TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
PREFACE.
I received with the greatest pleasure and the most intimate satisfaction the questions which you have kindly addressed to me, Simplicien, my father; and if I did not endeavor to answer it, I would do not only blameworthy resistance, but ingratitude. We had already discussed in some way, and even in writing, the difficulties you are proposing concerning the Apostle St. Paul. However little satisfied with previous researches and explanations, I have studied with more care and attention the words of the Apostle and all his thoughts. For you would not submit them to our examination, if the intelligence was easy and accessible to all.
FIRST QUESTION. - What does St. Paul think of the Old Law? - 1. The first question you asked me for clarification extends from these words: "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Not at all, "up to these:" The law is therefore good for me if I will, "and what follows, including, I think, that passage unhappy man that I am, who will deliver me from body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord? Here the Apostle seems to me to have personified, in himself the man subject to the old law, and to have adopted language for his own account. And as he said above, "We are freed from the law of death in which we were kept, that we may serve in the newness of the spirit, and not in the dilapidation of the letter; And that these words might pass for a reproach against the Law, he hastens to add: "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Far from there. But I only knew sin by the law. For I would not know concupiscence, if the law had not said, Thou shalt not covet. 2. One might object here: Although the Law is not sin, but only gives occasion for it, it is none the less blamed by these words of the Apostle. It must be understood, then, that the Law was given neither to produce nor to destroy sin, but only to make it known, to convince of its guilt the soul which thought itself almost assured of its innocence; so that sin could be conquered only by grace, she became anxious about her fault and turned to the side of grace. So the Apostle does not say, "I have committed sin only by the Law, but I have known sin only by the Law. He does not say either: I would not have coveted, if the Law had not said: Thou shalt not covet, but: I would not know concupiscence, if the Law had not said, Thou shalt not covet. From which it follows that the Law did not produce, but merely made known concupiscence. 3. Now, since grace was not yet available to resist concupiscence, it had to be increased. Indeed, when the crime of formal resistance is added to it, when it acts against the Law, it has more force than if it were not forbidden by any law. This is why the Apostle adds: "Now, taking occasion of command, sin has produced in me all concupiscence. Concupiscence already existed before the Law, but not entirely, because there was not yet formal resistance. So Saint Paul says elsewhere: "For where there is no law, there is no prevarication." (Rom. IV, 15.) 4. As for the following: "For without the law sin is dead," it is as if he were saying: Sin is hidden, that is to say, it is supposed to be dead. This is what he will clearly express a little further down. "And I," he continues, "I used to live. without law; That is to say, death, fruit of sin, did not terrify me, because sin did not appear, since there was no law. "But when the commandment came, sin re-lived," that is to say, it is made to see. "And I am dead," that is to say, I understood that I was dead; I know at least that prevarication holds me under the threat of certain death. Evidently these words: "When the commandment came, the sin has re-lived," indicate enough that sin once lived, that is to say, it seems to me, has shown itself in the prevarication of the first man, since he had himself received a command (Gen. II, 17). For the Apostle says elsewhere: "But the seduced woman fell into prevarication (2 I Tim. II, 14); And again: "By a prevarication similar to that of Adam, who is the figure of him who was to come (Rom, V, 14). Because to relive one must have lived. But sin was dead, that is to say hidden, because men, born mortal, lived without Law and followed the lusts of the flesh without suspecting it: for there was no defense. So: "And I used to live without law," says the Apostle. By this he clearly shows that he does not speak in his own name, but in general and in the name of the old man. "But when command came, sin re-lived. And I am dead; it turned out that this command,. who was to give me life, caused my death. Indeed, if one obeys the commandment, it is certainly life. But it turned out that he caused death, because to sin against the commandment is not only to sin, (it was already sinned before) but it is to sin with more malice and perversity, then evil is done knowingly and by formal disobedience. 5. "For," continues the Apostle, "the sin taking occasion of the commandment has seduced me and by him has killed me. The sin abusing the Law, while the defense increased covetousness, became more pleasant and seduced us. For it is a deceitful sweetness, which is followed by more numerous punishments, greater and more bitter. As the man who has not yet received spiritual grace has more attraction for a defended action, sin seduces by a false sweetness; and the prevarication added to it, he kills. 6. "Thus the law is holy and command it holy, just and good. Indeed the law orders and defends what is needed. "What is good has become for me death? Far from there. Evil is in the abuser, and not in the commandment itself, which is good. Because the law is good, if it is used legitimately (I Tim.I, 8). But that one who is abusing them does not submit himself to God in a pious humility, to be able to fulfill the Law by means of grace. Thus he who does not legitimately use the law receives it only to provide, by his prevarication, to appear his sin which was hidden before the defense. And that beyond measure; Because it is no longer simply a sin, but a disobedience to the commandment. The Apostle then continues, adding: "But sin, to appear sinned, has, by a good thing, made death for me; so that the commandment has made the sinner or the sin exceedingly guilty. By this he explains the meaning of what he has said above. For without the Law sin is dead; Not that he did not exist, but he did not appear; and in what sense he also said, "Sin has re-lived," which does not mean that sin existed only after the law, but only then it appeared as disobedience to the law; since in this same place the Apostle says: "But sin, to appear sin, has, by a good thing, made death for me. He does not say: To be sin, but: "To appear sin. " 7. Then he gives the reason: "For we know that the law is spiritual, and I am carnal. It is sufficiently clear here that the Law can only be fulfilled by spiritual men, who become such only by grace. In fact, the closer man comes to the spiritual Law, that is, the more his affections rise in the spiritual order, the better he fulfills the Law; because he finds there a greater pleasure, seeing that he is no longer overwhelmed under his weight, but fortified with his light; for the command of the Lord is luminous and brightens the eyes, his law is pure and converts souls; (Ps. XVIII, 8, 9.) grace remits sins and pouring out the spirit of charity which does not deprive virtue only of what it has painful, but makes it pleasant. Obviously after saying, "And I'm carnal," he had to explain how much. For those who are already under the influence of grace are also called carnal in a certain sense. Already redeemed from the blood of the Lord, and born to the life of faith, To these the Apostle said, "Therefore, my brethren; I myself could not speak to you as to spiritual men, as to carnal men, as to little children in Christ Jesus; I have watered you in fact, "But I neither laugh nor give you food (1 Cor. III,1, 2)." I must see from this that they were born to the life of grace, they who are little children of Jesus Christ and whom we must drink of milk, and yet he still calls them carnal. As for him who is not yet under the rule of grace, but under that of the law; he is carnal in the sense that he is not freed from sin, but sold as a slave to sin because he seeks, as the price of a fatal pleasure, the very sweetness that seduces him and that he has violated the law , with all the more pleasure that the defense is more formal. But he can not accept this sweetness as a reward suitable to his condition without being forced to undergo the yoke of passion as a slave bought. He feels that he is the slave of the passion that controls him; he to whom a defense is made, who knows perfectly this defense and yet the transgress, 8. "So what I do, I do not understand it:" These expressions: "I do not understand it," do not mean to say: I do not know that I sin; otherwise the Apostle would contradict himself, since he said: "Sin, to appear sin, has, by a good thing; operated in me death; And above: "I knew sin only by the law. How would sin appear, how would he know it, if he did not know? But he speaks in the same sense as the Lord, when he once said self-wicked, "I do not know you (Matt. XXV,12):" For nothing escapes God, since he has open fires on those who do evil, in order to erase their memory here below (Ps. XXXIII, 17). Sometimes, for ourselves, to ignore means not to approve. So when the Apostle says, "What I do, I do not understand it," that means I do not approve of it. This is what the following demonstrates when he adds: "For what I want, I do not do it; but what I hate, I do it. I hate here the sense of ignorance, as of those to whom the Lord will say: "I do not know you," it is written, "You hate, O Lord; to all those who commit iniquity (Ps V, 7)." 9. "If I do what I do not want, I accept the law as good. He does not want what the law does not want because the law defends what he does. He therefore agrees with the law, not so much as he relaxes, but because he does not want what he does. He is conquered because he is not yet delivered by grace, although he already knows by your law that he is doing evil and that he does not want to do it. As for the following: "Now therefore, it is no longer I who do this, but the sin that dwells in me," that does not mean that he does not consent to do evil, even though he is agree with the law to condemn it. For he speaks again in the name of man established under the rule of the law (Ret. l. I, ch. I.) and not under that of grace; of man, therefore, led to do so by the concupiscence which dominates him and seduces him by the false sweetness of the forbidden sin, although he disapproves of it, enlightened by the law. "I do not do it," means: I do it because I'm defeated. It is indeed passion that acts; she is yielded because she is the mistress. But not to yield, to strengthen the soul against passion, must grace, which the Apostle will speak. 10. "For I know," he says, "that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. As far as he knows, he is in agreement with the law; but insofar as he acts, he yields to sin. Now where does he know what he is saying, that what dwells in his flesh is not good, but sin? Whence does he know it, except by the transmission of the mortality of mortality and the continual assaults of voluptuousness? One is the punishment of original sin, the other the punishment for frequent relapses in sin. We bring it one by coming into the world, we add the other during our life. These two things, nature and habit combined, make passion very powerful, very difficult to overcome; this is what the Apostle calls here sin, and which he declares to dwell in his flesh, that is to say, to exert an entire domination, a kind of empire. It is in this sense that we read in the Psalmist: "I would rather be last in the house of the Lord than dwell in the tents of sinners (Ps. LXXXIII, 11)" as if he who is despised wherever he may be, he was not regarded as inhabitant; which connects with the word habitation the idea of any domination. But if grace produces in us the effect that the Apostle expresses elsewhere in these terms: "Let not sin reign in our mortal bodies, until we make them obey his lusts (Romans vii., 12)." we can no longer properly say that sin dwells in us.
11. "Indeed the will is in May, but to do good, I do not find it. These words, for those who do not understand them well, almost seem to destroy free will. But how would that be, since the Apostle says, "Willingness resides in me? Certainly the will is in our power, since it resides in us; but if we can not do good, the fault is in original sin. This is not the primitive nature of man, but the pain of sin; whence results mortality itself, fragility which has become second nature, and from which we are delivered by the grace of the Creator, when we submit to him by faith. But all these expressions apply only to the man established under the law, and not yet under grace. Indeed, he who is not yet under grace, does not do the good he wants; but he does the evil he does not want, because he is dominated by concupiscence, fortified by the link of mortality, and also by the training of habit. But if he does what he does not wind, it is not he who does it, but the sin that dwells in him, according to what has been said and explained above.
12. So when I rejoice in doing good, I find "a law that opposes it, because evil dwells in me; That is to say, I find that the law is good for me when I want to do what it commands, but the evil lies in me because of the facility to commit it. It is this facility that the Apostle hears, when he says above: "The will resides in me. Indeed, what is easier for the man established under the law to shear for good and do evil? He wants good without difficulty, although he has less facility to do it than to want it; and he easily does the harm he hates, though he does not want it; he is like a man violently pushed, who arrives without difficulty at the bottom of the precipice, although he does not want it. though he dreads it extremely. I say this because of the word of the Apostle: "Reside. So the man established under the law and not yet freed by grace, testifies to the law that it is good: he returns it to him completely by the very fact that he reproaches himself for acting against it, and he finds that it is good for him, since he wants to do what he commands, but he can not because of the empire of concupiscence; he is thus guilty of prevarication, and forced to implore the grace of the Deliverer.
13. "I delight, indeed, in the law of stake, according to the inner man, in the you who say; you will not covet. But I see in my members another law which combats the law of your mind, and captivates me under the law of sin, which is in my members. "He calls the law of its members the very weight of mortality under which we groan (II Cor. V, 4.), because the body, which corrupts, weighs down the soul (2 Sag. IX, 15.). From which it often results that what is not allowed charm irresistibly. This overwhelming, crushing burden, he calls it law, speaks of it as a just punishment, a divine judgment given and inflicted by the One who warned the man, saying, "From the day you eat that fruit, you die of death (Gen. II, 17). This law combats the law of the spirit which says, "You shall not covet," and in which man delights according to the inner man; and before he is under the influence of grace, he fights so much that she captivates him under the law of sin, that is, under his own yoke. For saying, "Which is in my members," the Apostle makes it quite clear that it is the same as the one he said above: "I see in my members another law. "
14. The object of all this is to show that the man so captive must not presume his strength. It was the hub of confusing the pride of the Jews who boasted of the works of the Law, even though they were driven by concupiscence to commit all kinds of evil, although the law of which they were so proud tells them: "You will not covet. So the man vanquished, condemned, prisoner, prevaricator rather than conqueror, after having even received the law, must say, must exclaim with humility: "Unhappy man that I am, who will deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ-Our Lord. Indeed, all that remains in free will in this mortal life is not to perform justice when the man wants it, but to resort with pious entreaties to the One who can give him to accomplish it.
15. Would it be imagined, from the text we have just expounded, that the Apostle judges the law bad? He said, "The law has come to make sin abound (Rom. V, 20); the ministry of death was engraved in letters on stones (II Co. III, 7.); The strength of sin is the law (I Cor. XV); you have died to the law by the body of Christ, to be to another, to Him. who has risen from the dead (Rom. VII, 4); the passions of sin, which were occasioned by the law, acted in our members until they produced "fruits for death; but now we are freed from the law of death in which we were kept, so that we may serve in the novelty of the spirit, and not in the dilapidation of the letter (Ib. 5, 6.). He said that, and other things of the same kind; but it must be remembered that these expressions simply mean that the law increases concupiscence by defense, and that it binds the culprit by prevarication, by giving orders which men can not fulfill because of their infirmity, unless they do not humbly resort to the grace of God. This is why it is said that those whom she dominates are under her; and she dominates those whom she punishes, that is to say, all the prevaricators. But those who have received the law prevail against it, unless grace enables them to execute what it commands. Thus it does not dominate those who are under grace, because they did it out of love, they who were condemned when they were under the yoke of fear.
16. Zion is carried by these texts of the Apostle to believe that he blames the law, what will be said of these words: "I indulge in the law of God," according to the inner man? Obviously this is a eulogy of the law. But to this we answer that he speaks here of another law, that is to say, of the law of Christ, and not of that which was given to the Jews. We will then ask what law the Apostle said: "The law came to make sin abound? It is said without hesitation that it is Jewish law. See, then, is it also of this that it is said, "Now, taking occasion of command, sin has produced in me all concupiscence. These expressions: "Has produced in me all concupiscence," do they mean anything but these: "In order to make sin abound? See again if this is not the meaning of these words: "So that the commandment has made the sinner or the sin exceedingly guilty. Indeed, "To make sin more than guilty" comes down to: "That sin should abound. If, then, we prove that the commandment is good, the commandment of which sin has taken occasion to effect all concupiscence, to the point of exceeding the measure; we will prove by this very fact that the law is good, it has come for sin to abound, that is to say for sin to operate all concupiscence and to exceed all measure. Let us therefore listen to the same Apostle: "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Far from there. But, we are told, this applies to the law of Christ, that is, to the law of grace. Let us then be told how we hear the following: "But I knew sin only by the law. For I would not know concupiscence, if the law had not said, Thou shalt not covet. Now, taking occasion of command, sin has wrought all concupiscence in me. The context shows enough of what law he speaks when he says, "Is the law sin? Far from there. Evidently it is the one whose command has given to sin the opportunity of operating all concupiscence, and consequently of that which has come about for sin to abound and to be evil.
But what is more clear than the words added by the Apostle: "So the law is holy, and the command holy, just and good?" We are still told that it is the Gospel, not the Jewish law: so great, so blind is the Manichean perversity! They do not pay attention to the passage so express, so obvious, which comes after. "What is good has become for me death? Far from there ; but sin, to appear sin, has, by a good thing, made death for me, so that the commandment has made the sinner or the sin exceedingly guilty; That is to say, the holy commandment, just and good, which nevertheless arose so that sin abounded, that is, exceeded all measure.
17. Why, then, if the law is good, is it called "ministry of death?" Because sin, "to appear sin, has, by a good thing, operated for me death. Do not be surprised, since it has been said of the very preaching of the Gospel: "We are for God the good odor of Christ to those who flee and to those who are lost ; "To some smell of life for life, but to others smell of death for death (Rom. XIII, 8, 10). The law has been called the ministry of death to the Jews, for whom it was written on stone, emblem of the hardness of their heart; but not for those who fulfill it for love. Because love is the fullness of the law. Indeed, the law, written on the stone, says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery; You will not be homicidal; You will not steal; You will not covet, all things that are fulfilled for love, to the testimony of the Apostle, who says to us, "He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For you shall not commit adultery; You will not kill; You will not steal; Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, all is summed up in this word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, 1 because this word is written in the law.
If the law is good, why is it "the strength of sin? Because sin has, by a good thing, brought about death, so that it has exceeded the measure, that is to say, it has been fortified by the prevarication.
If the law is good, "why are we dead by the body of Christ? Because, delivered from the affection which the law punishes and condemns, we are dead to the law which condemns. Indeed, it is especially when it threatens, terrifies or strikes, that it is given the name of law. Thus the same precept is the law for those who fear, and grace for those who do it with love. Hence this word of the Gospel The law was given by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (2 Jn, I, 17). Indeed, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ to fulfill the very law, which was given by Moses to inspire fear. So: "You are dead to law," means: You have died to the torture of the law, "by the body of Christ," for which sins were forgiven which made them liable to just punishment.
If the law is good, why "did the passions of sin which are occasioned by the law, act in our members, until they produce fruit of death? Because the Apostle here hears from these passions of the sin of which he has often been spoken, the increase of the concupiscence occasioned by the defense, and the punishment imposed on the prevarication: that is to say, because the sin "By a good thing done death, so that the commandment has made the sinner or the sin exceedingly guilty. "
If the law is good, why are we "free from the law of death in which we were kept, that we may serve in the novelty of the spirit, and not in the dilapidation of the letter? Because the law is only the letter for those who do not fulfill it with this spirit of charity, which is the purpose of the New Testament. Thus those who have died to sin are freed from the letter in which are held the guilty who do not fulfill what is written. Indeed, what is the law, if not a simple letter for those who can read it and can not do it? For those for whom it was written know it; but as they know it only in so far as it is written, and not to love and fulfill it, it is only for them the letter: a letter which is of no help to those who read it, but bear witness against those who sin. Therefore those who are renewed by the Spirit are freed from his condemnation; they no longer cling to the letter to find punishment, but to intelligence for the sake of justice. Hence the word: "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life (II Cor. III, 6). Indeed the law only Luke, but not understood or not fulfilled, certainly kills; and that's when it's called a letter. "But the spirit gives life, because the fullness of the law is charity, which has been poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit given to us (Rom. V, 5). "
SECOND QUESTION. - Doctrine of St. Paul on justification. - (1). It is time, I think, to move on to the other question you have given us, that is to say, to explain the whole text, from this verse: "And not only she, but also Rebecca who had two sons at a time from Isaac, our father. Because before they were born, or they had done good or bad; Up to this one: "If the Lord of Hosts had not reserved for us an offspring, we would have become like Sodom and like Gomorrah. This passage is certainly darker than the other. But as I know you, you have not been able to demand of me this work without asking God for me the grace to do it. Emboldened by this thought, I enter immediately into matter.
2. First of all, I shall not lose sight of the goal which the Apostle proposes in all his Epistle, and I will take him for a guide. This goal is to prevent anyone from boasting about the merit of his works, like the Jews who dared to boast of having observed the law they had been given, claiming to have received evangelical grace as a reward due to their merit, to their fidelity to this law and consequently, did not want the same grace to be granted to the Gentiles, that they deemed it unworthy, unless they professed Judaism, This question, raised above, his solution in the Acts of the Apostles (Act XV). The Jews, therefore, did not understand that this benefit, being evangelical grace, is not the reward of works; otherwise, grace would no longer be grace (Rom. (?), 6). In many places St. Paul attests to it, always putting the grace of faith above works, not to destroy them, but to show that instead of preceding grace, good works follow it; and that no one should imagine having received grace for doing good, but understanding that he can not do good without having received grace by faith.
Now man begins to receive grace when, attracted to faith by a voice from within or without, he begins to believe in God. But it is important to distinguish in what moments, by the reception of which sacraments grace descends more full, more manifest. The catechumens are not without it; or it should be said that Corneille did not believe in God, who, by his prayers and alms, made himself worthy to be visited by an angel (Act. X, 1-4.). Now he would not have done so, if at first he had not believed; and he would not have believed, if he had not been called, or by some mysterious visions of soul and spirit, or by some external and sensible manifestations. In some, the grace of faith is insufficient to obtain the kingdom of heaven, as in the catechumens, for example, or at Cornelius himself, before he was incorporated into the Church by receiving sacraments; in others it is so great that they are part of the body of Christ and become the temple of God. "For the temple of God is holy," says the Apostle, "and you are this temple (Cor. III, 17)." And the Lord Himself: "If anyone does not be reborn from the water and the Holy Spirit, he can not enter the kingdom of heaven (Jn, III, 5.). There are, then, beginnings of faith analogous to conception; but to reach eternal life, it is not enough to be conceived, one must be born. Nothing, however, of all this takes place without the grace of divine mercy, because good works, if there are any, accompany grace, as we have said, but do not precede it.
3. This is what the Apostle wants to persuade. He says elsewhere: "It is the grace of God that saved us by faith, and it does not come from us, for it is a gift from God; neither works, so that no one may boast (Eph. II, 8, 9.); Here he applies this principle to children who have not yet been born. No one can say that Jacob, before his birth, deserved by his works that God says of him: "The eldest will serve under the youngest. "So not only her," says the Apostle, (for Isaac was promised, when God said, "In that time will I come, and Sarah will have a son;" and that son certainly had not deserved by his works that his birth was promised, that in Isaac was called the race of Abraham, that is to say, they shared the happiness of the saints in Christ, who would understand that they are children of the promise; would not boast of their merits, but would attribute to the grace of the vocation the advantage of being co-heirs of Christ, since, having not yet been born, they certainly deserved nothing when they were promised birth;) but also Rebecca, who had two sons at once of Isaac, our father, "He is very careful to say," at once, "because they had been conceived together, and that is why nothing is attributed to the merits of parents and that no one dares to say: The son is born such, because the father or the mother were affected by such or in such a way, at the moment of conception. Indeed the moment of conception was the same for both. This is why the Apostle says, "At once," thus cutting short all the observations of astrologers, or rather of those so-called horoscopesmen, who predict the manners and destinies of men according to the circumstances of their birth. In fact, they can not in any way explain such a great difference of fate between these twin beings, conceived in the same instant, under the same constellation, in the same state of the sky, so much so that it is impossible to make the slightest observation. for one that can not be applied to the other. They can easily understand by that, if they wish, that the answers they sell to their credulous listeners, are not based on any art, but on chances and conjectures. To return to our subject, the Apostle cites these examples only to confound and humble the pride of ungrateful men towards divine grace, who dare to boast of their own merits. "For before they were born, or had done any good or evil, not because of their works, but by the will of him who called, he was told," The eldest will serve under the youngest."
Grace therefore belongs to the one who calls; and then good works are to him who receives grace, not as the source of this grace, but as his product. Indeed it is not to be hot that the fire warms, but it warms because it is hot; the wheel does not run to be round, but because it is round; thus no one does good to receive grace, but does so because he has received it. How, indeed, the one who has not been justified, could he live in justice? How can one who has not been sanctified live holy? How can one who has not been quickened live? But it is your grace that justifies, so that the one who is justified can live in justice. Grace then laughs at first bond, and good works then, as the Apostle says elsewhere: "But to him who works, the wages are not imputed as a grace; but as a debt (Rom IV, 4.); As is immortality after good works, if it is claimed as debt. It is from her that the same Apostle speaks thus: "I fought the good fight, I finished my race, I kept the faith; I have the crown of justice left, which the Lord, just judge, will one day return to me (I Tim. IV, 7, 8). Perhaps the word "will give me back" presupposes a debt. But when: "Going up to heaven he made captivity captive," he did not return, but "given to men. (Eph. IV, 5) How, indeed, would the Apostle dare to demand the payment of a debt, if he had not at first received the gratuitous grace which, by justifying it, enabled him to fight against good fight? For he had been blasphemer, persecutor, outrageous; then he obtained mercy, as he himself testifies, (Tim I, 13) believing in him who justifies, not the pious man (Rom. IV, 5), but the impious one, in order to render him pious by justifying him.
4. "Not because of their works, but by the will of him who calls, he was told: The eldest will serve under the youngest. What the Apostle said above, "For before they were born, or they had done good or evil," was a preparation for this: "No because of their works," but by the will of the One who calls, "which makes one wonder why he said," That the decree of God might remain firm according to his election? How, indeed, is an election just, how is there any election, where there is no difference? For if Jacob was elected before he was born, without deserving, without doing anything, he could not be, since there was no difference in determining the choice. Likewise, if Esau was reprobated without having deserved it, since he was not born and had not done anything when we said of him: "The eldest will serve under the youngest," how can we say that he was precisely? What distinction will we make, how shall we reasonably understand these words: "I loved Jacob and hated Esau? They read, it is true, in a prophet who wrote long after the birth and death of Jacob and Esau; however, it seems that it is only a memory of the judgment: "And the eldest will serve under the youngest; Stopped before they were born and that they had acted. Where does the election come from? How could it be, since there is no difference in merits between two men who are not born and have not done anything yet? Could it be the difference of natures? But that would be difficult to understand since there was only one father, one mother, one conception, one Creator. Could it be that, as the same Creator drew from the same earth, different kinds of animals and reproducers; he would also have created, from the same couple, in two twins conceived together, children of a quite different nature so that the one would attract his love and the other his hatred? There was no choice before the one to be chosen existed. If indeed Jacob was created, to please; how did it rain before Esau, to become good? It was not chosen to become good, but having been created good, it could be chosen.
5. "According to his election" would it mean that God, who foresees everything, would have seen in advance the faith of Jacob before he was born? So, although no one can be justified by his works, since one must be justified to do good, yet as it is by faith that God justifies the nations (Gal. III, 8), and that no one believes that by an act of his free will, God, foreseeing this free and voluntary faith, would have chosen, in his prescience, a man who was not yet born, in order to justify him. But if the election is made by prescience and God has known beforehand the faith of Jacob; how will you prove that he did not elect him for his works? If, because they had not yet been born, they had done neither good nor bad, they did not believe either one or the other. "But prescience predicted that one would believe?" She could also predict that he would act; and if it is said that God elected him in anticipation of his future faith, another may claim that God elected him rather because of his future works than he foresaw. How then does the Apostle show that it is not because of the works that it was said: "The eldest will serve under the youngest? If it was because children were not yet born, he could not speak of faith rather than works, since faith and works are lacking to those who are not born. He did not want to make it understood that the youngest was elected and slaved enslaved, because of prescience. Because it is to show that the election did not come from the works he said: "Before they were born or they had done good or bad. Otherwise one might have objected: But God knew what each of them had to do. - So, what is the origin of this choice? if it is not the fruit of works, which did not exist, or men who were not yet born; if it is not the result of faith, which did not exist any more: where does it come from?
6. Must it be said that there was no choice, since there was no difference between them in the maternal womb in terms of faith, works, or any merits? But the Apostle says, "That the decree of God may stand firm according to his election. And it is precisely because he used this word that we make ourselves the question. Perhaps it could be read otherwise: the Apostle had not wanted to make it heard that if it were said: "Not because of their works, but by the will of the Caller, the elder will serve under the most young, "so that the decree of God might remain firm according to his election; But in quoting those children who were not born, who had done nothing, he would rather have dismissed the idea of any election, and these words: Because before they were born or had they neither good nor evil, that the decree of God might remain firm according to his election, "would mean, before they had done good or evil, to thereby determine the election of him who did good; and as there would have been no choice based on works, and proper to strengthen the decree of God, it is not therefore because of their works, but by the will of Him who calls, "it is to say of him who justifies the ungodly by his grace, by calling him to faith, "that he was told: The eldest will serve under. the youngest. The decree of God, therefore, does not remain firm after the election, but the election according to the decree; that is to say, it is not because God finds in men good works to fix his choice, that the decree of justification subsists; but it is because the decree subsists to justify those who have faith, that God meets works worthy of election for the kingdom of heaven. Indeed, if there were no election, there would be no elected officials, and the Apostle could not say, "Who will accuse them? elected of God (Rom. VIII, 33.)? However, election does not precede justification; but the justification, the election. Because no one is elected if he is already at a distance from the one who is rejected. So I do not see that it has been possible to say, other than by admitting prescience: "God has elected us before the foundation of the world (Eph. I, 4.)." And here, when the Apostle says, "Not because of their works, but by the will of him who calls, it was said to him, 'The eldest will serve under the youngest; He does not mean to speak of election founded on merits, which occur only after the sanctification of grace, but from the liberality of the gift of God; so that no one will boast of his works. "For it is the grace of God that saves us, and it does not come from us, but from God, for it is a gift from God; nor works, that no one may boast (Ib. II, 8, 9). "
7. But one asks whether faith, at least, deserves the justification of man; or if the mercy of God precedes the merits of faith, so that faith itself is counted among the benefits of grace? Now, after saying, "No, because of their works," the apostle does not add: because of faith, "he was told, The elder will serve under the youngest; But by the will of the Caller. Because no one believes, if he is not called. Now God calls in his mercy, and not in consideration of faith or merit; because merits follow the vocation, rather than precede it. For how will they believe in him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear if no one preaches them (Rom. X, 14.)? If therefore the mercy of God does not prevent by calling, no one can believe so as to obtain the beginning of his justification, and to receive the faculty of doing good. So grace precedes all merit. "So Christ died for the wicked (Rom. V, 6)." It is therefore by the will of the Caller, and not by the merits of his works, that the youngest has had the advantage of seeing his eldest serve under him; as also what is written: "I loved Jacob" must be explained by the will of God who calls and not by the good works of Jacob.
9. So the Apostle has foreseen the effect that these words might produce on the mind of the listener or the reader, and he hastened to add, "What shall we say then? Is there in God injustice? Not at all. And as to tell us how far injustice is from God, he continues: "For he said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. But is this a solution, or an aggravation of the difficulty? For here is the crux of the question: If God has mercy on whom he has pity, if he shows mercy to whom he has mercy, why has this mercy failed Esau, since through it he would have become good like Jacob? Or the meaning of these words: "I will have mercy on whom I will have pity, and I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," would it be this one: he whose mercy God had to call him, he has pity to make him believe; and he to whom he has mercy to bring him to believe, will he have mercy on him, that is to say, he will make him merciful, to bring him to do good? By this we would be warned that no one should boast or take pride in the works of mercy, as if through them one could deserve God of oneself; whereas one is merciful only by the gift of God, who has mercy on whom he has mercy. And if anyone boasted of having merit this mercy by believing, let him know that his faith is a gift of the One who shows his pity by inspiring the faith to him whom he had pity on calling him, when he is still unfaithful. For this is how the faithful is distinguished from the ungodly. "Indeed, what have you received, and if you have received it, why do you boast of it, as if you had not received it?" (I Cor. IV, 7)
10. Very good. But why was this mercy denied to Esau? Why was he not called to receive the faith, and having faith to become merciful, to do good? Would he not want to? But if Jacob believed because he wanted, God did not give him faith? So he got it from his will, and he got something he did not get? Could it be because no one can believe without wanting it, not wanting it without being called; and that no one can give the session, God gives the faith by calling, so that no one can believe without a vocation, although no one believes in spite of himself? "For how will they believe in him whom they have not heard? Or how will they hear, if no one preaches them? Nobody therefore believes without being; but one can be called without believing. "For many are called, but few are chosen (Matt. XX, 16); And the elect are certainly those who have not despised the one who called them, but followed him in believing, and believed, no doubt, by the acquiescence of their will. What do the following words mean then: "It does not depend on the one who wants, nor on the one who runs, but on God who shows mercy (Luc, II, 14)? Could we not even want to be unless we are called, and our will has no effect, if God does not help us to act? So you have to want and run. For it is not in vain that it is said, "And peace on earth to men of good will;" And again: "Run so as to arrive (I Cor. IX, 24); Yet "it does not depend on the one who wants, nor on the one who runs, but on the God who has mercy," that we obtain what we desire and that we reach the goal to which we tend. Esau did not want to be good and did not run; but if he had wished and if he had run, he would have arrived with the help of God, who, in calling him, would have given him the faculty of wanting and running, unless he was unfaithful to his vocation and, consequently, reprobate. For something else is that God gives us to want, something else that gives us what we want. Indeed, he wanted our will to be at once to him and to us; to him, by vocation, to us, by obedience. As for what we desire, he gives us alone, namely the power to do good and to live always happy. Yet Esau, who was not yet born, could neither want that nor want it. Why was it reproved from the womb? We are back to the same difficulties; already so obscure by themselves, they are further aggravated by our continual repetitions.
12. Moreover, if you pay close attention to these words: "It does not depend therefore help the one who wants, nor the one who runs, but God who has mercy," you will see that the Apostle has not only wanted to say that we reach our goal only with the help of God; but that he also had the thought that he expresses elsewhere in these terms: "Operate your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you to do it and do it, and shows his good will. " by which he makes it sufficiently clear that it is by the operation of God that good will is formed in us. Indeed if, saying; "It does not depend on the one who wants, nor on the one who runs," (Phil.II, 12, 18) he had only wanted to make it understood that the will of man is not enough, it jumps, to lead a nigh right and holy life, four times the mercy of stake does not help him; One could say in the same way: it does not depend on the God who shows mercy, but on the man who wills, since the mercy of a stake is not enough, on its own, unless our will attaches to it. consent. Now it is evident that our will is powerless, if God does not show mercy; "For I do not know how one could say that the mercy of God is vain, if we do not want. Basically, if God gives us mercy, we will; since our will itself is part of this mercy: "For it is God who works in us to will it and to do it, according to his good velvety. Indeed, assuming that we ask if good will is a gift from God, it would be wonderful for someone to dare to deny it. As good will does not precede the vocation, but the vocation the good will, it is right to attribute this good will to God who calls; but we can not assign the vacation. Thus these words, "It depends neither on the one who wants, nor on the one who runs, but on God who has mercy," do not mean that we can not, without the help of God, obtain what we desire, but rather that without his vocation we can not even want. 15. But what good is this question, when the Apostle himself adds: "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, This is why I have raised you up, to make my power burst out, and to make my name be it proclaimed by all the earth? "The Apostle says this in evidence of what he has advanced above, that it does not depend on the one who wants or the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. As if someone had asked him: where do you get this doctrine from? He answers, "The Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'This is why I raised you up, to make my power burst out in you, and to proclaim my name by all the earth. Evidently he shows that "it does not depend on the one who wants, nor on the one who runs, but on God who shows mercy. From which he concludes: "So he has pity on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills:" two things he had not stated above. If he said, "It does not depend on the one who wants, nor on the one who runs, but on God who has mercy," he also did not say: it does not depend on the one who does not want, who scornful, but of God who hardens. By this he suggests that the two thoughts which he expresses below: "So he has pity on whom he wills," agree with what he said above in the sense that, on the part of God to harden is not to want mercy; it's not giving something to make it worse, but not giving what could make it better. And if it happens without any difference of merit, which will not immediately make the objection that the Apostle does: "Certainly you will tell me: what is he complaining about? Because who resists his will? Indeed, it is evident from innumerable passages of Scripture that God often complains that men do not want to believe and live well. So it is said of the faithful and those who do the will of God that they walk without reproach (Luc, I, 6.), because the Scripture does not complain about them. But what is he complaining about? says the Apostle; for who resists his will, since he has pity on whom he wills and hardens whom he wills? However, let us take things higher so that we may, with the help of God, form our feeling.
16. The Apostle wrote earlier, "What shall we say then? Was there God of injustice? Not at all. Let this point remain fixed and immutable in every soul that piousness animates and is firm in its faith: there is no injustice in God. Therefore one must believe very firmly, very firmly that if God has pity on whom He wills and hardens whom He wills, that is to say, have pity on whom He wills, and have no mercy on whom He wills. does not want, it is the effect of a certain mysterious equity, inaccessible to the human weakness, which one can also notice in the very things of this world and in the terrestrial contracts. For if we did not find the traces and the stamp of a superior justice, our infirmity would never dare to lift our eyes or aspire to penetrate into the holy and very pure sanctuary of spiritual precepts. Happy are those who are hungry and thirsty for justice, because they will be satisfied (Matt. V, 6.). In this barren life, in our mortal condition, we would be dry even before we were thirsty, if we were not refreshed by the breath, however slight, of justice from above.
Thus, as human society rests on a trade of mutual exchange, we give and receive what is due and what is not due; who does not see that he who demands what is due to him can not be accused of injustice, still less the one who hands him over to whom he pleases him; and that it depends, not on the debtor, but on the creditor? Now it is an imprint, or, as I said above, a vestige of the supreme equity printed on human things. All men, and it is the Apostle who tells us: "All die in Adam (I Cor. XV, 22.)," from whom original sin has passed through all mankind; therefore all men form only one mass of sin, indebted for a punishment to divine and sovereign justice: punishment that can be demanded or surrender without shadow of injustice. The debtors, in their pride, judge from whom it must be demanded, to whom it must be handed over, absolutely like those workers hired to work in the vineyard who were indignantly indignant at giving to others the wages they had received (Matt, XX, 11). Now it is this insolent curiosity that the Apostle represses by saying: "O man, who are you, to dispute with God?"
For it is to dispute with God that to find it evil that he complains of sinners, as if he were forcing someone to sin, when he is content not to grant to certain sinners the grace of his justification; and that, for that, it is said of him that he hardens them, not by exciting them to sin, but by not making them merciful. But he does not show mercy to whom he deems fit to refuse it, for deeply mysterious reasons quite inaccessible to human intelligence. For his judgments are incomprehensible and his ways impenetrable (Rom. XI, 33). And he is right in complaining of sinners, since he does not force them to sin. His purpose is also to excite by those complaints those to whom he has mercy to maintain their vocation, to groan in their hearts and to resort to his grace. He therefore complains with justice, and even with mercy.
17. Zion is astonished that no one who resists his will rescues whoever he wants and abandons whoever he wants; that he whom he rescues, and whom he abandons, are of the same mass of sin; that, although both are indebted for the same penalty, he demands it from the one and in fact shines over the other: if, I say, we are astonished at this: "O man, Will we answer, "who are you to dispute with God? I think that the word "man" has the same meaning here as in this other passage: "Are not you men and do you not walk according to man? For here under this name is meant the carnal and animal man, those to whom the Apostle says: "I could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to carnal men," and then: you could not do it now, and now you can not, because you are still carnal (I Cor. III, 1, 4); And elsewhere: "The animal man does not perceive what is of the Spirit of God (Ib. II ,14). So it is to them that he says, "O man, who are you, to dispute with God? The vase, he said to the potter, "Why did you do that to me? Does not the potter have the power to make, from the same mass of clay, a vase of honor and another of ignominy? These words prove sufficiently, it seems to me, that the Apostle addresses the carnal man: for he indicates the matter of which the first man was formed, and as according to the same Apostle, as I did note above, "all die in Adam," all here also form the same mass of clay. And although one is a vessel of honor and the other a vessel of ignominy, yet the vessel of honor necessarily began to be carnal, before reaching the spiritual age. The Corinthians were already vessels of honor and regenerated in Christ; yet the Apostle speaks to them as to little children, even calls them carnal and tells them; "I could not speak to you as spiritual men, but as carnal men. Like little children in Christ Jesus, I watered you with milk, but I did not give you food, because you could not yet; and now you can not, because you are still carnal. Though he calls them carnal, yet he says that they are regenerated in Christ, little children in Christ, and that they must be watered with milk. By adding, "And even now you can not," he suggests that if they make progress, they will be able to do it later, since they are already spiritually regenerated and grace has begun to operate. them. So they were destined to be vessels of honor, and yet it would have been right to say to them: "O man, who are you to dispute with God? Now, if we could speak this language to such men, much more can it be addressed to those who are not yet regenerated, or who are vases of ignominy. Only let us consider it to be incontestable, that there is no injustice in God. Whether he delivers the debt or demands it, he whoever demands it can not accuse him of injustice; he to whom he hands it over can not boast of his merits. One pays only what he owes, and the other has only what he has received.
18. But we must try here, with the help of the Lord, to reconcile the truth of this text: "You do not hate anything that you have done, (Sag. XI, 26)" with this other text: "I loved Jacob and I hated Esau (Mal. I, 2, 3). If indeed God hated Esau because he was a vessel of ignominy, and that it is the same potter who makes the vessels of honor and the vases of ignominy, how will it be true to say: "You do not hate anything you did? For God hated Esau, of whom he himself made a vessel of ignominy. To solve this difficulty, it must be understood that God is the author of all creatures. Now every creature of God is good (I Tim. IV, 4); and every man a creature as a man, but not as a sinner. God being therefore the creator of the body and soul of man, neither fun nor the other is evil, and God hates neither: for he hates nothing of what he did. But the soul wins over the body; and God on the soul and on the body. he who created them both; and he hates in man only sin. The sin in man is a disorder, an act of perversity; that is to say, a distance from the Creator who is more spoken; and a reconciliation of the creature. It is not the man, but the sinner, whom God hates in Esau. Thus it is said of the Lord, "He came to his house, and his people did not receive him." And that he himself says to the Jews, "If you do not listen, it is because you are not of God." Why call them "his," and why say that they are not of God, "if not because, in the first case, it is spoken of the men whom the Lord himself had made, and that in the second he were the sinners he was taking back? And yet these men and sinners were one; but they were men by the creation of God, and sinners by their own will.
Now that God loved Jacob, must we conclude that Jacob was not a sinner? No ; but God loved in him the grace which he granted, and not the sin which he effaced. For Christ died for the wicked; not so that they remain impious, but so that, justified by their impiety, they become believers in the one who justifies the impious; 4 for God hates ungodliness. Thus he punishes it in some by damnation, he destroys it in others by justification, as he finds it good in his impenetrable judgments. And though, impious people whom he does not justify, he makes vases of ignominy, yet he does not hate their work in them. No doubt, as impious, they are worthy of execration; but as vases they have utility; That of turning in favor of the vases of honor, by their just punishments. God does not hate them either as men or as vases, that is to say, he does not hate in them either his creatures or the instruments of his Providence; because he did not tie anything he did. But by making them the vessels of perdition, he makes them also means of correction. He hates in them impiety, which is not his work. Thus the judge hates robbery in the man, but not the condemnation of the robber at the mines; for robbery is the theft of the thief, and condemnation that of the judge. In the same way, God by making of the mass of the impious, the vases of perdition, does not hate what he does, that is to say the work of his Providence in the just punishment of the reprobate, which becomes an occasion of salvation for those whose pity he has. So it was said to Pharaoh, "This is why I have provoked you; it is to burst into you my power and that your name may be announced in all the earth. This manifestation of the power of God, and the preaching of his name by failing the earth, benefit those in whom the vocation is efficacious, in that they slow down the fear and excite them to straighten their ways.
That is why the Apostle says, "May God, wishing to manifest his anger and signal his power, endure with extreme patience the vessels of anger that are to be destroyed," implied: "Who are you? to challenge God? These last words relating to those which preceded, the meaning would then be: if God, wishing to manifest his anger, has endured vases of anger; who are you bridge challenging with him? And not only, says the Apostle, it is by wishing to manifest his anger, and to point out his power, which he has endured with extreme patience with the vessels of anger; fit to be destroyed; But, he adds, "it is to manifest the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy. What, indeed, is it to the vessels of perdition that God patiently supports them to destroy them in their time, and to use them as instruments of salvation for those whose pity he has? But this is useful to those whom he proposes to save thus; so that, as it is written, the righteous one should wash his hands in the blood of the sinner; 1 that is, purify himself from evil works by the fear of God; at the sight of the punishment of sinners: So if God willing to manifest his anger; He has borne vessels of anger, to inspire others with a salutary fear, and to manifest the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared for glory. In fact, this hardening of the ungodly shows two things: first, what must be feared, so that each one may turn to God; then what actions of thanks must be rendered to the divine mercy which shows, by the punishment of some, what it accords to others. However, if the punishment it requires of some is not right, by not demanding it from others it does not give them anything. But as this punishment is just, and there is no iniquity in divine vengeance, who will be able to render worthy deeds of thanks to him who delivers what he might require, without anyone being able to say: have nothing?
19. "And we, whom He has also called, not only of the Jews, but of the Gentiles," that is to say, we, vessels of mercy which he has prepared for the glory. He did not call all the Jews, kill among the Jews; not all the good ones, but of the good ones. It is the same mass of sinners and impious ones, born of Adam, and in which, except the grace of God, Jews and Gentiles are one. If indeed the potter makes of the same mass, a vase of ignominy and a vase of honor, it is clear that among the Jews as among the Gentiles, God makes vessels of honor and vases of ignominy and that, therefore, all must be considered as belonging to the same mass. St. Paul then quotes the testimonies of the prophets relative to the two species of races, but by inverting the order; for he said in the first place, "Of the Jews, and then of the Gentiles. But now he cites firstly what regards the Gentiles, and then what concerns the Jews. "As he says in Hosea, I will call him who is not my people, my people; "Who is not beloved, beloved; and it shall come to pass in the very place where they were told, Ye are not my people, they shall be called children of the living God. This text applies to the Gentiles who had no place designated for the sacrifices, as the Jews had Jerusalem. Now the apostles were sent to the Gentiles, so that everyone could believe where he was, and wherever they were, those to whom God gave the power to be made children of God, could offer him a sacrifice of praise. The Apostle continues: "And Isaiah cries against Israel. In order not to believe that all Israel has gone to ruin, he tells us that here too there have been vessels of honor and vases of ignominy. "The number of the children of Israel," says the prophet, "as much as the sand of the sea, there will be a remnant of saved. All others are vases destined for perdition. "For the Lord will fulfill and abbreviate his word on the earth; That is to say, in his mercy he will save the believers by the abbreviated means of faith, and not by means of the innumerable practices of which the Jewish people were slavishly overwhelmed and crushed. Did not the Lord, by grace, fulfill and abbreviate his word on earth, when he said, "My yoke is sweet and my burden light (Matt. XI, 30)?" This is what the Apostle also recalls a little lower: "Near you," said he, "is the word in your mouth and in your heart; it is the word of faith that we announce; because if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and if in your heart you believe that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Because it is believed crier to be justified, and confess of mouth to be saved (Rom. X, 8-10). This is the word that God has fulfilled and abridged on the earth; it is by this accomplishment and by means of this abstract; that the thief was justified, Attached to the cross by all its members, having no freedom but the crier and the mouth, he thought of crier to be justified, confessed of mouth to be saved, and deserved immediately of s to hear saying, "Today you will be with me in paradise (Luc, XXIII, 43). No doubt if, after having received grace, he had long lived on earth, good works would have followed his conversion. But they did not precede it, so as to deserve this grace, since it passed from brigandage to the cross and from the cross to paradise.
The Apostle continues: "And as Isaiah had said before, If the Lord of hosts had not given us an offspring, we would have become like Sodom and like Gomorrah. Here we had a scion reserved for him and he returned to what he said above: "There will be a remnant of saved. The others perished, as vases of perdition, by a deserved punishment. And if all did not perish like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, they owed it not to their merits, but to the grace of God who left offspring, to produce a new harvest in all the universe . This is what the Apostle says a little lower: "So also, in this time also, a remnant has been saved by the election of grace. But if it is by grace, it is not by works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What happened? What Israel sought, he did not find; but those who have been chosen have found it; the others were blinded (Rom. XI, 5, 7.). The vessels of mercy have found, the vessels of wrath have been blinded; and all, however, were of the same mass, as in the multitude of the Gentiles.
20. There is in Scripture a passage which must be quoted for the subject we are dealing with, and which marvelously confirms all that we have expounded. It is in the book called by some Jesus Sirach, by the other Ecclesiastics; it reads, "All men come from the mud, and Adam was made of earth. In the greatness of his wisdom, the Lord has separated them and changed their ways. He blessed and lifted up some of them, sanctified them, joined with them; he cursed and humiliated some others, and he scattered them when they separated from him. "Like the clay in the hand of the potter who shapes and shapes it as he wishes, so all the ways of man are in the disposition of the Lord; thus the man is in the hand of him who has done it and who will repay him according to his judgment. Good is contrary to evil, life to death, and the sinner to the righteous. Consider all the works of the Most High, they are thus two by two, and one opposed to the other."
First, praise is given to the wisdom of God: "In the greatness of his wisdom, the Lord has separated them. And what did he separate them from, if not the happiness of paradise? And he changed their ways, "that they may live as subjects to death. Then all together formed only one mass, having sin for origin and death for punishment, though all that is good is created and formed by God. For all have the beauty of the body, and the union of their members is so harmonic that the Apostle draws a comparison to recommend charity (I Cor. XII, 12). All of them also have the vital spirit which animates the material members, and all this human nature so wonderfully balanced by the domination of the soul and the obedience of the body. But the carnal concupiscence, the punishment of sin, having taken the upper hand, had confounded all the human race into one and the same mass, the original task having invaded everything. And yet we read, "He has blessed and brought up some of them; He sanctified them and joined them; he cursed and humiliated some others, and he scattered them when they separated from him. What comes back to this word of the Apostle: "Does not the potter have the power to make, from the same mass of clay, a vessel of honor and another of ignominy? The rest of the text presents a similar idea: "Like the clay in the potter's hand, which shapes and shapes it as it pleases, so all man's paths are in the disposition of the Lord, so the man is in the hand of the one who did it. And as the Apostle adds, "Is there in God injustice? This is what the other writer says: "He will repay him according to his judgment. But since the reprobate are justly punished, and their punishment is for the benefit of those to whom he has mercy, pay attention to this: "Good is contrary to evil, life to death, and the sinner to the righteous. Consider thus all the works of the Most High; they are two by two, and one opposed to the other; Evidently so that the contrast of the wicked should make them shine and enjoy the good ones. However, this improvement being the effect of grace, as if to say, "There will be a remnant of saved," the writer adds, in the very name of those who are saved: "And I was aroused, the last , and I am like the one who gathers clusters after the pickers. And how does he prove that he owes it to the mercy of God, and not to his merits? I myself hoped, he said, beseeched the Lord, and, like the one who harvested, I filled the press. Although it was last aroused, however, as it is written that the last will be the first (Matt. XX, 16), the people gathered from the remnant of Israel, hoping for the blessing of God, filled the press with a superabundant harvest, which has occurred throughout the universe.
21. The purpose of the Apostle, as that of all those justified by whom the mysteries of grace have been revealed to us, is therefore to bring the one who glorifies himself to glory in the Lord (II Cor. X, 17.). Indeed, who will discuss with the Lord when, from the same mass, he condemns one and justifies the other? Free will can do a lot; it certainly exists; but what can he do with men sold as slaves to sin? The flesh, "says the Apostle, covets against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that you do not do what you want (Gal. V,17). We are commanded to live well, offering ourselves as reward eternal happiness; but who can live well and act well, if it is not justified by faith? We are commanded to believe in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and to do good through love; but who can believe without being called in any way, that is, excited by some testimony? Who is the master to obtain the sign that will enlighten his mind, and determine his will to believe? Who attaches heart to what does not please him? Who has the faculty or to meet the object that can charm him, or to be charmed when he meets him? So when we find pleasure in what can move us towards God, it is a gift and an inspiration of grace, and not the result of our will, our talent or the merit of our works; because it is he who gives and distributes and the consent of the will, and the resources of the talent, and the animated works of the fire of charity. We are commanded to ask to receive, to seek to find, and to strike to be opened (Matt. VII, 7). But is not our prayer sometimes lukewarm, or rather cold, almost nil, and even absolutely nil, to the point where we do not even notice it to groan? For to groan in such a case would be to pray again. What, then, do we see there, except that he alone, who commands us to pray, to seek, to strike, may grant us the power to do so? "It does not depend on the one who wants, nor on the one who runs, but on God who shows mercy," since we can neither will nor run, if he does not touch us and excites us himself.
22. If there is here any election, as this text seems to indicate: "A remnant has been saved by the election of grace (Rom. XV, 5.):" that is to say, election of those who must be justified, and not the election of those who are justified, for the possession of eternal life, this election is so mysterious that it escapes us completely within the same mass; or at least, if some discover it, I confess on this point my helplessness. In fact, if my thought allows itself to examine this question, I perceive only three reasons which may determine the choice of those who must attain to the grace of salvation: a genius above the vulgar, or a lesser culpability, or the two together; add, if you wish, honest and useful knowledge. Consequently, whoever has contracted only very slight defilements, (for who is absolutely innocent?) Will be endowed with a brilliant and polite genius by the liberal arts culture, that one will appear worthy of being chosen for justification. Well ! I have scarcely posited this principle, that I see myself pitied by Him who chooses what is weak according to the world, to confound what is strong, and what is foolish according to the world to confound the wise (Rom. XI, 39) ; and looking up to him and all shamed, I myself take pity on a great many men purer than some sinners and more eloquent than some fishermen. Do not we see many of our faithful walk in the ways of God, although, from the point of view of genius, they are far below, I do not say some heretics, but even some actors? Do not we also see people of both sexes living blamelessly in conjugal chastity, and yet tainted with heresy or paganism, or, if they are in the true faith and in the true Church, so lukewarm that we are astonished to see courtesans and histrions, suddenly converted, surpassing them, not only in patience and moderation, but even in faith, hope, charity? There remains, then, that the choice is determined by the wills. But the will itself does not shake itself if it does not meet something that is able to charm and attract the spirit; and this encounter is not in the power of man. What did Saul want, if not to attack, to drag, to garrot, to kill Christians? What will be furious, furious, blind! And yet, overcome by a single word, and struck by the sight of an object capable of breaking his anger, of changing and turning his mind and will towards faith, he suddenly becomes an extraordinary persecutor more extraordinary, of the Gospel (Éccl. XXXIX, 19-26).
And yet, what will we say? "Is there in God an injustice," because he makes him pay for whom he pleases, and remits the debt to whomever he wishes; that he demands only what is owed him, and gives only what belongs to him? "Is there in God injustice? Far from there. However, why so treat one, and not the other? "O man, who are you? If you are given your debt, you can congratulate yourself; if you demand it, you can not complain. Only believe, although we can not understand it, that He who created everything, mind and body, did everything with many, weight and measure (3). But his judgments are inexplicable and his ways impenetrable (1). Let's sing Alleluia, let's sing a hymn and let's not say: Why this, or why? For all things were created in their time (2).
|