MATTHEW
(Matthew 1:1) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 3. WHY DOES ST. MATTHEW, WRITING THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST, BEGIN LIKE THIS: "THE BOOK OF THE GENERATION OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF DAVID,” SINCE ABRAHAM IS BEFORE DAVID? — St. Matthew begins thus, because he wanted to place at the head of the genealogy of the Savior the promise of his incarnation, according to these words of the Apostle: "Whose fathers are the patriarchs, and from whom came out according to the flesh Jesus Christ." (Rom. 9) He says," The book of generation," because the incarnation of Christ is the result of many different people from the same stock; the ancestors of Christ followed various ways, and the Savior desired that all should concur in forming the body of which he was clothed. There are among them Jews and Gentiles, righteous men and sinners; Ruth was Moabite, and Bersabee of adultery became a lawful wife. The Savior borrows the flesh of all to bring them all back to unity. St. Matthew says, "Of Jesus Christ, the son of David," though Abraham is before David, because Jesus Christ is called especially David's son because of his kingship, that is to say, as God comes from God, and that as king he descends from a king according to the flesh, for it was said to David, "I will place on your throne a son that will be born of you.” (Ps. 131)
(Matthew 1) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 4. WHY DOES THE APOSTLE ST. MATTHEW DIVIDE ALL GENERATIONS INTO THREE SETS? — This division is based on the difference of things and times. So the first set goes from Abraham to David, because it includes a first order of things, Abraham being the father of faith as David is the father of kingship; for Saul he made himself unworthy of the throne, which he lost through his fault. Another order of things begins from David to transmigration, where the disapproved Jews of God were removed from the royal authority. After the transmigration of Babylon to Jesus Christ, opens a third period of calamities and miseries, captivity and dispersion of the Jewish people; for although after the transmigration of Babylon and the seventy years passed, the Jews were sent back to their homeland by Cyrus, they never again had a fixed state of rest. Judea had no more kings, and the Jews never ceased to live a restless and wandering life. At the very time of Christ's coming, they recognize that they are in captivity. "We do not have, they say, any other king than Caesar." (Jn. 19) This is the reason why St. Matthew established three sets of generations, to show the various states and changes deserved of the Jewish people from the promise to the advent of Jesus Christ, but times did not fail to converge to the end to the same grace.
(Matthew 1) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 5. WHY DID THE EVANGELIST SAY THERE ARE ONLY FORTY-ONE GENERATIONS WHEN THERE ARE FORTY-TWO, BECAUSE THREE TIMES FOURTEEN ARE FORTY-TWO? — Numerically one counts only forty-one generations; logically, we find forty-two. Jeconiah, who was born in transmigration and to whom we give the title of king, as we read in the book of Chronicles, finishes the second part; and as after the transmigration king Nebuchadnezzar allowed him to remain in his kingdom, he also begins the third series which continues until Jesus Christ. Jeconiah is counted twice, that is to say that he finishes the second part and begins the third. Indeed, the Evangelist continues: "And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jeconiah begot Salathiel." Until this Salathiel, the kings of Judah of the family from which Joseph was born were seated on the throne, and Jeconiah had a first son named Assur, but since Joseph was born from Salathiel, the Evangelist passes Assur in silence, and puts Salathiel immediately after Jeconiah his father, to descend to Joseph, husband of the virgin Mary, after Josiah comes Jeconiah. Though it is by Joachim, father of Jeconiah, that we reach Joseph, the Evangelist passes over Joachim in silence, and immediately puts Jeconiah not to exceed the number of fourteen generations, and after Jeconiah, Saluthiel and his son, from which Joseph descends.
(Matthew 1:17) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 85. IT IS CERTAIN THAT FROM DAVID UNTIL THE TRANSMIGRATION OF BABYLON, THERE ARE SEVENTEEN GENERATIONS; WHY, THEN, DOES THE EVANGELIST COUNT FOURTEEN, PUTTING OCHOSIAS WHO AFTER JEHORAM IS THE SON OF JEHOSHAPHAT, AS WELL AS JOASH OF OCHOSIAS AND AMASIAS SON OF JOASH? — It must be admitted that the evangelist has conformed here to the spirit of the law. It is therefore rightly that these kings have been cut off from the series of generations; for their impiety has been perpetuated without the slightest interruption. After beginning in Joram, he continued on to Osias, son of Amasias, and none of these princes could find in the virtues of their father a support which enabled them to appear in the series of kings of Judah. Jehoram gave himself up to all kinds of crimes, but Jehoshaphat had to be kept among the kings. Uzziah owed the same favor to Joatham's wife. The life of these three princes was only continual impiety against God. It was thanks to his father's merit that Solomon remained on the throne, and his son Rehoboam had to be preserved in spite of his criminal life among the kings of Judah. As for these three impious kings, they have been shut up in the midst of their crimes and cut off from genealogy; for the example of vice entails the ruin of a whole race when it is given with brilliancy and without discontinuity. To be more precise, these kings have been omitted, because Joseph does not descend from their race. The Evangelist, indeed, has followed from Abraham the genealogy of those of whom Joseph descends, to whom Mary was born, from whom was born the Christ.
(Matthew 1:18) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 52. IF CHRIST WAS BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT IS TO SAY IF IT WAS BY HIS OPERATION THAT HE WAS MADE FLESH OF THE FLESH OF MARY, WHY IS IT WRITTEN: "WISDOM, WHICH IS CHRIST, BUILT A HOME?" (PROV. 9:1) — This question can be heard from a double point of view. First, the house of Jesus Christ is the Church, which was built by his blood. His body may also be called his house, just as it is called his temple. If it is called its temple because it is inhabited, it can also very well be called its home, as we read in the law. But if the body was formed by the operation of the Holy Spirit and we thought we could give it the name of house, we will ask why we attribute this formation to the person of Jesus Christ. The Son's operation is the Father's operation, because they have one and the same virtue. In the same way the operation of the Holy Spirit is the operation of the Son of God, because of the unity of nature and will. Whether the action comes from the Father, or from the Son, or from the Holy Spirit, it is the Trinity who acts, and all that is done by the three divine persons is the work of one God. The Son's operation is the Father's operation, because the Father and the Son have one and the same virtue. In the same way, the operation of the Holy Spirit is the operation of Christ, because the Holy Spirit has received from what was his. If we consider the action of persons, it is by the operation of the Holy Spirit that Christ was made flesh, that is, made man; but if we consider the action of the divine nature, it is Christ who has worked in the virgin to become flesh; for the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ have one and the same divinity, and therefore the work of the Holy Spirit is the work of Jesus Christ.
(Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:6-7) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 53. IF GOD DOES ALL RIGHTLY, WHY IS IT SAID THAT THE SAVIOR WAS BORN THE EIGHTH OF THE CALENDS OF JANUARY? — Nobody will push extravagance to deny that God is inspired in everything he does by a sovereign right. So Jesus Christ, descending from heaven to save the world and wanting to show that he was the Creator of the world and the times, wanted to be born as a man to grow in God the human race, so diminished, so diminished, when the light, which is none other than the day, begins to grow after the shortest days. He wanted the time of his birth to be in keeping with his divine doctrine, which drew men from the shadow of death to increase their life.
(Matthew 2, 14; Mark 6) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 11. HOW IS IT THAT WE READ ABOVE THAT HEROD WAS DEAD, AND LOWER DOWN, SEVERAL YEARS LATER HE PUT JOHN THE BAPTIST TO DEATH; WHILE IT IS SAID ABOVE THAT JOHN SURVIVED HEROD'S DEATH? — Herod was king of Judea, and had four sons: Archelaus, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias. Herod, being dead, was succeeded by his son Archelaus, after whom the kingdom of Herod was divided into four parts. One of these four parts was given to Pilate, who administered him not as king, but as governor, while the sons of Herod retained the title of king. Philippe being dead also, his brother Herod married the wife of Philip, a crime which John the Baptist reproaches him with, which determines this Herod, son of Herod, of whom we spoke earlier to put to death the holy precursor. What does the Evangelist say? "Herod the Tetrarch," that is to say, who governed the fourth part of the kingdom of his father Herod. What doubt is still possible with this addition of Tetrarch, which clearly proves that it is another Herod than the first? It was this same Herod who killed by the sword, James, brother of John, and soon struck by the angel of God, died and devoured by worms.
(Matthew 3:14) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 49. WHY WAS THE SAVIOR, WHO WAS A SAINT FROM HIS BIRTH AND WHO RECEIVED THE NAME OF CHRIST THE LORD, BAPTIZED, SINCE BAPTISM WAS INSTITUTED TO PURIFY SIN? — It is a truth of course that the Savior did not need to be baptized, because he was not made, but was born Christ, as the angel told the shepherds: "Behold, today is to you a Savior, who is the Christ, the Lord.” (Luke 2:11) Also John the Baptist, who knew his holiness, refused to give him baptism; but the Savior insisted on receiving him, not to blot out his sins, but to accomplish all justice. It was fitting, in that person, that he who came to teach men that by baptism they would become children of God, set an example for the future children of God. It was fitting that he who promised that God would give the Holy Spirit to all who would believe, saw the Divine Spirit descending visibly upon him, to give the faithful the sure hope that they would receive the same Spirit, though from an invisible way. Indeed, the Savior who was born of the Holy Spirit, had a pure body of all sin. The divine anointing had been communicated spiritually to his flesh in the womb of the Virgin. The Holy Spirit purified what was taken from the Virgin Mary to form the body of the Savior, and it was the anointing that was given to his body. This is why he received from his birth the name of Christ. What God gave through the ministry of the prophets and the anointing of holy oil to those who received royal consecration, the Holy Spirit gives to Jesus Christ by adding the power to atone for sins. Those who had previously betrayed the name of Christ received exclusively by this anointing the power of command; the Savior received this power in his birth, at the same time that he was born in a state of perfect holiness. What sovereign impropriety, in fact, that the Son of God was born in a body enslaved by sin? Since he came to take charge of the interests of men and teach them to become the children of God through the sacrament of regeneration, he himself had to receive baptism to confirm his doctrine by his example; for a master easily persuades the truth of his teachings when he puts them first into practice. The miracles that accompanied the baptism of the Lord had the effect of manifesting Him as the Son of God, who by the ministry of regeneration came to heal the passions of the body, and to show by His example to those who were to be His brethren, that the sacrament regeneration communicates to him who receives it a divine power.
QUESTION 7. IT IS CERTAIN THAT THE SAVIOR WAS CALLED FROM HIS BIRTH SON OF GOD AND CHRIST; FOR WHAT THEN DOES THE TEMPTER COME TO HIM AFTER HIS BAPTISM, SAYING TO HIM, "IF YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD, ETC."— The Savior when born to a virgin was both Christ and the Son of God not by creation, but by virtue of his birth. However, in the first years of his life he annihilated, so to speak, and concealed his power so as not to provoke the impudence of the devil. But when, after his baptism, the Holy Spirit descended on him, and when he appeared to men clothed with the testimony of God the Father, jealousy excited against him that enemy whose event disturbed the plans, for he understood that the institution of baptism was for the salvation of men. He therefore approaches the Savior, the author of this institution, not to approve of it, but to find a way to make him fall into his trap. In fact, temptation is intended sometimes to test, sometimes to overthrow, by cunning, that which it attacks. The demon was anxious to gain from the Savior an answer conforming to his ploys will, which would leave him in full and peaceful possession of all the rights of his empire, because under the guidance of the Savior who would submit to his doctrine, no one could escape from the death which he weighs on all men.
(Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 8. WHY DOES THE SAVIOR RESIST THE TEMPTATIONS OF THE DEVIL ONLY BY SPEAKING TO HIM OF THE WORDS OF THE LAW? — The Savior not only responds to the devil who tempts him, but to the Jews as instruments of his cruelty against the Savior. He foresaw that the Jews would render him as an enemy of the law, so he fights by testimonies from the law the impudence of the devil their father, to thus condemn the father in the person of the children and the children in the person of the father.
(Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 9. WHY DID THE SAVIOR, AFTER HIS BAPTISM, LAST FOR FORTY DAYS AND THEN FEEL THE NEED FOR HUNGER? WHOEVER COULD HAVE FASTED FORTY DAYS COULD NOT FREE HIMSELF FROM THE NECESSITY OF HUNGER! — It is written, "My son, coming near to the service of God, abide in righteousness and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation." (Eccles. 2:1) The Savior wanted to fast in order to give us the example of applying ourselves to the practice of fasting, if we wish to triumph by the help of God from the attacks of the devil, and to teach ourselves by his example, that we must above all fear his pitfalls, when we embrace the service of God. Unhappy to see that we are moving away from him, the devil redoubles with fury against us. It is therefore in our interest and not for him that the Savior acts here. Likewise, if he agrees to feel the need of hunger, it is not for him, it is for us. Indeed, when he had triumphed by the fast of the temptations of the devil that are not all written, because they did not relate directly to our instruction, after forty days of fasting, he agreed to feel the need of hunger. What was in the nature of man, so that the devil he had conquered, perceiving in him this infirmity of hunger, was excited to tempt him again in the persuasion that he had been vanquished by a man. Such was indeed the mysterious conduct of the Savior, the devil insulted and made his tyrannical empire felt to the man he had conquered, God allowed that he in turn be vanquished by the man who owed to the divine power this victory, and Satan is thus deeply humbled, because he sees only one man and does not understand the power that is in man. He remains astonished and stupefied by this mystery, the knowledge of which escapes him; he has the power of approaching; he has not the power to conquer that which attacks him. Two things were tormenting here, he approached him emboldened by the weakness he saw and he met a virtue he did not suspect, so that in this man he had before him, he suspected the power of God. Our Lord therefore submits to the necessity of hunger to thwart the wiles of Satan. He no longer prolonged his fast, so to establish the agreement between him, Moses and Elijah.
(Matthew 3, 11, Mark 1, Luke 7) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 10. HOW IS IT THAT JOHN THE BAPTIST, WHO HAD FIRST BORNE WITNESS TO THE SAVIOR, THEN CONCEIVED OF DOUBTS BY ASKING HIM BY HIS DISCIPLES: ARE YOU THE ONE TO COME, OR SHOULD WE EXPECT ANOTHER? — Those who think that doubt may have entered the soul of John the Baptist slander the Savior. For they claim that John has reason to doubt, or they accuse Jesus Christ of ignorance, since in their feelings he would have praised a man who thought badly of him. But since it is impossible for the Savior to be mistaken, the praise he gives to John the Baptist is therefore well founded. If they are founded, John has no doubt about Jesus Christ. In fact, in the very time that John of his prison sends his disciples to Jesus to ask him, "Do you read whoever is coming, or should we expect another?" Jesus answers the disciples of his forerunner: "Go and tell John what you have heard and seen: The blind see, the deaf hear, the lepers are healed, the lame walk, the dead rise, and happy is he who is not offended because of me.” Now, as John's messengers were leaving, Jesus began to say of John the Baptist to the multitude: What did you go to see in the desert? A reed waved by the wind, or a man dressed softly? Those who are dressed softly live in the palace of kings. What did you go to see? A prophet! Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet: for it is from him that it was written: Here it is that I send my angel before you, to prepare the way where you must walk. Then the publicans who were baptized with John's baptism, glorified the righteousness of God. What greater praise can the Savior make of John than to say that he is more than a prophet? The Savior goes on proclaiming blessed who has not been scandalized because of him; how could he have praised John who would have been scandalized by doubting the person of the Savior? But no, John Baptist did not doubt for a moment. The praises Jesus gives him prove that he is truly happy because he was not scandalized because of him. Why, indeed, does the Savior choose this very moment to make such a glorious eulogy of John the precursor? It is to show that the spirit of John was not worked by doubt. John, knowing that his death was near, and wishing to fortify his disciples in the Savior's faith, wanted him to confirm with his own mouth what he had taught them of his divine person. It is therefore to confirm the truth of his testimony that he has recourse to a more excellent authority, so that before this agreement of two witnesses, no doubt is possible. John the Baptist therefore thinks he ought to employ this means of sending his disciples who seem to doubt his words, so that when he hears the same teachings from the mouth of the Savior, their faith is confirmed by this persuasion. that the testimony of the Lord descended from heaven and that of his worthy representative could not be doubted. The Savior seems to be responding to John himself, so that his disciples could learn the truth by bringing John's question closer to the Savior's answer.
(Matthew 3:14; John 1:31-33) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 58. FOR WHAT REASON CAN JOHN THE BAPTIST DENY THAT HE KNEW CHRIST BEFORE HIS BAPTISM, WHEN HE TOLD HIM WHEN HE APPROACHED HIM TO BE BAPTIZED: "IT IS I WHO MUST BE BAPTIZED BY YOU, AND YOU COME TO ME?" HOW DID HE NOT KNOW WHO HE FORBADE BAPTIZING BY HUMBLING HIMSELF DEEPLY BEFORE HIM? — John the Baptist was raised from his cradle to such eminent sanctity that one cannot admit either that he could have been deceived or misled others, nor that he did not know his Lord, who in the bosom of his mother had filled him with the brightest lights by the Holy Spirit. It is certain that he knew him when the Holy Spirit descended on him and he was not without knowing him before he came to him to be baptized. Yes, he knew him, but he did not know if he was the one who was to bring to the earth the gift that God had previously promised to the patriarchs. This is what he says he knew when he saw the Holy Spirit coming down on him. This is, indeed, the sign that God had given him: "He on whom you will see the Holy Spirit come down and rest, it is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit." (Jn. 1:33) The apostle testifies to the same truth when he says, "I say that Jesus Christ was the minister of the gospel to the circumcised Jews, to verify the word of God, and to confirm the promises made to our fathers." (Rom. 15:8) This is what John the Baptist did not know in the Lord; for although his greatness was not unknown to him, he did not know, however, that it was through him that the promises made to Abraham were to be fulfilled.
(Matthew 5:25) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 70. OUR LORD CERTAINLY COMMANDS US TO BE ENEMIES OF THE DEVIL; WHY, THEN, DOES HE TELL US IN THE GOSPEL: "DO YOU FIGHT TO BE RECONCILED WITH YOUR ADVERSARY?” WHO IS THE MAN'S ADVERSARY, IF NOT THE DEVIL? — There is no doubt that the devil is the enemy of man and especially of the faithful Christian. It is against the servants of God that he sharpens his most formidable features. In the same way that the demon is the enemy of the good, so the law is opposed to the wicked, for who is not opposed to the one who despises it? The Lord thus warns the sinner to agree with the commandments which condemn his disobedience, to submit to their will, and to become a friend instead of an enemy, as he was. Indeed, the contempter of the law is his enemy because he resists his will. The Lord therefore exhorts the sinner to be reconciled to the law by his good works, lest it accuse him before the judge on the day of judgment, and then be condemned to the just punishments of his contempt for the law. For, says the Savior, the doctrine of the Lord is an enemy of every man who desires to do evil; if he does not agree with it, he will be thrown into hell that has been prepared for the devil, the true enemy of the human race.
(Matthew 11:3, Luke 7:19) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 14. JOHN ASKS THE LORD: ARE YOU THE ONE TO COME, OR SHOULD WE EXPECT ANOTHER? — John the Baptist pleads here under his name the cause of his disciples. We cannot admit the slightest doubt in the spirit of John, who said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, behold, he who takes away the sins of the world." It is therefore in the interest of his disciples that he send this request in his name, to give place to the Savior to confirm what he himself had taught them about his divine person, and so that after his death his disciples would follow Him without hesitation.
(Matthew 11:13, Luke 16:16) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 15. WHY DID THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS LAST UNTIL JOHN, AND THEN CEASE TO EXIST? BECAUSE THE ONE THEY ANNOUNCED HAD ARRIVED. BUT WHY DID THE LAW ONLY LAST UNTIL JOHN, SINCE THE APOSTLE TEACHES US THAT WE MUST BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW; FOR ALL THAT IS, SAYS HE, IS ESTABLISHED OF GOD? — Under one name, the law contains three different meanings. The first part of the law has God as its object. The name of law, lex, comes from lectio, choice, because it teaches you what you must choose between several things. Men in error have therefore received the law to help them choose the truth, that is, to make them choose God by renouncing the devil. The second part of the law is the one that includes the precepts, the first of which begins: "Honor your father and your mother." The third part deals with new moons, Sabbath-keeping, discernment, and the choice of food, circumcision and the sacrifices of animals. It is from this last part of the law that Our Lord says that it lasted only to John, and that henceforth it must not be observed any more. Because it was given to stop when its time would be accomplished; for it was not promulgated from the beginning, but for particular reasons, and for a fixed time, which was not to extend beyond the advent of the Savior. What remains then of the law is that which has God as its object, the precepts, and that which relates to the nature of God, which the Son of God, without doubt, cannot destroy. It is through him, in fact, that we tend towards the rewards we are promised; because fear produces attentive vigilance.
(Matthew 11:25-26) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 100. ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW. — You have heard, my dear brothers, what our Lord says in his Gospel: "I give you glory, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and you revealed them to the little ones. Yes, my Father, because it pleased you so. "(Matt. 11:25-26) If we are to weigh the meaning of these words of Our Lord, we will see that they are meant to encourage the faithful, those who, because they despise the wisdom of the world, appear small in the eyes of the sages of the world, who, without any merit, claim to be wise, and so God has judged it unworthy of him to discover the truth; is to the humble who do not presume of themselves and submit to the divine will, that justice requires that he reveal his secrets. He is cautious in the eyes of God, and truly careful of his salvation, who prefers to his knowledge the law of God, which he sees supported not by the proud noise of words, but on authentic testimonies of the divine power. And, indeed, it is at once a folly and a vanity to put one's confidence in something that has no support for the power of God. It is not therefore to the cultivated minds of the age that God promises his kingdom, but to the faithful; it is not those that examine the stars, but to those who do good that eternity is promised; it is not to the dialecticians who endeavor to obscure the truth by their sophisms and the subtlety of their reasonings that he grants glory, but to those who are more careful to do well than to say well. God condemns those who prefer brilliant speeches to good works. It is to want to bring back to oneself the glory of God, to pretend to put on the truths of God the ornaments of the word. These truths must please themselves, it is not the words that express them, it is the very meaning of these words which is worthy of praise. If it is the meaning that gives birth to the expressions, and if the words were invented only to express the truth, why not express it purely and simply, so that it inspires us more easily the desire to save our soul. That is why Our Lord has chosen as apostles simple men, without letters and without ploys, by their perseverance in faith and by a holy life, to burst in them the truth of God. This is what makes the Apostle St. Paul say: "And I, my brethren, when I came, did not come with the brilliance of eloquence and human wisdom.” (1 Cor. 2:1) And in another place: “The kingdom of God does not consist in words but in virtue.” (1 Cor. 4:20) For words are subject to contradiction, but virtue makes a striking witness to the law of God, and the most sublime speeches are lowered before it. These considerations, my dear brothers, are made in the interest of the simple minds who might think themselves unworthy of the grace of God, because they do not know the secrets of oratorical art, while their simplicity is rather for them a privilege; for what the wise men of the world do not see being blinded by the pride of human science, simple souls believe it, because their prudence consists not in words, but in true wisdom. They know that God rested complacently in good works, and that he asks rather for faith rather than the elegance of speeches: "On whom shall I rest," he says by his prophet, "otherwise on the one who is humble and meek, and hears my words with trembling?" (Isa. 66: 2) If we therefore want to be worthy of the rewards we are promised, we must fulfill the Lord's commandments in the assurance that God loves those who keep his words, which the Savior says to his disciples: "If you love me, keep my commandments," (Jn. 14:15) so that after being faithful servants of God we will become the heirs of His kingdom by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Matthew 15, Luke 7;17) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 17. WHY DOES THE SAVIOR BEGIN TO REFUSE TO HAVE COMPASSION ON A FOREIGN WOMAN, THAT IS, THE CANANEAN (MATT.15), WHILE GRANTING THE BLESSING OF SALVATION TO THE CENTURION WHO WAS A STRANGER AND TO THE LEPER WHOM HE DECLARES HIMSELF NOT TO BE OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD? (LUKE 7:17) — The Savior's action finds its justification in the nature of the fact itself. It was unreasonable indeed and insulting to the promises made to the patriarchs, that a woman who did not recognize the God of the Jews, received a favor promised to the nation that adored her. Jesus began to deny her this grace. But as soon as she humbled herself by believing in the words of the Savior, and confessed that the Jews who believed were the children, and that the Gentiles were dogs or servitors, she unites with the Lord's faith; for the servants suppose the master, and there is no master without servants; from then on, the union settled between this woman who submitted to God and the people who were subjected to it. That's why she deserves what she asked for. As for the centurion, who immediately received from the Savior the benefit he beseeched, he had for a long time occupied himself with the things of God. Indeed, the chiefs of the Jews give him this testimony before the Lord: "It is worthy that you grant him this grace, and he has built us a synagogue." As for the leper, Our Lord calls him a stranger not by his faith but by the nation to which he belonged. Indeed, he was a Samaritan of those who were Babylonians of origin. And yet it was to the confession of his faith that he had the benefit of his cure; for our Lord had said to his disciples, “Go not to the nations, and do not go into the cities of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt. 10) That is to say, he recommends them to preach the gospel to the Jews who had received the promise rather than to the Samaritans and Gentiles. But as soon as the Jews began to reject the faith of Jesus Christ which was offered to them, the Savior presented himself to the Samaritan woman, and to Cornelius the Centurion after his crucifixion, while he contented himself with welcoming the Cananean who sought him, because the time had not yet come to offer the Gentiles the grace of salvation.
(Matthew 17:26) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 75. WHY DOES THE LORD ONLY PAY THE DIDRACHM FOR HIMSELF AND PETER, AND NOT FOR THE OTHER APOSTLES? SINCE ALL HAD ABANDONED THEIR PROPERTY TO FOLLOW HIM, WAS HE NOT TO PAY THIS TRIBUTE FOR ALL? — This didrachm was a personal tribute, not the tax on the property of each. (This tax was called rags gold, because it was demanded of the poor themselves.) For the Savior possessed nothing in this world, though he was putting it out of the world. After his death, he was buried at the expense of others; and we, to whom the world is a stranger, desire to increase our goods; it is thus that in dying we attest not only by our words, but by our writings, that we have invaded the world, and that our own declaration makes us condemn by the sovereign matter of this world. This is why the Lord says in the Gospel: "He who has not abandoned all things to follow me cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) Therefore whoever possesses the goods of this world without placing his hope in it, and being willing to renounce it for faith, walks in the way that leads to our Lord Jesus Christ. This tribute was therefore demanded of those who traded or practiced any profession. Now, since neither the Savior nor his disciples were involved in any of the affairs of this world, we should not ask them this tax. But as the demon was constantly in ambush to seize the opportunity to triumph over the Savior, he seized the soul of the collectors of the didrachm to make them the instruments of his will and inspire them to go find Peter, the first of the apostles, and to tell him that their master had to pay this tax when they were perfectly discharged; for they did not engage in any of the occupations of the world. Since the Savior did not have enough to pay this tax, the devil wanted to make it scandalous or force him to lower himself to beg another to pay for him. It was then that Our Lord, to show that the devil, in his improvidence, was weaving out frames where he was to be taken himself, commanded his apostle to go to the seashore, to open the mouth of the first fish he would find and take the coin required for this tax. In paying for this tribute, he not only avoided scandalizing those who were in charge of collecting it, and he did not need to go so far as to ask others to pay for him, but he gave proof of his great power by drawing to himself those who were in the chains of the devil, to make him find his torment in his own inventions and in his ploys. The collectors of the didrachma therefore told the apostle Saint Peter: "Your master does not pay the tribute, etc.; And they went to find his master to make him pay this tax for all the disciples. The Savior, in commanding to pay him for Peter and for himself, seems to pay him for all his disciples; for just as they were all in the Savior as the disciples in their master, so after the Savior they were all combined in Peter; "For our Lord made him to be their leader and the shepherd of the Lord's flock. In this way, Jesus said to his disciples, Watch and pray so as not to enter into temptation.” (Matt. 26:41) But to Peter he says: "Behold, Satan has desired to sift you like wheat, and I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, when you are converted, strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:3l) What doubt can remain? He prayed for Peter and did not pray for James and John, not to mention others. It is evident that they were all combined with Peter; for when he prays for Peter, one must recognize that he prays for all other disciples. It is always, in fact, in the one at his head that the people receive reproaches or praises. And our Lord Himself says in another place, "I pray for those whom my Father has given me, and be with me where I am." (Jn. 17:9,24) (Matthew 24:20) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 19. WHY DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, "PRAY THAT YOUR FLIGHT WILL NOT COME IN WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH”; SINCE THE TIME OF THIS PERSECUTION CANNOT BE DIVIDED, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLE: "THE MAN OF SIN, THE SON OF PERDITION," HE SAYS, "WILL BE REVEALED IN HIS DAY”; (2 THESS. 2:3) AND HE SAYS AGAIN IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES: "DETERMINING THE TIMES OF THE DURATION OF PEOPLES AND THE LIMITS OF THEIR ABODE?” (ACTS 17) WHY, THEN, DOES THE SAVIOR LET US UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NOT GOOD TO FLEE IN THE WINTER OR ON THE SABBATH? — The flight during the winter is not exempt from danger, the cold, the continual rains, the snow, the frost, the overflowing of the rivers, are all obstacles which make the flight very difficult. You cannot seek refuge in forests, mountains, or caves. On the Sabbath day, the Jews could not get far from the city or climb the mountains, and by the same escape was impossible that day. Now, just as these two circumstances leave all safety to flight because of the obstacles we have pointed out; thus our flight will not be safe from danger if this persecution finds us chained in servitude to the hindrances of the flesh. Indeed, the desires of the age or the goods of this world are so many chains that hold captive men and prevent them from escaping the tyrannical treatments of the devil. We must therefore pray that the difficulties of winter and the Sabbath do not come in the time when we will have to flee, but that God has relieved us of these obstacles and gives us his help, to destroy in us all desire that would make us slaves of the world. As the Savior spoke of the last persecution of which the Antichrist is the author, he takes as a term of comparison the winter which is the last season of the year, and the Sabbath which is the last day of the week, for us to make it clear that if flight is painful and difficult in these two circumstances, the persecutions and trials of this last time will be so heavy and so overwhelming that there will be hardly anyone who can escape it.
(Matthew 26:32; Mark 14:28) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 20. WHEN THE SAVIOR FORETOLD HIS PASSION AND RESURRECTION THREE DAYS AFTER HIS DEATH, HE ADDED, "AFTER I AM RISEN, I WILL GO BEFORE YOU TO GALILEE, WHERE YOU WILL SEE ME." THE ANGEL HOLDS THE SAME LANGUAGE TO THE HOLY WOMEN, AND YET HE WAS SEEN IN JERUSALEM BY THE DISCIPLES AND BY THE HOLY WOMEN THEMSELVES. — The words of the Savior cannot be doubted without being guilty of unbelief; but, as I see, you do not doubt the words of the Savior; you only want to know why he says that his disciples will see him in Galilee, whereas he appeared to them in Jerusalem after his passion. Now he appeared in the city of Jerusalem, but only a few of his disciples to console them, while he manifested himself to all in Galilee. He therefore recommends to those who had seen him in Jerusalem only a small number to go to Galilee, where he was to manifest himself to all and formulate the precepts which were to serve as a foundation and rule for Christian discipline.
(Matthew 27:3-10) QUESTION 94. DID JUDAS ISCARIOT, WHO BETRAYED OUR LORD, HANG HIMSELF BEFORE THE SAVIOR'S PASSION? — Our Lord was delivered into the hands of his enemies, and it was on the morning of the day of preparation, when all the princes of the priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people, gathered in the house of Caiaphas, where they knew that they had to bring Jesus in order to hear him. This is what the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Mark report, and from their story none of them went out of the house of Caiaphas before this work of impiety was consummated, for all their zeal, all their religion for Passover celebration had only one object, the death of the Savior. But since the princes of the priests were busy from the morning until the ninth hour to press the execution of the death of the Savior, how could one admit that Judas had postponed the price of his betrayal to them before the crucifixion and that he had told them in the temple: "I sinned, delivering innocent blood?” (Matt. 27:4) It is certain, indeed, that not all princes of priests and elders of the people were in the temple before the death of the Savior, and one proof is that they insulted when he was on the cross. It cannot be concluded either from what this fact is told before the passion of Our Lord; for it is a great number of facts which, although having passed before, are nevertheless recounted last, just as when the opportunity arises, the sacred writers anticipate the narrative of a fact which took place only after. Thus it is evident that Psalm fifty is earlier than the third. It sometimes happens that later events are told in anticipation. So again it is proved that Mary after the resurrection of her brother Lazarus, six days before the feast of Easter, had scattered perfumes on the feet of the Lord in a feast, and the Evangelist anticipates the story of this fact because of its signification. Mary, he says, was the one who spread perfumes on the Lord. (Jn. 11:2) St. John tells this fact before Lazarus' death, and if we did not learn that it took place after, we would not know when it place it. Perhaps it might be said that Judas postponed the money at the ninth hour, and seeing the Savior put to death, the torn veil of the temple, the earth quaking, the rocks breaking, the elements upset (Matt. 27:51), he conceived under the inspiration of fear, the repentance of his crime. But at the ninth hour, the elders and princes of the priests were entirely, it seems to me, preparing for the Passover that they were to celebrate on the evening of that day. Besides, the law forbade carrying money on the Sabbath. I believe, therefore, that the day or the time when Judas hung himself cannot be fixed in a plausible way.
(Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:42) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 55. WHY DID THE LORD WANT TO BE CRUCIFIED ON THE EIGHTH DAY OF THE CALENDS OF APRIL, THE TIME OF THE PASSOVER CELEBRATION FOR THE JEWS? — The Savior did all things in their place and in their time. To show that he created the world and all that it contains by the will of the Father, he wanted to redeem the world and renew it with his passion at the time he created it, that is to say in the equinox where the world began and the day becomes longer than the night. As he lived in the middle of the Roman Empire, he had to suffer the eighth day of the calends of April, time of the equinox of the Romans. It was then, in fact, that the reader spread over this part of the world and the day began to grow. The passion of the Savior led him from darkness to light. The conduct of the Creator is therefore safe from blame, since he repaired his fallen creature at the very time he created it. One can find nothing wrong with the time of the creation of a fallen thing when its repair takes place at the same time, and God wanted the joy of the renewal of the creature to take place on the very day of its inauguration.
MARK
(Mark 1:2; Malachi 3:1) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 57. HOW CAN ST. MARK ATTRIBUTE TO THE PROPHET ISAIAH THOSE WORDS WHICH WE READ IN THE PROPHET MALACHI? "BEHOLD, I SEND MY ANGEL BEFORE YOUR FACE TO PREPARE THE WAY FOR YOU." — St. Mark could not ignore what he wrote, for it cannot be supposed that he had not read the prophets, he who from his childhood had learned the Holy Scriptures, and who was versed in the study of the law, as one of the faithful companions of the Apostles. Since he therefore knew that everything must be brought back to his author, he attributes this quotation to the one who first expressed it by saying: "Voice of one who cries in the desert, prepare the way of the Lord." So, after having quoted the words of Malachi, the evangelist immediately adds: "The voice of him who cries in the desert," so that the two testimonies which express the same thought may be united under the name of the first prophet.
(Mark 3:17) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 24. WHY DID THE SAVIOR CALL HIS DISCIPLES THE SONS OF THUNDER, WHO WERE RATHER THE SONS OF GOD, FOR THUNDER IS PRODUCED BY THE CLASH OF CLOUDS BETWEEN THEM? — As the thunder prints fear, Our Lord has wanted to give his disciples the name of sons of thunder, that is to say sons of the one to be dreaded; for although thunder is produced by the clash of clouds between them, yet the primary cause is the will of God, and that is why it inspires terror.
LUKE
(Luke 1:27) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 86. WHAT IS THE PROOF THAT MARY, MOTHER OF THE LORD, WAS OF THE TRIBE AND RACE OF DAVID? — Let's quote the words of a genuine witness. It is the angel himself who says to Mary: "The Lord God will give him the name of David his father, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever.” How could such a truthful witness give David as father to Jesus Christ, if his mother was not of David's own race?
(Luke 1:33) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 26. WE READ IN THE GOSPEL THAT THE ANGEL PREDICTED TO MARY, MOTHER OF THE LORD, THAT THE REIGN OF CHRIST WOULD “HAVE NO END.” DANIEL MAKES THE SAME PREDICTION: "THEN WILL ARISE AN ETERNAL KINGDOM THAT WILL NEVER BE DESTROYED.” ON THE CONTRARY, THE APOSTLE SPEAKING OF THE LORD SAYS: "WHEN HE HAS GIVEN HIS KINGDOM TO GOD HIS FATHER” (1 CORINTHIANS 15); HOW WILL HIS KINGDOM BE ETERNAL, SINCE HE MUST GIVE IT TO GOD HIS FATHER? — In so saying, the Son does not lose the kingdom by giving it to his Father, and so these words of the Apostle are true, without the angel and Daniel being in contradiction with them. Whoever thinks it their duty to call in question their testimony would bring unbelief to an excess. But we, whose faith cannot be shaken, see how it is to be understood that the Son hands the kingdom over to his Father, which the Apostle in another place explains in these terms: "Then the Son Himself will be subject to him who has subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all." (1 Cor.15) This submission is the very act of surrender of the kingdom, so here is the interpretation that it is necessary to admit, not to deny that the Son is subject to his Father, and yet to recognize that his kingdom is eternal, that is to say, the kingdom of the Son, for in the name of Jesus every knee shakes in heaven, on the earth, and in hell. (Philip. 2) The Apostle St. Peter confirms this truth when he says:" No other name under heaven was given to men by which we were to be saved." (Acts 4) And did not the Lord Himself say to His disciples, “Until now you have not asked anything in my name, ask and I will answer you?" (Jn. 16) The reign of the Son therefore consists in the fact that it is in his name that all men are saved, and that all the prayers addressed to him until the end of the world are answered. But when all creatures have confessed Jesus Christ willingly or by force, and have been subjected to the power against which they have resisted, then the mystery of one God will be revealed to all men, and all thanksgivings will go back to God the Father, the principle of all things, that all preaching cease, one God be recognized in the mystery of the Trinity. Indeed, when all the powers, all the principalities and the dominions will have bowed their knee before Jesus Christ, then the Son will reveal that it is not the first principle from which all things come, but his Son in whom we see the Father. This is how he submits and gives the kingdom to his Father. In revealing that his Father is the first principle of all things, he submits to him by declaring that he comes from him. Indeed, the advent of the Son of God is surrounded by so much majesty and splendor that all the powers and choirs of the angels could believe that he is the only God par excellence. Now, the Savior declaring that he is not the one who is called the Father, but his Son, while continuing to reign, hands the kingdom over to his Father. Here we see both submission and surrender of the kingdom, for when he declares that he comes from the Father, he declares by the same that all that he has also comes from the Father, bringing everything back to him.
(Luke 2:34) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 73. WHAT DO THESE WORDS OF SIMEON MEAN TO MARY, MOTHER OF OUR LORD: "THIS IS ESTABLISHED FOR THE RUIN AND FOR THE RESURRECTION OF MANY IN ISRAEL.... AND THE SWORD WILL PIERCE YOUR SOUL SO THAT THE THOUGHTS HIDDEN IN THE BOTTOM HEARTS OF MANY ARE REVEALED?" — Simeon, that holy personage, of whom the divine Scriptures praise, reveals by divine inspiration what Jesus Christ will be for men, a principle of fall and ruin for those who look at each other, as unshakeable in the observance and knowledge of the law, but who do not believe in the works of Jesus Christ, and have no part in the promises made to their fathers; a principle of resurrection for those who did not enjoy any kind of consideration in the law, but who believed in Jesus Christ, that is to say that God made worthy of him those who were regarded as unworthy and useless and that he reproved those who seemed great in the world. It is this same truth that Our Lord expresses in another place: "I have come into this world for judgment, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. (John 9:39) And in fact, it is not the teachers of the law, nor the Pharisees, nor the scribes who have followed Jesus Christ, but ignorant and uneducated sinners. This is what made the Savior says: "My Father, I give you thanks, because you have hid these things from the wise and the prudent, and have revealed them to the little ones." (Matt. 11:25) As for what Simeon adds: "And the sword will pierce your soul, so that the thoughts hidden in the depths of the hearts of many will be revealed," (Luke 2: 35) indicates that Mary, in whose bosom the mystery of the incarnation has been wrought, and there has been some doubt at the death of Our Lord, but doubts that the resurrection's brilliancy and the Savior's power soon changed into a firm and unshakable faith. At the death of the Savior, all under an impression of dread, let doubt enter their souls. However, they did not persevere in doubt. The sword only crosses the soul if doubt does not remain in thought; but he emerges from it by the force of the soul, which regains its rights. Who would not have been able to doubt, seeing the one who called himself the Son of God humiliated to death? But as I said, the resurrection of the Savior was to remove all doubt; that is why it is said that the sword will pass and not that it will fall on the heart, or that it will reach some member in passing. A line which is thrown and passes near a man may erase it, but without hurting it; so doubt was to produce sadness, but not until death, because it did not remain in the soul and it simply went through it, touching the hearts of the disciples like a shadow. See Cleophas and this other disciple who went to Emmaus; they were sad in the way, and told the Savior himself that they did not know him again: “We thought he was the one to deliver Israel.” They doubted then, but scarcely had they recognized the Lord that this doubt vanished. It is also said of Joseph that "iron shook his soul." (Ps 104:18) For a long time held in chains despite his innocence, it is not surprising that he could have doubted God's righteousness towards him, but as his hope in God was stronger, he could not persevere in doubt. Everyone is judged on the vice for which he has the most inclination. The Apocalypse of St. John confirms this truth, "Those who doubt," he said, "and the unbelievers will have their share in the lake burning with fire and brimstone.” (Rev. 21:8) He who therefore does not persevere in doubt is delivered from death, that is to say, he escapes death, for doubt about God or about Jesus Christ is a true death. He who ceases to doubt ceases to be subject to death.
(Luke 14:33) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 27. THE SAVIOR SAYS, "IF ANYONE DOES NOT LEAVE ALL THAT HE HAS, THAT IS, HIS HOUSE, HIS FIELDS, AND THE REST, HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE." NOW, EVANGELIST SAYS IN ANOTHER PLACE, "HERE IS A SENATOR NAMED JOSEPH, A RICH MAN, WHO WAS A DISCIPLE OF JESUS AND WAS WAITING FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD, APPROACHED PILATE, ETC." (MARK 15, LUKE 23) HOW DOES THE EVANGELIST PRESENT AS A DISCIPLE THE ONE WHOM THE SAVIOR REJECTS? BESIDES, ZACCHAEUS WAS ALSO RICH, AS WELL AS CORNELIUS THE CENTURION, AND THE WOMEN WHO ASSISTED HIM WITH THEIR PROPERTY. — The Apostle resolves this difficulty in this few words: "Let those who have the goods of this world be as if they did not have them, those who use things of this world as if they did not use them, and those who buy as if they did not possess." (1 Cor. 7:30) So whoever has the goods of the earth as if he did not have them, actually seems to have abandoned them. He does not seek to avail himself of them, nor to glorify them: his whole exterior is as humble and modest as his soul, he understands that he is only the steward and the dispenser of his goods; is it not leaving all that we have? for we leave what we no longer desire, and which ceases to be agreeable.
(Luke 16:16) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 29. IF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS LASTED UNTIL JOHN THE BAPTIST, FROM WHOM THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WAS PREACHED, FOR IT WAS HE WHO INAUGURATED THIS NEW PREACHING, WHY DID HIS BAPTISM CEASE? — The baptism of John, once instituted, has not ceased to be given; it only added what was missing. In fact, John only baptized, but did not give the Holy Spirit to those who believed, as he says of the Savior, "For me, I baptize you in water for penitence, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 3, Mark 1, Luke 3) That is, it is through my baptism that the forgiveness of sins is granted, but not the Holy Spirit who gives to those who have been purified the name and the rights of children of God; for it was a prerogative reserved for the Savior, as for the Lord God, that men should not become children of God until the Son of God gave them the Holy Spirit. The effect tacitly produced by John's baptism without any question concerning the Savior, although his name was pronounced, received all his strength from the Trinity. This is what the Savior's goodness teaches us by establishing the consecrated formula of the three names which from the beginning contributed to the same works under the name and person of one God. The name of the three divine persons came therefore to join the baptism of John with the expression of the mystery for so long hidden. God still communicates to this baptism a much more precious grace, it is that those who were baptized became children of God by receiving the Holy Spirit. This baptism was thus enriched with new graces, but was not suppressed.
(Luke 21:25; 23:45) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 105. HOW TO RECONCILE THE PROPHECIES WITH THE GOSPEL ON THE OBSCURATION OF THE SUN AND ON SOME OTHER POINTS? — The prophets predicted that at the first advent of the Lord, the sun would be darkened in the time of his passion, at the very time when, according to the Evangelists, the fact occurred, that is to say at noon. This is what the prophet Amos says: "In that day, says the Lord, the sun will disappear at midday, and the earth will be covered with darkness in the midst of the light." (Amos 8:9) The sun was thus darkened that day until the ninth hour, and the prophet's prediction was fulfilled. God wanted to give in the Savior's passion an image of what should happen at his second coming, because when he comes to judge the world, the stars will cease to give their accustomed light, according to these words of the Lord himself: "In those days the sun will be darkened and the moon will not shed its light." (Matt. 24:29) The prophet Joel also predicted this phenomenon so that one cannot doubt the fulfillment of a fact attested by several witnesses. “And the sun,” he says, “will be changed into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and terrible day of the Lord’s coming.” (Joel 2:31) As far as the literal meaning of these words indicates, they seem to be more fitting for the second advent, for then the Lord will manifest himself publicly to all men, to the testimony of Scripture: "Then every eye will see him, and all the tribes of the earth and those who have crucified him will strike their breast.” (Rev. 1:7) Now, if according to the oracles of the prophets the sun is to be covered with darkness in the two events of the Lord, what is the day when, according to the prophet Isaiah, the sun and the moon must shine with greater brilliance?" The highest mountains, the highest hills will be sprinkled with streams of running water after the days of carnage, after the fall of the towers. The light of the moon will shine like the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be seven times brighter in the day when the Lord will close the plague of his people and heal their wounds, etc." (Isa. 30:25-26) What is this day when the Lord promised to close the plague of his people? I think that this is the day that Zachariah, father of John the Baptist, sang: "Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, because he has visited us, and has delivered his people, and has raised the sign of salvation in the house of David his servant, as he promised through the mouth of his holy prophets, who were in the beginning, to save us from our enemies and from the hand of all who lower us to fulfill His mercies towards our fathers." (Luke 1:68, etc.) Simeon also said, "This is established for the ruin and for the resurrection of many in Israel." (Luke 2:34) He wants to talk about the ruin of the Scribes, the Pharisees and the main Jews who are represented by the towers in the prophet's prediction. And while their unbelief was the cause of their ruin, others arose by the faith that negligence retained powerlessness and infirmity. That is why the Savior said: "I have come to this world for judgment, that those who do not see shall see, and those who see, blind; (Jn. 9:39) That is to say, those whom their knowledge and skill in the law made shine like lights became blind and the eyes of the blind, that is to say ignorant and publicans, open to the light by faith. So the prophet foretold that the Savior would take care of their infirmities, and this prophecy is fulfilled in his time, as we see in the Gospel: "He really has borne our torpor, of our sufferings.” (Isa. 1:4) All these predictions have received their consummation and fulfillment in the Savior's passion, and thus the salvation of the human race has been done in a true way for those who were on earth or in hell, for the prophecy of Zachariah embraces both of them at once. On earth, men have been freed from the oppression of their enemies by the intervention of the mercy of God, and in hell they were delivered from the sorrows they endured. Indeed, all those who hoped in Christ who had been promised to them awaited the coming of him who was to triumph over death and deliver them from hell. This is why Zechariah says: “To fulfill his mercies toward our fathers." (Luke 1:72) But if it is understood that this salvation must also come in the second advent, but it is especially in the second that the sun will be covered with darkness and the moon will not give its light, how to admit that the light of the sun and the moon will shine more brightly in the day when God will visit his people, since, in one as in the other time when the deliverance of this people begins and ends, we read that not only the light of the sun and the moon will be weakened, but that these stars will be completely obscured. We must therefore understand that the sun and the moon represent the saints here, just as in another place they are compared to the stars of heaven, to the testimony of the Apostle St. Paul, who declares that the saints shine in this world like the stars of the faith. We also read in the Gospel that the righteous will shine like the sun (Matt. 13:43), because the Lord compares good works to light. "May your light," he says, "shine before men, so that when you see your good works they will glorify your Father, who is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:16) Therefore those who have abandoned all their goods to follow the Lord, owe to their justice and holiness, to be compared to the sun and the moon seven times brighter. "There is no one," says the Savior, "who has left either his house, or his wife, or his children, or his fields, which has received seven times as much in this world.” (Luke 18:29) Now those who receive here seven times as much honor will be in the other life seven times brighter than the rest, that is, their resurrection will be like the sun and the moon and the resurrection of others like the stars. The glory of the saints who receives here seven times of brilliance, will receive seven times more in the resurrection, that is to say, that he who has here below the brightness of the moon will receive in the other life the brightness of the sun, and the one here below as bright as the sun will shine seven times brighter in the other life. The prophet Isaiah therefore rightly uses the comparison of the sun and the moon to predict the increase of the glory of the saints. If indeed our Lord is called the sun of righteousness, and the saints must be like him, to the testimony of the apostle St. John: “When he appears, we shall be like him." (1 Jn. 3:2) The prophet is right in comparing the saints with the sun, but pointing out that the brightness of the sun is seven times greater than that of the moon. When he predicts that the light of the moon will have the same brightness as that of the sun, but that the sunlight will be seven times brighter, he wants us to understand that the light of the moon will become seven times brighter to match that of the sun, that is, the moon will be as bright as the sun is now. Although the application of this comparison of the stars to the saints is in the opposite direction, yet it brings out in part the increase of their glory, that is to say, after the increase of the light of the sun and the moon, and the distance that will exist between one saint and another after they have received their reward will be as great as that which separates them in the present life.
(Luke 22) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 84. WHY DO WE, WHO ARE KEEPING THE PASSOVER FEAST BY THE PHASE OF THE MOON, REPROACH THE PAGANS FOR OBSERVING THE DAYS AND THE DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE MOON? — Far from Christians the reproach of worshiping the stars, who have received from God a spiritual worship which teaches them to despise the things that appear, to unite with the invisible and celestial things, and to rise above all created objects to heaven, where they must be eternally with the angels of God. As for the worshipers of the stars, they will be with them or even under them; for how to place a man above what has been the object of his adoration? It is not therefore the course of the moon that the pagans observe, it is the moon itself, which they adore as a divinity. They imagine that they have discovered the influence of its different phases, and they decide accordingly what they will have to do or omit on certain days, by categorically submitting their conduct and all their life to its realm. Now, it is a recklessness in direct opposition to the order of God and which makes them fall, as we see, into frequent errors. God has established the stars to determine the times. We therefore observe the number of days of the moon, but we do not worship it, and we specify the time of the Passover on the fourteenth day of the moon, which is the first according to here. All things that God has done have a character of fullness; We are therefore permitted to celebrate the Passover for seven days, from the fourteenth day of the moon until the twenty-first, so as to contain in this space seven days from the preparation of the Passover until the resurrection of the Savior, avoiding that the passion falls on the thirteenth day, or the resurrection the fourteenth or the fifteenth, so that passion may not be celebrated before the first moon in our day, nor resurrection on another day than the day when the world was created. In fact, all the times that regulate the course of the world are included in the space of a single week, because it is in the space of seven days that God has given to the world the form and brightness that we admire it. He created the world in six days and stopped creating the seventh day, which we call Sabbath. These seven days include all the reason and the different numbers of the world. By continually returning to themselves, they give rise to the multiplication of times. After the Sabbath, the week begins again from the first day until the seventh, that is to say until the Sabbath, to teach us that the resurrection of the Lord was made the first day of the creation of the world, that we call the day of the Lord. God did it together with the evening, and after a seven-day revolution, he comes back again to be the first day of a new week. Things were thus regulated from the beginning in view of the mysteries of the incarnation of the Lord, of his passion and resurrection; for the resurrection of the body of the Lord was the resurrection, the repair of the world almost entirely. It is therefore well established that we do not worship the moon, but we observe the number of days that are marked by the course of the moon. The devil, therefore, who is the same as Satan, to give some authority to his deceptions and to put his lies in the colors of the truth, in the first month that he knows that we must celebrate the mysteries of the Lord, uses his power, which is great, to establish among the pagans mysteries which he also commands them to celebrate. he thus holds their minds in error for two reasons. As his lies precede the truth, he thus gives them superiority over her, and he makes this antiquity a prejudgment unfavorable to the truth. Secondly; as it is in the first month when the Romans place, like us, the equinox, that the pagans celebrate these sacrifices and affirm that the atonement is made by blood, as we say it is made by the cross; the devil, by this ploy, restrains them in error, persuades them that our truth is only an imitation of the truth and a superstition which we have invented in a spirit of rivalry. For, they say, one cannot look upon what is later invention as true. But miracles and wonders testify that we are certainly in possession of the truth, and the brilliance of these miracles sets us in all its glory. Since this proof is indeed the only one that easily convinces, God has opposed it to the ploys and tricks of the devil to reveal his lies. Who could, even if it were an enemy of the Christian religion, deny that the truth is where the divine power is revealed in all its strength?
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 104. ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. — Our Lord, foreseeing the war that the Jews were going to declare on him, recommends to his disciples to arm themselves with swords. They obeyed this order, and when this impious war began under the leadership of Judas Iscariot, Peter, seeing the enemies ready to throw himself on his master, drew his sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's servant. This order, and when this impious war begins under the leadership of Judas Iscariot, Peter, seeing the enemies ready to throw himself on his master, draws his sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant. (Luke 22:50) Then the Lord commanded Peter to put his sword in his sheath, "For all those," he says, "who use the sword will perish by the sword.: (Matt. 26:52) Why does he command to prepare swords since he forbids using them and even threatens to kill anyone who has struck with the sword? The Apostle, however, seems to have acted in all justice, for he has struck the man whom he saw armed against him. It was a duty for him to resist ungrateful servants who were armed to put the Savior to death. If you examine every circumstance of this fact, of which you ask the explanation, you will find other questions. What, indeed, was it that the one who had for support a very spiritual force should make his disciples prepare material weapons, and that after forbidding them to carry in their journey neither purse, nor money, nor baton he now revokes his defense? Let us begin by explaining why Our Lord commands his disciples to arm themselves with swords and forbids them to use them. It was not only against his enemies, but in the interests of his disciples themselves that he commanded them to obtain arms for the war that was about to break out. It must have been a new and surprising sight that the author of so many unusual and extraordinary prodigies suddenly fell into an excess of humiliations that subjected him to ill-treatment and death. Now, to show that these sufferings had not surprised him in the unforeseen, and as a man reduced to impotence, he predicted the advantages, thus showing that he had not the least doubt, but that he prepared to support them knowingly. And as his humiliations were voluntary, he does not want to be opposed to his enemies violent resistance, and he makes it clear that he was still what he had always been, when in the hands of his enemies he heals the ear that Peter had cut off and attached to what the action of the sword had detached; and it is not as a bodily doctor, but as the Creator of the bodies that he recreates his work that the sword had disfigured; because doctors can never restore detached limbs from the body. Therefore, so that the power of God might be reduced to him, and as it had always been, and also to show the truth of these words that he had said, "I have the power to give my life, and I have the power to take it back," (Jn. 10:18) that he commands his disciples to obtain swords, but without commanding them to use them to kill his enemies. We now have to consider why the Savior, witness of Peter's action, declares that whoever uses the sword will perish by the sword (Matt. 26:52), whereas, however, Peter had not used it unjustly; for, as we read in St. Luke, it was with the permission of the Lord that he struck Malchus and then heard the defense that was made to him. (Luke 22:50) The Savior gave him this permission to show that he could have taken revenge on his enemies, to show that he had the same power which he had shown, and that he could therefore avenge himself, and in order to convince his enemies that they seized him by virtue of a power they had received. He did not appear as vanquished, but as a man who abandons himself to their will. Why then does he say that whoever uses the sword will perish by the sword? It is because the judge alone has the right to destroy by the sword; and Peter had the permission only to strike, but not to take away life by the sword. This is why Our Lord forbids him to strike again. He also tells him that Christians are not allowed to kill their fellow men. They are under a law of mercy, and they are forbidden to use with harshness the right which has been conferred on society. As for the recommendation that he previously made to them to carry nothing with them in the road (Matt. 10:10), it is like a sign of peace, of the grace of miracles, of the sweetness of a doctrine that will be seen in the Apostles. What did they need to take with them on the road, since they had to offer everything to them at the sight of the miracles they were operating? But when the time came when he was to voluntarily give himself up to suffering, and was on the eve of a passing struggle rather than a war properly so called, he advised his followers to arm themselves not to resist his enemies, since his will was to be pleased, but to show, as I have said, that he had foreseen his passion, that it was subordinated to his power, and that if he consented to this excess of humiliation was for the salvation of the human race, as we will say in its place.
JOHN
(John 1:1-3) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 122. THE PRINCIPLE OR THE BEGINNING. — In the beginning was the Word. (Jn. 1:1) What is at the beginning? We read in the Old Testament: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1)." And in the Epistle of the same Apostle (John), author of this Gospel, of which we try to explain the exordium, this expression is taken in the same sense. This is how it is expressed in this Epistle: "What was in the beginning (I Jn. 1:1).” The Epistle and the Gospel thus present the same thought, the same signification. On the contrary, there is a discrepancy between these words of the Old Testament: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," and those of the New Testament: "In the beginning was the Word." And again: "That which was from the beginning." Being in the beginning, and being from the beginning signifies one and the same thing, for what was from the beginning did not begin to be. What begins to exist was not from the beginning, and therefore is subject to a beginning to be first in the order of creatures, because in fact the one that was made in the beginning was followed by all those which were made after him. Here is why we read: ‘In the beginning were heaven and earth’, for while they did not yet extirpate and God had resolved to create the world; in principle, that is to say, among the elements which were to serve the creation of the world, God created heaven and earth first, because the principle is the beginning of a thing which begins to be the first of those to follow. But when the Evangelist says: "In the beginning was the Word," he wants to teach us that he existed before all the creatures of heaven and earth, and that he is not only the first of created beings, for it was in the beginning when God had resolved to create the world, and if it were in principle, that is, before all things, it existed from all eternity, he was the Word, and where was he? "In God," said the Evangelist, "that there should be no temptation to give him a beginning worthy of him who was in God from all eternity that the one who was in God before all things was not subject to any beginning, so the Evangelist adds, "And the Word was God." He clearly shows that everything he said before applies perfectly to the Word, for the Word is God, and there can be no other thought worthy of God than that of his eternalness, if it began to be, it is a creature, and if it is created it is not God. All that exists is either God or creature, and by the same name the name of God does not fit the creature. But as his being has no beginning (for he was), it is rightly that we call him God. Now, we say that the Word has always been in God, because his being does not come from himself, but from God. This is why He is called the Word of God, as the testimony of the same Evangelist teaches in his revelation: "And his name is the Word of God (Rev. 19:13).” He is called the Word of God, to teach us that he is not that of whom, but by whom are all things; that is to say, he is not the Father, but the Son. By the same that God cannot be without his Word, we must believe that he who is called his Word has always been in God, and as the Word cannot be apart from the one of whom he is the Word, we must understand that Word who was in God had no other principle of his being than God himself, and that being of God he is not opposed to the reason of saying that he is God. Thus, from the fact that God was in God, it does not follow that there are two gods. If they were two, they would have a different nature and will. If we, who have one and the same nature, we do not consent to have different wills, how much more if God and the Word did not have the same nature, and if the Word was not God in God? The God who was and who is in God, does not have the divine being himself, otherwise we would not say that he is God in God, and the Word of God would not be called the Word God; but since what is of God can only be God, the Word of God is called God, so that this name of God's Word prevents us from thinking of another God. Now the Word is given the name of God, because it would be offensive to God that what is of God should not be called God. The unity of God has thus safeguarded, and at the same time the honor rendered to those of the law, for it is not in his own glory that he who is God from God is but in the glory of him who is the principle of his divine being. This is why the Gospel begins to speak about the Word before speaking of God the Father, because what raises difficulties is not God the Father, but the Word of God. No one raises doubts about God, but about the one who is God from God, every language on earth as in the underworld confesses the existence of one God, but he is troubled by the mystery of one God. He is astonished to hear that the Word of God is God, for he is besieged by the corporal images that tell him that the name of man cannot be given to the Word of Man. A simple nature is not a compound of different members, there is not in and out of it, the front and the back, the high and the low, no variety, no dissemblance, it is a splendor which is one and immense, if the fire itself has neither front, nor behind nor inside, nor outside, how much less its Creator. Since therefore all that is God is a unique whole, there is no contradiction in calling God all that is God. So a reason borrowed in part from that occurs among men, and partly to a higher order of things, makes us understand that the Son of God who is the Word of God, is God; just as the children of men are men, so the Son of God is God. But the children of men are men because of the union of the two sexes, and it is not so that the Son of God is God, because he is not simply of a God who is a simple nature. Our word, which is from us, helps us to understand that the Word of God is from him, but our word is not what we are, and it is not in this way that the Word of God is God, because the Word of God is a real thing and not a sound that goes out. From the fact that we use the same expressions for God and for us, it does not follow that the reason for being is the same for us and for him in reality. Thus we read, "In the beginning God made heaven and earth.” (Gen. 1:1) How did they do it? Is it with the hand, as when we do some action? Further down we read again: "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” To whom do we hear that God has spoken here? This is certainly not a man, but one who had the power to create, and who was to create the man himself as he created it indeed. But how did he speak? Is it beginning with a material organ? Far from us this thought. You see, then, that if we use the same expressions for God and for us, these expressions indicate a very different way of acting, for God acts quite differently from us, and his language has nothing to do with ours. Thus the Word of God is not a Word like ours, which scarcely formed ceases to exist; it is a Word that remains, because it is a Word that hears, speaks, acts. He is not only the Word of God, he is the power, the wisdom of God, he is the Son of God. As to the effect produced, he is the Son of God; if we consider the manner in which God speaks to us through him, he is called the Word of God; if we look at the wisdom by which God teaches us through his mysteries, he is the wisdom of God; if finally we contemplate this omnipotent operation by virtue of which God has made and continues to do all things, it is called the power of God. None of these titles can be acceptable to the Son of God. By the same thing that he is God from God, we attribute to him all the perfections of the divine nature. These divine attributes are a necessary continuation of his birth. It would not have been fitting for the Word of God, the wisdom, the power of God, to be anything inferior to God, for that is the God the Word, the power and wisdom of God. It is because Christ is the whole God from God himself, that he is called wisdom, power, the Word of God, because that is how he is God from God and God abiding in God. That's why the Evangelist says, "He was in God from the beginning." (Jn. 1:2) The Scripture is forced to make this statement to convince the spirits of unbelievers; it wants to show that Christ is God; as everywhere to consecrate the unity of God, it wants us to understand that Christ is God. Here Scripture openly proclaims that he is God and that he has always been good, that is to say, that he reveals to us the mystery that is in God, to teach us that he is not alone. Scripture therefore declares that if God is one, he is not however alone, but that even if there are two or three persons in him, they come out of the same nature and do not detract in any way from unity, because what comes from a single principle relates to it, because this principle is a good that all things come from God. But there is a great difference between what derives its being from God in a proper sense, and what he has created out of his will, that is to say, there is an immense distance between what is out of its substance, and what does not exist has been drawn from nothingness by its will. What came out of the substance of God did not exist after this substance; on the contrary, what was created began to be a substance only at the moment of its creation. There is only the Trinity alone, which has no beginning. The manifestation of this mystery has diminished the merit of faith, for the more the object of faith is hidden, the greater is the reward of him who believes, and for the same reason the greater the punishment of the unbeliever. Just as the manifestation of the mystery diminishes the merit of believers, it increases the punishment reserved for those who refuse to believe. The more a law is clear, the more one is guilty of transgressing it. No doubt it was enough of the testimony of the Savior who declared that he had God for his Father. Who among the faithful could have the slightest doubt that the nature of the Son was in any way different from that of the Father? But the perversity of heretics having sought to undermine the rights of faith by their impious and untrue fictions, hearing the Son of God in a different sense from what the Christian faith taught, the Evangelist thought it necessary to add for more great clarity that he had been before all things in God and God himself. This is how he explained what the notion of the true Son contains. Divine goodness seems to have had regard to human weakness by manifesting what had previously remained hidden, and which it reserved as a reward for a more perfect faith. St. John adds: "All things were done by him.” (Jn. 1:3) If the foregoing could leave some doubt in the human mind too narrow to understand the divine things, it grows, it seems, hearing these words: “All things were made by him.” He cannot regard him as a creature, since he is told that God has done all things through him. Now, if he were himself a creature, the Evangelist would not say that God did all things, for it was not done by himself. To put this truth into a greater way, he adds; "And nothing was done without him," words that put an end to any discussion and exclude all human reasoning. There are some who may have doubts, yet the Evangelist, declaring that nothing has been done without him, does not even allow him to suspect that he himself is a creature. How to say that he is a creature made and designed from nothing, when you are taught that God did nothing without him? Do you say that Scripture says that God did nothing without him? Far from us this thought. Scripture is the very truth, and to cut error into its root, it spreads the brightest light to redeem men and save them. St. John adds, "What has been done is life in him," that is, what has been done is life in the Word. This is what the Lord himself teaches us: Just as the Father has life in him, so he gave the Son to have life in him. (Jn. 5:26) It is not that the Word was ever lifeless, and that it was given to him or made in him, the Evangelist wants us to understand that the Word was itself life. If one can say of the Father that he is something else or that he has something else in him, one can say it also of the Son, for just as the Father has life in him, he has given to the Son to have life in him. Human language is powerless to properly express divine things. Thus it seems improper to say that the Son of God having not been made, we say that what has been done in him. If the Evangelist had said: What was engendered in him, the property of the terms would leave something to be desired. But to express his substantial generation, he used the terms he could find to make known the work of this generation that gave it to be, because this generation has life in it. For us, we have life, it is true, but we cannot communicate it to others, because this very life is not in our power. But for the Word, the Evangelist says that he has life in him, because he has the power to give life, and to draw from the void the creatures he wants to give them existence and life. The end of his divine birth is that he can do all the things the Father does, because he has life in him like the Father. In fact, to have done all things through him and in him, is to have begotten him to have in him the life by which he could do all things. It is not that he is himself anything but life, but since the essence of his life is to live, and to be able to communicate this life to the beings that he draws from nothingness, they say he has life in himself. We live, I repeat, but we do not have in us the life itself to be able to communicate it to others. It is this truth which the Apostle St. Paul recalls in these terms: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creatures? It is through him that everything was created in heaven and on earth, things visible as invisible, thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, everything was created by him and in him. (Col. 1:15) The two testimonies of the Apostles St. John and St. Paul are perfectly in agreement, they teach the same truth, that is, the Son of God was begotten before all creatures, for to create the spiritual powers, the world and all the visible beings that it contains. St. John says: "What was done is life in him," (Jn. 1:3) and St. Paul expresses the same truth in these words: "It is through him that everything was created in heaven and on the earth.” (Col. 1:16) And further: “Everything was created by him and in him.” God created through him, because he is the same God by nature, that is, the Father is in the Son. "Everything was created in him," because he begot the Son to have the power to create all things visible and invisible. This is how he made life in him, so that he might exist and give to all other animated beings life, intelligence, action, according to his will as the image of God. He is called the image of God for these two reasons, first, because by virtue of his birth he reproduces in himself the perfect likeness of the Father, and secondly because his power is equal to that of the Father, so that it is true to say that we see the Father in the Son who is the image of the invisible God. From what he declares the invisible Father, does it follow that the Son is visible? No, since the Son is by nature what the Father is. Since the celestial creature is invisible, let alone the one who created it. The Evangelist therefore wishes to speak here of what is being accomplished not on earth, but in heaven, for although the Son is invisible, yet he manifests himself in heaven and to the saints of whom he has said himself: "My Father, I want them wherever I am, to be with me, and to contemplate my glory." (Jn. 17:24) And elsewhere: "Blessed are those who have a pure heart, because they will see God," (Matt. 5:8), that is, the Father in the Son, God in his image, that is, God in God. The image of a corporeal object is itself bodily; thus God is the image of God, because the Father is the model, and the Son the reproduction of the copy, which he communicates to the Holy Spirit, "because he will receive from me," (Jn. 16:14), he says to his Apostles, just as no one has been found worthy to open the book and lift the seals, except the Word of God (Rev. 5:4), so no one is worthy to see God the Father either by his nature or by his merits, except the true Son of God. There is no intermediary between the Father and the Son, it is Himself who declares it to us: "No one has ever seen the Father, except he who is of God, he has seen the Father." (Jn. 6:46) But if we see the Father in the Son, why is no one worthy to see God, since we see him in the Son who is no different from the Father? There is no difference in nature, we agree, because he is the real Son of God, but it differs in the relation of causality, because all power comes to the Son from the Father. The Son does not have a nature inferior to the Father, but the Father has greater authority in the testimony of the Lord himself: "If you love me," he said to his disciples, "If you love me," he said to his disciples, "you will rejoice at my going to my Father, because my Father is greater than me." (Jn. 14:28) Saint Paul observes the same nuance in his language when he says: "There is for us but one God, the Father from whom all things proceed and who has made us for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom all things were made, and we exist through him." (1 Cor. 8:6) In the first degree is that of whom are all things, by whom all things exist, and since there is no inferiority in the divine persons, the Apostle brings them all back to the unity of God when he says, "It is of him, and through him, and in him are all things, to him be glory in all ages." (Rom. 11:36)
(John 5:18) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 31. THE SABBATH IS CERTAINLY THE LAW OR PART OF THE LAW; HOW THEN IS THE LAW NOT DESTROYED BY THESE WORDS OF THE EVANGELIST: "NOT ONLY BECAUSE HE HAD BROKEN THE SABBATH, BUT ALSO BECAUSE HE SAID THAT GOD WAS HIS OWN FATHER?"— The Savior violated the Sabbath, but without breaking the Sabbath law. This Sabbath law ceased to oblige, but the Jews claimed that it was still in all its strength; In their thought, therefore, the Savior, in acting on the Sabbath, and commanding this paralytic to carry his bed on the Sabbath, violated the Sabbath law. In fact, as this law had ceased to be mandatory, it is as if it were said of an ex-governor who would have received whatever outrage, that it is to the very dignity of governor that this contempt. The Sabbath law was not violated; but men who wanted to brazenly support the authority of the Sabbath were thwarted, since a new law had succeeded the Sabbath law.
(John 5:46) 2ND CATEGORY OT&NT QUESTION 2. THE GOSPEL DECLARES THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD (JN. 5:46, 1 TIM. 6:16, JN. 1:18); WHILE JACOB, MOSES, AND ISAIAH CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN HIM. IT MAY BE SAID: NO ONE HAS. SEEN THE FATHER; WHAT CAN THIS DO? IF WE HAVE SEEN THE SON, WE HAVE SEEN THE FATHER, SINCE THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE ONE GOD IN THEIR NATURE, IN THEIR IMAGE, FOR BOTH HAVE ONLY ONE IMAGE, AND AS THE SAVIOR SAYS: THE ONE WHO SEES ME ALSO SEES MY FATHER. (JN. 14:9) HOW IS IT THEN THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD THE FATHER, SINCE THE SON TESTIFIES THAT WE SEE THE FATHER WHEN WE SEE HIM, BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER GOD. IF, THEN, THERE IS NONE ELSE, IT IS HIMSELF WHOM WE HAVE SEEN AS GOD, SINCE THERE IS ONLY ONE. — It is from God the Father that the Evangelist wants to speak when he says that no one has seen God, except the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father and who has made it known to us. (Jn. 1:18) Let us then mark to the Son, He taught us that no one except He saw God. Now, he speaks in this way to teach us that it is he who has constantly appeared to the patriarchs and the prophets. These words, therefore, do not apply to the only God, but to the Person of the Father whom we cannot call otherwise than God the Father. As for the Son, he declares that he has been seen, but in an invisible way for those who thought he saw him. The vision here is the intellect, because it is not in the eyes of the body but in the eyes of the intellect that he was manifested, and to have seen him, it is to have understood that God revealed himself in this appearance. Now, when the Savior says, "He who sees me, see also my Father," (Jn. 14:9) he wants to speak not of the vision of the eyes, but of the mind, and to make us understand that there is no difference between the Father and the Son. Neither were seen in their nature. In apparitions, the Son has been seen only by the intellect and not by the eyes of the body, because he is invisible as the Father.
(John 7:8-14) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 78. WE READ IN THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN THAT THE SAVIOR, AFTER SAYING THAT HE WOULD NOT GO TO JERUSALEM FOR THE FEAST DAY, WENT THERE SECRETLY, HOWEVER. IS NOT THIS AN ACT OF INCONSTANCY? —You always present your questions in an abbreviated form that hides their meaning. The fact of which you speak here took place when Jesus was in Galilee, because of the agitation of the Jews against him; his parents, who did not yet believe in him, urged him, as he approached a feast of the Jews, to go to Judea to expose him after a sedition. The Savior answered them, "Go to this feast, because the world does not hate you; but he hates me because I condemn their works. I'm not going to this festivity because my time has not come yet. His brethren then went to this feast, and Jesus remained in Galilee.” Where is the contradiction here? He does not go to this festivity when he declares that he is not going, he does not go there until later, and he does not go for the festivity itself, but as if he were going to a discussion, to a judgment. All the others had gone to this festivity to enjoy the pleasure it promised them. For the Savior, his feast day was when he redeemed the world with his passion. It is then that he says, "Now the son of man is glorified, and God is glorified in him.” (Jn. 13:31) His feast day is when he triumphed over death.
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 98. ON THE GOSPEL OF SAINT JOHN. — You have heard the testimony of the holy Gospel in these words of Our Lord to the Jews: "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44) None of the faithful must doubt that the devil was the only author of his apostasy. He is the principle and the leader of all error, seeing that God had given him an extraordinary power by creating an extraordinary power, dared to carry his ambitious plans even to the Divinity, in order to place himself as God above those whom he had saw below him. Now the names of devil and Satan given to him come from his works and not from his nature. Every evil is recognized by works, and it is not nature that is guilty of it, but the will which is determined by certain motives. He saw that he was superior to others, and pride made him aspire to domination. But why does the Scriptures seem to give a father to the one who was the author of his crime? or how to prove that he was homicide from the beginning? (1) Here the Scripture gives its name to the one who has been his imitator; for as his works have earned him the name of devil, every man guilty of a bad action deserves that name. It is therefore Cain whom the Savior here calls the devil, because he has made himself his imitator by becoming envious of his brother, by putting him to death, and leaving such an awful example of fratricidal cruelty. The devil, envious of the man whom God had created in his image, put the height of his wickedness by giving the example of error and falsehood. Cain follows this path of lying when God asks him, "Where is your brother Abel?” (Gen. 4:9) Full of his father's mischief, he does not hesitate to immediately make this lying answer: "I do not know.” He pretends to not know where he is of whom he had just taken the life of; cruelty blinded him to make him answer to God as to a man to whom he hoped to hide his crime. Now the Jews became his imitators, and put to death the Lord himself; they preferred to have Cain's fratricide father as God, thus rendering themselves guilty of all the blood that had been shed. In putting to death the source of life, they became the perpetrators of the crime in all its extent, and made the responsibility fall upon their children, when they shouted, "May his blood be upon us and our children.” (Matt. 27:25) To persuade Pilate that they did not ask him for anything wrong, they consented that this action, if it was unfair, would fall upon their children; With this burning desire to satisfy their fury, they do not even think of sparing their children. Now, a proof that the devil is not evil of his nature, is that God would not threaten punishment who did not do what he did not know, for it would be wrong to punish the one who acts in accordance with the requirements of its nature. And this injustice is greater still, if you ask a man what you know him to be impossible. On the contrary, justice demands that one punish who knows and can do good, does not fail to do evil. This is what can be concluded from the words of the Savior, for he says to the Jews, as we have said above, "Your father was murderous from the beginning, and he did not remain in the truth.” Now, if he was a liar by his nature, why say he did not remain in the truth? Not to dwell in truth is not to persevere in truth. Finally, we read in the Prophet these words of the Lord: "Had they remained in my substance," (Jer. 23:22) to say in my law. The Apostle also said to the Galatians, "Stay firm, and do not put yourself under the yoke of bondage.” (Gal 5:1) What is clearer? St. Paul recommends that the faithful continue to persevere in the commandments of God. If the demon had observed them, he would have remained in the substance and in the law of God, for the law is an unshakable foundation for those who observe it. How, then, have some of them been able to say that God created the devil to be evil, or that he had an origin of his own, that is to say, that he owed it to no one else, double supposition also offensive to God? He who maintains that God created the devil to be evil, attributes to him a very imperfect kindness, for a perfectly good being cannot do evil. As for the one who does not believe that the devil draws from God his origin, he denies the sovereign domain of God, because he believes he can remove from this domain that extends to everything a thing that would be independent. Those who make such mistakes will be severely punished when they see that God will judge all things through Jesus Christ. (1) It is not found in the manuscripts of the second category, this repetition of the same subject has already been treated in question 90.
(John 8:44) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 90. IF THE DEVIL IS SATAN HIMSELF, WHY DOES OUR LORD SAY TO THE JEWS, "THE FATHER OF WHOM YOU ARE BORN IS THE DEVIL, AND YOU WANT TO FULFILL THE DESIRES OF YOUR FATHER. HE WAS MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND HE DID NOT REMAIN IN THE TRUTH, FOR THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM. WHEN HE UTTERS A LIE, HE SAYS IT IS HIS OWN, FOR HE IS A LIAR LIKE HIS FATHER*.” — The devil's name is not a particular name, but a common name. No matter where we find the works of the devil we are allowed to give him that name. This is the name that suits his works rather than his nature. This father of the Jews whom Our Lord wants to speak in this place is Cain, whom they wanted to be the imitators by putting the Savior to death. This is why he declares that he has not remained in the truth, because he is defiled by a murderer and has made himself worthy of death; it was he who gave men the first example of fratricide. Our Lord says that when he utters lies, he says what is proper to him to make sure that no one sin only by his own will, but as he himself was a devil's imitator, he adds, "Because he is a liar like his father.” This spirit of falsehood pretended, in fact, to ignore the commandment which God had given to the first man, to condemn him to death. This is how Cain, when God questions him, pretends to ignore where his brother Abel was, whom he had put to death. The devil here in the Savior's thought is therefore Cain, and his father is the devil whose works he imitated. The son of the devil is himself a devil. But the devil who is called Satan has no father, author of his wickedness. He is himself the author of his own malice. He was the first to set an example of sin, and all who imitate him will be called his children, as he is called their father. This is how our father is Abraham, because he has the first faith in God, and as such we are his children, because we bear the name of faithful, as he has deserved himself. * The author of this question gives to these last words of the Savior a meaning required by the explanation he makes of it, but opposed to the generally accepted interpretation which translates: "He is a liar and the father of lies."
(John 9:6) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 33. WHY DID THE LORD, WHO HAD HEALED ALMOST ALL THE SICK OF A SINGLE WORD, GIVE SIGHT TO THE BLIND MAN BY APPLYING MUD TO HIS EYES? — The Lord acts in this way to confound those who accuse the Creator. In healing an unplanned vice of the body, in the same way that God has used to create it, he raises the authority of the Creator. In fact, he heals this infirmity of the body by the means which God has used to form him. Now, one must necessarily approve of an action which, in order to bring a thing back to the perfection from which it was fallen, employs the means which served to establish it there. If, indeed, the Savior proves that he is God by reforming the imperfections and vices of the body, how much more must we recognize the divinity of the one to whom the body owes its existence?
(John 10:9) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 34. WHY DOES THE SAVIOR SAY, "I AM THE DOOR," THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE ME ARE ROBBERS AND THIEVES, WORDS THAT SEEM TO ATTACK THE AUTHORITY OF THE PROPHETS? — As no one can go to God the Father except through faith in Jesus Christ, the Savior declares that He is the door of the kingdom of heaven. But in comparing himself to the door, what need was it to say of those who had preceded him: "All those who came before me, etc.," since there was no question of the past, but that was it to establish that he was now the door? The Savior therefore has in view the Jews who claimed to enter the kingdom of heaven not by faith, but by the justice of the law. They came before the Savior, that is to say, they stood before him to distort and contradict his words, and thus to distract others from believing in him. That's why he calls them robbers and thieves. In fact, he held this language to them, while the Pharisees were arguing with the blind man whom he had healed by giving him the use of the eyes, that nature had refused him, and that they were diverting him from the faith of the Savior, telling him that one could not enter into the kingdom of heaven through one who violated the Sabbath, but through the justice of the law. It is then that Jesus says to them: "I am the door, if someone enters by me, he will find pasture, but if someone wants to enter elsewhere, he is a robber and a thief.” Now, how can these words be applied to the prophets? Did the prophets teach against the doctrine of Jesus Christ, that they could make themselves acceptable to God without the faith and the only righteousness of the law, they who were charged to announce the enthralling of the Son of God? The Savior therefore wanted to speak of those who lived in his time, and to make us understand that all who were before him, sitting or standing, were robbers and thieves. By calling in particular the one who had been blind, they wanted to prevent him from believing in the Savior. "Give glory to God," said they to him, "we know that this man is a sinner," a charge which he destroys by replying to them: "We have never heard that no one opened the eyes of a blind man.” If he was not of God, he could do nothing. It is therefore of this man who persevered in faith, and of those who said: These words are not the words of a man who is possessed of the devil whom the Savior wishes to speak when he says, "But the sheep have not listened to them,” that is to say, those whom he calls robbers and thieves. For how could it be admitted that the sheep did not listen to the prophets, while we know without doubt that the good have always been compliant to the teachings of the prophets, as the bad to the false prophets?
(John 11:35) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 35. WHY DOES OUR LORD ON THE VERGE OF EXPLODING AN ASTONISHING AND UNKNOWN POWER UNTIL THEN, IN THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS, SHED TEARS AND ASK WHERE HE IS AS IF HE WAS IGNORANT? — The Savior is at once God and man, he always presents himself to us under these two characters, because he has the affections of man, he shed tears, and because he is God, he resurrects the one he's crying over. It rises, so always lower to higher equity and fighting the prejudice that saw in him the man, proving by his works that he was God. (John 12:41; Acts 7:55; Isaiah 6:1) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 88. IF GRACE WAS MORE ABUNDANT AND INTELLIGENCE CLEARER UNDER THE NEW TESTAMENT THAN IN THE OLD, WHY DID THE PROPHET ISAIAH SEE ON THE THRONE OF HIS MAJESTY THE GOD OF ARMIES WHICH IS THE CHRIST, ACCORDING TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE EVANGELIST ST. JOHN WHO SAID: "ISAIAH PROPHESIED THUS WHEN HE SAW HIS GLORY AND SPOKE OF HIM; WHILE UNDER THE NEW TESTAMENT, STEPHEN, THE FIRST OF THE MARTYRS, CLAIMS TO HAVE SEEN JESUS SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD? (ACTS 7:55) HOW IS IT THAT ON ONE SIDE CHRIST APPEARS IN A SECONDARY RANK AFTER HIS TRIUMPHS, AND ON THE OTHER AS THE SOVEREIGN GOD, BEFORE HE HAS WON? — The Lord manifested himself in the manner that circumstances demanded. He appears to the prophet as a king who takes back his people, and he shows himself as he sat on his throne, for the cause of his divinity was not in question. But he appears standing up to Saint Stephen because of the accusations of the Jews, because in the person of Stephen it was the cause of the Savior whom they attacked. He therefore appears standing before God, the sovereign judge sitting on his throne, as if to defend his cause; and he is on the judge's right hand because his cause is right. Indeed, every man who pleads his case must stand up.
(John 14:9) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 97. WHAT REASONABLE ANSWER CAN ONE MAKE FROM THE LAW TO THE IMPIETY OF ARIUS? — If one must believe in reason, the very reason of the names of Father and Son is a proof of their unity. If you ask how, I will answer you that there is no true Son of God unless he has come out of the very substance of the Father. Indeed, he cannot be true Son of God, if he does not come from God. Now Scripture says he is the true Son of God, so he comes from God. He who denies that Christ is born God contradicts Scripture, which declares that He is true Son of God, to teach us that He is born of God. For if he is not of God, and yet is called the true Son of God, Scripture misleads us. If, on the contrary, Scripture cannot deceive us, he who does not acknowledge that Christ is of God destroys the testimony of Scripture, and denies that Jesus Christ is the true Son of God. It is not the will, but the birth that makes the true Son of God. But the power of God, they say, is great enough to give the lie the characters of truth. I answer that the power of God, and that is why he is worthy of all our praises, makes truth the truth for him always, and lies always lie. It belongs only to the liar to substitute the lie for the truth, and God is incapable of it. God can do everything, it is true, but he does only what is in conformity with his truth and justice. It is certain, then, that Jesus Christ is called the true Son of God, in the proper sense, that is, born of the very substance of God. What made the Apostle say: "He did not spare his own Son.” (Rom. 8:32) And in another Epistle: "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” (Phil. 2:6) If, therefore, he did not regard himself to be equal to God, he affirmed himself by the same true Son of God, for he could not be equal to God except so much that he was born of God. Equality is only possible between two things that are or equally true, or equally false. One cannot establish equality or unity between that which has a beginning and that which is eternal. But Jesus Christ declaring that he is one with his Father is equal to God. "The Jews," says the Evangelist, "reproached him not only for violating the Sabbath, but for affirming that his Father was God, making himself equal, that is to say, like God.” (Jn. 5:18) Is it not obvious that this equality can only come from a birth properly so called? For it is by affirming that he was the proper Son, that is, the true Son of God, that he made himself equal to God. This is why he said to his disciples, "He who sees me, see my Father." (Jn. 14: 9) By the same that they are consubstantial, he who sees one sees both. Just as the Father has life in him, he has given his Son to have life in him, (Jn. 5:26) that is to say, the Father begot a son who is equal to him, and all that is to the Father is to the Son, as all that is to the Son is to the Father (Jn. 17:10), and no one can take away anything from the Father's hand or from the Son's hand. (Jn. 10:29) And he adds, "I and my Father are one. I say to you, I tell you not of myself, but my Father who dwells in me, do the works that I do. Do you not believe that I am in my Father, and that my Father is in me? Believe it, at least because of the works I do.” (Jn. 14:10) As the generation does not come from itself, but from the one who has begotten it, it attributes all that it does to the Father, to establish by all these testimonies that if he is called the true Son of God, it is because he was born of him, and so that it was not supposed that his nature was entirely outside the nature of God. The humility that appears in his words, is here all his greatness. For while he seems to humble himself by saying to his disciples, "What I say to you, I do not say it of myself, but it is my Father who dwells in me who speaks and does the works that I do," (Jn. 14:10) proves his divine origin and power, affirming that what he is, he is not of himself, but of his Father, far from Christ This is his finest title of glory, for he who speaks of himself is not the true Son of God. As you can see, the error of the Arians over the person of Jesus Christ comes precisely from what should give them a just idea. They take occasion to condemn him and to accuse him of false words which prove to the evidence that he is the true Son of God. He asks his Father to glorify him, and at the same time promises to glorify his Father to whom he addresses his prayer, and his greatness comes here from his apparent humiliation. When the Father bears witness to his Son, proclaiming his own glory, and when the Son issues the greatness of the Father, he also manifests his own glory. The greatness and nobility of the Father is the greatness and nobility of the true Son. So all that we attribute to the Father belongs to the Son, and all that we attribute to the Son belongs to the Father. Thus the Spirit whom we call the Spirit of the Father, is also called the Spirit of Jesus Christ; the Church of God is also the Church of Jesus Christ. We worship God, as we worship Jesus Christ; we serve God, we serve Jesus Christ too. The saints are called the priests of God, they are also called the priests of Jesus Christ. The holy city is enlightened by the light of God, it is also illuminated by the light of Jesus Christ. The throne of God is the same as that of Jesus Christ. God is the sovereign ruler, Jesus Christ too, for the prophet Isaiah saw Christ seated on a throne of majesty as the God of armies (Isa. 6:1); the Arians cannot deny it. It is written of God the Father that he is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. (1 Tim. 6:15) The Scripture recognizes the same titles to Jesus Christ the true Son of God. (Rev. 17:14, 19:16) Everywhere, therefore, we see perfect equality between the divinity of the Father and the divinity of the Son, and the distinction of persons in no way contradicts the unity of one God. The only difference that exists between the Father and the Son is that the Father was not begotten, and the Son was born, that is, the Father comes from no other and that the Son comes from the Father, which is the greatness of the Son; for that is what makes us know his eternal nobility, and that he is the true Son of the true Father, a truth that these words of God express in Genesis: "Let us make man in our image and likeness.” (Gen. 1:26) If they have the same image, the same resemblance, how could they not have the same nature? In fact, in spiritual things where there are no sensible forms, one thing can be similar to another only by its nature, and if two things have the same image, they must not have same substance. The Scripture tells us that they have the same image, the same resemblance to teach us that one is no different from the other, that is to say, that Jesus Christ is the true Son of God because his birth is not distinct here from him who begets. So the Jews, who understood very well that he called God his Father in the proper sense, say to Pilate: "We have a law, and according to this law he must die, because he has made himself the Son of God.” (Jn. 19:7) What! the Jews have understood this truth, and the Christians say that they do not understand it; those who did not believe had the intelligence of these words, and those who claim to have faith do everything not to understand! They will admit at the same time that the prophet Isaiah, wishing to teach us that Christ God does not come from himself but from God, expresses himself in these terms: "They will walk behind you with their hands bound, we will see them worship you, pray. A good is in you, they will say, and there is no God but you. You are truly God, and we do not know it, God of Israel, O Savior!" (Isa. 45:14) These words are clear to a spirit of good faith, they clearly show that the Father is in the Son, and the Son God is of the same nature as the Father, In whom, he, in whom is God, without whom there is no other God, and who is God himself, what can be that which is God the Father, without him Is there any difference? This is really two to be one. God is in him, because although he is God, he is not of himself, but of the Father, because he is a Son, and apart from him there is no other God, because he is the only begotten Son of the Father. He is God himself, because God and Christ have only one and the same nature, so there remains no doubt here about this truth which is the object of our faith, that the Father and the Son do not have the same nature. Christ is the true Son of the true Father. This is what the prophet Jeremiah himself predicts: "He is our God," he said, "and no one else will be before him. He found all the ways of wisdom, who exposed them to Jacob his servant, to Israel his beloved. After that he was seen on the earth, and conversed with men." (Baruch, 3:36) Can we say of him who is of a lower nature that no one else will be before him, or that he is a God different from the Father, so that this title of God turns to the prejudice of the Father? If no other God can be before him, and be outside the Father, see if you can admit the consequence, for it is full of danger. It would follow, indeed, that he would be greater than the Father. They imagine themselves to uphold the glory of the Father by separating his Son from him, and they attack him, that is to say, in their impious blindness they place the Son whose glory they wish to diminish above the Father. to whose authority they want to subjugate it. Now, Scripture to teach us that the Son does not differ from the Father (and he would be different if he were not the true Son), says that no one else will be before him, because one cannot find no other nature similar to the nature of God which is the proper nature of Christ. In fact, he could not teach us more clearly that Christ came from God than by declaring that no one else was before him. He knew that the Son was in no way inferior to the Father, and to show his perfect equality he said: "No other God will be before him," because he is like God, equal to God his Father; for he is his true Son. The Prophet again says: "He is our God," that is, the God of Israel.” If it is he, he is the only God, for the Scripture says of him, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is the one and only God;” (Deut. 6:4) and yet he is not the Father, but the Son of the Father. You see, then, that the personality of the Son in no way prejudices the unity of God when we say of the Son that he is the only God, since Scripture attests it in express terms. Where does that come from? it is that the Father and the Son are but one; it is that unity is the result of nature and not of the distinction of persons; it is that they are not two, but only one. Nature is that they are not two Gods, but one God, whether it be the Father who speaks, whether the Son, is always one God who speaks. For if the Lord Himself said of man and woman. "They will not be two, but one flesh," (Matt. 19:5) how much more the Father and the Son are not two Gods, but one and the same nature? It is the birth of the Son that makes us distinguish the Father and the Son and the unity of the divinity which opposes us admitting two Gods. By what abnormality, however, do they maintain that Christ was created, that is, done, while Scripture teaches us that God did nothing without Christ? (Jn. 1:3) If nothing has been done without him, he cannot have been made himself; for if he himself is one of the things that have been done, something has been done without him. But far from us this thought, because absolutely nothing exists without him. By his birth of God, he did not begin to exist, his existence is eternal. His birth is nothing more than an outing, and this outing is a manifestation. He was not made, he was born. To express clearly that Christ had gone out from the substance of God, this exit was given the name of birth; for as the birth is not distinct from the Father, who is its author, it was well established that Christ was consubstantial with God, and the error which said: He was when He was not found to be condemned; for how to admit the nonexistence for a single instant of the one that Scripture represents to us as proceeding from God, to teach us that he has always been in God? No one can proceed from God unless he is in God. The Arians, I know, explain this divine filiation: Christ is called the true Son of God, because God did it to be true; as if God could do something wrong. And what will become of all the proofs so strong, so incontestable, that we have previously given of the unity of the Father and the Son? If we are to adopt another sentiment here, a great number of truths which have the support of divine oracles for them will be shaken by a single discordant testimony. But let them come to this last resource so that iniquity ceases to be pleasing to them. God has therefore done it, they say, to be a true Son, his will here being the agency of birth, and the creation replaces the generation. We must give to the power of God, they add, all that is necessary for him to do things that are not like those that exist. Since they have recourse to these cunning discretions to attack the Son of God, we turn against them the same reasons they trust so that their defeat is general in all respects. This proposition, to take it only in its meaning, is of no importance, but if it is considered in its terms, it is covered with a certain cloud which hides its meaning. It is like an Egyptian placed in darkness, for a bad cause cannot be defended by a good interpretation. They therefore resort, to defend their impiety, to sacrilegious words. If, then, the power of God could have made Christ the true Son of God without being born of him, he did it as he is, that is to say, that the creation has produced here what the generation should give. If you say that there is no difference between God and Christ, we may be able to think, given the good faith of your assertion, that the affirmation is here in conformity with reality, that Christ is truly the Son of God by that it is said that he is, and that he is of the same nature as his Father, not by generation, but by creation, because God can do everything, you say, and in particular that the created be here as the uncreated. But if, by following the path traced to you by reason, you declare that what has a beginning cannot be equal and consubstantial with what is eternal, you reveal all the deceit of your bad faith, because to evade the meaning terms, falsely claim that Christ is the true Son of God, while denying that he is equal to God the Father; for he is not his true Son if he is not equal to him. Can we call him the true Son of God if God the Father is not truly his Father? If he is the true Son of God, the Father is also truly Father, and equality is the proof of this truth. If equality does not exist between them, one is not truer Father than the other is true Son. But as the testimony of the Scriptures, which states that Jesus Christ is the true Son of God, cannot be annulled, we must believe that he was born of God the Father, because this truth is a consequence of his equality with God that Scripture teaches us. But you, who recognize in God an incomprehensible power, you say: God cannot engender, because it is a simple nature, a language that is an insult to God the Father, for you accuse him of lying by denying that he who claims to be his true Son is in indeed, and you expose your hypocrisy, because you proclaim without believing in the power of God; for if you recognize this power by asserting that it has brought out the truth from lying, which is a mockery of the truth, how much more, if you were in good faith, should you believe that what is called true indeed, and that the testimony that God the Father has given to his Son is indisputable. Indeed, the Lord said, "All things are possible to God," (Matt. 19:26) to persuade us that what is impossible for men is not for God. If you consider things only from the point of view of the flesh, you cannot admit that a virgin has borne, nor that Jonah may have lived in the belly of the whale (Jon. 2:2), nor that the dead can resurrect, nor God begot his Son, because a simple nature cannot engender, because there is no generation in this world without union. We must believe all these things or reject them all. If it is necessary to keep to the natural reason of the world, its authority must have no bounds. If, on the contrary, spiritual things have different rules, or ought to regard as carnal the one who, imbued with the principles of the world, dares to deny that something could have been done differently than he conceives it. They still resort to other tricks and ask us this question: Is it by or against his will that the Father has begot his Son? If we answer it by his will, they hasten, like the enemies of the Son of God, to draw this conclusion: So the will of God preceded the existence of the Son, and it is not eternal, then but the Son of God did not begin to be, but simply exists by birth. If their reasoning were well founded, the will would have preceded not only the Son, but the Father, because the cause of the generation is at once in the Father and in the Son. Unbelief follows in all things the inspirations of the flesh. God, to hear him, did not act other than a man, he deliberated, he reflected carefully before engendering, as if he were subject to the weakness of the human mind, while in God the general is inseparable from the will, as the will is inseparable from the generation; because the will is none other than the generation. We use, it is true, the same terms to say: God did, man did, but the action of God is quite different from the action of man; it is the same in all other circumstances. We always have to talk about God in a way worthy of him. They ask us another question about God the Father: The generation, they ask, has it been for God the Father an accident, or is it of his nature to always beget? They make this question to accuse God, who testifies that He begot Christ, and make Christ not a true son, but a son of adoption. If he has begotten, they say, he must always beget; and as he does not always beget, one must not believe that he has begotten Christ. There would be so much reason to deny that God created the world, because he does not create others. What irreverence, what forgetfulness of all the rules, to lay down laws to God and to say to him: If you have really begotten a Son, you must have spawned many, you have not begotten a single one; that is, they do not believe in the Lord who has declared that he is the only begotten Son of God. After having brought the proofs that show the equality of the Father and the Son, let us see whether the testimonies that Scripture gives to the Holy Spirit agree with these proofs, in order to establish well that the Trinity, of which we profess the belief to be saved, does not admit in the divine persons of distinction of nature, just as it does not admit of difference in the faith which it demands; for although we cannot be saved without one of the three divine persons, it is in all three the same power that saves those who believe in them. We have quoted the words of the Father who bore witness to the Son, let us now produce the words of the Son who bear witness to the Holy Spirit, and who prove that the Holy Spirit is not of a nature different from his. This testimony which the Father gives to the Son and which the Son gives to the Holy Spirit is a demonstrative proof of the unity of nature in the Trinity. Here is what the Lord says: “I will pray to my Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you eternally the Spirit of truth.” (Jn. 14:16) In promising another Paraclete, he proves that he himself is a Paraclete or advocate. We read in the Epistle of St. John: "We have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ, who prays for our sins." (1 Jn. 2:1) The Savior says in another place: "I am the truth.” This, then, is the clear unity of the Holy Spirit and the Son. The Son attributes to the Holy Spirit the properties he attributes to himself. Let us now see what the Scriptures provide us with in support of this truth. We read in the prophet Isaiah "that he saw the God of armies seated on a throne of majesty.” (Isa. 6:1) and St. John the Evangelist heard these words of Jesus Christ saying, "This is what Isaiah prophesied when he saw his glory and spoke of him.” (Jn. 13:41) The Apostle, on his side, declares that it is the Holy Spirit. Here is what he says towards the end of the Acts of the Apostles: "The Holy Spirit speaking to our fathers has said, You shall hear with your ears, and you shall not understand.” (Acts 28:26) These words are those of the Lord of hosts. He is the only God; whether one hears either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, there is no contradiction, because they have only one deity and one power. For if the edict of a single prefect of the courtroom is considered as an order emanating from the other prefects because of the authority and the power which are one, it is much more rightly than under the empire of only one God, if one of the three comes to speak, we say in all truth that the three spoke, for their nature is one as their will. They still seek to diminish the authority of the Holy Spirit by presenting as a sign of inferiority the third place which he occupies, while the divine Scriptures express itself with such simplicity that often the third person is named the first. They are placed according to the circumstances, and in this respect none of them suffers any prejudice, because they have only one and the same divinity. Thus, indeed, the Lord speaks through the mouth of the Lord: "I am the first and I am eternally, it is my hand which founded the earth, it is my right hand which has the heavens." (Isa. 48:12) And a little lower: "I spoke, it was I who called him, who brought him, and I flattened every paths before him. Come near to me and listen to this: From the beginning I did not speak in secret, I was present when these things were resolved, and now I was sent by the Lord God and by his Spirit.” (Isa. 48:15-16) Which one do you think the earth has been with? He declares that he was sent. Is it the Father? No. It is therefore the Son who declares himself sent by the Father and by the Holy Spirit. Just as the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son, so Christ was sent by the Father and by the Holy Spirit. The exclusive privilege of the Father is to be sent by no one. Listen to what the Apostle says and how he enumerates in a different order the people of the Holy Trinity. Here is how he expresses himself in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians: "May the Lord direct your hearts in the love of God and the patience of Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess. 3:5) What does he mean here by the Lord, if not the Holy Spirit? And what is astonishing that he gives to the Holy Spirit the name of Lord of armies that Isaiah gives to him whom he saw sitting on a throne of majesty, as we have said above? The apostle Saint John himself hears of the Holy Spirit when he says of God: "In this we know that God dwells in us because he has made us participate in his Spirit.” (1 Jn. 4:13) If it is through his Spirit that he abide in us, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit is from God, and it is no less certain that what is of God is God. This is what made the Apostle says: "No one knows what is in God except the Spirit of God.” (1 Cor. 2:11) But how can he know what is in God unless he has the same divine nature? An inferior nature cannot know what is contained in a superior nature, how much less can a mere creature know what is in its creator? The Apostle, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, reverses the order which the tradition of faith has consecrated and begins with the Holy Spirit the enumeration of the graces and the science of mysteries; He places our Lord Jesus Christ second, and places God the third, God the Father who works, says he, in the Holy Spirit and in the Lord (1 Cor. 12:1) according to this word of the Savior: "My Father, who dwells in me, does the works that I do.” (Jn. 14:10) By the same thing that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ proceed from God the Father, their operation is the work of God. Besides, the same Apostle gives the Holy Spirit the name of Lord and the Lord the name of God because of their unity of nature. Now, having said in such a place that this God, who is the Lord, works all things in all, Saint Paul concludes: "Now it is one and the same spirit that works all these things, distributing to each one his gifts, according to what it pleases." (1 Cor. 12:11) Is it possible to establish more clearly that the three persons have only one operation, because as soon as one acts, the three act with it, as having only the same divinity. It is a certain truth that the gift of graces is the proper work of the Holy Spirit, but to teach us that God, our Lord, and the Holy Spirit are only one because of the identity of nature, the Apostle shows us the work of the Holy Spirit as being common to the three persons. In the same way, to teach us that it is the proper work of the Holy Spirit as a divine person, he adds: and it is one and the same Spirit who operates all these things, distributing his gifts according to what he chooses. He says according to what he pleases, because his will is the very will of God, for he does not say as God wants, but as the Holy Spirit wants. Indeed, the creature strives to do the will of God, while the Holy Spirit naturally wants what God wants. Now, to put this truth in all its glory, that the Holy Spirit works all these things, Our Lord said to the Jews, "If I cast out demons by the finger of God, etc.," (Luke 9:20) Here he calls the Holy Spirit the finger of God to prove that he is from God. And he does not hesitate to accuse them of blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, the Jews who said he was driving out demons by Beelzebub, prince of demons. When Moses himself performed his prodigies by the Holy Spirit, the magicians are obliged to exclaim: "The finger of God is here." (Exod. 8:19) We still read in the Acts of the Apostles: "During that they sacrificed to the Lord and that they loved, the Holy Ghost said to them, Separate Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have called them." (Acts 13:2) It is to the Lord that they are sacrificed, and the Holy Spirit attributes to himself this act of religion, a clear proof that he is the Lord God, like God the Father, it is Jesus Christ who, from heaven, called Paul and sent him to preach, and the Holy Spirit still attributes to himself this mission in disarray: "For the work to which I have called them," and yet no one is ignorant that it is the Savior who instituted bishops at the head of the churches. It was he who, before ascending to heaven, gave the Apostles pontifical consecration by laying hands on them. However, the Apostle does not fail to attribute this institution to the Holy Spirit when he says: "Be attentive to yourselves and to the flock with which the Holy Spirit has established you bishops to rule the Church of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 20:28) Peter also said to Ananias, " Ananias, why did Satan fill your heart to make you lie to the Holy Spirit?” (Acts 5:3) And he adds, "You have not lied to men, but to God.” It is evident that he calls God the Holy Spirit to whom Ananias lied. Had he not wanted to make it known that the Holy Spirit is God, he would have said: You have not lied to men, but to the Holy Spirit, so as not to make the Holy Spirit look like God, not like a man. And what is there in this amazing? The Apostle calls man sometimes the temple of God, sometimes the temple of the Holy Spirit, because they are one by their nature (2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Cor. 6:19); if he would not make us understand that the Holy Spirit is God, how could he say below: "The temple of God is holy, and you are the temple? (1 Cor. 3:17) All the Scriptures teach us the existence of one God, but we worship in the Trinity the mystery of one God. The Scripture thus expresses itself so that in this belief in one God we understand that what proceeds from Him, that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, deserves the same honors we give to God; for the mystery of God has been revealed to us to make his glory appear in the Trinity. Scripture does not always formally give the name of God to what proceeds from God so as not to suggest that there is another God apart from the one who is the only God. But it gives us intelligence to lead us to believe that the salvation of men depends on faith in the Trinity, because the three divine persons have the same divinity; for one could not join together and place on the same rank the Creator and the creatures, the Lord and the servants, the eternity and the beings who have a beginning, especially since there is no salvation for any man without faith to one of these three persons. It would be an offense to give the name of God to all that we call God, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, if we give them an honor, a glory other than the honor and glory which are due to an only God. The holy Scriptures thus show that Christ is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, so that those who see him know and understand the nature of what is shown to them. Here is a man who shows a pearl without saying that it is a pearl; will it be a pearl because this man does not say so expressly? Thus the Scriptures show by all the testimonies that we have brought what we must believe, by enclosing our spirits in faith to one God considered in the mystery of the Trinity.
(John 14:9) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 43. WHAT REASONABLE ANSWER CAN ONE MAKE FROM THE LAW TO THE IMPIETY OF THE ARIANS? — If one must believe in reason, etc. It is therefore evident that Christ is called the true Son of God, as his own Son, that is, born of his substance. This is what makes the Apostle say: "He did not spare his own Son." The very reason for the names of Father and Son teaches us that the Father and the Son share the same nature. Human reason is too weak to reach the knowledge of this mystery. That is why these grand truths have received names which help to conceive the truth of the existence of the Father and the Son. Well, indeed, does not show better that Our Lord Jesus Christ proceeds from God than the name of Son of God given to Him. And as malignity has found a way to misuse these names to give them a meaning different from that which they naturally have, Scripture adds, "He is the true Son," to silence these impious mouths and to those evil spirits. We will even say that no one falls into heresy except by departing from the reason of names; simple and upright minds, which do not deviate from the meaning of names, remain inviolately attached to the Catholic faith. Simplicity calmly considers what has been taught to it by tradition. When doubts arise, questions arise over truths clearly and simply formulated, and that not satisfied with believing what the words express, men consider it unworthy of them not to add or not to take away something, they fall from the heights of the divine tradition. For the righteous spirits, all their solicitude is that their faith in God is according to tradition. Now, the only meaning of the names of Father and Son leads to the truth of the perfect unity that exists between them. It cannot be supposed that there is a difference between those whom Scripture represents under the same image, and whom the Son himself confirms when he says: "He who sees me, sees my Father." (Jn. 14:9) If, then, he who sees one of them sees them both, the Father and the Son certainly have one and the same form, which can only be so long as the Father and the Son are one and the same substance. And this does not cast doubt on what happens among men, how can one ascertain the existence of the true Son? when the identity of nature is supported by the property of the names of the begotten and the created; for who can generate anything other than himself? If Christ was simply called the Son of God, and the Scripture did not add for greater clarity that He is the true Son of God, to the testimony of the Apostle St. John, "We are in his true Son Jesus Christ, who is the true God and eternal life;” (Jn. 5:20) and St. Paul: "He did not spare his own Son," there might be some doubt as to the meaning of the only name of the Son. But Scripture clearly says that He is the true Son of God; therefore those who go against the natural signification of this expression become their own enemies. They imagine, and under the influence of a false and perverse opinion, they affirm that one must believe something other than what is contained in the reason of faith, as if they wanted to give to God more than him. Even those who believe in him do not want it. If Scripture had not added to the word Son the qualification of truth, we might perhaps doubt. One could say that these words of the Savior: "He who sees me, see my father," signifies that he is like his Father, as milk is like plaster, similar in color, but very different from nature. But, no, as these words are the words of the true Son of God, we must admit that they signify in his mind that the Father and the Son have one and the same nature, and that they do not differ in any way. If indeed the Savior said of the man and the woman, because they have the same nature: "They are no longer two but one flesh," (Matt. 19:6) how much more must one be careful not to say that the Father and the Son are two, so as not to give rise to the error that their nature is separate, divided, or at least different and dissimilar? Finally, the apostle Saint Paul confirms this unity of nature of the Father and the Son when he says: "He did not look as a usurpation to be equal to God. "(Philip. 2:6) Now, where does this equality come from, if not from the unity of nature, both have one and the same image. The Apostle said, "He did not count equality with God," the Savior Himself called himself the true Son of God, for He could not be equal to God except so much as He proceeded from God: there is no equality possible except between two subjects who are both true or both false. This equality, this unity cannot exist between what had a beginning and what is eternal. So, when Jesus Christ declares that he is one with his Father, he proclaims himself equal to God. "Not only did the Jews reproach him,” says the Evangelist, for breaking the Sabbath, but for saying that “God was his Father and to make himself equal to God," that is, to the Father. Is it not obvious that this equality comes from birth? For it is by asserting himself the proper Son, the true Son of God, that he made himself equal to God, and that is why he said: "He who sees me, see my Father," that is, to say that both are of the same nature, the one who sees one sees them both. "For as the Father has life in himself, so has he given to his Son to have life in himself," that is to say, an equal life, etc.
(John 14:27) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 92. HOW SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND THESE WORDS OF THE SAVIOR: "I GIVE YOU MY PEACE, I LEAVE YOU MY PEACE, I DO NOT GIVE IT TO YOU AS THE WORLD GIVES IT?” — He who receives the peace of the Savior becomes the enemy of the world. If he is not at war with the devil, he will not have peace with Jesus Christ. No one can serve two masters. (Matt. 6:24) He therefore who is at war with the world is one who faithfully observes the law of God, and who, strong in the peace of Jesus Christ, repels all the features of his enemies. Who would dare to undertake against him whom he knows to be the friend of the king? However, the world gives peace otherwise than the Savior promises to give it. The world gives peace out of fear or because it is asked of it. But the Savior, whose strength has no equal, fears no one, and gives no peace only because he is prayed to. It is the peace of the Savior that he gives us as a bulwark against our enemies. One name serves to express the peace of God and of the world; but what an immense distance separates them! One is fragile, the other is firm; one is carnal, the other is spiritual; this one is terrestrial, that one is celestial; the first is the effect of necessity, the second is all voluntary. Jesus Christ who needs no one offers peace to those who are weak, disarmed; he offers it as the Lord has his subjects, as a good master to bad servants, as God to men. He is therefore right in saying: "I do not give it to you as the world gives it”; By this he brings to light the whole extent of goodness and his mercy. Every man grants peace to be profitable to him; the Savior gives it not in his interest, but in the interest of those who receive it. The world therefore gives peace differently than the Savior gave. And this peace of the world does not teach the holy and pure life, it does not persuade patience, it does not excite the works of justice, it does not exhort to mercy, it does not promise eternal life. He, on the contrary, who has received the peace of Jesus Christ, is far from all the vices of the world which give violent battles to the soul.
(John 16:8) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 89. THE SAVIOR SAYS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THAT WHEN HE COMES HE WILL CONVICT THE WORLD CONCERNING SIN, AND RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND JUDGMENT; SIN, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BELIEVED IN ME; JUSTICE, BECAUSE I GO TO MY FATHER, AND YOU WILL SEE ME NO MORE; AND JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD IS ALREADY JUDGED. OUR LORD MAKES AN ACCUSATION AGAINST THE WORLD HERE, BUT NEEDS EXPLANATION. — As the Jews did not believe in the Savior, nor the mighty of the world; For it was not only to men that he wanted to manifest himself, but to princes and heavenly powers, as the Apostle teaches in his Epistle to the Ephesians; (Eph 3:10) He predicts that after his passion, the Holy Spirit will show that he has spoken the truth. To convince the world is, therefore, to show him the truth of things he did not wish to believe. So he refused to believe that he was the Savior sent from God. Now the Savior, after having fulfilled all righteousness, did not hesitate to return to the one who had sent him, and by the very fact that he was returning to heaven, he proved that he had come. "For no one," he says, "goes back to God except the one who descended from God.” When the powers saw him ascending into the heavens, they were confounded by seeing the truth of what they had despised as a lie. He therefore gives them the conviction of that righteousness by which he ascends into the heavens from which he descended. He then convinces them of sin, because not only did they not believe in him, but put him to death. He finally convinces them with regard to judgment, by revealing the iniquity of the prince of the world, and his condemnation by him whom they did not believe. Seeing the souls come out of limbo to go to heaven, they knew that the prince of this world was judged, and that, being found guilty of the death of the Savior, he lost all his rights over those whom he held captive. This is what we saw when the Savior ascended to heaven, but what appeared with more brilliance when the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles. What a more genuine judgment than that pronounced against the world, when after the passion and resurrection of Our Lord, this deceitful world saw the public testimonies which the risen dead, the lame who walked, the healed lepers, delivered to the Savior, the paralyzed, the blind, who saw, the deaf who heard, the mute who spoke, the possessed delivered, the sick who thanked him for having healed them of their infirmities? This is how the Holy Spirit convinced the world by performing these miracles of healing in the name of the Savior who had been reproved by the world.
(John 17:9) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 36. THE SAVIOR SAYS ON ONE SIDE: I PRAY FOR THOSE WHOM YOU HAVE GIVEN ME, I DO NOT PRAY FOR THE WORLD; THE EVANGELIST, ON THE CONTRARY, SAYS: WE HAVE AN ADVOCATE NEAR THE FATHER WHO INTERCEDES FOR OUR SINS, AND NOT ONLY FOR OUR SINS, BUT FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD. (1 JN. 2) THESE TWO TEXTS SEEM CONTRADICTORY. — Although there is not much difference between these two texts, yet what the Savior says is not what the Apostle St. John asserts. The Savior prays that his disciples be preserved from the attacks of evil. "I ask," he said to his Father, "not that you take them from the world, but that you preserve them from evil." (Jn. 17) The Apostle St. John offers us another kind of prayer: “We have," he says, "an advocate who prays for us sinners, and for the sins of the whole world.” Two kinds of prayers are thus formulated for Christians: one asks that their sins be forgiven, and that they be protected from the pursuits of the devil. As for those who have no faith, the only thing that can be asked for them is that instead of inflicting on them the just punishment of their sins, of their unbelief, the goodness and patience of God are waiting for them, their repentance and their conversion. We cannot pray to God, in fact, to forgive sins for those who do not believe; what one can ask for is to give them a long delay, so that their repentance can bring them to remission of their sins. The object of the Savior's prayer is therefore the one we have indicated.
(John 20:17) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 37. WHY DID THE SAVIOR SAY TO MARY WHEN SHE WANTED TO TOUCH HIM IN THE EXCESSES OF HIS JOY: “DO NOT TOUCH ME, FOR I HAVE NOT YET ASCENDED TO MY FATHER,” WHILE WE READ THAT THE OTHER HOLY WOMEN TOUCHED HIM AND WORSHIPED HIM? — These words, "Do not touch me," are an expression of discontent, and although Mary Magdalene desired to see the Savior, yet while others believed in his resurrection, she continued to stand near the sepulcher shedding tears, whereas she should have rejoiced at the news that the Apostles John and Peter had taught her that the Lord had risen. And indeed we read in the Gospel: "She saw the linen and the shroud placed in one place, and she believed, for she did not yet know the oracles of Scripture which predicted that the Savior should rise again." But Mary did not believe, because she had not seen with her eyes the resurrection of her divine Master. The excess of her love was the cause of her doubt. Are those we love in trials, we can not believe that they can come out of them; for those, on the contrary, whom we hate, would they be two steps from death, we cannot add to it. Our Lord, therefore, presents himself to Mary, whom her love cast into desolation and sorrow, whereas she should have imitated the faith of the disciples, to console her, but it is not without a certain expression of discontent; that is why he says to her, "Do not touch me," that is to say, you seek a too sensible satisfaction, abstain and rise to the spiritual things that are not seen, because he adds, “I have not yet gone back to my Father." These words have a certain analogy with those of St. John the Baptist sending his disciples to Jesus and saying to them: “Go and say, John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, Are you the one to come or do we to wait for another?” (Matt. 11; Luke 7) He pleads the cause of his disciples while appearing to speak only in his name. In fact, John could not have the slightest doubt about the person of the Savior, who had said of him: "Here is the Lamb of God, who is the one who takes away the sins of the world.” (Jn. 1:29) It is therefore in the interest of his disciples that he sends them to make this request in his name, so that the Savior may confirm with his own mouth what he has taught them of his divine person, and that after his death his disciples follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ without any hesitation. This is how the Savior in his person reproaches Mary by saying to her: “I have not yet ascended to my Father,” that is to say, your heart is still too much attached to the earth, and if you do not see point, you cannot bring yourself to believe. In her, if she had raised her heart to God, she would have believed with the disciples in the resurrection of the Savior.
ACTS
(Acts 2:1) 1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 95. WHAT WAS THE ORIGIN OF THE FEAST OF PENTECOST AND THE REASON FOR ITS INSTITUTION? — It is certain that all the institutions of our religion borrow their strength from the Old Testament, and bear as the seal of the testimony of the old law. Indeed, all the events that took place under the old law were so many figurative signs of our faith, so that we cannot doubt the truth of the teachings that we propose to our belief, when we see them announced so much centuries ago, not only by words, but by the much more powerful language of facts. Now, if we do not have to hear the things figured in the same way as the figurative signs, we now have to consider what is the origin of the feast of Pentecost and the reason for its institution. The divine Scriptures reveal their mysterious meanings to the attentive and religious souls, and keep them closed for careless souls. It was not proper, indeed, that a truth whose intelligence is reserved to those whom their merits render worthy, should be manifested indifferently to all. Here is the reason for the institution of Pentecost. Just as the day of the Lord is the first to begin again the week and the day when the mystery of the Passover was fulfilled for the redemption of the human race (because after a period of seven days we are necessarily returning to the first day of the week, which teaches us that the duration of the world will be consumed by the number seven, and that it will thus reach eternal rest); so Pentecost is the first day after seven weeks. Never does Pentecost fall another day until the day of the Lord, to teach us that all the mysteries which have for their object the salvation of men began and were fulfilled on the Lord's day. It is the day of the Lord that the world was created, just as after the fall, it was the day of Sunday that was repaired, and the figure of this repair was given to us in circumcision which was the sign of future faith. Indeed, after the past week, the eighth day is the first for a mysterious reason. This is the day the Lord has made. He only did this one day, and it was from him that all others should come into being. That is why he was resurrected the day he did, and according to the number we have given reason. It was on this day that he gave the law of Sinai through his servant Moses, so that the law was the figure of the evangelical preaching, as the paschal lamb had been the figure of the Savior's passion. Indeed, Pentecost, that is to say, the law was given to the Jews the same day that the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles to assume them with a divine authority, and to give them the knowledge of evangelical preaching. This fact is thus confirmed by a double proof, because it has been predicted and figured, and that the Holy Spirit by this visible manifestation proves the divinity and supernaturality of this event, of which our law receives the most glorious testimony. Uneducated men who issue in various languages before strangers the greatness of God, show that they are divinely inspired. The law was therefore given by Moses to the children of Israel on the third day of the third month, as we read in the book of Exodus (Exod. 19:16), and that day is the fiftieth day or the day of Pentecost since the fourteenth day of the first month Passover was celebrated in Egypt. The Holy Spirit therefore descended on the Apostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1), to inaugurate the preaching of the new law, in order to show that the old events were the figures of future events, and thus to give a new pledge of certainty to our faith; for one cannot look upon what was announced from the beginning as false. This is why the psalm fifty describes the time of the remission of sins and reparation, to teach us that the same providence had designated the fiftieth day and the first. That is why the manna again fell from heaven to feed the Jewish people on the first day, which is the day of the Lord, as the following six days prove, during which the Israelites gathered the manna to rest the seventh, that is to say, the Sabbath day. (Exod. 16:14) Now, the manna is the figure of this spiritual food, which after the resurrection of the Lord has become a truth in the mystery of the Eucharist. All these things have been accomplished to return to harmony with the fact of the first resurrection, so that Satan cannot gloat, but he is as stunned, he who by his deceptive hopes has made man fall from the heights where Jesus Christ had placed it. We now have to prove that things must be understood in the way we have exposed them. The fourteenth day of the first month that the Passover was celebrated in Egypt was the fourth day of the week. (Exodus 12:2) What gives us reason to hear it thus, is that the fifteenth day of the second month, which was the day of the departure of the children of Israel, seems to have been the day of the Sabbath, so it was not that day, but the evening only that this cloud of quail was sent to them from heaven. The manna fell from the sky in the morning, that is to say the day of the Lord who is the first of the week that begins again. They collected the manna six days in a row, and rested on the seventh day, which was the Sabbath day. Now count from this day until the third day of the third month when the law has been given, and you will find that it is the fourth day of the week that the law was given. In fact, from the fifteenth day of the second month, Sabbath day, to the third day of the third month, there are ninety days. Take back the nineteen days, and return to the fifteenth day of the second month, which was the Sabbath day, before which fourteen days are from the first, and go to the first day of the second month, and you will have fourteen more days. Add them to the nineteen days of which we have spoken, and you will find that the first day of the second month was the Sabbath day. Add at the head of the first month seventeen days, because this first month must be cut off from the thirteen days preceding Passover; indeed, it is the fourteenth day of the first month that the Passover was celebrated. By removing thirteen days and adding another seventeen days, you will find that the fourteenth day of the first month was the fourth of the week. And to avoid the boredom of a longer enumeration or the trouble of examining each member of this question in detail, I give you an abridgment here, so that you know for sure how many days have elapsed from the Passover until the day when the law was given, and you can more easily conclude which day of the week the Passover was celebrated. The law was given on the third day after the second month. So here we have two months and three days. Take away from these two months the thirteen days that preceded the feast of Passover, and it will remain fifty days. It is easy to see now that the law was given on the fourth day of the week. The manna fell from the sky on the first day, since the Israelites collected it for six consecutive days, the first day of the week was the sixteenth of the second month. By going from this first day to the eighteenth of the month when the law was given, you will still find the fourth day of the week. Now, if you count on this fourth day, either ascending or descending until the fiftieth, you will fall on the fourth day, and the reason is that the Jews celebrated the Passover in Egypt on the fourth day of the week, that they also received the law on the fourth day, and that they departed from Egypt on the fifth day. The promulgation of the law is therefore the feast of Pentecost.
ROMANS
(Romans 1:3) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 44. WE CONFESS THAT THE SAVIOR WAS BORN, HOW COULD THE APOSTLE SAY THAT HE WAS MADE FROM THE RACE OF DAVID (ROM. 1), THAT THERE IS A GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING BORN AND MADE? — The expression to be made, can be heard here in the sense of being born. There is no doubt a difference between what is done and what is begotten, but in other matters where there is no question of the flesh and the body. However, it is not without reason that the Apostle used this expression which he still uses in another place: "He was made or formed of a woman," he tells us. (Gal. 4) So it has a special meaning here. The Apostle used it on purpose because the flesh of the Lord was not produced, nor his body formed of a principle from man, but by the operation and virtue of the Holy Spirit. There is indeed a great difference between the formation of the blood, the generation due to the union of the two sexes, and the conception which is the effect of a supernatural power. This is why the Apostle says that he was made rather than born.
(Romans 4:15; 7:12) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 46. THE APOSTLE CALLS THE LAW GIVEN BY MOSES, A HOLY AND JUST LAW, A GOOD AND SPIRITUAL LAW (ROM. 7:12). ELSEWHERE HE SAID, THE LAW PROVOKES ANGER, AND WHERE THERE IS NO LAW, THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION (ROM. 4:15). INDEED, THE ABSENCE OF LAW AND TRANSGRESSION IS A CAUSE OF SECURITY. — By carefully comparing these two passages, you could have solved this question yourself, because it is the characteristic of critical minds to raise difficulties by complaining of encountering antilogies, contradictions in the words of an author who does not offer a trace of it. The Apostle calls the law a holy and just law, good and spiritual; to establish faith, it would suffice for the testimony of this man so worthy of all praise, and leaning everywhere on the truth; and it would only remain to examine without obstinacy and without prevention what seems contradictory in his words. But no, the question that one raises would want to arrive at the liberty of sin. We must therefore remember that the Apostle proposes to establish the superiority of the law of faith under the reign of grace in his epistle to the Romans who, under the guise of the faith of Jesus Christ, had allowed himself to be subjected to the law. This law is not the natural law, for the Romans were subject to this law only ten men sent from Athens, and two others afterwards had brought them; this law was written on two tables which were buried under the ruins of the capitol. St. Paul therefore wants to speak here of the law which is called the law of truths, which commands circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath and the new moons, the distinction of food, the honorable purification of the vessels, and the other observances prescribed by the law: it is from this law that he says that he produces anger, for God, angry with his people, added these prescriptions to be like a heavy burden to the infidelity of the Jews; in fact it was almost impossible not to transgress any of these laws so multiplied. This is what made the apostle St. Peter say: "Why do we want to impose on our brothers a yoke that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15) God also says through his prophet Jeremiah, "I gave them imperfect precepts." (Ezek. 20) After their multiplied offenses, their repeated murmurs against God, which they continually tempted, and their outrages upon Moses, he imposed on them these precepts, the observation of which must weigh on their head so hard, for on whatever side they might turn, they met the law which left them no rest, and to deliver them from this law, the Apostle says to them, "Where there is no law, there is no transgression," so that they may safely serve God spiritually in a shorter way, wanting to observe the law of the Jews he said to them, it is necessary that you should become the prevaricators, for the precepts are so numerous and so difficult that it is impossible to fulfill them, and the Apostle would not speak so in speaking of the natural law because Moses only wrote for to affirm the authority of this law, not that it did not exist before, since we see that before Moses the transgression was punished. The Apostle therefore wished to teach the Romans that they should no longer live under the law, because their interest made them a duty to practice the law. Indeed, there was no other way for them to observe justice. This is what the Apostle tells them in another place: "Do you want to have no fear of power? Do good," and again: "Those who resist, draw on them damnation." (Rom. 13:2) He therefore calls spiritual this law which he showed holiness, justice and goodness. This is the law that we call natural who defends sin, and who is given to us as a guide in the way of good. The law of faith which is added to this law makes the man perfect. As the name of law is a generic name, the Apostle here seems to speak against the law, but to establish that he does not want to destroy this law which gives the necessary direction to our lives, he says, "We know that the law is spiritual," to see thus that the law which he fights is the law of the sabbath, circumcision, food, and new moons, the first is called spiritual because it punishes all sins.
(Romans 8:7) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 47. WHY IS THE WISDOM OF THE FLESH AN ENEMY OF GOD, OR WHAT IS THIS WISDOM WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD? — This question, as to the meaning, does not differ from the preceding one in which we have explained what St. Paul means by the flesh; we can therefore know more easily what is the wisdom of the flesh. We have said that the name of flesh is given to all elements, it is to all visible beings who have the principle that nothing can be done without a mixture of simple substances and which have a horror and treat of madness the reason and the action of power. In fact, those who do not believe in spiritual things and follow the inspirations of the flesh do not esteem and admit as true that which is contained in the nature of the elements. Thus they refuse to believe in the virgin birth, in the resurrection of the flesh, because the nature of the flesh, that is, of the elements, does not admit such phenomena. In fact, all the beings that are begotten in time are only by the effect of the mixture of different substances, and the bodies once dead and fallen into dissolution cannot be restored to life, for every element under of dissolution, resumes its own nature. Swollen with these vain prejudices, they openly deny what we believe we have already done, or have to make, and by the same their affirmations are enemies of God, because they treat with madness and lies what God has made and promised to do.
1 CORINTHIANS
(1 Corinthians 5:5) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 49. WHAT IS THIS SPIRIT OF WHICH THE APOSTLE AFFIRMS AND DESIRES SALVATION WHEN HE SAYS: "I GAVE HIM UP TO SATAN FOR THE DEATH OF THE FLESH, THAT HIS SPIRIT MAY BE SAVED, ETC."? — The death of the flesh takes place when one gives oneself to the pleasures and desires of the flesh, and thus makes oneself worthy of hell, for one thus buys death at the price of the works of the flesh. Through these works man becomes carnal; for just as by living in the law he becomes all spiritual until then, when he participates in spirituality and takes the name of the soul; thus living according to the desires of the world and guilty pleasures, he becomes wholly carnal in all his being and tends entirely towards the death of the flesh. And to explain this truth even more clearly, just as the flesh that is fragile, corruptible and mortal, losing the soul loses all its beauty and all its form and dies, because to die for it is to lose what gave the life to all its members; thus the soul loses all its beauty and all its form in contact with that body whose vigor has despised the soul united to the flesh and plunged it into all the defilements of vice. Far, therefore, that the soul can be of no use to the flesh, the flesh becomes for the soul a cause of death, because the soul which God had given as queen to the flesh did not govern the body spiritually, but taught him to do the works of the flesh. So when the Church rejects such a man from within, she keeps the spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit who is the protector of the Church, for if they had suffered in the midst of this man who dared to defile the wife of his father, because they had the design to arm himself against the law to preserve others from his contact, and that this crime forces the Holy Spirit to withdraw from the Church, we can no longer say that the Church has preserved the Spirit. In fact, one does not keep what one loses, and when in the day of the Lord they appear to be stripped of the Spirit, they cannot be admitted to the number of the children of God, for it is the Spirit who makes us bear witness that we are the children of God. The Apostle addresses himself here to the people, because not all the churches had bishops yet. He therefore commands the faithful to do what the bishop would do if he were at their head, that is to say, to unite all to reject him from the bosom of the Church and not appear to be accomplices of his crime. He who does not take back a culprit, when he can, but who welcomes him as if he were innocent, increases for him the ease of sinning, and by the same defiles his soul and puts to flight the Holy Spirit. St. Paul writing to the Thessalonians said to them in the same sense: "May your spirit, your soul, and your body be kept intact and undefiled for the coming of Our Lord.” (1 Thess. 5:23) This is the same meaning, since to be kept safe and to be intact means one and the same thing. So the king said to Daniel, "Are the seals safe?" (Dan. 14:16), Daniel answers him, "Yes, king, they are safe,” that is to say, “intact." So the Spirit is intact for us, when it does not abandon us. Those whom the Holy Spirit abandons, are no longer intact for the work of regeneration, because they no longer have in them the one that gave them to be called God's children. There is no contradiction in saying that the Holy Spirit abandons us when we sin, and that he is no longer intact or whole. We are abandoned by the one who was our guide and our master, for if he is our leader we are his members, and when we do an action which displeases him, he is not the one who abandons us, it is we who abandons him, and then he seems to be no longer intact and whole in losing us. It is an obvious truth that he is not the one who walks away from us, but we who walks away from him when we sin. The Apostle in his Epistle to the Colossians said to them, "Whose whole body is supported by his bonds and by his joints, converses and increases for the increase of the Lord God." (Col. 2:19) These words if we hear them in their literal sense, they do not seem to be admissible, for there is no void in God which we are called to fill, but when we return to the author of our life, and confess that he is our God he seems to acquire us for salvation, and his divinity take in us from increase in our soul, while it undergoes a real decrease in those who are departing from him and undergo a decrease are therefore two synonymous expressions.
1ST CATEGORY NT QUESTION 96. SHOULD WE INTERPRET THE WORD PASSOVER IN THE SENSE OF THE PASSING OVER, AS THE GREEKS EXPLAIN? — The apostle could not be mistaken when he said: "Jesus Christ, our paschal lamb, was slain for us." (1 Cor. 5:7) And this is not his doctrine here, but that of the law, in which Moses said to the Israelites, "When your children ask you, What is this ceremony? You will answer: It is the sacrifice of the Passover of the Lord.” What more is needed to establish the truth that occupies us? The law speaks, the Apostle gives proof, it remains only to repel the contradictors if they persevere in their stubbornness. It is obvious, indeed, that the passing over took place after the Passover. And they took of the blood of the lamb that was slain, and put it on the one and on the other, and on the tops of their houses so that the angel who was to pass during the night should spare the houses which would be marked with the blood of the lamb. It is therefore the blood that saved them, not the passing, for it is the blood that has opposed the passing to become deadly and fatal.
(1 Corinthians 6:8) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 50. THERE IS A GREAT NUMBER OF SINS WHOSE BODY IS THE OBJECT, FOR EVERY MAN WHO COMMITS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE ON ANY PART OF HIS BODY, SIN AGAINST HIS BODY. THUS THIS ONE MUTILATES HIMSELF, THAT ONE HANGS HIMSELF, THIS OTHER PLUNGES A DAGGER INTO THE BREAST. WHY THEN DOES THE APOSTLE SAY, "EVERY SIN THAT MAN COMMITS IS OUTSIDE HIS BODY, BUT HE WHO GIVES HIMSELF UP TO FORNICATION SINS AGAINST HIS BODY?" — Do you want to accuse the Apostle of ignorance, or do you simply want the explanation of these words? Saint Paul under the name of body, includes not only the man but the woman, because the woman is a part of the man. Now, all these crimes of which we speak above, that is to say those acts of violence to which we are against ourselves, do not defile the whole body, because the man sins alone, and by the same becomes guilty only. In fornication, on the contrary, the defilement extends to the whole body, because the consent to the crime is at the same time the fact of the man and the woman, that is why the fornication is a crime so serious, because it is pushing the sin until the excess, than to seek an accomplice to his crime. If the virtuous man receives the reward due to the one he has won for good, and if the vicious man is not only punished for himself, but for the one he associates with his condemnation, how much more who commits fornication, and who by one sin imprints upon himself, so to speak, a double defilement? Indeed, as soon as he sinned against the flesh that comes from him, he dishonors himself by a double adultery. If we wish to give another explanation of this question, by applying these words either to the Church or to the body of Jesus Christ, this interpretation cannot be admitted. It is to violently divert the meaning of these words and to resemble Novatian who, to defend his extravagances, claims that the one who commits fornication, does not sin against his body, but against the body of Jesus Christ, because Christians are the body of Jesus Christ, that is, fornication is the same as sacrilege, and he who is guilty of it sin against Jesus Christ as he who denies Jesus Christ. Now, nothing weaker and more fragile than this interpretation, on whatever side it turns, it falls into difficulties that it is impossible for it to avoid. Indeed, if the Lord sins against the body of Jesus Christ, the other sins will no longer be offenses against Jesus Christ. For example, the crime of a Christian who kills his brother, sacrificed to idols, or is guilty of some other sin, because all sin is outside the body, except fornication. If, on the contrary, all sin is not outside the body, but all without exception, are so many direct offenses against Jesus Christ, it must be said that the thief, the perjurer, the liar, the one who strikes his brother, or commits some other similar crime, sins against Jesus Christ or against the Holy Spirit, which is supremely absurd, and yet the Apostle calls the members of the Church the body of Jesus Christ, and we are members of each other. How, then, does the fornicator sin against his body, and not against the body of Jesus Christ? Because it is from the mystery of the formation of the Church that we are called not our body, but the body of Jesus Christ. This explanation is further removed from the question we are dealing with, because the fornicator sins against his body, because Adam is defiled by this sin.
(1 Corinthians 9:22) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 51. WHY DOES THE APOSTLE SAY THAT HE HAS BECOME ALL THINGS TO EVERYONE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE FAULT OF A FANATIC AND A HYPOCRITE? — The adversary gives his approval not to oppose the one whom he wishes to render favorable. He who, to avoid scandal, does something which has no danger, it is true, but which is also useless, desires the salvation of him to whom he will spare scandal. When the Apostle St. Paul circumcised his disciple Timothy, who had caused the Jews, and purified himself before entering the temple, he did so not to scandalize those who defended with exceeding zeal the traditions of their fathers, and who could have put him to death or looked at our religion as being directly opposed to them. He therefore consented to submit to a less important observance to earn more. He might have exposed himself to a grave fault by not going as a Jew in the temple to pray; he therefore submitted in their interest to this prescription. He also lent himself to the way of seeing of those who were under the law, that is, Samaritans, in that they admitted that the books of Moses came from God, and that circumcision and the Sabbath were also divine institutions. It was by means of these books that he proved to them that the Christ whom they hoped for was the one whom he preached to them. This is what the Samaritan woman utters when she says to the Lord: "I know that the Messiah must come, when he comes, he will tell us all things. (Jn. 4:25) It is according to this principle and in this sense that the Apostle went through all the books of Moses who said, "The Lord your God will raise up a prophet from among your brethren." (Deut. 18:15) Saint Paul is still made to those who were under the law, in this respect that they recognize that the world and the human race have God as author. This is why he says to them: As some of your poets have said: We are the children of God himself. (Acts 17:28) This is how he made himself all for the sake of their salvation.
(1 Corinthians 12:3) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 53. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THESE WORDS OF THE APOSTLE: "NO ONE CAN SAY JESUS IS THE LORD, EXCEPT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT?" SO PHOTIN, WHO DENIES THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, CAN CONFESS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT JESUS IS THE LORD; MARCION AND MANICHEA, WHO DENY THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST, WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE LORD, AND SO ARE WOMEN OF BAD LIFE AND FILTHINESS, WHEREAS THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT DWELL IN A SUBMISSIVE BODY TO SIN, AND THAT WISDOM DOES NOT ENTER A SOUL THAT WANTS EVIL. (WIS. 1:4) — It is not according to persons that we must judge the truth or the falsity of an assertion. All that is in conformity with the good and the truth is said without doubt by the Holy Spirit. That a man is reprehensible on other points is not a reason to refuse to believe him when he speaks the truth. It is not him when we refuse to believe, but our Lord Jesus Christ is contradicted. By arguing that he does not speak the truth, it is Jesus Christ who is insulted. If, indeed, this man speaks the truth, and it is denied that he has said by the Holy Spirit that truth which Jesus Christ approves (for no good man can condemn him who says of him what is true, and it is not by revelation that we learn what tradition teaches us), no one can be condemned by telling the truth.
2 CORINTHIANS
(2 Corinthians 5:14-15) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 54. THE APOSTLE TEACHES THAT JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR ALL MEN. "ALL ARE THEREFORE DEAD," SAID HE, "AND HE DIED FOR ALL." THE SAVIOR SAYS, ON THE CONTRARY: THE SON OF MAN HAS COME TO GIVE HIS LIFE FOR THE REDEMPTION OF MANY. (MATT 20:28) THERE IS HERE A CONTRADICTION. — The words are different, it is true, but the meaning is the same; at other times, on the other hand, words that seem the same have quite a different meaning, such as these: "All that is not done in good faith (ex fide) is a sin." (Rom. 14:23) and these others: "The law does not come from faith," (Gal. 3:12) although the law is not a sin. This great number of which the Savior speaks is all the men of whom St. Paul speaks: They are in great numbers, because the greater part of all peoples and all nations ought to believe in the Savior. It is this great number of those who must believe that the Apostle calls all men. "He is dead for all," he says, "that is, for those who believe and must believe.” He died also for those who refused to believe, but by refusing the grace he offers them, they do not want Jesus Christ to be dead for them, and by the same he seems not to have died for those to that his death was much more harmful than useful. On the contrary, he truly died for those who won, and who understand the mystery of the redemption give thanks to God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
GALATIANS
(Galatians 2:11, 14) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 55. WHY DOES THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL TAKE UP PETER HIS COLLEAGUE IN THE APOSTOLATE THAT, OUT OF FEAR OF THE CIRCUMCISED JEWS, HE WAS SEPARATING FROM THE GENTILES, WHILE HE HIMSELF, OUT OF FEAR ALSO OF THOSE WHO WERE CIRCUMCISED, THOUGHT HE OUGHT TO CIRCUMCISE TIMOTHY, AGAINST THE DEFENSE HE HIMSELF MADE TO RECEIVE. CIRCUMCISION? HE IS THEREFORE REPREHENSIBLE. (ACTS 16:3) — It is quite incredible that such a great apostle has taken in another a fault to which he would have succumbed himself. It is not allowed to believe that such a great man has fallen into a contradiction which is proper only to those who live according to the flesh. The action of the Apostle St. Paul is therefore nothing reprehensible. He taught, it is true, that one should not be circumcised, but as he wanted to take with him Timothy who was born of a Jewish mother and a kind father, and that the Jews were scandalized that he would add a man born of a Jewish mother without being circumcised, he submitted for the moment to this observance and circumcised Timothy. So he did something useless with the consent of that he who was the object. As his mother was Jewish, and from his childhood he had applied himself in the synagogue to the study of the holy letters, that is to say the books of the Hebrews, he consented to be circumcised to remove any occasion of scandal to the Jews who were zealous for all that was due to the privileges of their race. "As for Titus, who was kind, he was not obliged, he said, to be circumcised. But for Timothy, who was born of a Jewish mother, as I have said, the Jews would not suffer that he should rank among the doctors without being circumcised. The Apostle had taken him with him to give him episcopal consecration, which he did indeed. His profound knowledge of prophecies gave him the means to preach Jesus Christ fruitfully. Now the Apostle St. Peter would not have been taken back, if according to the custom of the Jews he had simply separated from the Gentiles not to scandalize the Jews. Now, what the Apostle St. Paul assumes in him, is that in the presence of the Gentiles converted to the faith he ate with them and like them, whereas after the arrival of the Jews whom St. James had sent he feared the circumcised, and taught that Gentiles converted to the faith should Judaize. This is St. Paul's reproach: "If you are Jewish, live like the Gentiles; why are you compelling the Gentiles to Judaize?" This led to the questioning of the Gospel doctrine, which was an evil, since it erected with one hand and destroyed the other. The apostle Saint Paul calls a dissimulation, and if he thought it his duty to circumcise Timothy, he made known that he submitted to a useless observance not to scandalize the Jews, and that he yielded to them because Timothy had a Jewish mother, because it was the only motive of the Jewish authorities, for they could in no way condemn that Gentiles do not circumcise or be scandalized by this abstaining on the part of those which was not of the race of Israel, but not by dissimulation, but by yielding to force, that St. Paul acted in this circumstance. On the contrary, Peter's conduct was an act of concealment in the first place, because a large number surrendered guilty of this suppression, and several Jews, and Barnabas himself allowed themselves to be carried away.
(Galatians 2:16) 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT QUESTION 5. IF NO ONE IS JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW BEFORE GOD, WHY IS IT WRITTEN: CURSED HE WHO WILL NOT REMAIN FAITHFUL TO ALL THE PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE LAW, TO PUT THEM INTO PRACTICE? (DEUT. 27:26) IF MEN ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH AND NOT BY LAW, WHY THIS CURSE ON HIM WHO HAS NOT FULFILLED THE LAW, SINCE IT IS USELESS FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS? — The law given by Moses produced justice, it is true, but a worldly justice, a temporary justice for those who observed it, and who discharged them simply of guilt, for the just according to the law is the one that does not do wrong to no one. Which makes the Apostle say: "The law is not according to faith, but he who observes these precepts will find life there" (Gal. 3:12), that is to say, he who fulfills the law will not die, he will live by the present life. Justice, on the contrary, which comes from faith, justifies men before God and makes them worthy of the rewards of the future time. For it is right, indeed, to know who and by whom we are, so that the true confession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit may lead us to the kingdom of heaven. The elders themselves who, in observance of the precepts of the law, have joined the love of God with the hope of promises, have been justified before God. It is the law alone which according to the doctrine of the Apostle cannot make men just before God, just as faith alone to the exclusion of works is not sufficient to render them pleasing to God; to render men perfect, the justice of the earth must be joined to divine justice. This is what the Savior teaches us when He says, "If your righteousness is no more abundant than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:20)
(Galatians 3:20) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 57. WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE APOSTLE, IN THE REPROACHES HE ADDRESSES TO THE GALATIANS, TO INSERT THE REFLECTION THAT FOLLOWS? THE GALATIANS, AFTER HAVING EMBRACED THE GOSPEL, HAVING RETURNED AGAIN TO THE OBSERVANCES OF THE LAW, THE APOSTLE SAYS TO THEM, "A MEDIATOR IS NOT JUST FOR ONE PERSON ALONE, BUT GOD IS ONE," AS IF THE GALATIANS DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF A SINGLE GOD, THEY HAD INDEED BEEN BROUGHT BACK TO THE LAW IN THE NAME OF THIS DOCTRINE WHICH MADE THEM BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF ONE AND ONLY GOD, AND LOOK UPON CHRIST AS A PREDESTINATED MINISTER OF GOD TO DISTRIBUTE TO MEN THE GIFT OF GOD'S GRACE. — It is certain that the Galatians, by letting themselves be dragged back into the observance of the law, professed to believe in Jesus Christ, but their faith was not worthy of him; it was the faith of Photin; since the law, he said, teaches the existence of one God, it is contrary to the law to say that Jesus Christ is God. It was the invention of the Jews, who, overcome by the brilliance of the miracles they witnessed, believed in Jesus Christ after his death, that is to say, while professing to believe in Jesus Christ, they still wanted to keep the law, as if one did not place all his hope in Jesus Christ. It is these Christians whom the Apostle calls false brothers. (Gal. 2:4, 2 Cor. 11:26) Thus, after the teaching given by the apostles, they had corrupted the spirit of the Galatians and wanted to make them Jews under the name of the Savior. This is why the Apostle says that Christ came to be the mediator of circumcision and uncircumcision: "To form in himself one new man and to bring peace between the two peoples," he writes to the Ephesians. (Eph. 2:15) If therefore Jesus came as a mediator, and the office of the mediator is to bring peace between the two parties, and to draw a new rule by stripping them both of their way of seeing, Our Lord reconciles them so that they attach themselves exclusively to his feeling and thus renounce all the causes of their old discords. On one side the Jew supports circumcision, on the other the good man claims that one should not be circumcised, and opposition reigns between them. Take away this principle of discord, and peace is reborn immediately. Now, if it be so, says St. Paul, why do you, Galatians who make you Jews, want to destroy the office of mediator of Jesus Christ? This is why he says to them, "You are strangers to Jesus Christ.” They despise the principle of reconciliation which he had established between the two peoples, and they return to the old ideas of the Jews, condemning themselves by the same as well as the one who reconciled them, for all that displeases is by the same accused and sentenced. And as the reason that brought back the Galatians to the observance of the law, was that they believed in one God, but without any mystery, and that they regarded as contrary to the law of recognizing the divinity of Christ. The Apostle says to them, "A mediator is not one, but two. For you, on the contrary, who return to the law, you refuse the mediator; however, God is one.” The Apostle, in thus establishing the divinity of Jesus Christ, does not wish to make a God other than the one who exists, nor to teach that there are two Gods; God is one, he tells them, as it is written in the law. When we teach, in effect, that Jesus Christ is God from God, we do not claim to authorize belief in another God, for what is of God does not suffer to be called another God. Whether we consider God or what is God, it is always one God. There is no difference between God and what is of God. It is another himself; it is another because of the distinct person who is called the Son; it is the same because of the unity of substance. Let it not be wrong that I here employ the name of a person whom some believe must reject; Let us follow the example of the Apostle who says to the Corinthians, “If I gave anything, I gave it because of you, in the person of Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor. 2:10)
(Galatians 4:12) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 60. THE APOSTLE TELLS THE GALATIANS THAT HE REPROVES AND CONDEMNS IN ALL THIS EPISTLE: "BE LIKE ME, SINCE I AM LIKE YOU.” IF HE SHOWED HIMSELF AS THEY WERE, IT WAS USELESS TO SAY TO THEM: BE LIKE ME. PERHAPS HE HAD IMITATED THEM IN SOMETHING, AND THAT HE WANTED THEM TO BE SIMILAR IN OTHER RESPECTS? — What could the Apostle imitate in them, or what could he fail the doctor of the nations? He therefore exhorts the Galatians to be his imitators, and he refutes the impossibility that they could object by saying to them: I am what you are, for you are men as I am; do what I do. These words may be related to what he said was done to everyone by sharing their ideas when they were true to the truth, especially those of the Gentiles. (1 Cor. 9:22) There were among the Jews institutions that should no longer be observed, but whose observance was once legitimate, such as circumcision, Sabbath observance, new moons, the distinction of food. But he shows that the truths which he thought he ought to approve among the Gentiles never cease to be obligatory. So they think that the world is the work of God and of men, it is the one thing that always remains. If, therefore, he associates himself here with their feelings, he urges them to become equally like him, that is, to believe what he believes himself.
(Galatians 5:17) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 61. HOW DO WE HAVE THE USE OF OUR FREE WILL AND OF OUR CHOICE, SINCE THE APOSTLE SAYS: "THE FLESH HAS DESIRES CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE SPIRIT, AND THE SPIRIT IS CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE FLESH, AND THEY ARE OPPOSED TO ONE ANOTHER, SO THAT YOU DO NOT DO ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE?" IF THE FLESH HAS DESIRES CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE SPIRIT, THEN IT IS BAD, BECAUSE THE SPIRIT ONLY SUGGEST GOOD THINGS. — Here it is meant by the flesh not the very substance of the flesh, but the evil deeds and wickedness that are signified by the flesh. As every error has its source in external and visible things, and the flesh is in contact with them, since it is a compound of the elements of this world, the Apostle gives the name of flesh to all error. It is not only adultery, fornication, impurity that he places among the works of the flesh, but idolatry, malice, blasphemy, and other similar crimes. Does the flesh call for blasphemy or idolatry? Is it not the vices of the soul that consents to error? Yet he is right in saying to those who do good: You are no longer in the flesh, but in the spirit. And yet they are still in the body. He, therefore, who walks in the path of virtue and who does not reject the hope of the faithful, though he lives still in the flesh, is no longer in the flesh. He, on the contrary, who does evil and opens his lips to blasphemy; the Apostle says that he is in the flesh and that he is flesh; for just as good men are spiritual, yet united with the flesh, those who engage in evil are carnal despite their union with the soul. Here is the explanation of the words of the Apostle. This error, which he calls the flesh, covets against the spirit, that is to say it suggests guilty desires against that same spirit which is the law of God. Indeed, he wants to clearly point to two laws here: the law of God and the law of the devil. He uses the name of spirit, because the law of God is spiritual to fight against the flesh, that is to say against the vices to keep man to God. On the contrary, the law of the devil, which is the error, is in struggle against the spirit by the seductions of sensuality and the false sweets of the world. In the midst of these two opposite laws is man; does he wish to consent to the inspirations of the spirit, the flesh does not want it; he lends a helping hand to the flesh, he despises the spirit, that is to say the law of God. Is he about to surrender to the solicitations of the flesh, the spirit holds him back so that he does not do what he wants; does he wish to follow the inspirations of the spirit, the flesh urges him not to do what he thinks is useful; but the spirit opposes to the flesh a just and wise resistance, and seeks to snatch the man from the counsels of Satan. But the flesh, that is to say, the opposite law, uses its solicitations, resists the spirit of the law only to deceive by its ploys. The Apostle, in establishing the reign of these two laws, has for design to show to free will which side he should incline his will. He does not want to destroy free will, but to teach him the choice he has to make. If man had not the free use of his will, neither the law of the devil, which is the flesh, nor the law of God, which is the spirit, would be in conflict with one another, in soliciting the man to follow their inspirations, because to solicit is to persuade. But he who persuades does not do violence, he tries to dodge himself, and he who gives in to his suggestions sees his will changing under the influence of these deceptive counsels. Now, if free will did not exist, the man would be driven in spite of himself to do what he does not want.
(Galatians 6:1) 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT QUESTION 10. WHY DOES SAINT PAUL SAY TO THE GALATIANS: I AM ASTONISHED THAT YOU WOULD SOON LEAVE THE ONE WHO CALLED YOU TO THE GRACE OF JESUS CHRIST TO PASS TO ANOTHER GOSPEL, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO OTHER GOSPEL? IF IT IS ANOTHER, IT IS NOT THE SAME; IF HE IS NOT THE SAME, HOW IS HE NOT ANOTHER? — The Apostle calls another Gospel the one that was preached to the Galatians, because it was different from the one they later began to follow. They had let themselves be diverted from the Gospel of Jesus Christ and into Judaism under the very name of Jesus Christ as if it were absolutely necessary to embrace it, and they taught principles quite different from the doctrine of the Apostle. That is why he adds: “As they seek to persuade you." Indeed, the false apostles, to more easily deceive the Gentiles who embraced the faith, presented to them as the doctrine of the Savior their own inventions, as we see in the Acts of the Apostles: "If you are circumcised according to the law of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1) Also a great pain takes hold of the soul of the Apostle at the sight of the perversion of the Galatians and he says to them, "I am astonished that you should leave the person who called you to the grace of Jesus Christ to move on to another gospel, even though there was none else." He is astonished, therefore, that, having borne a light burden, and much less heavy, they were willing to undertake hard and painful obligations, that is to say, instead of the simple doctrine of the faith, they endeavored to be circumcised, to observe the new moons, the Sabbath, by once again subjecting himself to the elements, and so as not to appear to furnish to the false apostles the pretext of saying that the doctrine which the Apostles received was not in accordance with the tradition of truth, he immediately adds: "Not that he disturbs him among you, and who wishes to change the gospel of Jesus Christ.” The Gospel to which the Apostle had called them was therefore different from that which they had begun to follow under the influence of the false apostles. However, there was no other gospel than that which Jesus Christ had taught, and that alone was enough to convince them that they had been misled and bring them back to the only doctrine of faith, confessing that Jesus Christ God is the only principle of salvation, and it is through him and not by law that they have received the remission of their sins that the grace of God forgives under the law.
COLOSSIANS
(Colossians 2:3) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 62. IF "ALL THE TREASURES OF KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM ARE HIDDEN IN JESUS CHRIST," HOW CAN THE SAME SAVIOR SAY THAT HE KNOWS NEITHER THE DAY NOR THE HOUR OF THE FUTURE JUDGMENT? (MARK 13:32) IF HE KNOWS IT AND SAYS HE DOES NOT KNOW IT, IS IT NOT A LIE? — These words contain a twofold meaning. The Apostle first wants to say that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Jesus Christ, in the sense that he who has Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ, takes his place from all wisdom and all knowledge. That is to say, that to know Jesus Christ is to know everything, and to understand all wisdom, as St. Paul says to the Colossians: "Beware lest any man deceive you by philosophy and by vain subtleties according to the principles of a worldly knowledge and not according to Jesus Christ, for all the fullness of divinity dwells in him bodily. (Col. 2:8) That is to say, he who believes in Jesus Christ far from wanting nothing for salvation, has all in abundance, because his faith is for the fullness of the deity. He adds again in the same Epistle: "Let no one deceive you by pretending to be humble, by a superstitious worship of angels, by taking pride in what he sees, vainly inflated by his carnal prudence, and not a chief whose whole body, supported by his bonds and his joints, maintains and grows with the growth of God. (Ibid. 18, 19) If, therefore, believing in Jesus Christ, Christians worship him as the head of all principality and power, they need no other thing, they have all that is necessary to be saved, and ignorance of things useless to salvation will be of no danger to them, because they know what is necessary. We can therefore say of those Christians who know what is useful to the saint, that they know all things. These words still signify that all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom are hidden in the Savior. All the secrets of the Father are known to him, he measures the extent of all creatures; the Father judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son (Jn. 5:22); and no one knows what is in God except the Spirit of God who is also the Spirit of Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 2:11) How then can one say that he knows neither the day nor the hour, he whose spirit knows what is in God, and of whom he has said that he has received what is his? (Jn. 16:14-15) Now if the one who has received from his own knows the future things, how can this knowledge be denied to Christ who sent the Holy Spirit? Can we assume that the Judge who predicted us all the warning signs of this judgment, ignores the day? It may also be said that he does not know those to whom he has said: “Truly I say to you, I do not know you." (Matt. 25:12) He will probably not know the foolish and careless virgins, because at this request: "Lord, Lord, open to us," he answers them, "I tell you, verily, I do not know you." So there is a reason He tells us that he does not know what he knows, and in another place he makes this recommendation: "Watch, because you do not know what time your master is coming." (Ibid. 24:42) It is therefore to excite our attentiveness and our vigilance that to the question that is made to him, he answers that he knows neither the day nor the time of the judgment to come, but it is in our interest that he says he does not know what he knows. We do not know what is useful to us, and we want to know things whose knowledge can only be harmful to us. Now, Jesus Christ, who desires our salvation above all else, declares that he does not know that day so as not to let us know what it would be dangerous for us to know. If there is a patient who, in the excess of pain, asks for a sword to take his life away, will he accuse you of lying if you will answer that you have none, knowing that by complying to his request it can only be harmful to him?
PHILIPPIANS
(Philippians 2:17) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 63. HOW IS IT THAT THE APOSTLES, AFTER HAVING HEALED ALL THE SICK WHO WERE PRESENTED TO THEM, HAVE NOT CURED THE DISEASES OF THEIR OWN DISCIPLES? FOR, AFTER ALL, EPAPHRODITUS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SICK UNTO DEATH IF THE PRAYERS OF THE APOSTLE HAD BEEN ANSWERED. WHO CAN DOUBT, INDEED, THAT THE APOSTLE HAS OFTEN ASKED GOD FOR HIS CURE WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO OBTAIN IT? FOR IF GOD HAD ANSWERED IT, THIS AILMENT WOULD HAVE DISAPPEARED AT ONCE. — The Apostles did wonders and miracles to bring the faithful to the faith. At the sight of these brilliant facts, which it was impossible for men to do, they recognized the voice of God in the preaching of the Apostles, and these miracles were for them a demonstration of the high wisdom of the faith. Words are always subject to contradiction, acts of power come to serve them as witnesses, and failing them, to prove the high reason of faith that words are powerless to express. For the faithful, on the contrary, miracles and wonders are not necessary, but a firm hope. As soon as he is convinced of the truth of the promises, the spirit is made a weapon of this conviction to arrive by contempt of the enjoyments present to make himself worthy of eternal goods, and to increase his merits by his work, following this recommendation of Solomon: "My son, while approaching the service of God, abide in righteousness and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation. (Eccl. 2:1) This recommendation is based on the usefulness of trials for man. This is what makes the Apostle also say: "It is through many tribulations that we must enter the kingdom of God." (Acts 14:21) These temptations that arise from trials come to us in different ways, so that the soul that in the midst of these tribulations perseveres in the faith that it has received, may obtain the crown. Now it is not only on faith that man is tempted, but by illness, by loss, by persecutions, by the death of those dear to him; and if in the midst of these various trials he does not let himself be carried away to implore the help of demons, he obtains in the outpouring of his blood the glory of martyrdom. If, therefore, the Apostle did not obtain what he asked, it was not an evil but a good thing for Epaphroditus; It was thus that the Apostle, having prayed to God to deliver him from a personal ailment, received this answer: "My grace is sufficient for you, for virtue is perfected in infirmity.” (2 Cor. 12:9)
(Philippians 2:27) 2ND CATEGORY OT & NT QUESTION 11. THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL URGES US NOT TO GRIEVE ABOUT THE DEAD, WHICH IS PROPER TO THOSE WHO HAVE NO HOPE; AND HE HIMSELF SAYS TO US ELSEWHERE, WHEN HE SPEAKS OF EPAPHRODITUS: "HE HAS BEEN SICK UNTO DEATH, BUT GOD HAS PITY ON HIM; AND NOT ONLY OF HIM, BUT ALSO OF ME, SO THAT I DID NOT HAVE AFFLICTION ON AFFLICTION.” WHY DOES HE FORBID CHRISTIANS TO BE SAD, SINCE HE DECLARES THAT THE DEATH OF EPAPHRODITUS HIMSELF WOULD HAVE THROWN HIM INTO GREAT SADNESS? — The pain that the Apostle forbids Christians is not that which he would have felt from the death of Epaphroditus had he come. The reason why this death would have caused him sadness was that he lost in him an auxiliary, a support in the preaching of the Gospel. As for us, St. Paul forbids us to grieve, as if we were crying for lost dead without return and without hope of resurrection. There is, then, a great difference between the tears caused by the absence of an auxiliary, of a friend, and the pain produced by the death of a person who is no longer thought to exist. On one side there is no more consolation possible, on the other despair alone is excluded.
1 PETER
(1 Peter 2:21) 2ND CATEGORY NT QUESTION 64. THE APOSTLE ST. PETER SAYS, "CHRIST DIED FOR YOU.” ST. PAUL, ON THE CONTRARY, CLAIMS THAT HE DIED FOR HIM. "HE IS," SAID HE, "RENDERED OBEDIENT TILL DEATH; WHEREFORE GOD HAS GIVEN HIM A NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME." (PHILIP. 2:8-9) NOW IF THIS IS SO, SHOULD WE NOT CONCLUDE THAT IT WAS IMPERFECT, SINCE HE OWES TO HIS WORKS AN INCREASE OF GLORY? — No one doubts among the faithful that the Son of God has received all the perfection of his divine birth. He received from the birth of God the Father all the attributes of the Father's divinity. It was then that he received a name that is above every name, that is to say the very name of God that is common to him with the Father. Because in him no perfection is yet to come, he has them all eternally. He is born to create and repair all things. Order and reason require that every knee bend in the name of the Father. The Father communicates this prerogative to the Son, in view of the works he was to perform, but he communicates it to him through the generation. By engendering him, he gives him the same honor, the same glory that he has himself.
REVELATION
|