GENESIS
1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 106. ON GENESIS. — "In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” If God created heaven and earth in the beginning, and heaven is the firmament, as the sequel shows, it is not true that light was made first place, and then the firmament; for the sacred author could not designate another heaven, because he describes the creation of the world as God made it in its perfection. As men followed erroneous systems of the creation of the world, Moses, inspired by God, teaches them the true origin of the world. Some, in fact, pretended that it had not had a beginning, others that it had had a beginning, but that it had been made by angels; others also maintained that it had been done, but by a certain Sacla, who is the god of opposing power. A small number, in the tradition of truth about the origin of the world, asserted that it had God as his author. It was to undeceive those who were the victims of these false opinions that Moses was compelled to make known the true cause of the world, lest the children of Israel, freed from the tyranny of the Egyptians, should not yet be slaves to their slaves of false interpretations. Indeed, the Egyptians, among all peoples, were zealous advocates of error, for centuries they had applied themselves more than all others to the study of a vain philosophy. Now, Moses, by the very fact that he had been adopted by the. the daughter of Pharaoh, had been instructed in all the science of the Egyptians. (Exod. 2:10; Acts 7:22.) What do these words signify: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth?” If by the truth we must understand what we have said above, let us see what he means. We believe that Moses, in order to destroy all error on the lower creatures and on the matter which has served to make the world, first wanted to speak of the substances and elements which have served to create the world, if had said nothing, one might have thought that these substances were equal and co-eternal to God. He, therefore, who believes in the account of the inspired author, cannot doubt that the world was created, since Moses attests that the substances that served the creation of the world were created in the beginning. God created heaven and earth in the beginning, that is, the higher and the lower substance. The higher substance was the essential material of the sky, the lower substance is a thicker substance which has served to make the arid element called earth and darkness. That is why it is said in the prophet Isaiah: "I am the God who made light and created darkness (Is. 45:7).” When God created these things, he also titled the material element, that is to say, water, darkness, and earth before the signs of the times; according to some, is a heap of frozen water, it is so called, because it is formed by a mass of water; solidified and firmed by the power of God, and is also given the name of heaven from the verbs occulendo, celanda, conceal, hide. Water appears first, because it is the principal element, and it has served to form the vault of the world. The earth is like the floor, and David testifies that it is the work of the Holy Spirit: "Let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord, for he says, and all things have been done; he commanded, and all was created (Ps. 148:4).” After the creation of these elements, and before the organization of the world, God created light, to spread clarity on his works, and this light, as a result of God's established rule, provides the space of a day. The night succeeded the day, according to the same rule, and after the space of time assigned to it, it was illuminated by the return of the morning light. So the first day ended with the beginning of the second day, for the night was gathered in the day, to do with it only one day, because the darkness being subjected to light have no independent existence and may be numbered. Thirty days form a lunar month and in these thirty days are included nights. The space of time during which the light fills the office assigned to it is called day. The dark element before being lighted is called night, and it is the space of time which is between the end of the day and the rising of the dawn which bears the name of night. For it is not the darkness that makes the night, as the light is made, because the darkness remains what it is by nature. On the contrary, the return of light is born, and its disappearance at night. It is therefore not without reason that night is subdued by daylight. After the creation of light an equal space of twelve hours of day and twelve hours of night formed what is called the equinox of the first day. From the days begin to grow on the night for three months which are the spring season. Then they decline for the next three months, which form the summer season. We arrive again at the equinox, after which the night becomes longer than the day during three months which are the autumn months; then it loses in turn its length greater than that of the day until the end of the fourth season which is winter. Thus we return to the equinox of the first day in which God created the world, a day that is believed to be the eleventh of the calends of April, which is the first day of the Passover, that is to say, the first day of the first month. In fact, the law ordered the Jews to prepare on the evening of the tenth day of the first month to celebrate the Passover on the fourteenth day of the same month, that is, to begin the eleventh. Now the evening of the tenth day is followed by the dawn of the eleventh, and the eleven of the calends of April is the beginning of the first month. In the beginning the moon was created in its fourteenth day, because all things were made in their entirety. Add three days since the last night, and these are the three days before the stars appeared, and you find that it was the eleven of the calends of April that the world was created, because the number of days of the moon descends from the eleventh to the fourteenth. The first whole month has therefore been assigned for the celebration of the Passover, so that the day of the celebration is never below the eleven of the calends of April, or beyond the fourteenth day of the moon, because it is the eleventh day that the world was made, and on the fourteenth day of the moon a greater light was created more strikingly. Now, between the beginning and that glorious splendor which enlightened the world, our Lord suffered and rose again on the first day called the day of the Lord, because it was made by the Lord, the author of the months which succeed each other, times and years. But this Passover feast is not celebrated everywhere in the same manner, because the course of the moon in its periods of growth and decay is defiantly calculated. "Now the earth was invisible and unformed (Gen. 1:2).” It is evident that the earth at the first moment of its creation was invisible and unformed; it was covered by the waters, so it was invisible, it was unformed, because being liquid, it was not fit for culture. "And the darkness covered the face of the abyss.” The sacred writer says that darkness was poured out on the face of the abyss, that is, on the immense surface of the waters. "And the spirit of God was carried on the waters. It was as on the upper part of these waters that the spirit of God was carried, while the darkness covered the infinite depth of the same waters. The spirit of God was on the waters because there was no darkness where the spirit of God was, who, as much as it could, shed light on the waters. But the abyss, that is to say, the immense depth of the waters, was inaccessible to this light; it illuminated the higher waters, and below it reigned the darkness spread over the whole face of the abyss. Moses calls this spirit the spirit of God, and he wants to make us understand not the Holy Spirit, but a spiritual force that was above the material creature. As he wishes to teach us that everything comes from God, he calls the spirit of God the spirit that was carried on the waters, to destroy that wicked error which causes one to say that God said something that God is not the author of all that exists. For what comes from God is above all the powers and all the principalities, as well as above all the spiritual powers. Let no one be surprised that this spirit is called the spirit of God, when everything evidently comes from God. For God himself, before punishing the earth by the flood, said: "My spirit shall not abide in these men, because they are flesh (Gen. 6:3)." We read also in the prophet Ezekiel, "This is what the Lord says to me: I will stretch out the skin upon you, and I will send in you the spirit and you will live (Ez. 38:5).” Is not it rather the office of the soul than that of the Holy Spirit? Here, then, is the spirit of God, that is to say, an omnipotent virtue, which governed the elements of matter, for his office was to direct them. When God had created the light and regulated the duration of the day, and the second day was over, he made the firmament, that is to say, heaven, so that light was the rule of the day in the firmament and that it was like a torch in a house. Now the firmament was created from the substance of the waters of which we have spoken. The world passes into the organized state; to the confusion of the elements succeeds the distinction of substances, and we see the appearance of the more perfect formations which must be like the members of that great body called the world. Indeed, the elements that were created in the first place were like the materials of the world. However, they are called the world, because these elements have been derived from confusion to produce every kind of creatures and have thus determined this name of world because they had been used for its creation. The firmament, that is to say, the sky, was thus established in the midst of the waters, to separate the waters above the firmament from the waters. The divine power establishes this firmament in the midst of the waters which were below it, in it, above it and around it. It was of a concave form, and sufficiently defenseless by its nature against the invasion of internal or external waters, it was like a well fortified house, which gives security to its inhabitants. On the third day God ordered the waters under the sky, that is to say, in the space formed by the concavity of the firmament to gather together in a single bond, in order to let appear the arid element which is the earth, and that is so. The whole extent of the earth having been brought to dry, it is like a vast reservoir, in which the waters which were under the heat were precipitated, and the arid element appeared. As the waters had withdrawn, the hitherto invisible earth had to appear visible. God gave to the arid element the name of earth, and he called all these waters gathered together. He then commanded the land to produce plants for food and fruit trees, each according to its kind on the earth. On the fourth day he created great bodies of light in the sky to light the earth, the greater one to begin the day, the lesser to begin the night, and he also placed the stars. These stars are intended to promote the germination, birth and nourishment of all that occurs in the world, to serve as signs to mark times divided into determined spaces, and to be the ornament of the whole world. A house shines by its ornamentation when the vaults are clad in gilded paneling; thus the stars are the ornament of the world by their varied light and brilliance. In the light he had created in the first place, God adds the splendor of the sun, to make of these two beings only one indivisible whole, he then gives to the dark night a luminous body, and as the moon was created in his fourteenth day, Moses said, A lesser luminous body to shine at the beginning of the night, for as soon as it was created it poured out its light throughout the night. The part is taken for the whole in these words: "To shine at the beginning of the night,” because the moon does not always shine in the evening. The greater luminous body which we call the sun shines from the beginning of the day, because it has been inseparably united to the light which was created in the first place. The world was therefore three days without these luminous bodies, for there was still nothing on earth that required their presence. But when the earth had produced the plants which were to serve as food, and the fruit trees, the necessity of the stars, which were to develop or preserve them, were felt. As the germination and production of plants are subject to the influence of these stars, they should not be created before the plants, lest any attempt should be made to attribute to them the creation of all the productions of the earth; the plants were to precede, inasmuch as their creation seemed entirely independent of these stars. And on the fifth day God commanded the waters to produce living animals that swim in the water, and birds that fly on the earth under the sky. "And God saw that it was good,” and he said, "Grow and multiply." Moses adds, "And God saw that these things were good" to make those who dare to say that they are evil to blush. For as soon as they are pleasing to God their creator, no one has the right to find them evil. There are those who push the extravagance to the point of saying: "He has seen these things, and he has found them good, a proof that he was ignorant of it before.” O fools, how could he have ignored it? All he wanted was done. Can we say that we want what we do not know, and that the one who has the power to do does not know what he is doing? And what is stronger, it will be said that he did not create these things himself, but that he commanded that they be made, and that he who commanded did not have the power to do? But as everything is possible, by commanding what he could not do, he began to have that power which was to turn to his glory. We must therefore admit here a double power in the commandment of inanimate matter to produce animate beings. On the sixth day, God commanded the earth to produce living animals, quadrupeds and other beasts of the earth. And that was so, and the animals were created. And God saw that these things are good and very good, because they are all necessary. That same day God said, "Let us make man in our image and in our likeness, and let him command all the creatures of the earth." God first made all the substances of which the world was to be composed, and it was after the world was organized, clothed with all its ornaments, and provided with all the necessary things, he created man to enjoy the world and all that God had prepared for him. For all other creatures he commanded the waters and the earth to produce them; but when it was a question of making man, the sacred author represents him taking from the silt of the earth, to teach us the difference which separated man from all that he had created up to that time. It is in order to raise the dignity of man that he describes it to us from the hands of God, and made in the image and likeness of God, that is, of the Father and the Son. We have spoken elsewhere of this image and likeness of God; however, the opportunity and the matter we are dealing with require that we talk about it again. It is the Father who says to his Son: "Let us make man in our image and in our likeness," and the very act of creation is the work of two persons, one speaking and one listening. This image of God is thus in man in the sense that he was created alone, as a master from whom all others were to come, and who was invested with the authority of God as his substitute, for every king bears the image of God. For this reason the woman was not made in the image of God, for thus is Moses saying: And God created man, and he made him in the likeness of God. What the Apostle says: "For man, he must not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman veils her head because she is neither the glory nor the image of God (I Cor. 11:7).” The likeness of God in man consists in the fact that woman comes from man as the son comes from the father, with that very great difference which woman has been made, and that the son is born. There are some who believe that God created everything simultaneously. If he has done everything by his word, they say, why should he not have done everything simultaneously? However, it is generally believed that God created the world successively. It is believed that it is from the greatness of the divine power that it was created all in one day. Let us consider how great is the providence of God in this mode of successive creation. He could certainly create everything simultaneously, but multiplied reasons prevented it, and to enter into no detail we must believe in the divine Scripture which often says and repeats: "The Lord your God made in six days heaven and earth, the sea and all that they contain.” All these things must have been done thus to make men feel and know that they were created. Seeing that not all the creatures had existed simultaneously, but that some had been created today, others the another day, they recognized that they had had a beginning and that they could not in any way claim to eternity, since their creation had been partial and successive. If all the creatures had existed simultaneously, they would not have the feeling of their infirmity, and would imagine that they had no beginning, for the things which are the simultaneous product of the word of God, perceive that they have been created; for this reason they must have been made, the naked first, the others second. And so that beings who have been created at first do not regard themselves as imperfect, seeing themselves create more excellent beings, they attribute to themselves the same perfection which they consider in others. Thus the light which is called the day was preceded by heaven and earth, that is, by water and the arid element. Now, as the water, the arid element, and the darkness were plunged in the confusion of chaos, they could not claim eternity for them, since none of these elements had any definite state or property. The sun and the moon, the most brilliant stars, were preceded by many created beings. It is thus that the more excellent beings who have been created the last, and the first created, who are less perfect, cannot ascribe to each other an eternal existence. Moreover, the work of creation, which was consummated in six days, is the symbol of the duration of the whole world, that is to say, that the works of the six days represent six thousand years, to be accomplished successively in each century, is found in the works of the six days. So did not be so widespread on earth; this is why the first days of the creation are unclear; animals are created before man, because the first men must live in ignorance, and follow their coarse instincts as animals; and man is created on the sixth day, because it is in the sixth millennium that the advent of Christ came to give man a new creation which anchored him from the tyranny of death. Man is created in the image of God because he owes his grace to bear in his soul the image of the Son of God, to the testimony of the apostle St. John: "We know that when he comes in his glory we shall be like him (I Jn. 3:2).” And the Apostle Paul says, "We are in conformity with the image of the Son of God (Rom. 8:29)." The tree of life which was planted in paradise was the image of the future grace of God, that is to say, of the body of the Lord who gives to him feeds on eternal life. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil signifies the law given by Moses, who, by making known the sin that was hidden before, gave mankind the knowledge of good and evil. God rests on the seventh day of all his works, because the sixth millennium completed, he will rest in the seventh with the world that will cease all its works. We have chosen these considerations among several others to facilitate the understanding of these truths according to the principles which we have explained.
(Genesis 1:1) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 2. WHY DID GOD CREATE THE WORLD? — God made the world because he is the supreme craftsperson, or if he is challenged by this title, let it be said openly; but his works themselves show it clearly. Will I be asked: before he created them, were all things in nothingness, or what was there before creation? The correct ones answers this question in a few words: "It is in him that we have life, movement and being," (Acts 17:28), that is, all things are in God, because He is everywhere, and since He existed alone from all eternity before all things, in a manner invisible to every creature, and so as not to evade this mystery, or rather to ignore why the world was made. We say that the devil, by his apostasy, has led a great number of angels, that is to say, the spiritual powers in his prevarication, when he wished, in his proud impiety, to usurp the very throne of God. This is what the prophet is saying when he says, "How did you come down from heaven, shining star, son of the dawn?" (Isa. 14:12) that is to say, was more brilliant than all the stars. He was the leader of many legions which he surpassed all in splendor, and at the head of which he engaged this sacrilegious combat. He saw beneath him a multitude of spiritual powers, and as the knowledge of the mysteries of heaven raised him in paradise above all others, he wanted to be called God. Every day he finds imitators in the present life, who are proud to see a multitude of soldiers gathered around them, want to exploit this hearth of conspiracy which is offered to them by their followers, and seek to usurp the sovereign authority. It was then that God, willing to punish his presumption, not by his power, but by reason, created matter which was a confused mass of elements that served to create the world. In establishing the distinction in this confusion, God gave the world that order, that brightness which we admire. The elements having separated from each other, formed by their arrangement what we call the world, because each thing distinctly separated from each other, coincided with its formation. As for the man placed on this earth, he is a compound of two natures, one superior, the other inferior, one celestial, the other terrestrial, and his creation clearly establishes the sovereign authority of a single God who made man not only by his word, but in his image, and created him alone to be the source from which the human race was to emerge. God wanted to create only one man to establish that all things come from one principle, and that there is therefore only one God, so that the higher creature learns for its confusion the truth by example of the man who had been created from the earth. From that moment the devil became the enemy of man. He sensed that the man had been created to accuse him; so he put into action all the subtleties of his nature to drag him into the prevarication in which he had fallen himself, and thus share his condemnation with his accuser. He promised him, therefore, as the fruit of his disobedience, the divinity, who, by attempting to usurp him by his pride, was precipitated into the abyss. Now, as every nature is free by its creation of every evil principle, it takes its name from its accidents. The thing signified precedes the name which must signify it. Thus the composition of the names of Satan and devil come from his works, and are the expression not of his nature, but of his will. Now, that the eternal purposes and decrees of God in the creation of man would have, and that the devil had made the height of the crime that had precipitated man into ruin, Christ deigned to descend from heaven on earth, to deliver man from the penalty of his disobedience and to make known the punishments reserved for the devil, and to turn men away from imitating his conduct. This is why the apostle Saint John says: "The Son of God came into the world to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn. 3:8). Now, if he were evil by nature, it would be folly or injustice to predict punishment. Who dreams of condemning the one whom he sees acting only according to his nature? Who is angry at the fire, because it burns, against the water, because it cools, both acting in it only according to their nature and not by an act of their will? If, then, the devil were evil in his nature, he would not have a will here. He would be incapable of discernment and he would behave like a blind man to all things in one and the same way. On the contrary, he acts with a certain discernment; he spares those who do his will, he uses concealment and neophiles, he sows obstacles and impediments under the feet of those who want to resort to the protection of God; he pitches his servants with pitfalls, and he declares himself especially against those who obey more faithfully the divine wills. It is therefore obvious that his will is all in the wrong. This is why the Apostle St. Peter tells us: "Be sober and watch, for the demon your enemy surrounds you like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." (2 Pet. 5:8) It is not the pagans, it is not the Jews, it is not the people of bad life and manners he attacks, it is the faithful servants of God and Jesus Christ that he knows how to be his enemies, because they condemn his enterprise and his pride. When the law was given, his jealousy became more ardent against those who lived under him, because he knew that the law taught men the existence of one God, and the rules of a pure and holy life. If therefore we believe that the devil acts only by virtue of his nature, we cannot admit that he is guilty, because he acts how he can act according to his nature, and that he does not do what he cannot do, because it is contrary to his nature. He deserves neither praise nor condemnation; his actions are harmful, nor condemnation, because he does not act voluntarily, but by the impulse of his nature. We know that men with sudden madness have wounded their fellows with sticks, swords, stones, or by their bites, and that they have killed even some of them. They have been taken with care by their persons to bring them before the tribunals. They declared them innocent because they had not acted knowingly and voluntarily, but under the impulse of some kind of force, trained. How indeed to establish the guilt of a man who does not know what he did? If therefore the devil does not know the good, why judge him worthy of condemnation, because he does not do what he does not know? On the contrary, if it were possible, he would be rather praiseworthy because he does what he does not know. For us, it is with all justification that we have become guilty because we do not do what we know we must do; or because we do what we know how to defend ourselves. Now all the Scriptures agree with declaring the devil guilty; that is why we read that the torment of hell is reserved to him, and that the divine law condemned him without return, because he did evil while knowing and being able to do good. God, indeed, justice itself, would not condemn him for not doing the good he did not know, but for doing the evil he knew. I therefore regard it as an incontestable truth, that no substance can be called bad, because all evil, as we have shown, derives from the will which has come to vitiate nature by means of the senses.
(Genesis 1:1) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 28. WHAT CAN WE SAY TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THIS WORLD EXISTS NATURALLY FROM ALL ETERNITY, AND THAT IT HAS NEITHER BEGINNING NOR END? — That the world exists from eternity and that it is independent, is both implausible and impossible. We see him composed of a multitude of diverse bodies; Now, simplicity is the essential attribute of a divine and eternal being; it must present no diversity, but the most perfect unity. The world is not even uniform in the succession of times; not only are there differences of time and contrary substances, but the succession of times is not regular. Now an eternal substance is sovereignly removed from all diversity, it is not accessible to touch or sight, because it is incorporeal. The world on the contrary is subject to the alteration, the water is in opposition with the fire; if the fire becomes stronger, it triumphs over the water, and the earth, in its turn, dry and cold nature, flames up like a material thing. We cannot, therefore, admit the eternity of this world which we see subjected to so many changes and alterations, which wears and ages from century to century, and which we believe we must someday end. But what must we think of the man who believes the eternal world? Man certainly begins to exist in the world; Now, before it existed, what was the use of the annual fertility of the earth? Shall we say that this fertility existed without any design or as chance? And how could an eternal being produce corruptible and mortal beings, whereas an eternal being can only come out an eternal being? How yet dare to call eternal what is seen, what is felt, and what is touched? How is eternal to call what is subject to the succession of times, a succession itself which is not always uniform or regular? For eternity is not subject to no alteration, and has no change.
1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 3. WHAT NEED WAS IT TO MAKE IT KNOWN BY MOSES THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD AND THE ORDER OF CREATION, AND NOT BEFORE HIM? — This story should not have been written before Moses, because creation had not yet given rise to such great errors among men. But it became necessary as soon as these errors spread in the human race, until the children of Israel heard the philosophers of Egypt who had instructed Moses in all the sciences of the Egyptians, which contradicted the truth of creation and affirmed that a certain Apis had created this world by means of the evil angels, and that Satan is the prince of this world. Marcion adopted this sense for his ruin. The Manichaeans claim that this same Satan created man, but not the world, and in this they are more insane than others. For it is a certain truth that the world was created for man, and they come to say that God created this world, though of a foreign matter, while man was created by his enemy, that is to say, one would have placed a master in the house of the other. Moses, therefore, had to point out and destroy this error, to teach that the creation of man as of the world had God alone as Master. The authority given to Moses by the miracles and wonders he performed guaranteed the truth of his teaching, supported by such testimonies. Indeed, who would refuse to believe the author of such great miracles? That is why those who contradict this doctrine are easily convinced of error, because they have only their word as supporter of their affirmations. Moses wishing to demonstrate that nothing is co-eternal with God, first explains the order in which creation was made, the creatures less important first and then the most important, proving that none absolutely was uncreated. Indeed, those of a later creation have greater excellence. To those who sought to excite the time when the former were created, may oppose their inferiority of nature which subjects them to those which are their posterior origin. If, on the contrary, they claim primacy in favor of the more excellent creatures, their pretensions are opposed by the rank of order they occupy in creation. So that there is none which has not had a beginning. Above all, God created heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1). Then the light destined to light the day. Then the sky, and the clusters of waters which receive the name of the sea, and above which appeared the habitable earth. The earth which Moses presents to us as having been made after heaven, is not entirely the earth properly so called, but all the lower creatures and all the material elements. The sky which was created in the beginning is not this visible heaven, but the higher and spiritual heaven. Therefore when Moses tells us that God first made heaven and earth, he hears of all things invisible in heaven, and by the earth all the visible things God created. By thus uniting the two extreme terms of all nature, he establishes in a certain manner that all intermediate beings must have been created equally. The stars which he placed in order to regulate the order of the universe were created on the fourth day, and the time of their creation is in reverse relation to the excellence of their nature. As for man, he created him on the sixth day, in order to introduce him only in a perfectly completed dwelling. Now the man we see created on the sixth day is far superior to all other creatures, and this superiority comes above all from his inner nature, invisible and endowed with intelligence. The sun is the brightest, and the moon is brighter than the earth. This is why some people do not like the saying of Genesis, And God saw that the light was good (Gen. 1:4). As they asserted that all creatures had an evil principle as their author, and that they could not believe in their goodness. Moses, in order to establish the goodness of all things created, shows that God found them good in proportion as he made them, and thus condemns him who would be tempted to find them evil. How can we suppose that he who said, Let there be light, and there was light (Gen. 1:3), did not know the light? Can we do what we do not know? Now the light as soon as it was made, pleased the one who had made it. What craftsman does not find his joy in his work? This is why it is written, And he saw that the light was good (Gen. 1:4). And yet there are those who maintain that it is bad. What would it be if God had left this truth without witness? Thus, after the account of the creation of the world, Moses reveals the succession of the human race from the first man, first by Seth, who replaced Abel (Cf. Gen. 4:25), and by order to Abraham, the father of the Jewish people. He shows that Abraham believed in the Creator God of the world, and that this same God gave the law in which were contained the promises of the future Christ who was to deliver mankind from the tyranny of the devil. It is through these authorities that we prove how reasonable our faith is. For this account of the origins of the world makes this testimony to our faith that Christians go back to the beginning of the world. In fact, from Seth, the sons of Adam, we descend to Enoch; from Enoch to Noah; from Noah to Abraham; from Abraham to David; from David to Mary, from whom Jesus Christ is born through the operation of the Holy Spirit. All those who in ancient times have faith in one God, whom the Savior preached, deserve the name of Christians. For the promise of the Savior to come is from the beginning of the world. This is why St. John calls him in his Apocalypse, "The Lamb slain from the beginning of the world. (Rev. 13:8.) Christians have always existed. All those, of whom I have spoken, who have existed since the first man, and through whom we come to the Savior, have faith in that God of whom Jesus Christ said: and eternal life consists in knowing you the only true God, and the one you sent, Jesus Christ (Jn. 17:2). But can we not make this objection: If all those you speak of were Christians before the coming of the Savior, what knowledge did Jesus bring to us? The advent of Jesus Christ has developed the understanding of this truth, because preaching has revealed the mystery which this unique God contained, the properties of each divine person, and that to make us fulfill the righteousness of the law, Jesus Christ gave us the graces that God kept in reserve.
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 107. SUCCESSION OF THE DAY AND NIGHT. — According to the order followed in the creation of the world, we see that the darkness preceded the light. In fact, the elements which were to serve the creation of the world, and which were created simultaneously, appear to us to be devoid of light (Gen. 1:2), that is to say, water, earth, darkness of which the world has been formed, that is, of an invisible or dark matter, as it is said in the book of Wisdom, whose author is Solomon. (Wis. 11:18.) The Holy Letters attest that darkness and water were created when they related these words of God in the prophet Isaiah: "I, God, have made light, I created the darkness (Isa. 45:47).” The Holy Spirit also teaches us by the mouth of David that the waters were created and the earth was established on the waters (Ps. 135:9), which is according to the authority of the Gospel (Jn. 1:3), and to the tradition of the apostles, who testify that all things have been done; and for nothing to be excepted, the Apostle takes care to say, "Let the things that are in heaven, or those that are on the earth (Col. 1:16)." As far as the earth is concerned, we read that the darkness existed before the light, as to the order followed in creation and not as to excellence, for the light is worth a thousand times better than the darkness. Now in the organization of the world the light receives the name of day, and the darkness the name of night; that is to say, when the light ceases to illuminate the darkness, the time which passes until the return of the light is called night, and the time when it penetrates the darkness of its light is called day. It is said, then, that it is night when one is in the hope of the day to come, and that it is day when one is waiting for the night to follow. When the succession of day and night has ceased with the end of the world, there will be nothing but darkness and light. Indeed, it can no longer be said that it is night when the darkness will be continuous, nor that it is day when the light will have no more decline. Eternity stops the use of those names that began with the world. Thus, before the creation of the light which received the name of day, it is not read that there is night, but darkness; and after the disappearance of the light which shines upon them, they have received the name of evening and night. As far as we can judge, night is subordinated to the day. From what we read that darkness existed before light, it does not follow that they are preferable to light; For heaven existed before the sun, and yet the sun is superior to it; the earth was created before man as well as the beasts of the fields and other animals, and yet they are subjected to man. The night, therefore, must not be above the day, because we read that the darkness has preceded, since light prevails much over darkness, and day is much preferable to night. As we said above, light was created when the darkness existed. "And God gave the light the name of day, and darkness the name of night, and evening and morning was the first day.” If there were not in the day, there would have been no night, for it was when the darkness ceased to be enlightened, when the day was gone reads that evening elapsed. And when the light came to shine after the evening, it formed the first day after the night, so that night came after the day. It is worthy, indeed, and in conformity with reason, that the inferior nature is in everything subject to a more excellent nature. Why then put the night before daybreak, since its name comes only after the name of day? For it had not received the name of night or evening, if the light had not shone for the space of a day, after which the evening was set at night. The day becomes evening to make you understand that night is a part of the day, for the day is complete only when the night is past. Thus we say, The year is three hundred and sixty-five days, and we do not separate from it the nights. In counting the days, we also count the nights which are included under the name of days. If, on the contrary, the night was preceding the day, the day would be understood under the name of night. Who ever thought of saying, "I will see you after five nights, and not after five days." Nowhere, if we have a good memory, we read that night is set before daylight. "Moses," says the Scriptures, "was on the mountain forty days and forty nights (24:18).” The Psalmist also says, "The sun shall not bother you during the day, nor the moon in the night.” And to borrow an example from the beginning of the world, we read in Genesis: "Let the bodies of light be made in the sky, and shine on the earth (Ps. 120:6), one bigger to start the day, the other less great to start the night. Now the moon cannot be placed above the sun, just as night cannot be placed above the light; but night is subordinate to the day as the moon is in the sun. The Gospel also shows us the nights included under the name and in the enumeration of days. "There are some," says the Savior, "who are here present, who shall not die till they have seen the reign of God." And he adds: "And it came to pass about a week after, and so on (Jn. 1:28).” Are not the nights included in these eight days? And in another place: "This," says the Evangelist, "took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John baptized. The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him (Jn. 1:28).” Did he say: The next night? Further on he says, "The next day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee," and in the following chapter: "Three days after that, a wedding was celebrated and Cana was celebrated in Galilee (Jn. 11:1).” Everywhere the day has pre-eminence over the night which is subordinate to it. If the day was understood under the name of night, night would precede the day. The Romans reign over the Spaniards, the Gauls, the Africans, and the other peoples who are subject to them, and by this very reason these people take the name of Romans; thus the night which is subordinate to the day is included under the name of day. The reason for this is that the Jews begin the celebration of the Sabbath in the evening, and they do not consider the reason for this commandment. The day before, they must buy and prepare their food for the sabbath day, and purify themselves according to the law. Now, can they do these things during the night and begin the Sabbath with the rising of the day? There is no doubt that the resurrection of our Lord took place at night; yet it is in the day that it is honored. It is in the day that this resurrection is celebrated, and that day is called the day of the Lord. Do you not read in the Psalms: "This is the day which the Lord hath made? (Ps. 117:24)” We do not say the night of the Lord, because the day has primacy here. Whether it be a matter of the past or of the day to come, night is always subordinate to it, because it is of an inferior nature, to the apostle's testimony: "You are the children of the day and the day light, and not of night and darkness (I Thess. 5:5).” If we wish to take an example in consuls, we shall see that the first named is the one who was the first chosen. Is it not customary to say, "Who will be consul with him?" If night was before daylight, it would be named first. It is so true that it is by day that we begin to count time, that if, for example, we say: tomorrow is the sixth of the calends, we mean all the space which flows from one morning to another and which is composed of one whole day and one night. So again the moon at the beginning of the world was created on the fourteenth day, for it must have gleamed all night, and the next morning was its fifteenth day. How, then, can any doubt remain about the pre-eminence of the day? The disputes of a certain number have compelled us to extend ourselves at length to an obvious matter, for the text of Scripture alone is sufficient to conclude the question, since it clearly shows us the day before the night. All the reasons we have explained are borrowed from the history of the origin of the world. But if we wish to elevate ourselves to higher considerations, by giving our spirit a spiritual vigor, we shall see that it is improper to affirm that darkness was created before light. If the nature of light is celestial and the nature of earthly darkness, it is absurd to think that light was made after the darkness. Moses says that light has been made, but for the part of the world that it illuminates, and it does not say that it only then began to exist. Indeed, all spiritual beings were created before material beings, and the light that already existed in the higher regions descended into the lower ones to shine like a flaming beam in a house. But for what reason is the darkness named before the light, since it always follow the light? Let us say that celestial and spiritual things are enlightened by their nature, whereas earthly and fleshly things are darkness, so that the nature of darkness appears to subsist only by the power of light, because all that is inferior depends on which is above. If we look carefully, we will find darkness even in the sun. Place yourself near it, it will appear to you so striking that you cannot look at it; move away a little, its radiance will be the same, but you can stop your gaze for a moment; but it is less brilliant, and its brilliance is always diminished by reason of your separation. There is in it, then, as a successive weakening which proclaims the darkness, and this point that the darkness appears to spring from the light. The one who made the light also created darkness, in the way that in creating the water he created the earth at the same time; and the darkness is the defect of light, as the earth is the solid part of the waters. God is the only one who has no decline, and although he is everywhere, and contains all things in himself, his splendor is so striking that he cannot be seen by anyone, does not consent to temper His brilliance. The Savior himself, when clothed in a body, was visible only when he wished, even without being shut up. The glorious glory in the midst of which he appeared on the mountain in his transfiguration, remained hidden in his body, and manifested itself externally only when he wished it (Matt. 17:1). One, how was he hidden without being shut up? If he could enter with his body in the place where his disciples were, and when the doors were closed, how could his divinity not penetrate all things? that is to say that its rays cannot be intercepted because it suffers no decline. God therefore fills everything with His presence, but we say, however, that He is the place where He appears and wants to manifest Himself to the gaze. All things are in God, because he is above all things, to the apostle's testimony: "It is in him that we have life, movement and being (Acts 17:28),” however, it is only in that which he wishes to be. He is in everything by the mystery of his immensity, and he manifests himself by an eloquence and his providence only in whatever he desires.
(Genesis 1:26) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 24. WHY, SINCE MAN AND WOMAN ARE ONE FLESH, IS MAN THE IMAGE OF GOD AND NOT WOMAN? — Man and woman, it is true, have the same substance in their souls as in their bodies, but man is superior in dignity to woman, as the Apostle says: "The husband is the head of the wife (Eph. 5:27; I Cor. 11:3).” It is by the will of God, and not by his nature, that man is superior to woman. Thus, in the same body, there are members more or less considerable, not by their nature, but by the rank which has been given them.
(Genesis 1:26) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 45. HOW WAS MAN MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, CREATED TO COMMAND, AND SO IS WOMAN? — "Let us,” says God, “make man in our image and likeness.” There are some who want to hear these words in the same way as those others where God says again: "Come, go down and let us confuse their tongues.” (Gen. 11:17) To see only the mark of the letter, these words are similar, it is the voice of one who speaks in the plural; but the meaning is far from the same, because the circumstances are quite different. On one side is the creation of man, whom God wants to create in his image and likeness. These words, on the contrary, "come, go down, and let us confuse their tongues," were intended to prevent men from coming to an understanding. We can therefore admit that God speaks here to his angels, like a general to his army. He speaks here in the plural and collectively, because it is through them that he must act as their Creator, and that is why he says: Let us confuse their languages. When he says: Let us make man in our image and likeness, we cannot say that he is speaking to angels, for we cannot say that angels have the same image with God, as a general with his soldiers. Those who have the same image cannot have a different dignity, a different nature. Besides, the sacred writer adds: "And God has made man, and has appointed him in his image," that is, it is God who speaks, and God who acts, he is not another God, a different God, it is one and the same God. This language from one subject to another does not imply another nature, but another person. For although there is only one God, there are three persons, and there is only one God, because in the Son, as in the Holy Spirit, there is only one God, only one and the same nature, for everything that comes out of this nature can only be what God is himself. It is therefore the person of the Father who says, "Let us make," and the person of the Son who makes man in the image of God, either in the image of the Father or in his own, does not matter, since they have one and the same image. Now, the Son has made man by the Holy Spirit, for just as Scripture represents the Father acting through the Son, so the Son acts by the Holy Spirit, as He declares Himself: It is through the Spirit of God that I cast out demons. (Matt. 12) The image of the three divine persons is therefore the same, since, whether we consider the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, it is one God. Thus one man was made in the image of one God. Now, man is made in the image of God in the sense that just as there is in the heavens only one God, through whom all the heavenly spirits subsist, there was also on the earth only one man of God, which all others would derive their origin according to the flesh. There are, however, some who think that man was made in the image of God in the power he received to command, because God said to him, "Let him rule over the fish of the sea, birds of heaven and all over the earth," as we see all these things subject not only to the man, but to the woman, who is certainly not made in the image of God. This view is false for two reasons, firstly because it would follow that it was not to the Son that God would have said, "Let us make man in our image and likeness," but to the celestial powers that the Apostle enumerates, if the image of God stamped on man is the power of command; and secondly because the woman would be made herself in the image of God, which is an absurdity. For how can one say of the woman that she is in the image of God, whom we see subject to the empire of man without having any authority? For she can neither teach nor lay in justice, nor commit her word, nor judge, how much less can she command?
(Genesis 1:31, 7:2) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 9. IF ALL THE CREATURES THAT GOD MADE WERE GOOD AND VERY GOOD, WHY DID HE SAY TO NOAH, "BRING WITH YOU INTO THE ARK OF PURE AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS, SINCE NO ONE CAN CALL GOOD WHAT IS UNCLEAN?” (GEN. 1:31; 7:2) — These words only make a question because they have several meanings. If we consider the circumstance in question, they give rise to no difficulty, because things are themselves explained by the rank which they occupy. We call common what is not divided, sometimes that which is unclean. Thus the apostle St. Peter says: "I have never eaten anything common or unclean (Acts 10:14),” and St. Paul: "All that does not come from faith is sin (Rom. 14:23),” and elsewhere, "The law does not come from faith (Gal. 3:12),” and yet it is not a sin. You see, therefore, that the same expression does not always have the same meaning. When, therefore, a thing is qualified as impure, it is necessary to consider in what sense, for it is sometimes given this qualification only by comparison with a more perfect thing, sometimes, on the contrary, they wish to express by impure and truly evil works. No substance is evil in its nature, and things which are naturally called evil are only evil by comparison with more excellent natures. Thus, a dog is said to be impure in comparison with a sheep, lead is unclean if compared with gold, the raven when compared to the peacock. In the same body there are members more honorable than the others, and we know that they are not bad. All things therefore are good in their nature, because all are useful.
(Genesis 2:7) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 23. DO SOULS COME BY WAY OF PROPAGATION LIKE BODIES? — It seems to me unseemly to say that souls are engendered simultaneously with bodies, and that the soul gives birth to the soul, a property which God has not given to the soul. If each of the celestial powers has been given the power to give existence to all others in creation, one might admit that all souls derive from the one soul of Adam. But this feeling is not admissible, because the generation of a simple being is a privilege which God has exclusively reserved for himself. This generation, considered in the person of the Savior, is so mysterious that not only pagans and Jews, but even those who call themselves Christians, regard it as an incredible thing. Indeed, the Photinians and the Arians reject this article of faith and refuse to believe that God has begotten. Will it be said that at the moment when the germ of the body is sown, the soul begets the soul? But we read that God drew a rib of Adam without the sacred writer adding that the soul gave birth to the soul. If a soul were joined to this seed, it cannot be said that this soul was born, it is a part detached from another soul. Nor does Scripture say anything about this circumstance. We read, on the contrary, in the prophet Zechariah: "God who has formed in man the spirit of man (Zech. 12:1).” He speaks the same truth when he says, "This is what the Lord has said to you who created you, who formed you in your mother's womb (Is. 44:2).” If the soul is formed in the womb of the mother, it is united to a body which has already received its form. As it extends its action to all the members of the body, it is said of the soul that it is formed in the body. Thus, just as water, which has no particular form, receives one from the vessel that contains it, the soul, incorporeal and simple substance, receives as its form in the body by communicating life to all its members. This is what Moses expresses even more clearly in these words: "If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award” (Exod. 21:22), words which prove that the soul is not united to the body before it is formed. If to the seed of the body is joined with the incorporeal seed of the soul, a great number of souls perish daily, when the seed is lost without being followed by birth. But if we look at it more closely, we will see the feeling that we need to adopt. Consider the creation of Adam. In the person of Adam we have an example which makes us understand that the body was already formed when it received its soul. God could doubtless mix the soul with the silt of the earth and thus form the body. But a sovereign reason presided over his formation; it was necessary first to construct and assemble the different parts of the house before introducing the one which was to inhabit it. The soul being a spirit cannot dwell in a solid element; it is for this reason that it is said to be shed in the blood. When, then, the lineaments of the body are not yet formed, where can the soul be? Shall it go abroad, until it be united? But reason teaches us that it exists only to animate the body, and not to wander without fulfilling any function. Now let those who think differently tell us from whom the soul comes. Is it man or woman? Will they say of the woman? We cannot accept this thought because the example in question is contrary to it. For they say that the soul was given to the woman with the seed that was drawn from man, this thought is debated, as we have seen, for a great number of reasons. Perhaps one will be tempted to say that the soul is given by woman, especially because of the Savior, who was born of woman by the operation of the Holy Spirit, apart from any carnal union. But this thought gives too much to woman by attributing to her a right and an authority which belongs to man. Moreover, they assert that it is from man that the origin of the body and the soul originates, and now, changing their minds, they attribute to woman the origin of the most excellent nature, of the soul, and to man the origin of the less perfect nature, that is to say of the body, whereas it is manifest that one cannot change the order that God followed in the example he gave us.
(Genesis 2:7) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 123. DID ADAM HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT? — I discovered that some of our brethren who have not made a thorough study of the Scriptures, claim with a certain simplicity that Adam as soon as he was created, received the Holy Spirit as it is now given to the faithful, and that he lost the Spirit by his sin. They rely on a feeling supported by a great number, that the reparation of man has taken place by faith which has restored him to his former state, and restored to him all that Adam had received from his creation. Moreover, they say, man has been created perfect, which can only be admitted as much as he has received the Holy Spirit. For me, I declare that not only man, but all things that God has made, he has created them in a state of perfection, although it cannot be said that they have received the Holy Spirit. All species of animals are perfect in their kind to complete the end of their creation, so man is perfect in his kind, in that he can discern the evil of good, the error of truth. He is an intelligent animal, perfect for the purpose God has created by creating him. He is endowed at the same time with speech, thought, and action, and accomplishes by intelligence what he cannot do by his power. How, then, have we dared to say that man must be born perfect with the absolute knowledge of all things, while it is evident that he knows nothing but what he learns? What he does not learn, he does not know. Thus, he does not know what he is, because it is not the object of his study here below, but he who does not know what he is, how can he know everything, although it is less difficult to know oneself than to know all the other things? But as his mind turns to these things, instead of studying himself, he acquires knowledge of what is outside of him, without knowing himself, without knowing whether he existed before or after his body. If man had been created in a state of perfection which would have excluded all need, it would not have been a man, but a god, and he would not have yielded to the seduction which was the cause of his sin. But to have the Holy Spirit in oneself is a privilege above the natural perfection of man and which gives him the power to do the things of God. Did the ass who spoke to Balaam not do an action superior to his nature? (Num. 22:28) It was given the faculty to do what was not in its nature. but in ours. But because man is of a nature superior to that of animals, does it follow that animals are imperfect? The holy angels are not what God is; will it be said that they are imperfect? The planets and the stars are inferior to the angels of heaven; clouds often come to cover the sun and the moon like a veil; are these stars less perfect? The members of the body have a mutual need of each other (because the feet cannot do what the hands do); is it a reason to say that they are imperfect? No, no doubt. All created beings have a perfection in relation to the place and rank they occupy and the end for which they are created. They are therefore all perfect because their Creator is perfect, yet compared to the Creator, they are obviously imperfect. The perfection of God extends to everything, because he is the source and the origin of all things. The created beings are perfect, no doubt, but for the end that God has given them by creating them. Considered in another respect, they no longer have this perfection because they need each other. They are perfect in so far as they are sufficient for themselves, and not as they need a foreign aid; they are therefore a mixture of perfection and imperfection. The hands claim the accord of the feet, because if the feet refuse to walk, the hands are without action. The feet in their turn need the hands, because they can neither fit themselves nor take from them the care they demand. The body is therefore perfect in its limbs, however it can neither fly nor carry such heavy loads as the mule. These animals are themselves perfect, yet they can neither govern themselves nor administer the remedies they need. What made the Psalmist say: "Do not be like the horse and the mule, animals without intelligence.” (Ps. 31:9) Water and fire are two incompatible elements, but they are perfect in their kind because they fulfill the purpose for which they are created. The fire cooks and consumes the objects on which it expels its activity, it purifies and warms; water washes, refreshes, sprinkles and quenches thirst. All created objects are therefore perfect in their kind, yet they cannot do anything without man, just as man, though more perfect, cannot do without their help. This is why the Apostle declares that we are imperfect and perfect at the same time. In comparison with the faithful, we are perfect, because we know God, but we are imperfect because we do not have sufficient knowledge of the promises made to us, because as long as we are in this life, we cannot understand in all their extent the truths that are the object of our faith. Now, since there are some who think that the faithful come into possession of the perfection of Adam, let us see if the reparation of man does not open to him a source of graces more abundant than those given to Adam. Adam was placed in a garden to cultivate it and to be its faithful guardian, that is to say, to cultivate the earth and keep the commandments of God which taught him that by receiving the empire over all created objects he lived, however, under the control of his Creator, and that this empire did not owe all pride and make him forget who had created him, he was therefore placed in this garden to support his existence by the food he needs. But by virtue of the grace that Jesus Christ gave to men, after their resurrection, they will no longer need to eat or drink, because that which is mortal in man will then be absorbed by life. Adam was created to dwell on the earth, but faith gives us the singular hope of living one day in heaven. Here is the testimony of Scripture itself: "Adam the first man was created with a living soul; and the second has been filled with a vivifying spirit. The first man is the terrestrial formed of the earth, the second is the heavenly who comes from heaven. As the first man was earthly, his children are also earthly; and as the second is heavenly, his children are also heavenly.” (1 Cor. 15:45) Is it not evident from these words that Adam did not receive the Holy Spirit? He has received a living soul, but through Jesus Christ we receive a life-giving spirit, which in a way renders man like the Creator in whom he believes. Indeed, the mystery of the faith that man must believe to be saved is the mystery of God in three persons, and in man we also see these three things, the body, the soul, and the Holy Spirit, by which we deserve to be called the children of God, a title which was not given to Adam, for he was earthly and formed of the earth. But it is the children of God whose birth is wholly spiritual and not carnal, who deserve to be called heavenly. It is, therefore, well established that God has given to men at the advent of the Savior much greater blessings than Adam had received. Man was not only restored to his former state, he was raised to a more excellent condition; he was restored to his first state, because he was cleansed of his sins; but for all the rest he was raised to a much higher perfection. In fact, justice and reason demanded that the goodness of God should be more abundant in his benefits, while he deigned to reveal to his creature the mystery of his divinity. Men having known what had remained hidden for centuries and generations before, the mystery of God in three persons, it was fitting, to consecrate this new revelation, that with the remission of their sins and justification, they still receive the adoption of the children of God and the Holy Spirit who imprints in them the sign of this adoption. The adoption that comes from God must bear the sign of God the Father so that we may be called justly the children of God. The prophets themselves had predicted that this favor would be given to men when the mystery of God would fail in his triumph over death, so that every creature would recognize that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one and the same God. That is why the Evangelist says: “The Spirit was not given yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” This glorification took place when the manifestation of his power made him recognize for what he was, according to the testimony he had given of himself, because this glorification was the source of the grace promised by the prophet Joel: "In the last days, says God, I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, etc." (Joel 2:28, etc.) And the Apostle on his side: "When the blessing and the tenderness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of the works of righteousness that we have done, but by his mercy, by making us reborn by baptism and renewing us by the Holy Spirit whom he has shed abundantly upon us by Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, being justified by His grace, we are heirs, according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4) The Apostle confirms the prophet Joel's prediction, a prediction that God accomplishes after Jesus was glorified, spreading the Holy Spirit on those who believe in Jesus Christ. However, to receive the Holy Spirit is to become heirs of eternal life, for the Holy Spirit is eternal, and he who receives it receives eternal life and immortality whose Holy Spirit is the pledge. He who receives it and perseveres in his love after this life enters the heavens to be eternally united with him whose Spirit he has, for it would be neither right nor just that whoever comes out of this life having in him the Holy Spirit, was held in hell. Indeed, the sign in the man of the victory that Jesus Christ has won over death is his Spirit, and he in whom this Spirit finds himself cannot be held captive in the underworld. So the Holy Spirit was not in the saints of the old law as it is today in the faithful. These righteous, at the end of this life, dwelt in hell, and it cannot be said that because of the sin of Adam, which was transmitted by generation to all his descendants, condemned them to this captivity, the Holy Spirit himself even was subject to the sentence of ruling pronounced against Adam. Without a doubt, the Holy Spirit was with the prophets and righteous of the old law; with the prophets for the fulfillment of their ministry; with the righteous because of their holiness, as we read of old Simeon, whose saying is, "The Holy Spirit was in him," (Luke 2:25) not as a sign of divine adoption, but as a principle and as a reward for his merits. The sons of God by faith began only when the Son of God made himself known to all creatures by his triumph over death. If we wish to maintain that the Holy Spirit was in Adam or the other righteous ones of the old law, as he is now in the faithful, what are the new ones in which God made us when he inaugurated among us the kingdom of his Son? And how can one call, blessed and prosperous above all others, the time when the Savior appeared on earth, if he did not pour out upon others other graces than those they had already received? And what do these words of the Savior himself mean to his disciples? "Many prophets and righteous have desired to see what you see and have not seen, hear what you hear and have not heard it?" (Matt. 13:17) By what reason, then, can one say that this blessed time has given men nothing more than what has been granted to the ancients? Such a feeling is injurious to the Savior who would not have given men any new thanks to those who received him to consecrate the birth of his empire. Do the rich of the earth not seek, and at great cost, to give to their guests, on the anniversary of their birth, selected and distinguished presents? It is therefore an insult to God to think that he has made no new and extraordinary grace to those whom he has invited to this great and new solemnity worthy of all the praises of men. Where would be the truth of these words of the Gospel "He came into his domain, and his people did not receive it? As for those who received him, he gave them the power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, born neither of the blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of the Lord, but who are born of God?” (Jn. 1:11, etc.) How, then, would not God have showered extraordinary graces on those who believed in Jesus Christ, since He gave them the power to become children of God, that is, to say the brethren of his own Son, not from the will of the flesh, nor from man, but from God Himself. If it is claimed that men had already received this precious gift, then the advent of Jesus Christ on earth was for men the principle of no new grace. Adam's creation was carnal and earthly, not spiritual. He was not born of God without the help of flesh and blood, since God made him of earth; He could not, therefore, receive the Holy Spirit, because he was not spiritual, and had not been given to call God his father in prayer. On the contrary, those who have received the Holy Spirit receive at the same time the inseparable power of the Holy Spirit who is in them, to call God in their prayers the father of the Christians. Now, as the righteous of the old law did not have this privilege, they had not received the Holy Spirit either. So those who claim that Adam or the righteous have had the Holy Spirit, do not know the price of the grace that God has given them, and they are unable to render him worthy deeds of grace, since they are filled with his the most precious gifts they say have received nothing more than those who lived under the old law.
(Genesis 2:7) 2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 3. CAN IT BE SAID THAT ADAM RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT AFTER GOD HAD GIVEN HIM BEING AND LIFE, BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN, "GOD BREATHED ON HIS FACE A BREATH OF LIFE?” — It was not in order that Adam received the Holy Spirit; it was a reserved grace for the end times, and that God was to give to believers in the days when the mystery of one God in three persons was to be announced to men. The Trinity had been preached from the beginning, but the intelligence remained as veiled. The person of the Father was first announced and manifested with complete clarity and without figure, because he is the principle of all things. As for the persons of his Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they were neither the object of absolute silence nor of complete manifestation. The unbelievers raise reckless questions about Our Lord and the Holy Spirit. there are even those who push the absurdity to the point of maintaining that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Father, just as Sabellius confuses in one person the Father and the Son. There is no doubt against the person of the Father. So when the Trinity manifests itself, the Holy Spirit is given to the faithful, so that the existence of this divine person remains well established, and those who receive it bear in themselves the sign that they are the children of God. God, by the very fact that they have the Spirit of God in them. It is a mark of perfection to know the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is this perfection that gets us this gift. And then, the Son of God coming to the earth to reveal and discover these truths, had to pour out more abundant graces on men, and it was right that he gives this perfection to the souls who believed in him, for this not in the Son or in the Father, considered in isolation, is salvation, but in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is what makes St. John the evangelist say: "And we have all received of his fullness, and grace for grace: for the law was given by Moses, grace and truth came from Jesus Christ.” (Jn. 1:16) It is certain that at the advent of the Savior, the truth has come to its fullness. This fullness of truth was produced by the revelation of all the hidden mysteries that God had promised to manifest to men. It was then that the faithful became the children of God through the reception of the Holy Spirit, and the inspiration of God over Adam is to be understood from the soul he gave him because in Scripture the mind is frequently used for the soul, especially in this passage of the Gospel: "And her spirit returned to her," (Luke 8:55) and in the Psalm: "God does not despise a spirit broken by pain and a contrite and humiliated heart." (Ps. 50:19) frequently found in some manuscripts, instead of God inspired, this other variant: "God poured on his face a breath of life, and the man had a living soul." The spirit of life in the thought of the sacred author is therefore not synonymous with the Holy Spirit, for he says also in speaking of animals: "Who had the spirit of life.” (Gen. 7:22) But it is called the spirit of life, because it is for the bodies a principle of life.
(Gen. 2:15-17) 2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 4. WHY DID GOD IMPOSE UPON ADAM THAT HE HAD PLACED IN THE WORLD A COMMANDMENT, A LAW, AFTER HAVING GIVEN HIM DOMINION OVER ALL CREATURES? — God had doubtless established Adam the master of the world; but as this empire did not come from himself, but from God, he had to receive a law which was a mark of his dependence, so that the man who appeared to be the master of the world was subject to the one who had given him this empire by his obedience to this law, which gave him a profound respect for the authority of the Creator, and prevented the pride which this domination and the forgetting of his divine Creator might inspire him.
(Genesis 3) QUESTION 127. THE SIN OF ADAM AND EVE. — It is no doubt, no doubt, that this world was created for man; although it is composed of varied substances, it nevertheless forms but one body having several members, the combined action of which is intended to produce all the things necessary to man. It was like a house built for man with the provisions he needed, provisions that the earth had to produce each according to its kind, that is to say, that by the fact of their creation they had been able to reproduce each according to its species. God created the primitive types whose seed was to serve in turn the multiplication of species on earth. This is the result of these words of the Scripture: "And God blessed them, saying, Be multiplied and multiply on earth (Gen. 1:28)." He also blesses the human race, and we see the same meaning reproduced in the book of the law. We read in it: "The people grew and multiplied in Egypt (Acts 7:17).” The blessing which God had given to the things he had created for the benefit of man was also given to man, so that mankind grew and multiplied the union of man and woman. And just as culture had to improve the seeds, so the human race had to do all its care so that the knowledge of God would help her to lead her life, to render pleasing to God and to relate all things to admiration and praise the glory of his Creator. Whether it is the meaning of these words, the facts themselves attest, for all things which have been created multiply and improve upon the earth by the will of God. Indeed, one cannot suppose any other mode of development than that which God has established for his seeds. How, then, can we attribute an evil origin, or an illicit character, to that which develops only under the influence of the blessings of God and of his will? The tradition of this blessing has always remained in the synagogue and is still in use today in the Church which consecrates by the blessing of God the union of its creatures. And there is no presumption here on his part since the form of this blessing comes from the Creator himself. If it is thought that this blessing must cease one day, it can only be when the things which multiply under this blessing cease to exist, for if the generation of men ceases, what would be the usefulness of creatures who have received the blessing of God to multiply on the earth? The world cannot be partly in action, partly in rest; or it acts wholly, or it remains wholly in rest. What utility would be a body, some of whose members would have life, while others would be struck with apathy? How then do some go so far as to represent as profane and unclean the work which has been consecrated by the blessing of God, except that they wish to attack God Himself? They would find nothing to be recaptured in the work if the false and evil ideas of the artisan were not formed. They do not dare openly to God, they find the means of accusing him in his works. When the work displeases, the blame falls on its author. If these critical spirits read or rather received the Scriptures, they would recall the saying of Balaam: "Can I curse him whom God has blessed (Num. 23:8)?” There is no charge against the approval of the judge, and one condemns oneself when one wants to accuse as guilty the one whom the laws themselves protect. Who, then, are you who believe that you can condemn what God has blessed as the Scriptures teach you? You must either deny that he is God, or that you should be contrary to Scripture. Indeed, it is under the pretext that they receive the New Testament that they ought to reject the ancient Scriptures. Now the new precepts which Jesus Christ imposes on the faithful are not in contradiction with the ancients. The Savior himself has not disdained to reply to the invitation which he was made to attend a wedding; and not only did he honor them with his presence, but he even gave the spouses what was lacking in the joy of the feast (Jn. 2:1), for it is written that wine rejoices the heart of man (Ps. 103:15). And to show that he did nothing but the will of his Father, the Jews having asked him whether it was permissible for a man to return his father, He said to them, "From the beginning of the world God made man and woman, and said unto them, For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh (Matt. 19:3-6). Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. So let not man separate what God adds. This was why he gladly surrendered to the invitation to attend the meetings, he would not appear to condemn what God his Father had instituted. Wishing, on the contrary, to show the harmony of the old law and of the new law, he not only did not proscribe marriage, but deigned to honor it by his presence, to render him the testimony of his divine institution, and by a most salutary commandment declared that they should neither defend nor separate what God had united. It is also to raise the utility of the birth of man, that on the point of leaving this world, he confided his mother to his disciple John (Jn. 19:26). It is for the same reason that the precepts of the old law and of the new law agree to recommend that we honor our parents under pain of curses if we breach this commandment. What then is this presumption, and on what law is it based to proscribe the marriage so clearly authorized by the old as by the new law? We may apply to him these words of the Savior: "That which is without is from evil (Matt. 5:37).” Thus the Apostle reproaches himself with having a cauterized conscience to those men who forbid marriage, and the use of the foods that God created to be eaten with actions of graces. (I Tim. 4:2.) It is an act on their part, both of hypocrisy and of hostility, whose object is to accuse the law of which God is the author. Others seem to receive the precepts of salvation with eagerness only to support the prescriptions of their doctrine of falsehood, and this is why the Apostle reproaches them for having a closed conscience. Indeed, the corruption of their hearts makes them manifest outside feelings different from what they think internally: they resemble the Jews who knew that the miracles of the Savior were works of the Holy Spirit and that they did not say a feeling of jealousy that it was in the name of Beelzebub that he cast out demons (Matt. 12:24, Lk. 11:15), to divert the people from believing in him. Such is also the deceit of those of whom we have spoken; in the name of the holiness and chastity with which they boast of being the partisans, they maintain that marriage must be condemned, seeking to make itself valued and to divert the people from truth; It is thus also that they recommend the abstinence of certain foods to give themselves falsely as models of temperance which, strangers to the world, hasten to reach the kingdom of heaven. After they have thus seduced the spirits of men, they preach the legitimacy of the most reprehensible acts and condemn the use of permissible things. Such are the wiles of Satan, he inverts the roles and in the form of a novelty he excludes truth which is nothing new because it is wholly eternal. Who does not notice that such is the conduct adopted by our enemies? Who, moreover, would dare to condemn a divine institution which has never been injurious to anyone but the enemy of truth? In order to cover his disorders, he preaches the sanctity which he dislikes, and when he has thus become a zealous supporter of good, he teaches that the most culpable acts are permitted. It makes itself worth to deceive more easily and to suggest to the imprudent ones who fall into its traps more enormous sins. It is a remedy, it seems to his own evils, to incite men to excess crimes; he regards it as a great consolation to have many accomplices, and regards his punishment as lighter and more tolerable if he succeeds in drawing a large number with him into hell blind men who are overcome by their vices excuse themselves for their weakness or ignorance, and do not think of punishing the faults on which concupiscence deceives them. Or what is this cloud that conceals from them the knowledge of truth? For the letters appear to have a different signification, when they are badly pronounced, or are not properly distinguished; but when one reads: God has done, and again: God has blessed what he has done, can it remain matter either to the discussion or to the slightest doubt? Who will dare to see the curse instead of the blessing, unless animated by a hostile spirit? If these words were the words of man, perhaps one might fear some ploy, but it is God who speaks, and you doubt? It is God blessed, and you condemn? But was not Moses under the name of God the author of this error? The miracles and wonders which Moses made in Egypt are an answer to this question, and the wonders he has done in the Red Sea for the deliverance of the children of Israel must suffice to persuade you. Listen to the confession made by the magicians: "The finger of God is here (Exod. 8:19).” Believe in the testimony of the Apostle, who said to you, "I do not want you to be ignorant, my brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, that they all passed through and they were all baptized under the guidance of Moses in the cloud and in the sea, that they all ate the same mysterious meat, and that they drank the same mysterious drink, for they drank the water of the spiritual stone, the water which followed them, and this stone was Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 10:1, 4).” And how did the Apostle speak in this way? The answer is in the Scriptures, where we read that Our Lord Jesus Christ said to the Jews, "If you believed in Moses, you would doubtless believe me too, for it is from me that he wrote (Jn. 5:46)." Who could not believe in such a beautiful harmony, who would dare to see contradiction in such a perfect unity, who would be badly inspired to accuse of hostility so close a union? The testimony of the words, and the examples of the miracles which must submit your mind to the truth, and prevent you from considering as true any doctrine which is not contained in the books of the Catholic Church of the Old Testament is the same as ours, and that a thousand brilliant signs proclaim that it is the only true one, its authority must be so great to us that even if a thing should appear to us too harsh or even absurd, accept, reform on this our personal ideas before the judgment of God who apprehends it, for we must believe in God rather than ourselves. Indeed, our weakness and inexperience often regard as useful what is most injurious to us, and takes the false for truth, which we cannot even suspect of God; its nature is inaccessible to error; it is not permissible for us to doubt the legitimacy of marriage before these words of God: "Let not man divide what God has united (Matt. 19:6: Mk. 10:9).” This is a thing as clear as it is simple. It is certain that every man has reason to rejoice at having been the object of the goodness of God, and that he thinks he is better when he learns to know the sacrament of his Creator, which he would not be able to achieve if he had not been born. Why, then, deplore what makes the subject of his joy, and condemn what he glories of having learned? If he rejoices at having learned, and if, moreover, he could not learn unless he was born; no doubt it is good to be born, since the fruit of birth is the knowledge of the truth. If, on the contrary, it is an evil to be born, knowledge cannot be good. To what purpose can this knowledge be used if the birth is condemned? If it is neither useful nor necessary to be born, why should he who is condemned seek to learn? But as there is no mind stupid enough to deny that knowledge of God is useful to men, it is necessary to recognize its goodness, its utility. It is she who adds a new perfection to birth, so that she deserves more than Adam had received, for it is in heaven and not on earth that the faithful are called to reign, the paradise of God the Father, and not in that where Adam had been ordered to engage in bodily labor. In Jerusalem there was celebrated the feast called encaenia, that is to say, the dedication of the temple of God, how much more must we celebrate the birth of man, who is much more appropriately called the temple of God, and who has himself constructed with his hands to God the temples to give him thanksgiving? Our body is a much more excellent temple, because it is the work of God, and the material temples are the work of man, that one has the hope of eternity, while the others are destined for a certain ruin. He who acknowledges that it was God who gave birth to him to give thanks, and who has come to know his mysteries, must rejoice on the anniversary of his birth by seeing the precious fruits which he has produced. As for those who abandon their Creator and offer to others the glory which is due to them, it would have been better for them never to be born, for their birth can only turn to their misfortune, and yet the fault is not with birth, but to their will. But who are you, you who pretend to forbid marriage? You may be, Marcion, who maintain that the body is not the work of God but of the devil, and that it is in consequence of some fault that the soul fell from its first state descended into this region of darkness where the world is. Now how could it attain its deliverance if the generation is forbidden to it? It is after your birth that you experienced your downfall and that you have taken the means to return to the fatherland and resume your original destiny. You give thanks to Jesus Christ, by whom you are glad to have obtained this knowledge. Now, if you were not born, all knowledge would have been impossible, and consequently all deliverance. If you rejoice in the deliverance of your soul, be favorable to your birth, for if you condemn it, you are the enemy of souls. Or are you a Manichean, who rejects the marriages as evil? I will then ask you if there was no generation of bodies, how could the soul, which you say is spread in a dark region and closely united to the material elements, be delivered? The book you wrote say that it is by birth that the soul is delivered, that is to say that the souls received by the moon are coming out of their bodies transmitted to the sun which you claim to be the God of your souls. And is it not fortunate for you to bear the name of Manicheans? Indeed, it is in this capacity that you solicit your deliverance, which you would not know if you were not born. It is therefore evident that you condemn marriage by hypocrisy. You make an outward profession of chastity, and you give yourself up in secret to all kinds of impurities, which have not been hidden, but which have been revealed by the very edicts of the emperors. Listen now, you who are a Catholic, and learn from the Gospel how useful it is to the man of valor. When the righteous Simeon wished to leave this life, convinced that it was enough for him to know his Creator without knowing the mystery of his incarnation, God did not accede to his desire until he had arrived at this perfect state for to obtain the full and entire reward of his faith. It was then that he took in his arms the Savior who had just been born and blessed God in these terms: "Lord, you will now let your servant go in peace according to your word, for my eyes have seen your salvation (Lk. 2:29).” It was clear to God that it was good for man to be born, since it was answered to that righteous man who desired death that he would not die before he had seen the Christ of the Lord; for he had made such great progress here below, that he was worthy to see in this life the man he hoped for as his deliverer after his death. Now, how can we say that birth was not a useful thing for this man to whom God extended his life and allowed him to die only when he had seen the fruit of his hope, and which he would be sure to see for himself life to succeed him? If it were an evil for us to be born, it is neither paradise, nor eternal life, nor the kingdom of heaven promised us, but the punishments and chastisements of hell that we should expect. The man who knew that he was born for his loss would fear to transmit life to another, and he who knew that his birth was a guilty act would not seek to revive in his children. They will say to me, "Yes, the kingdom of heaven is promised, but to the faithful men who have done good." Perfectly, therefore, you see that men are not guilty by the sole fact of their birth, but because they have done evil; for it is not to those who are not born that the kingdom of heaven is promised, which would make birth a cause of exclusion, but to those who after their birth do good; that is to say, birth cannot be useful to the child he that does evil, and hurts him that does good. The faithful and the good men add to the perfection of their birth, the infidels and the unbelievers make their lose her. Birth is like a tree that is grafted; if the graft is good, the tree will become better and be called a good tree; if the graft is bad, it will become worse than it was and deserve to be called a bad tree. Thus, if a sound doctrine is joined at birth, it will produce good fruits, but if the doctrine is bad, the fruits will be equally bad. Just as the tree must exist beforehand so that it can be grafted, birth is also necessary in order to make progress good. But we are made of this body: If it is good and useful to be born, why do we need to be reborn? This rebirth would not take place if birth was not useful. The soul is to be renewed, and those that are renewed are completely repaired. This rebirth is not, therefore, opposed to birth, it is reform, and what is reformed proves by the same the perfection of its first state. This rebirth is a transformation which is the effect of a voluntary resolution, and which purifies the defilements of the body to restore us to the primitive state in which Adam was created. The soul has communicated to the body the defilements of his sin, but faith repairs it, renders it more perfect and cleanses it in the waters of baptism; the contempt of God had tainted him, obedience purified him, he thus avoided the sentence pronounced against Adam and acquired the right to the glorious resurrection. If, then, it is by the soul that sin began, why should we accuse the nature of the body, since in the sin of Adam it is not the body that has desired, but the soul seduced by hope of the divinity, who transgressed the precept, cast the body into the bondage of sin, and condemned all men to be born slaves to sin? Now this sin does not harm the man who obeys the law of God, except that he is subject to death; but here again the goodness of God has promised him a reward proportionate with that punishment, that is, those who will be found faithful to their Creator, and whom the sins of Adam condemn to corruption and death, will receive in return from the righteous judge more than God had granted to Adam; they will be covered with glory in heaven and will possess eternal life, and will be called the adopted sons of God, so that it is truly a gain for them to be born. I now follow the passage from which we read: "God said to man, You may eat of all the fruit of the garden, but you do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16-17).” All the trees of which God speaks here are the fruits destined to be made the food of the creatures. They are given here the general name of trees, but there is a great variety in the fruits. They are all, however, trees and plants, and there is only one kind of food in spite of the diversity of fruits used to the food of man. When God had created this multitude of fruit trees for the nourishment of man, he forbade him, as I have said, to eat the fruit of a single tree. As our first parents had been empowered over all things, it was fitting that they should give God on one point a testimony of submission and respect. He had therefore reserved a single tree to which he had forbidden them to touch, to remind them of their condition. How can the sentence pronounced against them make us understand what was the nature of their fault? This sentence, in fact, can be pronounced both against a homicide, against a malefactor, an adulteress, an infamous one. (Josh. 17:1, etc.). How, then, to judge according to this sentence of the nature of sin, is to be condemned after his sin to be consumed by fire, and all his family. It can be assumed that sin was great, but not what its nature was, for we know that others were condemned to the same punishment, although their fault was different. Amorites and the inhabitants of Sodom perished, and their children, and we see men guilty of the same crime, punished with various punishments, with one and the same sentence pronounced against those whose crimes are quite different, and of Eve cannot be known by the sentence pronounced against them. The sin of man and woman is the same, it is true, yet both were condemned to a particular and individual punishment, as was the serpent. Not only did they not preserve the prerogatives of their former state, but God imposed upon them labor as the punishment of their crime. God, as the book of Genesis tells us, had subjected all animals and all living beings to man (Gen. 1:26). The serpent rose up against this order, and so much by his cunning and his artifices that he enslaved man to his empire. No doubt, indeed, he who makes someone fall into his traps, submits him to his dominion. But God did not wish that he should receive the fruits of his deceit; he humbled and shamed him below his first condition, that he might not rise above man, leaves him only the pain, not only of not having succeeded in his designs, but of having lost the perfection of his creation. It was, says the sacred author, the most of all the animals God had placed on earth; but after he had deceived the man, he was cursed among all the beasts and creatures of the earth. After the sentence pronounced against man, against woman, against the serpent, the woman, who had been the accomplice of man in contempt of the divine command, was to be subjected to a particular punishment. God said to her, "I will multiply your calamities, your childbirth, you will give birth in sorrow, your desires will turn to your husband, and he will rule over you (Gen. 3:16.).” No one confirms himself what he condemns. If children were granted to the woman because she had united herself to the man against the order of God, then a guilty act must be recognized as having wonderful effects. But if you believe that the principle of the generation of men is in these words: "You will be grieved in sorrow," what did these words mean: "Increase and multiply”? This sentence, "Ye shall bear in sorrow," is therefore only a punishment, that is to say, that what had previously been granted to him as a cause of joy will become a sin source of sorrows; and that this punishment should cease to weigh upon the woman, God adds that her desires will turn to her husband, and will be for her a principle of ever-new sorrows. If God condemned the union of man and woman, why did he say to her: "Will your desires turn to your husband?” No one establishes as punishment what he condemns as reprehensible, since punishment must always be opposed to the crime he punishes, and that it must come from a very different principle. If the fault and the punishment come from the same principle, no one would be afraid of being condemned. One might even say that the transgression of the law becomes a laudable act. Far from punishing sin, God would have confirmed it, if the desires of the woman had turned to her husband only because of her sin. But no, the truth is that this union of woman with man, which had been merely permissible before sin, was then imposed upon her with the bondage of childbirth as a punishment, because man had been left to rule by the woman whom God had given her as companion. It is evident that he had been subject by the woman whose counsels had led her to believe in the hopes she had given him, and which were intended only to destroy the work of God by the ploys of the devil. God, by his sentence, therefore returns the wife to the condition of subjugation which subjects her to her husband, according to the first institution, and adds, as a punishment: "I will multiply your calamities and your movements; you will turn to your husband, and he will rule over you." Had God established the woman in a state which was not a state of submission to her husband? The woman is therefore recalled here to this first state with the addition we have pointed out. That is why God said to her, "I will set the height of your sorrows and your groans.” Putting the end is adding to what is incomplete, not establishing or doing what does not. The words of God that precede: "Rise and multiply," (Gen. 1:22, 28) are not for creation but for the loss of creatures to whom God conceded existence. After sin, God adds to the pain and difficulties of woman's birth, but does not establish a new form of procreation. If these words have really been the principle of generation, it must be attributed rather to the will of the devil than to that of the Lord, for there is, as the Savior declares, a race of vipers. (Matt. 3:7) Now, if anyone thinks he was born in this way, let him consider what he deserved. It was because of her sin that she saw the pangs of childbirth increase, and that this grief, which was at first sight, increased in punishment for the sins of her children; for it is in the groans and tears that she gives birth to them, and scarcely have they been born, that they become for her a permanent cause of sadness. Thirdly, let us see the sentence pronounced against the man: "Because you have listened to your wife's voice, and have eaten the fruit of the tree which I have forbidden you to eat, the earth will be cursed because of what you have done, and you will not eat of its fruits, in all the days of your life but with great labor, it will produce for you only thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17-18).” Adam is also recalled to the state in which he was created, but with a decrease of his privileges. God had first placed him in the earthly paradise to simply cultivate the earth and see at once the fruit of his work. But scarcely has he despised the divine commandment, in the hope of finding in the council of the serpent a fate more fortunate than that which God had given him, God recalls him to his first condition, but by adding to it sweat and fatigue; the earth will no longer respond to his labors, it will be cursed not for it, but because of its works. God thus shows that His designs cannot be destroyed and that no one can show greater providence. No one, in fact, can love the work of another more strongly than the one who is the author of it, to the apostle's testimony: "Never has anyone hated his own flesh; nourishes and cares for her, like Jesus Christ the Church (Eph. 5:29).” Let us now see whether the continuation of the historical facts of the law agrees with its beginnings. Abraham having been pleasing to God, among other rewards of his faith, was judged worthy to beget a son in his old age. How, then, can we attack and condemn what God grants as a reward? That is to say, that Abraham having obeyed the divine will, sees God fulfill his own will, which could not have been done if this will was not innocent, for God would not have granted a request or bad or unintelligent, especially in with respect to him who was pleasing to him; a man himself would not act in this way. A man who was barren and loved God with all his heart, asked for a son and obtained it. Now, if this request were guilty, the God whom he loved should have warned him not to make a request contrary to the good. (I Kgs. 1:2) Samuel, his son, of such eminent sanctity, had children in his turn, but the merit of his justice was not diminished. On the contrary, his virtue never ceased to increase since his first years, and he received from God in his old age the most striking testimony. The priest Zechariah, a righteous man, also had in his old age, by the will of God, a son who had the gift of prophecy even before his birth (Lk. 1:5). What is the reason why we are accused of what everyone agrees to present as advantageous? How can one deny that one must call good and useful something that does not harm anyone? And to speak here a little of the apostles and to make them serve for the direct defense of this cause, St. John was certainly a faithful observer of chastity; but we know that his colleague in the apostolate, that is, St. Peter, had a wife, and that the children she gave him were not an obstacle to the primacy he received from the other apostles. How then can we condemn what can be reconciled with the greatest merits? Thus the apostle St. Paul teaches that he who has a wife, if he observes the commandments, can and must be raised to the priesthood. If marriage were unlawful, he would not have declared that a sinner should receive the priesthood. And what is more evident? Is it not the same Apostle who says: "As for the virgins, I have not received a commandment from the Lord (1 Cor. 7:25)?” The heretics notice trouble and agitation among the Corinthians, by hypocritically teaching that marriage should be condemned; they therefore consulted the Apostle by letters, to ascertain whether it was lawful to marry, or whether to send his wife away. It is then that St. Paul commands the woman not to separate herself from her husband, although it would have been the occasion, if he had been convinced that this was the true doctrine, to say that it was forbidden to marry, just as he declares that he cannot impose as a precept what he has received no command from the Lord. Who, on the contrary, does not hear him preach loudly: ‘I want young widows to marry and have children?’ But, I am told, if it is lawful, if it is advantageous to marry, why is it not permissible for priests to have their wives, that is to say, why is it forbidden for them to have relations with her after their ordination? Who knows that each state has its own laws? There are things that are generally prohibited at all; there are some who are permitted to one and forbidden to others; there are some which are sometimes defended and sometimes permitted. Fornication is forbidden to all without exception; but trade is sometimes permitted and sometimes defended. Before entering the ecclesiastical state, a man is permitted to trade, but he can no longer do so as soon as he is a part of it. In the same way, it is sometimes permissible, sometimes forbidden for a Christian to have relations with his wife. Thus, in the days of public supplication, it is his duty to separate from his wife, because he must abstain even from the things permitted to obtain more easily what he asks of God. For this reason the Apostle recommends abstaining for one time from the use of the marriage of the consent of one and the other, in order to attend to prayer. According to the law, wars and lawsuits are prohibited on fasting days, and are permitted on other days to show greater respect for the things of God. Is all that is permitted before other men equally before the person of the sovereign? How much more must we observe this rule in the things of God? The priest consecrated to him must therefore be purer than other men; he represents him, he is his vicar, and what is permitted to others is forbidden to him, because he must fulfill every day the functions of Jesus Christ himself, that is to say pray for the people, offer the sacrifice, or administer baptism. It is not only to the priest that the use of marriage is forbidden, but also to his minister, for he must be all the purer as the mysteries of which he is the minister are more holy. Just as in the presence of a torch darkness appears not only obscure, but hideous, as compared with the stars the flame itself loses its brightness, the stars compared to the sun become dark, the sun compared to God is more than a dark night; thus things which are lawful and pure to us become illicit and impure in the presence of the dignity of God, for all the good they are, they are not suitable to the divine majesty. Would not the tunic of an obscure man, no matter how clean, be a scoundrel unbecoming the person of the emperor? Is it not the same with the tunic of the Saxons for a senator? For the same reason the priests of God must be more chaste than other men, because they represent the person of Jesus Christ, and the purity of the ministers of God must be greater. Nobody comes to fulfill his office near the emperor, except in a perfectly neat exterior, with clothes of brilliant cleanliness. Now, God, who by his nature is light itself, demands that his ministers be pure in their conscience rather than in their garments; to him praise and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
(Genesis 3:1) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 31. IS IT TRUE THAT IT WAS A SERPENT WHO SPOKE WITH THE WOMAN, OR IS IT THE VERY ACT OF THE DEVIL WHO HAS SEDUCED HER, WHO HAS GIVEN HER THE NAME OF SERPENT? — If we keep to the historical narrative, it is true that the serpent was the finest of all the animals that the Lord God had formed on earth. Besides, it is against the serpent that God has pronounced his sentence. What, indeed, would it be astonishing that the devil was finer than the animals, the Apostle of whom said, "Do you not know the depths of Satan (2 Cor. 2:11)?” Another proof that it was a true serpent is that God said to him, "You shall crawl on your stomach, and you shall eat of the earth all the days of your life (Gen. 3:14).” This punishment is in no way suited to the nature of Satan, since he is neither clothed in body nor subject to death. If we examine things more closely, we shall see that this sentence did not aggravate the condition of the serpent, and that it was condemned to remain in the state in which God had created it. He had been the instrument of Satan to subdue the man to whom God had subjected everything; for this reason God represses the pride of the serpent by that subjugation in which he had placed all creatures before man, because he had been a minister of pride to man. The man appeared to have submitted to the serpent, following the advice which he gave him of transgressing the law which he had imposed upon him. The Lord Himself testifies to the prudence of serpents, when he says, "Be careful as serpents (Matt. 10:16)." It is therefore well established that the serpent truly spoke with Eve; it now remains for us to examine whether he has been sufficiently sly and cunning enough to deceive her. For if it were finer than other animals, it could be no more than men, since no animal is endowed with reason, except man. It is impossible, therefore, that the serpent should be the author of these subtle insinuations; let him be in good health, but his finesse cannot go beyond his nature. It cannot deliberate, reflect, or take advice. It is therefore certain that it was the devil, who in the form of the serpent, sought to seduce the woman. By slipping into the form of the serpent, he used it as an instrument, so that the woman, who knew the serpent's fineness, could not suspect the cunning of the demon hiding in this form. Hence the sentence of condemnation carried out against the serpent, falls spiritually upon Satan, because the sentence must reach the true culprit. This sentence does not come from man, who by error or malice might condemn an innocent man; it comes from God who is infallible, and whose judgment reaches only the one guilty. Satan, though invisible, makes his snares outwardly; the sentence of condemnation is pronounced externally, but it falls spiritually upon him whose crime has necessitated the sentence. Indeed, Satan, that audacious and impure spirit, has been thrown from the sacred dwelling of heaven and condemned to crawl and groan on earth. I may be asked in what language the serpent spoke to the woman; I answer, in the language of the serpent. If there are any, who now understand the signification of the barking of dogs, the howling of wolves, the cries of elephants, the chanting of cocks, why the woman who then had no less intelligence, could not she have understood the snake's throat, when we know many who understand the signification of the song of the birds? It is certain that the devil used the tongue of the one in whose body he had entered, otherwise he could not have deceived the woman. He therefore spoke the language of the serpent which he had chosen as his instrument.
(Genesis 3:7-9) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 19. WAS ADAM'S BODY, WHEN IT WAS CREATED, IMMORTAL OR SUBJECT TO DEATH? — God in creating man had given him the privilege of immortality supposed that he would not sin. He had to be for himself the author of life or death. If he avoided sin, he would enjoy immortality as the fruit of his labor; but if he was unfaithful to his duty, he could only blame himself for being subject to death. As long as he persevered in obedience to the Creator's mind, he was worthy to feed on the fruit of the tree of life, which preserved him from death; for his body was not by its nature immune to dissolution, it was the virtue of the tree of life which preserved it from corruption. I will say that even after sin he could have remained incorruptible if it had been allowed to eat from the tree of life. But how to admit an immortal body for whom food is a necessary support? An immortal being does not need to eat or drink. Food gave him strength, but the tree of life, by a kind of medicinal virtue, removed from him any element of corruption. Thus, it was for man an impenetrable wall to death.
(Genesis 4:1-18) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 5. WHY WAS THE SACRIFICE OF ABEL APPROVED OF GOD, AND THAT OF CAIN REFUSED? — One can conclude from the terms alone of this narrative that the truth of history is not veiled by any literary artifice. The Holy Scripture tells us here clearly that Abel was prudent and religious, while Cain was negligent and careless, and by the same had much less religion. Abel therefore chooses the best sheep of his flock to offer them to his Creator. By offering God the first fruits of the possessions he had made, he testified of God's excellence and deep submission, he testified his feelings of respect and adoration, and acknowledged that God was the author of all things. Cain, guided by coarser sentiments, could not offer God a similar sacrifice. When he was plunged into the things of the earth, he could not raise the eyes of his soul to heaven to consider what might be worthy of his Creator, and he offered to God the most common fruits of the earth. It is in this also that the Jews lacked righteousness. For the Lord has often reproached them that they are inconsiderately charging on his altar victims even unworthy of being offered to men. "You offer me," said he, "sightless or blind victims, I will not receive them from your hands; Offer them to your master or chief if they please him. (Mal. 1:8)” Everyone agrees, indeed, that one must offer what is most excellent to a person of higher dignity. The Lord therefore rejected Cain's gifts and said to him, "Why are you angry and why is your face sad? If you do your offering with righteousness, but you do not have it in the choice of your gifts, you sin. Stay at rest. Your offering comes to you and you are the master of it. (Gen. 4:6). You see that it was the choice of the gift which rendered it, usable. He was not able to discern what was worthy of God, and reserved the best fruits for his use. It is not therefore the offering he has made that God reproaches Cain, but the unworthy presents he offers him. And he is not even condemned for this fact, but because in spite of this warning he would not correct his conduct. "This offering comes to you, and you are the master of it,” (Ibid., 7), that is, those gifts that I reject become your property again. He wants to teach him what to do in the future. Cain conceived a violent jealousy against his brother. This man of iniquity put to death the first righteous man, and thus gave men the example of crime. In fact, this profound jealousy blinded him to the point that not only did he not give thanks to God, who, far from punishing him as guilty, taught him to correct his conduct, but that he fell into a far more enormous crime which attracted his just condemnation. The imprudent conduct of the Cain fratricide resembles that of that wretched servant, who, ungrateful for the forgiveness he had just received from his master, wanted to acquit his companion, and thus deserved to be condemned without excuse, and for the fault which had been forgiven him, and for his cruelty to his fellowman (Matt. 18:28). Nevertheless, Cain was not condemned at once; he was left on earth to be confounded and terrified by his crime, and to facilitate the way of repentance and forgiveness. And as he was afraid of being put to death for the crime he had committed, he said to the Lord, "My iniquity is too great for me to be forsaken; If you reject me today from the face of the earth, I will escape from all eyes, I will be wandering and groaning on earth, and whoever finds me will kill me (Gen. 4:13). Cain, afraid of the condemnation of the just Judge, fears that this abandonment of the Lord forces him to flee the eyes of men, certain that it is that he who has against him an angry God must fear to be put to death by the men. But what does the Lord answer? "It will not be so," said he, "that is to say, I will not let you go, you who do not deserve to live, that you may fall under the blows of your likes, but so that you may spend your life in groans, in fear, and in alarms, as a punishment for the evil example which you first gave on earth, and seeing that the earth does not respond by your productiveness to your labors. He, he adds, who will kill Cain will be punished seven times (Gen. 4:24). This sentence proves the justice of Cain's condemnation. When he saw this law given with that threatening sanction which forbade imitation of his criminal conduct, he knew the whole extent of the crime he had committed, and his fears increased. God threatens to punish seven times as great a punishment, so that by understanding how great the crime of Cain was before the promulgation of a positive law, he knew that he was incurring punishment seven times more severe if he was guilty of it, that is to say that knowledge of the law would add six degrees more to the punishment which Cain had deserved, and that this punishment would be literally sevenfold. This same number also represents the reward of those who have left everything to follow the Lord, and who, in addition, will receive eternal life in the other world. This is the sign that the Lord put on Cain, so that whoever would find him would not do so (Ibid. 15). By virtue of this law which has been brought against the murder, every man who has committed a murder, because all murder is a homicide, would be seven times more guilty than Cain. God wanted the fear of such severe punishment to stop those who would be tempted to commit such a crime.
(Genesis 4:23) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 6. DID LAMECH KILL CAIN, AS SOME THINK? — It is a false opinion based on what Lamech says of Cain, I killed a man who hurt me, a young man who covered me with wounds. For Lamech was born of the fifth generation after Cain, that is, of Methuselah, the great grandson of Cain. Lamech recalls this fact to show that a much more rigorous punishment was reserved for those who would bound since the promulgation of the law. If, then, after Cain, the punishment has been sevenfold for the imitator of his crime, how much more severe will this chastisement be for that which neither the crime of Cain nor the severe reproaches addressed to him, nor the sentence pronounced against him may have diverted from a crime in which impiety is joined to cruelty. Lamech has committed this homicide after Cain, and without a doubt, from what we have said. His punishment was seven times more severe. Now what will happen to him who, after Lamech, will follow his example? He tells us by saying, I will avenge the death of Lamech seventy times seven times (Gen. 4:24). If this criminal action is not followed by repentance, it will be punished with a punishment seventy times seven times more terrible. That is why Our Lord commands to forgive him who has sinned this same number of times, if he regrets his faults. (Matt. 18:22) But it must not be believed that another homicide was committed before that of Lamech and after that of Cain, because Lamech says, The murder of Cain was avenged (Gen. 4:24 LXX), as if this vengeance was done. As for Lamech, how could he have said that he had already been the object of this vengeance, whereas the murder he confessed to have committed was still recent? It may therefore be said that every crime carries with it its condemnation. For when there is no other hope, besides that one knows what is worth an act which is consummated, one considers as already done a thing which is yet to be done. Finally, it was said to Adam and Eve: The day that you eat of this fruit, you shall die of death (Gen. 2:17), and yet they did not die immediately, but after a long interval of time. However, since they had already lost the hope of immortality, death, which was not to strike them until later, was, so to speak, present to them, because it was then the object of their fears. When, therefore, Lamech confesses to having killed a young man, since it is certain that Cain could not live until that time, or that if his life has been prolonged until then, what seems impossible is then an old man, it is not him that Lamech killed.
(Genesis 6:3) 2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 5. WHY DOES GOD EXPRESS HIMSELF IN THIS WAY: “MY SPIRIT WILL NOT REMAIN IN MEN, BECAUSE THEY ARE FLESH, AND THEIR DAYS WILL BE BUT A HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS.” — The giants who were then on the. earth, superb and malicious men, proud of the magnitude of their size, obedient to the desires of their flesh, and apostates from birth, displeased sovereignly with God. It was then that he declared that mankind would perish by the deluge, and he set the time for it to allow time for correction to those whom the just threats of his indignation would touch with repentance. It is for this reason that the construction of this ark lasted a hundred years. Twenty years passed before Noah began to build it. But the narration seems to cast darkness over what it adds after talking about Noah's years. The judgment of God was made before Noah had reached the age of five hundred years. What does he say, in effect: "My Spirit will not abide in these men," and he adds, "Because iniquity has increased on the earth, I will destroy from off the earth, from man to man, to the animals,” (Gen. 6:3) prediction that the flood was charged to fulfill, and we know that after the flood the life of men was prolonged for many years, Aaron, brother of Moses lived one hundred and twenty-three years, but Moses did not live beyond a hundred and twenty years, because he did not glorify God in the water of contradiction, (Num. 33:38) for without this sin of defiance he would had entered the promised land. (Num. 27:14) Some believe that the fact of the high priest Jehoiada, who lived a hundred and thirty years, relates to the time of Moses. (2 Chron. 24:15)
(Genesis 11:14-21). 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 108. OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHERE DOES ITS NAME COME FROM. — Everything that comes from God is reasonable, and everything has its source in a cause which is the principle of its origin, which justifies its name and its existence in the eyes of reason, and presents a designation which is the origin of the name that it is clothed. The reason for existence of man is therefore the cause by which it exists. Now it is composed of four elements, the earth, the air, the water and the fire; the fifth element is the soul, which is like the conductor and as the king destined to direct the body after its formation and organization. We derive our origin from the earth, and we bear its name. In fact, the name of men given to us comes from humus, earth, of which the body of our first father was formed. There is, therefore, here a cause, a reason for all those who derive their origin from the same father, to be called by the same name, and seem to reproduce it in themselves. Let us now see whether it is right to say as some, that the Hebrews are thus called from Heber from he is who they descend from. To consider only the name, this opinion would have some probability, for Heber lived prior to Abraham. If, however, it were true, all those of the tribe of Heber should have borne this same name to him, for seven generations separate Hebron from Abraham. (Gen. 11:16, 26) If, then, this name is prior to Abraham, or Abraham himself was called by that name, then the Hebrews derive their name from Heber. If, on the contrary, this name was not used until after Abraham, then it is not from Heber, but from Abraham that the Hebrews derive their name, since the children of Abraham are the first whom we see called of that name. Thus, in Genesis, Joseph and his brothers are referred to as the Hebrews. As it was known that Abraham had come from Syria in the land of Canaan (Gen. 17:4), that his house had grown there, that in reward of his law he had been filled with all sorts of goods, that he had been called king, prophet and father of many nations (Gen. 17:4), that with three hundred and eighteen men of his servants he had defeated five kings (Gen. 17:4), and that these events had not taken place in an ignored corner of the earth to remain forever unknown, the name of Hebrews was given to those who descended from that race. For all these reasons, Abraham was therefore worthy to become the leader of those who drew from him their origin. It was by a providential judgment of God that the chief and stump of the people of God was established in the land of Canaan, so that all who were born of him in their religion as well as in their way of life would be quite different then if he had not been himself before coming into the land of Canaan. God had renewed it entirely, and he himself had to found a new people in the religion of the true God. This is why the Apostle St. Paul is glorified to be born a Hebrew of Hebrew fathers (Phil. 3:5); it was for him a title of dignity, a recommendation, and a mark of nobility, to bear the name of him whom so many virtues had made pleasing to God, and who was the chief and the stock of his people. Reject this opinion if it is not conformable to reason, if it is despised if it appears unworthy, if it is entirely rejected if Abraham is not worthy of this prerogative, as guilty of flatteries towards him. What is this hostility against Abraham, what is this rivalry which makes him dispute this glory by his enemies? And who are they, if not his own children? What have they then to do in Abraham to dispute this honor? And what have they so much to praise in Heber to judge him worthy of this prerogative? If we could examine his life, we might find that he worshiped idols, like Thare and Nachor, and the father of Nahor, who have not lived in a time far removed from him, and who, according to the testimony of Joshua, have served the foreign gods. (Josh. 24:2) Let those who support the contrary opinion tell us the reasons which militate here in favor of Heber, and what are the merits on which we keep silence; but these merits are void, for the Scriptures are common to us, and we see clearly what is due to each. If they think they can defend their opinion by the name alone, it is weak and improbable. The name of Heber could decide the question here if other testimonies supported this presumption, for others with the same name could claim this privilege without any right. The feeling in conformity with the truth is that which is supported not by name alone, but by solid reasons. Indeed, God having deigned to choose Abraham to vivify the human race in his person and to propose it to men as an example to God. follow to reach salvation, he had to repair in him what human frailty had made them lose. Now it has been proposed as a model in the resemblance of which the human race was to return to God, and which was to place men in possession of the true worship of God and of the language which had been given them in the first place. Adam was at first the image of God, and it was through him that the knowledge of God was to spread on earth; but after the ruin of mankind and the forgetting of the true God in which men had fallen, God made up his image in Abraham so that his faith in the true God would be fruitful again in abundance. It is not, then, contrary to reason, that the people who came forth from Abraham owed to him both his origin and his name. Would the name of Heaven be difficult for them, because it seems to have more analogy with the word Hebrew, and that the word Hebrews is said, and not Abraham! Let them observe that the Hebrew language, and not the Hebrews, are spoken of. If they wish to attack us on this point, they are beaten by their own weapons, and victory remains undecided between the two parties; it is reserved for him who will prove the truth of his assertions by good reasons, for although one is in a position on one point, one loses one's cause if one is in default on another. We say, therefore, that a letter has been suppressed for being pleasing to the ear, and that the Hebrews are said to be Hebrew, because the pronunciation is softer. Thus we do not call the Jews who come from Judah ‘Judah’, but Jews. Everywhere, in fact, where reason requires it, one or more letters are suppressed or modified to make the pronunciation more agreeable. Thus, for the middle of the day, we say noon, and likewise in a multitude of similar cases. It is therefore proper, as we have shown, that the Hebrew people owe to Abraham his name as well as his language. It is therefore this tongue which was first given to Adam and to other men, and which to punish it the presumption which inspired the construction of the tower of Babel was confounded and divided into several languages, so that it ceased to exist, giving birth by the change of certain phrases to a multitude of other idioms, which nevertheless had the same expression. As to this primitive language, it was not entirely lost, but it was confused in the other languages. God then confounded the language of men to prevent them from understanding each other and to engage in more reckless excesses (Gen. 11:8). There were, then, as many tongues as there were divisions among men; each division established a different language in the country it inhabited. If we do not wish to admit that it is this language which, according to Scripture, was the only one spoken among men, it remains for us only that is, it was formed in detail of the other languages and reduced to a single idiom used by Abraham. As he was to be the father of a great number of nations, he spoke a language composed of many languages, and thus was the object of a general renewal. When those who are represented in the book of Genesis as having only one language, and the same manner of speaking from the East to scatter all over the face of the earth, preserve the use of the primitive language. (Gen. 10:31; 11:1) Indeed, this language given to the first man in paradise is spoken in no other country as any other language except by the Jews. And after the confusion of languages, we no longer find the trace of the language we call Hebrew. If, therefore, this language is not found in any country, or in any people, and Abraham was a native of Syria, whence came this language that he spoke, he or his descendants, if it were not the first, at least it was formed of several languages? Some languages, indeed, have similar expressions. But this hypothesis does not satisfy reason as that which holds that this language is the first, for reason shows the providential design of this fact. In this way, Abraham had to speak the language spoken by the first man so that Moses, in his history of the creation of the world and of man, used the same language that God used when he gave the first man the name of Adam and the first woman the name of Eve. It was fitting that the account of Moses should be written in the language of those whose origin he tells us to teach as God had resumed his first designs and renewed the effects of his mercy in the person of Abraham.
(Genesis 11) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 117. ON ABRAHAM. — The faith of this patriarch was so perfect and so admirable that all the righteous by a wise judgment of God proclaim him the father of their faith, and that no one is worthy of God and of his affection if he bears the name of Abraham's sons. What makes his greatest glory in the eyes of God is that he did not hesitate to believe in things that seemed incredible, which deserves him among other rewards to see the Savior, in the hope of God, as our Lord Himself declared to the Jews: Abraham your father rejoiced in the hope of seeing my day; he saw it and rejoiced in it (Jn. 8:56). It was right that he who became a father by the merit of his faith should live the hope of his children in the distant past, a hope which God in his providential goodness should transmit as the Father, inheritance from a deeply religious father to his imitating sons of his obedience. Let us now see what was the object of this faith, that God might have judged it worthy of so great an honor, and of such a glorious reward. We praised Abraham's faith, but we have not yet told the object of his faith: God brought him out of his tent, and showing him the stars of heaven said to him: "Can you count these stars So shall your offspring be. Abraham believed God, and this was imputed to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:5; Rom. 4:3). He would have no great merit in believing in God, had he not believed an incredible and insane thing in the judgment of the world, because one could not naturally hope for what God promised him. Therefore, Abraham was the only one in the world having believed this promise, was separated from the world and justified. The incredulity of human wisdom serves to raise the greatness of this faith, and that heroic hope which believed against hope. The hopelessness of the worldly is the merit of the hope of the Christians. The defiance of the wicked here makes the reward of the faith of the good, for faith is stronger and more complete when its object is naturally incredible. This almost desolate man believed that his wife, of a very advanced age, would give him a posterity so numerous that it could not be counted, because he considered the act itself promised to him less than he who promised it, and that he knew he could not lie. So his faith was imputed to him for righteousness. There would be stupidity in believing an absurd thing, the impossibility of which is known, if we had no guarantor for the authority of the person who proposes this thing to our belief. Abraham, therefore, demonstrates with admirable faith and great prudence, believing what is naturally incredible, and. by confiding himself fully to him to whom one cannot refuse to believe without folly and without danger. What proves that our faith is reasonable is that it recognizes only God alone the power to do all that he promises. This is the strength and triumph of faith. Certain sages of the world, considering only the natural impossibility of these things, declare that it is a madness to believe them. They forget this maxim of the Apostle: and what appears in God as folly is wiser than men (1 Cor. 1:25). They would have the right to treat us as fools, if we knew here what nature evidently does not have in nature. Now, what is impossible to nature, we believe that God can do it if he promises it. What can be found unreasonable in this conduct? If the fact to the fulfillment of which we believe is indignant with God, it would be right to accuse our faith of stupidity, but if it is worthy of God, by the very fact that it is impossible for the creature, how can it not fill with praise the faith which gives as much to the Creator as it refuses to the feebleness of the creature! Abraham is therefore truly great and worthy of admiration for not having hesitated to believe in God's promise against the judgment of the world, because God can do what He promises. Although he was a native of Chaldea, he showed himself to be the teacher of the faith, and though he was competent in astrology, he preferred God's thoughts to the thoughts of man, considering that he was worthy to believe that God could do a thing whose fulfillment would escape the investigations of the human mind. He gave to his weakness the power of God, who, in order to bring forth the unique and incomparable grandeur of his majesty, had resolved to do things unbearable and impossible to the world. He thus wished to show that he was the master of creation, and that every creature must submit to his empire. The promise he made seemed impossible to all other men, but their unbelief is all the more the lively faith of Abraham. His faith is the chastisement of unbelievers, just as the iniquity of unbelievers makes his glory. He is at the same time the Father of the faithful and the judge of the infidels. By his example, the good will receive as reward eternal life, Abraham is not troubled by this strange order, and he does not argue about whether he should obey God, who commands him to kill his son, while he defends homicide under the most severe penalties. The will of God inspires him with firmness, and he does not hesitate to believe in the providential wisdom of what God commands him. And yet it was this child who was the child of their old age and a divine promise, the reward of their faith, the testimony of their virtue, and on which rested all the hope of the posterity which God had given them promised. In order to accomplish this commandment more religiously, he did not inform the mother of the child, lest she should put obstacles to this sacrifice. He knew all the tenderness of the love of mothers for their children, and that is why he hides from him the sacrifice which is asked of him, because he does not want to put any delay in doing what God commands him, to teach us by his example that care and eagerness we must fulfill the commandments of God. For if Abraham, this faithful servant, has obeyed such a harsh and severe command, what obedience to much easier commandments ought not be? O faith full of devotion to God! O unwavering hope in the Lord, which is so dear and sweet, that it prevails over the tenderness of the fathers for their children according to these words of Scripture: "Glorify and see that the Lord is full of sweetness (Ps. 33:8)!” The holy patriarch was a prophet, and knew what the future had in store for him. He therefore did not hesitate to practice what our Lord recommends us in his Gospel, and to prefer the love of God to the affection he had for this beloved son, obeying the words of the Savior : "Whoever loves his father, or his mother, or his children more than me, is not worthy of me (Matt. 10:33).” It is thus that this patriarch, to be preferred of God above all others, did not hesitate to sacrifice his son to him.
(Genesis 13:5-18) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 44. HOW CAN ONE PROVE BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHETS RECEIVED BY THE GENTILES UNDER THE NEW COVENANT THAT THE PROMISE THAT GOD MADE TO ABRAHAM WAS FULFILLED BY THE COMING OF CHRIST? — It is written in the prophet Isaiah: "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. (Isaiah 56:7).” But the Jews may say, "The house of God, that is, the synagogue, is open to all men." We do not say the contrary, but on the condition that men will be circumcised before submitting to the law; for an article of this law commands them to be circumcised following the example of Abraham. There is, therefore, nothing new in this oracle of the Prophet, since from the beginning of Judaism no one has been forbidden from any nation whatever to embrace the practice of the law. The Prophet did not say anything again, let us say more, his words are superfluous, if the Gentiles have always been admitted to serve the God of Abraham, without ever having been defended. And the truth is that none of those who wished to submit to the law were rejected. Now, if it is so, it is very useless for the Prophet to remind us of a truth which has always been known and observed. But who would be meaningless enough to dare to say that such a great Prophet spoke unnecessarily and without reason? I do not know if one can hear this language with impunity without opposing it. Like the Jews to whom the prophets often reproached their crimes against God, and the confidence they placed in idols, refused to enter into the ways of penance and a sincere return to God, God, to confound them, declares that he will open his house to all nations to pray, and that instead of the Jews whom he rejects, he will admit other worshipers. If indeed the Gentiles have always been admitted to the practice of the law, as we have said above, how could the Prophet predicate this as a novelty, if not because he wanted to signify something other than this which was previously ordered? For he could not say of a thing that was done every day that it would be done in the future. It is therefore evident that these words are the condemnation of the Jews to whom the Prophet predicted that after their reprobation others will be called to receive the gift of the grace of God that had been promised to the Jews. Now the prophet Isaiah tells us what this promise is, when he says, "There will come a Redeemer who will deliver Zion and remove Jacob's impiety, and that is the covenant I will make with them (Is. 59:20).” This covenant is therefore the destruction of sins; it is the new covenant which God promised in these terms by the prophet Jeremiah: "Behold, the days come, Lord, and I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers, in the days when I took them by the hand to draw them out of the land of Egypt, which they have made vain, and I have punished them, says the Lord (Jer. 31:31).” He wants to speak of the evasiveness they made when they made a golden calf to worship him, and then they profane his covenant. So the tables on which the law was written were broken at the foot of the mountain, because the people deserved to receive more severe and painful commandments. But the Lord, full of compassion and mercy, promised by his prophets to change the law, and to replace it by an alliance entirely different from the first, that is to say, not only all that the former had of pain would be suppressed, but also all the precepts that were figurative, like the Sabbath and circumcision. They had groaned for a long time under this heavy burden, and God wished to deliver them from them wholly, that they might render him humble thanksgiving. But they preferred to persevere in the iniquity of their fathers, and did not wish to renounce the worship of idols; the Prophet therefore predicted that the Gentiles with the few Jews who had preserved the faith of the true God would enter into the new covenant to punish the perfidy of the Jews for a double punishment. For in this world they are burdened with the burden of precepts, and in the other life they will receive the just punishment for their crimes, because they have been unfaithful to God in the new as in the old covenant. God therefore declares that he gives this new covenant to replace the old one that was given to their fathers. He who serves God under this new covenant is no longer constrained to observe either the Sabbath, new moons, circumcision, or the distinction of food; it is enough to have the fear of God joined to the faith, because it is not by law but by faith that you are justified according to this testimony of the prophet Habakkuk: "The righteous will live by faith (Hab. 2:4).” Hence he no longer needs a great number of precepts to please God; some of them are sufficient from these other words of the prophet Isaiah: "When the number of the children of Israel is as many as the sands of the sea, the remnant only will be converted, for God in his righteousness will fulfill and abridge his word; yes, the Lord will give an abridged word on all the earth (Is. 10:22)." Thus God made known the abbreviated word of the law, that is to say, the new covenant which he had promised to the small number of those who, the midst of general unbelief had persevered in faith. He gives it the name of covenant, because, like the old covenant, it was confirmed by the testimony of blood; they both bear the same name, with the difference that the ancient covenant contained a great number of precepts, while according to the promise of God they are greatly reduced in the new. God had foretold to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations. (Gen. 17:4-5) Therefore, his children were to be justified as the children, and to become children of Abraham, according to the promise of the Lord, without recourse to the observances which had been established only after the faith of one, Abraham, and by the faith which had justified Abraham. It is not, however, new and unprecedented that men have been justified without the observance of the Sabbath, circumcision, and other prescriptions of this kind. Enoch was a friend to God and merited to be transported (Gen. 5:44), nor was Noah the only righteous man that God found in the flood; Abraham himself did not owe circumcision to be justified. Abraham believed God, it is written, and his faith was credited to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3). Circumcision was for him a sign of his faith in the promise that he would have a son in his old age. Abraham's merit does not come from conciseness, but from his faith. Consequently, faith alone is enough to justify men and make them children of Abraham by faith, not by circumcision of which they have no need; for the object of their faith is not the same which was imposed on the faith of Abraham. The Jews were subject to the precept of circumcision, because they were to bear the sign of Abraham’s faith, not of their faith, as the distinctive sign of the children of Abraham according to the flesh; if they have faith themselves, they become his children by justification. What is the use of a man without strength to call himself the son of a powerful man? Is it not rather an obstacle for him, for it is a shame for the son of a man whose glory equals the merit of being the same without honor. Circumcision. is so unmeritorious, that God threatens by the prophet Jeremiah to exert his vengeance on all who carry the sign of external circumcision but without being circumcised of heart (Jer. 4:4). But he is not angry with those who obey the circumcision of the heart without the circumcision of the flesh, because no one can please God without the circumcision of the heart. All who have received the circumcision of the flesh are the children of Abraham according to the flesh; those who practice the circumcision of the heart represent the children of Abraham according to faith, because they cut off from their hearts all the errors of the world and acknowledge God alone for their Father. What, then, is the circumcision of the flesh without faith to the Jew in order to attain the perfection of Abraham? Or in what way can the uncircumcision of the flesh hinder him, since no one can attain the justice of Abraham without being the imitator of his faith? It is therefore in vain that they glorify the circumcision of the flesh, since it has no merit in the eyes of God. And if, as we have proved, it is better to have faith than to be circumcised, the Gentiles are better than the Jews, then they have faith, while the Jews have only circumcision. Which ones, do I say, will Abraham recognize for his children, those who are like him after the flesh or who are the imitators of his faith? But it was faith that bore witness to Abraham. Therefore he glories not in the flesh, but in faith, and he admits to the number of his children only those whom he sees to be the imitators of his glory. For how could he call his children those who have only remoteness for what made him pleasing to God and deserved the justification? He will rather see in them his enemies than his children; and indeed they seem to be declaring themselves to him by despising the faith which was the cause of his glory. There is nothing surprising in the incredulity of the Jews who refuse to receive the New Testament, since they have not been more faithful under the old covenant. Their revolts against God were continual, they never ceased to outrage him; therefore he imposed upon them severe precepts to keep under the yoke those haughty and inflexible requirements. They would never acknowledge that God was the source of all good; and yet how many favors they had received from Him, than from brilliant prodigies carried out in their favor! This is what he reminds them of through the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel: "I have lifted up my hand against them in solitude, to scatter them among the nations, and to spread them on the earth, because they did not observe my commandments, and rejected my precepts.” And a little farther, "Therefore I have given them precepts that are not good, and ordinances where they will not find life (Ez. 20:33).” He teaches them why he has given them so many and difficult precepts; they had only shown ingratitude for such great benefits; he imposed upon them, under the inspiration of his justice, more severe commandments. He calls them precepts which are not good, though they are righteous, because far from justifying them, they turned to ruin, and that a punishment just that it is, is not good for him who suffer. In spite of their infidelities, God, in his goodness, promised to give a new covenant, where the law reduced to a few precepts would justify as Abraham those who believed in him, that without the observance of Sabbath, circumcision, and other precepts of this kind, and merely remaining faithful to the precepts of natural law, which defend homicide, adultery, and other similar crimes, they would be justified as had been Abraham. Since he was reviving Abraham's faith on earth, he wanted to put an end to all other prescriptions, and bring men back to the time of Abraham's faith. But the Jews may say: Let us admit that the commandments given by Moses have ceased to oblige by this abridgment of the law; Is circumcision one of those precepts which ought to be repealed? It is through it that we bear the sign of our father, the character of the children of Abraham, which must never be repealed to be a perpetual testimony of our race. I answer that circumcision must have been observed in its time, that is to say, before God had given men the New Testament which he had promised. But as soon as the grace of God has discharged men from the burdens of the law, what is still need of circumcision? Now the new law, that is, the spiritual law, was given to put an end to carnal observances, and so that those who embraced it would bear the sign of this law. Thus, as in the Old Testament, the Jews bore the sign of Abraham to which the old covenant belonged, so the Christians under the new covenant must bear the sign of the Savior, the author of the New Testament. Indeed, just as the Hebrews derive their name from Abraham, Christians take their name from Christ. All those who still bear the name of Hebrews have not yet received the new covenant which God has promised; they render useless the blessings and mercy of God, who no longer wish that his people should bear the name of a man, but deign to give to men the very name of his Son. What then is this audacity in the Jews to say that it is their law, and not our own, that we practice, whereas David says loudly, "I will praise you among the nations" (Ps. 17:50; 55:10), and again: "Sit down at the same table with his people?" The Lord said to the prophet Jeremiah, "I knew you before I had formed you in the womb of your mother, and I sanctified you before that you did bring forth from his womb, and I made thee a prophet among the nations. "(Jer. 1:5) Judaism has in its Scriptures distinct names, and is represented under the names of Jacob, or of Samaria, or of Jerusalem, or of Judea, or of Israel, but it is evident to the Gentiles that they are designated by other names than the Jews, and Jeremiah is more particularly our prophet, although God used all the prophets to announce that the Gentiles would share in his promise. These, he says in a more special way of Jeremiah because he is our prophet. It was he who was charged to predict that the new covenant would be more fruitful for the Gentiles than for the Jews, which we now see fulfilled. See, the new covenant has been preached by all the earth, and yet it is so rare, so difficult to find a Jew who has embraced the faith, that all the churches of the New Testament bear the name of the pagan nations as the prophet Hosea had predicted: "I will call my people who are not my people and my beloved whom I had not loved (Hos. 2:24, Rom. 9:25)." God therefore rejects the Jews and calls the Gentiles by an effect of that mercy and grace by which he has deigned to call Abraham, for Abraham did not know the Lord before he was called. So he who deigned to call Abraham also deigned to call the Gentiles. Why, then, is this pretension to say: This is our law, when it is manifest that the gift of God belongs to all those who sincerely want it? Let them therefore cease this rash usurpation; the grace of God is the common heritage of all men. What boldness yet to deny that our Lord Jesus Christ was promised in the law, when they see Him gather in Him all the characters predicted by the law? All the nations that believe in him are justified, according to the promise made to Abraham (Gen. 22:18); he was born of a virgin in Bethlehem of the tribe of Judah, according to the prophecy of the prophet Isaiah, a race of David, as God had promised. (Jer. 31:31), He preached the new covenant which God had promised to establish with mankind, and after all the prophecies, miracles which he has effected, he has humbled himself, as predicted by all prophetic oracles; he suffered, he died, as it is written in the prophets. If they ask for the time when this promise is fulfilled, as it is fixed in the prophet Daniel (Dan. 9:24), they will find fulfillment of it at the time when Jesus Christ was born and suffered; for from the first year of Darius, king of the Persians, to the birth and passion of our Lord, and even to the ruin of Jerusalem, which took place under Vespasian, the Roman emperor, the seventy weeks that is to say, four hundred and ninety years, and this calculation is clearly established by the reigns of the different princes who succeeded one another. Tertullian himself makes this calculation in the book he wrote against the Jews (Ch. 8); but lest the exactness and precision of his calculation should draw him insults, we have passed over in silence. What difficulties can there be in this number, since the number of these years has been fulfilled? It is therefore an impudence without example, after the long space of time which has been added to the advent of the Savior, to say: He has not come. That in the time of the apostles, or when Our Lord still lived among men, malice could disguise itself to contradict the truth, and that, notwithstanding the evidence of the prophetic signs of Christ which shone in the Savior, the time of his coming to better hide his perfidy, at the right time. But now that many years have been added to the number predicted by the prophets, how impudent once again to deny the coming of Christ whose signs and times concur in demonstrating the coming? That a vase be full, but without overflowing, a spirit friendly to the dispute may deny that it is full; but if it overflows, it puts an end to any discussion. Thus the Jews were able to say in the time of the Savior (although without good faith) that the calculations from Darius to Our Lord, which tended to prove that He was the promised Christ, were ill-established. For we may be mistaken in calculating the years, months, and days of the emperors, and we cannot have precise and incontestable dates here. But now that years and centuries are added to the precise number of years marked by the Prophet, what excuse remains for the Jews not to recognize Christ in him who has come, unless he accuses of falsehood (what God forbid!) the very author of the promise? For the time of promise is past, and the promise of the promise is denied; what else is there to say to the author of the promise, "You are a liar?" But not the one who has promised is the truth itself, we have as proof all the signs which the prophets have given of Christ and which we find united in the person of Christ. As for the Jews, who would be ashamed of escaping from their error, they do not think of the judgment which awaits them, for nothing is more guilty than to deny the truth of what one perfectly understands is not a lie.
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 109. ON MELCHIZEDEK. — Here is what we read of Melchizedek in the book of Genesis and also in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews: Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, appeared at the meeting with Abraham when he returned from the defeat of the kings, offered him bread and wine and blessed him, saying, "Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God who created heaven and earth and put your enemies into your hands (Gen. 13:18).” And to make us better understand the one who was represented by Melchizedek, the Apostle adds: "No doubt the one who receives the blessing is inferior to him who gives it (Heb. 7:3)”; words which the Apostle does not apply to the tradition of ecclesiastical ministry. Who, indeed, would dare to say that the rule instituted by the Lord to bless the faithful is superior to those which it blesses? It is therefore the mysterious presence of the Lord that is felt in these words of which he is the object and which recall him to our memory. The sacred author has wished to show us here his personal dignity and his power. What then is the greatness of this man in comparison with whom Abraham has only the second rank, in spite of the superiority which his generosity and faith give him among the faithful? Let us understand here that this Melchizedek does not bless Abraham, like the priests, by pronouncing a solemn formula of blessing, but by a blessing peculiar to him, and which he received not by an oral tradition but by nature and substantially. The priests to whom we give the name of pontiffs have solemn formulas of blessing which have been transmitted to them, and which they recite on the men whom they bless, not always on those whom they desire, but upon those which they do not wish to bless, because the author of this rule knows in what soul he ought to shed his holy blessing. He, on the contrary, who possesses this blessing substantially in virtue of his nature, and whom Moses calls the priest of the Most High God, gives this blessing as he does. The words of blessing and his nature always agree with his will. He never errs in wanting to give it where it should not be, or refusing it when he should give it, the words of the blessing he utters always have their efficiency. Our priests, on the contrary, invoke the name of the Lord every day, and pronounce formulas of blessing, but very few of them receive the effect. The priests also bless those who are superior to them. Whatever saint we may be, we bow to receive the blessing, because it is not an invention of the priest, but a divine institution. The high priest Heli blessed Anna, and this blessing has not the merit of the grandmaster, but the faith of this pious woman, whose pure heart God knew. (1 Kgs. 1:17) If Melchizedek is declared superior to Abraham, it is not only because of priestly dignity, but by his nature, and the sacred writer wants to teach us that he is more that a man. It is impossible, indeed, to see only one man in one who is placed above such a great friend of God, of a man so full of faith that for love and fear of God he hesitated not to sacrifice his son, who was so dear to him. By what justice, by what works could he have acquired more merit than Abraham? What more could he do that Abraham did? In the first place, when he did not know God, and without yet seeing any decisive sign, God said to him, "Come out of your land and your kinsfolk and your father's house (Gen. 12:1)”, And he immediately obeyed without delay, thus accomplishing the will, not only of God who spoke to him at that time, but of the Lord was to manifest himself to mankind. Does not the Savior say, "Whoever loves his house, his father, or his mother, or his brothers, or his parents, more than me, is not worthy of me (Matt. 10:37)?" What then is the virtue and perfection of Abraham who fulfills the commandments of the Savior before they are proclaimed to the world? The Apostle recommends above all the practice of hospitality, Abraham so faithfully exercised it that it is his example which seems to have determined St. Paul to make this recommendation. He then thought that his posterity would multiply like the stars of heaven, which seems a madness to the eyes of the sages of the century (Heb. 13:2; Gen. 18:3), who are thus condemned by his example even before God had threatened to lose their wisdom, for it is afterwards that he says by his prophets: "I will lose the wisdom of the wise (Isa. 29:14).” Abraham still obeys the command of God, who commands him to circumcise himself, which he could not do without pain, and he submits to it to give his descendants the example of patience (Gen. 17:24). God promises him that he will have a son of Sarah his wife despite his advanced age, and he does not doubt for a moment. He thus taught to future centuries that faith in the authority of God must be so complete, that it does not allow the slightest doubt about the commandments or the promises he can make even though they appear contrary to reason. We must consider here the person rather than the words, for it is the person who confirms and makes possible what the words appear to be weak. It is God who promises, and we must believe that he can do what seems impossible to men. In what way would man be reprehensible by attributing to God a power which he does not recognize in himself? Thus Abraham on the command of God does not hesitate for a single moment to put to death the son that God has given him (Gen. 22:3), he is not surprised at the will of God who demands death of a child whom he had given him as a testimony of his goodness and power; he is too convinced that it is not for man to discuss the will of God, and that his orders and his actions are inspired by a sovereign reason. Now, in order to execute this order with the most eagerness, he leaves his wife unaware; he knew the weakness of mothers for their sons, and that the tears of tenderness might have hindered the act of religion which he could have accomplished; he teaches his son only at the hour of sacrifice, that his obedience may be full and entire at the command of God, in the execution of which he does not see a parricide, but a holocaust demanded by the just judge. What more heroic actions could have made Melchizedek to surpass Abraham, whose obedience we have seen. was never surprised at fault? Moses, who conversed with God face to face, was sent to his people and his brothers and refused to go. The Prophet Jonah disobeys the order given him to go and preach to the Ninevites, and to another country where he was not from (Jon. 1:11). Job, this admirable man in all things, was, however, shaken by the death of his children; he tore his clothes, and cut his hair (Job 1:20), but we do not read that Abraham was grieved at the death of a son that was so dear to him, and we do not see that this son whom God commanded him to sacrifice trembled before this order that was given. We conclude from this that Melchizedek was more than a man, for he could not prevail over Abraham unless he was of a superior nature. Impassive nature possesses bliss by virtue of its substance, human nature obtains it by its actions. It does not have the perfection of divinity, it is therefore by exercise and by struggle that it becomes better from day to day, when its victories are more numerous than its defeats. If it were always impeccable in its actions, which is impossible, it would be better than God (far from us this thought), because if a nature that can commit like avoiding sin was always victorious from sin, it should be put above nature, which does not sin because it is impassive. There would not seem to be great merit in not sinning, because it cannot be; heroism would seem to have the faculty of ease and of not sinning. There is, therefore, this difference between the nature of God and the nature of man, that the nature of God is always happy in the security of his invincible eternity, while the nature of man only reaches happiness by work. Now it is necessary that the impassive beatitude should be diluted with that which is the fruit of the tribulations which thus bring joy. Impassive bliss has in it an inexhaustible source of happiness; for nature, on the contrary, it is only after great trials that it rejoices at having escaped death. Sadness is for it the means of animating happiness, and it’s passability is irreconcilable with uninterrupted happiness. He, on the contrary, who is impassive by nature, is always happy, because he does not know sadness, and cannot even suspect that he can attain it. As to the human nature, although it succeeds in felicity through labor, it will not be exempt from trials, and scars will not fail. And how, in the midst of so many battles in which nature is sometimes defeated, could it not receive wounds? Impassible nature, on the contrary, remains inaccessible to any attack, any wound, to any defeat. Scripture, therefore, would not say of Abraham that he is inferior to Melchizedek, if Melchizedek was not of a superior nature to that of Abraham? What we have just said may seem more ingenious than dense. But if we examine the divine Scriptures, we will be able to raise still more and more of the more excellent titles of glory. "This Melchizedek," says St. Paul, “king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God, who, when Abraham returned from the defeat of kings, appeared to meet him and blessed him, and who first signified the king of justice, was king of Salem, that is to say, king of peace; without father, mother, genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, is thus the image of the Son of God, and remains a priest forever.” And to bring out these prerogatives in his place, he adds: "Consider therefore how great was he to whom Abraham gave the tithe of his richest spoils (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1).” To show the full extent of the merit and power of Melchizedek, he praises Abraham by saying that he is the chief and prince of the patriarchs, that is, he is superior to all the others, but inferior to Melchizedek, is it not evident that Melchizedek is not a man, but that he is of a superior nature? But what do these two titles mean, king of peace and king of righteousness? Look closer and see: the sun seen from far away seems like a flaming beam, and at a distance you take money from a man and be called king of peace, and justice, peace is preached to men, as well as justice, but he is called king of peace and justice, to make you understand that it is from him that justice and peace derive their origin, for it is impossible to put above it what is subject to its direction, it is to the institute of justice and peace that men do what is pleasing to God. Now these two virtues, which are the mistresses of man, have Melchizedek as king. What then is the superiority of Melchizedek over man, since the virtues which govern mankind are subject to him, is it not being the king of kings? When St. Paul tells us that he is a king of justice and peace, he wants to teach us that he is the principle of both, and that just as our Lord Jesus Christ is the king, the author of life, Melchizedek is the author of justice and peace, because those who receive life through Jesus Christ are ruled by righteousness and peace. For in the hearts of the servants of God he sends righteousness and peace to serve as an ornament to the doctrine of the Lord. We read in Psalm: "Let righteousness and peace be embraced, and let the truth rise from the earth (Ps. 85:11)." And to be well aware of what justice he meant to speak, the Psalmist adds: "Righteousness has looked from heaven.” Scripture predicts what was to happen in the days of the Savior, when the righteousness of God was given to the world through Jesus Christ, in the knowledge of the mystery of one God whom he had promised previously by the prophets. It was true, indeed, that the creature knew the truth of its Creator, and this righteousness having been manifested to the earth, put an end to the divisions which the injustice of ignorance of God had engendered, and reign peace and harmony among the most divided minds, establishing them in the unity of the same faith. It was thus that one saw kissing justice, the peace and the truth exited from the same source. It was from the earth that the righteousness which was to teach men was raised, for the incarnation of Jesus Christ taught them the truth which they ought to know concerning the nature of God. Such is the righteousness of God. Peace also comes from him, to the apostle's testimony: "May the God of peace crush Satan under your feet.” I do not see how these two things can be distinguished here, since the God of peace is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ himself, for he says: "I give you my peace (Jn. 14:27).” Why do you say that Melchizedek is the king of justice and peace? I do not understand how that distinction can be made. I therefore think that there is no difference here between the king of peace and the God of peace. As no one on earth should be called God, be reserved exclusively to the principle of all things, God establishes kings who would be like his image, and who, with the exception of the name of God, would have all his power; but as they are of earthly origin, they are the kings of men, but not the kings of peace and justice: for they themselves have believed above them righteousness that they are not permitted to despise. Justice for them is God himself, justice is God's own good, and he who transgresses it becomes guilty to the judgment of God. But for Melchizedek, Scripture does not represent him as an ordinary king among men, because he has under his authority justice which is above all kings. No one, in fact, can have justice under his rule unless he is impeccable by nature. Now it is under its rule, because it is he who has established it as a law destined to be a part of the world, to direct those who are subject to sin. The king of justice is therefore the one who rules the laws of which he is the author and who teach men what to believe and practice to arrive at happiness. We have already stretched ourselves long over the person of Melchizedek, and yet we say nothing worthy of him, unless we return to the Scriptures, which has long pressed us, and which shouts to us to draw us from the deep sleep which overwhelms us and call us to the intelligence not of the night, but of the day. Scripture tells us that Melchizedek is without father, mother, genealogy, and to prevent any interpretation would be less worthy of this personage, it adds that he has neither beginning of days nor end of life, Melchizedek, who was not subjected to birth or death, can testify so clearly to all the subtleties of human reasoning, and what a mind so clever and skillful that he would dare to resist and to pretend to impose its interpretation on the sacred text, instead of accepting the meaning which it naturally presents violence is inflicted on the divine Scriptures, and they meet here as enemies the very people who seem to submit to it. There are some who maintain that we ought not to believe in the person of Melchizedek what the Scripture brings us, and who wish to turn the Scriptures to their thoughts. The authority of the Scriptures to use ploys against them, by declaring war to them under the appearance of peace, and by hiding hostile intentions under the guise of friendship. They pretend, therefore, that it is not to show the greatness of Melchizedek, but rather to show the obscurity of his condition that the Scripture tells us that he was fatherless and without a mother. It wished to show us that Melchizedek was of an unknown race, and was not of the tribe from which Abraham came, since there was no trace of his family in the law. That is why it says again, "and without genealogy," to make us understand that there is no mention of his origin in the law, that he is not born of any parents, and that it is to him that he owes the great qualities that distinguish him. Now Scripture has so great authority here that it exposes in a perfect order all the elements necessary for the cause. At first it said that Melchizedek was "without father, without mother." Let us see what was the mother of Nachor, the grandmother of Abraham, and the mother of Thare; nor do we see what Abraham's mother was, not to mention the others. Shall we say that they did not have mothers? If the Scripture had said only "without a father," there would be a specious reason, for it has us preserved the names of the fathers of all of whom it speaks. Scripture adds: "And without genealogy.” If it expresses itself in this way to show that his birth is not mentioned in the law, it was enough to say: "Without a father," because no one knows his father. But it puts us still more clearly on the path of truth by adding: "Having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Tell me, whoever you may be, who wish to do violence to the text, how do you explain these words? What does it mean to have neither the beginning of days nor the end of life? It is certainly sufficient to say that the genealogy of Melchizedek was not inscribed in the law, and that, by the same token, it must have been believed that he was of foreign origin. But one can say that he was taken away from this world like Enoch, and that is why he does not have end of life. Who then does not see a beginning of days? Will you say: It is because there is no mention of the day of his birth. But is the birth of others mentioned? and for you, however, the one whose day of birth is not mentioned, must be regarded as having no beginning of days? But then the same conclusion can be applied to others. Supposing now that he was taken from this world, he was not for that reason without life, for everything that lives in the expectation of death has a purpose. Stop these vain contestations, which seem to please you. It is better to be vanquished by truth than to triumph over truth by falsehood. It is a loss rather than a victory, for though the truth seems to have loss in the eyes of man, it remains victorious in the eyes of God because its reason is invincible. Our mind must therefore be conquered by the law, in order to receive the meaning which it offers it, and not impose upon it an interpretation at will, by violently substituting its authority for that of the law. Listen to what Zorobabel says: "Truth triumphs over everything (3 Esdras 3:12).” Now Melchizedek reveals to us the future mystery of the Incarnation and the Passion of the Savior, first restoring to Abraham, as to the father of the faithful, the Eucharist of the body and of the soul, blood of the Lord, to make the Father the truth that was to be fulfilled in the children. If we want him to have been a priest like Aaron, or the present priests, to be told, to be shown the place where he lived, the temple or the synagogue in which he gathered the people, and offered sacrifices to him, or the people who gathered round him. For if he exerts his priesthood on earth, no doubt there existed, and before Abraham, a people whose priest he was, and this people now worshiped the true God. How then did Abraham become the leader of the believers, and it was through him that God was known to his people? In the same way, if Melchizedek taught men on earth the fear of one God, why choose Abraham to give his name to the people of God, since the servants of the true God could be found among those who gathered around of Melchizedek? What more do we read in the hymn which is found in Deuteronomy? When the Most High divided the people, when he separated the children of Adam, he marked the limits of the people, according to the number of angels of God. And he chose the people of Jacob to be especially his (Deut. 32:8). If there were no other people of God in the world other than the children of Israel, why should there be found another people who followed the doctrine of Melchizedek against the contrary testimony of the prophet? Since he names all the peoples of the world, and gives only to the children of Abraham the name of the people of God, the logical consequence is that he denies that with the exception of the children of the God of Abraham, the others had the knowledge of God, because God is known in the alleged. Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, appeared as a symbol of the holy mysteries which the future was to reveal. The blessing was to be given later to the people of God by a minister of God to whom we give the name of priest. Melchizedek therefore appears as the precursor of the sacred person of the Son of God, and precedes him to do him honor, though inferior to him in dignity. Let us then leave what we have said of Melchizedek, Scripture says a thousand times more for the confusion of the opponents. Indeed, after these admirable testimonies to Melchizedek, Scripture confuses spiteful spirits by adding: "He is thus the image of God and he remains forever." Consider then who is the object of your unchallenged discussions and if he inspires no reserve, at least fear Jesus Christ, to whom it is like, according to the authority of Scripture. The Apostle comes insensibly and by order to the excellence of his nature, and if the prerogatives which precede have impressed upon the spirits, that is, that Melchizedek was king of justice and peace, has appeared in a visible body without having either father or mother, that is to say without being born, having neither beginning nor end, the last trait adds to all that he has just said a new degree of credibility. Who would dare to say, unless renouncing reason, that these glorious prerogatives are not suited to him whom the Scriptures declares like the Son of God, and who remains a priest forever? But he cannot be like the Son of God unless he has the same nature. And what is so incredible that Melchizedek appeared in a humorous form, as soon as we understand that he was the third person of the Trinity? For if the Christ who is the second person has frequently appeared in the form of a man, what doubt can we raise on what we have said? Do not we read in a psalm: "You are a priest for eternity according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 109:4)?” These words of the confession of all relate to the person of Jesus Christ, because Christ is a priest for eternity according to the order of Melchizedek. But Christ is the sovereign priest, and Melchizedek occupies the second rank. Now, if Melchizedek is only a man, would it be proper that Jesus Christ should be a priest for eternity according to his order? We see them both alike, both clothed in one ministry, because they have one and the same nature. But since the authority of one God must be preserved in every way, the third person appears here subordinate to the name of the Father. As for Christ, he holds the place of the Father, he is like his minister, and that is why he is given the name (the priest). Similarly, the Holy Spirit, as minister, is also called the priest of the Most High God, but not the sovereign priest, as our brethren presume in the oblation: for although Christ and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial, it is nevertheless necessary to preserve to each one the rank given him The priests are given the name of envoys because they are the representatives of the one who sends them, and they are like his image, and this is the reason why Christ and the Spirit which is the natural image of the Father, are called his priests: God manifests Himself in their person, as our Lord has said: "He that sees me sees my Father (Jn. 14:9).” Now, if the Lord has revealed Himself in the divine actions which He has effected, and if these actions are the works of the Holy Spirit as he declares: "It is in the Spirit of God that I cast out demons”, God manifested Himself in the Holy Spirit.
(Genesis 15:16) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 10. GOD HAVING FORETOLD TO ABRAHAM THAT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WOULD BE FREED FROM THE DOMINION OF THE EGYPTIANS. THE FOURTH GENERATION, WHY DOES THE LAW SAY, "THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHALL COME FORTH OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT INTO THE FIFTH GENERATION?" — To consider only the words, they seem to contain a contradiction, but this contradiction disappears if we attach ourselves to the very meaning they present. The law speaks in intelligible language to the attentive and serious minds, and the truth which is hidden to the careless minds reveals itself to souls full of religious solicitude. God indeed said, "In the fourth generation (Gen. 15:16)," and Moses wrote, "In the fifth generation (Exod. 13:18),” it is Moses who relates these two versions, and one cannot admit the intention of wishing to deceive a man by whom the divine power has performed such great prodigies. We must, therefore, examine the signification of these words, for Holy Scripture never speaks uselessly and without reason. God and Moses each took a different starting point here. God counts the four generations who were born in Egypt; Moses adds to these four generations the one from which they came out when the Israelites entered Egypt. "The children of Israel," he said, "came out of Egypt to the fifth generation." He embraced all the generation that came into Egypt and the four that were born in Egypt. From Abraham, the exit of the children of Israel from Egypt is eight generations. For after the promise made to Abraham, they dwelt in the land of Canaan two hundred and fifteen years, and two hundred and fifteen years in Egypt. It is these years together that the Apostle understands when he says in his Epistle to the Galatians: "The law was given after four hundred and thirty years. Four generations were born in the land of Canaan, the first in Jacob, the second in Jacob, the third in Levi, the fourth in Gerson, Caath, and Merari. And Aram brought up Eleazar, and his brethren, which formed the third generation: and Eleazar begotten Phinehas, and it came to pass, that he was the firstborn of Egypt was the fourth generation, and these were the four generations that were born in Egypt: therefore the Lord said unto Abraham, Your seed shall dwell in a foreign land, and shall be reduced to bondage: but I will deliver them, and they shall come forth out of this land of exile after the fourth generation (Gen. 15:13) Is it not evident that God only wanted to speak exclusively of what was accomplished in Egypt? Moses, on the contrary, wanted to add this generation which came to Egypt with Jacob his father, and from which came forth the four following. Hence these words: The children of Israel came forth out of the land of Egypt into the fifth generation.
(Genesis 17:10) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 12. WHY DID ABRAHAM RECEIVE CIRCUMCISION AS A SIGN OF HIS FAITH? — If you want to pay attention to it, you will see a perfect fit in what at first sight might seem to you devoid of reason. Abraham believing that he would have a son in which all nations would be blessed, and who would be the principle of all holiness, received the sign of this promise on the member by whom the generation of children begins, it tends to a higher holiness. If we were tempted to see in it something different, let us remember that circumcision was a subject of joy for Abraham, and that his children were always glorious in this testimony. Indeed, Achior, one of the princes of the idolatrous nations, witnesses of the great wonders of the God of Abraham, who by the hand of a simple woman had cut off the head of that general of the olives Assyrian militia, whose whole land dreaded power, wished to receive circumcision himself as a mark of honor and dignity (Judith 13:27; 14:16). Is not a Christian proud to have lost an eye or a member for the name of Jesus Christ? does he not discover this part mutilated in the eyes of men as a title of glory? And in this way, a momentary loss for faith is a real gain. The circumcision which Abraham received as a sign of his faith, was therefore for him not a mutilation of the soul, but a mark of honor. Now this ceremony signified in the spiritual sense that the clouds of the flesh were to be cut off from the hearts of men by the faith of Jesus Christ, because the error of the senses, covering the hearts of men as a cloud, an obstacle to the Creator's knowledge. Now, Abraham, to whom God promised that the Christ who was to dispel this cloud would be born one day of his race was circumcised, because he believed that a son would be born to him that would destroy this error. Judge now whether it was not proper that he should receive on this part of the body the sign of his faith.
(Genesis 17:10-11) 2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 10. WHY DID GOD IMPOSE ON THE JEWISH PEOPLE CIRCUMCISION AND OTHER PRECEPTS THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE AND HAVE LOST ALL AUTHORITY NOW? — Circumcision is the sign of Abraham's faith. and it was established to be the distinctive sign of the children of this patriarch who received this sign after having believed in. the promise of God. The precepts that relate to the sanctification of the Sabbath have been given as a testimony of the past and a figure of the future. This Sabbath, which is like the coronation of each week accomplished, is the figure of the Sabbath which must one day bring us into eternal rest. (Exod. 20) The law concerning food was not given at the beginning, but when under the inspiration of unbelief the Jews refused to believe the words and promises of God; it was then that they received imperfect precepts as the prophet says (Ez. 20:25), and which were intended to lower their haughty heads and to bring them back to better feelings. It was not right, indeed, that all creatures were subordinate to. proud and obstinate men. But when the mercy of God was poured out on men, she gave them freedom in the choice of food. And so the apostle St. Peter said, "Why did you lay on the heads of your brethren a yoke that neither our fathers nor us could bear?" (Acts 15:10)
1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 29. WHY DID GOD COMMAND THE CIRCUMCISION OF THE CHILDREN ON THE EIGHTH DAY? — God commanded to circumcise every male child on the eighth day after his birth, because after the number of seven days had passed, the eighth day became like the first after the Sabbath, and was no longer the eighth, but the first. As the salvation which Christ was to bring to the world was to take place on the first day called the day of the Lord, because the Lord resurrected that day after the Sabbath; the figurative sign of salvation was given in circumcision to make known the future regeneration even under the law of circumcision. It was by faith that men were to be saved, and this faith received its confirmation on the first day of the resurrection of the Savior; the figurative sign of salvation was thus established on the first day in the law of circumcision, which was also to be the sign of the faith of Abraham. Harmony is therefore complete here; the sign of the past faith which was given on the first day, was the figure of the future faith which was firmly established on the first day.
(Genesis 19:25) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 13. IF GOD'S JUDGMENTS ARE RIGHT, WHY WERE THE CHILDREN CONSPIRED WITH THEIR PARENTS IN THE FIRE OF SODOM? — In order to bring out the greatness of the crime of the inhabitants of Sodom, God wanted the punishment to be extended until the death of their children, in order to destroy even the last remains of this guilty race. But did not God act in their interest lest, by prolonging their lives, they should follow the example of their fathers? because they are exempt from the punishments of hell, because they have been victims of a crime they did not commit. The parents are responsible for the double responsibility of their punishment and that of their children, because to erase the traces of their crimes, it was necessary to destroy all their posterity. Just as children rejoice in the virtues of their parents, because they are for them a title of glory, so they have no right to complain about the death that strikes them to punish the crimes of those who have given the day. They are associated with benefits, they must be punished. In Egypt, children were also punished for the faults of their parents, but to bring back these regulators to more just feelings. The other wonders could not have led them to believe in the God represented by Moses and to adore him; this scourge had for the last time, by striking them with terror, to make them confess and expiate their hardening, and to spare them a more rigorous chastisement. The crime of parents is the cause of the death of children. However the children have paid this debt, they will one day be the accusers of their parents, because the very blood of their children has not been able to triumph over their treachery. It is therefore not for the future life, but for the present life that the children have suffered the punishment due to the crimes of their fathers. And it is not for them a slight favor to escape guilt without, however, being in glory. We see men asking earnestly at the end of their lives to profess the true faith, in order to obtain, if not the crown, at least their pardon; How, then, can those who by their conduct in their regard have neither to implore the forgiveness of their faults, nor to obtain an extraordinary reward, because they have not deserved it by their labors? Compare a moment of suffering with a torment that lasts for centuries. Consider, moreover, that a great number give themselves much trouble, and for lack of perseverance, not only lose the fruit of their labors, but are guilty of punishment. Add to this that it is difficult for those born of vicious parents, who have been brought up or who have lived in the society of the wicked, to bend their souls under the yoke of divine law. See here again if God did not act wisely towards these children.
(Genesis 22:16). 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT QUESTION 3. THE ANCIENT LAW SHOWS US GOD MAKING OATHS (GEN. 22:16, EXOD. 33:1), FOR HE SAYS, "I HAVE SWORN BY MYSELF," SAYS THE LORD. THE SAVIOR, ON THE CONTRARY, FORBIDS TO MAKE OATHS, HAS HE NOT DESTROYED THE OLD LAW BY DESTROYING IT? — Before the knowledge of God was poured out on the earth, men could not make men believe anything new and unheard of until then by confirming the promise by an oath made in the name of him whose acquaintance they did not yet know sufficient. But when this knowledge had spread, it was forbidden to swear in the name of him in whom it was not permitted to suspect even the lie. That is why the Savior no longer wanted his servants to swear an oath, he only commanded them to behave always in such a way as to add faith to their words. The oath is demanded only by the disloyalty or faithlessness of a deceitful heart, as men are accustomed to deceive, one imagines that the fear of God will inspire them with more respect for the truth, or that it will be enough for the one who will be deceived and who, by the same, acquires the right to complain.
(Genesis 27:27) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 11. IF THE WILL OF THE RIGHTEOUS MAN IS GOOD, WHY DID NOT ISAAC BLESS ESAU AS HE WISHED, BUT JACOB WHOM HE WOULD NOT BLESS? — The will of the just man is good, considered in his conscience; but as to foresight, it remains alien to unfortunate events. For God alone can judge things to come. That is why the righteous one, to consider only the outside, believed that his eldest son deserved to be blessed preferably. But God, who knows what is most secret, can see that the younger deserves this blessing, to show that this blessing was not a human favor but a grace from God; for it is not to the merit of man, but to the dignity of employment, that the blessing of God is attached. We see in the book of Numbers that God said to Moses and Aaron, who were priests, "Call upon my name on the children of Israel, and I, the Lord, will bless them (Num. 6:27)." Thus grace is transmitted to men by the ministry of those whom God chooses for this purpose, without the will of the priest being an obstacle or an advantage; God only takes into account the character of the person who asks for the blessing. Let us understand the greatness of the priestly dignity. The Evangelist, speaking of Caiaphas, said that high priest, who carried the wickedness to the last restrictions by having the death of the Savior. “He did not say that of himself, but this prophecy, because he was high priest of this year (Jn. 11:51).” We see that the Spirit of graces is not attached to the person, whether worthy or not, but to the succession of the priestly order. Therefore, whatever may be the merit of a man, he has no power to bless unless he is chosen and ordained to fulfill this sacred function; but it is always from God that the blessing receives its efficacy.
(Genesis 32:30) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 71. JACOB WAS CALLED THE MAN WHO SEES GOD (GEN. 32:30), AND MOSES SAW GOD FACE TO FACE. (EXOD. 33:11) THE LORD ALSO SAYS, "I SAW WITH MY OWN EYES THE GOD OF ARMIES.” (ISAIAH 6:5) ON THE CONTRARY, THE EVANGELIST ST. JOHN SAYS: "NO MAN HAS EVER SEEN GOD. (1 JN. 4:12) SO HERE THERE IS A CONTRADICTION. — To speak according to the truth, no man has really seen God, neither the Father, nor the Son. If the Scripture tells us that men have seen Him, it is by intelligence, for it could only appear to them in figure. Just as without knowing the emperors, we see them in image and not in reality, so God was seen in the sense that men understood that God appeared to them in a rational and not substantial way, for God cannot be seen in his nature. To put the difficulty of this question into the light of day, let us try to explain the meaning of John's words. For he wanted here to reveal to us a hidden truth which is part of the doctrine of salvation: "No man," he says, "has ever seen God; the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father has manifested Himself.” (Jn. 1:18) Let us examine the meaning of these words of the Evangelist; to show us that there is no truth that no man has ever seen God, he places this statement on the lips of the Son himself, who cannot be deceived because he is in the bosom of the Father. Now, what is the bosom of the Father, except the feeling of love of the true Father for his Son by the unity of nature which is common to them? No one has ever seen God except the only begotten Son, which is what the Apostle of God revealed among other things to St. John the Baptist: "It is not that anyone has seen the Father, there is only one who is of God who has seen the Father.” Now it is to condemn the Jews who would neither hear, nor believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that the Evangelist proves to them that it is this same Christ who appeared as God to the patriarchs, and that the Father has never been seen except by the Son. Indeed, by denying that God the Father was ever seen, and declaring, however, that God appeared to the patriarchs, the Son of God wants to reveal himself and show that it is he who appeared as God to their fathers. This is why he says to the Jews in speaking of his Father: "You have never heard his voice nor seen his face.” (Jn. 5:37) So there is no contradiction in saying that God all at once has been seen and is invisible.
(Genesis 49) 2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 6. WHAT IS THE BLESSING THAT JACOB GAVE TO HIS CHILDREN? — Jacob predicted what was to happen to each tribe in the midst of the Jewish people, not only from current and present causes, but from non-existent causes, of which the seed itself did not yet appear. He predicted what each tribe should be; their manners, their faithfulness, their obedience, their disorders, their excesses, their contempt for the faith, and how those who had left the same father would be far from following the same path. Indeed, some have made progress in good, others in evil, others have remained what they were. There was therefore no need for them to glorify the privilege of their birth since Jacob predicted that some of them who had the same origin would be reprobate, that many would perish and be replaced by others who for their shame and condemnation would be grazed from the tree of which they were detached. The predictions of this holy patriarch thus embrace all the people composed of all the tribes, the small number of the good as well as the multitude of the wicked. Though he gave authority to Joseph for a time, it was Judah, however, which he placed at the head of all the tribes; no, not that all who are of the tribe of Judah should be worthy of this preeminence, but because the Savior who is the true king was to come out of the tribe of Judah according to the flesh.
(Genesis 50:24) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 25. WHY DID JOSEPH, AFTER PREDICTING THE FUTURE, BESEECH THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL TO CARRY HIS ASHES FROM EGYPT WHEN GOD DELIVERED THEM? — It is an incontestable truth that Joseph did not make this recommendation to the children of Israel without cause. It cannot be supposed that the man whose gaze had plunged into the future spoke here without reason. He was full of a profound religion for the Creator God; he also knew what a veneration they had for the Egyptians, who remembered the wisdom of his administration during the famine which weighed upon Egypt. He therefore wished to take away this cause of error from him after his death, and to prevent them from rendering him worship, which belongs only to the Creator, for he knew all too well that the vain and light people are inclined to render divine honors to the dead rather than the living. He proves by this conduct that he did not share the vain superstitions of the Egyptians, since he orders to carry his ashes so that they do not become a subject to offend God. The Apostles imitated this example. Paul and Barnabas, perceiving that they wished to offer them a sacrifice, and knowing how much God abhorred such idolatry, tore their clothes, exclaiming, "What are you doing? we are men like you (Acts 14:14).” And they turned away the people from this sacrilegious design.
EXODUS
(Exodus 4:24) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 16. WHY DID THE ANGEL WHO WANTED TO KILL MOSES, IN THE ROUTE, BE APPEASED BY THE CIRCUMCISION OF HIS CHILD? — At the sight of the angel who threatened him, Moses repaired an omission which had been at home without purpose. The anger of the angel stopped before the completion of this ceremony, deferred by negligence. Now, this anger of the angel that threatens Moses to take his life, comes from the fact that the fault of a man raised in dignity has a particular character of gravity. This gravity is always in direct proportion to the elevated position one occupies. The fault committed by a man whom God had chosen to be the sovereign chief of his people was therefore very great. Moses was going to stand before the children of Israel as the messenger of the God of Abraham, and he did not bear the sign of the righteousness of Abraham, whom he knew to be a title of glory to the Jews, and he exposed to pass for a seducer or not to be received as the envoy of God who had chosen Abraham. He had not circumcised his children during his stay in the land of Midian; He was not to take them with him to Egypt, from where he was going to draw his brothers, or to circumcise them first for the reasons we have given. Zipporah, wife of Moses, as the Scripture recounts summarily, knowing for what reason the angel was angry with her husband, took a sharp stone and circumcised his son, and the angel departed. She soothes by this action the anger which the negligence of Moses had excited against him. Scripture often speaks in a very concise form of things which the very subject it treats must imply; for example, in these reproaches that the Savior addresses to the Jews: Why did you even violate the command of God to remain faithful to your tradition? for God has made this command: Honor your father and your mother; and this other: Whoever has insulted his father or mother with words will be punished with death. But you say, Whosoever shall say unto his father or to his mother, Every gift that I offer of my good shall be your reward, and after that he shall not honor his father and his mother." (Matt. 15:3-6, Exod. 20:12) Here, of course, the Savior abridged his speech, and implied that the Jewish priests, by engaging in greed, despised the law of God. By a show which impiety alone could inspire, they gave to the children who curse their father and mother the advice of offering to God what they would like, and thus to be freed from the sentence pronounced against the children who insult their children’s parents. But the children in this council had nothing but contempt for their parents against the express command of God. So Moses saw the angel angry with him, understood the reason, and told his wife what was to be done to calm the anger of the angel who wanted to take his life. This is what is implied in the story, as well as what we have pointed out in the reproaches addressed to the Jewish priests.
(Exodus 7:10) 2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 8. DID NOT MOSES DO ANOTHER MIRACLE BEFORE PHARAOH THAN THAT OF THE ROD TURNED INTO A SERPENT? — Whoever would be tempted to reproach Moses, tells us what other prodigy he should have done. He changed his rod into a serpent to impress terror, but without doing any harm, because the natural numbness of the snake makes his fury slower. If Moses had made a lion, bear, or other animal appear, how could those who were present have escaped? God did not want this serpent to cause the death of anyone; his intention was only to inspire a salutary fear and to manifest his power. It was by the snake that the sin of our first parents had begun, it was also the sight of a snake that was to recall the remembrance of the knowledge of God, and the necessity to change one's life so that sin was destroyed by the same means that had helped to make him commit. So again, it is through a woman that sin originated, it was by a woman that it was erased, by Mary, mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ who destroyed the kingdom of sin: Eve was still a virgin when she succumbed to sin, just as Mary was also a virgin when she was chosen to be the Savior's mother. Thus all that had perished was restored to its former state; it is by taking from the fruit of the tree that the kingdom of heaven was lost, it is by a tree that we recover our rights to this kingdom. "The Lord," said the Psalmist, "reigned by the wood.” (Ps. 95) It was by the same design that the world had to be repaired at the same time that it was created, that is to say, at the beginning of the first month which is the epoch of the Passover. There is therefore no other bad nature than the. transgression of the law since sin is erased by the same means used to commit it.
(Exodus 12:11) QUESTION 116. THE REASON FOR THE PASSOVER. — The word Passover, my dear brothers, comes from the word passion, as we learn from the figure of this mystery which was celebrated in Egypt by Moses, the faithful servant of God, to the testimony of Scripture: “Here is the Passover of the Lord's sacrifice.” (Exod. 12:11) But why was this mystery celebrated by the blood, why was life repaired by death, so that when it was believed to make a greater number of victims, did it suffer to restrain its power by the blood of the Savior, and to receive the blow which undermined its empire from that very death in which it believed it had displayed all its power? By a marvelous disposition of Divine Providence, death finds death in its work. As it always wishes evil, God seemed to yield to it for a time, so that, being destroyed in its unjust endeavor, it could not complain of being deprived of its empire over men. God can do everything, it is true, but he does nothing that is contrary to reason. He himself follows the rules of justice that he requires of men, without ever abusing his power. God has therefore shown admirable providence towards the human race; the rights and decrees of divine justice have been safeguarded and fulfilled, and man has been delivered from the death which held him in his chains for good reason. But as he had been deceived by the envy of the devil, it seemed just to God to come to his aid. He was condemned by God's judgment, but Satan was the cause. In the same way that it seemed right to God to deliver man, it would have been unjust to effect this deliverance by an act of his power, without the harmony of justice. The man having been defeated by the persuasions of Satan, the demon stood up like an accuser, to oppose the mercy. God, therefore, ensures that he who glorifies himself in the sin of man, should be convinced in the light of sin, that the conscience of his crime may render him any contradiction impossible. The Son of God became man, and preaching righteousness to men, inciting against him the hatred of the devil, because he turned them away from vices of which the demon is the father, and this hatred went so far as to put him to death he who did not know sin. It was then that the devil himself was convicted of sin, and of a sin much greater than that of the man he accused. By virtue of a decree of God, he claimed that the man belonged to him because of his sin, because the one who sins ranks with the party of the devil, but he was convinced of a much greater crime, when he dared put to death the one who had not sinned to extend his empire over him. It was, therefore, death which struck a mortal blow to death itself; the outpouring of blood saved the blood; that is to say, as I have recalled, that the author of death who is the devil, having been convicted of a crime in the death of the Savior, lost all rights over his blood and blood to us all; for just as by the sin of the one Adam alone did he hold all men under the bondage of death, he saw himself carried off all men by the innocence of one. The blood of the Savior poured out unjustly had the reward of victoriously saving the blood to which it owed its origin, and of restoring it to its former state by elevating it to a greater perfection. Conquered death dares not contradict its conqueror. Blessed, then, is the mystery of the Passover, which redeems us by blood, triumphing over death by death, just as it is customary to triumph by the poison of the very action of poison.
(Exodus 20) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 7. WHAT ARE THE TEN WORDS THAT WERE WRITTEN ON THE TWO TABLES, OR WHAT WORDS WERE ENGRAVED ON EACH TABLE, AND WHAT WAS THEIR NUMBER? — These ten words are the ten commandments. This is how the Savior calls the feeling that he asks the Jews, among other things: "I have a word to ask you too; answer me: Where did John's baptism come from? From heaven or men? (Matt. 21:24) He gives this feeling the name of speech. It is for a similar reason that Scripture tells us that ten words were written on the two tables, and these ten words are ten different thoughts. Here is the first word: "You shall have no other gods but me." (Exod. 3) Then comes the second: "You will not make any image of what is above in heaven, nor of what is down on the earth, or in the waters under the earth. " God adds in the third place: "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for God will not regard as innocent one who has taken in vain the name of the Lord his God," that is, you do not take the name of your God to support a lie and perjury that imposes that name. The fourth commandment reads, "You shall keep the Sabbath of the Lord your God, and you shall not do any servile work in this day." These first four words relate directly to God and are the subject of the first table. Others: The first word of the table: "Honor your father and your mother," the second: "You shall not kill;" the third: "You shall not be adulterous”; in the fourth, "You will not stumble”; The fifth: "You shall not bear false witness; The sixth: "You will not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor." The Apostle St. Paul tells us that these were the commandments of the second table when he said, "Honor your father and your mother, which is the first commandment of the promise. "(Eph. 4:2) How would this commandment be first if God had not engraved it at the head of the second table? Saint Paul says “of the promise”, because God adds immediately: "In order that you may be happy and live long on the earth." This is the promise that is made to those who keep the commandments. So here you have the separate commandments, their exact number and the precise indication of those engraved on each table.
(Exodus 20:5) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 14. WHY DOES GOD, WHOSE SCRIPTURE PRAISES JUSTICE, THREATEN TO PUNISH THE SINS OF PARENTS THROUGH THEIR CHILDREN UNTIL THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATIONS? — God can neither do nor say any injustice, to doubt it is madness. If, therefore, none of the words of the Lord are removed, but all the elements of the question are carefully put together, the light will give way to the darkness, and one will regard as a trait of goodness what appeared a sovereign injustice. To remove some of the elements of a question is to show either ignorance or bad faith, it is the work of a man who likes to slander rather than educate himself. But God has threatened, it is true, to pursue the sins of the parents even on their children, but on those who would have only hatred for him, that is to say, who persevere in the iniquity of their children, fathers, would worship idols after their example; for it is declaring itself the enemy of God to attribute to the creature the honor which is due to him alone. Just as the children of the righteous who are righteous themselves ennoble a family, where righteousness is transmitted as an inheritance and receive the double glory of their virtues and those of their parents, so also the children of the wicked who inherit their wickedness add to the crimes of their fathers, because they are the children of the wicked and they imitate their guilty examples for the loss of many. God wants to inspire terror here, but his word is true and justified in reason. Who of us, in fact, executes the bad son of a guilty father in the most ludicrous manner? who does not judge worthy of a double reward the virtuous son of a good man? Now, God threatens to exert his vengeance even on the third and fourth generation, because a bad father may have a son who does not walk in his footsteps, while the grandfather will follow him in the path of evil; but he must know that he cannot escape the rigor of this sentence. If, on the contrary, the grandfather does not follow the example of his grandfather, but those of his father, like God's law, like him, let the great grandfather not forget that the sentence may be to extend to him, if he imitates the criminal conduct of his son. In enacting this law, God wished to act upon the impiety of the parents, and to make them recognize the innumerable evils which the idol-worship, so that their affection for their children reminded them at least of the sentiments of religion which they to their Creator, or so that the sons, in the fear of punishment due to the crimes of their fathers, weave profession of obedience to the law of God. But the foolish ones, by an excess of malice, interpret in another sense this divine sentence, saying, "Our fathers have eaten green grapes, and the teeth of the children have been troubled," (Ezek. 13:2) that is to say, assured of impunity, because their children would suffer the penalty due to their sins, they remained insensitive to the spiritual love of God as well as to the natural affection for their children. That is why God says to them through his Prophet: "The son will not die for the father, nor the father for the son, but the soul that has sinned, will die itself. He wants to teach them that it is in vain that they hope for impunity, but that the sins of fathers will be punished in the person of children, in the sense that they will be more rigorously cheated, because by imitating impiety of their fathers they renewed the example of crimes which they should have erased. After having made known the evils of which idolatry is the source, God immediately adds the picture of the rewards which he reserves to those who love him: "And I have mercy in the following of a thousand generations to those who love me and keep my commandments," (Exod. 20:6), that is, the virtues of the father are rewarded not only in the rear of the grandchildren, but even after a thousand and a thousand generations. Thus, for example, that a man who loves God is of the race of David, whose existence goes back well above a thousand years, he is the object of the mercy of God, and in the necessity he deserves to double the title of receiving this mercy, by his personal fidelity in the service of God, and because he descends from the race of a man who has professed to love God. And it is here that the goodness of God is truly worthy of our praise. His righteousness on those who lower him is only exercised until the third and fourth generations, and not over thousands of generations. If, therefore, iniquity is perpetuated in the fifth generation, his vengeance begins from there to spread again to the third and fourth generation. But this objection will be made to me: The first author of a crime must be more severely punished than the one who merely imitates him. The perpetrator of the crime receives the just punishment due to him; if the children are more rigorously punished, it is the punishment of the parents. If you ask why, I will answer that the knowledge of the law adds to the gravity of sin, as it happened to Lamech and after Lamech himself. There are, however, some who think that the sons bore the penalty due to the crimes of their fathers when they were taken captive in expiation of their crimes, and that they remained there until the fourth generation. If this feeling is true, not only did God not only punish the sins of the fathers over the children who hated him, but also those who loved his name, for among these captives were Daniel, the three children Baruch, Ezekiel, and Ezra, who was born during captivity itself. So we clearly answered the question we had asked ourselves.
(Exodus 28:26; Deuteronomy 7:14) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 17. WHY DOES THE LAW DECLARE AND ACCURSE THOSE WHO HAVE NOT LEFT POSTERITY IN ISRAEL, WHILE ISAIAH PROMISES THAT NOTHING IS TO BE FEARED FOR THE EUNUCHS WHO CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN? — The Jews had heard the words of the Prophet in a different sense than he gave them; So it makes them know what the real meaning is. (Isa. 56:3) As he pronounced this sentence against those who transgress the law of God, and to punish them for having abandoned his worship, they were condemned not to marry, and not to leave posterity, the Jews had fallen into the error of seeing as guilty in the eyes of God those who would not take women, or who, while marrying, could not have children, as if God did not ask something other than children; it is the reproach that the prophet Malachi makes to them. Therefore, to console those who were grieved by the false interpretation of his words, teaches them that he who cannot or will not have children, has nothing to fear, provided he observes the law of God. The curse fell only on those who had the power and the will to have children, remained sterile by an effect of the judgment of God, who refused the fruit of creation to those who had only contempt for the Creator. He wanted that, seeing himself condemned to being unable to father children, or to preserve their lives if they had them, to recognize the effects of the wrath of an angry God and to return to him in the feelings of true repentance. Indeed, the holy personages who were eager to have children without being able to obtain them, believed that their sins were their cause and they were deeply afflicted, not knowing that the providence of God reserved them for the accomplishment of his designs. Thus, through divine intervention, Hannah conceived and bore Samuel (1 Sam. 1:20), Elisabeth John the Baptist (Luke 1:24), and the wife of Manoah, Samson. (Judg. 13:24) The spiritual meaning of these words is that one must look upon as cursed those who have not left posterity destined to see God, that is to say, who have not inspired their children, or their servants, or their neighbor, the feelings of fear of God that they themselves would have to teach others on the earth.
(Exodus 34:29) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 8. WHY DID MOSES, COMING DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN WITH THE TABLES OF THE LAW, HAVE A FACE SO BRIGHT THAT IT COULD NOT BE FIXED ON HIM? — The power that God had given to Moses over sinners was reflected by this mark of honor and by that dazzling face as he descended from the mountain. For it is against the followers that the law was given. So Moses, who had not sinned, appeared surrounded by glory and glory so glorious that the followers could not stop their eyes on him. The Lord wanted to show in his person that sinners are not worthy to see the glory of God. In fact, after the Israelites had melted and worshiped the idol of the golden calf, after Moses had broken the tables upon which the law of God was written, Moses went up a second time on the mountain with new tables, and when he came down with the law God had written there, his face cast such rays of light that the children of Israel and Aaron himself could not stop looking at him because they had sinned. So he spoke to them by putting a veil on his face, for as long as they sinned in their sins, they were unaware of seeing the glory of God. This is why the Apostle says, "When this people is converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away," (1 Cor. 3:16), that is, when purified by the grace of God, they will become worthy of to contemplate the glory of God. In breaking the two tables which he had received in the first place, Moses showed the reprobation of this people, who, by their attachment to iniquity, was to render themselves unworthy of divine promises. The law given a second time meant that this people would succeed another who could not take advantage of the law given on the mountain.
LEVITICUS
(Leviticus 7:1; Jeremiah 7:1) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 103. HOW DOES THE LORD COMMIT IN LEVITICUS TO OFFER SACRIFICES AND LIBATIONS THAT HE REJECTS IN ANOTHER PLACE? WE READ IN LEVITICUS THAT THE LORD COMMANDED THE ISRAELITES TO OFFER HIM LIBATIONS, SACRIFICES, BURNT OFFERINGS. HOWEVER, THIS IS WHAT HE SAYS TO THEM THROUGH THE MOUTH OF THE PROPHET JEREMIAH: "ADD AS MUCH AS YOU PLEASE YOUR BURNT OFFERINGS TO YOUR VICTIMS, AND EAT THE FLESH OF YOUR SACRIFICES, FOR I DID NOT ORDAIN TO YOUR FATHERS, IN THE DAY THAT I TOOK THEM OUT OF EGYPT, TO OFFER ME BURNT OFFERINGS AND VICTIMS.” — This question of holocausts and sacrifices, thoroughly examined, cannot cause any difficulty, and the Lord neither contradicted nor changed his prescriptions by revoking a commandment he would have given. In fact, we find no command that relates to the sacrifices, libations, and burnt offerings he speaks of in this place. Remember, then, that there were two kinds of sacrifices; the first included all the sacrifices which God had prescribed for the different circumstances; the other the voluntary sacrifices. God had thus prescribed the various sacrifices that were to be offered either for sins or for the firstborn, and regulated the matter and mode of these sacrifices. But the voluntary sacrifice had not been the object of any command; it was left to the will of everyone who offered what he considered good; these sacrifices were essentially voluntary. But as negligence and recklessness were introduced into these sacrifices and the Jews did not think that the gifts offered to the Almighty should be carefully chosen, God said to them, "I did not command you to offer me these sacrifices, but if you want to offer them, you must choose victims worthy of me.” Thus Cain made himself guilty by not thinking that he should offer God the best fruits of the earth. (Gen. 4:6) They claimed to offer these sacrifices to God, to make him favorable, and they rather attracted his indignation; and far from doing a good work as they boasted, they were guilty of offering to God burnt offerings unworthy of him. This is the reproach he makes them by the prophet Malachi: "If you present a blind or crippling heifer for a sacrifice, is it not an evil?" "Raise it to your master or chief if they please him, or if he welcomes your face, says the Lord Almighty. "(Mal. 1:8) He addresses the same complaints to them by the prophet Isaiah: I have not made for you to seek or purchase incense at great cost, I did not desire the fat of your victims, and you presented them before me covered with your sins and your iniquities." (Isa. 1:11) This is the true motive of these reproaches: they offered voluntary sacrifices to God, but these sacrifices were not homage pleasing to God because they offered him unworthy victims without these sacrifices being obligatory. God had demanded them; necessity could have excused the more or less perfect choice of the victims; but as these sacrifices were voluntary, they had to offer victims that were a testimony of their religion towards God. Their mind was entirely devoted to the false worship of idols; from this negligence in the sacrifices they were taking away from the true God. The Lord therefore reproaches them with a double reproach, of daring to sacrifice to God with a soul soiled by iniquity, and of offering him victims unworthy of him; for the guilty actions are not redeemed by sacrifices, but by the tears and mercy of God. So listen to what David says after his sin: "If you had wanted sacrifices, I would have given you some, but burnt offerings are not pleasing to you. The sacrifice that God requires is a soul broken with pain, God does not disdain a contrite and humiliated heart.” What does Samuel say to Saul, who, having despised the Lord's commandments, imagined that he might appease him with a sacrilege? "Does the Lord want sacrifices? Do not you rather ask to obey his voice?" (1 Sam. 15:22) God also says in Scripture, "I prefer mercy rather than sacrifice.” (Hos. 6:6) Now the Jews who were without righteousness and without mercy, believed that they might give themselves to God by sacrifices; This is what Christians still do today who, without taking any notice of justice, feel that their offerings make them worthy of praise and reward. The sacrifice made to God is a good thing, but on the condition that justice be observed and the mercy practiced; for we must exercise in regard to others what we ask for ourselves.
JOSHUA
JUDGES
(Judges 11:39) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 43. SINCE GOD FORBADE ABRAHAM TO SACRIFICE HIS SON, WHY DID HE NOT ALSO DEFEND JEPHTHAH FROM SACRIFICING HIS DAUGHTER? — There is a big difference between Abraham and Jephthah. At first Abraham had a legitimate birth, while that of Jephthah was illegitimate, for he was the son of a courtesan. Then, Abraham's life was irreproachable; Jephthah was chief of lawbreakers. Abraham was a righteous man and that temptation had felt. Jephthah could not present any testimony of justice. Abraham was therefore commanded to sacrifice his son to God to show men the greatness of his faith in God, since at his command he did not hesitate to sacrifice his son to him. Indeed, he does not doubt for a moment that he who, against all human hope, could have given birth to this child of a sterile and advanced woman could not, against the laws of nature, resuscitate him from among the dead. This obedience was the height of Abraham's righteousness, for God saw then that he did not ask for the blood of this child, but that he only wanted by this commandment to put the last line to the virtue of his servant, he submits those who love him to certain trials to motivate the just rewards he has for them. Jephthah, on the other hand, a man without virtue and without foresight, by a sentiment of religion misunderstood, promises a sacrifice to God in these words: "I will offer a burnt offering to God the first to come out of the door of my house and come in front of me when I come back from the fight." (Judg. 11:31) Was he forced to do this? or did he understand how he was to perform it? What would he have done if he had introduced to him a dog, a donkey, which the law forbids offering to the Lord, or the son or wife of another? Would he have fulfilled his vow by rejoicing at the expense of others' pain? The judgment of God, therefore, allowed this vow, the improvidence of which might be so fatal to others, to fall back on itself; and Jephthah pushed blindness until he did not recognize that he had made a reckless wish and that he had to go back on the erroneous promise of which he was the author. He ought to have understood that God cannot accept a similar sacrifice, request for his reckless conduct, and offer to God a victim who was not contrary to the law; but he likes to become better parricide by remaining faithful to his vow, without recollecting that truth which a reckless and foolish promise, in order to be useful, can only be fatal. He sacrificed himself by immolating his daughter, so God concealed his disapproval of such a sacrifice. If he had positively forbidden it, he would have seemed to want another victim to be sacrificed to him, while he knew that Jephthah was unworthy and could not offer it to him. As for her daughter, death was a gain for her, because in dying as an innocent victim of her father's guilty wish, she avoided the pain of hell to which she might not have been able to escape by prolonging her life. If we see the triumph crowning the efforts of Jephthah, let us beware of attributing it to his own merit or that of his army, for we do not read that they prayed to God to give them a defender. Besides, had God given this mission to Jephthah? had he spoken to him? No, but as the foreign nations exalted the power of their gods, as if they had subjected them to the children of Rael and had only insults for the God of Abraham, God exercised his vengeance against these natives not for his people, who was unworthy of it, but for the honor of his name in view of the merits of Abraham and for his sanctuary. So when we see the spirit of God seize Samson, who gave himself up to a courtesan, shall we say that he was worthy? No, but this grace was given to him only for the destruction of enemy nations. (Judg. 14:6; 15:14)
1 SAMUEL
(1 Samuel 7:9) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 46. WAS SAMUEL ONE OF AARON'S CHILDREN, AND SHOULD IT BE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS A PRIEST? — There are some among us who, busy with worldly affairs or little zeal for the study of the Holy Scriptures, support this erroneous view that Samuel was a priest, that is to say, descendant of Aaron, whose sons, according to God's command, were born and did not priests. They had only the privilege of offering incense on the altar. Others push the error further; they admit that Samuel was not of the race of Aaron, that is to say, he was not born a priest, and they do not fail to affirm that he has fulfilled the priestly functions. It is to these that we must first answer, for it is more absurd to affirm that Samuel fulfilled the priestly functions without being born a priest than to maintain that he was a priest as a descendant of Aaron. On one side there is only ignorance, on the other there is unreason. When we have proved to those who think that Samuel was born a priest that he was not of the race of Aaron, they will be convinced that he was not clothed with the priesthood, for they seem to be ignorant that the children of Aaron were permitted to perform the priestly functions, a truth of which Scripture gives us clear evidence. Thus Korah, who was not Aaron's children, who wanted to offer incense on the altar, the earth opened under his feet and swallowed him up with those who had joined him. (Num. 16:31) And Uzziah the king, who was also not of the tribe of Aaron, but of the tribe of Judah, having dared to usurp the priestly offices by appearing before the altar, was struck with leprosy on the forehead and remained leprous until the day of his death. (2 Kgs. 15:5; 2 Chron. 26:21) As for those who claim that Samuel, without being a priest by right of birth, did not fail to fulfill his functions, their opinion is rather unreasonable, and it is not a mediocre job to persuade the truth to a fool. What, indeed, is their folly to maintain that it is night while the sun pours streams of light on the earth? They read, and not in one right, that God established by law that the functions of the priesthood would be exclusively reserved for Aaron and his children, and they stubbornly maintain that Samuel was a priest. They do not understand that if Samuel fulfilled the priestly functions, without holding this right of his birth, he is a usurper, because God has established that this right would come from birth, and not from the will of men. It is even more than boldness to conceive this opinion of Samuel. How can one suppose, indeed, that a man so worthy of esteem, so commendable to the very testimony of God, would have dared to seize functions which he knew were forbidden to him? Besides, he does not know with what rigor God has more than once celebrated this recklessness. He could not claim that dignity by a special concession of God, which he knew to be undisputable in his decrees, and if this concession had been made to him, he would have rather regarded it as a temptation, in the belief that it was that God could not in any way return to what He had established. He would have thought rather that it was the devil who granted him this right under the appearance and in the name of God, to believe that God had changed his decrees. When God forbade Balaam to go to Balac and asked him again if he could go to the invitation that was made to him (Num. 22:19), God, angry with him, he took it again by the mouth of an angel, for this animal, seeing the angel who was opposing his passage, no longer wished to advance. Now, Balaam, asking God again, who had forbidden him to undertake this journey, if he consented to his departure, judged of God as of a man who, by the same as he cannot foresee the future, is changeable and variable in his designs. But Balaam has no testimony from heaven for him, for he was a diviner. Samuel, on the contrary, was a man loved by God, and knowing the invariability of his decrees; how could he have believed that he was permitted to act against such a clearly established law? It was, they say, after the death of Heli and his sons, who were priests, that Samuel began to fulfill the priestly functions. That's what history does not say, that's what reason cannot admit. Those who advance this opinion are obliged to suppose that there was then no one who could exercise the priestly functions, and that after the death of Eli and his two sons, the priesthood would have ceased to exist if Samuel had not sacrificed himself to God. Such a feeling is offensive to God, because those who support him seem to accuse him of improvidence by instituting a ministry which could not have duration. Why, indeed, establish that none other than the children of Aaron could perpetually fulfill the priestly functions until the time of the advent of Christ, if he knew that this priesthood should fail? If, on the contrary, he did not know it (and far from us this thought), he was therefore without foresight, then he could also be made that in the absence of these legitimate priests Samuel did not exercise the functions of the priesthood. But if one is forced to admit the providence and prescience of God, what he has established must have remained, and if so, Samuel did not exercise the priesthood, because he was not a priest. In the old law, indeed, and according to the established order of God, the priesthood was attached to birth; in the news, God has established that the priests would be instituted. Let them choose one of these two things, whether they prove that Samuel was born a priest or that he became a priest. Now they confess that he is not born a priest, because they know that he is not of the family of Aaron. So if Samuel is not a priest by birth, and if we do not read, if we cannot prove that God had prescribed to establish priests apart from the family of Aaron, the rigorous conclusion Samuel was not a priest. Nevertheless, the contradictors persist in closing their eyes to the evidence; or, they say, Samuel was not a priest, but he fulfilled the functions, since we read that he offered a sacrifice to God. (1 Sam. 7:9-10) Who will dare to oppose this testimony of the holy books? Yes, Samuel offered a sacrifice to God, but it does not follow that he exercised the priestly ministry. It is said every day that a man offers a sacrifice when he hands over to the priest the victims whom he places on the altar; and it is in this sense that Samuel offered it himself, that is, through the priest, as is done every day. Scripture also says of David, Solomon, and so many others, that they have sacrificed, are we to say that all have performed priestly functions? The priest, it is true, performs his own ministry, yet the very act of sacrifice is attributed to him in whose name the priest sacrificed, in other words, he is attributed to the one who presents the sacramental victims. How, indeed, he who was not a priest could have held the place of a priest? Can a deacon replace a priest? A prefect may replace a prefect, a lender take the place of a lender, but a private man cannot replace any authority; how much less can one who is not a priest replace a priest? For what purpose could he aspire to the exercise of a ministry which he knows to be forbidden to him? If a priest comes to fail in one place, or ask another to come and replace him; but no prophet, no saint, will ever do a thing that he knows to be forbidden to him. A holy life, indeed, does not carry the power to exercise any ministry. Just as the priest cannot base on his character alone the esteem he wants us to make of his life; he whose life is holy and the pure manners cannot hope to find there the right to exercise the priestly ministry. The priesthood is a good institution, it is true, but it becomes an evil thing for the one who pretends to exercise it without any right. If we carefully consider what is written by Samuel, we shall see that testimony testifies to him the Scripture: "And all the people knew," he said, "that Samuel was the faithful prophet of the Lord.” (1 Sam. 3:20) And in the book of Psalms: "May Moses and Aaron be his priests, and Samuel the number of those who call on his name." (Ps. 98:6) Who does not see this distinction that these characters are separated by their different dignities; that is to say, we see Moses and Aaron clothed with priestly dignity, and Samuel, among the prophets, is deemed worthy to invoke by his prayers the protection of God over his people, as he did indeed. (1 Sam. 7:9) - The priests, moreover, were so little lacking, that when the ark was brought back from the Philistines, carried by the Levites, the inhabitants of Bethsamea offered sacrifices to God in Samuel's absence; and when Saul became king, Ahimaas, grandson of the high priest Heli, wore the ephod. Now, they will say, it is precisely the proof that Samuel was a priest, for he was clothed with the ephod. But are today deacons not clothed with dalmatics like the bishops? We also read that David was clothed with the ephod (2 Sam. 6:14), and a double ephod. Samuel, still a tiny child, was himself wearing the ephod (1 Sam. 6:18), Could he at this age offer to God the gifts of the people? You see, then, that this name of ephod has different meanings. The priests wore the ephod, but did not wear it, while it was the garment. The ephod means sometimes a garment, sometimes a kind of ornament that the priests wore to consult the Lord. So far as we seem, we proved that Samuel was not a priest, but a prophet. We now have to answer those who think that Samuel was a priest, because they do not know that Samuel was not one of Aaron's children, for it was not permissible for a descendant of Aaron not to practice the priestly ministry. I want to prove to them first of all that if Samuel was a priest, his father Helcana undoubtedly had to be, as well as the sons of Samuel. Now, a proof that they were not priests, is that he made them judges over the children of Israel, as Samuel himself was. We read "that he judged the children of Israel." Helcana, Samuel's father, was not a priest either, because, says the Scripture: "He went from the city called Ramathaim to the ordained days to worship the Lord and offer sacrifices to the almighty God of hosts, and there were the two sons of Heli, Ophni and Phinehas, priests of the Lord. "(1 Sam. 1:3) Can it be more clearly established that at the appointed time, Elenahana offered sacrifices to the Lord by the hand of the priests, according to the prescriptions of Moses, according to which the Hebrews were to offer victims and tithes of their property three times a year, where was the ark and the priests of the Lord? Besides, he had two women at the same time, which was forbidden to priests. Indeed, Helcana was one of the Levites, as indicated by the following genealogies in the book Chronicles. (1 Chron. 6) The Levites did not yet have specific functions to fulfill with the priests and the ark of the Lord. David, during his reign, thus divides the sacred functions between priests and Levites. From the age of twenty and above, and according to the law for twenty-five years and above, they had to begin to minister in sacred ceremonies. He instituted among the children of Aaron, that is to say among the descendants of Phinees and Thamar, twenty-four classes of priests to perform alternately their ministry at certain times. He also appointed Levites to be porters of the tabernacle, to carry the ark of the Lord, to guard the holy place and sacred vessels, and to receive the mass of offerings. He also instituted twenty-four classes of cantors, harp players, and other musicians, who filled their offices in their turn, because they had to be allowed some rest and time to take care of their household affairs. Now, not only do these details contribute to establish the truth that we seek to prove, that is, Samuel was not Aaron's children, but the very promise his mother made to the Lord is a new proof: "If you give me a son," she told him, "I will give it to the Lord every day of my life.” (1 Sam. 1:11) Now she would not have spoken this language if he had been a priest by right of birth; it would have been necessarily devoted to the service of the altars. But he was only Levite, and there was still no special law for the Levites; each one did what he wanted, and often they engaged in the paths of error and iniquity. Thus Jonathan, the grandson of Moses, who was among the Levites, took it upon himself to attribute the priesthood to the tribe of Dan. This is why we read in the book of Judges, "At that time there was no king in Israel; but everyone did everything that seemed good to him.” (Judg. 17:6) And so Hannah consecrated Samuel to God, saying, "I put this child into the hands of the Lord" so that he would not be exposed to going astray like the others. Finally, to deal with this question in all its aspects, let us still discuss what is said of Helcana, and that he came to ordinary days to offer sacrifices and tithe of his goods. How could he offer the tithe of his goods since he possessed nothing? For the Levites had no part in the division of the lands, because they were to live on tithes which the people gave them. But it can be done, and this opinion is based, that he possessed the property of his wife or others that he would have bought, because not only the Levites, but the others and the priests themselves were taking wives in other tribes. Thus we see the High Priest Jehoiada take for wife the daughter of King Joram, of the tribe of Jude. (2 Chron. 22:11)
(1 Samuel 15:24; 2 Samuel 12:13) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 18. WHY DID SAUL AFTER HIS SIN, ASK THAT GOD BE PRAISED, FOR FORGIVENESS WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO OBTAIN IT, WHILE DAVID, ALSO A SINNER, ASKED FOR IT AND OBTAINED IT? — It is not appropriate to revise the judgments of God; it is at the school of these judgments that the weakness or ignorance of men must learn from what they do not understand, and convince themselves that they are the expression of truth; therefore God must not have acted otherwise than He has acted, since we know that there is no acceptance of persons in him. (Acts 10:34) He answered David's prayer, he rejected that of Saul, he did not commit any injustice in it. He knew in what internal dispositions each of them prayed to him. He therefore answered the prayer of one who implored his pardon with a contrite and humbled heart, and rejected the prayer of him who had closed his soul to all repentance. God, in fact, gives more attention to the feelings of the heart than to the words that come from the mouth; he declares it in his own words: "Man," he says, "sees what appears, but God looks at the heart." (l Sam. 16:7) What misleads us is that we leave ourselves to deceive by the pretense of language or a lying exterior, because we cannot see what is going on in the heart. We must therefore follow the judgment of God who examines men in the most intimate of the heart, where the real feelings are. This is what the Savior himself did, as we see in the Gospel. He does not wish to receive among his disciples a scribe who offers himself to him (Matt. 8:19), and he calls after him Levi who sat in the house of the tax-collectors (Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27), because the feelings of this scribe were not in harmony with his words; Levi, on the other hand, without saying a single word, had in his heart what the scribe had only on his lips. Now Jesus, according to what is written, knew what is in man (Jn. 2:25), chooses Levi. Moreover, David did not ask as Saul, but he implored his forgiveness in the feelings of a heart deeply contrite and humiliated. (1 Samuel 26:16) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 35. HOW CAN DAVID STILL CALL SAUL THE ANOINTED OF THE LORD, AND DO HIM HONOR IN THIS EXCELLENCE AFTER THE LORD HAD DEPARTED FROM HIM? — David was not unaware that the royal dignity was of divine origin, and as long as he sees Saul clothed with this dignity, he honors him in this excellence so as not to appear to be wanting to God who does a duty of these honors to the respect of kings. The king, indeed, is the image of God, as the bishop is the image of Christ. As long as he occupies this high rank, he must be honored, if not for himself, at least for the dignity with which he is clothed. This is the Apostle's recommendation: "Be subject to the higher powers. There is no power that is not of God, and those that are, have been ordained of God.” (Rom. 13:1) This is why we honor a pagan man constituted in dignity, though personally unworthy of him, who, taking God's place, pays his homage to the devil. Power is entitled to the honors we pay him and he deserves them. This is why God revealed in dreams to Pharaoh his future years of famine (Gen. 42:26), and that only of all those who were present with him he saw the Son of God in the fiery furnace (Dan. 3), thanks, no doubt, to his personal merits, he who wished to be adored in an idol, but to the excellence of the royal dignity with which he was clothed.
2 SAMUEL
(2 Samuel 28:12) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 27. DID THE WITCH MENTIONED SAMUEL; DID HE REALLY APPEAR BEFORE HER, AND DID HE SAY TO SAUL THE WORDS WHICH THE BOOK OF KINGS RELATES? — This fact seems to me scarcely worthy if one sticks to the simple words of the historical narrative. How can one admit that the power of magical art has forced the appearance of a man as holy in his works as in his birth? or that without being forced to it he appeared voluntarily? It is absurd to admit one or the other of these suppositions in this just man. If he has been mentioned in spite of himself, then justice has no power; if he consented to this evocation, he lost the merit of these virtues he had practiced during his mortal life; absurd consequence, for he who comes out of this life into righteousness perseveres in it. Now Satan's tricks go so far that to deceive a greater number he wants to appear to hold the good under his power. This is what the Apostle wants us to hear through these words: "Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” (2 Cor. 11:14) In order to accredit an error which turned to his glory, he disguised himself under the exterior and the name of a righteous man, to show thus the little foundation of the hope given to the servants from God, since the righteous who came out of this life were subject to his own child. Some are deceived here because he has told the truth about the death of Saul and his sons, as if it were difficult for the devil to foresee before death and the death of the body, especially since warning signs are manifested to those whose death is near, because the protection of God seems to have withdrawn from them. How much more must we suppose this knowledge in the devil, whose prophetic oracles retrace to us the sublime dignity above all the angels and of which the Apostle said: "Do you therefore ignore the heights of Satan?" (Rev. 2:24, 2 Cor. 2:11) How is it astonishing that he could have foreseen the death of Saul, when this prediction served to deceive men and to be adored as clothed in his power? Saul pushed madness and stupidity to resort to the enchantments of a witch. The depreciation of his heart made him use sacrilegious means which he himself had condemned. If, out of respect for history, we do not think we ought to pass lightly on the literal account of the facts, we will be right, provided we do not conclude with the reality of these facts, but only with what impresses on the eyes and mind. Saul, reprobate of God, could not have a true and righteous spirit. The historian describes the provisions of Saul and the exterior of Samuel; he recounts the words that were said, the appearances that are glaring in the eyes, but without saying whether these appearances are in conformity with the truth or not. What does he say, indeed? Saul, learning in what form appeared the one he had asked, "understood that it was Samuel." (1 Sam. 28:14) The historian tells what was Saul's thought, and how that thought was not good. He adored another than God against the defense of Scripture, in the thought that it was Samuel, and he adored the devil, who thus collected the fruit of his tricks; for the purpose of all his efforts is to be adored as God. If Samuel had really appeared to Saul, this righteous man would not have allowed him to be worshiped, he who had taught that adoration was only due to God alone. How besides this man of God was with Abraham, in the abode of happiness, could he say to that guilty man worthy of the flames of hell: "You will be with me tomorrow”? Satan betrays here doubly the subtlety of his tricks; he allows us to worship him under the exterior and the name of Samuel against the express defense of the law, and in spite of the immense distance which separates the sinners from the just, he falsely proves to a man charged with iniquities that he will share the happiness of the most just of men. These words would be true if Samuel's name were not mixed in, because in reality Saul had to be with the devil. He went to find the one he had loved. The demon may disguise himself, but he is always betrayed by actions contrary to the character of the persons whose instruments he wishes to deceive.
1 KINGS
(1 Kings 3; 11) 2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 18. WHY IS SOLOMON IN THE SPIRIT OF WISDOM, ALTHOUGH HIS MANNERS WERE FAR FROM PURE, SINCE HE WAS DOMINATED BY THE UNREGULATED LOVE OF WOMEN? — Solomon first received the spirit of wisdom for his personal conduct; and after he had abandoned himself to the disordered and criminal love of women, if he still had this spirit of wisdom, it was in the interest of his kingdom; and it was for the same reason that Nebuchadnezzar saw Jesus Christ in the furnace.
2 KINGS
(2 Kings 2:10) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 26. DID ELISHA GET WHAT HE ASKED INDISCREETLY FOR ELIJAH? — Elisha eagerly desired the spirit and the gift of miracles; seduced by the example of his master who allowed him to ask him anything he wished, and greedy of the good he could obtain, he asked for a double portion of the spirit that Elijah had. The man of God answered him: "You asked me a very difficult thing." An intense desire made him forget that the disciple is not above the master. (Matt. 10:24) However, Elijah, knowing well that it was not by the ambition of the glory of this world that he had made this request, replied: "Nevertheless, if you see me when I will be removed from you, you will have what you asked for.” The meaning of these words requires serious attention. Elijah, whose dissatisfaction pierces in these words: "You ask me a very difficult thing," does not fail to add: "If, however, you see me when I am taken away from you, you will have what you have asked for." He had not refused him an absolute refusal, he only taught him that he would obtain according to his merit rather than according to his request. Scripture, in fact, means that many things must be understood so that the meaning which results from the expressions is not contrary to the principles of religion. This indiscreet request must have had no effect; but because Elisha reads it only by the desire of good, God, who knows what he ought to give to each, would not be deprived of the goods which he was worthy of receiving. Let us now see if Elijah deserved to have Elisha receive a double portion of the spirit that he himself had. The Holy Spirit made known to Zechariah what would be the greatness and merit of John. "He will come," said he, "in the spirit and virtue of Elijah. (Luke 1:17) He tells him that John will be the equal of Elijah, and Our Lord says on his side: "No one has risen from the children of women greater than John the Baptist. (Matt. 11:11.) He does not say, He is greater than all, but: "No one is greater than he;” That is, one can be his equal, one cannot be superior to him. Elijah is therefore equal to him, and is not inferior to anyone; How can Elisha be greater than he, since John, who has no one above him, is equal to Elijah? For when he arrived on the banks of the Jordan, the waters would not yield to his word to give him passage, if he had not invoked the name of Elijah (2 Kgs. 2:14), God not wanting to let him believe that he had received the effect of his indiscreet request, because the measure of the spirit which had been accorded to Elijah was not sufficient for the time he lived.
TOBIT
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 119. ON TOBIT. — The providence of the Lord God towards us is so great that, not wanting us to err, he gave us the law and examples of good works, so that, following them, one may lead an honest and peaceful life with the fear of God. For he who is the maker of life naturally does not wish his work to be subject to death. Although nature itself is not devoid of law, the Lord, being good and merciful, wanted us to have greater knowledge of the things to be pursued and of the things to be avoided, and to this end he showed them through texts and examples, as the present reading attests. Therefore God's servant holy Tobit was given to us, after the law, as an example, so that we may know how the things we have read are done, and so that, if trials come, we may not desist from the fear of God, and that we may not hope for help from any other source than from him, keeping in mind that it is written, "I have been young, and now am old; and I have not seen the just forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread" (Ps. 36:25). Therefore he who hopes in God with all his mind can never be deceived. Even if tribulations arise for a time through Satan's maneuvers, the examples of holy men teach us that these things are permitted by God only for the sake of increasing our rewards; because if we bear tribulations with composure, we shall here be given consolation with effect, and in the future we shall be given eternal life with glory. For because our God is just and there is no respect of persons with him (Rom. 2:11), he lets us be tested, because he loves us, so that he may give us immense rewards after the hardship. Indeed, when the apostle was praying for his trials to cease, the Lord said to him, "My grace is sufficient for you; for power is made perfect in infirmity". As a reaction to this the apostle said, "When I am weak, then am I stronger", and "I rejoice in my tribulations," he said, "that the power of Christ may dwell in me" (2 Cor. 12:9-10). So, let us be informed by the Scripture of how praiseworthy holy Tobit is, whose devotion captivity did not diminish, whom the loss of his eyes did not stop from blessing God, whom the exhaustion of his resources did not divert from the way of justice and truth (Tob. 1-3). Indeed, need tests a just man and proves him to be just, and keeping fairness when in poverty is the true and perfect justice. From things that diminish the devotion of some, praiseworthy Tobit gained an increase of it. For want, he says, humiliates a man, and he who is humiliated cannot keep justice. But holy Tobit's spirit, intent on God, was neither broken by captivity nor humiliated by want, because he buried the bodies of the slain in spite of the prohibition, and, certain of God's generosity, he was compassionate even with the small means that he had, knowing that God prefers the compassion that is done from small means, as did the widow whom the Lord praised in the Gospel (Luke 21:2-4). For the truly faithful person, the person who does not doubt God's promises, is the one who gives generously from little. Therefore, comforting his heart with the hope of the future, Tobit, devoted to God, was found to be strong and brave in trial, showing that, when in want, one ought to be all the more vigilant in God's fear, because if want does not prompt you to seek God's help, how much less will security? Therefore holy men, certain that God has reserved for himself the judgement of all that is done in this world, not only have not been vexed about tribulations, losses, and other calamities or reproaches, but they have even accepted them with gratitude, as did our apostles, who after being beaten rejoiced that they had been accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Christ (Acts 5:41). Indeed, the calamities that unjustly strike the faithful, whether in tribulations or in reproaches, are the signs of future rewards. Therefore just Tobit was so pleasing to God that he obtained for his merits a twofold reward: for the present he recovered, through the angel's agency, the sight that he had lost, and was also enriched with the resources that are useful in this life; and for the future he was made an heir of the kingdom of heaven: so that we might be taught through this that when someone obeys God's law with all their heart and does not doubt his promises, God often augments their resources in this world, and grants them eternal life in the next. There is also something else that invites us to compliance with God's law: holy Tobit did not only obtain the rewards of his own justice, because there is added to the sum of his glory also something from the good actions of those who behave as his imitators. For examples are praised in their imitators. This can happen to us as well if we live in such a way that it becomes appropriate for us to have imitators too.
(Tobit 12:7) 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT QUESTION 8. IT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF TOBIT, “IT IS HONORABLE TO REVEAL AND TO CONFESS THE WORKS OF GOD;” WHILE THE SAVIOR, AFTER DOING THE WORK OF GOD, RECOMMENDS NOT TO TELL IT TO ANYONE. (MARK 8:26) — The Savior did not recommend hiding the work of God, because he says in another place, "Go, and tell the great things that God did for you" (Mark 5:19), but he sometimes refused the testimony that men wanted to give him and repressed their vanity, so as not to appear to testify to himself, as a seducer, unreasonable conduct in the eyes of every prudent man.
JOB
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 118. ON JOB. — How great, my dear brothers, is the love of Almighty God for mankind; when it is well understood it serves to lead men into the kingdom of heaven; for want of understanding it, on the contrary, we go down into the underworld. God wants His graces to be pleasing and fruitful to us; he wants us to find our advantage and to satisfy his desire to have mercy. It is therefore because of his goodness and that will that he has all men saved that he has given us an example of perfect justice in the person of his servant Job, as you are taught by the reading we have just done. By imitating this example we will be freed from evil, and we will be able to attain the highest good, and not only be delivered from punishment, but obtain eternal rewards. How admirable is this holy patriarch Job, who even before the written law, shows in his works an accomplished example of the observance of the law, and who, without having been to the school of any master, under the inspiration of nature in which God has engraved the first principles of justice, has preserved for his Creator a religion full of devotion and obedience. What praises is he not worthy, and by what words can we celebrate the works of this man, of whom we cannot find the like, neither before nor after the law? A man can walk in his footsteps, but he cannot enter into comparison with him, nor can it be said that he is like him, for he did not open the way this way first, he only follows the one who preceded it. The holy man Job, on the contrary, has shown himself such without ever having seen, having never read anything of the kind; he did not imitate the conduct of others; it is he, on the contrary, who becomes their model and gives them the example of those admissible actions in which God Himself finds his complaisance. So the Lord himself gave him this glorious testimony: "Have you noticed my servant Job," he said to Satan? “that there is not a servant of God like him on the earth. (Job 1:8.) Who could have deserved the extraordinary privilege that the Lord bore witness to him, except he who did not imitate the example of another, but who walked first in the way he entered? Then we conclude that he worshiped God in truth. There is no semblance of truth as such in the one who has not been preceded by no one in the way he walks. Any man who wants to pretend the fact in things where he is only imitator. And yet what remains to be said is far superior to these first merits. In these virtues so praiseworthy, we do not see the trials of tribulations, but a soul inviolably attached to the service of God, and a loyalty to any test in the observance of his law. The tempter did not find that the measure was full enough to obtain the crown which rewards the merits; he therefore asked God to subject Job's virtue to various temptations, to enslave him and embarrass him in the bonds of misfortune and drag him beyond the bounds. As no man can bear the weight of all the torments together, the guilty are subjected to separate tortures to extract from them the confession of their crimes. God therefore allowed the tempter to destroy all that belonged to his servant, and to destroy everything to his children. The devil hoped that if Job bore the loss of his oxen without complaining, he would not bear the loss of his flocks of sheep, or at least the loss of his camels, of his servants, of all his riches; or, finally, that if he had a soul large enough and a religion so pure as not to succumb to these calamities, his soul would be overcome by paternal tenderness and broken heart when he learned that all his children had died as victims by the same disaster. But as before even the proclamation of the written law, he carried the law engraved in his heart, none of these flames, none of these losses did not weaken the deep feeling of religion which he professed for God, and he thus gave to all men the example of loving God with all their heart above all things. What glory, then, is not he who, before the law, observed the law faithfully, and who, before this law was given to men, taught them not by his words, but by his actions, how they should observe him? Now the tempter pushed his boldness so far as not to find sufficient for the glory of this just man, so many misfortunes united; he therefore wished to subject him to a more terrible trial, which he knew to be above the forces of man; he asked God again that he allowed him to strike Job with a frightful ulcer from head to foot. (Job 2:5) God allowed him; but as this spirit of malice must not be trusted, he commanded him to respect Job's soul, and not to use violence against him whose reason he could not overcome. No sooner had he received this power than by a more violent excess of cruelty he struck this just man with a horrible disease, so that his whole body was not a wound, which could never have been borne another than Job, who won a complete victory over Satan. As this cruelty of the devil could not snatch from this holy man the slightest murmur against God, Satan remembered the trick he had used formerly to deceive Adam; he tried to shake Job's loyalty with his wife, for one is generally more accessible to the seductions that come from within. But none of these means succeeds in this spirit of boldness; he found there only a new and shameful defeat; but the servant of God alone remained steadfast, but he kept a school of virtue. In this end of all evils, he did not content himself with persevering in the fear of God, but he severely reproved his wife, who wished to inspire him with contrary sentiments, and showed him that we must bear with courage all the events which only arrive by God's permission. It was a double punishment for Satan who was thus deceived in his predictions; he could not shake Job's loyalty as he wished, and his envy only led him to teach others what the devil did not want him to know himself. Indeed, this story fully teaches us how much temptation is useful to the servants of God, and fatal to the devil. While he hopes to be able to harm them, he makes the faith more brilliant, and the example of one persecuted by him becomes for many an eloquent exhortation to virtue. The protection of God, who surrounds the righteous in the midst of his trials, gives him a great number of imitators. The devil loses by wanting to win. Always his fury is harmful to him. He persecutes the righteous to make them lose their crown, and he only makes them more fortifications. Envy excites him against the holy man Job, and he only doubled his reward in heaven and on earth. God more than ever filled Job with all good things, and gave him a place in heaven by the Savior. Thus all these trials turn to the glory of the saints and to the punishment of the devil.
PSALMS
(Psalm 1) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 110. ON THE FIRST PSALM. — "Blessed is the man who did not stop in the way of sinners.” If he stops there, he stops being blessed to become guilty and worthy of punishment. Yet he still retains some hope of amendment, because he is not impious, but simply sinful. If a man is found who has not entered the council of the wicked and has not stopped in the way of sinners, he is doubly blessed. For he cannot be blessed, if without entering into the counsel of the wicked, he stops in the path of sinners, because if he does not then have a complete ruin, he is nevertheless worthy of punishment. The Psalmist adds: "nor sits in the seat of scoffers." Happiness, according to him, consists of these three degrees together, and is based on a triple reason, not to enter the counsel of the ungodly, not stopping in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers, but, as we see in the first two degrees only two kinds of people, the ungodly and the sinners to whom this third degree applies: "Nor sits in the seat of scoffers?" Is it to the impious or the sinners? Let us first see what it is to sit in the seat of scoffers, and then we will understand better who this last line applies to. We call the seat of scoffers that which arises outside the order of God, which has been established only to issue unjust judgments, and that is called the scoffers chair, because from it comes the corruption that causes death, as the iniquity produces damnation. This seat cannot therefore come from God. Moses was established in a chair of life, God raised this seat to retain the authority of the righteous Judge and the Creator God. This is what makes Our Lord say: "The scribes and Pharisees sit on the chair of Moses.” (Matt. 23:2) And to the Apostle: "There is no power that is not of God, and those that are, have been ordained of God.” (Rom. 13:1) Also see what the same Apostle said to the high priest: "You are sitting to judge me according to the law, and against the law you command me to be struck.” (Acts 23:3) These words, "According to the law," show the just and holy authority of the law; and those which follow: These words, "According to the law," show the just and holy authority of the law; and those that follow: "And against the law; you order me to be hit," the injustice of the judge, who even in the seat of God rendered his judgments of iniquity. We read in the prophet Daniel: "The kingdoms belong to God, and he gives them to whom he pleases.” (Dan. 4:14) Just as the authority of a king of the earth imposes itself upon all his subjects and inspires them with the respect due to him, so according to the divine institution, the authority God is personified in the king and exerted through him on all men. Often, it is true, the world does not understand this truth, and submits to powers other than those which God has established; yet the divine institution is that only one has the right to the respect and homage of men. The authority of one God is never rejected except by those who teach men to fear and respect many gods. These are those who sit in the chair of scoffers, for the doctrine that their priests preach is a doctrine of death. All their efforts tend to make the worshipers of one God devoted to scorn or death as fools and enemies. This is the object of their impiety, and it still extends to other crimes which bring out all the enormity. Thus, it was by the order of Jezebel that priests of iniquity seated themselves in the seat of scoffers, to wreak the loss of the innocent Naboth, and by means of false suborned witnesses, pronounced against him, without being his judges, a sentence of death. (2 Kgs. 21:11) This is why it is written in another Psalm: "I will not sit with the wicked." (Ps. 25:5) The judgment is here of the same nature as the one who sits in the seat of scoffers. If those who sit in the pulpit of God come to oppress the innocent, their judgment is unjust, but not the seat. But from the seat of scoffers, only iniquitous judgments can come forth, although they cover them with certain appearances which disguise their impiety and deceive the eyes. That impiety alone is proposed, it will find no buyer, and if the preachers of the doctrine of the devil come to pronounce his name, they make horror. In order to disguise the poison, honey is added to it; they mix with the doctrine of the devil some proverbs of justice, which they cover with the name of truth. We must therefore examine here the intentions and the thought of each, because often he states a truth to better illusion, and thus allow its pernicious errors. We have affirmed that the seat of scoffers was outside the institution of God, and therefore we call seats of scoffers those who are raised outside of the Church or against the Church. A reckless presumption in the use of permitted things is a crime. How much more is the overthrow of the tradition of the one whose siege is seized? In fact, they destroy the order which we see beginning at the Apostle St. Peter, and which has continued to us by an unbroken succession of bridges; they assume a dignity without origin, that is to say, they present a body without head, their seat is therefore rightly called a seat of scoffers. And that they do not count on liberty, because they cover themselves here with the name of God. We know in fact that they put their opposition under the protection of the name of God. Surely it is not the zeal of God that presses them, they just want to defend their places. Now, we know that Korah and the two hundred and fifty Israelites who dared to offer a rash incense to God were swallowed up by the earth that opened under their feet (Num. 16:31-35), and that King Uzziah having wanted to seize priestly functions against the law, was struck on the brow of leprosy. (2 Kgs. 15:5, 2 Chron. 26:21) It is therefore well established that the seat of scoffers is that impiety of which we have just spoken. Let's see what happens next. The Psalmist adds: "But who puts his will into the law of the Lord." (Psalm 1:2) His will is in the law of the Lord, because he despises the ungodly, separates himself from the sinners and the seat of scoffers, and puts all his affection in the law of God. So the Psalmist proclaims him blessed. He adds, "And he meditates on this law day and night." It is evident that free from all seductions, free from all that is opposed to the law of God, he is continually exercised in the practice of this law, and fortunate by the sacraments of the Son of God, he consecrates the day to good works and night to prayer. It is from him of whom it is said in the Song of Songs, "Let him sleep, but let his heart watch.” (Songs 5:2) So the Psalmist adds: "And he shall be like a tree planted by a stream of water." Who can doubt that he who makes the law of God the subject of his meditations, has no certain hope? As a tree planted along the water cannot remain barren, so he who continually meditates on the law of God is certain to see the blessings of his works. "And he will bear fruit in his time." Says the Psalmist, "Every well-directed plantation gives fruits in its time,” so he who obeys the law of God will also produce fruit at the appointed time, and will receive the fruit of his zeal and devotion when Our Lord Jesus Christ will begin to judge the living and the dead, and the Psalmist adds, "And his leaves will not fall." This tree whose leaves do not fall clearly signifies the sap of life of which it is full. It is the running water that sprinkles and feeds him that he must keep his leaves. Our Lord Jesus Christ said, "If you treat green wood like this, what will dry wood be made of?” (Luke 23:31) Green wood is here the symbol of life and the fruits it produces. Just as a tree, thanks to the running water that feeds its roots, does not feel the drought, so that which applies to the meditation of the law of God, even when temptation comes to test him, strong in the help of God, far from losing, he obtains eternal salvation, according to these words of the Apostle: "It is by many tribulations that we must enter in the kingdom of God." (Acts 14:21) "And all he does will prosper.” These words are clear, that he who remains faithful to the law of God, and who puts his delights to fulfill his commandments, will see success crowning all his actions; so that all that Joseph did was prosperous, as a reward for his having preferred the fear of God to life itself; it is not so, no, it is not so with the wicked. (Ps 1:4) This repetition means that the fate which he predicts to the ungodly will be invariable; they have no happiness to expect for the future, and will only receive misfortunes until death. This is why the Psalmist adds: "They will be like the dust that the wind scatters from the face of the earth." (Ibid. 4) Thus the wicked will perish like the dust that the wind carries off from above the face of the earth, to annihilate it: in fact, the dust carried off from the earth, which was its support, disperses through the air and annihilates itself insensibly, thus the impious rejected by the angels before the face of God, their Creator, the only principle of life, perished forever. "And the wicked will not be raised in the day of judgment." (Ibid. 5) These words are worthy of attention. Judgment, they who did not want to be given any work of God which they could account for the law of God was for them an object of contempt and denial, they cannot therefore before the court of God render any according to the law given to them, so convinced of arrogance and revolt against God, they will rise only to see the truth of what they did not want to believe, and to perish forever, because they dared to accuse God of falsehood. "Neither the sinners in the assembly of the righteous." The Psalmist represents here three kinds of men, the ungodly, the sinners, and the just, in the order followed by the error. As for the ungodly, they are quite foreign to the righteous, because as we said, they did not want to live under the law of God. The wretches who live under the law of God will be cited before the tribunal of Jesus Christ, and separated from the righteous to give account of the commandments of the law which they have received, and that they did not put into practice to obtain the approval of God and to avoid his reproaches. For the righteous who have applied themselves with holy activity to the fulfillment of the law, they will obtain the reward. "For God knows the paths of the righteous. (Ibid. 6) In the language of Scripture, God knows those who remember his precepts, and engage in the practice of good works to obtain the crown he reserves for the righteous. As for those who have made a game of forgetting God and neglecting the salvation of their soul, he will say to them: "Depart, I do not know you, workers of iniquity.” (Luke 13:27) "And the way of the wicked will perish.” This psalm ends as it began, and it teaches us that the wicked whose actions it has made known, have to wait for an eternal loss. As I have pointed out, it is said of God that he knows the paths of the righteous, because they walk in his law, and that the way of the wicked shall perish because it is outside the law of God; for, says Solomon, all the ways of the ungodly are covered with darkness (Prov. 4:19), while the way of the righteous shines with a glowing light, under the guidance of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Psalm 19:4; 40) 2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 17. “HE HAS PLACED,” SAYS THE PSALMIST, “HIS TENT IN THE SUN,” THAT IS TO SAY, HIS BODY IN WHICH JESUS CHRIST DWELT, AND WHICH WAS DELIVERED BY PILATE TO THE TORTURE OF BURNING; HOW THEN IS IT SAID IN ANOTHER PSALM WHICH HAS THE OBJECT OF CHRIST: “THE FLOGGING SHALL NOT COME NEAR TO YOUR TABERNACLE,” (Ps. 40) SINCE INDEED HE DECLARED THAT HIS BODY WAS A TEMPLE. — The body of the son of man and the Son of God is indeed a temple. Yet God, that is, the Son of God, though he came in visible flesh, fixed his dwelling in the soul. The soul as well as the body are therefore the tabernacle of the Son of God, although there is only one God and man, the Son of God and the son of man. The blaze, therefore, has not approached his tent in the sense that his soul, where his divinity lives, has been freed from the torments of hell or the princes of hell. The torture of the cross and the sufferings of the flesh, to which he had been condemned as guilty, though he was innocent, made him fear that his soul might feel some pain in the underworld; The Scripture, therefore, shows that the trouble was not able to approach his soul in the underworld, because he descended to it, that is to say, he allowed his sufferings only to confound the darkness, and to convince madness of the princes of darkness. That's why the Lord says, "My soul is sad unto death." (Matt. 26, Mark 14) The Savior abandons his soul to the sadness that was in his nature, but it immediately wins the victory and robs those who had upset her to the point of death, followed by an eternal joy, and this text of the whole man can still be heard, because he who has not known sin was not subject to torture. prescribed by law.
(Psalm 23) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 111. ON PSALM 23. — The title of this psalm indicates the subject. Before speaking of the mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ, he designates the day of the Lord: "To this David for the first day of the week.” Saying, "To this David," he has in sight the one of whom this David was the figure and of whom the prophet said, "And my son David will lead them." (Ezek. 37:24) The first day of the Sabbath is the first day of the week. Indeed, the first day following the Sabbath is the Lord's day, as testified by the Evangelist: "On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the sepulcher, etc." (Matt. 28:1) Now, this day of the Lord is the symbol of the mystery of the Savior, but to expose this psalm following the logical order, the Psalmist begins with the person of God the Father, so that the mystery of the divinity may be manifested to men of God. He who wishes to treat any subject must take it in his principle, in his origin, on pain of being unable either to make known his nature or to persuade of its truth. The Prophet begins with these words: "The earth and all that it contains is to the Lord." (Ps. 23:1) These words, "The earth and all that it contains is to the Lord," are a profession of faith. Here he follows the authority of the ancient saints who taught that the earth and all that it contained was to the Lord. He adds: "The globe of the earth and all who live in it are his.” He feared that he had not explained his word enough, saying, "The earth and all that it contains is to the Lord," he makes it clearer by saying: "The globe of the earth and all those who live are his." He teaches us that all the earth without exception is to the Lord, with all that it contains, and that there is absolutely nothing that does not belong to him. There are heretics who support the contrary and who, according to the apostle St. Peter, deny the sovereign domain of God (2 Pet. 2:10), but they are condemned by the testimonies of the prophets who testify that everything belongs to God. He founded it on the sea. (Psalm 23:2) This is what he explains in another psalm where he says: "It is you who have made the earth on the water.” (Ps.135:6) To give support to the faith, he shows how it was done. In the midst of the confusion of all things, while neither the earth nor the heavens had a definite form, the earth, by the order of God, the earth became compact and was over water, so that the earth and the water had a peculiar property, and conformed to their origin. This is why God says in the book of Kings: "Is it not I who made the waters?" “And he established it above the rivers.” (Ps. 23:2) It is established above the rivers in that it contains the waters which are enclosed within it and which, circulating through a thousand secret channels, give it the necessary density so that excessive drought does not remove its consistency and make it unfit for cultivation. These waters provide a vivifying sap to the roots of trees and plants and at the same time freshness in dry places. The Psalmist then shows the little usefulness of faith without a holy life: "Who will go up on the mountain of the Lord, or who will stop in his holy place?” (Ibid. 3) He now exposes what must be the one who recognizes a creator God; he has forewarned the punishment of those who deny the empire of God over all that exists, he wants to learn now from those who confess this authority that they cannot avoid themselves to be punished if their life is not in accordance with their faith. This mountain of the Lord is heaven, which he says in another psalm: "I raised my eyes to the mountains from which help is to come.” (Ps. 120:1) The place of the Lord is the place where he manifests himself. It was said to Joshua when the Lord appeared to him, "The place where you are is a holy place." (Josh. 5:16) Jacob said of where he saw God: "This is the house of God." (Gen. 28:17) "He whose hands are innocent and the heart pure." (Ps. 23:4) This is he whom he declares worthy to ascend on the mountain of the Lord, that is to say in heaven, or to stop in his holy place, the one whose works are innocent and the pure heart in the cause of God, that is, in faith. It can rise in the sky and stop in its holy bond. Indeed, as soon as he has left this life, he will ascend into heaven. And when the city of Jerusalem comes down from heaven for the coming of the Lord, he will be worthy to stop because of his innocence in the place where the Lord must judge the living and the dead; while the wicked and the sinners will be unworthy to stop in the holy place where God pronounces his judgments, because the ungodly ones will rise again for their loss and the sinners for an eternal punishment. If the sons of Israel, because of their sins, could not bear the brightness of Moses' face when he came down from the mountain (Exod. 29:29), how much more will a conscience charged with crimes fear? to raise your eyes to the Lord of glory seated on the throne of his majesty, especially when he hears him say to them: "I do not know you, the workman of iniquity. Who has not received his soul in vain." (Ps. 23:4) He now indicates the different kinds of sins from which one must be exempt. First, he is innocent and has a pure heart that has not prostituted his soul to idolatry; for it is vanity par excellence, and he who submits to it renders his soul a slave to corruption. "And who has not made a deceitful oath to his neighbor.” He has contented himself with indicating two essential duties, one with regard to God, the other to the neighbor, because he who is faithful to these two commandments will also fulfill all the others, to the testimony of the Lord Himself: He tells us to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your strength. This is the first commandment; and the second is like it: You will love your neighbor as yourself. These two commandments contain all the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 22:37) But who can love God with all his heart and not keep his law? Who can have charity for his neighbor and indulge in sin, since the fear of God is for him the principle of love of neighbor? "This is the one who will receive from heaven the blessing and will obtain mercy from God his Savior." (Ps. 23:5) Here is the reward of one who, faithful to his duties towards God and man, his Creator and neighbor will have practiced faith and charity, he will receive from the Lord a blessing that will cover him with glory, and he will obtain mercy for those whom he has not been able to fulfill. No one can take vigilance so far that he absolutely avoids all sin, but if he has been attentive and faithful to perform the essential duties, he will obtain from God mercy for less important things. The Psalmist gives God the name of Savior because he does not want the death of the one who is going to die, but rather that he is converted and lives. (Ezek. 18:32) "This is the generation of those who seek it, of those who seek the face of the God of Jacob.” (Ps. 23:6) It is one and the same generation who seeks, according to the Psalmist, the Lord, and who seeks the face of the God of Jacob. This is not without purpose, for although these two things are good, there are here two very distinct degrees. It is good to seek God, but it is perfect to seek the face of the God of Jacob. Indeed, the most worthy are those who stand before the judge's face. Such, then, is the generation of these merits and of this reward; it is the innocence and the purity of the heart which bring to this bliss, as it is injustice and iniquity, that lead to perdition. There are indeed two generations, the generation of iniquity, which is the mother of Cain, and the generation of justice, which is the mother of Abel; one has faith and pure life, the other infidelity and vice. These are the two laws of good and evil, of God and of the devil, and one becomes the son of him whose law one follows. Thus, the generation of those who seek the Lord is faith in God and love of neighbor, as we have said. He who believes in God always seeks his protection, and no one is unjust to men when one wishes to render himself favorable God. This is what the Psalmist seems to indicate when he says, "The God of Jacob, because God is known in Judea.” (Ps. 75:2) But why does he say that they seek his face when God himself says to Moses: "You will not be able to see my face?” (Exod. 33:20) If Moses sought, but in vain, to see the face of the Lord, their search is useless, since they are no better than Moses. We answer that no one seeks to see God unnecessarily, because the Psalmist says here that they seek the face of God to make us understand that they are worthy to see the one they seek. We know well who we look for when we see his face; but as the face of God cannot be seen by mortal eyes, the 'Psalmist' designates this divine face under these expressions: The God of Jacob. "Diapsalma." (Ps. 23:7, Septuagint) This word diapsalma, “pause,” indicates in this place a change of person. After what relates to the person of God the Father, the Psalmist places the mystery of the Son of God in order that the order that exists between the Father and the Son be perfectly observed. The law was given by Moses to be like a teacher who was to instruct men and prepare them for the school of righteousness to make himself worthy to wait for the year of the Lord and the day of reward, that is, to say that those who had faithfully preserved the hope of the coming of Christ would receive it and thus escape safely in the aftermath of Adam's sin, because the advent of the one they hoped for should give them the mercy that erases the sins where they let themselves be carried away. This is what the Psalmist has said above: "He will receive," he says, "the mercy of God his Savior. Raise your doors, O princes," he exclaims. (Ibid. 7) It is the voice of the holy angels of which it is said in the Gospel that they approached the Savior and served him. (Matt. 4:11) Therefore they turn to the princes and powers against whom the Apostle tells us that we have to fight (Eph. 6:12), and tell them to raise the gates of their prince, that is to say, of the devil, who is the chief of the erring princes, and by whom one descends into hell. These gates are the infidelity and deceptive seductions of idolatry. "And you, eternal doors, rise up.” These eternal gates are faith, hope, and charity, because one cannot destroy preaching that is based on truth. These doors, on the contrary, which are, as I have said, unbelief and the ploys of idolatry are only for a time, because every lie is essentially transient. As soon as the truth is revealed, it will give him the death blow. The Psalmist therefore asks them to lift the doors of their prince from darkness, that is to say, to remove the error of the plurality of the gods and to substitute faith in one God by Jesus Christ. The Apostle declares that this is the object of his mission, to announce not only to men but to princes and heavenly powers the mystery of one God in Jesus Christ. (Eph. 3:9) "And the King of glory will come in.” (Ps. 23:7) He asks that these deceptive doors of the devil, product of the lie and presumption that inspired him to be equal to God, be raised to let in the King of glory, who is Our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, faith in God cannot enter a soul until it has rejected from it the error produced by the evasiveness of the devil. These princes of whom we have spoken cannot receive Christ as king, who preaches to them the faith in one God, before having rejected from them the traditions of error and lies opposed to the unity of God, no only those which have sprung up on earth, but the one which is the author of Satan, the chief of these princes; for they sought to spread on earth the error they had concentrated in heaven under the inspiration of the devil, that is to say, to proclaim themselves gods by a lie which is the image of the devil. "Who is this king of glory?” (Ibid. 8) One could have regarded as a vain title that name of King of glory given to Jesus Christ; the Psalmist therefore supposes a person who asks him this question: "Who is this King of glory?” It seems that he is in astonishment and wants to learn if it is true, if it is worthy to call Jesus Christ the King of glory. He is answered, "The Lord is strong and mighty, he is the mighty Lord in battle," to teach him that it is not in words alone, but in the testimony of the works that Jesus Christ is the King of glory. It is indeed the strength and power that made him win an entire victory over the devil and his followers, and which showed him the true king of glory. The Psalmist repeats again: "Princes, raise up your doors, and you, eternal doors, rise up,” (Ibid. 9) that is to say since the proofs of the power of Christ, which you can not contradict without crime, teach you that he is worthy of being called the King of glory, reject the error of your minds. He adds, "And the King of glory will come in," to teach them that they cannot participate in the faith of Jesus Christ until they have cleansed their hearts from all the defilements of idolatry. The Holy Spirit cannot enter a man unless he is completely renewed. "Who is this king of glory?” (Ibid. 10) This repetition is intended to confirm the truth. All new teaching cannot be well understood unless it is repeated, and what we hear for the first time excites astonishment and surprise. "The Lord of the powers is himself this king of glory.” By this repetition the Psalmist teaches us that the Lord of powers is rightly called the King of glory, for what is more just than to give the title of King of glory to the one who rules over the powers? This is what made the Apostle say: "If they had known him, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Cor. 11:8)
(Psalm 35:7) 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT QUESTION 7. WHY IS IT SAID IN THE PSALMS, "YOU WILL SAVE MEN AND ANIMALS," AND IN THE PROPHET JONAH, "I WILL NOT SPARE A CITY WHERE A HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND MEN AND A MULTITUDE DWELL. OF ANIMALS? "(JON. 4:11) WHILE THE APOSTLE SAYS," DOES GOD CARE FOR OXEN? "(1 COR. 9:9) — To consider only the words, there is, it seems contradiction, but if we examine the condition of man and animals, this contradiction disappears. God takes care of all creatures, because it is from him that all hold their existence; but he does not keep the animals for themselves. He keeps animals for men and not men for animals. Thus he who cares for men preserves animals, but without them being the object of that particular care which he reserves for men. For what hope can there be in animals?
(Psalm 39; 50) 2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 12. WHY IN THE LAW IS AARON HIMSELF COMMANDED TO OFFER BURNT OFFERINGS FOR HIS SINS, WHILE DAVID SAYS, "YOU DID NOT ASK FOR A BURNT OFFERING FOR SIN," (PS. 39) AND IN ANOTHER PSALM: "THE BURNT OFFERINGS ARE NOT PLEASING TO YOU." (PS. 50) WHY DOES HE COMMAND TO OFFER THEM TO THEM, IF THEY ARE NOT PLEASING TO HIM? — It is evident that God cannot indulge in the holocausts that are offered to him; but that the groans and the pain of the heart may satisfy for sin and obtain forgiveness. But God wanted the sacrament to be the testimony of sin, and by the removal of the sacrifice the sinner confessed publicly his sin. He tells us in another place how the forgiveness of sins is obtained: "Share," he tells us, "by his prophet, your bread with the hungry; when you see a naked man, cover him, and do not despise those who have the same origin with you.” (Isa. 58) Or again: "God despises not a heart broken by pain and humiliation.” (Ps. 50) God therefore commands us first to confess our sin, and then teaches us the means to obtain our forgiveness. Nowhere does he command to offer a sacrifice for a known sin; it is always for the sins of ignorance, for man sins even without knowing it, and his intention is faulty even when he believes he is acting according to the rules of justice. It is these sins that God declares to be obliterated by sacrificial oblation.
(Psalm 39:16) 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT QUESTION 6. WHY DOES DAVID SAY IN ONE OF HIS PSALMS, "LET THESE BE CONFOUNDED AND ASHAMED, SAYING TO ME, 'VERY GOOD, VERY GOOD,'" WHILE THE SAVIOR SAYS, "ALL RIGHT." GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT, ETC. WHAT DAVID REGARDS AS AN INSULT, OUR LORD APPLIES TO HIM WHOM HIS MERITS HAVE MADE WORTHY OF REWARD. — This question has a lot of analogy with the previous one. A single expression may have different meanings, as I have recalled above1. David's enemies, who were seeking his ruin, rejoiced at his troubles. Thus they approved of the sufferings and persecutions which David had to endure of Saul and his son Absalom, and said loudly that there was nothing better. It is absolutely as if someone who receives an outrage is said to have done well, because it is to rejoice in the harm done to him, and to say, nothing more just, he deserved it. The Savior uses the same expression in the joy of the good works of Him whose merit He proclaims: "All right, good and faithful servant." He testifies to his joy that the servant has gone from more and more worthy, by saying to him, "Very well, you have done well to increase the sum of your merits so that one and the same expression is employed in two very different circumstances." This is what we ordinarily say of a man: he is judged, it is what precedes or what follows which determines the meaning which must be given to these words. They are taken sometimes in good, sometimes in bad part, just as concupiscence is sometimes heard in a good sense, sometimes in a bad sense. 1 In the second part of the New Testament questions, question 54.
(Psalm 50) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 112. ON PSALM FIFTY. — This psalm is here placed not in chronological order, but for a particular reason. The title, in fact, is determined by this reason and not by the rank of this psalm. To consult only history, it is prior to the third, because David was taken from his crime by the prophet Nathan before the rebellion of his son Absalom, who wanted to take away both his kingdom and life. The reason why this psalm is placed fiftieth, comes from the law which prescribed that the number fifty was a remission number. This number is the one that comes first after seven weeks and is the figure of the day of the Lord. In the same way, after seven days the first day is the one that was made in the beginning, is always the first to succeed the past week, so the fiftieth day that comes after seven weeks is the first in a mysterious sense, and it is called twice the day of the Lord, first of all because it was made in the beginning by the Lord, and when returning to himself it is always the first after the periodic revolution of each week; and second, because it is on this day that the Lord has risen after triumphing over death; and for this reason it is also called the day of the Lord. It is therefore rightly that forgiveness is attached to the number fifty that we notice to be the first in a mysterious sense. The law was also given on the fiftieth day. On the forty-eighth day after leaving Egypt, the children of Israel are ordered to purify themselves for two days to prepare themselves to receive the law on the third day. (Exod. 19:10) What does this purification mean, if not the remission that is made on the fiftieth day that they receive the law after being purified? All their past sins were obliterated, and now they had to account for their actions according to the law they were given. It was for the same reason, that the law had established, that purchased possessions returned to their first owners in the fiftieth year. (Lev. 25:10) This is why this psalm is placed on the fiftieth, for David implores the forgiveness of his sins in the sense that we have said: "Have mercy on me, O God! according to your great mercy." (Ps. 50:1) David knows the seriousness of his crime and he asks for forgiveness in these terms: "Have mercy on me, O God! according to your great mercy,” because the greatness of mercy breaks out especially in the forgiveness of great faults. "And erase my iniquity according to the multitude of your kindnesses.” To make him understand the enormity of his sin, he calls it an iniquity, because iniquity is not a slight sin, and he who erases iniquity, that is to say, that is to say, who does not impute it has possessed in itself an abundant source of mercy. He therefore has no excuse, and thereby not only softens the soul of his judge, but inspires him with feelings of compassion. Pity naturally enters the soul when a guilty man is seen to make a sincere confession of his sins, and to express a deep pain. He who has no regret for his faults seems to mock his judge, and he implores his forgiveness only to escape punishment and fall back into the same faults. "Lift me more and more of my iniquity, and purify me of my sin." (Ibid. 4) He has just proclaimed the great mercy of God, so he asks him to purify him completely and not to leave in him the least stain, the least stain of injustice that may offend his regards. And as a reason for his prayer, he adds, "Because I know my iniquity, and I have my sin before my eyes." (Ibid. 5) As he knows the extent of his he fears that he will not be entirely forgiven for him. Consideration of the greatness of his sins throws him into anxiety, because he knows that enormous sins are not easily forgiven. He confesses his sin with tears; he always has it in front of his eyes to completely bend his judge and make him favorable. He knows that it is written, "First confess your iniquities to be fair to them." (Isa. 43:26) "I have sinned before you alone, and I have done evil in your presence.” (Ps. 50:6) Here he considers the remedy of his error from another point of view, and brings a new reason for his prayer, which, in the first place, justifies him because another than God, is the enemy of the Creator God, since in his place he establishes another to whom he attributes his authority, so David declares that he is not guilty of this iniquity by saying, "I have sinned before you alone, and I have done evil in your presence,” that is to say, as it is in your presence that I have sinned, and not to another whom I should have recognized as God by mistake, my fault is less great than the sin of those who have devoted themselves to certain ruin.. I am not impious, but sinful, because I have sinned not against you, but in your law, I have not denied you, but it is in recognizing that you are my God and my Lord that I have sinned against a man. Therefore, since I am not guilty of the crime that offends you personally, forgive me for the sin I committed against one of my kind, for in preaching I have not denied the honor due to your name for the transport to another. It was therefore a motive to touch the heart of his judge. Since God exhorts to convert the great number of those who sin against him, he must kindly welcome those who have not sinned directly against him and who implore their forgiveness on other grounds. Indeed, the Lord's will is that his servants always have recourse to his protection. "So that you will be recognized as righteous in your words, and you will remain victorious when judging your conduct.” By imploring the mercy of God, he begs him not to change the decrees of his justice which is not equal to the innocent and the sinners, that is to say, who gives to each according to his works; but the holy prophet does not ignore the nature of the mysterious prayer he addresses to God. He knows that God often repeats in the law: "I am merciful, I, the Lord your God;” (Exod. 22:27) He therefore prayed that this faith dwell in divine mercy, and God is justly acknowledged in his words, faithful to what he has promised and not allowing his mercy to be chained by the sins of men. Sinners also know the promises God has made to the faithful observers of the law, and as they persevere in their sins, they accuse God of falsehood. Their guilty life prevents them from believing in the truth of God's promises. King David therefore asks God to overcome this prejudice and to fulfill his promises, to cover with confusion those who, without observing his commandments, accuse him of not giving what he has promised. "For here I have been formed in iniquity." (Ps. 50:7) Here he recalls the cause of the infidelity of the human race, the inclination of man to sin to soften the judge's severity towards him. He wants to speak here of the original fault of which Adam is guilty, and whose responsibility has extended to all mankind. n conceiving iniquity to the deceitful persuasion of the enemy, he has subjected all his posterity to the slavery of sin, and none of his descendants can escape this slavery. That is why David adds, "And my mother conceived me in sin,” that is to say, the sin of which Adam is the source, extends to all those who are conceived and born to life, and become for them an obstacle to the practice of good. David therefore hopes that God will show mercy to him because he has a fierce enemy against him that brings him to evil. By his sin the first man was enslaved to the devil, who received the power to act upon his body and to seduce him with malicious finesse the misleading attractions of sin which make him fall into the trap and rob him of life. It is to the memory of this slavery that the doctor of the nations exclaims: "I feel in my members another law which fights against the law of my mind," (Rom. 7:23) so that at this sight, God, sensitive to his complaints, extends his hand to him in the midst of the difficulties which besiege him. "Because you loved the truth.” (Ps. 50:8) Since you have loved the truth, he said to God, come to my aid, I beg you, for you know that I have explained to you the true weaknesses of my soul, and you have resolved in your mercy to save the sinner by healing by a heavenly providence the wounds that sin has made to him on the earth. That's why he adds, "You have revealed to me the secrets and mysteries of your heart.” These secrets and these mysteries are the help that God has prepared for the human race, of which the Apostle said: "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,"1 Cor. 2:9) Who are those who love God? those who accept his law without trying to disguise or excuse their faults. These secrets of the heart are thus revealed to those who love God. The multitude of sins with which they deplore the sad influence could have made them question the justice of punishment, reject their faults on their origin, and make God their creator responsible for their sins. Their hearts were enlightened with a spiritual light and they discovered the providence of God in the coming of Christ who was to come to destroy the sin that had exercised the tyranny on mankind since the evasiveness of Adam. King David therefore asks God that, since he has resolved to save the human race one day from the sad state in which he sees him reduced, he anticipates for himself, the victim of the same misfortune, the salvation he must give to all one day, and that he should give to his prayers and tears the free gift which he held in reserve and which he could not grant before the marked time. How will it be done? He indicates it with the following words: "You will water me with the hyssop and I will be purified.” (Ps. 50:9) He rightly asks to be purified by sprinkling with the hyssop. The children of Israel sprinkled the poles of their house with this sprinkling to escape the exterminating angel (Exod. 20:22), and David also asks to be purified of his sins by the sprinkling of the hyssop, also to escape from death. "You will wash me and I will become whiter than the snow." Now it is evident that God's action is at a great distance from the action of man, which is why David says, "And I will be whiter than snow,” because the work of God has a character of perfection which the work of man cannot have. It therefore requires to be purified by sprinkling with hyssop, that is, just as the body is purified by water from its material soils, so the hyssop is the purified figure of a spiritual operation of the souls by the defilements of sin. Sprinkling with the hyssop is a kind of purification whose visible action indicates the inner and invisible purification. "You will make me hear words of comfort and joy." (Ps. 50:10) There is no doubt that the voice of one who announces the remission of sins does not spread joy in the souls of sinners. Who would not rejoice, indeed, at the news of the forgiveness granted to him? For the forgiveness of God gives all security for the present and for the future. So David adds, "And the humbled bones shall tremble with gladness." David's humiliation was of two kinds, he was humbled in his sin, for sin is no one's cause of elevation, and he humbled himself to implore his forgiveness, and begged God under the ashes and the sackcloth to show mercy to him, and the pardon bestowed upon him, brought joy to his soul and strength to his dejected body. "Turn aside your eyes from my crimes, and give me all my iniquities." (Ibid. 11) David asks God to forgive him as he should later grant by faith in Jesus Christ, and that the Savior who He has been spiritually promised by him to forgive sins with truly repentant hearts. The one in whom one no longer looks at sins and whose iniquities are erased has no longer to fear being treated as guilty, and his enemies are reduced to silence. He who does not look at sins does not impute them either; to look away from the faults of a sinner is to refuse to receive an accusation against him. But how is David, accused only of two crimes, accusing himself of many other iniquities? Since Nathan had assured him that God had forgiven him, why does he beg forgiveness with so much solicitude? He did not plead only his cause, but in this confession of his sin he understood all the spiritual miseries of his people. He therefore asks for a complete renewal, for he who gets his pardon is not without confusion if he is not restored to his first state and in a rank which excludes all shame, and he announces for all the others the grace of God who was to purify all their sins. "Create in me, O God, a pure heart, and reestablish a righteous spirit in the depths of my womb.” (Ibid. 12) This is to implore the mercy of God in excellent dispositions. David does not confine himself to asking for the forgiveness of the past, his solicitude extends to the future, he is resolved to hate sin to no longer fall back, and he prays to God to fortify him with the spirit of justice that he will re-establish in his soul, that is to say, give him a new spirit which keeps him from all sin and all that is contrary to his well-known will. Now, one has a pure heart when one keeps oneself away from all internal and external sin, from action and thought. It is almost impossible to observe this purity of heart in all its extent, but at least it must be in the essential relationship of the soul with God and keep his pure heart in the mystery of God and Jesus Christ by inviolably preserving the faith we have in them. Indeed, we read in another place of Scripture, "Who can be glorified to have a pure heart or to be free from sin?" (Prov. 20:9) But David kept his heart pure in his dealings with God, because he never claimed the help of vanity, that is to say idolatry, and that he never did what the Lord had commanded him. He adds for the future: "Do not reject me from your face, and do not remove from me your Holy Spirit.” (Ps. 50:13) He again expresses the thought that we have indicated above, he is sure of his forgiveness, but he is concerned with the entire reform of his soul. The servant to whom we are content to forgive remains far from the presence of his mistress. There is no rage against him, yet his crime is not effaced in the mind of his master or judge. David therefore prayed that his sin be entirely obliterated and that he be made worthy to approach the face of the Lord and to prophesy as in the past, which was granted him. This is what he asks with these words: "And do not remove from me your Holy Spirit," that is, the spirit of prophecy. "Give me the joy of your salvation, and support me with the sovereign Spirit.” (Ibid. 14) He asks God for the joy that was promised in the coming of Christ, so that, cleansed and purified of all his tasks, he would be filled with the joy that would come from the salvation he had and, far from losing his crown, he was confirmed on the throne by the Holy Spirit. He calls it the Sovereign Spirit because he is above all creatures and it is through him that kings rule. "I will teach your ways to the wicked, and the wicked will be converted to you.” (Ibid. 15) He thus expresses himself so that the wicked may learn by his example what is the goodness of God who welcomes sinners as soon as they confess their faults and who does not abandon the impious who have converted to him, but never cease to exhort them by showing mercy to others. "Deliver me, God of my salvation, of all the blood I shed.” (Ibid. 16) David shows here that his sin was worthy of death to proclaim the greatness of God's mercy to him and to excite sinners to take refuge, as he did, in the bosom of God's clemency. "And my tongue will celebrate your righteousness with hymns of joy. He declares his joy in the justice of the Lord because he perseveres in him the effect of this promise of God: "I will not take away from them my mercy." (Ps. 88:34) David, full of joy and security on this point, celebrates the righteousness of his God: "You shall open my lips, and my mouth shall proclaim your praise." (Ps. 50:17) God opens his lips by delivering him from slavery. The mouth of the deliverer is opened, but the mouth of the sinner remains closed, shame and fear condemn him to silence, while the one who has regained his full freedom breaks out his transports and publishes the praises of his judge. Thus the Apostle, free from all servitude, as he testifies, exclaims: "My mouth opens to you, O Corinthians.” (2 Cor. 6:11) "If you had desired a sacrifice, I would have offered it to you." (Ps. 50:18) David speaks here of certain knowledge; he remembered what the holy prophet Samuel had said to King Saul, who believed that he could erase his sin not by the pain of his soul or by the shedding of his tears, but by offering a sacrifice. "Does the Lord want sacrifices, and do not ask for obeying his voice?” (1 Sam. 15:22) because these sacrifices can be harmful and do not appease the righteousness of God. The only thing that soothes him is a soul who, at the memory of his sin, weeps in the bitterness and tribulation of the heart the misfortune of offending God. "But with burnt offerings you will not be delighted.” (Ps. 50:19) No, God is not pleased with the holocaust, but with the feelings we have just spoken of. It's up to the soul to satisfy him, without looking outside for anything to pay him ransom. That's what can really help him a lot. Just as the soul has yielded to the seductive charms of sin, it must submit to the pain of penance, and then God will take pleasure in erasing his sins. "For the sacrifice worthy of God is a broken spirit of pain. God does not despise a suppressed and humiliated heart." (Ibid. 19) David tells us here what a sacrifice God receives for sins; it is impossible to appease him unless he who has rejoiced at the loss of his soul opens his heart to pain and repentance and thus finds life again. Any turbulent and unrestrained man is often exposed to receiving wounds that cannot be cured without pain; In the same way sinners cannot redeem their sins without the guilty soul being penetrated with a deep sense of pain., for it is to all righteousness that he who has tasted the joy which reason disapproves be subject to the pain which reason commands, "Lord, treat favorably Sion and make them feel the effects of your goodness." (Ibid. 20) Zion is the figure of the Church, and according to our feeling, which will not seem unlikely, David suggests that she ask God to fulfill his promise, because he knows that she will receive the complete remission of her sins when God has fully fulfilled His decrees through Jesus Christ, that is, those who hope in the salvation promised to them will be delivered from all sin; and indeed they will be delivered by Jesus Christ not only from their own sins, but from the sin of Adam, of which all his descendants are born guilty. "And the walls of Jerusalem will be high.” Had they been destroyed? The walls of Jerusalem are here the figure of the Church which was to be raised by the law in Jesus Christ. Its walls are the saints, as we learn from the Apocalypse of St. John, where we see that we must understand by the city of Jerusalem and by its walls the servants of God. (Rev. 21:12) King David knew that it was Christ who was to fulfill the promise of the deliverance of the servants of God; he therefore asks God to fulfill it, that is to say, the Church rises on the foundation of faith, and those who hope for their salvation by this faith are delivered from the slavery of sin. "Then you will agree to a sacrifice of righteousness, oblations and burnt offerings.” (Ps. 50:21) David declares here that God would be blessed with oblations and burnt offerings when the Church was built, and not sacrifices offered without rule or at the pleasure of everyone, but: "You will agree to the sacrifice of justice.” Sacrifice is right when you take from God a worthy victim of his; but there is no sacrifice neither more just, nor more worthy than the offering we make to God of ourselves. “God is spirit.” (Jn. 4:24), so we must offer him spiritual sacrifices, that is, to offer the living God a living victim. David had declared that God was not in favor of the expiation of sins, the carnal sacrifices; He teaches, therefore, that spiritual sacrifices should be offered to him, and that he would be agreeable to them, because these sacrifices are worthy of God; that is to say, sacrifices were of little value in the past, because they were all exterior, and they are now of great value, because they are spiritual. "Then will we put calves on your altar to offer them to you?" He has just announced that the ancient sacrifices would succeed spiritual sacrifices; what do these words mean: "Then will we put calves on your altar to offer them to you?” That is to say, these material victims are the figure of the spiritual victims, since he has declared that God has no carnal sacraments for pleasing. These calves are here as a figure of the new people to whom faith in Jesus Christ gave a new birth and whose piety is sacrificed every day on the altar of the Lord. Since David has spoken clearly about the Church here, the sacrifices that are placed therein are necessarily spiritual sacrifices.
1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 20. WHY DOES SCRIPTURE SAY, "MAN HAS EATEN THE BREAD OF ANGELS," SINCE ANGELS, CREATURES SIMPLE IN THEIR NATURE AND CLOTHED WITH A VERY SPIRITUAL POWER, DO NOT NEED FOOD? — This bread, which the Psalmist calls the bread of angels, is nothing but manna. Now, the word manna means: What is this? For the sons of Israel, when they saw on the earth a kind of white seed of coriander, said one to another, What is this? in Hebrew MAN HU. (Exod. 16:15) This bread or food was not created by virtue of the laws that govern the world, by the blending of certain elements, it descended from heaven by an effect of a divine providence. It did not even exist in the upper regions of the air, it was created at the moment by the power of God to nourish the bodies. It was given the name of angels' bread because it was created by that same power that gave the angels existence and life; for no life is apart from God. It is because it descended from heaven that manna was called the bread of angels. The Psalmist has expressed himself in this way to recall the greatness and excellence of the blessings of God upon men, that at this sight they may give thanks to God, who governs his servants with so much kindness, that he gives, if it is necessary to them, the very food of the angels. The Apostle says, among other things, "Christ was the stone," (1 Cor. 10:4), that is, Christ was called the stone, because it is his power that made pouring gushes of water from the stone. (Exod. 17:6) In the same way, as it is by an effect of its power that the manna is descended from heaven, it receives the name of manna, that is, of bread; this symbolic food is the figure of what is now offered in the Church, and men, that is, the Jews, have eaten the bread of the Christian people shown in Scripture by the angels. Let us add that grace is now more abundant than it was under the prophets, as well as the liberty given by Jesus Christ, for where the spirit of the Lord is, is freedom. (2 Cor. 3:17) This is why, considering the times and the bonding of graces, the name of angels was given to the Christians, whose bread, which is Jesus Christ, was eaten by the Jews, who are here called men; for Jesus Christ belongs rather to those to whom he has been revealed and who have the honor of bearing this name. This question can therefore be understood in two different senses, and the manna may be called or the bread of the angels of heaven, or the bread of the Christians, according to the explanation we have given.
PROVERBS
(Proverbs 10:27) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 33. SOLOMON SAYS THAT THE YEARS OF THE WICKED WILL BE SHORTENED; HOW DO WE SEE IMPIOUS PEOPLE IN GREAT NUMBERS PROLONGING THEIR LIVES ON EARTH? — Justice demanded that all the impious who forget their Creator, to attribute to their creature a sovereign authority, to see their abbreviated days, I would say more, were immediately deprived of life. But Scripture wants to speak here of the ungodly, who, while living under the law of God, were inclined to worship idols. These ungodly are of a worse kind than the others, for while they know God, they despise His authority to obey His servants. Now, the Apostle teaches us that it is good of them when he says: "We know that all that the law says is to those who are under the law. "(Rom. 9:19) As for the Gentiles, they are not numbered among the living.
(Proverbs 18:17) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 30. IT IS WRITTEN IN PROVERBS: "THE RIGHTEOUS ACCUSES HIMSELF FIRST FROM THE BEGINNING OF HIS SPEECH. HOW CAN HE BE RIGHT IF HE IS A SINNER? — All truth is at the same time justice. By confessing what he is, the man is right because he is telling the truth. Sinners, on the contrary, who do honor to their faults, cannot be justified. This man who accuses himself therefore deserves the name of righteous, because in confessing his sin, he asks for its forgiveness and implores the mercy of God, because he knows that it is written in the law: "Confess your sins for to be justified." (Isa. 43:26) But to make this admission at the beginning of one's speech is to do it without being forced to do so. For whoever lives even in the fear of God can be without sin, since he mixes with our thoughts, and we sometimes sin as in spite of ourselves? One can, however, hear these words of the catechumen who embraces faith to be justified. Since he asks to be changed, he certainly confesses his sins to be justified.
(Proverbs 22:2) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 32. WE READ IN THE PROVERBS OF SOLOMON: "THE RICH AND THE POOR HAVE COME TOGETHER, THE LORD IS THE CREATOR OF BOTH.” HOW THEN CAN ONE SAY THAT THERE IS NOT IN GOD THE ACCEPTATION OF PERSONS? — Far from the spirit of the faithful, such an impious assertion. Scripture, so as not to appear to teach to despise the poor and to honor the rich, reminds us that God is the creator of both, not as rich or poor, but as that they are men. For if their fortune is different, their nature is the same; and if the opportunities which arise in life have the result of giving to some the prosperity which follows the riches, or the hardships which accompany poverty, it is not a reason to despise those whom God has not humiliated, or to honor those to whom the truth has not borne witness. Those who are unquestionably worthy of contempt are the public corrupters of morals and the sacrilegious violators of the law of God, just as we must honor those who love God and keep his law faithfully. The truly rich men in the eyes of God are those whose lives are pure, and the more they look despicable in the world, the more they are worthy of honor in heaven. Those whom the favors of the present life have made possessors of immense wealth, if they know each other well and understand the will of God who gave the earth to all men, which raises his sun for all and spreads indiscriminately on all the dew of heaven (Matt 5:45), seeing that the injustice of the times, or an unforeseen misfortune, or the indigence deny some what God has given to all, will tell them of what they possess, and thus fulfilling the will of God, they will be rich not only on earth, but in heaven, and these transient riches will not exclude them from the possession of eternal riches. As for those whom poverty seems worthy of contempt, if they meditate on the future judgment of God, they will see that they will be eternally rich, where the rich of the age will be reduced to extreme indigence, and will repent of having not been poor on earth.
ECCLESIASTES
(Ecclesiastes 7:17) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 15. SINCE THE LAW PRAISES THE RIGHTEOUS AND THE TRUE RIGHTEOUS IS THE ONE WHO DOES ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THESE WORDS OF SOLOMON: "DO NOT BE OVERLY RIGHTEOUS?" — Over-righteousness is exposed to sin, while moderate justice makes men perfect. He who is too just is not exempt from sin; for if you want to take every fault in detail, it is for you as many occasions of sin. Let us add that the justice of God is always moderate. Sometimes he forgives sinners, sometimes he is angry with them; sometimes he does not punish them as much as they deserve; he supports them to bring them back to good. The law by itself cannot relax from its severity; it is therefore up to us to soften it in the interest of those who are subject to it. The man who models his conduct with that of God cannot be just too much.
(Ecclesiastes 13:16; Psalm 142:2) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 22. WHY DOES SOLOMON SAY, "JUSTIFY YOUR SOUL BEFORE YOUR DEATH," AS WE READ IN A PSALM, "NO LIVING MAN WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR PRESENCE?" —Justifying one's soul before one's death is to embrace faith in the hope of the future life so as not to die in sin. Now Solomon makes this recommendation to him who lives under the law and does not practice justice. If this man comes to repent and walk in the ways of righteousness, he justifies his soul before his death. Solomon gives him this counsel for the coming judgment, lest by his negligence he should die in his sin. David, on the other hand, speaks of the perfection of justice, that is, no one will be justified in the presence of God, and will not be judged worthy of promises unless he dies in righteousness. As long as he lives on this earth, he does not yet fully deserve the goods of the future life. This is why the Savior said, "He who perseveres unto the end will be saved." (Matt. 10:22; 24:23)
WISDOM
(Wisdom 1:13; Ecclesiastes 11:14) 1ST CATEGORY OT QUESTION 34. HOW DOES THE SAME SOLOMON SAYS ON ONE SIDE: "GOD DID NOT KILL," AND IN ANOTHER: "THE GOODS AND THE EVILS, THE LIFE AND THE DEATH, THE POVERTY AND THE LUXURY COME FROM GOD?" — Nobody doubts that all good things come from God; as for the evils of doubt it is here a question, they are only such as when they serve to chastise us. This is how God speaks to the fishermen by his prophet: "I will hurt you," that is, I will penalize you. Now, life and death are represented to us as coming from God, because he has given the law that promises life to those who observe it, and threatens those who transgress it from death, which is called the second death. As it is God who gives back to everyone what he deserves, it is from him that come the sentence of life or the condemnation to death. God is not the author of death, but the judge; the author of death is sin. How, then, could God have made death, who knows no sin? It is because it gives to sins what is due to them, that Scripture says that death comes from him, although it does not come in reality, but from him who has sinned; it is in the same sense that poverty and wealth come from God, there are some who, under the impression of the fear of God, despise the pleasures of the senses, flee the lavishness of life, do not turn away the eyes of the poor and the needy, and thus accumulate real treasures, because it is written in Proverbs: "The love of the rule makes misery and genealogy disappear. (Prov. 13:18) But those who have no fear of God, who live without rule and without restraint, and despise the poor, will be in want, as it is written: “They have been full,” not only of negligence and improvidence for their interests, but of contempt for the law which was given to them. It is in this sense that God made the poor and the rich; as the transgression of the law produces poverty, we attribute this effect to God, the author of the law, and when others, for fear of His judgments, are faithful to the prescriptions of the law, we also say that it is God, author of the law, who enriches them.
(Wisdom 11:17) 2ND CATEGORY OT QUESTION 20. WE READ IN THE BOOK OF WISDOM: "GOD CREATED THE WORLD OF INVISIBLE MATTER,” AND THESE VERY CONTRARY WORDS THAT WE WERE CREATED FROM NOTHING. — Sacred Scripture clearly teaches us that God simultaneously created all the elements of the world in a chaotic and confused state, in which the darkness was mingled. These confused elements, air, fire, water, earth, darkness, are what Scripture calls an invisible matter, as we read in Genesis; "The earth was invisible and unformed." (Gen. 1) So it is from these confused elements that God created the world by establishing the faith, so that the waters coming together, the earth could offer the human race. This distinction and this separation of elements is a dwelling place for man under the spherical space which covers the earth.
ISAIAH
(Isaiah 4:1) QUESTION 47. BY WHAT MEANS DO THESE WORDS OF ISAIAH: "SEVEN WOMEN WILL TAKE, ETC.," SHOULD THEY BE UNDERSTOOD AS THE SEVEN CATHOLIC CHURCHES? — "In that day,” said. the Prophet, “seven women will approach a single man and say to him: We will eat our bread, we will provide ourselves with our clothes; that your name alone be invoked against us, deliver us from the reproach upon us." It is a generally accepted truth that these seven women are the seven churches (Rev. 2-3); for although the Church is one, or represents it as having seven different forms, just as one body is composed of seven different members. Indeed, we are not the only members of the Church of which Jesus Christ is the head (Eph. 5:23); the inhabitants of heaven are part of it. Let us therefore speak of only one church, whether we represent seven different churches, there is no contradiction. The Church is one because she has only one leader who is Jesus Christ; and we can say that there are seven churches, because just as the members are different, so the spiritual powers among which we take our place, are different virtues which are called for that the powers of the airs. Now, they are different so that they do not all have the same power, but that they all contribute to forming the body of Jesus Christ; for he is the head of the body of the Church, and it is to him that the whole body owes its existence, that is to say, it is from him that everything, whether in heaven, or on the earth, originates. Now, speaking of the Church of the earth, the sacred writer mentions all the churches, because the mysteries of the Creator, which are taught in the Church of the earth, are at the same time announced to the heavenly spirits. When the inferiors are educated, those who are above must necessarily participate in this teaching. This is what makes the Apostle say: "I, the youngest among the saints, have received the grace of announcing to the Gentiles the incomprehensible riches of Jesus Christ, and of enlightening all men on the economy of the mystery which had been hidden for centuries in God, the creator of all things, so that the principalities and the celestial powers knew by the Church the wisdom of God, so different in its operations." (Eph. 3:8-10) So it is the Church of the earth who instructed the heavenly powers, because the truth has come out of the bosom of the earth. It is therefore to mention the heavenly powers that the seven Churches are here named as forming only one people, and the prophet represents them addressing their supplications to the Savior made man. They understood that Jesus Christ was born to erase the contempt first of those who lived under the law, and then of all other peoples. They recollected this prophecy: "There shall come from Zion a Redeemer who will deliver Jacob and remove from him all ungodliness." (Isa. 59:20) These seven churches then approached one man, that is, from Jesus Christ at his birth, and said to him, "We will eat our bread, we will provide ourselves for our clothes; that your name alone be invoked against us, deliver us from the reproach upon us.” What is the object of their prayer? If they eat their bread, if they provide for their clothes, that is to say, if they have food and clothing, what are they lacking? The bread is the emblem of life, and the garment signifies the action of putting on God, because the one who is without God is in a real state of nakedness. That is why the Apostle says: "All of you who you have been baptized into Jesus Christ, you have been clothed in Jesus Christ." (Gal. 3:27) And in another place: "If, however, we are found dressed and not naked.” (2 Cor. 5:3) But what is this contempt that these women ask to be delivered? These seven churches represent the people who lived under the law in expectation of the promised Christ who was to erase their sins. They say to him, "We will eat our bread," that is to say, the words of the law which teach the existence of one God shall be our food; because man does not live only with bread, but with every word that comes out of the mouth of God." (Deut. 8:3; Matt. 4:4) “And we will wear our clothes,” that is to say, we will bear the name of our Creator, for each one is as clothed in the profession of his faith. It is to their clothes that the representatives and the magistrates are known. But it was not enough to be worthy of God; he has therefore established that it is through the knowledge of one God that man would become heir to the kingdom of heaven. The law purges him of his sins, delivers him from the second death which, according to the sentence pronounced against Adam, kept the men in the underworld, and thus free of all ties he goes to the paradise of God the Father, where the Lord promised at the right time that he would be with him. (Luke 23:43) Although the people of whom we have just spoken, and whose seven churches are the figure under the law of God, he was guilty of both his own sins and the sin of his first father; "For," says St. Paul, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23) These churches therefore ask God to deliver them from their reproach by the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, because those who bear the sign by which he has conquered the dead, cannot be held under the power of his enemy. And it is not only these churches of the earth, but the spiritual powers who dwell in heaven, who ask that the name of Jesus Christ be invoked upon them. For all spiritual and celestial they are, these powers do not fail to be subject to contempt if they remain distant from their Creator, and failing to know their leader they go astray and cannot be members of his body. The prophet himself confirms the truth of the explanation we have just given, adding, "In that day the Lord will shine on the earth the light of His counsels," (Isa. 4:2, according to the LXX) and a little further on: "The Lord will wash the filth of the sons and daughters of Zion, and cleanse them of the blood that is in their midst." Is it not evident that in this day that is to say, on this day when the promises of God will be fulfilled, and the mysteries of faith revealed to men, those who were subject to the death sentence have been enlightened, purified by the knowledge of their Creator, and became heirs of eternal life! The prophet, therefore, spoke generally here to signify that all needed the grace of God, and to establish that all just or sinners had to wait for His mercy: sinners, to be cleansed of their personal sins and delivered from death; the righteous, to be free from the sin of their first father, and from the sentence pronounced against Adam, who held all men under the bondage of death, and to recover freedom and their rights to the kingdom of God, from which they are no longer servants but children.
|