacle for the one who listens? Will it prevent him from believing in the truths he teaches, and will the sin of the master enter the disciple's heart to close him to faith? Or will God, who is righteous, disdain a man who is devoted to him because of the sin of him whom he bears to see in dignity? But the man himself does not judge it in this way, although he is often deceived or likes to please. If it were so, and man was obliged to defend his cause, would he not have the right to say to God: I do not know him who is the cause of the scorn you show me? It is to find that I approached him because he was your priest; it is you that I have sought, you whom I have desired, you who have believed; I have not expected anything from the man, why should I be responsible for the bad dispositions of a man whom I would not have known if I had not looked for you? If his virtues had been useful to me, it might perhaps be fair to say that his vices were hurtful to me. But no, the virtues would not have served me anything if my faith had been doubtful, and I have nothing to do with it to fear his vices. Now, my faith is what it must be; I have faith in teachings that come from you, that make you love, that speak about you and your promises; neither his speeches nor his actions have been the motive or the object of my faith, but it is to the faith that comes from you that I have given myself entirely. According to these principles, the conduct of the true faithful is irreproachable. Suppose the priests are lawyers, will the bad life of a lawyer be a cause of conviction for his client? The duty of the lawyer is to defend the cause of his client according to the rules of law; but how unjust is his life, how can it harm the cause he supports? The lawyer's person cannot do good or bad here, the good or bad cause that he defends will determine the judgment that will be made. It is the same with those who want to become Christians, they come to find the priest, express their desires to him, and he gives them the teachings prescribed by the rules of the Church; if these desires are true, the judge welcomes them; in what way can the priest here be useful or harmful, while he does not even know the cause of his client? God, who is his judge, is the only one who knows what he is, in what arrangements he approaches him. The duty of the priest is to fulfill here the office entrusted to him, that of the judge, to welcome or reject the cause of his client. Is it not he who said in the Gospel, "My daughter, did your faith save you?” (Matt. 9:22) So it is not to any foreign help whatsoever, it is to the faith that the salvation of each one is attached, because God has established that faith, if it is firm, would get everything he wanted. You, on the contrary, come not as a friend, but as an enemy of Christ to gather the people under your name; they cannot be Christians if they are not Novatians, while the Apostle condemns those who say they belong to Paul or to another. But you, who believe you to be superior, place your name above that of Jesus Christ, as if he does not suffice to defend his own Church.
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 114. AGAINST THE PAGANS. — I do not see why the pagans dare to declare war on us, or to attack our faith, while they think themselves safe from all reproach and attack. For they produce no proof in support of assertions, I will say rather of their superstition than of their religion. They affirm things which are nothing less than certain, in order to pass, it seems, for the authors and defenders of new doctrines. In the first place, they claim to adore many gods, and they give no proof, no testimony of their existence. They call gods even those who have not dared to usurp the name, that is to say that are the men who make the gods, while it is God who is the Creator of men, and therefore their assertion is vain and of no weight. Everything that is done outside of God has no stability. The proof of what I say is in their books, where we see God completely alien to their religious institutions. We see men led by different motives, establishing sacrifices in honor of false deities, and thus men without merit were regarded as worthy authors of such institutions. Now, since those whom they call god have not made to them on this point any command, of what authority do they establish, do they present as worthy and commendable a worship which they cannot prove to have been commanded to them? Assuming that they could produce an order they would have received, it would be necessary to examine first of all whether there is an obligation, whether it is expedient to obey those whose divinity cannot be established by any sign, by no wonder. Beaten on this point, they take refuge in the elements and claim that they are the object of their worship, because their influence is all powerful in the direction of human life. Here again I will ask them, as before, whether they have received an order, a commandment from God, of which they themselves confess grandeur and power, although they take no account of it. If one owes a cult to the elements, it is necessary that this cult was commanded by the one that one recognizes for the creator of the elements. If they cannot produce this order, it is a reckless presumption, and a presumption worthy of punishment rather than reward; for it is a contempt for the Creator that the servants receive the homage that is refused to their master, and that the people of the emperor's suite are made to adore the contempt of the emperor himself. How can they hope for impunity here, whereas in this very life we see this audacity severely punished? Will they say that they have received the order of the elements themselves? Let them show this order and tell us the words that these elements would have addressed to them. Now, if they cannot produce this order, what punishments are not worthy of the proven authors of this religion of presumption and falsehood? We cannot attribute this impiety to the elements. The stars of the body will accuse them of God's tribunal, declaring that they have by no means been the authors of this impious and vain inspiration. In the same way, when those who are only men and whom they call gods will be delivered to the just punishments which their sins deserve, they will maintain that they are not guilty of anything here, and will lay all the responsibility for this crime of idolatry on those who, without having received the order, began to render them divine honors. How dare they attack our faith, treat it as an object of mockery, as they see our law supported by irreconcilable testimony, and read this statement of Our Lord Himself and our God: “I am the Lord, and there are no others.” (Isa. 45:6) If he had been content with this statement, we could have refused to believe it so as not to resemble the pagans who, without seeing any proof of the power of their gods, worshiped them and, what is worse, rendered them an unholy cult. We blush to reveal the shameful things that are done there, and they call themselves wise, because their law plays them as an impostor. As for our God he commanded men to worship him, but after giving proof of his power, and to leave them no doubt, he gave them a pure law, holy and worthy of God. For us the pagans are foolish, we would not have believed in our God, if He had not given us testimonies of His power, and we would not have received His law if we had not recognized that it was pure and worthy of our obedience. So nothing in us is done in darkness or in secret. For all that is honest does not fear publicity; what shudders decency and virtue is ashamed to happen in the open. That is why pagans celebrate their mysteries in darkness, and in this they all act of prudence. They blush to face the jeers of the public, and they do not want to divulge the abominations they perform as one of the prescriptions of their law, for fear that these men who call themselves wise do not pass for extravagant in the eyes of those whom they accuse of madness. Perhaps, in fact, they regard us as foolish, because our law preaches chastity, mercy, piety, continence, all things that are so extravagant to them, for every virtuous man passes for bad in the eyes of the wicked, and the prudent the man is accused of madness by the fool. Chastity is so much in their horror that the degenerate are their delights, they take them for masters, and they are not worthy of their religion, if I may give it that name, so long as they become like them. That is why they submit to the operation of castration and change their habit as to change their sex, they lend themselves to unnatural actions, like women, and only then are they worthy and perfect ministers of their superstition. Can one accuse someone who becomes such only by virtue of his law? He renounces the prerogatives and the clothing of the man and transforms himself into a woman to lend himself in all pride to womanish actions. What must we think of these mysteries, which change honesty in reverse and innocence into corruption, while true religion replaces in men indecency by modesty and licentiousness by modesty? How can the partisans of this religion be virtuous when the mysteries of their law can be celebrated only in the company of the womanish men? If their law allows these disorders, and has them pleasant, it is crime, it is folly to refuse to take part. So they treat us as foolish, for the wise in their eyes are those who practice this filthy cult and the foolish who flee with horror. And it is here that they show fineness and deceptions. They decorate their law with the name of wisdom to cover all that is reprehensible, because the blame cannot fall on the wisdom. They treat, on the contrary, our law of madness to drive away men. But leave aside these names of wisdom and madness; let us repress this spirit of rivalry which the defense of two opposing parties always engenders, and put the two laws in the presence of one another so that we can clearly see where wisdom is, where madness is. What! the sign of the cross alone imposes silence on paganism. In the presence of what they call a madness, their wisdom is silent, their victims dare not answer. Their entrails remain silent and mute out of respect for the majesty of the Christian religion. Is it not a wonder that what they decorate with the name of wisdom trembles before what they treat of madness? Let us now compare the very content of these two laws. The pagans admit in their writings that they adore gods and goddesses, and they say true, because they render divine honors to divinities of both sexes. Janus and Saturn, Jupiter and Mercury, Apollo, etc.; on the other hand, Minerva, Isis, Fruxilla, Venus, Flora the courtesan, etc. are as many gods and goddesses as the stories of the Greeks and Romans attest. The Christians whom they treat as fools are less rich; they adore in the mystery of divinity only one God, the principle of all things, and they grant divine honors to none of the things he created. They are convinced that it alone and amply suffices for salvation, and they know that they outrage it by attributing to others its glory and its name; and indeed, no sovereign allows one to confound with him his tribunes and his officers. Now compare these two laws; where is wisdom here? in the law that adores the Creator or the one who adores the creature? in the law which prostrates itself only before the Lord, or in that which prostitutes the divine honors to his servants? Can it be that in a house there are two masters? and how can pagans, versed in judicial expertise, and who claim to be wise men, in the same world created by one and the same God, adore an infinite number of gods and goddesses? They give the name of gods to those who rule and govern the world, whereas they do not believe in providence. Now, the pronouncement of a wicked doctrine is an act of improvidence and madness. God must necessarily avenge his outraged glory against those who dare to attribute to their fellow-creatures the name and prerogatives of the Godhead. Let's move on to what each of these laws says. Our law, which they treat as foolish, makes it a duty to choose for pontiffs and altar ministers only men of pure manners, of a holy and irreproachable life; the tradition of the pagans, on the other hand, requires that one be fit to become priests and ministers of their divinities only on the condition that men become women, in order to be able to lend themselves more freely to feminine acts. This is how we see them shake their hair indecently in the bath, and make an angry voice sound, hail and dissolute. If they dared to commit themselves in public to these excesses, they would be stoned by all the people. And what about that Cynocephalus (Anubis) who is always wandering and who seeks in every place the scattered members of the adulterous Osiris, husband of Isis? It is with such ministers, it is in the school of such masters that these pagans dare to adorn themselves with the name of sages, whereas far from finding in them the shadow of wisdom, we meet only the crime. Nothing is more fatal, indeed, than to love the obscenities and depravities of vice. What shall I say of the shameful scenes which take place in the caves where they hide their eyes? To escape from the shame of the obscenities with which the blistering is printed on them, they are blindfolded; some flap their wings like birds, imitating the voice of the raven, others sound the roar of lions; others, hands tied with the intestines of young horses, are thrown on pits full of water; one of them approaches with a sword, cuts the knots formed by these intestines, and proclaims himself their liberator. Other actions are more obscene yet. See how degrading depravities are the victim of these men who decree the name of wise men. Because these shameful scenes are accomplished in the shadows, they imagine that they cannot be known. But the holy Christian faith has revealed and brought to light all those mysteries of iniquity that vicious and degraded men have invented and accomplished in secret. When this faith was preached, those who heard it, delighted with this doctrine of virtue and holiness, hastened to embrace it and to abandon these secret mysteries of shame and disgrace, they confessed that they had been the victim of ignorance. Almost all of them were victims of this guilty error, and they looked at each other as wise, because there was no one who took them back. For although all were deceived in the deceitful ways of the same idolatry, however, each had made a cult adapted to his tastes and his habits, so that one and the same mistake took different forms, according to the customs and the immoral life of those who established it. Thus the called mysteries of Bacchus are the triumph of pessimism and shame joined to the excesses of fury. Fornication, indeed, rarely goes without anger; everywhere else with Bacchus we see represented Priapus, with whom he had an infamous commerce. All other mysteries are of the same kind, but Satan used his ordinary finesses and tricks to catch men in these shameful nets. It was already under his inspiration that men had established these unclean mysteries; but when they were established, he overlaid them with certain prestige calculated to seduce men and lead them into error. Thus the tradition of antiquity served as a passport to lies, and an excuse for these shameful inventions. By force of habit, we no longer consider as shameful what was the height of shame. In fact, a first outrage makes one blush, but the habit imperceptibly softens the repulsive features of vice, and the forehead becomes hardened to shame, especially if one is surrounded by a large number of accomplices. Indeed, it is a conquest for shame when it manages to imprint its stain on individuals of distinction that easily find imitators. If for so many centuries they have been able to cover themselves with the name of sages, because there was no voice to condemn these overwhelming inventions; today, that thanks to the mercy of God, light has been made for the human race, that it condemns as a crime what was then regarded as a law, and presents to men as true wisdom what then it was a madness, they should stop wearing this name, give up persevering in infamies that are brought to light, and recognize that they are unworthy of the name of wise. But, on the contrary, to put the finishing touch to their folly of which they are convinced, they continue to treat fools who expose their extravagance. They accuse our faith and its late appearance on earth; as for the precepts imposed on us, they admit that they are irreproachable. But the accusation they make against our faith is less against us than against its divine author. They call us foolish for believing unreasonable things, and they accuse of falsehood, deceit, and imposture God who has given us faith, so they say, to throw us into error. Let us prove to them, Christians, that it is not without reason that we have believed, and we will then defend the cause of the author of our faith. When we lived in the error in which the Gentiles are still today, we have learned what they call their sacred dogmas by simple words which no miraculous sign has confirmed; we looked upon it as useful in this doctrine, not what the Divinity had revealed, but the tradition of an ancient custom, and having been the plaything of a thousand vain illusions, we have recognized, which is no mystery to anyone that it contains no hope of salvation. What usefulness could be in fact a doctrine which was a pure invention of men? For us, on the contrary, we have been led to believe in God and his Son incarnate and crucified, not by speeches but by facts. We have seen resurrected dead, purified lepers, the eyes of a blind-born open to light, demons driven out, and all diseases healed. Now let us be told when we were mad, when we believed in mere words, or when we only wanted to believe on facts? There is no doubt that the facts preceded the words, since the latter were put into use only to express the facts. If, then, without the testimony of any prodigy we have believed in a human tradition which has been invented only to seduce the spirits of men, how much more must we believe a doctrine of which miracles which can only have God for author, demonstrate the divinity? Would we not rightly pass for fools, if we refused to believe the testimonies of divine power, after having believed in mere speeches? Would not our conduct be at once improvident and inconsiderate, if we reject the call that hope makes us after voluntarily following a doctrine without hope? They object to us that the object of our faith is absurd. It is contrary to reason, they say, that God has a Son, and that bodies that are victims of death and dissolution can come back to life again. All the philosophers and the authors of various sects fought each other by means of contradictory discussions, without any of them having ever embraced another sect, because each one wanted to stay in the one that had indoctrinated him. These contradictory discussions made victory impossible. No one could prove that he was victorious; they got tired of this conflict of opposing doctrines, but never succeeded in persuasion. That is why the providence of God, whose designs are impenetrable, has resolved to join miracles to preaching, so that the truth of preaching may be confirmed by the irrefutable testimonies of divine power, and to silence the contradiction that would have failed to attack the doctrine. What more convincing proof of the truth than the operation of miracles? Now, if one insists against these miracles by denying the reliability of the Scriptures, how can one accuse our faith of madness, since we do not admit the testimony of the Scriptures? For in the same books where it is written of Jesus Christ that we must believe that He is the Son of God, we find these testimonies of the divine power. Will anyone say that it is an absurdity that Jesus Christ the Son of God has been crucified, that he will continue reading these sacred books, and he will find that he is risen from the dead, and he will understand that it is neither without reason nor against his will that Christ is dead, since he has been able to resurrect, but that there is a mystery here. Whatever may be the contradiction, then, he will cease to speak of the cross, because if he treats it as madness, he cannot treat the resurrection in the same way, for the resurrection serves as a defense to the cross; or if he tries to speak of the cross, he will not be able to deny Divine providence manifested in it, and that he sees confirmed by the testimony of the resurrection, for these two facts must be accepted, or both of them rejected in such a way that the prosecution is rendered impossible as the defense. But why did the Son of God allow himself to be tied to a cross? It is a mystery whose explanation is reserved for members of his family. He speaks of this death in such elevated terms, that he declares that it is the principle of his glory. "I have the power," he says, "to give my life, and I have the power to take it back.” (Jn. 10:18) So he was not forced to die, because he had the power to die and to resurrect. Anyone who disputes this power, cannot say that he has been the victim of a violent death, because if he denies this power, he can no longer assert that he is dead, since there is no mention of this power only in the book where we read that he was delivered to death. No one can condemn the last events by those who precede, nor the first by those who follow, for there can be no contradiction in facts which belong to one and the same body of doctrine. As for the resurrection of the dead, they do not speak sincerely, saying that it is a folly to believe in it, for they have before them examples which make it credible to them. Do not all the seeds necessary for the life of man begin to dissolve and die before being reborn to life? If this is the order God has established for things that are for the use of men, why treat fools who believe that God follows the same course for their bodies? But they are themselves foolish in refusing to God the power which they are obliged to recognize in the world; for the time of these great acts of power has not yet come, and here we see only the shadow. This is where God wanted the seed of faith to grow in hearts. Yet we see that the only invocation of the cross strikes the demons of terror, and if it is repeated it puts them to flight; and the gods of the pagans, trembling and fearful in the name alone of the cross, dare no longer render their oracles. If the death of Jesus Christ is a reproach, why does it imprint terror? A death that is the punishment of a crime must be an object of contempt rather than fear. Who dares to fear a man put to death for his crimes? Even if he were innocent, we feel sorry for him, but we do not fear him. If, therefore, the demons and gods of the Gentiles did not feel that the cross of Jesus Christ contained a mystery, his name alone would not strike them with terror, and to tell the whole truth they would not tremble in front of him if they were not guilty; for all who stand with the demonic party have been accomplices in the death of Jesus Christ. That is why the only name of the cross inspires fear and terror to all the demons or false deities of the nations. For every man who has taken part in the death of an innocent man cannot hear his name without his heart being full of terror. Remembering his crime, he sees how guilty he is. How much more are the demons or the gods of the nations, who are the perpetrators of the death of the Lord and Savior of the world? But the Gentiles claim to possess the truth as seniority; what has priority, they say, cannot be false; as if seniority or a custom that dates back far enough to form a privilege favorable to the truth. Then the homicides, the eminences, the adulterers, all those who are guilty of other vices could as such defend their crimes, because they have for them the antiquity and go back to the origin of the world. It is, on the contrary, what should convince them of their error, because we find an evil beginning to what is guilty and ashamed, whereas what is honest and holy has always been honored as it deserved, and it is impossible that vice preceded virtue. In the end, it cannot be denied that the religion of the Gentiles is of human invention, while it is evident that ours has God as author. The majesty of God was manifested on the mountain to give the law to men; and to render it more worthy of faith, he preceded it by a multitude of miracles and wonders wrought in Egypt, and which are still attested today by the books which Ptolemy has preserved in the library of Alexandria. God deigned to give his law with such an imposing device that no one could doubt that he was the author. The majesty of God was publicly revealed to all eyes with so much brilliancy and with circumstances so apt to inspire terror that it was impossible not to believe that he was the only God and that men should observe this that he commanded them. And to convince you that everything here is worthy of divine wisdom, examine this law and see if it prescribes anything contrary to justice, decency, or simply ridicule. This is how God had to make himself known. He who cannot be constrained by any space should not appear in a place ignored as an impostor, nor as in a mirror or by a deceptive mirage, where we see something other than what exists, and the precepts he imposed were not to be performed in darkness to cover what they had contrary to decency and virtue. The knowledge of one God was erased in the world under the multiplicity of the crimes of men; the lie had covered the truth with a veil; it was then that God, in his clemency and mercy, unwilling to let his work perish, deigned to visit mankind. He did not appear as those who took the title of gods, but he manifested himself as the truth of God to destroy the error that had corrupted the minds of men by the preaching of the plurality of the gods. The six hundred thousand or more men who had come out of Egypt saw and recognized that it was the God who is above all to the extraordinary brightness of his ineffable glory (Exod. 20:18); They feared to approach him and worshiped him from afar in the ground. New wonders, different from those he had wrought in Egypt, made known to all by their divine character that he was the one and only God. The knowledge of these wonders spread among all peoples, they were an object of terror for the neighboring nations. What have the like made of the gods of the nations? In what country, to what people have they manifested their glory? What miracles, what prodigies have they performed as proofs of their divinity? In what place, in what time did they make their voices heard? A foolish people has begun to render divine honors to fantastic shades, to demons, to the images of the dead, and this worship, having become habituated by a usage of several centuries, claims to make a title for it to support that it is the truth. Now, the truth does not come from the custom, which is itself the result of an old custom, but of God, who makes himself recognized as God not by his antiquity, but by his eternity. So faith is not a thing that begins, it is strictly speaking without beginning. When we believe in God, we begin to believe; as to the object of our faith, it is eternal. How then can the pagans boast of being before us, since what is the object of their worship came only after God? Is the work not after the craftsman? The pagans adore the works, we adore the author of these works; they worship the creature, we worship the Creator. Did God, who certainly created the world, not make himself known to men by this creation? Shall we say that he has made man and that he does not want the homage of him whom he has created? It's an absurdity. Hardly out of the hands of God, man adored his Creator, because in this way he demanded reason and justice. The worship of the true God having been weakened on the earth by the negligence of men, God renewed it in the person of Abraham so that the knowledge of God which had been given to Adam began again in Abraham, that his children were raised in this knowledge, that it perpetuated without interruption and that there were always on the earth men who adored the true God. The foreign peoples themselves were called to this knowledge of God. Thus, the subject who knows how to begin, the object that is known is above all beginning. On what grounds do pagans thus rely to pretend that their religion is older than ours? If the world is anterior to God (which we cannot admit), paganism is anterior to Christianity. It is not the name of religion that adores a single God in the mystery of the Trinity. That the name of Christ comes from chrisma (unction), we must always recognize that the reason of the name is before the anointing. In our fathers, those who received the royal anointing were called Christs and bore the image of Christ to come, who was born of God the Father to be king and to bear the name of Christ rightly; for birth gave him what anointing gives to the kings of the earth. As long as the pagans do not know this truth, they reject it; but as soon as they know her, they embrace her fervently, and rejoice at having passed from falsehood to truth and evil. If they have, with all their enthusiasm, supported babbles and nonsense, we see them deploy a force, a much greater passion, to sustain the truth. What, then, is our Christ, whom we hate only when we do not know him, and cannot help loving when we know him? For the wicked, on the contrary, we love them when we do not know them, and we hate them as soon as we know them. How many who, in the past, had hatred for Christ and who love him today, and who regret having been able to hate what they did not know? One thing that one does not know is always foolish, for one must first of all see if it deserves the hatred one bears to it. Those who are fighting our religion today will be tomorrow's defenders and will regret bitterly for knowing the truth too late. If it were really worthy of hatred, or if it contained some deception, every day Christians would return to paganism. But on the contrary, because it is the truth, every day and at any time the Gentiles, and among them the wise and the noble of this world, abandon the worship of Jupiter, whom they recognized as god, to come running to Jesus Christ, to whom belongs honor and glory for ever and ever.
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 125. AGAINST EUSEBIUS. — I remember having read earlier in a booklet composed by Eusebius, a character of an otherwise remarkable doctrine, that the Holy Spirit had not known the mystery of the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and I am sure that such a great man has dared to advance such an unworthy opinion for the Holy Spirit; for it is thereby declaring that he is inferior to God. It cannot be said, indeed, that it comes from God if he does not know the things of God (Jn. 10:30), because an inferior nature does not know the properties of a superior nature. If, on the contrary, he has the same nature, the same divinity, how can he ignore things that are of his nature? The Son of God after saying, "My Father and I are one," (Jn. 10:30) to establish the unity of nature between his Father and him, adds with reason: "All that belongs to my Father is mine, and all that belongs to me is to my Father." (Jn. 16:15) If, then, the Holy Spirit has the same divinity, why refuse him the same knowledge while granting him the same nature? You grant him the essential prerogative, and you dispute that which is secondary. The creature learns, and by its actions begins to know some truths about its author, and these truths are common to him, but nature and divinity can never be common between God and the creature. The divine nature has nothing to learn, because there is nothing it does not know; human nature, on the contrary, does not have knowledge as an essential property, it must learn. Knowledge, then, adds to, but does not change, human nature, for man does not possess science by virtue of his nature, he was created to acquire knowledge by his labor. Substance is therefore superior to knowledge, for it is not knowledge that acquires substance, but substance that acquires knowledge; we can, moreover, suppose the substance without knowledge, but not knowledge without substance. In God, on the contrary, knowledge is equal to substance, for the substance which has nothing to learn is itself its knowledge. That's why everything in God is substantial. The substance that nothing lacks possesses everything substantially, because the learning cannot add anything to it. How then can one say of the Holy Spirit that he does not know the birth of the Son of God if he is consubstantial with him? Is knowledge and ignorance compatible in one and the same substance? It is certain that the Son of God did not learn the mystery of his birth, he knows it by virtue of his nature and not by learning; What reason is there for saying that the Holy Spirit does not know, since he himself does not need to learn anything because he knows everything by his nature? Like the Son of God, the Holy Spirit is the substance of God, according to these words of the Savior: All that is to my Father is mine, words which signify that His substance is the same as the substance of God the Father. He also teaches us that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from what is his. "For this reason," he says, "he will receive from what is mine, because all that belongs to my Father is mine.” If he proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son, how can he ignore the birth of the Son, since his substance is the very substance of the Son? For all that is to the Father is to the Son; therefore, without a doubt, the substance of the Father is in the Holy Spirit. In fact, the Son added: "And all that is mine is mine Father." Why then doubt that the Holy Spirit has the same divinity, since he has the same nature? Our Lord does not declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as He proceeds from Himself? And to prevent any other interpretation: and He proceeds from the Father, he says, “and will receive from what is mine.” (Jn. 15:26, 16:14) That is, for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father is to receive from what is Christ Jesus. We say that he receives from what is the Son of God, and by the same we affirm that he is of God, and that the Spirit certainly possesses the substance and divinity of the Father. He who therefore claims that he does not know the birth of the Son of God is an insult to him from whom the Holy Spirit has received. For he receives nothing but the very nature of the one who receives, since to receive from what is to Jesus Christ is to proceed from God; he cannot therefore ignore what he knows from whom he has received what he is, he cannot ignore the Lord, since he proceeds from God. The Son of God, by the same thing that He comes from God the Father, knows all things of God; why then deny that the Spirit knows all that pertains to Jesus Christ, since he has received from him what he is? If therefore the Son of God knows what is in God, no doubt that the Holy Spirit also knows what is in the Son of God, and if he knows what is in the Son, why say that he does not know what is in the Son, who is in God? He whom he receives gives him the knowledge of God. But why so many reasonings? Does not the Apostle testify to this truth when he says, "Nobody knows what is in God, except the Spirit of God?" (1 Cor. 2:11) This is the goal of our efforts attained with the aid of this testimony of the Apostle. Now, this statement that no one knows what is in God except the Spirit of God, does it harm the Son of God? Just as the Son in no way prejudices the rights of the Holy Spirit when he says, "No one knows the Father, except the Son." (Matt. 11:27) He declares that no one knows what is in God, except that which is of God, for all that is of God knows God, and that which is in God. The nature of God knows Himself, and as you are obliged to recognize this nature in the Holy Spirit, by that alone that it proceeds from the Father and that he has received from the Son, he would be reckless to say that he does not know God the Father whose nature you recognize in him. And yet the Savior declares that no one knows God the Father, except the Son, but he reserves to another person the secret of this knowledge, immediately adding, "And he to whom the Son willed to reveal it." Whom does the Son want to reveal this truth? No one can be more intimate or dearer to him than his Spirit, because, says the Apostle: "He who does not have the Spirit of Jesus Christ is not his." (Rom 8:9) How then do you think that God the Father was revealed to the Holy Spirit by the Son, if not in the way the Lord Himself indicates to us by these words: "He will receive from me?” In fact, God the Father cannot be revealed to a mere creature, for to be able to bear the knowledge of the divine nature, we must have this same nature, since God dwells in a light inaccessible to all creatures. (1 Tim. 6:16) But there are some who maintain as reasonable the feeling of this who claim that the Holy Spirit has not known the mystery of the birth of the Son of God, because it is written of him that he scrutinizes all things (1 Cor. 2:10), and that to scrutinize is a clue that one does not know. But this expression must be understood by other similar places. Thus we see in Scripture that God says, "I, God, I search the loins and the hearts," (Jer. 17:10) and in a psalm: "God scrutinizes hearts and loins;" (Ps. 2:10) and the Apostle himself says, "He who searches the hearts knows what are the desires of the Spirit, because he asks for the saints what is according to God." (Rom. 8:27) It can be seen from these examples that the Holy Spirit is not to be seen as synonymous with ignorance, but also that he is scrutinizing the depths of God, and what are those depths of God that he is probing. To scrutinize the hidden things, means to enter here, so that it does not remain unknown to him. The deep mysteries of God are the inner mysteries of the divinity which cannot be scrutinized by the creature. We still read that the Holy Spirit request according to the will of God for the saints what the saints do not know at the testimony of the Apostle: "For we do not know what we must ask of God in prayer." (Rom. 8:26) To know the deep secrets of God and to know his will are therefore two synonymous things. Indeed, what mystery deeper than the will of God, known mystery of the Holy Spirit and unknown to all others? It is necessary to examine, in fact, what is the meaning of these words: "Who among men knows what is in man, but the spirit of the man who is in him?” The mind is here taken for the soul, because in fact no one knows what is in the soul of man, except his soul which is his spirit. In the same way, no one knows the things of God, except the Spirit of God, that is to say God himself, for he who is of God can only be understood as God himself. The Spirit of God knows what is in God because he is of God. If, in fact, no one knows God's thoughts, how much more can no one know the secrets and the will of God, if he is not of God, that is to say, if he God himself, for God is known only from Him alone. To speak even exactly there is no thought in God. God does not discuss in himself what he must do or not do, deliberating whether it is useful to act, for all that is in God exists in a certain way not by accident, but substantially not as a result of learning, but by virtue of its nature, because he is immutable. The Holy Spirit knows the mysteries of God only in virtue of his nature, for the same nature must have the same thought, the same will. He speaks of God who is always one and immutable, whether in the Son or in the Holy Spirit. What the Father wants, the Son wants, too, and what the Son wants, the Holy Spirit also wants. This is why he is sometimes called the Spirit of God, sometimes the Spirit of Jesus Christ. He proceeds from God, says the Savior, and he will receive from what is mine. That is why the Apostle St. John says: "It is the Spirit He has given us that we know that God dwells in us.” (1 Jn. 3:24) If then when the Spirit of God is in us, they say that God abides in us; the Spirit of God is here God himself. Besides, it is the sign for the faithful that they are the children of God, and it is after having received the Holy Spirit that they dare proclaim themselves the children of God. If they do not have this divine sign, they cannot be entitled to the name of children of God. Let us say, however, that no one can be the true Son of God in the sense that he would come wholly from God, considered in all the extent of his nature, like Christ. It is through adoption that Christians become the children of God. The Spirit of Jesus Christ that they receive gives them the right to be called the children of God, because this Spirit they have in them comes from God. In even adoptive children one must at least partly find the nature of the father. In the world where things are flawed, those who are adopted by men do not receive any proof of their adoption, except for the name they bear. But God, perfection itself, does more; he shares with his adopted sons his Spirit, which gives the adoption a true certainty, for the names without things are meaningless. The Apostle comes to the support of our feeling when he exclaims, "O depth of the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how incomprehensible are his judgments, and his ways impenetrable!" (Rom. 11:33) But how is it that he says elsewhere that the depths of God is to say the secrets can be probed, while he declares here that they are impenetrable? The Apostle in this place wants to speak about the creature for whom the secrets or the judgments of God are really impenetrable. But for the Holy Spirit who knows all things of God, he declares that he can search all that is in God, and affirms that the Spirit of God cannot ignore what remains unknown to the creature. We cannot deny the nature of God; he necessarily knows what is inaccessible to the creature. Those who give the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, an inferior rank, shake the divine decree which makes the salvation of all men dependent on the mystery of the divine Trinity, for if the Holy Spirit is not consubstantial to God and to Christ, it is ridiculous to place him in the same rank as the Father and the Son, and to say that without him no one can claim either to salvation or to the God-givenness of a child of God. If he does not have the same divinity, it is a folly to affirm it, or a gratuitous concession made to it, which God forbid! What a little wise spirit will dare to argue that the creature may be placed in the same rank as the Creator, the Lord to be likened to him who has a beginning, the Lord equal to the servant, the mighty confounded with him who has no power, the one who knows everything with the one who lacks knowledge? It is time to put an end to this slanderous accusation. The Holy Spirit is the third in order of enumeration and not by nature; by the rank which we give him, and not by his divinity as the third divine person, and not because he has not all knowledge. Just as the Son comes second after the Father, without being inferior to him in divinity, so the Holy Spirit comes after the Son, without being inferior to him; on the contrary, he has with him the same nature, the same divinity. All that we read of the Son of God, we also read from the Holy Spirit to the testimony of the Son of God himself. It is he who says in effect: "I will pray to my Father, and he will give you another Comforter, the Spirit of truth. (Jn. 1:16) Saying: Another comforter, he teaches us that he himself is a comforter. St. John teaches us the same truth when he says that the Son of God intercedes for our sins. (1 Jn. 2:2) And the Apostle St. Paul says of the Holy Spirit: "The Spirit of God asks for us." (Rom. 8:26) As you can see, Scripture presents them both as our advocates near God. Our Lord still calls him the Spirit of truth, and thereby shows that he is in all likeness to him who said, "I am the truth." (Jn. 14:6) He declares that he was sent by his Father, and he promises to send the Holy Spirit, and if he is not inferior to the Father who sends him, the Holy Spirit is not inferior to the Son by whom he is sent. These three distinct persons are not like each other's members each having different attributions, they all have the same power, without any of them being anything less than another. To finish this question, for we have already discussed it more thoroughly in the booklet which we have composed against the impiety of the Arians, in which we have embraced all that relates to the indivisible unity of the Trinity.
2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 1. AGAINST THOSE WHO DENY THAT GOD IS INTERESTED IN THE ACTIONS OF MEN. — There are many that the darkness of this world have blinded and cannot suffer to see us watch with scrupulous vigilance the commandments of God, flee the opportunities of sin, apply us with a holy zeal to the practice of all good works remain insensitive to seductive charms and the charms of vices, to be superior to all the false pleasures of the world, willingly and courageously to bear all the pains, all torments for the name of God, to despise death itself by the power of the mind. They are those to whom all human thoughts have persuaded that none of the actions of life are worthy of praise or blame. They do not want God to be interested in any way. It is even who, in order to defend their faults and their crimes, go so far as to say: It is useless to live well or gravely, for God has no concern to consider attentively the various actions you do under the inspiration of your particular desires, good or bad, and to rest your eyes on some of your acts, sometimes very humiliating. All the actions that men do according to their desires are vain. He who is united with God remains isolated and separated from all human things; he is not irritated, he is not moved by anything; he does not stop to consider any of the events, any of the actions of the life of men; the rapid course of this world and the inconceivable whirlwind of human changes prevail and carry it so far that one must be regarded as a fool by claiming that one can be the object of the particular providence of God. The martyrs themselves, who celebrate the mercy of God and believe him to be pleasing by shedding their blood for him, are in error. Nothing in us is agreeable or obnoxious to him; he is indifferent to the miseries of our mortal condition as well as to that which can contribute to his happiness; he does not wish to know any of the actions of men, not that it is impossible for his divine majesty to have knowledge of all these past or present actions, but because he wants to remain a stranger to the miseries of men and to the vanities of this world. Is it not written: "Vanity of those who indulge in vanity and all is vanity!” (Eccl. 1:21) This doctrine, which is supported by despair, is fought against and destroyed not only by the authority of the divine oracles, but by the religious language that we usually find on the lips of men. When good and bad faith are in the middle of the business of various profitable dealings, they invoke the testimony of the deity that they claim to know nothing of what we do. I take God to witness, they say; may God see us, may God judge us; May God intervene and take care of justice. And when the oath is recognized as necessary, he who must lend it fears the consequences of perjury, and the oath is required of him in the persuasion that a false oath would not remain without punishment. Have they recovered their health, the object of so many prayers and so many vows, they render to God thanksgiving! Have they escaped an accident that seriously threatened their lives? It is to the goodness of God, they say, that they are indebted to them. And when the unleashed winds upset the sea, lift the waves and come to beat against the shaken sides of the ship, all the passengers raise their hands to heaven, address to God the most urgent supplications, and have the firm hope that he can answer them and deliver them. Now, where does this persuasion come from, if God is completely indifferent to what touches us, and if he completely ignores what we are doing? This doctrine is therefore without foundation; God knows all things. Let no one, therefore, blame himself that the crimes he has committed will go unpunished. The reward of a holy life is great; his eternal torments are the punishment of a guilty life. To us, therefore, who believe that God knows all things, who runs to martyrdom with holy eagerness, God reserves an inappreciable reward, an eternally happy life; but for the wicked who taught that God knew neither their crimes nor their undisclosed and secret depravities, they have to wait for a devouring fire, and a fire that will not cease to consume them. |