MISCELLANEOUS
1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 1. WHAT IS GOD? — He is a being that no conception can attain; he is above every word as of every thought. Let us say, however, something which, without being at the height of so great majesty, appears in something less unworthy of God. Every nature conceives of God an idea proportionate to his capacity, and the difference which exists in natures is also found in the thoughts and judgments that we form of God. God above everything must necessarily go beyond the concerns of all created spirits. Men, regardless of the extent of their spirit, see what God is rather by conjecture than by definite definition. The angels, who are superior to men, have of God, without doubt, higher ideas, and for the same reason these thoughts are still more sublime, more extended in the archangels, in the cherubim and the seraphim, spiritual powers more closer to God, without these spirits being able to comprehend fully what God is. For no one knows the Father except the Son, as no one knows the Son except the Father. God is therefore, as he appears to men, a spirit simple in nature, an inaccessible light, invisible, incomprehensible, infinite, perfect, independent, eternal, immortal in all respects, the principle of all things, worthy of veneration, of love, out of fear, beyond which nothing exists, in which are all things that are above or below us, the highest as the lowest, being all-powerful, embracing all, truly rich in all things, because everything comes from him, good, just, merciful. He is good because he gave being to creatures that did not exist. He is just because he has given the use of liberty to the beings whom he has created capable of progress; but as their perfection is not great enough to render them unshakable, he has poured forth into their hearts the seed of the natural law, and he has added the help of a clearly revealed law, which consecrated the rights of his authority, in the eyes of men. He is merciful because he does not punish followers easily but supports them to forgive repentance. He is strict in preserving by a salutary fear his creatures in the kindness he has given them, and in saving them from the abyss into which their negligence precipitates them. And so as not to blame what is more admirable still, his clemency is so great that he bears the outrages of his own creatures and calls them first to be reconciled with him. Is not this the act of power greater than creation itself? But this excessive goodness, by too much perseverance, could harm the creature. So he wants to inspire sometimes love, sometimes fear to men not to let those who stray away from him perish. It is in order not to expose his patience to contempt which, without reaching it, would turn to our ruin, that he tells us by his prophet: "I have been silent so far, will I always remain silent?” (Isa. 42:14) Thus, God is good, and all that he has done is also good, where does the evil come from? The evil is only the transgression of good that takes place or when forbidden things are done, or when they are used in a disorderly manner from those that are permitted, so that the commandment falls on one object and the sin on another, for example when one uses with a woman of a bad life of the rights which one has only on one's wife, when one offers to the devil that which should be offered only to God, that one seizes not of his good, but of the good of others when, in the end, the innocent is put to death for the guilty, no nature, therefore, essentially approves of evil. The will is an accident of nature, and has its source in causes which may to bear to evil when it wants to go beyond the bounds and engage in acts contrary to its nature. But the causes of prevarication come from the senses when, for example, we see or hear certain things contrary to the established order. And the reason for this error is that man is not God, and God alone is safe from error. Human nature has been left to her free will to do what she wants. If man adds by exercise to the goodness of his nature, he becomes more worthy of honor; if he weakens his natural vigor, he deserves to be punished, for he acts against himself. It is a very important grace given to man that this feeling of joy which he feels when he follows the right path, seeing that his actions make him more perfect, and on the contrary that this interior judgment which makes him to blame himself for not having sought to make himself better by the practice of good works. If man were not master of his actions, he would have been a slave to necessity, he should receive neither the glorious reward of his good deeds, nor the punishment of evil; he would be like animals. God has therefore created us with the faculty or fishing by default of care if we see, if we hear in a bad intention, that is to say contrary to the rule and the reason of the things we had to see and hear for an entirely opposite purpose; or to keep, with the help of vigilance, the good he has put in our nature. However, we cannot always be on our guard, precisely because of this double faculty that is in us; If, then, we fail, we are not immediately condemned, unless we fall back into the same faults by a sort of treason. Whoever has sinned a first time must immediately guard against the dangers of a new fall, not to become like the one who triumphed over him, and on the contrary to be superior to him by guaranteeing himself of any relapse into sin. A single defeat can thus become the occasion of a double triumph. Justice demands, in fact, that since the present life is a fight, the one who is more strongly solicited to sin should be crowned when he resists temptation. There is nothing wrong with the works of God. If some claim that it is an evil that poison, darkness, because our bodies cannot stand the violence of poison, that they also say that fire or water is an evil, that iron or lead are an evil, because there is a great difference between them and gold. They condemn darkness by comparison with light, although they know that it is necessary in their day, like lead or brick, because it is they who give us rest after work. He who therefore fights generously in this world must oppose the strongest resistance, if he does not want to succumb in the midst of difficult temptations, to be guilty in the eyes of God, to expose himself to the consequences of late or imperfect repentance, to be surprised by death in this state, and come out of this life with his sin. He who bravely resisted, if he comes to be overthrown, falls at least like a man of heart, no one is angry with him, and he himself excites his soul to repair this failure. Everyone sees that his intention was to win, and it is hoped that he will be able to win the more easily that his defeat has cost his enemy more trouble. He, on the other hand, who can easily be conquered, had no intention of resisting. Properly speaking, he is not vanquished, he consents to his defeat. His sin is therefore more serious. He who has vowed to sin can scarcely hope for his forgiveness. On the contrary, he who meditates seriously on the means of avoiding sin is more excusable if he fails; for even the most vigilant, escapes from these faults which are smaller or lighter. Now, the smaller they are, the more imperceptible they are, and the contempt of them prevents them from being avoided. More serious faults appear from a distance. So he who commits them can only accuse his guilty will. We have said above that sins have their source in the senses, when we see or hear something against the commandment of the law or against reason; if, for example, by considering the sun we believe that we should adore it because of its beauty, we see it in a guilty way, because it is outraging the Creator to render to the creature honors that are not owing to him alone, and it is he himself who associates this defense by law. In the same way, if we see bodies whose form equals brightness and beauty, or something else belonging to the neighbor, we are the object of our desires and we cast upon them defended glances by the law, we commit a sin that is a real evil. Perhaps they will say to me: God was not to give to anybody the beauty in sharing, they would not be for us an occasion of sin, and their disillusionment would be our support, our security. But then iron itself should not exist, since it serves as an instrument for homicides. Why still the lamps that thieves can use for their crimes? That is, the most useful things should be removed for these futile reasons. Is it not obvious that all these objects are still before our eyes without however they always excite our desires? It is not these objects, it is we ourselves who must be accused when we are careless, a sad result of the distance that separates the creature from the Creator. We lend a guilty ear to the speeches which affirm that idols are gods, if we give our consent at the same time, or if we hear obscene songs willingly. On the contrary, we do well to listen, if we experience a real sense of joy when we are told that God is one. He who hears speeches against the law and gives his consent is guilty, and he hurts by listening to them.
1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 4. WHY DID NOT GOD GIVE THE LAW FROM THE BEGINNING? — The written law was not to be given first of all, because it is in some way engraved in nature, and the knowledge of the Creator was perpetuated by the tradition of father in sons. Who does not know what the life of a good man requires? who can ignore that he must not do to another what he does not want to be done to himself? But the natural law having come to be weakened by the weight of criminal habits, a clearly revealed law became necessary, and the Jewish people were chosen to make it known to all men. It was not that the natural law was entirely erased, but since it had lost most of its authority, men were left to idolatry. No more fear of God on earth, where the most shameful vices dominated, and where each eagerly coveted the good of his neighbor. It was therefore necessary to give a law which sanctioned the authority of known precepts and made known those who were beginning to darken in the minds of men. Indeed, even before Moses, not only were the precepts of the law not unknown, but the transgression was severely punished. So we find a lot of righteous men who avoided sin, because they knew that God would not let him go unpunished. This salutary fear of sin having successively diminished, it became necessary to reveal the natural law, to make plainly known to all men that God would ask them for their actions. Divine vengeance, it is true, had been felt by sinners in the flood and ruin of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 7:11, 19:24), but the antiquity of these punishments had made them fall into oblivion. Moses, therefore, thought it his duty to call them to frighten the followers, to urge them to change their lives, and to reform their ideas of God. This is why the Apostle says, "The law is not established for the righteous, but for the unrighteous, for the worshipers of idols, for fornicators, and other sinners alike." (1 Tim. 1:9) Let's see now if the law is in agreement with those who make fun of the judgment of God of which they are threatened, let us see if it is useful or harmful, if it has the truth for support or if it is devoid of reason. In the world, it is true, but we see it without action on many, so it is not right that those who sin here, by abusing their power, enjoy peace and security. Elsewhere, we see the laws mocked, the poor oppressed, the just victims of unjust accusations, the people well covered with contempt, the pious men in poverty, the wicked in prosperity, the iniquity in the honors, miseries and captors in riches, the justice of a shameful traffic. Would it not be an injustice for the Creator of the world to let such disorders go unpunished? No, it must rise, let it glorify the victims of an unjust oppression, and reward those whose virtue has gathered down here only hardships, that it honors those who have been covered with contempt for justice. As for those who, by an unjust abuse of their power, have despised the laws, or have made use of them by their ploys, partisans of the iniquity of which pride and arrogance are a real insult to justice, they must be humiliated, confounded, and delivered to the torture in the presence of the just whom they have enjoyed humbling and persecuting, and who, in a real feeling of joy, will thus give thanks to God who does not accept people (Rom 2:11), punishments of their oppressors.
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 48. GOD IS UNDOUBTEDLY SUPREMELY PERFECT AND INDEPENDENT OF ALL THINGS; WHAT WAS IT THEN THAT CHRIST THE SAVIOR WAS BORN OF GOD, AND THAT GOD HAD A SON BY WHOM HE DID ALL THINGS? — God having resolved to draw from nothing everything that exists, and knowing that this work was in no way connected with his majesty, at first begotten of himself, a simple and incorporeal nature, a Son which was absolutely similar to him, by an act that perfectly matched his greatness. In fact, what could he do more than to engender of himself a being whose perfection was equal to his own? It is the perfect work, and we cannot imagine a more excellent one. All the other works are much inferior; for the higher the Christ is raised above all creatures, the lower their creation is below his generation. Let us say again that God, the principle of all things, wishing to draw creatures from nothingness, at first engendered the Word which was in the mysterious depths of his being, that is to say, he gave it to himself. To this Word he gave the name of Son, to show that it was to him that he should be and that he was consubstantial. The law, by virtue of which children are born of parents, prepared to believe that generation which revealed to men the mystery which was hidden in God from all eternity.
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 91. HOW CAN WE FIGHT PHOTIN'S ARGUMENTS, WHO CLAIMS THAT CHRIST IS NOT OLDER THAN MARY? — Let us first question Jean-Baptiste, that the Savior himself proclaimed his witness publicly. Here, among others, is the testimony he gives to Our Lord: "He who comes from above is above all; he who came out of the earth is of the earth, and speaks of the earth. He who came from heaven testifies of what he has seen and heard, and no one receives his testimony." (Jn. 3:31) So, in comparison with the Lord, John calls all men, and himself, earthly, because he testifies that Jesus descended from heaven, and that all others are of the earth, that is to say have an inferior origin. Our Lord expresses the same truth when He says, "I did not come down from heaven to do my will, but the will of my Father, who sent me." (Jn. 6:38) Elsewhere he says in the same sense, " I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from the Father." (Jn. 16:26-27) His disciples, hearing him speak so clearly, said to him, ""You speak openly and do not use parables. We now see that you know all things and there is no need for anyone to question you; for that we believe that you have gone out of God." (Jn. 16:29-30) These words need no explanation. In fact, the most important point of our religion is to believe that before his incarnation Jesus Christ was in heaven with God as the Son with the Father. If it is only because of his holy life and heavenly doctrine that he declares that he has come down from heaven, come out of God, and come into this world, all the prophets and apostles were able to keep the same language. Shall we say that these words, "Now I leave the world and go to my Father," (Jn. 16:28) mean that the doctrine that came out of God returns to God after leaving the world? This is the only explanation they can give. If, indeed, these words of the Savior, "That he is come down from heaven, that he is come out of God, and come into this world," must hear of the truth which was in him and of his doctrine, and not of his person, what he adds: "Now I leave the world and I go to my Father," must also be understood of this virtue, of this doctrine, which return to the place of their origin. But we see, on the contrary, that after the departure of the Savior, his virtue and his doctrine have persevered in the world. You see, then, that Our Lord will not speak here of his virtue and doctrine, but of himself. If you maintain that these are the words of virtue that worked in Christ, note that this virtue calls God his Father. So you come up against the pitfall that you dread, because if the Son of God is the virtue of God, it is this same virtue of God which the Apostle said, "Christ is the virtue of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor. 1:24) This virtue of God is from God, and it returns to God. It is this same virtue, which is none other than Jesus Christ, who declares that he drives out demons by the Spirit of God (Matt. 12:28); the same Spirit who worked wonders by the apostles, to teach you that the Holy Spirit, through whom our Lord worked these miracles, did likewise by the apostles after the Lord departed from the earth, and give unanswerable proof that he wanted to speak about himself when he left the world to return to God. If you persist in thinking that this virtue is not Christ, then there will be two virtues and two sons of God; and what will become of the truth of these words, "The only begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father?" (Jn. 1:18) and of these others: "That is how God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son” (Jn. 3:16) You notice that this virtue of God who has worked in the world of external wonders is the same which is called at once the virtue of God and the Son of God. Now, let us see what the apostles believed and to whom they believed when they heard the Lord say to them, "Now I leave the world and go to my Father.” (Jn. 16:28) They answered him, "Behold, you speak openly and do not use parables; for that we believe that you have gone out of God.” Let us see now if the disciples have ever doubted that the miracles of the Lord had God as their author, when, for example, they saw the resurrection of Lazarus, who had been dead for four days, and exhaling the corruption of the tomb. (Jn. 11:44); a blind man from birth recovering sight (Jn. 9:1); a woman healed from a flow of blood by touching the edge of his garment (Matt. 9:20); the water changed into wine. (Jn. 2:9) None of them had the slightest doubt about either the Lord's person or his miracles, while others said he was Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. (Matt. 16:14) When the Jews wanted to stone him, what does Jesus answer them? "I have shown you many excellent works that come from my Father; why do you stone me?” (John 1:32) The Jews said to him, "We do not stone you for a good work, but for your blasphemy, and because being a man you make yourself God.” What! the Jews have no doubt that the miracles of Jesus were the works of God, and the apostles would have doubted them? All doubt was therefore focused on the person of the Savior (for it was an unheard-of thing that could not fall into the human spirit and astonished men in the highest degree as to hear Jesus say that he was coming from of God and that he had God for his Father); and the apostles declare themselves satisfied on this point with the clear language of the Lord: "We now see that you know all things, and there is no need for anyone to question you; for that we believe that you have gone out from God.” If he did not really come out from God, the faith of the apostles is destroyed, but that is impossible because they had received the approval of the Savior. He said to them, "And now you believe," that is to say, so many wonders of which you have been witnesses could not have determined you to believe. It was thus demonstrated to the apostles that Christ came out of God and came into the world, and by the same they have no difficulty in believing that he was the Son of God. If no one sees God except Him who is of God (Jn. 6:46), and no one is born to the Father but the Son (Matt. 11:27), it is truly being in God the Father and being come out from God to come into this world. For no man could come out from God except him who was in God from the beginning (Jn. 1:1), because no one else knew God; There is nothing extraordinary for us to believe that the Savior is the true Son of God. This is what St. John says in his first letter, "That we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal wisdom. "(1 Jn. 5:20) And the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans, "He spared not his own Son." (Rom. 8:32) And the Evangelist: "Because he said that God was his Father." (Jn. 5:18) Now, if Jesus Christ is the true Son of God, how could he be but a man? Would God call him true Son of God if God had truly begotten him? Let Photin tell us why he is believed to be the true Son of good if he is not truly true? Or what need to believe he is the Son of God, if he were but one of the saints who have been judged worthy to be called the sons of God? Is there not therefore some impropriety which forbids him to believe that he is the Son of God, like the others, and who motivates this superior title of Son of God, that it is so difficult to recognize him in all his truth? For, suppose that he is only above the others, what need to say: Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, since after all he is like one of the others, if not because we are commanded to believe that he is the Son of God in a sense to what is different from others? That is, while many are called sons of God because of their holiness, only he is presented to our faith as the true Son of God, and that is why he is called the only begotten Son. Who, indeed, among the saints has ventured to affirm the Son of God, I do not say the only-begotten Son, except the Savior in his knowledge of his divine birth? How could he have suffered to be adored if he had known that he was of God, when it is written, "You will worship the Lord your God and serve only Him alone?” (Deut. 6:13) Did not the angel take up St. John the Evangelist who wanted to worship him? "Take care to do it," said he, "I am a servant like you, adore God.” (Rev. 19:10, 22:9) Now, although Scripture declares that God is to be served only (Deut. 6:13), did not the Apostle say, "Whoever serves Jesus Christ pleases God?" (Rom. 14:18) Why? Because God is the Christ, the Father and the Son are one. The same Apostle declares himself the servant of Jesus Christ, and he says to the Corinthians, "Do not become slaves of men," (1 Cor. 7:23) and the Galatians: "Paul established apostle not by men neither by the authority of any man, but by the authority of Jesus Christ his Father who raised him from the dead." (Gal. 1:1) He thus proves in clear terms that Jesus Christ is at once God and man and that his title of an apostle does not come from a man, but from Jesus Christ, as he is God and that he comes from God the Father. And he adds below: "I have received neither the gospel of any man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:12) What is clearer St. Paul declares that it is not of a man whom he received the doctrine of God, but was instructed in the school of God itself. For us it is by men that we have received the doctrine of God, but this vessel of election declares that he has learned nothing from the apostles, that is to say by means of men. Shall we say that he learned nothing from men because it is a question of the doctrine of God? or would it be the exceptional privilege he claims if he had learned it like the other apostles? Why does he say, "I have received neither the gospel of any man, but the revelation of Jesus Christ?" Who can question that St. Paul did not want to teach here the divinity of Jesus Christ? And what would be astonishing, since in his Epistle to the Romans he said to them in speaking of the Jews, "to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. (Rom. 9:5) What do these words mean, "From whom did Jesus come out according to the flesh?" The Apostle did not speak in this way if Jesus Christ also existed according to God, it is to say that according to the flesh Jesus Christ came out of the patriarchs, and that according to the divinity he came out of God, and he is the God above all things. Would one try to apply these words to the person of the Father? But there is no question here of the Father. If, then, we refuse to apply them to Jesus Christ, to what other person will they agree? Why not, then, apply them to Jesus Christ, in whose name every knee bends in heaven, on earth, and in hell (Philip 2:10), that is to say, who is God above all things, for there is nothing left apart from those just enumerated? Let Photin tell us if these creatures are bending their knees before a man, or if God has ordained these celestial powers and holy angels to worship a man, no doubt, because God cannot order anything that is contrary to reason. If, then, it is forbidden on earth to worship another than God, how much more in heaven? A king, on earth, receives the homage of his subjects as taking the place of God. Now Jesus Christ, after fulfilling his mission of God, now receives the adoration of heaven and earth. We read that the Word became flesh, that is to say that the Word became incarnate in the bosom of Mary by the operation of the Holy Spirit, this Word who was in God from the beginning who is God and is called the Son of God. How then, who was from the beginning and who was God, would not have been older than Mary? Even if your blindness goes so far as to deny that he is God, you cannot deny that he is the Word; and you are not ignorant: not that this Word is called the Son of God, and that He was in God from the beginning. By what reason do you sustain that he is older than Mary, since you read that he existed from the beginning? St. John speaking of Jesus Christ in the Apocalypse says, "And his name is the Word of God.” (Rev. 19:13) The name Word has several meanings. All that comes out of the nature of God must be called God; but to safeguard the authority of one God, the Evangelist gives the name of the Word to him who is born of God, so that as we are persuaded that our words can only come out of us, we also believe that Christ came out of God. We cannot hear in another sense that Christ comes from God and not from a principle apart from God. It is in the same sense that he is called the virtue and wisdom of God that come from God in the same way. If the Evangelist had said God and God, he would not have expressed that he had gone out of God, but he would have done as two gods, which is opposed to the divine unity. The holy books teach, it is true, that Jesus Christ is God, but without ever going beyond the unity of one God. How then, Photin, do you drive madness until you want to establish in the first chapter of Saint John a punctuation different not to recognize that the Word is God? Indeed, here as you read: " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (Jn. 1:1-2) What does this division mean? What meaning does it present? What Christian meaning? It indicates only open hostility against the Son of God; for what does this phrase, punctuated in this way, signify again: "And the Word was with God, and was God?" So then all the wisdom of our law would be to teach us that God exists. What language, which nation, which earth, which sect dares to deny the existence of God? What does the Evangelist mean by saying, "And the Word was with God," (Jn. 1:1), and what does he mean to us to understand by this Word, if not the eternal reason of God? For it is not for God, whom no one doubts, that the Gospel is written, but for the Word, whose nature is called into question. It is indeed the mystery of God, a mystery that must be believed, because it does not have for all minds the evidence of a proven truth. The gospel therefore applies to teach us what the Word is by saying, "And the Word was with God, and the Word was God, He was from the beginning with God." This meaning is in accordance with the reason, and the integrity of the proposal is preserved. St. John therefore wants to teach us that this Word who was with God from the beginning and who was God in this mystery of the eternal God unknown to the ages and generations that preceded, we must believe that he was God and that he was with God. And as there is doubt between the carnal minds, who would not want Scripture to go beyond the feebleness of their understanding in their language, God has established faith which conforms to the meaning of inspired Scripture and receives the reward of his docility. When Solomon asked God for wisdom, the Lord answered him, "I have given you a wise and intelligent heart, so that there is never in a man before you like you, will not rise after you.” (1 Kgs. 3:12) What shall we say? Is the promise of God true? Assuredly, and nothing is more true. No man will be like Solomon. What shall we say about Jesus Christ, whose words are as follows: "The queen of the south has come from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and there is greater here than Solomon?” (Matt. 12:42) Choose now, Photin; who will you believe? Will it be to God or to Jesus Christ, to the Father or to the Son? If you believe in the Father, you condemn the Son; if you believe in the Son, you accuse the Father. If, in fact, Jesus Christ is but a man, he is wrong in going to Solomon against the promise of God. If, on the contrary, he is truly God, he was right in setting himself above Solomon, and the promise of God remains inviolable, because in fact no one like Solomon has been brought up. Jesus Christ declares himself superior to Solomon only because he is God. The extravagance of Photin, who does not want to acknowledge that Christ existed before Mary, although he hears it attesting that he existed before Abraham! Indeed, when the Jews were discussing with him about his age, saying to him, "You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham," (Jn. 8: 55) what did he say to them? "Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” He does not say I am superior to him, he answers. the question that was put to him, that is to say, that he existed long before the Jews thought. Photin cannot escape the curse pronounced by the law, because he places his hope in Jesus Christ, in whom he sees only one man; for it is written, "Cursed be the man who places his hope in man.” (Jer. 17:5) But for the Apostle, who knew that Jesus Christ was God, it is not only for the present life, but for the future life that he places his hope in him. "If the hope that we have in Jesus Christ," he says, "is only for this life, we are the most unhappy of all men.” (1 Cor. 15:19) So it is not only in a man that we are taught to place our hope, for it would be a vain hope. We chose these reasons among several others; if Photin were good, what we said last would be enough.
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 101. ON THE BOASTFULNESS OF ROMAN DEACONS.1 — We only want to obey the orders of charity, and yet we may be blamed by writing on a subject that has never been a subject of doubt for anyone. But in wishing to avoid wounding the rights of friendship, we hinder the zeal which ought to have made use of a hitherto hidden evil. Charity, as we have said, makes it our duty to respond to extravagant assertions, lest a prolonged silence only worsens the evil, and after much unnecessary agitation, any amendment became impossible. The special character of charity is not to seek one's interests. A certain man who had the name of a false god2, driven by the folly and pride of the city of Rome, endeavored to equal the Levites to priests, and the deacons to the presbyters. I will not say that he has sought to place them above the elders, the pretension would be far too absurd and seem incredible, and we would pass ourselves for men who want not to reform an abuse, but to slander. On what law, on what custom, on what example do they base this claim to equal those who have no mark of distinction in the Church to the leaders of God who, in the house of God and in the sacrament of Christ, occupy the first rank? Nobody could say it. What audacity to want to equal to presbyters those who are only their ministers! What a reckless presumption to compare with the elders those who bear the tabernacle with all its vessels, those who are charged with cutting the wood and carrying the water of the sacrilege, for such was the office of the Levites. It is as if one wished to equal the attendants to the prefects, the servants to their masters. For this is what the Lord said to Moses: "Take the Levites among the children of Israel, and present them to the great priest Aaron, that they may serve him.” (Num. 8:13) What is more clear than this example, which the Church continues to observe today? In spite of the great impudence of the deacons of the Roman Church, they have not yet made their pretensions to the places of honor of the Church. If they are not charged with all the least offices of the hierarchy, it is thanks to the multitude of lower clerics. Otherwise it is up to them to carry the altar and the sacred vessels, to pour water on the hands of the priest, as is done in all the churches and according to the order that the Lord gave to Moses: "Would they be better than Elijah, who poured water on the hands of Elijah?" (2 Kgs. 3:11) This certain man who had the name of a false god pleads the cause of the deacons against the presbyters as if one were raised from the presbyters to the diaconate and, not from the diaconate to the presbyters, but they are, he says, ministers of the Roman Church and more worthy of honor therefore than in the other churches because of the splendor of the city of Rome, which like the queen of all other cities, if so, he must claim the same privilege for the priests of the Roman Church, for if the splendor of this city gives greater importance to the lower ministers, how much more to those who are clothed with the highest dignities? All that is granted to the ministers of a power to the growth of power itself, just as the honors rendered to the servant are to the praise of the master whom they serve. Let us say, however, that before God, the just judge, everyone remains in possession of the rank which is assigned to the various ecclesiastical offices; that is to say, he who is a deacon receives in all the churches the honor which is due to the deacon. And it is not a mediocre honor to be the servant of the priest of God in the Church alone; to the priest, he sums up in him all the ecclesiastical honors. In fact, the higher order eminently contains the lower order, because the one whom the Apostle calls presbyters fulfills the functions of deacon, exorcist and reader. Now, St. Paul demonstrates that by this presbyter must be understood the bishop, when after having raised Timothy to this dignity, he teaches him the qualities of those whom he himself will raise to the episcopate. (1 Tim. 3:1) For what is a bishop, if not the first presbyter, that is, the high priest? He does not call them otherwise than his colleagues in the priesthood and the priesthood. Does the bishop call ministers, deacons his colleagues in the diaconate? No, no doubt, because they are far inferior in dignity. It is not proper to say of a judge that he is the first of the lower officers. We will also point out that in the Church of Alexandria and throughout Egypt, in the absence of the bishop, it is the presbyter who consecrates. Now the example of Caiaphas, who, despite the excess of his wickedness, did not fail to prophesy, shows us all the grandeur of priestly dignity. Why did he prophesy? "Because he was prince of priests. (Jn. 11:49) We still see the great distance that separates the deacon from the priest in the book of Acts of the Apostles. Many of the inhabitants of Samaria having embraced the faith at the preaching of the deacon Philip, whom the Apostles had ordained, they sent to Peter and John, says the author of the book of Acts, to beg them to come, and to give to the faithful the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. (Acts 8) But those who support these claims do not know the Scriptures and have forgotten the law. He who formulates such assertions, however, should remember what happened to the Levites who harbored similar sentiments. They also had the temerity to assert that the Levites were equal to the priests, and the righteousness of God opened the earth to swallow Korah and his followers (Num. 16:31), and a torrent of fire at the same time devour two hundred and fifty men. King Uzziah, who had dared to usurp a priestly office, was struck with a leprosy that covered him completely so that this example inspired all the others with the salutary fear of usurping a power which was not granted to them. (2 Chron. 26:21) Now, on the contrary, we see deacons rash enough to perform the priestly functions in the meals and want to be answered in prayer, a privilege reserved for the priests alone. The office of the deacon is to receive from the hand of the priests what he must give to the people. You see all that can produce a vain presumption. The pride with which they are full makes them forget everything, and because they see themselves as ministers of the Roman Church, they do not consider the duties that God has imposed on them and the obligation to be faithful to them. What erodes these considerations from their memory are the cares, the attentions with which their inferiors surround them, and which have a great influence either by the good ones, or by the bad counsels which are following it: or we fear their bad suggestions, or we buy them so that they are favorable. These are the ones that prevent deacons from properly considering the nature of their order. These considerations inspired by flirtation, these illegitimate respects become for them a pitfall and give them an exaggerated idea of their power; for, seeing that the priests are much less witnessed, they imagine that they are far above them. But, it is said to me, it is the testimony of the deacon who designates the one who must be ordained a presbyter, as if this right of suffrage indicated a prerogative of power. We read in the Acts of the Apostles these words of St. Peter to the people: "Choose among us those whom we shall establish for the service of the mysteries of the Church,” (Acts 6:3) I don't mean for table service. Here are deacons created by the sufficiency of the laity. And the Apostle wants him who is to be elevated to the episcopate to have the suffrage of the Gentiles themselves: “It is necessary, he says, that those abroad also give him a good testimony.” (1 Tim. 3:7) All have the right to vote, but not all of them are worthy of honor. All can judge of the qualities which it demands, but all cannot claim to the dignity of which they judge the others capable. A good painter may be appreciated and preferred to another by a man who does not know how to paint himself, just as a flute player may be put on top of another by a man of another profession; thus a man of inferior condition can bear witness to him who is to be raised to the priesthood. Here is another circumstance that makes them believe that everything is due to them. It is us, they say, who lead those who are to be ordained, that is to say, because they serve as their procession, they think themselves worthy of the same honor. Let's admit the fact; the bishops send them as servants to do honor to those who are to be ordained. It is thus that the emperor, to appear in all his dignity, is surrounded by a military procession, without for that the army which surrounds him is superior, nor even equal. Thus Aman, who was one of the first officers of Ahasuerus, was commissioned by this king to honor Mordecai to show everyone by this deferential act how worthy Mordechai was. Thus deacons are chosen to do honor to those who are to be raised to the presbyters, so that all may understand that they are worthy; for with the exception of priests, to whom deacons owe obedience, deacons have pre-eminence over all others.
(1) I am not sure whether the common preference of 'levita' over 'diaconus' might not be adduced as an instance: but my immediate purpose is to call attention to the joint occurrence in both (Ambroisaster and Damascus) of a word that never became as popular in Christian usage as 'levita’ but seems to have been fashionable in Roman church circles of that particular generation. (Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 7; CH Turner; Clarendon Press, 1906; p. 182) (2) Question 101 contains the name of a Roman deacon, veiled by the phrase quidam igitur qui nomen habet falsi dei. In all the editions the sentence reads quidam igitur qui nomen habet Falcidii. It is strange how such a sentence could have passed muster for over four centuries. In the eyes of some people anything is good enough to be Christian Latin. Yet the writer shows clearly by the use of the word quidam that he could give the name of the Roman deacon if he chose, and from friendship does not so choose. For the correct reading, now recovered from the manuscripts, is falsi dei, and Falcidius must disappear from the biographical dictionaries. Who is then to take his place? I think it probable that the deacon meant is Concordius, who is known to have lived at that time; then the divinity alluded to will be Concordia. This Concordius, according to the Liber Pontificalis, was a deacon of Rome and one of the prosecutors of Damasus on a capital charge. He was expelled from the Church by a synod of bishops about the end of 378, or the beginning of 379. (Alexander Souter; A Study of Ambrosiaster; The University Press, 1905; p. 181)
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 113. WHY WAS THE SON OF GOD SENT, AND NOT ANOTHER? — All the actions of God are imposed upon the faith with a character of reason and unquestionable wisdom; however, it is better, I think, to add to faith the knowledge of the fact, to avoid the reproach of ignorance. Our Lord Himself confirms this truth when he says, "Eternal life is to know you, the only true God, and the one you sent, Jesus Christ.” (Jn. 17:3) We must first believe according to the prophet's recommendation (Isa. 7:9 according to the Septuagint), then seek to know what is the object of faith, and the Holy Spirit comes here to help the faithful and attentive soul to discover the reason of his faith. Indeed, the joy that gives him faith is full when he can understand what he believes. This knowledge is the strength of his faith, and the unshakable foundation of his claim. When faith is alone, piety is not so full, and suspicion can find access in the soul. Thus the vessel of election endeavors to persuade the faithful to penetrate the motives of their faith. For when they have known the greatness and power of him to whom they have believed, no strength, no reason, can detach them from the hope they have put in him. This is why the Psalmist tells us: "Taste and see that the Lord is full of sweetness.” (Ps. 33:9) He wants the faithful to know the flavor of his divinity, understanding that there is nothing wiser than to believe in Jesus Christ. It is for the same reason that the doctor of nations says to the Colossians: "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Col. 2:3) And elsewhere: "I know who I entrusted my deposit with, and I am sure he is powerful enough to keep it to this day.” (2 Tim. 1:12) Here is a Christian who knows the reason of his faith, who does not doubt the power of God, who understands that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are enclosed in the mystery of birth, passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now, without any prejudice to the faith, I meditated for a long time in order to see why Our Lord descended from the heavenly dwelling to incarnate on earth, and not another of those, for example, that the Savior himself even calls the holy angels. This paralyzing unbecoming for his divine person, unless one discovers the reason. Here, indeed, is what impresses a large number of minds. The Providence of God the Father could, it seems, choose another person to accomplish this work, to destroy the empire of the great devil, envious of our salvation, and of his followers, and to take away all his spoils as the fruit of his victory. It seems that God must suppress the obstinacy and insolence of these rebellious servants, by the ministers of his will, and not undertake, he the Lord of all things, a work which appears unworthy of him. Indeed, Satan has not a force, a power so great that a power of the same nature cannot triumph, since with the help of God the men themselves win over him the victory. Although there is no complete equivalence in the examples borrowed from human things, yet they have some relation to the matter we are dealing with. A subject revolts against king David, he sends Joab also his subject to pursue him and put him to death. (2 Sam. 20:6) His subjects are still charged with fighting the rebellion of Absalom against his father (Ibid. 15:4); still more, the power of a single chosen from a thousand would have sufficed to triumph over the tyrannical domination of the devil. Do not we read that in the fight he gave to the Archangel Michael, he could not pre-empt, but was hurled on the earth! (Rev. 12:7) Now, meditating seriously on this subject, I could only discover that the Son of God had been sent by his Father, because it might have seemed offensive to his dignity to entrust to another the recompense of the work of his hands; however this reason was not enough. It did not explain to me clearly the cause of this great and admirable mystery, I needed other reasons to give me intelligence. And so I came to convince myself that the work of recompense itself required the coming of him who came down to earth. There was a special reason for him to come to fight the one who had usurped his dignity and his titles. Indeed, the devil wanted to be recognized as God after God the Father, what he still tries to do today, although this title does not belong to him in any way, but to the Son of God who is the second after God the Father, not by nature, but by the rank we give him. Now, to support here the great cause of truth, no one else must have incarnated as our Lord Jesus Christ, who came not only to repress the efforts of the devil, but to reveal himself to all men, so that, rejecting all society with the devil, they recognize him for him whose Satan had usurped power and majesty. He also wanted the knowledge of the truth to make them give up the error, some as they were that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who alone is God of God, the head or principle of all that exists in the world, being heaven or on the earth, for the strength and power which he displayed in the triumph he won over the tyranny of Satan, made him known to him whose devil full of ungodliness, that is to say, Satan had usurped the empire. In the unjust purpose he had conceived of calling himself God to give over the spiritual powers (which earned him this reproach from the prophet: "You said in your heart, I will place my throne in the clouds, and I be like unto the Most High)" (Isa. 14:14), he has brought many into rebellion, and it is through their united efforts that he has become the prince of error. It is to these spirits that the Psalmist addresses himself to urge them to reject the lie and to receive the truth, when he says to them, "Princes, raise up your doors, and you, eternal doors, lift up, and the King of glory will enter. Indeed, the error of the unbelieving mind must first be removed so that they may receive the faith of one God in Jesus Christ. He therefore recommends them to lift the doors by which one goes to death, following the unbelief whose demon is the principle, and to receive the mysteries of faith which lead to life. For these are the eternal doors: the truth of faith is eternity, unbelief, on the contrary, is a temporal and transient thing, because the lie is an invention of the devil. It is he, indeed, who sowed on the earth the seeds of the evasiveness that he had committed in heaven by advising men the worship of several gods, on which he kept primacy. He wanted to be the leader and the prince of all the others, which did not belong to him, but was due only to the Savior. The Son of God therefore pursues him to the earth, to reveal by victory that he wins over him his criminal error, in the light of the truth which shines in all his person. This is what made the Psalmist say: "The truth has come out of the bosom of the earth.” (Ps. 84:12) The devil chased from heaven sought a refuge on earth, to exercise among men the divine power which he had conceived the plan to assume in heaven. What made the Apostle say: "He will go so far as to sit in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God.” (2 Thess. 2:4) All means are good for him to fulfill his desires and to incur damnation, for in the fury with which he is full, he regards it as a lesser evil to be damned than not to satisfy his ardent passion for establishing his error.
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 115. CONCERNING DESTINY. — Nothing is more contrary to the Christian faith than to deal with judicial astrology, which is the enemy of the law of God. If men are born good or bad, the law is useless; I will say more, the legislator is guilty of injustice. He who, by his law, forces men to do what is contrary to the nature they received at birth, knowing that they cannot change this nature, seems to have given them the law only to have an opportunity to satisfy his cruelty with the loss of man; for why defend what he knows cannot be avoided? Or how can he damn a man who did not do what he could not do? If there is here, as we cannot deny, manifest injustice, as it would be a crime to attribute it to God, we must recognize that it is with reason and wisdom that he has given the law to the man, because he knew he could avoid what the law forbade him. If he is right when he gives the law, he is also right when he avenges the transgression. If, then, we must believe that the law of God has been given in all justice, we must carefully escape and avoid judicial astrology, for it is one of the inventions of the cunning and deceit of the devil. He dares not enter into an open struggle with his Creator, he resorts to a thousand ploys to outrage God, to make man the enemy of the law, and to precipitate him thus in the second death. He who therefore submits to the authority of God and considers it a crime to discuss his actions, obeys the law he has given, applies day and night to meditate upon his prescriptions, and takes no account of any difficulty in it is that man can observe what the law commands. Those, on the contrary, who desire to abandon themselves to vice, seek the means of escape from the responsibility of their conduct, and to reject their sins on the weakness of their nature to avoid the punishment which is reserved for the sinner. This is what those who, having lost the hope of the future life promised to them do, seek only to enjoy the pleasures of the present life. But for those who rely on the confidence of faith and hope for the good of eternal life, they strive to do what they promised in the day of their regeneration, by renouncing their desires and pleasures of Satan. This evil spirit has therefore unfolded all his ploys to make man more inclined to sin and thereby satisfy his dark envy. In fact, the man who hears that he is born to sin, and knowing that God is all righteousness, thinks he can sin with liberty, because a judge who makes a profession of justice cannot condemn anyone who does not has sinned inevitably by its nature. We cannot even say that it is he who sin, it is another who uses it to sin. This is how man has been deceived; he is overwhelmed by the weight of a multitude of sins, and death becomes his punishment. So to take away from man the responsibility for evil is to take away the merit of good. If the sinner does not deserve to be punished, the just has no right to the crown. Why then praise the good and blame the wicked? If it is by virtue of his nature that man cannot sin, why praise in him that which does not come from him? Why, on the other hand, condemn in him who sin a fault of which he is not the author? Can one unjustly praise the virtuous man and accuse the wicked? It may be said to me: what I praise in man is good nature: what I condemn is the bad; Thus, one speaks with praise of good wine, although it is necessarily good by nature, and one rejects the bad, which also derives from its nature this bad quality. If it were so, there is nothing left to take back, the righteous man has no right to any praise, no reward, and the sinner escapes all accusation and punishment. Now, however, we know and read that the righteous are rewarded in this life and in the future life, and that sinners suffer the rigorous punishment of fire. Now, would it not be an injustice that one who has only followed the necessary inspirations of his nature be condemned to the torments of unforgiving fire, and another who has merely obeyed does its nature share the eternal rewards? If the good is to be praised for having done what was in its nature, the wicked is equally entitled to praise, since he has also done only what his nature commanded him; both, therefore, deserve to be praised for remaining in the state where God has acted them. If man is worthy of blame for remaining in the state which is a necessary consequence of his nature, the blame goes back to his Creator, who brought him into a state where man could only to displease him. If on the contrary it is with justice that the just is rewarded and the sinner condemned, it is no more to nature, but to the will addressed by reward or punishment. Nature is out of the question, and we have to do only the will, which is subject to the various suggestions of the senses. Thus, when the sinner sees that the righteous is crowned while he is punished, he is to blame only himself who, by yielding to the inspirations of the senses against the law, has done evil when he could do good. Can we blame the sun because it burns, or the water because it is refreshing? Is water worthy of reward, because it quenches the consuming thirst of men, or the sun because it warms their icy limbs by the rigors of the cold? No, for they have done only what is in their nature; we do not think to blame or praise them, for they could do no more than what they did. Now, the very nature of human actions destroys the system of observers of the stars. It is impossible to meet a man who always does nothing but good or bad deeds. If his conduct were always irreproachable, it would give reason to believe that it is at his birth that he must always do good, and one would conclude that he is also obliged to be bad, if his actions were always bad. But seeing that this man, whom you believe to be born exclusively to do good, sometimes does evil, and that this other whom you say born for evil does not fail to do good sometimes, how to prove with truth that the wicked man is bad, and that the virtuous man is good, if not admitting as certain that man follows the path that his will chooses? There are causes that give birth to sins; thus envy is the mother of disputes and hostilities. Now, the things that the law forbids, men do not do them openly and in public, but in secret. Why? by some respect for the law. If, as they say, they were born to do evil, they would not seek to hide themselves, they would not be held back by this fear of the law, but they would do without doubt what nature compels them to do. But you see them reviewing carefully the means to sin in secret; they choose the places, the people, the times to execute the designs of their guilty will. The good ones do their good works only with discernment, according as the time or the interest of their fellows demands it. It is no longer nature who is here responsible for their actions, but the will that is in nature. If it was an exclusively natural thing, why this discernment! If we wanted to discuss this question thoroughly, it would be easy for us to show that those who are now righteous started out as sinners, and that they formed a plan to change their lives. We read that Abraham was justified by faith. (Jam. 2:3, Rom. 4:3) It was not so before, so it may be supposed that he was then like his father worshiping idols. It is the same with Zacchaeus, to whom the Lord testifies, after he led the lives of the people of his profession. (Luke 19:9) The vessel of election confesses this same truth when it says, "We were formerly children of wrath like the rest of men" (Eph. 2:3) because the will was past as in nature. It is upon their will that men are judged, and not on their nature. There is no doubt that all martyrs and righteous people have become good, because it is not at their first birth, but at their spiritual regeneration that they must be faithful. And how many do we know whose life has been a long succession of disorders and infamies, and who are now professing continence and holiness? Their souls were opened to the fear of God, and they triumphed over the vices that tyrannized them. Here is a striking proof of what fear of the law can do here. Before Julian's edict, women could not separate from their husbands. As soon as this permission was given to them, they did what they could not do previously; they are seen every day to separate freely from their husbands. Where, then, was fatality hidden for all the time that preceded? She was probably hiding for fear of the law. How did the law come about that Moses gave? Probably while destinies slept. This law has imposed on the Jews a multitude of important precepts, and no other people has received similar ones. And that it is not believed that the observation of these precepts was limited to the country where they were given, for the Jews dispersed today while the whole universe continue to observe them. Now, these precepts destroy the doctrine of fatality. For three thousand years and more since the creation of the world, they did not exist, and after having been promulgated, they remain until the end. Now, what has been so many thousand years without existence, how did it begin? For the course of the stars it goes back to the origin of the world. And how is it that in this great multitude of Jews scattered throughout the universe, none of them is seen embracing paganism, while we rarely see, it is true, pagans becoming Jews? Thus, for the Jews, fate cannot be admitted; they have been freed from his laws, and they persevere in their empowerment. What shall we say about Sodom and Gomorrah, whose punishment remains inscribed in visible characters to all eyes? (Gen. 19:24) All their inhabitants covered with marks of their infamy were devoured by a fire descended from heaven. In the flood all men had the same fate, and all perished with the same death and at the same time, with the exception of the household of Noah. (Gen. 7:12) Will it also be said that the entire army of Pharaoh was born under the authority of the same decree, to give right to the senseless error of the astrologers, since in fact they were engulfed in the Red Sea with their king? How many other examples do we pass over in silence because these two are enough for the purpose that we propose to ourselves? And what much stronger party could we draw from so many laws and religious institutions? Each nation has different ones. What is allowed in one is forbidden in another, and vice versa. Thus in this city of Rome, which is given the name of majestic and sacred, it is permissible for women to leave their husbands, although the divine law removes this faculty even from men, except in the case of women of adultery. The barbarians are in this superior to the Romans. And it was not impossible for them to observe the same rule, since in fact it was observed before. Destiny has therefore been changed, since it was allowed it was forbidden before. It is forbidden in the Roman empire to be a eunuch; other peoples allow it. It could also be done here, because it is done secretly; and without the fear that holds, it would be public. It is therefore fear that holds destiny, and it is like bound, if it does not do what it wants to do. The Persians wear earrings in the example of women, which is forbidden here as an indecency. Now, however, that we can conform here to this custom, that is what proves the priests of the mother who is called great; and indeed she was great, but a great courtesan; but there is here the difference which separates womanish from men. What shall we say then? They are the only ones in the whole universe who are born subject to this decree of destiny which forces them to transform themselves into women by a shameful operation, and into the whole world where only a few can find them. But we know that it is through the pressure of threats and promises that they are forced to submit to this operation, which is both painful and intense. But if they were condemned by their birth, they would not be forced to do so. Among the Persians it is still permissible for fathers to unite with their daughters, and the proof that this could be done absolutely here is that some give the example of such unions. But as the severity of the laws is opposed to it, fear restrains men and prevents them from doing what is absolutely possible, but that which is not permitted. What is the end of prohibitive laws? It's to prevent something that could be done. Now, if it were subject to fatality, it could not be done, and would not be the object of a defense. If, on the contrary, it is not subject to fate, and it is forbidden by a law, it is a proof that what does not depend on fatality can be done. Would it be wise indeed to defend what cannot be done, for example to fly from the city of Rome to Spain, or to carry a mountain on his shoulders? We can only defend actions that can, but should not be. It is the custom of the Moors that women wear gold rings on the nostrils; Is it destiny that makes them a law? If it were so they would keep this custom when they come among us, because if it is a law of destiny, everyone is subject to the fate of his own. But the proof that destiny is here for nothing, is that scarcely arrived among us, all renounce this use they regarded as a mark of distinction, and they now find ridiculous. It must be admitted for certain that among all peoples, number is number, earth is earth, water is water, air is air, and fire is fire. Can we find somewhere a land that is not solid, an air that is tangible, a water that is not liquid and cold or a fire that has no heat? Thus, everywhere Jupiter is Jupiter, Saturn is Saturn, Venus is Venus. The same is true of other things. This science of judicial astrology is subjected everywhere to the same rules, while the institutions of the various nations are not subject to this uniform rule of destiny, which is everywhere the same, but depends on the studies and thoughts of the human mind. He whom his merit raised in the first rank among his fellow-citizens, imposed upon them as law what he believed most suited to reason and to the honor of his people. Thus each country, each nation has its own laws and institutions. Salon and Lycurgus have established a great number of laws which have been observed by the Greeks, and which little by little, as their kingdom became weaker, have fallen into disuse. The kings of Judea chose the mules as mounts; Roman kings and emperors preferred horses; the kings of Geramantes, African tribe above Tripoli, used bulls; the kings of Persia were driven on chariots, for the ancient kings of the Persians did not even allow their people to see them; the kings of Midian make camels their favorite mount, and surrounded their neck with chains of gold; in Africa, donkeys are preferred to horses. All these different uses exist; yet they are not all equally in favor of all peoples; each people chooses what they like more. Do we not manifest ourselves these different tastes in our clothes, in our food, in other uses of life, and in our opinions themselves? Now, what is opposed to the fact that these diverse tastes are attributed to destiny, as those who teach that destinies are said to be different according to men, are the frequent mutability of our will. What we have long loved ends up displeasing us, and we begin to love what we could not first tolerate, and the force of habit gives us a kind of inalterability. Will they attribute to destinies this alternative of inclinations which return with the periodic revolutions of time, and which reproduce after a certain number of years what is being done today, for men do not remain in the same state? But education and habit give them a denial. The use of wine was long unknown to Roman women. Habit, the result of education, confirmed them in this abstaining, which they observed, because they appreciated its value. Was it the result of destiny, which, by ceasing to exist, put an end to a useful habit? But this use was the effect of education and not of destiny. As soon as they wished to break with this habit, the fruits of education were lost. The ancient Romans carried abstinence so far that they refused even the presents offered to them, judging the good reputation as a treasure, and preferring virtue to pleasures; these destinies have thus changed or they have ceased to exist. But no, it was not one of destiny, but of education which was the master of destiny itself. How to attribute to destiny that which was not submitted to it in the past, and what is not more so in the present? In truth, I do not know why they want to make destiny so horrible by presenting it as the author of all that is done, while all at once he is and he is not. Is it education that directs, it is not; is it the habit, it is not; Is it not chance, it is not more; and it seems to exist only to be chained by the fear of the law, because fear serves to repress passion, and the desire to please God causes the love of money to be rejected. We cannot deny here to a certain extent the existence of what is bound, and yet we can say with all reason that what is bound does not exist, because it is without authority. He who follows the law of God, and who contracts the habit of a holy life, sees all that is called destiny fade before him. The force of habit is so great that it relaxes the animals themselves. It is by wanting to live according to their bad desires that men make their destinies to themselves. Debauchery and pleasure produce self-indulgence and the disorder which in turn gives rise to the excesses of recklessness and anger. They know that their conduct is worthy of punishment, but in order to escape it, they attribute to fate the crimes which dishonor them, and in this they are shaken by the demons who do everything for the criminal designs to come out of their way; that is what these men call destinies, without understanding that they are the enemies of man. If sins did not enter into the soul through the senses, but took birth in its interior, it is with some reason that all the evil that it can do would be attributed to destinies; but how to attribute it to destinies when we see that it is sight, hearing and the other senses that give rise to the concupiscence of evil, with the help of enemies who suggest to men to do what is wrong for them? but we do not think about it so long as the guilty action lasts; it seems full of sweetness before or while one indulges in it; it is hardly consumed that it makes one feel bitterness. However, we can triumph over these guilty ambitions, and here is the proof. Is our mind strongly applied to some thought, or to some design, our enemies are silenced, and the passion remains mute, for they can do nothing on a busy soul. You see a man delivered entirely to an occupation which absorbs him, will you suggest to him foreign thoughts? No, you do not do it, you know that you would not be listened to or dismissed as a nuisance. This is what happens to these enemies, who are none other than demons, and the gods of the pagans; if they see us engaged in the meditation of divine things, they do not suggest contrary thoughts to us, but they stand in ambush to spy on the favorable moment when they can find access in our souls. The meditation of the law of God and the active life are therefore the secure walls of the soul; if, on the contrary, the demons see us affect a sad idleness to the divine things, they take occasion to excite us to sin. It is they who by flesh and blood sow guilty desires in our souls. No doubt the flesh here has an action that has its origin, and the inclinations of the carnal birth are far from resting, however the demons come to lend them a hand to give more surely death to men. There are many kinds of demons and their desires are different. There are some who trouble the mind to annoy the body; others who mingle with the blood to engender guilty desires; others unite themselves closely to the heart of man, to suggest to him, by blinding him, thoughts which are fatal; some exert their power over the bodies they chained by the infirmities, like that daughter of Abraham whom the Lord heals. (Luke 13:11) The pagans in their ignorance attribute to destiny all these things that are due to various causes that evil spirits exploit by making use of every opportunity to excite man to sin and make him slave of his passions. They call it good destiny, when the bodies are well tempered, or they are distinguished by a certain instability, by a particular grace; they call it the bad destiny, when heat or mood dominate it, or if instead of this grace, this kindness, they are rather disposed to harm, it is those, they say, who are born under a bad star. Suppose these assumptions are true. We see these same differences in animals, some of whom have more warmth than others; but animals are not endowed with reason, like men, to print with the help of reflection, a wise direction to the movements of their bodies. The mind commands the body only to govern it by keeping it in the bonds of divine law. It is this divine law which teaches us that it is not advantageous to follow the impulses of the flesh, nor the suggestions of the enemy. God has given it to us as a powerful help to oppose the evil inspirations of the enemy, because a look at the law that commands good enough to make us understand that it is a seducer whose advice is flagrant opposition with the teachings of the law. So we put a brake on our body and we temper that it is too hot giving him less freedom and weaning of the delights of life. Just as a body worked by fever increases the fire that devours it, under the influence of food or drink, thus the bodies which are burned by the ardor of the blood flare up even more violently if they are not well directed, the fire goes out for want of food. It is in the mind to drive the body. But if he lets him go according to his desires, the body will overthrow him like a horse carried off the rider who is not on his guard. Now, as this boiling ardor of the body becomes greater under the action of the enemies who exert on the soul their power of seduction, and it is not the body which desires, but which is satisfied by the heat which it is proper for him to suggest to the soul the desires which lose it, we must plead for the assistance of our God to protect and repress these desires, for we do not have to fight against flesh and blood, but against princes and powers; (Eph. 6:12) and once these enemies are removed, it will be easy for us to suppress the revolts of flesh and blood. A fire goes out when the fire can no longer find food. Now, the advocates of the error we are fighting here see the fulfillment of what astrologers tell us, who believe in the reality of their predictions. Here again is a trait of the deceitfulness of the demons, who endeavor to make the predictions of their priests so that their lies are not discovered. But all their efforts remain fruitless with regard to those who add no faith to their answers, for on the one hand they display less activity to win those who do not believe in them, and on the other hand God does not allow them to seduce those who put their trust in him and do not surrender to the ploys of the devil. By a wise disposition of Divine Providence, events are due to the faith of each, and in such a way as not to offend the free will of the will. Thus nothing can prevail against him who believes in God and pleads for his help; for he is assured that all the things he has done remain subject to his power, and cannot do anything against him who has been able to make himself favorable to God. It is a certain truth that God made the world, that He created the sun and the stars, by tracing them the way they should follow to regulate the actions of the human race; but will he say that he has not reserved the power to command them to do anything other than what he has prescribed from the beginning? No, they drew them from nothingness to be subject to his will, and they follow the path that has been designed to them, as long as they receive no contrary orders. But it also happens that God, flooded by the prayers of men, for whom he has created the elements and the stars, commands time, puts an end to unwelcome rains, or makes fertility fruit that too much drought strikes with sterility; or again, when the criminal life of men, their disorders, their guilty pleasures which drag them away from what pleases God, are punished by a prolonged drought which produces famine on earth, as it happened under the prophets Elijah and Elisha. (1 Kgs. 18:4) God, appeased by repentance, pours abundant rains on the earth. The government of the world has some analogy with the government of the kingdoms of the earth. When the subjects of an empire groan under the tyranny of the provincial governors, they revert to the emperors for deliverance, so when men see the seasons and the elements declare themselves against them, they address their humble supplications to God who holds the whole universe in his power. This is not seen by astrologers. The stars, they say, must necessarily fulfill the laws which have been imposed on them, these laws cannot be revoked or changed, they follow fixed way that God has designed them. They claim, then, that destinies are permanent, and that God cannot grant anything here to the prayers of men, because he has established once and for all the order of the world and outlined to the stars a march which does not suffer from anticipation or delay. Such is the error of astrologers, an error which is injurious to God. Indeed, as a consequence of this assertion, they deny that nothing can be done against this order once established, and they refuse to believe in all the events of which the holy books teach us that God is the author as soon as they depart from the ordinary laws of the world. Thus it cannot be said that a virgin has become a mother, nor that the rod of Aaron has borne flowers and fruits (Num. 17: 8), nor that Sara has borne a son in her old age. (Gen. 21:2) These phenomena are not understood in the ordinary course of events, God operates them outside the order he has established. And what is so amazing that the Creator of the world did what the world cannot do? But, he says, he seems to destroy the order of which he is the author, going directly against the laws he has given to the world. Let us see, God has designed to the world the law which regulates the actions and the reproduction of the human race. Is it imposed on himself? It would be a humiliation for him to follow the laws he imposed on the world he created. And how would we understand that he is the Creator of the world, if he had followed in his actions the laws he gave to the world? It is therefore to make us understand that it is God and not the world who is the author of these extraordinary actions that he does them outside the order he has established. God has commanded the sun to travel nonstop along the road he has designed without ever stopping; will the author of this law not have the right to arrest him himself? Judges are forbidden to revoke a sentence pronounced against a guilty party; is the sovereign himself subject to this law? How much more must we recognize in God the right to do what the world cannot do because he is the servant of the one who created him? The world, by virtue of the law which it receives, can give death, it cannot give back life, it can by a reprehensible action make a man blind, it cannot render him the use of sight; it can make a man weak, even sick, but he cannot cure him; it is an act of power which God has reserved to show that he is the sovereign master of all that exists. What a stronger argument against destiny than the resurrected dead, the one born blind recovering sight, the sick and the paralyzed cured, and other similar miracles that prove that destiny, if it exists, cannot form an obstacle for those who have recourse to God? In his epistle, the apostle St. John said: "He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world.” (1 Jn. 4:4) God surrenders to our prayers, modifies in our favor his first designs. Has he not established as a law that the sinners should be punished? And yet he forgives them, if he is required, because he alone has the power to bind and loose. He commanded the sun never to suspend its course, and yet Joshua the son of Nave commanded it to stop, and the sun obeyed an order contrary to that which it had received in the organization of the system of the world. A still more extraordinary phenomenon occurred in Hezekiah, for in order that this prince should have no doubt of the promise made to him, the prophet gave him a new and unheard-of sign for human ears, he did not only command the sun to stop as in the first case, but to demote to convince Hezekiah that he who could make the ninth hour the sixth, could also add fifteen years of life. Thus the favor given to Hezekiah destroys the system of astrologers, for they deny that the life of man can be prolonged. God gives Hezekiah a sign which is no less contrary to their doctrine. It is impossible, they say, for the stars to follow another course than that which is traced to them. According to this doctrine, having a slave or not having one is something that depends on destiny. Indeed. Where were these destinies from the beginning of the world? For until the flood, and a long time afterwards, why do we see no trace of slavery and servitude? Does the existence of these fates date from the time of King Ninus, who first fought the war against the neighboring nations, and reduced to servitude those whom he had made captive? It is therefore a more recent institution, not one of destiny, but the work of demons, for if it were the work of destiny, it would go back to the beginning of the world. Thus the existence of the stars dates from the origin of the world, and they never cease to accomplish their revolution. In the early days men loved the life of the fields, and they did not seek to become rich. How can astrologers argue that it is the stars that decide for men of wealth and poverty? Are the stars changed? No, it is the ploys and prestige of Satan who want us to attribute to the influence of stars what is done by the spirits that are submitted to it. As he approaches the time that must consume his ruin, he is studying to increase the number of his crimes. We know that famine has ravaged Italy, Africa, Sicily, Sardinia; that the astrologers tell us if all the inhabitants of these countries were subject to the same destiny, whereas by their admission, out of a hundred persons, we cannot find two similar destinies. Let them blush, let them keep silence, and extend supplicating hands to the God whose power extends over all that exists. But perhaps this is the one stolen from the action of destiny? What shall we say about Pannonia, which has been so devastated that it cannot come out of its ruins? Oh! that their weakness is great! and that because they are Christians of dubious faith. They doubt divine promises, and do not think of the facts that have been accomplished. If they considered all that the prophets and apostles had done, they would add no faith to the fables of astrologers. They would know that everything is subject to the power of God, and they will not fail at the misfortunes that come to the righteous, remembering that they will receive their reward in the last judgment, in the testimony of the Apostle: by many tribulations, he tells us, that we must enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Acts 14:21) What do Christians hope for by listening to astrologers when they hear the apostle Saint John say to them and shout to them: "Do not love this world or what is in this world?” (1 Jn. 2:15) If, then, our faith and Christian law makes us an obligation to love neither the world nor what is in the world, why do we see some of us saddened? and to complain of the temporal prosperity of others, a prosperity which in the eyes of God is perhaps a great misfortune? Should not they rather rejoice that the world has not chained them in bonds that would keep them enslaved to the things of the earth? This bliss which produces in the soul, I know not what security, makes it completely indifferent to divine things. Yes, negligence for the divine oracles is the necessary consequence of the abundance of the goods of the earth, because one then seems to have no more reason for attentiveness. Or rather, the rich of the century are worked by other worries, it is to increase their fortune in this world and to rise even higher, which cannot be done without sin. If we examine things more closely, we shall see that the world is rather the enemy of those whom it seems to make happy. Indeed, there is hardly one among them who thinks of the goods of heaven. Christians must therefore rejoice when, despite an irreproachable life, they are unhappy in this world. He who truly triumphs over the world, who is content with all that happens to him below, never ceases to thank God for it; if he does not have all he can desire of the goods of the earth, he hopes that God reserves for him the goods of heaven. Why in fact did God establish the last judgment? It is to eternally reward those who have been unjustly oppressed for a time, and to lower and punish those who, by the abuse of their power, professed only contempt, even disbelief for the judgment of God, and hoped that their crimes would go unpunished. But the supporters of destiny deny future judgment. If the good ones as well as the bad ones are born what they are, what matter to your praises or your reproaches, since the good one has in no combat to support to obtain the victory and that the villain is not guilty of any negligence that is the cause of his loss? Why do they seek to spread their fables individually? The guilty men cited before the judges have never dared to blame their destiny for their crimes; they confess them quite the contrary and do not think of accusing of injustice the sentence which condemns them. The authority of the law thus radically destroys this doctrine of fatality, and the name alone cannot be pronounced before the action of the law. Now, how can those whose life is a matter of crime hope to enjoy eternal freedom, because they strive to escape for a time to the severity of the divine law, without thinking that the author of the law cannot always conceal? There, indeed, we have the image of the law; it is the truth, and whoever mocks the image cannot make fun of the truth. Is there in the whole world a place where God is not, and can anyone hope to escape his hands? They think to the point of imagining that one is safe as soon as one has managed to escape them here below. How can they think that they will escape punishment while others are punished for similar crimes? It cannot be denied that God in creating the world did not give him the law he was to follow. His affection for his work inspired him to teach men the way to life and the guides under whose guidance they had to walk, because it is also a path to death. Now, must he not inquire whether those whom he has established, the ministers of his kingdom, have governed his people according to the rules he has laid down, or whether this people has received their ordinances with submission, or whether the ministers who have been recognized as worthy of praise, or whether the wrongdoers have been punished as they deserve? The people also receive praise if they observe the law, or a sentence of condemnation if they have despised it. Justice, reason so require it. How is it, then, that cannot suffer the idea of future judgment? This is still one of the fruits of the extravagance of astrologers. How could they believe in the judgment of the future who are wrong with the present judgment, because for them the cause of judgment is entirely in the birth? But if birth alone deserves to be rewarded or punished, how are those who claim that it is not by the effect of a natural judgment, but by their mere birth, that men become good or bad, are they enough empty of reason to punish those who hurt and leave no unpunished fault? Indeed, we see them hitting the rods and chaining even inside their homes those outside they say they were born unable to correct themselves. But never does a wise man seek to correct or recapture those he knows are incapable of correction? it would be an act of madness or injustice. And let them not say that they act so driven by destiny; he who is subject to destiny does not do what he wants; and they naturally punish those who are naturally incapable of conversion, for it is true to say that all that is attributed to destiny can be regarded as an act of madness. But what extravagance to affirm on one side that a man is born bad and not to esteem the goodness of the one whom they claim to be born good? How can one look as good as one who is surprised by the flagrant crime of injustice? And what is more unjust than to accuse of iniquity that which one recognizes to have been able to do nothing but what he has done? Moreover, if everything is subject to accident, why has the law come into being to oppose these actions, which depend, it is said, on destiny? That the law is about to disappear, all crimes will occur in broad daylight; we can no longer support the powerful, there will be no more freedom; for he who now does not think of evil, having no fear to hold him back, will abandon himself to vice. Besides, we read that it was to repress evil that the law was given, but perhaps it was also by an effect of accident that it was given. And how can this accident exist if it begets what must destroy it? All that is presented as dependent on destiny, the law forbids doing so. These destinies are therefore devoid of reason if they produce things which are contrary to them. They are unjust because they only give birth to men for damnation, and if they are unjust, they must have no authority, for all that is unjust is worthy of punishment. Will they say that the law is absolutely useless, because the one born to be necessarily bad cannot be improved by the law? If it is so, it is a pure waste that the law has been given, and how destinies could have given birth to a thing absolutely useless, since nothing is done only by destiny? Destinies therefore act for themselves and against them at the same time, and if it is so, we cannot admit as reasonable what has so little constancy and firmness. Will it be said that destinies have sought to give the law to have the law condemned by those whom they cause to be necessarily bad, because it seemed to them proper to attribute punishment to him? To this I have only one answer to make, is that laws and destinies deserve to be condemned by their own judgment if both, by the same injustice, conspire to kill those who are born bad not by their will but by the action of accident. The law, moreover, declares itself here against the destinies which themselves pronounce against them the sentence of condemnation; for they do not deny that those who are evil are so by the action of destiny. Now, the law is so opposed to this doctrine of fatalism that it denies that the wicked are bad otherwise than by their will, so it is with justice that it condemns them to rigorous restraints. There is therefore nothing in common between law and destiny, since the law denies what destiny claims. But under what influence were born those who defended the astrologers the stay in the city of Rome? It is known that this defense was long in force, and it was the pagans who had carried it. How to attribute to destiny what is done against destiny? But if destiny really exists, it cannot act against itself. Those who act against destiny are not subject to destiny, and if they are freed from it, there is no destiny, no accident. But, it will be said to me, there is at least for each one a destiny which determines the kind of death of which he must die. If this is so, we must not accuse the homicides, because they will have this double defense that they acted under the impulse of their destinies, as the ones they killed were put to death under of this same destiny. But here again the law is at fault, since it punishes the homicide when it is known. The adulterous man and woman born also subject to this fatality, as well as the one whose rights are harmed by adultery. Now, if we must admit this consequence, the law is still reprehensible here, since it punishes adulterers. If adultery was a necessary consequence of destiny, it would be necessary to understand in punishment the man whose destiny is to suffer adultery; for he really participates in this crime, because his destiny is cause that he consents to adultery so it was of all justice to either condemn them or declare them both innocent. Thus the law seems here opposed to justice. If, then, destinies have God as author, the law does not come from God, for he is unworthy, not only of God, but of a wise man to condemn what he has done. But no one has ever dared to accuse the law or to deny its divine origin. It cannot be maintained, therefore, that destinies have God as author, since God punishes them by the law. Indeed, to condemn the actions that are made under the impulse of destinies is without doubt to have condemn the destinies themselves. But evil souls, they say, are born to do evil; but these bad souls should not be born under a destiny that compels them to kill the innocent. If these souls are essentially evil, they should not come into the world, but be punished rather than be a cause of death for the innocent. But in reality it is not the souls they suppose to be evil that are a cause of ruin for the innocent, but the destinies which condemn men to this ruin by the mere fact of their birth. It is not, then, the souls, but the destinies which must be accused of injustice here; but if they are unjust, they do not come from God; it is therefore from the devil that they derive their origin, and by a necessary consequence they deserve to be condemned with him. These destinies assign to each one the kind of death which must end its days, either by iron or by the torture of the rope, or by falling from an elevated place, or by shipwreck; in the same kind of death the circumstances cannot be more varied. No one can have a destiny different from that of all other men. If this difference exists, it is no longer destiny, but at random that it must be attributed. And if chance finds its place in the death of a single man, he can have an equal share in the death of a greater number, and then we can no longer attribute it to destiny. Anaxagoras1 was crushed alive in a mortar by the orders of a tyrant; no other would have a similar destiny. A woman thrust a nail into the temple of Sisara, king of the Canaanites2, who was killed in this manner during her sleep; no one died that way. (Judg. 4: 2l) In the past, men were crucified, a torment which is now defended by the laws. If this ordeal had been established by fate, how could it have stopped? When a thing which is the work of destiny is prohibited and not done, destiny is as chained. Now, if destiny had no part in this torment, it was exclusively by virtue of the judgment of the law that men were subjected to the punishment of the cross. And by the fact it is so, it is not destiny which makes men condemn, but the crimes of which they are convinced. It was formerly said, among the Etruscans, a man of ravishing and incomparable beauty; this man was virtuous, and as he attracted the eyes of even the most honest women, to ward off all suspicion he seized seven wounds on his face to destroy that beauty which made him the object of general attention. It was thus that he triumphed over destinies, so long as destiny must be admitted. Perhaps it will be said to me: It was nature that gave him this beauty at birth, and it was destiny that inspired him to resolve to delineate himself. But then destiny is for nothing in the birth, it is the result of a simple accident. Now, if it is an accident, it is not to destiny that it must be attributed, but to a determination, or perhaps to a contingency as to the other circumstances of the main fact. What is conquering destiny? Does not it change the nature? But if destiny truly existed, he could not experience fault or change. It is reported as a fact in a law book that a woman brought to light five children; how could nature alone have given him this fruitfulness against destiny, which cannot be the cause of it? If destiny was somewhere, other women would have shared this fertility. We read again that a man, leaving for a distant journey, confided his wife to a friend of whom he knew the fidelity, and who was no longer young, but in the maturity of age. To be a foolproof guardian, he submitted to an operation that allowed him to sleep under the same roof as this woman without arousing the slightest suspicion. Was this conduct the effect of destiny or of a definite resolution? But how to attribute to destiny an action which is contrary to it? They are forced to admit, no doubt, that it is in the attributions of destinies that a man is learned or ignorant. All senators are therefore subject to the same destiny, for all without exception are literate, and the uneducated, as all slaves are born under the same destiny, because no slave is a senator. But if we call destiny that which is born with man, what is added next is therefore outside of destiny. Or if we attribute this quality to destiny, why do we acquire it only through work? I would understand that destiny was a cause if it came to man against his will; for what happens without having been foreseen is put in the account of destiny; but how can I attribute to it that which is the fruit of ripe reflections, long meditations, great efforts? Here is a man who is born a eunuch, others become so; where will destiny be here? No doubt in the one who is a eunuch by birth; but what about those who become it? Because there is a great difference between being born and becoming. If it is by virtue of destiny that some have become eunuchs, it is against the decrees of destinies that others are born. And why do we see so few who are eunuchs of birth, so much so that the fact seems incredible? It is related of a woman who lived in the city of Rome that she had eleven husbands, and a man whom he had up to twelve wives. What are the destinies that have set these exceptional conditions for them? Here is a certain fact that took place during the reign of Emperor Constantine. A young girl from Campania was changed into a man and driven to Rome; which destinies were the cause of this phenomenon? Others, no doubt, you do not know. Oh! if you cease to pronounce this name and leave more to eventualities and circumstances, you would give more to foresight. The strength and industry of the human spirit are so great that it not only resists nature, but is likely to become better or remain what it is because it has received from God this faculty. It is said that the Scythian women, who are called Amazons, seeing the prolonged absence of their husbands, engaged in distant wars, united with their slaves to have children, and put them to death all the male children to keep only the girls, to whom they forbade the work of the wool to train them from their youth in the exercises of the struggle and the handling of arms. They displayed such great energy in the conduct of affairs, that during a reign of several years they subjugated entire nations, and made the whole of Asia tributary. What to say to that? That these extraordinary facts, which lasted for a long succession of years, are the work of fate, to annihilate thus that which is ordinarily attributed to it? Thus, first of all, it is contrary to nature that women take the reins of the kingdom in defiance of their marriages; secondly, that they have united with their slaves; thirdly, that they put all male children to death to keep only the girls. Their prosperity was so great that this kingdom, which they had founded without the help of their husbands, took extraordinary growth during a long and glorious succession of years. Now, it had never been seen since the beginning of the world, except in Scythia. They may say that the world, being renewed after a period of fourteen hundred years, these things are reproduced in their time; but it is six thousand years since the world existence; at what time did this example find imitators? Crassus was nicknamed Agelastus because he was only seen laughing once in his life. Why was Junius nicknamed Brutus? Because he had the good idea to counterfeit the fool for not being put to death by Tarquin the Superb, who coveted his immense fortune. In Constantine's time, a man named Samatius defied the madman for thirty years to annoy the Emperor, as he later said himself. Where is the action of destiny? It is obviously destroyed because everyone does what he wants. But how can we explain the conduct of the supporters of destiny, which address to God fervent supplications which are directly contrary to destiny? They pray to recommend the years of their lives, their unions, their travels; they consult and pray when they want to make an acquisition or obtain dignity. If all this depends on destiny, why pray for these supplications to get something that will happen even in spite of you? But I'm trying to find out, do you tell me, if I have to accept. It is not, therefore, destiny which decides the conduct which you must hold, if you learn that there is utility for you. If destiny is here the master, your research is great, whether you like it or you do not want it, whether you want to know it or not, you will necessarily do that. But as they are unsure of what they say, they try to resort to dubious things so as not to find a different truth from their opinions. Here, however, are the wisest of them explaining their conduct: When we pray, they say, we do not have in view destinies that are absolutely unchallengeable, we know, but events that are close to destiny and that could be contrary to us. But, I ask them in my turn, I do not know whether this man was born under a favorable destiny, and he has near him events which seem likely to make him unhappy; what will happen, in fact, since you support the immutability of the good as the bad destiny? You pray to remove from yourself the unfortunate influence of what is close to destiny, inevitable influence without prayer; how then can you sustain the immutability of destiny, while you fear what is near destiny, for finally you have no reason to fear, if you do not think that destiny can change its decrees? But as the main point of your doctrine is to support the immutability of destiny, your prayers are therefore without motive. Examine, however, whether the object of your supplications does not depend on destiny, since all that you attribute to destiny is free from evil. Prayer is certainly not a bad thing; why not assign it to destiny? If, then, prayer enters into the decrees of destiny, then why does this prayer does not obtain its effect? If he is really part of destiny, he must get what he asks for. If, on the other hand, destiny both commands and renders prayer without effect, he is a fool, since it forces the man to ask what he knows he cannot be granted. If he does not know that the prayer of man can obtain what he asks him to do, it is carelessness which denotes the absence of reason, because all ignorance indicates a lack of sense, and the lack of sense is of madness. The pagan system collapses here entirely. Let them be enveloped in the darkness that robs them of the sight of light, victims of their ancient error, they refuse to listen to the truth that was hidden from them. But what shall we say of certain Christians who want to apply to the Savior by changing only the name, the vanity of this old error, and who push extravagance to claim that God himself was subjected to destiny by relying on these words of the Savior: "My hour is not yet come," (Jn. 2:4) as if this hour was not voluntarily chosen, but a necessity imposed upon it by fate, although He declared that he had set himself the time when he wanted to be delivered to his enemies. Did he not say, and I have the power to give my life, and I have the power to take it back?” (Jn. 10:18) The fatal necessity is thus erased before the power of the will. And how could we still call him our Savior, if all our actions, all the events of our life are subject to destiny? We call him our Savior, because He has shown us the way of salvation. Now, if this path has been revealed to us since its advent, it is not destiny that is the cause that it has remained unknown till then. What depends on destiny, their confession, arrives without being foreseen. On the contrary, we must recognize the action of faith that cannot be attributed to destiny, because what it believes today has not been known in previous centuries. Destinies, they say, dispose of events which compose the ordinary life of men. Now, how could we attribute to them something they have certainly ignored? This is why the Apostle says: " even the hidden wisdom, which none of the princes of this world knew.” (1 Cor. 2:8) It is these princes and powers who have the evil angels under them, and who, whenever they can, satisfy their passions under the name of destiny, just as the wicked make their own confession. Among men it is that they love, others they do not like, others they hate. Each of them suggests to men what he likes, according to their different inclinations; they inspire in some the passion of various guilty pleasures, in others the love of the present, to them the pleasure, to these are fear and anger, to a few avarice; for some they are a cause of gain, for others of damage; some share in benevolence, others in hatred and the difficulties they cause. At certain times they are as satisfied and take a few moments of rest; sometimes this rest is calculated, sometimes they refrain from insinuating themselves into a strongly occupied soul, for they have no absolute authority, but they look for the favorable occasion to make us fall into their snares. We have the free use of our will; but as soon as certain desires come to diminish our vigilance over ourselves, these spirits of malice hasten to solicit us to evil; but especially if they find us occupied with thoughts contrary to divine law, they come to lend us a hand to make us commit what the law forbids. If the fear of God is rooted in the soul, neither the flesh, nor the blood, nor the princes, nor the powers can prevail, for the help of God will make it so powerful against them, that it will triumph over them without sentence. If we do not have the free use of our will, why this recommendation of Our Lord: “Ask, and it will be given to you, because everyone who asks receives?" (Matt. 7:7) If, therefore, he who consents to ask must receive, we can no longer say that we do not have what we want, but only what is given to us, since the Savior excites our will to ask by promising him that he will receive this. What demand. If, on the other hand, destiny is the only master of our actions, whether we ask for it or not, the good or evil that happens must be attributed to destiny. Our Lord destroys this consequence when he says: "My daughter, your faith has saved you.” (Matt. 9:22) Destiny has nothing to do here, since it is faith that receives the benefit of healing. He says elsewhere: "If you believe, all things are possible to him who believes." (Mark 9:22) It is in the will that he places merit, because in fact it is a good of faith and not of nature. Faith is a virtue that joins the will to excite it to the practice of good; it is not in nature, but the will that is part of our nature makes the faith it has received effective and meritorious to God. The nature of man is like the stone which does not contain fire as one of its natural properties, but which nevertheless has power in it, which produces in reality the fire which it seems not to have, as long as it does not exist. It only has it in seed, that is to say in power, it is the action which must give birth to it; without this action it cannot exist; as if the seed is not cultivated, it produces nothing, it remains alone. It is therefore the action that adds to it that makes it fertile. Thus man does not have faith as the property of his nature, but he has in him the seed of faith; if this seed is not excited, stimulated, it will not produce any fruit, that is, it will not produce faith. Christians, believing in the destiny of astrologers, destroy the seed of faith that bears witness to the Creator and his righteousness. The work knows its author, and rightly testifies its existence by his love as by his actions. We therefore exhort you to flee by all means this wicked doctrine. Its followers are the enemies of God and never have a moment of tranquility, for they are always anxiously awaiting events of which they are by no means certain. For us, on the other hand, who believe that God can only be a source of happiness for us, and that he can remove from us by his will all the contrary events, we are faithful to prayer, in the assurance we have of his protection, and by reminding ourselves that if, while doing good, we go through a few trials, our patience in supporting them will deserve a more glorious crown. (1) It was not Anaxagoras, but Anaxarchus, Greek philosopher of the school of Democritus, that Nicocreon, tyrant of Cyprus, had him crushed alive by mortar to avenge himself for an injury he had received. (2) Sisara was not king, but general of the army of Jabin, king of Canaanites. (Judg. 4)
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 120. ON FASTING. — It is a duty, my dear brothers, for the priest of God, who is at the head of the people of Jesus Christ, to instruct in sound doctrine the people who are entrusted to him, according to the recommendation of the Apostle (Tit. 1:9), so that we carry out with scrupulous vigilance and with as much religion as zeal the work of faith required by the circumstances of our time. You are not unaware of the usefulness of the children we are going to celebrate as Easter approaches, but it is our duty to inform you of them. Devotion can only win to meditate again what she already knows. Such, indeed, is the disposition of nature that it lets itself go to lukewarmness if it neglects the use of reading. Iron that is rarely used produces rust, so sins are born in a soul that is not exercised by holy readings. This is why the Psalmist proclaims blessed the one who meditates the law of the Lord night and day. Although we know the divine oracles, yet when they are recalled to us by the holy books, the truly religious soul receives them as if they were hearing them for the first time. This reading awakens in her desire (the works of salvation), which is what the Apostle recommended to his disciple Timothy: "Revive the grace that is in you." (2 Tim. 1:6) Fasting is therefore as necessary as remedies are for wounds, it becomes for us the teacher of eternal life, on the condition, however, that we should be accompanied by these two testimonials of recommendation, prayer and mercy, intemperance of the body, it represses the contrary movements, it discharges the soul of the weight which consents it, as our Lord says: "Do not indulge in the excesses of the table and the debauchery, lest your hearts be heavy." (Luke 21:34) It is when the soul knows how to beware of the immoderate use of food and drink that it knows itself better. As in a mirror tarnished by uncleanliness man cannot see himself as he is, likewise if he is heavy with the excess of drinking and eating, he feels very different from what he is. It is then that passion awakens, that anger comes on, that pride flares up, that passion produces its unhappy fruits. This is why the Apostle makes this recommendation to the Ephesians: "Do not let yourself be intoxicated by the wine from which the dissolution is born." (Eph. 5:18) If, on the contrary, the ardor of the body is moderated by fasting, the soul who covers the full knowledge of itself knows with what pious eagerness it must obey its Redeemer. Fasting is therefore greatly needed. Esther was on the throne when the Jewish people were threatened with the greatest danger; she was delivered by fasting. (Esther 4:7) The Ninevites had heard the prediction of the prophet who fixed the day of their destruction; they ordered a general fast which saved them from this inevitable ruin. (Jonah 3:7) Whenever the righteous and the prophets wanted some favor from God, they humbled themselves by fasting, to David's testimony: "I humbled my soul in fasting." (Ps. 34:13) The Savior Himself, to whom fasting was not necessary, fasted to give us the example. (Matt. 4:2) So no one doubts the usefulness of fasting, and it is by fasting that man shows that he wants to obtain what he asks. This is why we read in Scripture, "Prayer is good with fasting." (Tob. 12:8) Prayer, to be pleasing, therefore needs to be accompanied by fasting. But these two conditions receive all their strength only from justice; also the Holy Spirit adds: "And alms with righteousness," that is to say, alms joined to righteousness renders almighty prayer with fasting. This is the practice of mercy which made the prayer and fasting of Cornelius so effective, that man, in the midst of abundance, practiced fasting, and fed the needy, that their appeased appetite might render his fast acceptable to God. It is therefore necessary both to give and to take away the fast so that he can obtain what he asks.
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 121. PRAISE AND GLORY OF THE PASSOVER. — O truly holy and salutary day of the feast of the Passover, a day worthy of all praise, where death has been vanquished, the reign of the demon destroyed, the mysteries of God revealed, the decree pronounced against us canceled, the gates of hell broken, the chains broken, day that gave freedom to the prisoners, sight to the blind, knowledge to the ignorant, forgiveness of sins to the unjust and sinners, day that reconciled the enemies, dispelled the errors, manifested the truth, he gave back to God the children he had lost, lowered pride, raised humility, enriched the poor, robbed the rich, flattened the mountains and hills, filled the valleys, crushed arrogance, adorned modesty, opened to souls the way to heaven, made freedom, broke the chains of captivity, cast out darkness, confounded mischief, purified all defilements, wiped out the power of Satan and hell, made Our Lord Jesus Christ appear as the true Son of God, lifted up the flesh to heaven by confounding the power of the world and showing that heaven, earth, and hell were under the power of one and the same God. We must, therefore, my dear brothers, celebrate and honor this day in the feelings of a deep religion joined to the purity of life and to the joy of the soul, avoiding all that is contrary to modesty and decency, in order to be able to gather the true fruit of the Passover feast by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom belongs honor and glory for ever and ever.
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 124. THE SAME WORK FOLLOWING PEOPLE MAY BE DIFFERENT AND WORTHY OF PRAISE OR CONDEMNATION. — The virtue of mercy is the same in the rich as in the poor, but it is appreciated differently in the rich than in the poor, that is to say that it is more worthy of praise in the poor than in the rich. The poor man did not fear to give much of the little he had, in the hope that God would return it to him with reward in the present and in the future. He had faith in this word of Scripture: "He who gives to the poor will never be in need.” (Prov. 28:27) This is why this poor woman deserved to be praised by the Lord alone, while many rich people threw large sums into the chest of the temple, because she was not afraid to give to the deprivation. The rich give, assured that they are of their great riches; the poor give with all their confidence in God. The rich do well by giving freely to the needy, but the poor make it a much more meritorious work, and by the same the reward of the poor is different from that of the rich. If the rich do not exercise mercy, he will be punished, while it is not required of the poor. So a poor man who is merciful is worthy of all praise. Theft is a sin in the poor as in the rich, but it makes the rich more guilty, because the poor have been driven by his poverty, while the rich in abundance, not satisfied with what he has he seizes the good of others, and what is even worse, strips the poor of the little they possess, so the trouble that awaits them is different. The virtue of justice is the same in the poor as in the rich, but it is much more meritorious in the poor. Observing the rules of justice in poverty is heroic. As for the rich man, he seems faithful to the laws of justice because he is far from poverty. Both are therefore just, but there is much more merit in practicing justice in poverty. Pride is always a vice, but it is much more reprehensible in the poor than in the rich, because abundance enfolds the heart of the rich, while the poor is superb even in poverty, which is almost an act of madness; so the poor man is more guilty. Humility is a virtue in both, but it is much more worthy of praise in the rich who practice it. What is so great a merit for the poor man to appear humble, while poverty itself inspires humility? But what is truly admirable is to see him whom his dignities and his riches elevate above other men to lower and humble himself without bringing back to himself the honors he knows he deserves. Humility is therefore good in all, but it is more meritorious in the person of the rich. Knowledge and learning are always admirable, but much more so in the rich than in the poor. The poor man, who had no title to the consideration of his fellows, applied himself strongly to acquire what could reconcile their esteem. The rich, on the contrary, who already enjoyed this consideration, has sought to increase it by his work, to make himself useful for two reasons, and his riches did not divert him from the work which was to acquire him this personal distinction. He is, therefore, more worthy of praise than the poor, who, without this application to study, would have nothing to draw from his obscurity. On one side, therefore, it is the will, on the other the necessity which has developed this love of knowledge. Sobriety is reprehensible in the poor as well as in the rich, but it is much more so in the poor. Poverty should serve to divert the poor from guilty pleasures; he should think that he has no reason to satisfy them, and that the eagerness with which he seeks the means necessarily leads him into a multitude of evils which he cannot avoid, even here below, unfortunate consequences; or by lavishing without reason what he possesses, he will fall into a shameful and unanswered poverty. The abundance of riches, on the contrary, is a seductive attraction which excites the rich to indulge in pleasure; besides, the rich are assured of exemption, for they know that justice is corruptible and that nobody will dare to condemn them. Who would dare to condemn a man who presents himself with the double investment of dignity and wealth? Their desires are therefore more keen and their passions more violent. Far from being taken back, they are in great honor and can even boast of their vices. If the rich and the poor are both chaste, the chastity of one is very different from the chastity of the other. For the poor, the baseness of his condition or the fear of the laws suffice to prevent him from indulging in the desires of his heart; the rich man, on the contrary, whom so many attractions solicit for vice, is much more worthy of praise if he turns his mind away from it. The chastity of the rich deserves therefore a greater reward than that of the poor. That a king on the throne moderates his passions, nothing more glorious; he can do anything and does nothing he knows he can do with freedom. The one really fears God, and keeps his precepts, who is the master of the laws and sets his eyes on the future judgment. It is therefore a truly heroic work for one who has no one to fear here below, to overcome the seductive lures of pleasure, attractions all the more powerful, it seems above the fear of the present evils and to come. So it is a very meritorious action to overcome pleasure, but especially for those who are above the law and men. For others, the fear of laws and their kind keeps them in duty. In order not to expose themselves to confusion before men, they persevere in the path of good and refrain from transgressing the laws to avoid condemnation. He, on the contrary, that his elevation sets above the laws of men, covers himself with glory by abstaining from evil.
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 126. FROM THE ONE WHO RECEIVED THE FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST. — It is written, "The righteousness of the righteous shall be of no use unto him in the day when he shall turn aside from the right way; and the iniquity of the sinner shall not be detrimental to him, when he shall do penance for his sins.” (Ezek. 18) The Lord also says in his Gospel; "He who does not believe is already judged.” (Jn. 3:18) By a necessary consequence, he teaches us that he who believes will not be subject to judgment to be condemned, but that the merit of his faith will make him worthy of praise and glory. The knowledge of God therefore has this prerogative to obtain the remission of sins. Indeed, he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God becomes worthy of being delivered from all his sins. For a long time lost in the paths of error and tossed by the flows of ignorance, he finally sees in his eyes the splendor of the truth in which, after so much agitations and storms, he finds an assured rest. Now, having thus been enlightened by this light, it is his duty to abstain from the mistakes he committed when he was still in the darkness of ignorance. Would he use this knowledge if he keeps the habits of his old life? A certain mark of the knowledge of God in a soul is the change of life and the return to good. In fact, the knowledge of God must inspire the fear of the just judge, in whose court he teaches us that the faithful will receive the reward of their righteousness, and the ungodly, that is to say the unbelievers, the just punishment of their infidelity. It is of all justice, indeed, that the good ones be filled with joy in the future life in which Jesus Christ must reign with his chosen ones. They have been exposed to scorn, outrages in this world where the devil reigns, they will appear surrounded by glory in the kingdom of Jesus Christ for which they have borne the contempt of the worldly. Sinners, on the contrary, who seemed to shine here below a false brilliance, opposing falsehood to truth, have to wait for tribulation and an imaginary glory to succeed for them a contempt, a humiliation too real. The righteous will rejoice in having believed, when they witness the chastisements of the unbelieving, and the unfaithful will repent of their unbelief only when they see both their own chastisement and the glory of those whose faith they had regarded as an act of madness, which was only worthy of their contempt. From then on, when one professed to be a Christian, one must apply oneself to avoid sin and to arm oneself against vices. And as it is impossible to always win the victory, the one who has allowed himself to be conquered must be saddened if he does not want to experience another defeat, because to be defeated to be vanquished is to escape the consequences of the defeat. Whoever resists, finds in this resistance an excuse, if he comes to be vanquished. Because he shows that he had the desire to win the victory, but that desire has not had its effect. We can hope, then, that he will rise again, and that a persevering meditation will make him more skillful and stronger in combat. To rise again only to sin again is to commit a very grave fault, which remains without excuse. The one who has enlisted in the service of God, and who has kept the will to sin, is far more guilty than the one in ignorance where he is of God leads a life ashamed and defiled of all kinds of crimes. One does not know who he must fear, the other knows him and does not fail to scorn. Those who embrace the faith receive the remission of their sins, yet they will obtain the glory promised to them only on the condition of joining to the faith they have received the fear of God, to fight against the enemies of the name to win the victory over them in order to obtain the reward that God has in store for those who have been more often victorious than conquered. As for the one who knows God and who does not want to embrace the faith so as not to be forced to live Christianly, but who only wants to receive the faith at the end of his life to die as a Christian, where he blushes to carry out a Christian life, where he wants to give himself up to the sins of which he hopes to obtain remission when he believes, I declare that the conduct of this man is not good, because it is to sin more freely throughout his life that he does not want to become a Christian or live as a Christian, or he blushes to become a Christian. What can he hope from God, under whose standard he blushes to fight, while claiming to receive from him the wages of his sons? This man literally makes fun of God. The approaching death makes him understand that he has no time left to sin; then he wants to be a Christian, and it is when he is reduced to the helplessness of sinning that he declares he wants to embrace the faith in Jesus Christ who has sin in horror, that is to say, it is not the will but the power of sinning that takes away the death that threatens him; it is to these men that we must recall this truth: "We do not mock God.” (Gal. 6:7) What are the recommendations of these kinds of people? It is that they are only given the sacrament of faith when they are at the end, almost without knowledge and about to give up their last sigh, so much do they fear to come back and blush at being become Christians. We must therefore remind them of these words of the Gospel: "He," says the Lord, "who is ashamed to confess me in the midst of this generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father. (Matt. 10:33, Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26 and 12:8.) They may say, We know the fragility of the human race, that's why we want to receive faith at the end of life so as not to expose him to the defilements of sin. I answer that when one embraces faith, or must know what one receives. It cannot produce its effect in the soul unless it is known and professed openly. "We must believe in our hearts to obtain justice," says St. Paul, “and to confess by mouth to obtain salvation." (Rom. 10:10). Now, how can one say of the one who does not already know where he is, that he has received the faith? To receive the faith is to profess that one has received it, because one knows what one has received. If they believe that the remission of sins is given to those who embrace the faith, they must also know that one truly believes only so much as the heart bears witness to the faith. God, who promises this remission of sins, examines the heart, and welcomes only the one whom he sees from the bottom of his heart. But how can one reap the fruits of faith when the heart does not even understand the words of faith? He therefore becomes a Christian and embraces faith with reflection and prudence, which does so only to avoid sin more easily. The one, on the contrary, who wants to keep the freedom to sin, does not want to embrace the faith so as not to be forced to lead a Christian life, which he does not want. He wants to receive the benefit of faith to death, so he hopes for exemption and the remission of his past sins, and he is in full security for the past as for the future, since the approaching death was the opportunity to sin. But this resolution has neither a good reason nor a pure conscience for principle, since we do not want to embrace faith, not when we will not want it, but when we can no longer sin. It is to these kinds of people that these words are applied: "Let us do evil, that good may come," (Rom. 3:8), that is to say, sin now, we will embrace the faith in the last hour and our sins will be forgiven, so the Apostle adds, "These people will be justly condemned." For it is not right that sins be forgiven to those who know God who defends sin, and abhors sinners, yet retain a strong desire to sin; without thinking that the gift of God can be useful only to those who sin through ignorance of God and who do not know that God must judge the actions of men. But for him who has received the teachings of faith and has meditated on them, and who is nevertheless determined to sin, not under the constraint of a cause under which he succumbs, but by a determined will to sin, it is difficult to forgive him. There are two causes to which the forgiveness of sins, the free gift of God, and penance are attached, so that he who sins again after receiving grace may be renewed by penance. He did not know how to persevere in the grace which he had received and which guaranteed him freedom, but he threw himself back into the servitude of sin, so he resorted to moans and tears to make sure that his sin was erased, for he sinned knowingly, not without doubt that we can never be absolutely ignorant of sin; but he who does not know that God must one day judge the actions of men, believes that exemption is assured to his sin. If, therefore, a pagan falls ill, and seeing his desperate state, he reflects in himself on the promises which faith and hope gives, he finds himself in excellent conditions, so that his sins may be forgiven him as soon as he sincerely believes and no longer has to fear being held in the underworld because he carries the sign of victory over death, although he has no right to dignity or reward of Christians. It must be, indeed, that there is a difference between the one who under the impulse of the love of God did not fear to fight his enemies by arming himself with continence and vigilance against vices, in order to be able to resist evil, and to solicitly defend the rights and authority of his God, and he who after having made common cause with the enemies of his Lord, returns to him at the end of his life, not to support the interests of God, but to obtain the personal privilege of being a citizen of his kingdom before being a soldier. Whoever wants to lead a Christian life to obtain the reward after his death, knows that the sufferings of this life have no proportion to the glory that will one day bring out in us. (Rom. 8:18) So do not hesitate to put on the armor of faith and fight against princes and powers to win the victory in this world and the crown of triumph in the other. It is right that whoever has defended the rights of the kingdom of his Lord in the midst of those who are malicious and rebels, receive in the other life the reward of his courage. In fact, the enemies of God seeing this faithful witness of Jesus Christ covered with glory in the kingdom of God for having confessed the truth, will be grieved and confused at having regarded it as a false thing, which had all the characters of truth; as well as those who have been slow to embrace the faith, and who have confessed God not in their lives, but to their death, seeing the glowing glory of those who under the armor of Jesus Christ fought for him with dedication and delicacy will remember not having lived, but only being dead as a Christian. Cannot we even say that he who has not the desire to live as a Christian, was hardly disposed to die as a Christian? Perhaps, in fact, he wanted to receive the name of a Christian who was about to die, because he no longer had time to sin. What Christians believe, he said, perhaps true, I want to become a Christian, without losing anything, if I am deceived in my faith. As at the moment of death, it is not the will to sin that ceases, but the sin itself, it wants to try if faith can serve him after death, while what would have been really useful to him was to work to correct his sins and vices the same where he committed them. The best proof indeed, that one condemns one's past faults, is to follow the line that traces faith, and to change one's life and habits. He who sinned because he did not know God, must not sin when he knows him, or this knowledge is completely useless to him. The knowledge of God must raise a soul to perfection. A Christian before making a profession must understand that the best proof that he is a Christian is not the name he bears, it is his works. That is why God gives Christians superior commandments to other laws, commandments tend to elevate Him to holiness and form the true worship of God. If they neglect these commands, they will deserve to hear this reproach: "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?" (Luke 6:46) He declares by that that it is useful to call him Lord, if we keep his commandments, for it is mocking him to give him the name of Lord, while despising His precepts, so that we must remember these words of the Apostle: "We do not mock God." He will therefore be condemned by his own words, because he calls Lord the one for whom he has no fear at the testimony of his works.
2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 11. IF IT IS IN PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR UNBELIEF AND THEIR MURMURINGS THAT THE JEWS HAVE RECEIVED HARSHER COMMANDMENTS, WHAT HAVE THEIR CHILDREN DONE WRONG TO BE BOUND THEMSELVES TO THE OBSERVANCE OF THESE PRECEPTS? — The law was given to the fathers to be a burden to their sons who were to be like them; for, not content to equal, they surpassed the offenses of which their fathers were guilty against God. Now God in his foreknowledge saw their children above all by giving them this law, because all the others died in the wilderness.
2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 1. WHY WERE THE ACTIONS AND WORDS OF THE LORD WRITTEN BY FOUR DIFFERENT AUTHORS? — It was fitting that the blessed year of the Lord, as the Prophet put it, should be included in four volumes, as in four seasons. Just as the course of the year is composed of four seasons which follow one another, so the words and actions of the Lord are contained in four books which complement each other, and which together form a perfect fullness. Now, the reason these books have been written by four different authors is so that each gospel would have a different name, as each season, distinct from the others. If they seem to present some contradiction in the words, this contradiction always disappears before an explanation related to the subject; just as the seasons differ in name, air temperature, and the course of the stars, but are in accord with the result which is to give rise to all the productions of the earth.
2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 2. SINCE IT IS CERTAIN THAT WE HAVE FOUR AUTHENTIC BOOKS OF THE FACTS AND WORDS OF OUR LORD, IN WHAT ORDER SHOULD WE PLACE THEM? — The classification of the four Gospels is determined more by the order of the subjects than by the time they were written. St. Matthew is placed first because he begins his gospel with the promise, that is, by Abraham to whom the promise of the incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ was made. After him comes Saint Luke, because he tells the different circumstances of the incarnation. The third is St. Mark, who attests that the gospel preached by Jesus Christ was promised in the law. The fourth is St. John, who by this exordium: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," openly proclaims the divinity of him whose incarnation was promised to Abraham, as told by St. Luke, and of which St. Mark shows that the gospel was preached according to the prophet Isaiah's prediction.
2ND CATEGORY OT & NT QUESTION 9. ON THE ETERNITY OF THE SON. — There are some who have not yet dispelled the darkness of error, nor thoroughly purified the defilements of their past life, have ideas all earthly, and doubt the divinity of the Son of God, or believe that there is no distinction between the Father and the Son. I do not speak here of the faithless and stubborn Jews, to whom God has opened the source of the law and the treasures of the mysteries, for them they are guilty not only of doubt, but of sacrilegious denials. I will therefore explain this truth as much as the limits of a short treatise will permit me. Hope is left entirely to the ignorant who consent to learn, but those who refuse the light have only to wait for eternal punishment. The Almighty God, whose greatness and goodness have no equal, must have engendered and produced of himself a being of sovereign greatness and goodness. If he had begotten a being who was opposed to his sovereign perfection, he would have given reason to think that he could not have done more and to find his power in default, or that he had not wanted it and to accuse his goodness. For Almighty God it was not a very great work to create a being who was inferior to him, would not possess a sovereign perfection. Above him there was nothing, for there is nothing superior to God; what could exist beneath him was little, for there can be no relation of convenience between the imperfect and the most perfectly perfect. In producing therefore a Son absolutely like him, he has begotten of himself, as another himself, and thus this supreme and sovereign good which comes to us from God, has come down to us because he begot. Another reason that must be considered is that God, who created this world, and among so many other wonders of order and beauty that he makes manifest in creation, has given to all creatures the faculty of reproducing beings of the same nature and of the same kind, must have possessed first the power which he has communicated; because no one can give what he does not have. God, therefore, who has begotten a Son who is absolutely and perfectly like him, that is to say, unique as he is unique, holy as he is holy, good as he is good, happy as he is happy, sovereign as he is Sovereign, eternal as he is eternal, wanted to possess the first fertility and thus give the creatures he had to draw from the void the example of reproducing according to his nature and his species. And in it, the order required that whoever was to be the Father of all things, should first be Father in the proper sense of the word, that is to say Father of a Son who was by nature. However, when we say that God begets a Son, it is not in this sense that his origin is like ours, and that it is born as mortal men who come out of the womb who are born to start an existence they did not have before. All other creatures owe to external causes and to the elements which surround them, to reproduce each one according to the species which is peculiar to it. The nature of God, on the contrary, without the union of any foreign cause, engendered and produced from his nature that which was in it and with it from all eternity. Thus, when we say that light is born of the sun, because it is produced by the sun that seems to engender it, we hear, not that the sun may have ever existed without its light and that it has engendered in a time subsequent to his own existence, but this light which has always been in him, which is like his production and his son, spreads without waiting the progress of time, and without any distinction from the fruitful principle of his shine and splendor. It is thus that the Son of God, intimately united to God from all eternity, possesses this character of resemblance to God, of having neither beginning nor end. God is eternal and has no origin, the Son is also eternal. God is one, he is simple, he is immutable; so that the Son is so united to his Father, that, except the distinction of names and persons, the two are one and the same nature, and that their greatness and majesty are inseparable. God did not father his Son with the help of contrary elements; he has engendered him from the simple and unique source of his divine nature, he has always had him in his bosom, he has never been separated from him, and he is so closely united to him that the unity that exists between them cannot soften the slightest alteration. |