Succession of the day and night.

According to the order followed in the creation of the world, we see that the darkness preceded the light. In fact, the elements which were to serve the creation of the world, and which were created simultaneously, appear to us to be devoid of light (Gen. 1:2), that is to say, water, earth, darkness of which the world has been formed, that is, of an invisible or dark matter, as it is said in the book of Wisdom, whose author is Solomon. (Wis. 11:18.) The Holy Letters attest that darkness and water were created when they related these words of God in the prophet Isaiah: "I, God, have made light, I created the darkness (Is. 45:47).” The Holy Spirit also teaches us by the mouth of David that the waters were created and the earth was established on the waters (Ps. 135:9), which is according to the authority of the Gospel (John 1:3), and to the tradition of the apostles, who testify that all things have been done; and for nothing to be excepted, the Apostle takes care to say, "Let the things that are in heaven, or those that are on the earth (Col. 1:16)." As far as the earth is concerned, we read that the darkness existed before the light, as to the order followed in creation and not as to excellence, for the light is worth a thousand times better than the darkness. Now in the organization of the world the light receives the name of day, and the darkness the name of night; that is to say, when the light ceases to illuminate the darkness, the time which passes until the return of the light is called night, and the time when it penetrates the darkness of its light is called day. It is said, then, that it is night when one is in the hope of the day to come, and that it is day when one is waiting for the night to follow. When the succession of day and night has ceased with the end of the world, there will be nothing but darkness and light. Indeed, it can no longer be said that it is night when the darkness will be continuous, nor that it is day when the light will have no more decline. Eternity stops the use of those names that began with the world. Thus, before the creation of the light which received the name of day, it is not read that there is night, but darkness; and after the disappearance of the light which shines upon them, they have received the name of evening and night. As far as we can judge, night is subordinated to the day. From what we read that darkness existed before light, it does not follow that they are preferable to light; For heaven existed before the sun, and yet the sun is superior to it; the earth was created before man as well as the beasts of the fields and other animals, and yet they are subjected to man. The night, therefore, must not be above the day, because we read that the darkness has preceded, since light prevails much over darkness, and day is much preferable to night. As we said above, light was created when the darkness existed. "And God gave the light the name of day, and darkness the name of night, and evening and morning was the first day.” If there were not in the day, there would have been no night, for it was when the darkness ceased to be enlightened, when the day was gone reads that evening elapsed. And when the light came to shine after the evening, it formed the first day after the night, so that night came after the day. It is worthy, indeed, and in conformity with reason, that the inferior nature is in everything subject to a more excellent nature. Why then put the night before daybreak, since his name comes only after the name of day? For it had not received the name of night or evening, if the light had not shone for the space of a day, after which the evening was set at night. The day becomes evening to make you understand that night is a part of the day, for the day is complete only when the night is past. Thus we say, The year is three hundred and sixty-five days, and we do not separate from it the nights. In counting the days, we also count the nights which are included under the name of days. If, on the contrary, the night was preceding the day, the day would be understood under the name of night. Who ever thought of saying, "I will see you after five nights, and not after five days." Nowhere, if we have a good memory, we read that night is set before daylight. "Moses," says the Scriptures, "was on the mountain forty days and forty nights (24:18).” The Psalmist also says, "The sun shall not bother you during the day, nor the moon in the night.” And to borrow an example from the beginning of the world, we read in Genesis: "Let the bodies of light be made in the sky, and  shine on the earth (Ps. 120:6), one bigger to start the day, the other less great to start the night. Now the moon cannot be placed above the sun, just as night cannot be placed above the light; but night is subordinate to the day as the moon is in the sun.  The Gospel also shows us the nights included under the name and in the enumeration of days. "There are some," says the Savior, "who are here present, who shall not die till they have seen the reign of God." And he adds: "And it came to pass about a week after, and so on (Jn. 1:28).” Are not the nights included in these eight days? And in another place: "This," says the Evangelist, "took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John baptized. The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him (Jn. 1:28).” Did he say: The next night? Further on he says, "The next day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee," and in the following chapter: "Three days after that, a wedding was celebrated and Cana was celebrated in Galilee (Jn. 11:1).” Everywhere the day has pre-eminence over the night which is subordinate to it. If the day was understood under the name of night, night would precede the day. The Romans reign over the Spaniards, the Gauls, the Africans, and the other peoples who are subject to them, and by this very reason these people take the name of Romans; thus the night which is subordinate to the day is included under the name of day. The reason for this is that the Jews begin the celebration of the Sabbath in the evening, and they do not consider the reason for this commandment. The day before, they must buy and prepare their food for the sabbath day, and purify themselves according to the law. Now, can they do these things during the night and begin the Sabbath with the rising of the day? There is no doubt that the resurrection of our Lord took place at night; yet it is in the day that it is honored. It is in the day that this resurrection is celebrated, and that day is called the day of the Lord. Do you not read in the Psalms: "This is the day which the Lord hath made? (Ps. 117:24)” We do not say the night of the Lord, because the day has primacy here. Whether it be a matter of the past or of the day to come, night is always subordinate to it, because it is of an inferior nature, to the apostle's testimony: "You are the children of the day and the day light, and not of night and darkness (I Thess. 5:5).” If we wish to take an example in consuls, we shall see that the first named is the one who was the first chosen. Is it not customary to say, "Who will be consul with him?" If night was before daylight, it would be named first. It is so true that it is by day that we begin to count time, that if, for example, we say: tomorrow is the sixth of the calends, we mean all the space which flows from one morning to another and which is composed of one whole day and one night. So again the moon at the beginning of the world was created on the fourteenth day, for it must have gleamed all night, and the next morning was its fifteenth day. How, then, can any doubt remain about the pre-eminence of the day? The disputes of a certain number have compelled us to extend ourselves at length to an obvious matter, for the text of Scripture alone is sufficient to conclude the question, since it clearly shows us the day before the night. All the reasons we have explained are borrowed from the history of the origin of the world. But if we wish to elevate ourselves to higher considerations, by giving our spirit a spiritual vigor, we shall see that it is improper to affirm that darkness was created before light. If the nature of light is celestial and the nature of earthly darkness, it is absurd to think that light was made after the darkness. Moses says that light has been made, but for the part of the world that it illuminates, and it does not say that it only then began to exist. Indeed, all spiritual beings were created before material beings, and the light that already existed in the higher regions descended into the lower ones to shine like a flaming beam in a house. But for what reason is the darkness named before the light, since it always follow the light? Let us say that celestial and spiritual things are enlightened by their nature, whereas earthly and fleshly things are darkness, so that the nature of darkness appears to subsist only by the power of light, because all that is inferior depends on which is above. If we look carefully, we will find darkness even in the sun. Place yourself near it, it will appear to you so striking that you cannot look at it; move away a little, its radiance will be the same, but you can stop your gaze for a moment; but it is less brilliant, and its brilliance is always diminished by reason of your separation. There is in it, then, as a successive weakening which proclaims the darkness, and this point that the darkness appears to spring from the light. The one who made the light also created darkness, in the way that in creating the water he created the earth at the same time; and the darkness is the defect of light, as the earth is the solid part of the waters. God is the only one who has no decline, and although he is everywhere, and contains all things in himself, his splendor is so striking that he cannot be seen by anyone, does not consent to temper His brilliance. The Savior himself, when clothed in a body, was visible only when he wished, even without being shut up. The glorious glory in the midst of which he appeared on the mountain in his transfiguration, remained hidden in his body, and manifested itself externally only when he wished it (Mt. 17:1). One, how was he hidden without being shut up? If he could enter with his body in the place where his disciples were, and when the doors were closed, how could his divinity not penetrate all things? that is to say that its rays cannot be intercepted because it suffers no decline. God therefore fills everything with His presence, but we say, however, that He is the place where He appears and wants to manifest Himself to the gaze. All things are in God, because he is above all things, to the apostle's testimony: "It is in him that we have life, movement and being (Acts 17:28),” however, it is only in that which he wishes to be. He is in everything by the mystery of his immensity, and he manifests himself by an eloquence and his providence only in whatever he desires. [QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, PL 35, Question 107]

GENESIS CHAPTER 1

WHAT NEED WAS IT TO MAKE IT KNOWN BY MOSES THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD AND THE ORDER OF CREATION, AND NOT BEFORE HIM? — This story should not have been written before Moses, because creation had not yet given rise to such great errors among men. But it became necessary as soon as these errors spread in the human race, until the children of Israel heard the philosophers of Egypt who had instructed Moses in all the sciences of the Egyptians, which contradicted the truth of creation and affirmed that a certain Apis had created this world by means of the evil angels, and that Satan is the prince of this world. Marcion adopted this sense for his ruin. The Manichaeans claim that this same Satan created man, but not the world, and in this they are more insane than others. For it is a certain truth that the world was created for man, and they come to say that God created this world, though of a foreign matter, while man was created by his enemy, that is to say, one would have placed a master in the house of the other. Moses, therefore, had to point out and destroy this error, to teach that the creation of man as of the world had God alone as Master. The authority given to Moses by the miracles and wonders he performed guaranteed the truth of his teaching, supported by such testimonies. Indeed, who would refuse to believe the author of such great miracles? That is why those who contradict this doctrine are easily convinced of error, because they have only their word as supporter of their affirmations. Moses wishing to demonstrate that nothing is co-eternal with God, first explains the order in which creation was made, the creatures less important first and then the most important, proving that none absolutely was uncreated. Indeed, those of a later creation have greater excellence. To those who sought to excite the time when the former were created, may oppose their inferiority of nature which subjects them to those which are their posterior origin. If, on the contrary, they claim primacy in favor of the more excellent creatures, their pretensions are opposed by the rank of order they occupy in creation. So that there is none which has not had a beginning. Above all, God created heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1). Then the light destined to light the day. Then the sky, and the clusters of waters which receive the name of the sea, and above which appeared the habitable earth. The earth which Moses presents to us as having been made after heaven, is not entirely the earth properly so called, but all the lower creatures and all the material elements. The sky which was created in the beginning is not this visible heaven, but the higher and spiritual heaven. Therefore when Moses tells us that God first made heaven and earth, he hears of all things invisible in heaven, and by the earth all the visible things God created. By thus uniting the two extreme terms of all nature, he establishes in a certain manner that all intermediate beings must have been created equally. The stars which he placed in order to regulate the order of the universe were created on the fourth day, and the time of their creation is in reverse relation to the excellence of their nature. As for man, he created him on the sixth day, in order to introduce him only in a perfectly completed dwelling. Now the man we see created on the sixth day is far superior to all other creatures, and this superiority comes above all from his inner nature, invisible and endowed with intelligence. The sun is the brightest, and the moon is brighter than the earth. This is why some people do not like the saying of Genesis, And God saw that the light was good (Gen. 1:4). As they asserted that all creatures had an evil principle as their author, and that they could not believe in their goodness. Moses, in order to establish the goodness of all things created, shows that God found them good in proportion as he made them, and thus condemns him who would be tempted to find them evil. How can we suppose that he who said, Let there be light, and there was light (Gen. 1:3), did not know the light? Can we do what we do not know? Now the light as soon as it was made, pleased the one who had made it. What craftsman does not find his joy in his work? This is why it is written, And he saw that the light was good (Gen. 1:4). And yet there are those who maintain that it is bad. What would it be if God had left this truth without witness? Thus, after the account of the creation of the world, Moses reveals the succession of the human race from the first man, first by Seth, who replaced Abel (Cf. Gen. 4:25), and by order to Abraham, the father of the Jewish people. He shows that Abraham believed in the Creator God of the world, and that this same God gave the law in which were contained the promises of the future Christ who was to deliver mankind from the tyranny of the devil. It is through these authorities that we prove how reasonable our faith is. For this account of the origins of the world makes this testimony to our faith that Christians go back to the beginning of the world. In fact, from Seth, the sons of Adam, we descend to Enoch; from Enoch to Noah; from Noah to Abraham; from Abraham to David; from David to Mary, from whom Jesus Christ is born through the operation of the Holy Spirit. All those who in ancient times have faith in one God, whom the Savior preached, deserve the name of Christians. For the promise of the Savior to come is from the beginning of the world. This is why St. John calls him in his Apocalypse, "The Lamb slain from the beginning of the world. (Rev. 13:8) Christians have always existed. All those, of whom I have spoken, who have existed since the first man, and through whom we come to the Savior, have faith in that God of whom Jesus Christ said: and eternal life consists in knowing you the only true God, and the one you sent, Jesus Christ (Jn. 17:2). But can we not make this objection: If all those you speak of were Christians before the coming of the Savior, what knowledge did Jesus bring to us? The advent of Jesus Christ has developed the understanding of this truth, because preaching has revealed the mystery which this unique God contained, the properties of each divine person, and that to make us fulfill the righteousness of the law, Jesus Christ gave us the graces that God kept in reserve. [QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, PL 35, Question 3]

(Gen. 1:1). 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. [QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, PL 35, Question 122]

WHAT CAN WE SAY TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THIS WORLD EXISTS NATURALLY FROM ALL ETERNITY, AND THAT IT HAS NEITHER BEGINNING NOR END? — That the world exists from eternity and that it is independent, is both implausible and impossible. We see him composed of a multitude of diverse bodies; Now, simplicity is the essential attribute of a divine and eternal being; it must present no diversity, but the most perfect unity. The world is not even uniform in the succession of times; not only are there differences of time and contrary substances, but the succession of times is not regular. Now an eternal substance is sovereignly removed from all diversity, it is not accessible to touch or sight, because it is incorporeal. The world on the contrary is subject to the alteration, the water is in opposition with the fire; if the fire becomes stronger, it triumphs over the water, and the earth, in its turn, dry and cold nature, flames up like a material thing. We cannot, therefore, admit the eternity of this world which we see subjected to so many changes and alterations, which wears and ages from century to century, and which we believe we must someday end. But what must we think of the man who believes the eternal world? Man certainly begins to exist in the world; Now, before it existed, what was the use of the annual fertility of the earth? Shall we say that this fertility existed without any design or as chance? And how could an eternal being produce corruptible and mortal beings, whereas an eternal being can only come out an eternal being? How yet dare to call eternal what is seen, what is felt, and what is touched? How is eternal to call what is subject to the succession of times, a succession itself which is not always uniform or regular? For eternity is not subject to no alteration, and has no change. [Questions On The Old And New Testaments, Pl 35, Question 28]

(Gen. 1:2). WAS THE SPIRIT THAT WAS CARRIED ON THE WATERS THE HOLY SPIRIT, AS THESE WORDS WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE: "THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS CARRIED ON THE WATERS?" —    If there is an error in this proposal, we should admit it. Some believe that it is a question of the Holy Spirit, because it is called the Spirit of God, an opinion devoid of all proof and all foundation. Not only do order and reason refuse the interpretation, but the text itself is powerless to establish it. For we frequently find the same words used by sacred writers in another sense. Thus, among other things, the Lord God said: "My spirit shall not abide in these men, because they are flesh; (Gen. 6:5), and he adds: "Exterminate every creature, from man to animals.” Will it be said that in these words, where the Lord predicts the deluge which he is to send on earth, it is a question of the Holy Spirit? Did he not wish to speak of souls? For the name of spirit is given not only to our souls, those of animals. Indeed, it is written: "And all flesh in which the spirit of life was found died in the waters." (Gen. 7:21) We also read in the prophet Ezekiel when God promises by his mouth the resurrection of the human race: "This is what the Lord says: I will stretch the skin upon you, and I will give you of my spirit, and you shall live (Ez. 37:5).” Is this the question of the Holy Spirit, or rather did he not wish to speak of the soul? All heavenly creatures are spirits, but they diverge from each other; God himself is spirit (Jn. 4:24), but of a very different nature. Every spirit, then, is of the spirit of God, but is not God, however, except the spirit which is of itself, and whose particular character is sanctity. Men are also called the sons of God, as Jesus Christ is called Himself the Son of God, but there is this difference that He is the true Son of God, and that men are only His adopted sons. The same difference exists in the use of this name of spirit of God. The Holy Spirit comes from God, it is consubstantial; the other spirits are called the spirits of God, but they are mere creatures. The order itself refuses to admit that it was the Holy Spirit who was carried on the waters. Reason teaches us that above the waters there exists a spiritual creature which has above itself a more excellent creature, because one creature differs in clarity from another creature (1 Cor. 15:41); for the more the heavenly creatures are near the throne of God, the more brilliant are their ministries. That is why the angel Raphael said to Tobit, "I am the angel Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who stand and spend their lives in the presence of the majesty of God. (Tob. 12:15)  It is therefore necessary here to appeal to the intellect to discern the things which have a common name. Thus the name of spirit is given to God, to the soul of man, to the wind, to the air, to the soul of animals, to angels and all creatures who have received to live of their own nature. But intelligence here helps you to discern that God is called mind very differently from creatures, so you understand that Jesus Christ and men are called the Son of God in a very different sense. Whenever Scripture wishes to designate the spirit which is properly of God, it adds: the Holy Spirit; it thus excludes every idea of ​​a creature, and makes it understood that the spirit being of God, can itself be nothing but God. Moses describing the creation of the nature, that is to say, the confusion of all things which was deprived of all feeling, represents to us the spirit of God carried on the earth, on the abyss and on the darkness, to make us understand by this name and the place where the spirit was carried, that it was a question of a superior creature which we call spiritual. For this reason he represents this spirit as being carried over the waters, and he wanted to designate a creature, for every creature of God is carried by the virtue of him who gave it existence. Now, how could it be in the order that the Holy Spirit was carried over the waters, he who, by the confession of all, is above all creature? If Jesus Christ is at the right hand of God above all heaven (Col. 4), the Holy Spirit is also there. Beings who have the same excellence and the same nature are inseparable. We confess, no doubt, that God, that is to say the Almighty Trinity, is everywhere, yet we attribute to him that singular honor of being above every creature as a privilege of his own. That is why we say, "Our Father who are in heaven," and "Who dwells in an inaccessible light." [Questions On The Old And New Testaments, Pl 35, Question]

(Gen. 1:26). IN WHAT SENSE IS IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT GOD MADE MAN IN HIS IMAGE AND LIKENESS, AND IS WOMAN ALSO THE IMAGE OF GOD? — Man was made in the image of God in the sense that the one and only God made one man, and that just as all things come from one God, all mankind also descends from one only man. It was created in its likeness, because, just as the Son comes from the Father, so woman is formed of man to consecrate the authority of a single principle. But the Son was born of God the Father in an incomprehensible and unintelligible manner; the woman, on the contrary, as we read, was formed outwardly of man (Gen. 2:21) to give birth to other men. The Son of God was born so that all things were created by him. This is the difference. The Son was born God of God the Father, whereas woman was formed of man, for simplicity is one of the attributes of the divine nature, and a simple being can only emerge from a simple nature, a spirit, a God of a God. Man is therefore the image of God, as it is written, God created man, and created him in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). This is why the Apostle says: "Man should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; the woman, to the contrary; must put a veil over his head. (I Corinthians 11:7) Why? Because she is not the image of God. It is for the same reason that he says elsewhere: "I do not allow women to teach or take authority over their husbands (1 Tim. 2:12).” [QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, PL 35, Question 21]

WHY, SINCE MAN AND WOMAN ARE ONE FLESH, IS MAN THE IMAGE OF GOD AND NOT WOMAN? — Man and woman, it is true, have the same substance in their souls as in their bodies, but man is superior in dignity to woman, as the Apostle says: "The husband is the head of the wife (Eph. 5:27; I Cor. 11:3).” It is by the will of God, and not by his nature, that man is superior to woman. Thus, in the same body, there are members more or less considerable, not by their nature, but by the rank which has been given them. [QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, PL 35, Question 24]

GENESIS CHAPTER 2

(Gen. 2:7). CAN WE SAY THAT ADAM RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT AFTER GOD GAVE HIM LIFE AND BEING, BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN, "GOD POURED A BREATH OF LIFE ON HIS FACE!"  — It was not in the order that Adam received the Holy Spirit; it was a grace reserved for the end of time, and which God was to give to believers in the days when the mystery of one God in three persons was to be announced to men. The Trinity had been preached from the beginning, but the intelligence remained as veiled. The person of the Father was first proclaimed and manifested with complete clarity and without figure, because he is the principle of all things. As for the people of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they were neither the object of absolute silence nor of a complete manifestation. Unbelievers raise rash questions about our Lord and the Holy Spirit. There are even those who push the absurdity to the point of maintaining that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Father, just as Sabellius confuses in one person the Father and the Son. But there is no doubt against the person of the Father. When, therefore, the Trinity is manifested, the Holy Spirit is given to the faithful, so that the existence of this divine person remains well established, and that those who receive it bear in themselves the sign that they are the children of God, because they have in them the Spirit of God. It is a mark of perfection to know the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is this perfection that gives us this gift. And the Son of God coming on earth to reveal and discover these truths must have poured more abundant graces upon mankind, and it was just that he should give this perfection to the souls who believed in him; is not in the Son or in the Father considered in isolation as salvation, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is what makes St. John the evangelist say: "And we have all received of His fulness, and grace for grace, for the law was given by Moses, grace and truth came from Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:16).” It is certain that on the coming of the Savior the truth reached its fullness, and this fullness of truth was produced by the revelation of all the hidden mysteries which God had promised to do. It is also then that the faithful have become the children of God by the reception of the Holy Spirit, and the inspiration of God over Adam must be understood by the soul which he for in the Scriptures the spirit is frequently used for the soul, especially in this passage of the Gospel: "And his spirit returned into it," (Lk. 8:55) and in that of the psalm: "God does not despise a spirit broken by pain and a contrite and humiliated heart (Ps. 50:19).” Instead of God inspired, this other variant: "God poured out a life-gasp on his face, and man had a living soul." The spirit of life in the thought of the sacred author, is therefore not synonymous with the Holy Spirit, for he also speaks of animals: "Who had the spirit of life. (Gen. 7:22) Now it is called the spirit of life, because it is a principle of life for bodies. [Questions On The Old And New Testaments, PL 35, Question 2, 2^nd part]

DO SOULS COME BY WAY OF PROPAGATION LIKE BODIES? — It seems to me unseemly to say that souls are engendered simultaneously with bodies, and that the soul gives birth to the soul, a property which God has not given to the soul. If each of the celestial powers has been given the power to give existence to all others in creation, one might admit that all souls derive from the one soul of Adam. But this feeling is not admissible, because the generation of a simple being is a privilege which God has exclusively reserved for himself. This generation, considered in the person of the Savior, is so mysterious that not only pagans and Jews, but even those who call themselves Christians, regard it as an incredible thing. Indeed, the Photinians and the Arians reject this article of faith and refuse to believe that God has begotten. Will it be said that at the moment when the germ of the body is sown, the soul begets the soul? But we read that God drew a rib of Adam without the sacred writer adding that the soul gave birth to the soul. If a soul were joined to this seed, it cannot be said that this soul was born, it is a part detached from another soul. Nor does Scripture say anything about this circumstance. We read, on the contrary, in the prophet Zechariah: "God who has formed in man the spirit of man (Zech. 12:1).” He speaks the same truth when he says, "This is what the Lord has said to you who created you, who formed you in your mother's womb (Is. 44:2).” If the soul is formed in the womb of the mother, it is united to a body which has already received its form. As it extends its action to all the members of the body, it is said of the soul that it is formed in the body. Thus, just as water, which has no particular form, receives one from the vessel that contains it, the soul, incorporeal and simple substance, receives as its form in the body by communicating life to all its members. This is what Moses expresses even more clearly in these words: "If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award” (Exod. 21:22), words which prove that the soul is not united to the body before it is formed. If to the seed of the body is joined with the incorporeal seed of the soul, a great number of souls perish daily, when the seed is lost without being followed by birth. But if we look at it more closely, we will see the feeling that we need to adopt. Consider the creation of Adam. In the person of Adam we have an example which makes us understand that the body was already formed when it received its soul. God could doubtless mix the soul with the silt of the earth and thus form the body. But a sovereign reason presided over his formation; it was necessary first to construct and assemble the different parts of the house before introducing the one which was to inhabit it. The soul being a spirit cannot dwell in a solid element; it is for this reason that it is said to be shed in the blood. When, then, the lineaments of the body are not yet formed, where can the soul be? Shall it go abroad, until it be united? But reason teaches us that it exists only to animate the body, and not to wander without fulfilling any function. Now let those who think differently tell us from whom the soul comes. Is it man or woman? Will they say of the woman? We cannot accept this thought because the example in question is contrary to it. For they say that the soul was given to the woman with the seed that was drawn from man, this thought is debated, as we have seen, for a great number of reasons. Perhaps one will be tempted to say that the soul is given by woman, especially because of the Savior, who was born of woman by the operation of the Holy Spirit, apart from any carnal union. But this thought gives too much to woman by attributing to her a right and an authority which belongs to man. Moreover, they assert that it is from man that the origin of the body and the soul originates, and now, changing their minds, they attribute to woman the origin of the most excellent nature, of the soul, and to man the origin of the less perfect nature, that is to say of the body, whereas it is manifest that one cannot change the order that God followed in the example he gave us. [Questions On The Old And New Testaments, PL 35, Question 23]

(Gen. 2:15-17). WHY DID GOD IMPOSE UPON ADAM THAT HE HAD PLACED IN THE WORLD A COMMANDMENT, A LAW, AFTER HAVING GIVEN HIM DOMINION OVER ALL CREATURES? — God had doubtless established Adam the master of the world; but as this empire did not come from himself, but from God, he had to receive a law which was a mark of his dependence, so that the man who appeared to be the master of the world was subject to the one who had given him this empire by his obedience to this law, which gave him a profound respect for the authority of the Creator, and prevented the pride which this domination and the forgetting of his divine Creator might inspire him. [Questions On The Old And New Testaments, PL 35, Question 4, 2^nd part]

GENESIS CHAPTER 3

(Gen. 3:1). IS IT TRUE THAT IT WAS A SERPENT WHO SPOKE WITH THE WOMAN, OR IS IT THE VERY ACT OF THE DEVIL WHO HAS SEDUCED HER, WHO HAS GIVEN HER THE NAME OF SERPENT? — If we keep to the historical narrative, it is true that the serpent was the finest of all the animals that the Lord God had formed on earth. Besides, it is against the serpent that God has pronounced his sentence. What, indeed, would it be astonishing that the devil was finer than the animals, the Apostle of whom said, "Do you not know the depths of Satan (II Cor. 2:11)?” Another proof that it was a true serpent is that God said to him, "You shall crawl on your stomach, and you shall eat of the earth all the days of your life (Gen. 3:14).” This punishment is in no way suited to the nature of Satan, since he is neither clothed in body nor subject to death. If we examine things more closely, we shall see that this sentence did not aggravate the condition of the serpent, and that it was condemned to remain in the state in which God had created it. He had been the instrument of Satan to subdue the man to whom God had subjected everything; for this reason God represses the pride of the serpent by that subjugation in which he had placed all creatures before man, because he had been a minister of pride to man. The man appeared to have submitted to the serpent, following the advice which he gave him of transgressing the law which he had imposed upon him. The Lord Himself testifies to the prudence of serpents, when he says, "Be careful as serpents (Mt. 10:16)." It is therefore well established that the serpent truly spoke with Eve; it now remains for us to examine whether he has been sufficiently sly and cunning enough to deceive her. For if it were finer than other animals, it could be no more than men, since no animal is endowed with reason, except man. It is impossible, therefore, that the serpent should be the author of these subtle insinuations; let him be in good health, but his finesse cannot go beyond his nature. It cannot deliberate, reflect, or take advice. It is therefore certain that it was the devil, who in the form of the serpent, sought to seduce the woman. By slipping into the form of the serpent, he used it as an instrument, so that the woman, who knew the serpent's fineness, could not suspect the cunning of the demon hiding in this form. Hence the sentence of condemnation carried out against the serpent, falls spiritually upon Satan, because the sentence must reach the true culprit. This sentence does not come from man, who by error or malice might condemn an ​​innocent man; it comes from God who is infallible, and whose judgment reaches only the one guilty. Satan, though invisible, makes his snares outwardly; the sentence of condemnation is pronounced externally, but it falls spiritually upon him whose crime has necessitated the sentence. Indeed, Satan, that audacious and impure spirit, has been thrown from the sacred dwelling of heaven and condemned to crawl and groan on earth. I may be asked in what language the serpent spoke to the woman; I answer, in the language of the serpent. If there are any, who now understand the signification of the barking of dogs, the howling of wolves, the cries of elephants, the chanting of cocks, why the woman who then had no less intelligence, could not she have understood the snake's throat, when we know many who understand the signification of the song of the birds? It is certain that the devil used the tongue of the one in whose body he had entered, otherwise he could not have deceived the woman. He therefore spoke the language of the serpent which he had chosen as his instrument. [Questions On The Old And New Testaments, PL 35, Question 31]

ON THE SIN OF ADAM AND EVE. It is no doubt that this world was created for man; although it is composed of varied substances, it nevertheless forms but one body having several members, the combined action of which is intended to produce all the things necessary to man. It was like a house built for man with the provisions he needed, provisions that the earth had to produce each according to its kind, that is to say, that by the fact of their creation they had been able to reproduce each according to its species. God created the primitive types whose seed was to serve in turn the multiplication of species on earth. This is the result of these words of the Scripture: "And God blessed them, saying, Be multiplied and multiply on earth (Gen. 1:28)." He also blesses the human race, and we see the same meaning reproduced in the book of the law. We read in it: "The people grew and multiplied in Egypt (Acts 7:17).” The blessing which God had given to the things he had created for the benefit of man was also given to man, so that mankind grew and multiplied the union of man and woman. And just as culture had to improve the seeds, so the human race had to do all its care so that the knowledge of God would help his to lead his life, to render pleasing to God and to relate all things to admiration and praise the glory of his Creator. Whether it is the meaning of these words, the facts themselves attest, for all things which have been created multiply and improve upon the earth by the will of God. Indeed, one cannot suppose any other mode of development than that which God has established for his seeds. How, then, can we attribute an evil origin, or an illicit character, to that which develops only under the influence of the blessings of God and of his will? The tradition of this blessing has always remained in the synagogue and is still in use today in the Church which consecrates by the blessing of God the union of its creatures. And there is no presumption here on his part since the form of this blessing comes from the Creator himself. If it is thought that this blessing must cease one day, it can only be when the things which multiply under this blessing cease to exist, for if the generation of men ceases, what would be the usefulness of creatures who have received the blessing of God to multiply on the earth? The world cannot be partly in action, partly in rest; or it acts wholly, or it remains wholly in rest. What utility would be a body, some of whose members would have life, while others would be struck with apathy? How then do some go so far as to represent as profane and unclean the work which has been consecrated by the blessing of God, except that they wish to attack God Himself? They would find nothing to be recaptured in the work if the false and evil ideas of the artisan were not formed. They do not dare openly to God, they find the means of accusing him in his works. When the work displeases, the blame falls on its author. If these critical spirits read or rather received the Scriptures, they would recall the saying of Balaam: "Can I curse him whom God has blessed (Num. 23:8)?” There is no charge against the approval of the judge, and one condemns oneself when one wants to accuse as guilty the one whom the laws themselves protect. Who, then, are you who believe that you can condemn what God has blessed as the Scriptures teach you? You must either deny that he is God, or that you should be contrary to Scripture. Indeed, it is under the pretext that they receive the New Testament that they ought to reject the ancient Scriptures. Now the new precepts which Jesus Christ imposes on the faithful are not in contradiction with the ancients. The Savior himself has not disdained to reply to the invitation which he was made to attend a wedding; and not only did he honor them with his presence, but he even gave the spouses what was lacking in the joy of the feast (Jn. 2:1), for it is written that wine rejoices the heart of man (Ps. 103:15). And to show that he did nothing but the will of his Father, the Jews having asked him whether it was permissible for a man to return his father, He said to them, "From the beginning of the world God made man and woman, and said unto them, For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh (Mt. 19:3-6). Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. So let not man separate what God adds. This was why he gladly surrendered to the invitation to attend the meetings, he would not appear to condemn what God his Father had instituted. Wishing, on the contrary, to show the harmony of the old law and of the new law, he not only did not proscribe marriage, but deigned to honor it by his presence, to render him the testimony of his divine institution, and by a most salutary commandment declared that they should neither defend nor separate what God had united. It is also to raise the utility of the birth of man, that on the point of leaving this world, he confided his mother to his disciple John (Jn. 19:26). It is for the same reason that the precepts of the old law and of the new law agree to recommend that we honor our parents under pain of curses if we breach this commandment. What then is this presumption, and on what law is it based to proscribe the marriage so clearly authorized by the old as by the new law? We may apply to him these words of the Savior: "That which is without is from evil (Mt. 5:37).” Thus the Apostle reproaches himself with having a cauterized conscience to those men who forbid marriage, and the use of the foods that God created to be eaten with actions of graces. (I Tim. 4:2.) It is an act on their part, both of hypocrisy and of hostility, whose object is to accuse the law of which God is the author. Others seem to receive the precepts of salvation with eagerness only to support the prescriptions of their doctrine of falsehood, and this is why the Apostle reproaches them for having a closed conscience. Indeed, the corruption of their hearts makes them manifest outside feelings different from what they think internally: they resemble the Jews who knew that the miracles of the Savior were works of the Holy Spirit and that they did not say a feeling of jealousy that it was in the name of Beelzebub that he cast out demons (Mt. 12:24, Lk. 11:15), to divert the people from believing in him. Such is also the deceit of those of whom we have spoken; in the name of the holiness and chastity with which they boast of being the partisans, they maintain that marriage must be condemned, seeking to make itself valued and to divert the people from truth; It is thus also that they recommend the abstinence of certain foods to give themselves falsely as models of temperance which, strangers to the world, hasten to reach the kingdom of heaven. After they have thus seduced the spirits of men, they preach the legitimacy of the most reprehensible acts and condemn the use of permissible things. Such are the wiles of Satan, he inverts the roles and in the form of a novelty he excludes truth which is nothing new because it is wholly eternal. Who does not notice that such is the conduct adopted by our enemies? Who, moreover, would dare to condemn a divine institution which has never been injurious to anyone but the enemy of truth? In order to cover his disorders, he preaches the sanctity which he dislikes, and when he has thus become a zealous supporter of good, he teaches that the most culpable acts are permitted. It makes itself worth to deceive more easily and to suggest to the imprudent ones who fall into its traps more enormous sins. It is a remedy, it seems to his own evils, to incite men to excess crimes; he regards it as a great consolation to have many accomplices, and regards his punishment as lighter and more tolerable if he succeeds in drawing a large number with him into hell blind men who are overcome by their vices excuse themselves for their weakness or ignorance, and do not think of punishing the faults on which concupiscence deceives them. Or what is this cloud that conceals from them the knowledge of truth? For the letters appear to have a different signification, when they are badly pronounced, or are not properly distinguished; but when one reads: God has done, and again: God has blessed what he has done, can it remain a matter either to the discussion or to the slightest doubt? Who will dare to see the curse instead of the blessing, unless animated by a hostile spirit? If these words were the words of man, perhaps one might fear some ploy, but it is God who speaks, and you doubt? It is blessed by God, and you condemn? But was not Moses under the name of God the author of this error? The miracles and wonders which Moses made in Egypt are an answer to this question, and the wonders he has done in the Red Sea for the deliverance of the children of Israel must suffice to persuade you. Listen to the confession made by the magicians: "The finger of God is here (Ex. 8:19).” Believe in the testimony of the Apostle, who said to you, "I do not want you to be ignorant, my brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, that they all passed through and they were all baptized under the guidance of Moses in the cloud and in the sea, that they all ate the same mysterious meat, and that they drank the same mysterious drink, for they drank the water of the spiritual stone, the water which followed them, and this stone was Jesus Christ (I Cor. 10:1,4).” And how did the Apostle speak in this way? The answer is in the Scriptures, where we read that Our Lord Jesus Christ said to the Jews, "If you believed in Moses, you would doubtless believe me too, for it is of me that he wrote (Jn. 5:46)." Who could not believe in such a beautiful harmony, who would dare to see contradiction in such a perfect unity, who would be badly inspired to accuse of hostility so close a union? The testimony of the words, and the examples of the miracles which must submit your mind to the truth, and prevent you from considering as true any doctrine which is not contained in the books of the Catholic Church of the Old Testament is the same as ours, and that a thousand brilliant signs proclaim that it is the only true one, its authority must be so great to us that even if a thing should appear to us too harsh or even absurd, accept, reform on this our personal ideas before the judgment of God who apprehends it, for we must believe in God rather than ourselves. Indeed, our weakness and inexperience often regard as useful what is most injurious to us, and takes the false for truth, which we cannot even suspect of God; its nature is inaccessible to error; it is not permissible for us to doubt the legitimacy of marriage before these words of God: "Let not man divide what God has united (Mt. 19:6: Mk. 10:9).” This is a thing as clear as it is simple. It is certain that every man has reason to rejoice at having been the object of the goodness of God, and that he thinks he is better when he learns to know the sacrament of his Creator, which he would not be able to achieve if he had not been born. Why, then, deplore what makes the subject of his joy, and condemn what he glories of having learned?  If he rejoices at having learned, and if, moreover, he could not learn unless he was born; no doubt it is good to be born, since the fruit of birth is the knowledge of the truth. If, on the contrary, it is an evil to be born, knowledge cannot be good. To what purpose can this knowledge be used if the birth is condemned? If it is neither useful nor necessary to be born, why should he who is condemned seek to learn? But as there is no mind stupid enough to deny that knowledge of God is useful to men, it is necessary to recognize its goodness, its utility. It is she who adds a new perfection to birth, so that she deserves more than Adam had received, for it is in heaven and not on earth that the faithful are called to reign, the paradise of God the Father, and not in that where Adam had been ordered to engage in bodily labor. In Jerusalem there was celebrated the feast called encaenia, that is to say, the dedication of the temple of God, how much more must we celebrate the birth of man, who is much more appropriately called the temple of God, and who has himself constructed with his hands to God the temples to give him thanksgiving? Our body is a much more excellent temple, because it is the work of God, and the material temples are the work of man, that one has the hope of eternity, while the others are destined for a certain ruin. He who acknowledges that it was God who gave birth to him to give thanks, and who has come to know his mysteries, must rejoice on the anniversary of his birth by seeing the precious fruits which he has produced. As for those who abandon their Creator and offer to others the glory which is due to them, it would have been better for them never to be born, for their birth can only turn to their misfortune, and yet the fault is not with birth, but to their will. But who are you, you who pretend to forbid marriage? You may be, Marcion, who maintain that the body is not the work of God but of the devil, and that it is in consequence of some fault that the soul fell from its first state descended into this region of darkness where the world is. Now how could it attain its deliverance if the generation is forbidden to it? It is after your birth that you experienced your downfall and that you have taken the means to return to the fatherland and resume your original destiny. You give thanks to Jesus Christ, by whom you are glad to have obtained this knowledge. Now, if you were not born, all knowledge would have been impossible, and consequently all deliverance. If you rejoice in the deliverance of your soul, be favorable to your birth, for if you condemn it, you are the enemy of souls. Or are you a Manichean, who rejects the marriages as evil? I will then ask you if there was no generation of bodies, how could the soul, which you say is spread in a dark region and closely united to the material elements, be delivered? The book you wrote say that it is by birth that the soul is delivered, that is to say that the souls received by the moon are coming out of their bodies transmitted to the sun which you claim to be the God of your souls. And is it not fortunate for you to bear the name of Manicheans? Indeed, it is in this capacity that you solicit your deliverance, which you would not know if you were not born. It is therefore evident that you condemn marriage by hypocrisy. You make an outward profession of chastity, and you give yourself up in secret to all kinds of impurities, which have not been hidden, but which have been revealed by the very edicts of the emperors. Listen now, you who are a Catholic, and learn from the Gospel how useful it is to the man of valor. When the righteous Simeon wished to leave this life, convinced that it was enough for him to know his Creator without knowing the mystery of his incarnation, God did not accede to his desire until he had arrived at this perfect state for to obtain the full and entire reward of his faith. It was then that he took in his arms the Savior who had just been born and blessed God in these terms: "Lord, you will now let your servant go in peace according to your word, for my eyes have seen your salvation (Lk. 2:29).” It was clear to God that it was good for man to be born, since it was answered to that righteous man who desired death that he would not die before he had seen the Christ of the Lord; for he had made such great progress here below, that he was worthy to see in this life the man he hoped for as his deliverer after his death. Now, how can we say that birth was not a useful thing for this man to whom God extended his life and allowed him to die only when he had seen the fruit of his hope, and which he would be sure to see for himself life to succeed him? If it were an evil for us to be born, it is neither paradise, nor eternal life, nor the kingdom of heaven promised us, but the punishments and chastisements of hell that we should expect. The man who knew that he was born for his loss would fear to transmit life to another, and he who knew that his birth was a guilty act would not seek to revive in his children. They will say to me, "Yes, the kingdom of heaven is promised, but to the faithful men who have done good." Perfectly, therefore, you see that men are not guilty by the sole fact of their birth, but because they have done evil; for it is not to those who are not born that the kingdom of heaven is promised, which would make birth a cause of exclusion, but to those who after their birth do good; that is to say, birth cannot be useful to the child he that does evil, and hurts him that does good. The faithful and the good men add to the perfection of their birth, the infidels and the unbelievers make their loss. Birth is like a tree that is grafted; if the graft is good, the tree will become better and be called a good tree; if the graft is bad, it will become worse than it was and deserve to be called a bad tree. Thus, if a sound doctrine is joined at birth, it will produce good fruits, but if the doctrine is bad, the fruits will be equally bad. Just as the tree must exist beforehand so that it can be grafted, birth is also necessary in order to make progress good. But we are made of this body: If it is good and useful to be born, why do we need to be reborn? This rebirth would not take place if birth was not useful. The soul is to be renewed, and those that are renewed are completely repaired. This rebirth is not, therefore, opposed to birth, it is reform, and what is reformed proves by the same the perfection of its first state. This rebirth is a transformation which is the effect of a voluntary resolution, and which purifies the defilements of the body to restore us to the primitive state in which Adam was created. The soul has communicated to the body the defilements of his sin, but faith repairs it, renders it more perfect and cleanses it in the waters of baptism; the contempt of God had tainted him, obedience purified him, he thus avoided the sentence pronounced against Adam and acquired the right to the glorious resurrection. If, then, it is by the soul that sin began, why should we accuse the nature of the body, since in the sin of Adam it is not the body that has desired, but the soul seduced by hope of the divinity, who transgressed the precept, cast the body into the bondage of sin, and condemned all men to be born slaves to sin? Now this sin does not harm the man who obeys the law of God, except that he is subject to death; but here again the goodness of God has promised him a reward proportionate with that punishment, that is, those who will be found faithful to their Creator, and whom the sins of Adam condemn to corruption and death, will receive in return from the righteous judge more than God had granted to Adam; they will be covered with glory in heaven and will possess eternal life, and will be called the adopted sons of God, so that it is truly a gain for them to be born. I now follow the passage from which we read: "God said to man, You may eat of all the fruit of the garden, but you do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16-17).” All the trees of which God speaks here are the fruits destined to be made the food of the creatures. They are given here the general name of trees, but there is a great variety in the fruits. They are all, however, trees and plants, and there is only one kind of food in spite of the diversity of fruits used to the food of man. When God had created this multitude of fruit trees for the nourishment of man, he forbade him, as I have said, to eat the fruit of a single tree. As our first parents had been empowered over all things, it was fitting that they should give God on one point a testimony of submission and respect. He had therefore reserved a single tree to which he had forbidden them to touch, to remind them of their condition. How can the sentence pronounced against them make us understand what was the nature of their fault? This sentence, in fact, can be pronounced both against a homicide, against a malefactor, an adulteress, an infamous one. (Jos. 17:1, etc.). How, then, to judge according to this sentence of the nature of sin, is to be condemned after his sin to be consumed by fire, and all his family. It can be assumed that sin was great, but not what its nature was, for we know that others were condemned to the same punishment, although their fault was different. Amorites and the inhabitants of Sodom perished, and their children, and we see men guilty of the same crime, punished with various punishments, with one and the same sentence pronounced against those whose crimes are quite different, and of Eve cannot be known by the sentence pronounced against them. The sin of man and woman is the same, it is true, yet both were condemned to a particular and individual punishment, as was the serpent. Not only did they not preserve the prerogatives of their former state, but God imposed upon them labor as the punishment of their crime. God, as the book of Genesis tells us, had subjected all animals and all living beings to man (Gen. 1:26). The serpent rose up against this order, and so much by his cunning and his artifices that he enslaved man to his empire. No doubt, indeed, he who makes someone fall into his traps, submits him to his dominion. But God did not wish that he should receive the fruits of his deceit; he humbled and shamed him below his first condition, that he might not rise above man, leaves him only the pain, not only of not having succeeded in his designs, but of having lost the perfection of his creation. It was, says the sacred author, the most of all the animals God had placed on earth; but after he had deceived the man, he was cursed among all the beasts and creatures of the earth. After the sentence pronounced against man, against woman, against the serpent, the woman, who had been the accomplice of man in contempt of the divine command, was to be subjected to a particular punishment. God said to her, "I will multiply your calamities, your childbirth, you will give birth in sorrow, your desires will turn to your husband, and he will rule over you (Gen. 3:16.).” No one confirms himself what he condemns. If children were granted to the woman because she had united herself to the man against the order of God, then a guilty act must be recognized as having wonderful effects. But if you believe that the principle of the generation of men is in these words: "You will be grieved in sorrow," what did these words mean: "Increase and multiply”? This sentence, "Ye shall bear in sorrow," is therefore only a punishment, that is to say, that what had previously been granted to her as a cause of joy will become a sin source of sorrows; and that this punishment should cease to weigh upon the woman, God adds that her desires will turn to her husband, and will be for her a principle of ever-new sorrows. If God condemned the union of man and woman, why did he say to her: "Will your desires turn to your husband?” No one establishes as punishment what he condemns as reprehensible, since punishment must always be opposed to the crime he punishes, and that it must come from a very different principle. If the fault and the punishment come from the same principle, no one would be afraid of being condemned. One might even say that the transgression of the law becomes a laudable act. Far from punishing sin, God would have confirmed it, if the desires of the woman had turned to her husband only because of her sin. But no, the truth is that this union of woman with man, which had been merely permissible before sin, was then imposed upon her with the bondage of childbirth as a punishment, because man had been left to rule by the woman whom God had given her as companion. It is evident that he had been subject by the woman whose counsels had led her to believe in the hopes she had given him, and which were intended only to destroy the work of God by the ploys of the devil. God, by his sentence, therefore returns the wife to the condition of subjugation which subjects her to her husband, according to the first institution, and adds, as a punishment: "I will multiply your calamities and your movements; you will turn to your husband, and he will rule over you." Had God established the woman in a state which was not a state of submission to her husband? The woman is therefore recalled here to this first state with the addition we have pointed out. That is why God said to her, "I will set the height of your sorrows and your groans.” Putting the end is adding to what is incomplete, not establishing or doing what does not. The words of God that precede: "Rise and multiply," (Gen. 1:22, 28) are not for creation but for the loss of creatures to whom God conceded existence. After sin, God adds to the pain and difficulties of woman's birth, but does not establish a new form of procreation. If these words have really been the principle of generation, it must be attributed rather to the will of the devil than to that of the Lord, for there is, as the Savior declares, a race of vipers. (Mt. 3:7) Now, if anyone thinks he was born in this way, let him consider what he deserved. It was because of her sin that she saw the pangs of childbirth increase, and that this grief, which was at first sight, increased in punishment for the sins of her children; for it is in the groans and tears that she gives birth to them, and scarcely have they been born, that they become for her a permanent cause of sadness. Thirdly, let us see the sentence pronounced against the man: "Because you have listened to your wife's voice, and have eaten the fruit of the tree which I have forbidden you to eat, the earth will be cursed because of what you have done, and you will not eat of its fruits, in all the days of your life but with great labor, it will produce for you only thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17-18).” Adam is also recalled to the state in which he was created, but with a decrease of his privileges. God had first placed him in the earthly paradise to simply cultivate the earth and see at once the fruit of his work. But scarcely has he despised the divine commandment, in the hope of finding in the council of the serpent a fate more fortunate than that which God had given him, God recalls him to his first condition, but by adding to it sweat and fatigue; the earth will no longer respond to his labors, it will be cursed not for it, but because of its works. God thus shows that His designs cannot be destroyed and that no one can show greater providence. No one, in fact, can love the work of another more strongly than the one who is the author of it, to the apostle's testimony: "Never has anyone hated his own flesh; nourishes and cares for her, like Jesus Christ the Church (Eph. 5:29).” Let us now see whether the continuation of the historical facts of the law agrees with its beginnings. Abraham having been pleasing to God, among other rewards of his faith, was judged worthy to beget a son in his old age. How, then, can we attack and condemn what God grants as a reward? That is to say, that Abraham having obeyed the divine will, sees God fulfill his own will, which could not have been done if this will was not innocent, for God would not have granted a request or bad or unintelligent, especially in with respect to him who was pleasing to him; a man himself would not act in this way. A man who was barren and loved God with all his heart, asked for a son and obtained it. Now, if this request were guilty, the God whom he loved should have warned him not to make a request contrary to the good. (I Kgs 1:2) Samuel, his son, of such eminent sanctity, had children in his turn, but the merit of his justice was not diminished. On the contrary, his virtue never ceased to increase since his first years, and he received from God in his old age the most striking testimony. The priest Zechariah, a righteous man, also had in his old age, by the will of God, a son who had the gift of prophecy even before his birth (Lk. 1:5). What is the reason why we are accused of what everyone agrees to present as advantageous? How can one deny that one must call good and useful something that does not harm anyone? And to speak here a little of the apostles and to make them serve for the direct defense of this cause, St. John was certainly a faithful observer of chastity; but we know that his colleague in the apostolate, that is, St. Peter, had a wife, and that the children she gave him were not an obstacle to the primacy he received from the other apostles. How then can we condemn what can be reconciled with the greatest merits? Thus the apostle St. Paul teaches that he who has a wife, if he observes the commandments, can and must be raised to the priesthood. If marriage were unlawful, he would not have declared that a sinner should receive the priesthood. And what is more evident? Is it not the same Apostle who says: "As for the virgins, I have not received a commandment from the Lord (I Cor. 7:25)?” The heretics notice trouble and agitation among the Corinthians, by hypocritically teaching that marriage should be condemned; they therefore consulted the Apostle by letters, to ascertain whether it was lawful to marry, or whether to send his wife away. It is then that St. Paul commands the woman not to separate herself from her husband, although it would have been the occasion, if he had been convinced that this was the true doctrine, to say that it was forbidden to marry, just as he declares that he cannot impose as a precept what he has received no command from the Lord. Who, on the contrary, does not hear him preach loudly: ‘I want young widows to marry and have children?’ But, I am told, if it is lawful, if it is advantageous to marry, why is it not permissible for priests to have their wives, that is to say, why is it forbidden for them to have relations with her after their ordination? Who knows that each state has its own laws? There are things that are generally prohibited at all; there are some who are permitted to one and forbidden to others; there are some which are sometimes defended and sometimes permitted. Fornication is forbidden to all without exception; but trade is sometimes permitted and sometimes defended. Before entering the ecclesiastical state, a man is permitted to trade, but he can no longer do so as soon as he is a part of it. In the same way, it is sometimes permissible, sometimes forbidden for a Christian to have relations with his wife. Thus, in the days of public supplication, it is his duty to separate from his wife, because he must abstain even from the things permitted to obtain more easily what he asks of God. For this reason the Apostle recommends abstaining for one time from the use of the marriage of the consent of one and the other, in order to attend to prayer. According to the law, wars and lawsuits are prohibited on fasting days, and are permitted on other days to show greater respect for the things of God. Is all that is permitted before other men equally before the person of the sovereign? How much more must we observe this rule in the things of God? The priest consecrated to him must therefore be purer than other men; he represents him, he is his vicar, and what is permitted to others is forbidden to him, because he must fulfill every day the functions of Jesus Christ himself, that is to say pray for the people, offer the sacrifice, or administer baptism. It is not only to the priest that the use of marriage is forbidden, but also to his minister, for he must be all the purer as the mysteries of which he is the minister are more holy. Just as in the presence of a torch darkness appears not only obscure, but hideous, as compared with the stars the flame itself loses its brightness, the stars compared to the sun become dark, the sun compared to God is more than a dark night; thus things which are lawful and pure to us become illicit and impure in the presence of the dignity of God, for all the good they are, they are not suitable to the divine majesty. Would not the tunic of an obscure man, no matter how clean, be a scoundrel unbecoming the person of the emperor? Is it not the same with the tunic of the Saxons for a senator? For the same reason the priests of God must be more chaste than other men, because they represent the person of Jesus Christ, and the purity of the ministers of God must be greater. Nobody comes to fulfill his office near the emperor, except in a perfectly neat exterior, with clothes of brilliant cleanliness. Now, God, who by his nature is light itself, demands that his ministers be pure in their conscience rather than in their garments; to him praise and glory for ever and ever. Amen. [QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, PL 35, Question 127]

GENESIS CHAPTER 4

(Gen. 4:1-4). WHY WAS THE SACRIFICE OF ABEL APPROVED OF GOD, AND THAT OF CAIN REFUSED? — One can conclude from the terms alone of this narrative that the truth of history is not veiled by any literary artifice. The Holy Scripture tells us here clearly that Abel was prudent and religious, while Cain was negligent and careless, and by the same had much less religion. Abel therefore chooses the best sheep of his flock to offer them to his Creator. By offering God the first fruits of the possessions he had made, he testified of God's excellence and deep submission, he testified his feelings of respect and adoration, and acknowledged that God was the author of all things. Cain, guided by coarser sentiments, could not offer God a similar sacrifice. When he was plunged into the things of the earth, he could not raise the eyes of his soul to heaven to consider what might be worthy of his Creator, and he offered to God the most common fruits of the earth. It is in this also that the Jews lacked righteousness. For the Lord has often reproached them that they are inconsiderately charging on his altar victims even unworthy of being offered to men. "You offer me," said he, "sightless or blind victims, I will not receive them from your hands; Offer them to your master or chief if they please him. (Mal. 1:8)” Everyone agrees, indeed, that one must offer what is most excellent to a person of higher dignity. The Lord therefore rejected Cain's gifts and said to him, Why are you angry and why is your face sad? If you do your offering with righteousness, but you do not have it in the choice of your gifts, you sin. Stay at rest. Your offering comes to you and you are the master of it. (Gen. 4:6). You see that it was the choice of the gift which rendered it, usable. He was not able to discern what was worthy of God, and reserved the best fruits for his use. It is not therefore the offering he has made that God reproaches Cain, but the unworthy presents he offers him. And he is not even condemned for this fact, but because in spite of this warning he would not correct his conduct. "This offering comes to you, and you are the master of it, (ibid., 7), that is, those gifts that I reject become your property again. He wants to teach him what to do in the future. Cain conceived a violent jealousy against his brother. This man of iniquity put to death the first righteous man, and thus gave men the example of crime. In fact, this profound jealousy blinded him to the point that not only did he not give thanks to God, who, far from punishing him as guilty, taught him to correct his conduct, but that he fell into a far more enormous crime which attracted his just condemnation. The imprudent conduct of the Cain fratricide resembles that of that wretched servant, who, ungrateful for the forgiveness he had just received from his master, wanted to acquit his companion, and thus deserved to be condemned without excuse, and for the fault which had been forgiven him, and for his cruelty to his fellowman (Mt. 18:28). Nevertheless, Cain was not condemned at once; he was left on earth to be confounded and terrified by his crime, and to facilitate the way of repentance and forgiveness. And as he was afraid of being put to death for the crime he had committed, he said to the Lord, "My iniquity is too great for me to be forsaken; If you reject me today from the face of the earth, I will escape from all eyes, I will be wandering and groaning on earth, and whoever finds me will kill me (Gen. 4:13).  Cain, afraid of the condemnation of the just Judge, fears that this abandonment of the Lord forces him to flee the eyes of men, certain that it is that he who has against him an angry God must fear to be put to death by the men. But what does the Lord answer? "It will not be so," said he, "that is to say, I will not let you go, you who do not deserve to live, that you may fall under the blows of your likes, but so that you may spend your life in groans, in fear, and in alarms, as a punishment for the evil example which you first gave on earth, and seeing that the earth does not respond by your productiveness to your labors. He, he adds, who will kill Cain will be punished seven times (Gen. 4:24). This sentence proves the justice of Cain's condemnation. When he saw this law given with that threatening sanction which forbade imitation of his criminal conduct, he knew the whole extent of the crime he had committed, and his fears increased. God threatens to punish seven times as great a punishment, so that by understanding how great the crime of Cain was before the promulgation of a positive law, he knew that he was incurring punishment seven times more severe if he was guilty of it, that is to say that knowledge of the law would add six degrees more to the punishment which Cain had deserved, and that this punishment would be literally sevenfold. This same number also represents the reward of those who have left everything to follow the Lord, and who, in addition, will receive eternal life in the other world. This is the sign that the Lord put on Cain, so that whoever would find him would not do so (ibid. 15). By virtue of this law which has been brought against the murder, every man who has committed a murder, because all murder is a homicide, would be seven times more guilty than Cain. God wanted the fear of such severe punishment to stop those who would be tempted to commit such a crime. [Questions on the Old and New Testaments, PL 35, Question 5]

(Gen. 4:24). DID LAMECH KILL CAIN, AS SOME THINK? — It is a false opinion based on what Lamech says of Cain, I killed a man who hurt me, a young man who covered me with wounds (Gen. 4:23). For Lamech was born of the fifth generation after Cain, that is, of Methuselah, the great grandson of Cain. Lamech recalls this fact to show that a much more rigorous punishment was reserved for those who would bound since the promulgation of the law. If, then, after Cain, the punishment has been sevenfold for the imitator of his crime, how much more severe will this chastisement be for that which neither the crime of Cain nor the severe reproaches addressed to him, nor the sentence pronounced against him may have diverted from a crime in which impiety is joined to cruelty. Lamech has committed this homicide after Cain, and without a doubt, from what we have said. His punishment was seven times more severe. Now what will happen to him who, after Lamech, will follow his example? He tells us by saying, I will avenge the death of Lamech seventy times seven times (Gen. 4:24). If this criminal action is not followed by repentance, it will be punished with a punishment seventy times seven times more terrible. That is why our Lord commands to forgive him who has sinned this same number of times, if he regrets his faults. (Mt. 18:22) But it must not be believed that another homicide was committed before that of Lamech and after that of Cain, because Lamech says, The murder of Cain was avenged (Gen. 4:24 LXX), as if this vengeance was done. As for Lamech, how could he have said that he had already been the object of this vengeance, whereas the murder he confessed to have committed was still recent? It may therefore be said that every crime carries with it its condemnation. For when there is no other hope, besides that one knows what is worth an act which is consummated, one considers as already done a thing which is yet to be done. Finally, it was said to Adam and Eve: The day that you eat of this fruit, you shall die of death (Gen. 2:17), and yet they did not die immediately, but after a long interval of time. However, since they had already lost the hope of immortality, death, which was not to strike them until later, was, so to speak, present to them, because it was then the object of their fears. When, therefore, Lamech confesses to having killed a young man, since it is certain that Cain could not live until that time, or that if his life has been prolonged until then, what seems impossible is then an old man, it is not him that Lamech killed. [Questions on the Old and New Testaments, PL 35, Question 6]

GENESIS CHAPTER 7

(Gen. 7:2). IF ALL THE CREATURES THAT GOD MADE WERE GOOD AND VERY GOOD, WHY DID HE SAY TO NOAH, "BRING WITH YOU INTO THE ARK OF PURE AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS, SINCE NO ONE CAN CALL GOOD WHAT IS UNCLEAN?” (GEN. 1:31; 7:2) — These words only make a question because they have several meanings.  If we consider the circumstance in question, they give rise to no difficulty, because things are themselves explained by the rank which they occupy. We call common what is not divided, sometimes that which is unclean. Thus the apostle St. Peter says: "I have never eaten anything common or unclean (Acts 10:14),” and St. Paul: "All that does not come from faith is sin (Rom. 14:23),” and elsewhere, "The law does not come from faith (Gal. 3:12),” and yet it is not a sin. You see, therefore, that the same expression does not always have the same meaning. When, therefore, a thing is qualified as impure, it is necessary to consider in what sense, for it is sometimes given this qualification only by comparison with a more perfect thing, sometimes, on the contrary, they wish to express by impure and truly evil works. No substance is evil in its nature, and things which are naturally called evil are only evil by comparison with more excellent natures. Thus, a dog is said to be impure in comparison with a sheep, lead is unclean if compared with gold, the raven when compared to the peacock. In the same body there are members more honorable than the others, and we know that they are not bad. All things therefore are good in their nature, because all are useful. [Questions on the Old and New Testaments, PL 35, Question 9]

GENESIS CHAPTER 11

(Gen. 11:10-13). WHY DOES GOD EXPRESS HIMSELF THUS: "MY SPIRIT SHALL NOT ABIDE IN MEN, BECAUSE THEY ARE FLESH, AND THEIR DAYS SHALL BE NO MORE THAN A HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS? —  The giants who were then on the earth, superb and wicked men, proud of the size of their stature, obeying the desires of their flesh, and apostates from birth, displeased sovereignly in God. It was then that he declared that mankind would perish by the deluge, and he set the time to allow time for correction to those whom the just threats of his indignation would touch with repentance. It was for this reason that the construction of this ark lasted a hundred years. Twenty years elapsed before Noah began to build it. But the narrative seems to throw obscurity on what it adds after speaking of the years of Noah. The sentence of God was carried before Noah had reached the age of five hundred years. And he said, "My Spirit shall not abide in these men," and he adds: “Because iniquity has increased on the earth, I will cut off from the earth, from man up to the animals (Gen. 6:3),” the prediction that the flood undertook to accomplish. Now we know that after the flood the life of men was prolonged for a great number of years; Aaron, the brother of Moses, lived a hundred and twenty-three years. If Moses had not lived beyond a hundred and twenty years, it is because he did not glorify God (Num. 38:38), for without this sin of definition he entered in the promised land. (Num. 27:14.) Some believe that the fact of the high priest Jo'ada, who lived a hundred and thirty years, is related to the time of Moses (Il Paral. 24:15). [Questions on the Old and New Testaments, PL 35, Question 5, 2^nd part]

(Gen. 11:14-21). OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHERE DOES ITS NAME COME FROM. — Everything that comes from God is reasonable, and everything has its source in a cause which is the principle of its origin, which justifies its name and its existence in the eyes of reason, and presents a designation which is the origin of the name that it is clothed. The reason for existence of man is therefore the cause by which it exists. Now it is composed of four elements, the earth, the air, the water and the fire; the fifth element is the soul, which is like the conductor and as the king destined to direct the body after its formation and organization. We derive our origin from the earth, and we bear its name. In fact, the name of men given to us comes from humus, earth, of which the body of our first father was formed. There is, therefore, here a cause, a reason for all those who derive their origin from the same father, to be called by the same name, and seem to reproduce it in themselves. Let us now see whether it is right to say as some, that the Hebrews are thus called from Heber from he is who they descend from. To consider only the name, this opinion would have some probability, for Heber lived prior to Abraham. If, however, it were true, all those of the tribe of Heber should have borne this same name to him, for seven generations separate Hebron from Abraham. (Gen. 11:16, 26) If, then, this name is prior to Abraham, or Abraham himself was called by that name, then the Hebrews derive their name from Heber. If, on the contrary, this name was not used until after Abraham, then it is not from Heber, but from Abraham that the Hebrews derive their name, since the children of Abraham are the first whom we see called of that name. Thus, in Genesis, Joseph and his brothers are referred to as the Hebrews. As it was known that Abraham had come from Syria in the land of Canaan (Gen. 17:4), that his house had grown there, that in reward of his law he had been filled with all sorts of goods, that he had been called king, prophet and father of many nations (Gen. 17:4), that with three hundred and eighteen men of his servants he had defeated five kings (Gen. 17:4), and that these events had not taken place in an ignored corner of the earth to remain forever unknown, the name of Hebrews was given to those who descended from that race. For all these reasons, Abraham was therefore worthy to become the leader of those who drew from him their origin. It was by a providential judgment of God that the chief and stump of the people of God was established in the land of Canaan, so that all who were born of him in their religion as well as in their way of life would be quite different then if he had not been himself before coming into the land of Canaan. God had renewed it entirely, and he himself had to found a new people in the religion of the true God. This is why the Apostle St. Paul is glorified to be born a Hebrew of Hebrew fathers (Phil. 3:5); it was for him a title of dignity, a recommendation, and a mark of nobility, to bear the name of him whom so many virtues had made pleasing to God, and who was the chief and the stock of his people. Reject this opinion if it is not conformable to reason, if it is despised if it appears unworthy, if it is entirely rejected if Abraham is not worthy of this prerogative, as guilty of flatteries towards him. What is this hostility against Abraham, what is this rivalry which makes him dispute this glory by his enemies? And who are they, if not his own children? What have they then to do in Abraham to dispute this honor? And what have they so much to praise in Heber to judge him worthy of this prerogative? If we could examine his life, we might find that he worshiped idols, like Thare and Nachor, and the father of Nahor, who have not lived in a time far removed from him, and who, according to the testimony of Joshua, have served the foreign gods. (Josh. 24:2) Let those who support the contrary opinion tell us the reasons which militate here in favor of Heber, and what are the merits on which we keep silence; but these merits are void, for the Scriptures are common to us, and we see clearly what is due to each. If they think they can defend their opinion by the name alone, it is weak and improbable. The name of Héber could decide the question here if other testimonies supported this presumption, for others with the same name could claim this privilege without any right. The feeling in conformity with the truth is that which is supported not by name alone, but by solid reasons. Indeed, God having deigned to choose Abraham to vivify the human race in his person and to propose it to men as an example to God. follow to reach salvation, he had to repair in him what human frailty had made them lose. Now it has been proposed as a model in the resemblance of which the human race was to return to God, and which was to place men in possession of the true worship of God and of the language which had been given them in the first place. Adam was at first the image of God, and it was through him that the knowledge of God was to spread on earth; but after the ruin of mankind and the forgetting of the true God in which men had fallen, God made up his image in Abraham so that his faith in the true God would be fruitful again in abundance. It is not, then, contrary to reason, that the people who came forth from Abraham owed to him both his origin and his name. Would the name of Heaven be difficult for them, because it seems to have more analogy with the word Hebrew, and that the word Hebrews is said, and not Abraham! Let them observe that the Hebrew language, and not the Hebrews, are spoken of. If they wish to attack us on this point, they are beaten by their own weapons, and victory remains undecided between the two parties; it is reserved for him who will prove the truth of his assertions by good reasons, for although one is in a position on one point, one loses one's cause if one is in default on another. We say, therefore, that a letter has been suppressed for being pleasing to the ear, and that the Hebrews are said to be Hebrew, because the pronunciation is softer. Thus we do not call the Jews who come from Judah ‘Judah’, but Jews. Everywhere, in fact, where reason requires it, one or more letters are suppressed or modified to make the pronunciation more agreeable. Thus, for the middle of the day, we say noon, and likewise in a multitude of similar cases. It is therefore proper, as we have shown, that the Hebrew people owe to Abraham his name as well as his language. It is therefore this tongue which was first given to Adam and to other men, and which to punish it the presumption which inspired the construction of the tower of Babel was confounded and divided into several languages, so that it ceased to exist, giving birth by the change of certain phrases to a multitude of other idioms, which nevertheless had the same expression. As to this primitive language, it was not entirely lost, but it was confused in the other languages. God then confounded the language of men to prevent them from understanding each other and to engage in more reckless excesses (Gen. 11:8). There were, then, as many tongues as there were divisions among men; each division established a different language in the country it inhabited. If we do not wish to admit that it is this language which, according to Scripture, was the only one spoken among men, it remains for us only that is, it was formed in detail of the other languages ​​and reduced to a single idiom used by Abraham. As he was to be the father of a great number of nations, he spoke a language composed of many languages, and thus was the object of a general renewal. When those who are represented in the book of Genesis as having only one language, and the same manner of speaking from the East to scatter all over the face of the earth, preserve the use of the primitive language. (Gen. 10:31; 11:1) Indeed, this language given to the first man in paradise is spoken in no other country as any other language except by the Jews. And after the confusion of languages, we no longer find the trace of the language we call Hebrew. If, therefore, this language is not found in any country, or in any people, and Abraham was a native of Syria, whence came this language that he spoke, he or his descendants, if it were not the first, at least it was formed of several languages? Some languages, indeed, have similar expressions. But this hypothesis does not satisfy reason as that which holds that this language is the first, for reason shows the providential design of this fact. In this way, Abraham had to speak the language spoken by the first man so that Moses, in his history of the creation of the world and of man, used the same language that God used when he gave the first man the name of Adam and the first woman the name of Eve. It was fitting that the account of Moses should be written in the language of those whose origin he tells us to teach as God had resumed his first designs and renewed the effects of his mercy in the person of Abraham. [Questions on the Old and New Testaments, PL 35, Question 108]

(Gen 11:30-32). ON ABRAHAM. — The faith of this patriarch was so perfect and so admirable that all the righteous by a wise judgment of God proclaim him the father of their faith, and that no one is worthy of God and of his affection if he bears the name of Abraham's sons. What makes his greatest glory in the eyes of God is that he did not hesitate to believe in things that seemed incredible, which deserves him among other rewards to see the Savior, in the hope of God, as our Lord Himself declared to the Jews: Abraham your father rejoiced in the hope of seeing my day; he saw it and rejoiced in it (Jn. 8:56). It was right that he who became a father by the merit of his faith should live the hope of his children in the distant past, a hope which God in his providential goodness should transmit as the Father, inheritance from a deeply religious father to his imitating sons of his obedience. Let us now see what was the object of this faith, that God might have judged it worthy of so great an honor, and of such a glorious reward. We praised Abraham's faith, but we have not yet told the object of his faith: God brought him out of his tent, and showing him the stars of heaven said to him: "Count these stars, so shall your offspring be. Abraham believed God, and this was imputed to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:5; Rom. 4:3). He would have no great merit in believing in God, had he not believed an incredible and insane thing in the judgment of the world, because one could not naturally hope for what God promised him. Therefore, Abraham was the only one in the world having believed this promise, was separated from the world and justified. The incredulity of human wisdom serves to raise the greatness of this faith, and that heroic hope which believed against hope. The hopelessness of the worldly is the merit of the hope of the Christians. The defiance of the wicked here makes the reward of the faith of the good, for faith is stronger and more complete when its object is naturally incredible. This almost desolate man believed that his wife, of a very advanced age, would give him a posterity so numerous that it could not be counted, because he considered the act itself promised to him less than he who promised it, and that he knew he could not lie. So his faith was imputed to him for righteousness. There would be stupidity in believing an absurd thing, the impossibility of which is known, if we had no guarantor for the authority of the person who proposes this thing to our belief. Abraham, therefore, demonstrates with admirable faith and great prudence, believing what is naturally incredible, and by confiding himself fully to him to whom one cannot refuse to believe without folly and without danger. What proves that our faith is reasonable is that it recognizes only God alone the power to do all that he promises. This is the strength and triumph of faith. Certain sages of the world, considering only the natural impossibility of these things, declare that it is a madness to believe them. They forget this maxim of the Apostle: and what appears in God as folly is wiser than men (I Cor. 1:25). They would have the right to treat us as fools, if we knew here what nature evidently does not have in nature. Now, what is impossible to nature, we believe that God can do it if he promises it. What can be found unreasonable in this conduct? If the fact to the fulfillment of which we believe is indignant with God, it would be right to accuse our faith of stupidity, but if it is worthy of God, by the very fact that it is impossible for the creature, how can it not fill with praise the faith which gives as much to the Creator as it refuses to the feebleness of the creature! Abraham is therefore truly great and worthy of admiration for not having hesitated to believe in God's promise against the judgment of the world, because God can do what He promises. Although he was a native of Chaldea, he showed himself to be the teacher of the faith, and though he was competent in astrology, he preferred God's thoughts to the thoughts of man, considering that he was worthy to believe that God could do a thing whose fulfillment would escape the investigations of the human mind. He gave to his weakness the power of God, who, in order to bring forth the unique and incomparable grandeur of his majesty, had resolved to do things unbearable and impossible to the world. He thus wished to show that he was the master of creation, and that every creature must submit to his empire. The promise he made seemed impossible to all other men, but their unbelief is all the more the lively faith of Abraham. His faith is the chastisement of unbelievers, just as the iniquity of unbelievers makes his glory. He is at the same time the father of the faithful and the judge of the infidels. By his example, the good will receive as reward eternal life, Abraham is not troubled by this strange order, and he does not argue about whether he should obey God, who commands him to kill his son, while he defends homicide under the most severe penalties. The will of God inspires him with firmness, and he does not hesitate to believe in the providential wisdom of what God commands him. And yet it was this child who was the child of their old age and a divine promise, the reward of their faith, the testimony of their virtue, and on which rested all the hope of the posterity which God had given them promised. In order to accomplish this commandment more religiously, he did not inform the mother of the child, lest she should put obstacles to this sacrifice. He knew all the tenderness of the love of mothers for their children, and that is why he hides from him the sacrifice which is asked of him, because he does not want to put any delay in doing what God commands him, to teach us by his example that care and eagerness we must fulfill the commandments of God. For if Abraham, this faithful servant, has obeyed such a harsh and severe command, what obedience to much easier commandments ought not be? O faith full of devotion to God! O unwavering hope in the Lord, which is so dear and sweet, that it prevails over the tenderness of the fathers for their children according to these words of Scripture: "Glorify and see that the Lord is full of sweetness (Ps. 33:8)!” The holy patriarch was a prophet, and knew what the future had in store for him. He therefore did not hesitate to practice what our Lord recommends us in his Gospel, and to prefer the love of God to the affection he had for this beloved son, obeying the words of the Savior: "Whoever loves his father, or his mother, or his children more than me, is not worthy of me (Mt. 10:33).” It is thus that this patriarch, to be preferred of God above all others, did not hesitate to sacrifice his son to him. [Questions On The Old And New Testaments, Pl 35, Question 117]

GENESIS CHAPTER 13

(Gen 13:5-18). HOW CAN ONE PROVE BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHETS RECEIVED BY THE GENTILES UNDER THE NEW COVENANT THAT THE PROMISE THAT GOD MADE TO ABRAHAM WAS FULFILLED BY THE COMING OF CHRIST? — It is written in the prophet Isaiah: "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. (Isaiah 56:7).” But the Jews may say, "The house of God, that is, the synagogue, is open to all men." We do not say the contrary, but on the condition that men will be circumcised before submitting to the law; for an article of this law commands them to be circumcised following the example of Abraham. There is, therefore, nothing new in this oracle of the Prophet, since from the beginning of Judaism no one has been forbidden from any nation whatever to embrace the practice of the law. The Prophet did not say anything again, let us say more, his words are superfluous, if the Gentiles have always been admitted to serve the God of Abraham, without ever having been defended. And the truth is that none of those who wished to submit to the law were rejected. Now, if it is so, it is very useless for the Prophet to remind us of a truth which has always been known and observed. But who would be meaningless enough to dare to say that such a great Prophet spoke unnecessarily and without reason? I do not know if one can hear this language with impunity without opposing it. Like the Jews to whom the prophets often reproached their crimes against God, and the confidence they placed in idols, refused to enter into the ways of penance and a sincere return to God, God, to confound them, declares that he will open his house to all nations to pray, and that instead of the Jews whom he rejects, he will admit other worshipers. If indeed the Gentiles have always been admitted to the practice of the law, as we have said above, how could the Prophet predicate this as a novelty, if not because he wanted to signify something other than this which was previously ordered? For he could not say of a thing that was done every day that it would be done in the future. It is therefore evident that these words are the condemnation of the Jews to whom the Prophet predicted that after their reprobation others will be called to receive the gift of the grace of God that had been promised to the Jews. Now the prophet Isaiah tells us what this promise is, when he says, "There will come a Redeemer who will deliver Zion and remove Jacob's impiety, and that is the covenant I will make with them (Is. 59:20).” This covenant is therefore the destruction of sins; it is the new covenant which God promised in these terms by the prophet Jeremiah: "Behold, the days come, Lord, and I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers, in the days when I took them by the hand to draw them out of the land of Egypt, which they have made vain, and I have punished them, says the Lord (Jer. 31:31).” He wants to speak of the evasiveness they made when they made a golden calf to worship him, and then they profane his covenant. So the tables on which the law was written were broken at the foot of the mountain, because the people deserved to receive more severe and painful commandments. But the Lord, full of compassion and mercy, promised by his prophets to change the law, and to replace it by an alliance entirely different from the first, that is to say, not only all that the former had of pain would be suppressed, but also all the precepts that were figurative, like the Sabbath and circumcision. They had groaned for a long time under this heavy burden, and God wished to deliver them from them wholly, that they might render him humble thanksgiving. But they preferred to persevere in the iniquity of their fathers, and did not wish to renounce the worship of idols; the Prophet therefore predicted that the Gentiles with the few Jews who had preserved the faith of the true God would enter into the new covenant to punish the perfidy of the Jews for a double punishment. For in this world they are burdened with the burden of precepts, and in the other life they will receive the just punishment for their crimes, because they have been unfaithful to God in the new as in the old covenant. God therefore declares that he gives this new covenant to replace the old one that was given to their fathers. He who serves God under this new covenant is no longer constrained to observe either the Sabbath, new moons, circumcision, or the distinction of food; it is enough to have the fear of God joined to the faith, because it is not by law but by faith that you are justified according to this testimony of the prophet Habakkuk: "The righteous will live by faith (Hab. 2:4).” Hence he no longer needs a great number of precepts to please God; some of them are sufficient from these other words of the prophet Isaiah: "When the number of the children of Israel is as many as the sands of the sea, the remnant only will be converted, for God in his righteousness will fulfill and abridge his word; yes, the Lord will give an abridged word on all the earth (Is. 10:22)." Thus God made known the abbreviated word of the law, that is to say, the new covenant which he had promised to the small number of those who, the midst of general unbelief had persevered in faith. He gives it the name of covenant, because, like the old covenant, it was confirmed by the testimony of blood; they both bear the same name, with the difference that the ancient covenant contained a great number of precepts, while according to the promise of God they are greatly reduced in the new. God had foretold to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations. (Gen. 17:4-5) Therefore, his children were to be justified as the children, and to become children of Abraham, according to the promise of the Lord, without recourse to the observances which had been established only after the faith of one, Abraham, and by the faith which had justified Abraham. It is not, however, new and unprecedented that men have been justified without the observance of the Sabbath, circumcision, and other prescriptions of this kind. Enoch was a friend to God and merited to be transported (Gen. 5:44), nor was Noah the only righteous man that God found in the flood; Abraham himself did not owe circumcision to be justified. Abraham believed God, it is written, and his faith was credited to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3). Circumcision was for him a sign of his faith in the promise that he would have a son in his old age. Abraham's merit does not come from conciseness, but from his faith. Consequently, faith alone is enough to justify men and make them children of Abraham by faith, not by circumcision of which they have no need; for the object of their faith is not the same which was imposed on the faith of Abraham. The Jews were subject to the precept of circumcision, because they were to bear the sign of Abraham’s faith, not of their faith, as the distinctive sign of the children of Abraham according to the flesh; if they have faith themselves, they become his children by justification. What is the use of a man without strength to call himself the son of a powerful man? Is it not rather an obstacle for him, for it is a shame for the son of a man whose glory equals the merit of being the same without honor. Circumcision. is so unmeritorious, that God threatens by the prophet Jeremiah to exert his vengeance on all who carry the sign of external circumcision but without being circumcised of heart (Jer. 4:4). But he is not angry with those who obey the circumcision of the heart without the circumcision of the flesh, because no one can please God without the circumcision of the heart. All who have received the circumcision of the flesh are the children of Abraham according to the flesh; those who practice the circumcision of the heart represent the children of Abraham according to faith, because they cut off from their hearts all the errors of the world and acknowledge God alone for their Father. What, then, is the circumcision of the flesh without faith to the Jew in order to attain the perfection of Abraham? Or in what way can the uncircumcision of the flesh hinder him, since no one can attain the justice of Abraham without being the imitator of his faith? It is therefore in vain that they glorify the circumcision of the flesh, since it has no merit in the eyes of God. And if, as we have proved, it is better to have faith than to be circumcised, the Gentiles are better than the Jews, then they have faith, while the Jews have only circumcision. Which ones, do I say, will Abraham recognize for his children, those who are like him after the flesh or who are the imitators of his faith? But it was faith that bore witness to Abraham. Therefore he glories not in the flesh, but in faith, and he admits to the number of his children only those whom he sees to be the imitators of his glory. For how could he call his children those who have only remoteness for what made him pleasing to God and deserved the justification? He will rather see in them his enemies than his children; and indeed they seem to be declaring themselves to him by despising the faith which was the cause of his glory. There is nothing surprising in the incredulity of the Jews who refuse to receive the New Testament, since they have not been more faithful under the old covenant. Their revolts against God were continual, they never ceased to outrage him; therefore he imposed upon them severe precepts to keep under the yoke those haughty and inflexible requirements. They would never acknowledge that God was the source of all good; and yet how many favors they had received from Him, than from brilliant prodigies carried out in their favor! This is what he reminds them of through the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel: "I have lifted up my hand against them in solitude, to scatter them among the nations, and to spread them on the earth, because they did not observe my commandments, and rejected my precepts.” And a little farther, "Therefore I have given them precepts that are not good, and ordinances where they will not find life (Ez. 20:33).” He teaches them why he has given them so many and difficult precepts; they had only shown ingratitude for such great benefits; he imposed upon them, under the inspiration of his justice, more severe commandments. He calls them precepts which are not good, though they are righteous, because far from justifying them, they turned to ruin, and that a punishment just that it is, is not good for him who suffer. In spite of their infidelities, God, in his goodness, promised to give a new covenant, where the law reduced to a few precepts would justify as Abraham those who believed in him, that without the observance of Sabbath, circumcision, and other precepts of this kind, and merely remaining faithful to the precepts of natural law, which defend homicide, adultery, and other similar crimes, they would be justified as had been Abraham. Since he was reviving Abraham's faith on earth, he wanted to put an end to all other prescriptions, and bring men back to the time of Abraham's faith. But the Jews may say: Let us admit that the commandments given by Moses have ceased to oblige by this abridgment of the law; Is circumcision one of those precepts which ought to be repealed? It is through it that we bear the sign of our father, the character of the children of Abraham, which must never be repealed to be a perpetual testimony of our race. I answer that circumcision must have been observed in its time, that is to say, before God had given men the New Testament which he had promised. But as soon as the grace of God has discharged men from the burdens of the law, what is still need of circumcision? Now the new law, that is, the spiritual law, was given to put an end to carnal observances, and so that those who embraced it would bear the sign of this law. Thus, as in the Old Testament, the Jews bore the sign of Abraham to which the old covenant belonged, so the Christians under the new covenant must bear the sign of the Savior, the author of the New Testament. Indeed, just as the Hebrews derive their name from Abraham, Christians take their name from Christ. All those who still bear the name of Hebrews have not yet received the new covenant which God has promised; they render useless the blessings and mercy of God, who no longer wish that his people should bear the name of a man, but deign to give to men the very name of his Son. What then is this audacity in the Jews to say that it is their law, and not our own, that we practice, whereas David says loudly, "I will praise you among the nations" (Ps. 17:50; 55:10), and again: "Sit down at the same table with his people?" The Lord said to the prophet Jeremiah, "I knew you before I had formed you in the womb of your mother, and I sanctified you before that you did bring forth from his womb, and I made thee a prophet among the nations. "(Jer. 1:5) Judaism has in its Scriptures distinct names, and is represented under the names of Jacob, or of Samaria, or of Jerusalem, or of Judea, or of Israel, but it is evident to the Gentiles that they are designated by other names than the Jews, and Jeremiah is more particularly our prophet, although God used all the prophets to announce that the Gentiles would share in his promise. These, he says in a more special way of Jeremiah because he is our prophet. It was he who was charged to predict that the new covenant would be more fruitful for the Gentiles than for the Jews, which we now see fulfilled. See, the new covenant has been preached by all the earth, and yet it is so rare, so difficult to find a Jew who has embraced the faith, that all the churches of the New Testament bear the name of the pagan nations as the prophet Hosea had predicted: "I will call my people who are not my people and my beloved whom I had not loved (Hos. 2:24, Rom. 9:25)." God therefore rejects the Jews and calls the Gentiles by an effect of that mercy and grace by which he has deigned to call Abraham, for Abraham did not know the Lord before he was called. So he who deigned to call Abraham also deigned to call the Gentiles. Why, then, is this pretension to say: This is our law, when it is manifest that the gift of God belongs to all those who sincerely want it? Let them therefore cease this rash usurpation; the grace of God is the common heritage of all men. What boldness yet to deny that our Lord Jesus Christ was promised in the law, when they see Him gather in Him all the characters predicted by the law? All the nations that believe in him are justified, according to the promise made to Abraham (Gen. 22:18); he was born of a virgin in Bethlehem of the tribe of Judah, according to the prophecy of the prophet Isaiah, a race of David, as God had promised. (Jer. 31:31), He preached the new covenant which God had promised to establish with mankind, and after all the prophecies, miracles which he has effected, he has humbled himself, as predicted by all prophetic oracles; he suffered, he died, as it is written in the prophets. If they ask for the time when this promise is fulfilled, as it is fixed in the prophet Daniel (Dan. 9:24), they will find fulfillment of it at the time when Jesus Christ was born and suffered; for from the first year of Darius, king of the Persians, to the birth and passion of our Lord, and even to the ruin of Jerusalem, which took place under Vespasian, the Roman emperor, the seventy weeks that is to say, four hundred and ninety years, and this calculation is clearly established by the reigns of the different princes who succeeded one another. Tertullian himself makes this calculation in the book he wrote against the Jews (ch. 8); but lest the exactness and precision of his calculation should draw him insults, we have passed over in silence. What difficulties can there be in this number, since the number of these years has been fulfilled? It is therefore an impudence without example, after the long space of time which has been added to the advent of the Savior, to say: He has not come. That in the time of the apostles, or when Our Lord still lived among men, malice could disguise itself to contradict the truth, and that, notwithstanding the evidence of the prophetic signs of Christ which shone in the Savior, the time of his coming to better hide his perfidy, at the right time. But now that many years have been added to the number predicted by the prophets, how impudent once again to deny the coming of Christ whose signs and times concur in demonstrating the coming? That a vase be full, but without overflowing, a spirit friendly to the dispute may deny that it is full; but if it overflows, it puts an end to any discussion. Thus the Jews were able to say in the time of the Savior (although without good faith) that the calculations from Darius to Our Lord, which tended to prove that He was the promised Christ, were ill-established. For we may be mistaken in calculating the years, months, and days of the emperors, and we cannot have precise and incontestable dates here. But now that years and centuries are added to the precise number of years marked by the Prophet, what excuse remains for the Jews not to recognize Christ in him who has come, unless he accuses of falsehood (what God forbid!) the very author of the promise? For the time of promise is past, and the promise of the promise is denied; what else is there to say to the author of the promise, "You are a liar?" But not the one who has promised is the truth itself, we have as proof all the signs which the prophets have given of Christ and which we find united in the person of Christ. As for the Jews, who would be ashamed of escaping from their error, they do not think of the judgment which awaits them, for nothing is more guilty than to deny the truth of what one perfectly understands is not a lie. [Questions on the Old and New Testaments, PL 35, Question 44]

GENESIS CHAPTER 14

(Gen. 14:18-24). ON MELCHIZEDEK. — Here is what we read of Melchizedek in the book of Genesis and also in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews: Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, appeared at the meeting with Abraham when he returned from the defeat of the kings, offered him bread and wine and blessed him, saying, "Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God who created heaven and earth and put your enemies into your hands (Gen. 13:18).” And to make us better understand the one who was represented by Melchizedek, the Apostle adds: "No doubt the one who receives the blessing is inferior to him who gives it (Heb. 7:3)”; words which the Apostle does not apply to the tradition of ecclesiastical ministry. Who, indeed, would dare to say that the rule instituted by the Lord to bless the faithful is superior to those which it blesses? It is therefore the mysterious presence of the Lord that is felt in these words of which he is the object and which recall him to our memory. The sacred author has wished to show us here his personal dignity and his power. What then is the greatness of this man in comparison with whom Abraham has only the second rank, in spite of the superiority which his generosity and faith give him among the faithful? Let us understand here that this Melchizedek does not bless Abraham, like the priests, by pronouncing a solemn formula of blessing, but by a blessing peculiar to him, and which he received not by an oral tradition but by nature and substantially. The priests to whom we give the name of pontiffs have solemn formulas of blessing which have been transmitted to them, and which they recite on the men whom they bless, not always on those whom they desire, but upon those which they do not wish to bless, because the author of this rule knows in what soul he ought to shed his holy blessing. He, on the contrary, who possesses this blessing substantially in virtue of his nature, and whom Moses calls the priest of the Most High God, gives this blessing as he does. The words of blessing and his nature always agree with his will. He never errs in wanting to give it where it should not be, or refusing it when he should give it, the words of the blessing he utters always have their efficiency. Our priests, on the contrary, invoke the name of the Lord every day, and pronounce formulas of blessing, but very few of them receive the effect. The priests also bless those who are superior to them. Whatever saint we may be, we bow to receive the blessing, because it is not an invention of the priest, but a divine institution. The high priest Heli blessed Anna, and this blessing has not the merit of the grandmaster, but the faith of this pious woman, whose pure heart God knew. (I Kings 1:17) If Melchizedek is declared superior to Abraham, it is not only because of priestly dignity, but by his nature, and the sacred writer wants to teach us that he is more that a man. It is impossible, indeed, to see only one man in one who is placed above such a great friend of God, of a man so full of faith that for love and fear of God he hesitated not to sacrifice his son, who was so dear to him. By what justice, by what works could he have acquired more merit than Abraham? What more could he do that Abraham did? In the first place, when he did not know God, and without yet seeing any decisive sign, God said to him, "Come out of your land and your kinsfolk and your father's house (Gen. 12:1)”, And he immediately obeyed without delay, thus accomplishing the will, not only of God who spoke to him at that time, but of the Lord was to manifest himself to mankind. Does not the Savior say, "Whoever loves his house, his father, or his mother, or his brothers, or his parents, more than me, is not worthy of me (Mt. 10:37)?" What then is the virtue and perfection of Abraham who fulfills the commandments of the Savior before they are proclaimed to the world? The Apostle recommends above all the practice of hospitality, Abraham so faithfully exercised it that it is his example which seems to have determined St. Paul to make this recommendation. He then thought that his posterity would multiply like the stars of heaven, which seems a madness to the eyes of the sages of the century (Heb. 13:2; Gen. 18:3), who are thus condemned by his example even before God had threatened to lose their wisdom, for it is afterwards that he says by his prophets: "I will lose the wisdom of the wise (Is. 29:14).” Abraham still obeys the command of God, who commands him to circumcise himself, which he could not do without pain, and he submits to it to give his descendants the example of patience (Gen. 17:24). God promises him that he will have a son of Sarah his wife despite his advanced age, and he does not doubt for a moment. He thus taught to future centuries that faith in the authority of God must be so complete, that it does not allow the slightest doubt about the commandments or the promises he can make even though they appear contrary to reason. We must consider here the person rather than the words, for it is the person who confirms and makes possible what the words appear to be weak. It is God who promises, and we must believe that he can do what seems impossible to men. In what way would man be reprehensible by attributing to God a power which he does not recognize in himself? Thus Abraham on the command of God does not hesitate for a single moment to put to death the son that God has given him (Gen. 22:3), he is not surprised at the will of God who demands death of a child whom he had given him as a testimony of his goodness and power; he is too convinced that it is not for man to discuss the will of God, and that his orders and his actions are inspired by a sovereign reason. Now, in order to execute this order with the most eagerness, he leaves his wife unaware; he knew the weakness of mothers for their sons, and that the tears of tenderness might have hindered the act of religion which he could have accomplished; he teaches his son only at the hour of sacrifice, that his obedience may be full and entire at the command of God, in the execution of which he does not see a parricide, but a holocaust demanded by the just judge. What more heroic actions could have made Melchizedek to surpass Abraham, whose obedience we have seen. was never surprised at fault? Moses, who conversed with God face to face, was sent to his people and his brothers and refused to go. The Prophet Jonah disobeys the order given him to go and preach to the Ninevites, and to another country where he was not from (Jon. 1:11). Job, this admirable man in all things, was, however, shaken by the death of his children; he tore his clothes, and cut his hair (Job 1:20), but we do not read that Abraham was grieved at the death of a son that was so dear to him, and we do not see that this son whom God commanded him to sacrifice trembled before this order that was given. We conclude from this that Melchizedek was more than a man, for he could not prevail over Abraham unless he was of a superior nature. Impassive nature possesses bliss by virtue of its substance, human nature obtains it by its actions. It does not have the perfection of divinity, it is therefore by exercise and by struggle that it becomes better from day to day, when its victories are more numerous than its defeats. If it were always impeccable in its actions, which is impossible, it would be better than God (far from us this thought), because if a nature that can commit like avoiding sin was always victorious from sin, it should be put above nature, which does not sin because it is impassive. There would not seem to be great merit in not sinning, because it cannot be; heroism would seem to have the faculty of ease and of not sinning. There is, therefore, this difference between the nature of God and the nature of man, that the nature of God is always happy in the security of his invincible eternity, while the nature of man only reaches happiness by work. Now it is necessary that the impassive beatitude should be diluted with that which is the fruit of the tribulations which thus bring joy. Impassive bliss has in it an inexhaustible source of happiness; for nature, on the contrary, it is only after great trials that it rejoices at having escaped death. Sadness is for it the means of animating happiness, and it’s passability is irreconcilable with uninterrupted happiness. He, on the contrary, who is impassive by nature, is always happy, because he does not know sadness, and cannot even suspect that he can attain it. As to the human nature, although it succeeds in felicity through labor, it will not be exempt from trials, and scars will not fail. And how, in the midst of so many battles in which naature is sometimes defeated, could it not receive wounds? Impassible nature, on the contrary, remains inaccessible to any attack, any wound, to any defeat. Scripture, therefore, would not say of Abraham that he is inferior to Melchizedek, if Melchizedek was not of a superior nature to that of Abraham? What we have just said may seem more ingenious than dense. But if we examine the divine Scriptures, we will be able to raise still more and more of the more excellent titles of glory. "This Melchizedek," says St. Paul, “king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God, who, when Abraham returned from the defeat of kings, appeared to meet him and blessed him, and who first signified the king of justice, was king of Salem, that is to say, king of peace; without father, mother, genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, is thus the image of the Son of God, and remains a priest forever.” And to bring out these prerogatives in his place, he adds: "Consider therefore how great was he to whom Abraham gave the tithe of his richest spoils (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1).”   To show the full extent of the merit and power of Melchizedek, he praises Abraham by saying that he is the chief and prince of the patriarchs, that is, he is superior to all the others, but inferior to Melchizedek, is it not evident that Melchizedek is not a man, but that he is of a superior nature? But what do these two titles mean, king of peace and king of righteousness? Look closer and see: the sun seen from far away seems like a flaming beam, and at a distance you take money from a man and be called king of peace, and justice, peace is preached to men, as well as justice, but he is called king of peace and justice, to make you understand that it is from him that justice and peace derive their origin, for it is impossible to put above it what is subject to its direction, it is to the institute of justice and peace that men do what is pleasing to God. Now these two virtues, which are the mistresses of man, have Melchizedek as king. What then is the superiority of Melchizedek over man, since the virtues which govern mankind are subject to him, is it not being the king of kings? When St. Paul tells us that he is a king of justice and peace, he wants to teach us that he is the principle of both, and that just as our Lord Jesus Christ is the king, the author of life, Melchizedek is the author of justice and peace, because those who receive life through Jesus Christ are ruled by righteousness and peace. For in the hearts of the servants of God he sends righteousness and peace to serve as an ornament to the doctrine of the Lord. We read in Psalm: "Let righteousness and peace be embraced, and let the truth rise from the earth (Ps. 85:11)." And to be well aware of what justice he meant to speak, the Psalmist adds: "Righteousness has looked from heaven.” Scripture predicts what was to happen in the days of the Savior, when the righteousness of God was given to the world through Jesus Christ, in the knowledge of the mystery of one God whom he had promised previously by the prophets. It was true, indeed, that the creature knew the truth of its Creator, and this righteousness having been manifested to the earth, put an end to the divisions which the injustice of ignorance of God had engendered, and reign peace and harmony among the most divided minds, establishing them in the unity of the same faith. It was thus that one saw kissing justice, the peace and the truth exited from the same source. It was from the earth that the righteousness which was to teach men was raised, for the incarnation of Jesus Christ taught them the truth which they ought to know concerning the nature of God. Such is the righteousness of God. Peace also comes from him, to the apostle's testimony: "May the God of peace crush Satan under your feet.” I do not see how these two things can be distinguished here, since the God of peace is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ himself, for he says: "I give you my peace (Jn. 14:27).” Why do you say that Melchizedek is the king of justice and peace? I do not understand how that distinction can be made. I therefore think that there is no difference here between the king of peace and the God of peace. As no one on earth should be called God, be reserved exclusively to the principle of all things, God establishes kings who would be like his image, and who, with the exception of the name of God, would have all his power; but as they are of earthly origin, they are the kings of men, but not the kings of peace and justice: for they themselves have believed above them righteousness that they are not permitted to despise. Justice for them is God himself, justice is God's own good, and he who transgresses it becomes guilty to the judgment of God. But for Melchizedek, Scripture does not represent him as an ordinary king among men, because he has under his authority justice which is above all kings. No one, in fact, can have justice under his rule unless he is impeccable by nature. Now it is under its rule, because it is he who has established it as a law destined to be a part of the world, to direct those who are subject to sin. The king of justice is therefore the one who rules the laws of which he is the author and who teach men what to believe and practice to arrive at happiness. We have already stretched ourselves long over the person of Melchizedek, and yet we say nothing worthy of him, unless we return to the Scriptures, which has long pressed us, and which shouts to us to draw us from the deep sleep which overwhelms us and call us to the intelligence not of the night, but of the day. Scripture tells us that Melchizedek is without father, mother, genealogy, and to prevent any interpretation would be less worthy of this personage, it adds that he has neither beginning of days nor end of life, Melchizedek, who was not subjected to birth or death, can testify so clearly to all the subtleties of human reasoning, and what a mind so clever and skillful that he would dare to resist and to pretend to impose its interpretation on the sacred text, instead of accepting the meaning which it naturally presents violence is inflicted on the divine Scriptures, and they meet here as enemies the very people who seem to submit to it. There are some who maintain that we ought not to believe in the person of Melchizedek what the Scripture brings us, and who wish to turn the Scriptures to their thoughts. The authority of the Scriptures to use ploys against them, by declaring war to them under the appearance of peace, and by hiding hostile intentions under the guise of friendship. They pretend, therefore, that it is not to show the greatness of Melchizedek, but rather to show the obscurity of his condition that the Scripture tells us that he was fatherless and without a mother. It wished to show us that Melchizedek was of an unknown race, and was not of the tribe from which Abraham came, since there was no trace of his family in the law. That is why it says again, "and without genealogy," to make us understand that there is no mention of his origin in the law, that he is not born of any parents, and that it is to him that he owes the great qualities that distinguish him. Now Scripture has so great authority here that it exposes in a perfect order all the elements necessary for the cause. At first it said that Melchizedek was "without father, without mother." Let us see what was the mother of Nachor, the grandmother of Abraham, and the mother of Thare; nor do we see what Abraham's mother was, not to mention the others. Shall we say that they did not have mothers? If the Scripture had said only "without a father," there would be a specious reason, for it has us preserved the names of the fathers of all of whom it speaks. Scripture adds: "And without genealogy.” If it expresses itself in this way to show that his birth is not mentioned in the law, it was enough to say: "Without a father," because no one knows his father. But it puts us still more clearly on the path of truth by adding: "Having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” Tell me, whoever you may be, who wish to do violence to the text, how do you explain these words? What does it mean to have neither the beginning of days nor the end of life? It is certainly sufficient to say that the genealogy of Melchizedek was not inscribed in the law, and that, by the same token, it must have been believed that he was of foreign origin. But one can say that he was taken away from this world like Enoch, and that is why he does not have end of life. Who then does not see a beginning of days? Will you say: It is because there is no mention of the day of his birth. But is the birth of others mentioned? and for you, however, the one whose day of birth is not mentioned, must be regarded as having no beginning of days? But then the same conclusion can be applied to others. Supposing now that he was taken from this world, he was not for that reason without life, for everything that lives in the expectation of death has a purpose. Stop these vain contestations, which seem to please you. It is better to be vanquished by truth than to triumph over truth by falsehood. It is a loss rather than a victory, for though the truth seems to have loss in the eyes of man, it remains victorious in the eyes of God because its reason is invincible. Our mind must therefore be conquered by the law, in order to receive the meaning which it offers it, and not impose upon it an interpretation at will, by violently substituting its authority for that of the law. Listen to what Zorobabel says: "Truth triumphs over everything (III Esdras 3:12).” Now Melchizedek reveals to us the future mystery of the Incarnation and the Passion of the Savior, first restoring to Abraham, as to the father of the faithful, the Eucharist of the body and of the soul, blood of the Lord, to make the Father the truth that was to be fulfilled in the children. If we want him to have been a priest like Aaron, or the present priests, to be told, to be shown the place where he lived, the temple or the synagogue in which he gathered the people, and offered sacrifices to him, or the people who gathered round him. For if he exerts his priesthood on earth, no doubt there existed, and before Abraham, a people whose priest he was, and this people now worshiped the true God. How then did Abraham become the leader of the believers, and it was through him that God was known to his people? In the same way, if Melchizedek taught men on earth the fear of one God, why choose Abraham to give his name to the people of God, since the servants of the true God could be found among those who gathered around of Melchizedek? What more do we read in the hymn which is found in Deuteronomy? When the Most High divided the people, when he separated the children of Adam, he marked the limits of the people, according to the number of angels of God. And he chose the people of Jacob to be especially his (Deut. 32:8).  If there were no other people of God in the world other than the children of Israel, why should there be found another people who followed the doctrine of Melchizedek against the contrary testimony of the prophet? Since he names all the peoples of the world, and gives only to the children of Abraham the name of the people of God, the logical consequence is that he denies that with the exception of the children of the God of Abraham, the others had the knowledge of God, because God is known in the alleged. Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, appeared as a symbol of the holy mysteries which the future was to reveal. The blessing was to be given later to the people of God by a minister of God to whom we give the name of priest. Melchizedek therefore appears as the precursor of the sacred person of the Son of God, and precedes him to do him honor, though inferior to him in dignity. Let us then leave what we have said of Melchizedek, Scripture says a thousand times more for the confusion of the opponents. Indeed, after these admirable testimonies to Melchizedek, Scripture confuses spiteful spirits by adding: "He is thus the image of God and he remains forever." Consider then who is the object of your unchallenged discussions and if he inspires no reserve, at least fear Jesus Christ, to whom it is like, according to the authority of Scripture. The Apostle comes insensibly and by order to the excellence of his nature, and if the prerogatives which precede have impressed upon the spirits, that is, that Melchizedek was king of justice and peace, has appeared in a visible body without having either father or mother, that is to say without being born, having neither beginning nor end, the last trait adds to all that he has just said a new degree of credibility. Who would dare to say, unless renouncing reason, that these glorious prerogatives are not suited to him whom the Scriptures declares like the Son of God, and who remains a priest forever? But he cannot be like the Son of God unless he has the same nature. And what is so incredible that Melchizedek appeared in a humorous form, as soon as we understand that he was the third person of the Trinity? For if the Christ who is the second person has frequently appeared in the form of a man, what doubt can we raise on what we have said? Do not we read in a psalm: "You are a priest for eternity according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 109:4)?” These words of the confession of all relate to the person of Jesus Christ, because Christ is a priest for eternity according to the order of Melchizedek. But Christ is the sovereign priest, and Melchizedek occupies the second rank. Now, if Melchizedek is only a man, would it be proper that Jesus Christ should be a priest for eternity according to his order? We see them both alike, both clothed in one ministry, because they have one and the same nature. But since the authority of one God must be preserved in every way, the third person appears here subordinate to the name of the Father. As for Christ, he holds the place of the Father, he is like his minister, and that is why he is given the name (the priest). Similarly, the Holy Spirit, as minister, is also called the priest of the Most High God, but not the sovereign priest, as our brethren presume in the oblation: for although Christ and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial, it is nevertheless necessary to preserve to each one the rank given him The priests are given the name of envoys because they are the representatives of the one who sends them, and they are like his image, and this is the reason why Christ and the Spirit which is the natural image of the Father, are called his priests: God manifests Himself in their person, as our Lord has said: "He that sees me sees my Father (Jn. 14:9).” Now, if the Lord has revealed Himself in the divine actions which He has effected, and if these actions are the works of the Holy Spirit as he declares: "It is in the Spirit of God that I cast out demons”, God manifested Himself in the Holy Spirit. [QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, PL 35, Question 109]

GENESIS CHAPTER 15

(Gen. 15:16). GOD HAVING FORETOLD TO ABRAHAM THAT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WOULD BE FREED FROM THE DOMINION OF THE EGYPTIANS. THE FOURTH GENERATION, WHY DOES THE LAW SAY, "THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHALL COME FORTH OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT INTO THE FIFTH GENERATION?" — To consider only the words, they seem to contain a contradiction, but this contradiction disappears if we attach ourselves to the very meaning they present. The law speaks in intelligible language to the attentive and serious minds, and the truth which is hidden to the careless minds reveals itself to souls full of religious solicitude. God indeed said, "In the fourth generation (Gen. 15:16)," and Moses wrote, "In the fifth generation (Ex. 13:18),” it is Moses who relates these two versions, and one cannot admit the intention of wishing to deceive a man by whom the divine power has performed such great prodigies. We must, therefore, examine the signification of these words, for Holy Scripture never speaks uselessly and without reason. God and Moses each took a different starting point here. God counts the four generations who were born in Egypt; Moses adds to these four generations the one from which they came out when the Israelites entered Egypt. "The children of Israel," he said, "came out of Egypt to the fifth generation." He embraced all the generation that came into Egypt and the four that were born in Egypt. From Abraham, the exit of the children of Israel from Egypt is eight generations. For after the promise made to Abraham, they dwelt in the land of Canaan two hundred and fifteen years, and two hundred and fifteen years in Egypt. It is these years together that the Apostle understands when he says in his Epistle to the Galatians: "The law was given after four hundred and thirty years. Four generations were born in the land of Canaan, the first in Jacob, the second in Jacob, the third in Levi, the fourth in Gerson, Caath, and Merari. And Aram brought up Eleazar, and his brethren, which formed the third generation: and Eleazar begotten Phinehas, and it came to pass, that he was the firstborn of Egypt was the fourth generation, and these were the four generations that were born in Egypt: therefore the Lord said unto Abraham, Your seed shall dwell in a foreign land, and shall be reduced to bondage: but I will deliver them, and they shall come forth out of this land of exile after the fourth generation (Gen. 15:13) Is it not evident that God only wanted to speak exclusively of what was accomplished in Egypt? Moses, on the contrary, wanted to add this generation which came to Egypt with Jacob his father, and from which came forth the four following. Hence these words: The children of Israel came forth out of the land of Egypt into the fifth generation. [Questions on the Old and New Testaments, PL 35, Question 10]

GENESIS CHAPTER 17

(Gen. 17:9-10). WHY DID ABRAHAM RECEIVE CIRCUMCISION AS A SIGN OF HIS FAITH? — If you want to pay attention to it, you will see a perfect fit in what at first sight might seem to you devoid of reason. Abraham believing that he would have a son in which all nations would be blessed, and who would be the principle of all holiness, received the sign of this promise on the member by whom the generation of children begins, it tends to a higher holiness. If we were tempted to see in it something different, let us remember that circumcision was a subject of joy for Abraham, and that his children were always glorious in this testimony. Indeed, Achior, one of the princes of the idolatrous nations, witnesses of the great wonders of the God of Abraham, who by the hand of a simple woman had cut off the head of that general of the olives Assyrian militia, whose whole land dreaded power, wished to receive circumcision himself as a mark of honor and dignity (Judith 13:27; 14:16). Is not a Christian proud to have lost an eye or a member for the name of Jesus Christ? does he not discover this part mutilated in the eyes of men as a title of glory? And in this way, a momentary loss for faith is a real gain. The circumcision which Abraham received as a sign of his faith, was therefore for him not a mutilation of the soul, but a mark of honor. Now this ceremony signified in the spiritual sense that the clouds of the flesh were to be cut off from the hearts of men by the faith of Jesus Christ, because the error of the senses, covering the hearts of men as a cloud, an obstacle to the Creator's knowledge. Now, Abraham, to whom God promised that the Christ who was to dispel this cloud would be born one day of his race was circumcised, because he believed that a son would be born to him that would destroy this error. Judge now whether it was not proper that he should receive on this part of the body the sign of his faith. [Questions on the Old and New Testaments, PL 35, Question 12]

WHY DID GOD IMPOSE ON THE JEWISH PEOPLE CIRCUMCISION AND OTHER PRECEPTS THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE AND WHICH HAVE NOW LOST ALL AUTHORITY? — Circumcision is the sign of Abraham's faith, and it was established to be the distinguishing sign of the children of that patriarch who received this sign after having believed in the promise of God. The precepts that relate to the sanctification of the Sabbath were given as a testimony of the past and a figure of the future. This sabbath, which is like the crowning of every week accomplished, is the figure of the Sabbath which must one day put us in possession of an eternal rest. (Ex. 20) The law relating to food was not given at the beginning, but when, under the inspiration of unbelief, the Jews refused to believe in the words and promises of God; it was then that they received imperfect precepts, as the prophet says (Ezek. 20:25), and whose purpose was to lower their haughty heads and bring them back to the earth to be better. It was not just, indeed, that all creatures should be subordinate to haughty and obstinate men. But when the mercy of God spread over men, it gave them freedom in the choice of food. So the apostle Peter said: "Why did you impose upon the heads of your brethren a yoke which neither our fathers nor we could bear?"(Acts 15:10) [Questions on the Old and New Testaments, PL 35, Question 10, 2^nd part]

(Gen. 17:11-12). WHY DID GOD COMMAND THE CIRCUMCISION OF THE CHILDREN ON THE EIGHTH DAY? — God commanded to circumcise every male child on the eighth day after his birth, because after the number of seven days had passed, the eighth day became like the first after the Sabbath, and was no longer the eighth, but the first. As the salvation which Christ was to bring to the world was to take place on the first day called the day of the Lord, because the Lord resurrected that day after the Sabbath; the figurative sign of salvation was given in circumcision to make known the future regeneration even under the law of circumcision. It was by faith that men were to be saved, and this faith received its confirmation on the first day of the resurrection of the Savior; the figurative sign of salvation was thus established on the first day in the law of circumcision, which was also to be the sign of the faith of Abraham. Harmony is therefore complete here; the sign of the past faith which was given on the first day, was the figure of the future faith which was firmly established on the first day. [Questions on the Old and New Testaments, PL 35, Question 29]

GENESIS CHAPTER 19

(Gen. 19:25). IF GOD'S JUDGMENTS ARE RIGHT, WHY WERE THE CHILDREN CONSPIRED WITH THEIR PARENTS IN THE FIRE OF SODOM? — In order to bring out the greatness of the crime of the inhabitants of Sodom, God desired that the punishment should extend to the death of their children, in order to destroy even the last remnants of that guilty race. But did not God act in their interest, lest by prolonging their life they should follow the example of their fathers? For they are exempt from the pains of hell, because they have been the victims of a crime which they had not committed. Parents are charged with the double responsibility of their punishment and that of their children, because to erase the traces of their crimes, it was necessary to destroy all their posterity. Just as children rejoice in the virtues of their parents, because they are a title of glory to them, so they have no right to complain of the death that strikes them to punish the crimes of those who have them given the day. They are associated with benefits, they must be punished. In Egypt, children were also punished for the mistakes of their parents, but to bring them back to more just feelings. The other prodigies could not induce them to believe in the God represented by Moses, and to adore him; this scourge had for the end, by striking them with terror, to make them confess and expiate their hardening, and to spare them a more rigorous punishment. The crime of the parents is therefore the cause of the death of the children. However, the children have paid this debt, they will one day be the accusers of their parents, because the very blood of their children has not been able to triumph over their disloyalty. It is not therefore for the future life, but for the present life, that the children have suffered the punishment due to the crimes of their fathers. And it is not for them a slight favor to escape guilt, though not in glory. We see men, at the end of their lives, demanding the profession of the true faith, in order to obtain, if not the crown, at least their forgiveness; How then can they complain of those who, by the conduct held towards them, have neither to beg forgiveness of their faults, nor to obtain an extraordinary reward, because they have not deserved it by their labors? Compare a moment of suffering with a torture that lasts for centuries. Consider, too, that a great number of them take great pains, and, for lack of perseverance, not only lose the fruit of their labors, but are guilty of punishment. And add that it is difficult for those born of vicious parents, who have been brought up, or who have lived in the society of the wicked, to bend their souls under the yoke of divine law. See here again if God has not acted wisely towards these children. [Questions on the Old and New Testaments, PL 35, Question 13]

GENESIS CHAPTER 20

(Gen. 20:4). CAN WE EXPLAIN THESE PARABLES OF THE SAVIOR ON THE CROSS: "FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING (LK. 23:44)?” IF THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, HOW CAN WE FORGIVE THEM WHEN KING ABIMELECH SAYS TO GOD, "SHALL YOU LOSE AN INNOCENT NATION BECAUSE OF ITS IGNORANCE (GEN. 20:4)?" — All ignorance is not exempt from punishment. Ignorance is excusable in those who have not been able to find means of learning. But the Savior asks His Father to forgive those who have no desire to learn when they can. This ignorance is therefore guilty in them, and it will be forgiven them if they convert. All ignorance is not exempt from punishment. He who was able to learn and did not do it, was guilty. Neither matter nor the masters were wanting him to learn, but the pleasures or a bad disposition made him neglect this duty and rendered it utterly inexcusable. This is what makes the Savior say in speaking of the Jews: "If I had not come, and had not spoken to them, they would have no sin (Jn. 15:22)." As for the one who is in ignorance without his fault, because he has not found a master to learn and has not been able to know by the public what it was necessary to think of such a doctrine, it is all to made free from fault and condemnation. The Lord asks his Father to forgive if they convert to those who have taken no care to learn the truth when he proclaimed it to them and who put to death by ignorance the very author of the truth. That is why the Apostle St. Peter said to them in the Acts: "Turn ye that your sins be blotted out.” (Acts 3:19) [QUESTIONS ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, PL 35, Question 45]

GENESIS CHAPTER 27

(Gen. 27:27). IF THE WILL OF THE RIGHTEOUS MAN IS GOOD, WHY DID NOT ISAAC BLESS ESAU AS HE WISHED, BUT JACOB WHOM HE WOULD NOT BLESS? — The will of the just man is good, considered in his conscience; but as to foresight, it remains alien to unfortunate events. For God alone can judge things to come. That is why the righteous one, to consider only the outside, believed that his eldest son deserved to be blessed preferably. But God, who knows what is most secret, can see that the younger deserves this blessing, to show that this blessing was not a human favor but a grace from God; for it is not to the merit of man, but to the dignity of employment, that the blessing of God is attached. We see in the book of Numbers that God said to Moses and Aaron, who were priests, "Call upon my name on the children of Israel, and I, the Lord, will bless them (Num. 6:27)." Thus grace is transmitted to men by the ministry of those whom God chooses for this purpose, without the will of the priest being an obstacle or an advantage; God only takes into account the character of the person who asks for the blessing. Let us understand the greatness of the priestly dignity. The Evangelist, speaking of Caiaphas, said that high priest, who carried the wickedness to the last restrictions by having the death of the Savior, “He did not say that of himself, but this prophecy, because he was high priest of this year (Jn. 11:51).” We see that the spirit of graces is not attached to the person, whether worthy or not, but to the succession of the priestly order. Therefore, whatever may be the merit of a man, he has no power to bless unless he is chosen and ordained to fulfill this sacred function; but it is always from God that the blessing receives its efficacy. [Questions on the Old and New Testaments, PL 35, Question 11]

(Gen. 32:30). JACOB WAS CALLED THE MAN WHO SEES GOD, AND MOSES SAW GOD FACE TO FACE. (EX. 33:11) HE ALSO SAYS: "I HAVE SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES THE GOD OF HOSTS. (IS. 6:5). ON THE CONTRARY, THE EVANGELIST SAINT JOHN SAYS: "NO MAN HAS EVER SEEN GOD.” (I JN. 4:12) THERE IS, THEN, A CONTRADICTION HERE. — To speak the truth, no man really saw God, neither the Father nor the Son. If the Scripture tells us that men have seen Him, it is through intellect, for it can only appear to them in the figure. Just as without knowing the emperors we see them in image and not in reality, so God was seen in the sense that men understood that God appeared to them in a rational and not substantial way, for God cannot be seen in His nature. To put the difficulty of this question into all its light, let us endeavor to explain the meaning of the words of St. John. For he has wished to reveal to us a hidden truth which is part of the doctrine of salvation: "No man," he says, "has ever seen God; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father has manifested Himself.” (John 1:18) Let us examine the meaning of these words of the Evangelist; to show us that it is of all truth that no man has ever seen God, he places this declaration on the lips of the Son himself who cannot be deceived because he is in the bosom of the Father. Now, what is the breast of the Father except the love of the true Father for his Son by the unity of nature that is common to them? No one, then, has ever seen God, except the only begotten Son, which the Apostle of God revealed among other things to the apostle St. John: "It is not that someone to see the Father, only the one who is of God has seen the Father.” Now it is to condemn the Jews who did not want to hear or believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that the Evangelist proves to them that it was this same Christ who appeared as God to the patriarchs, the Father was never seen except by the Son. Indeed, denying that God the Father was ever seen, and yet declaring that God appeared to the patriarchs, the Son of God wants to reveal himself and show that it was he who appeared as God to their fathers. That is why he said to the Jews speaking of his Father: "You have never heard his voice or seen his face (Jn. 5:37).” There is, then, no contradiction in saying that God has been both seen and invisible. [Questions On The Old And New Testaments, PL 35, Question 71]

GENESIS CHAPTER 49

(Gen. 49). WHAT IS THE BLESSING THAT JACOB GAVE TO HIS CHILDREN? — Jacob predicted what was to happen to each tribe in the midst of the Jewish people, not only from current and present causes, but from non-existent causes, of which the seed itself did not yet appear. He predicted what each tribe should be; their manners, their faithfulness, their obedience, their disorders, their excesses, their contempt for the faith, and how those who had left the same father would be far from following the same path. Indeed, some have made progress in good, others in evil, others have remained what they were. There was therefore no need for them to glorify the privilege of their birth since Jacob predicted that some of them who had the same origin would be reprobate, that many would perish and be replaced by others who for their shame and condemnation would be grazed from the tree of which they were detached. The predictions of this holy patriarch thus embrace all the people composed of all the tribes, the small number of the good as well as the multitude of the wicked. Though he gave authority to Joseph for a time, it was Judah, however, which he placed at the head of all the tribes; no, not that all who are of the tribe of Judah should be worthy of this preeminence, but because the Savior who is the true king was to come out of the tribe of Judah according to the flesh. [Questions On The Old And New Testaments, PL 35, Question 6, 2nd part]

GENESIS CHAPTER 50

(Gen. 50:24). WHY DID JOSEPH, AFTER PREDICTING THE FUTURE, BESEECH THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL TO CARRY HIS ASHES FROM EGYPT WHEN GOD DELIVERED THEM? — It is an incontestable truth that Joseph did not make this recommendation to the children of Israel without cause. It cannot be supposed that the man whose gaze had plunged into the future spoke here without reason. He was full of a profound religion for the Creator God; he also knew what a veneration they had for the Egyptians, who remembered the wisdom of his administration during the famine which weighed upon Egypt. He therefore wished to take away this cause of error from him after his death, and to prevent them from rendering him worship, which belongs only to the Creator, for he knew all too well that the vain and light people are inclined to render divine honors to the dead rather than the living. He proves by this conduct that he did not share the vain superstitions of the Egyptians, since he orders to carry his ashes so that they do not become a subject to offend God. The Apostles imitated this example. Paul and Barnabas, perceiving that they wished to offer them a sacrifice, and knowing how much God abhorred such idolatry, tore their clothes, exclaiming, "What are you doing? we are men like you (Acts 14:14).” And they turned away the people from this sacrilegious design. [Questions On The Old And New Testaments, PL 35, Question 25]