CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS A Rational Exposition and Defense of the Catholic Religion BY J{EV· vv· ^vivier, s.j. Translated from the Original French Work, Edited and Augmented BT Rev. JOSEPH C. SASIA, S.J. Author of “THE FUTURE LIFE” Two Volumes New, Extensively Improved Edition VOL. I 0 NEW YORK JOSEPH F. WAGNER, Inc. London: B. HERDER ίΐφπ Obstat: PATRITIUS J. FOOTE, SJ., Censor Deputatus împrimi potest: JOSEPH M. PIET, S. J., Prap. prot. California imprimatur: patritius L. Ryan ï icarius Generalis Archwocese San Franci8cOj c August 16,1924. F- »■·««. N.w Y„k c GOD THE HUMAN SOUL RELIGION CHRISTIANITY CATHOLICISM J To AMERICAN CATHOLIC YOUTH ANXIOUS TO PRESERVE INTACT THEIR GREATEST SPIRITUAL TREASURE, CATHOLIC FAITH, AND TO KNOW HOW TO SUCCESSFULLY DEFEND IT, THIS WORK AS A GUIDE AND HELP IN THEIR STUDY OF RELIGION IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED BY THE EDITOR Roman Approval of “Christian Apologetics.” Leiter of Cardinal Secretary of Slate. Rome, January 13, 1904 Rev. Joseph C. Sasia, S.J., Reverend Father: With pleasure I hastened to place in the venerable hands of the Holy Father the work of Devivier’s “Christian Apolo­ getics,” edited by your Reverence in the English language. His Holiness received the gift with feelings of deep satisfac­ tion, congratulating you for having dedicated your talent to make better and better known, and to spread more and more the truths and beauties of the Catholic Religion. He expressed the earnest hope that the work you published may produce most abundant fruits, particularly among the people of the American Commonwealth, and thus lead an ever increasing number of souls to the true love and the true Faith of Jesus Christ. And with a view that the good wishes of His Holiness may be fully realized, and you may have a pledge of the special benevolence that he cherishes in your regard, he imparts to you his apostolic benediction. As to myself, whilst thanking your Reverence most cor­ dially for the copy you presented to me, I cheerfully profit by this occasion to declare myself with sentiments of par­ ticular esteem, Yours truly in our Lord, R. CARDINAL MERRY DEL VAL. The above is a faithful translation of the Italian original submitted to me. P. W. Riordan, February 8, 1904, Archbishop of San Francisco. FOREWORD TO THE SECOND EDITION The first edition of this work, comprising five thousand copies, printed in San Jose, California, by the Popp and Hogan Publishing Company, in 1903, having been for some years exhausted, a new issue is published in compliance with numerous requests received by the editor from prominent Catholic Educators and from Rectors of Seminaries, Colleges and Academics in the United States and elsewhere. As indi­ cated on the title page, the book is a translation of the Cours Apologétique of Father Devivier, S.J., which met with a noteworthy success in both Belgium and France, as it reached its twentieth edition within the space of a few years. It was approved and highly praised by six Cardinals, thirty-two Archbishops and Bishops, and by the Catholic Press of both countries. The present English translation made from the sixteenth edition of the French original has been likewise well received by the general public and particularly by the members of the Catholic Hierarchy of the United Stales, as is evidenced by the letters addressed to the Editor by five Archbishops and by fifteen Bishops. Several Catholic Publications in this coun­ try, in England, Ireland and Canada have made very favor­ able criticisms and have recommended the Course as a suitable Text-book for use in our Catholic Colleges and Universities. But a most agreeable surprise was the receipt of a letter from His Eminence, Cardinal Merry del Vai, addressed to the Editor, January 13, 1904, by order of 11 is Holiness, P. Pius X, felicis memorice. The letter appears in this new edition. The work is intended primarily for the general reader and has not been written exclusively as a Text-book in Evidences of Religion for upper-class students in our Catholic Institu­ tions. It may, however, be adapted to such purpose as a four-year Course in lhe Freshman, Sophomore, Junior and Senior College-classes. In this case, the Deans of Studies, in apportioning matter to the respective classes, will not follow IX X FOREWORD (he logical order of the successive Chapters of the two Vol­ umes, hut rather the order of the students’ mental develop­ ment. Hence, Parts First and Second should be reserved to students in Philosophy, as they will find in them matters analogous to the subjects which they are studying for their Collegiate degrees. The remaining Parts may be distributed among the other classes, according to the judgment of the College Officials. As nearly every thesis is supplied with abundant matter for its demonstration, it will be the Teacher’s task to deter­ mine and specify what is required for recitation in his class, and what may be assigned as supplementary reading matter for private study. Following the suggestion of competent authorities, I have made each of the two volumes a work complete in itself, as far as subject-matters treated are concerned : each volume having its own table of contents at the beginning and its own alpha­ betical index of subjects at the end. The Alphabetical Index of all the writers quoted through­ out this Course will he given at the end of Volume II. With regard to the References quoted in this work from non-Catholic authors, it is understood that, in citing them, we intend to endorse their thoughts and arguments only so far as they are found to agree with the doctrine stated in our text. Such works have been, consulted to ascertain the opinions of our opponents with a view to furnish to our readers the refu­ tation of teachings opposed to the doctrine expounded and defended in this Apologetic Course. It is sincerely hoped that this new and copiously aug­ mented edition of Christian Apologetics will be of help both to the general reader and to our Catholic Youth—to whom it is dedicated—in acquiring a reliable and thorough informa­ tion of the fundamental principles of their holy Religion, to the end that their defense of it may be both intelligent, courageous and successful. Joseph C. Sasia, S.J. University of Santa Clara, Santa Clara, California. September 5, 192%. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION When we undertake to establish the reality of the super­ natural Revelation, and the divine institution of the Roman Catholic Church, we have a right to presuppose in our demon­ stration several other truths or principles pertaining to the scientific or philosophical order. Nevertheless, competent judges have advised us that in our days it is supremely im­ portant to present to Catholic youths a summary or abridg­ ment of the most fundamental preliminaries, such as the proofs of the existence and attributes of Cod, and of the spirituality and immortality of the human soul, theologically called Prœambula Fidei (paving the way to Faith). The existence of God, first of all ; for Atheism, cried down and refuted long ago as a mental monstrosity, is again ram­ pant, and proudly boasts' of being the latest conquest of mod­ ern science. Science, after having solemnly protested that it based its conclusions solely upon experience, and that experi­ ment has nothing to do with the questions of the origin and essence or nature of things (Littré) ; that it did not concern itself cither about the first causes of beings, or about their end or purpose (Berthelot) ; yet, strange Io say, this same science claims to have disproved, it would seem, the very existence of the First Cause! The progress of chemistry, physics, astronomy appears to have demonstrated the uselessness of a Creator! Samuel Wainwright, in his excellent book entitled “Sci­ entific Sophisms,” reproduces the verdict of modern infidel sciences in the following words (ch. 1, pp. 1-2) : “God created man? No such thing. The monads devel­ oped him. The heavens declare the glory of God? Far from it, they declare only the glory of the astronomer. We have now no need of the hypothesis of God. The divine existence xi xîi PREFACE is now declared to be not only unnecessary; it is absolutely unreal; it is the creature of the human imagination.” The hand may well tremble that writes it, and the cars may tingle that hear it, yet it has been both written and said. Beside this shocking denial, and what is more perfidious still, doubt, we find that in this century of ours even the most evident truths have been obscured, and the most solid convic­ tions, in a great measure, shaken up or even entirely uprooted. After hearing men of incontestable ability often proclaiming that reason is unable to demonstrate the foundations of Faith ; after hearing it repeatedly stated that it is impossible to prove the existence of God, the divinity of Christ or the immortality of man’s soul, it is but natural to expect that our youth will ask with some kind of uneasiness, if it be really true that he believes in God without any rational or reasonable motive. And if his faith should still remain unshaken, will he not see himself reduced to the position of opposing to these sophisms a conviction, sincere, no doubt, but one of which he only too vaguely possesses the basis? We do not hesitate to say: That the young Christian owes it to himself, he owes it to his weaker brethren, to be able to demonstrate in a triumphant manner this truth of primary importance, that reason hon­ estly consulted never fails to lead Io the belief and acceptance of revealed Faith. As we shall show further on (nn. 141, 142 of Part III), when treating of the function of reason in matters of faith, faith presupposes a rational knoiulcdgc of God; to believe it is necessary to know beforehand that God exists. But it may be said, what use is there of entering into the difficult path of a scientific demonstration? Does not God manifest Himself clearly enough by the voice of conscience, by the marvels of His works? Most certainly, there is noth­ ing easier than the reasoning which shows to the upright and sincere soul the existence of God. But the imperfect knowl­ edge which suffices for the masses is one thing and the pro­ found knowledge reserved for the high intellects is quite another. Happy are they who have the will and the leisure to culti­ vate and to attain it '. The pleasure of the mind consists in the PREFACE •·· Χ1Π contemplation of the truth ; and this pleasure is all the greater in proportion as the truth thus contemplated is more sublime or more important and shines with greater brilliancy. Now, the aim of the study, which we are about to undertake, is pre­ cisely to show forth the greatest of all truths: the existence of God, the first Cause and the first purpose or end of all things. Next to the existence of God comes the discussion on the human soul, its Liberty, Spirituality and Immortality. The wide spreading in our days of the doctrines of Deter­ minism and Materialism cannot be denied, and it is well known with what audacity those abominable systems also shelter themselves under the mantle and prestige of modern science. But it would be of little value to prove the existence of a Supreme Being, if it all ended in mere Theism. The true idea or conception of God is constantly attacked, changed, per­ verted by a multitude of writers, who vic with each other in proclaiming their so-called religious impressions, who acclaim God in prose and verse. Λ kind of religious sentimentalism, vague and false, poisons a certain class of spiritualistic litera­ ture. Has there not been found many a pantheistic formula in the works of our most celebrated poets? In all probability the writer (A. Nettement) was not exaggerating who called “pantheism the seducer of the highest intellects of our times.'’ Deistic philosophy, a press indifferent to religion, the diffu­ sion of atheistic scientific theories, everything conspires to falsify the true notion and idea of God. This is why there exists an urgent necessity to put this idea in its true light. We need not here dwell on the paramount importance of the questions we are about to treat, for it is self-evident. Indeed, of all the truths that may interest the curiosity of man and attract his undivided attention, the most weighty, the most fundamental is, no doubt, the existence of God. Upon it rests the whole edifice of religion, which is the study of man’s relations to his Creator. The great enigma of man’s destiny here and hereafter can be deciphered only by the light of that master truth; and blind is that science that does not recognize in nature the vestiges of its Author. “All men are xiv PREFACE tain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God.” (Wis­ dom, 13, 1.) It is in vain that a certain school of philosophy strives to make progress consist in a haughty contempt of what they are pleased to style a chimera. But such an attitude of supreme indifference will not prevent thinking men from addressing to themselves the awful inquiry: “Whence do I come? Whither am 1 going? Have I a Master over me? Have I a judge, to whom I am accountable?” And what about our soul, its nature, its origin, its des­ tiny? Man's life changes character and significance accord­ ing as it is considered simply as a chance succession of me­ chanical phenomena, ending in nothingness, or as a place of temporary probation, where man by the exercise of good works secures to himself the possession of a happiness that shall never end. Man is truly the masterpiece of creation. In classic lan­ guage, man’s body is a veritable microcosm—a little world— a world in miniature. His soul, “that vital spark of heavenly flame,” is in itself as enduring as the omnipotent power that brought it into existence. His mental faculties, intellect, memory and will are an image of the august Trinity ; a mir­ ror, a reflection of the uncreated beauty, wisdom and perfec­ tion of the Godhead. In the language of St. Gregory the Great, man contains in himself an abridgment, a summary of all the wonders scattered throughout the realm of creation by God's munificent hand. In fact, he shares existence with the minerals, growth with plants, sensibility with animals, intelligence with the angels, and immortality with God. Hence the greatest of English poets could truly exclaim: “What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculties! In action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals!” —Hamlet, Act II, sc. S. This being so noble, so lofty, so wonderful, as the experi­ ence of sixty centuries teaches us, and our own testimony PREFACE xv assures us, this being, I say, soon disappears from the theatre of this world to return no more. Is there a destiny awaiting him beyond the grave? Or must he utterly perish like the trees of the forest, the birds of the air and the beasts of the field? Was his existence, so ennobled by the lavish profusion of divine gifts, was it to be limited to the narrow horizon of the present life, or is it to be extended to the shoreless ocean of the eternal years? Though limited in his nature and finite in his faculties, man possesses nevertheless an intellect, whose capacity no earthly knowledge can fill; he possesses a heart, whose aspirations no temporal good can completely gratify. What then shall be the perfect object of his knowledge? What shall be the centre of his love? To answer these questions is to solve the problem of life. If it be the most sacred and peremptory duty of man to propose to himself the question regarding his destiny in the future world, it is likewise a matter of the greatest moment for him to know, with unerring certainty, its true answer. And it was precisely to preserve the human mind from all danger of error and deception in a point that affects our most vital interests both of time and eternity, and determines the direction of all the actions of our responsible life, it was for this object, I say, that God Himself, with a providential care, worthy of His infinite goodness and wisdom, has revealed to His intelligent creatures upon earth the true answer to that gravest of questions. As man’s present destiny is entirely supernatural, viz., above and beyond the exigencies of nature, and depending on God’s Free Will, it cannot be known except from (tod Himself, and from Him also come the supernatural means enabling us to attain it. For the means, as reason itself teaches us, must be proportionate to the end. Hence divine revelation alone can solve the problem of life, and explain the true meaning of our earthly existence; not a revelation, mind well, read by every man’s whim, and tampered by every man's judgment, but a revelation interpreted and expounded by the unerring voice of the Church of Christ, the divinely appointed teacher of men, guaranteed against all error and corruption xvi PREFACE by the infallible assurance of Him who said more than nine­ teen centuries ago: “/ will ask the Father and lie shall give you another Paraclete, (he Spirit of truth, that He may abide with you forever . . . When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth.” (John 14, 16, 17; 16, 13.) And, thanks to this most merciful provision, the teachers and guides, that are to lead us to the knowledge of divine truth, arc not far to seek. We find them in our very midst, in the persons of the ministers of Christ, the God-sent ambas­ sadors and successors of the Apostles, in whose possession is found the treasure of revealed Faith; the full and complete body of Christian truths, teaching man his origin, his end and the means by which to attain it. In listening to their voice we bow and submit to the voice of God Himself, speaking to men through the instrumentality of His Church; of that Church. 1 mean, who alone can produce before the world the cre­ dentials and testimonials of her divine mission, authorizing her to teach in the name of God as the very mouthpiece of eternal truth; that Church, who alone can trace back through an unbroken tradition of nineteen hundred years, in an unin­ terrupted line of successors, the divine commission to an­ nounce to all human generations the heavenly message of salvation brought upon earth by her Founder, the Incarnate Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world; that Church in fine, who identical in every respect with that of the Apostles has never ceased to appear before men invested with the exclusive character of divine truth, scaled with the evi­ dence of divine miracles, and stamped with the approval and testimony of God (mi. 205-214). This Church has certainly the authority and power to speak on the problem of life, and if she speaks, she has undoubtedly the right to be heard. Basing then her teaching on the revealed word of God, embodied both in holy Scripture and Tradition, she tells us in a language which no man can mistake or misapprehend, that in accordance with the designs of Divine Providence this world, in which we dwell for a brief period of years, is but a preparation for the next, which sb,ill last forever. Hence the present is for the future, time is for > -- it;. PREFACE XVU eternity, death is the beginning oi a new life, and the of the grave shall one day give place to the brightness of ever enduring light. It is then from the voice, from the infallible authority of the Catholic Church that we learn the noble, lofty truth of our origin and of the high destiny that awaits us beyond the grave; a destiny so great, so precious, so sublime, that God, omnipotent as He is, could not create man for a higher object, could not make him for a nobler purpose. Enlightened by these principles we can confidently ap­ proach the great problem of life and solve it in a manner com­ pletely satisfactory both to the claims of the mind, and to the aspirations of the heart. Hence each one of us can truly say to himself : God is my first beginning and my last end. A God man is my Redeemer, my Savior, my Teacher, my Model; virtue is my profession; justice is my rule of life; grace is my strength; heaven is my inheritance, eternity my expectation, my happiness, the happiness of God Himself. Therefore, in accordance with these principles, I was made not to amass earthly riches, which are perishable, not to covet earthly honors, which are fleeting, not to indulge my unruly appetites, which are degrading, in a word. I was not made to commit sin, I was not made to live in rebellion against my Creator, but I was made to serve God as His subject, to obey Him as His servant, to love Him as His child, and to possess Him as my reward. It is from the sublimity of these senti­ ments that man learns to appreciate his dignity and disdains to dishonor himself and his sacred character by the horrors of vice. It is by realizing these sublime truths that he fears to degrade himself by the slavery of his passions, to tarnish the beauty of his immortal soul and blight his prospects of eternal happiness by the stain of grievous sin, the consciousness of which makes the stoutest heart quiver and tremble at the por­ tals of eternity, when man is about to appear before that Supreme Judge, from whose piercing glance nothing can escape, and from whose sentence there lies no appeal. Dear reader, let us frequently recall to our memory these lofty, elevating, sublime thoughts. They ennoble all our sentiments, they sanctify all our actions, they satisfy all our desires, they < ·· xvm PREFACE comfort us iu all our afflictions, they sustain us in all our adversities. In this point of view our soul becomes more precious than all the goods of this world ; our dignity as Chris­ tians surpasses in grandeur and magnificence that of all earthly kings and potentates; and the title of immortal, reminding us of our everlasting, happy destiny, reflects on us more honor than all the diadems that have ever encircled the brow of the mightiest monarchs of the earth. It has been well said, “On earth there is nothing great but man; in man there is nothing great but the soul; in the soul there is nothing great but the grace and friendship of God, which entitle him to the possession of that bliss which eye has not seen, nor car heard, nor man’s heart conceived.” It is the purpose of this work to exhibit and demonstrate the solid foundations, on which the sublime truths here enunciated are grounded, and thus enable the Christian reader to carry into execution the advice of the Prince of the Apostles, “being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.” (I Peter, 3,15.) May our divine Lord, for whose honor and glory these pages arc written, grant that neither the logical vigor of our reasoning, nor the dearness of our exposition, shall suffer from the condensation, and abridgment of our book. Tile Editor. N.H.—References in parentheses are to the marginal numbers of this volume, unless otherwise indicated. i i CONTENTS PART I GOD, IIIS EXISTENCE, HIS NATURE OR ESSENCE PAGE CHA PTER I. EXISTENCE OF GOD........................................................................ 1 ύ 1. Preliminary Ideas and Division...................................... 1 $ 2. Proofs of the Existence of God....................................... 2 I. The Affirmation of Mankind.......................................2 A. Implicit Affirmation of the Existence of God....................................................................... 3 B. Explicit Affirmation of the Existence of God....................................................................... 8 Characters and Fruits of Our Affirmation 21 Objections and Answers..................................... 24 IL The Visible World Proves the Existence of God 29 A. Imperfections of the Visible World . . 33 B. Perfections of the Visible World ... 51 III. Consequences of Atheism and Additional Con­ siderations........................................... 66 II. NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.................................... 74 1. God is the Necessary Being........................................... 76 2. God is Infinite................................................................... 76 3. God is a Pure Spirit.............................................................79 4. God is Infinite Intelligence............................................ 81 5. God is Infinite Goodness................................................... 85 6. God is One................................................................................... 94 7. God is Immense.......................................................................... 96 8. God is Immutable.................................................................... 9,J 9. God is Eternal.......................................................................... 97 10. God is All-powerful................................................................. 98 11. God is the Chief and LastEnd of All Things . . 102 Authors Consulted in Part I........................................................... 1θ7 PART II THE HUMAN SOUL Its Liberty, Spirituality, Immortality . I. LIBERTY OF THE HUMAN SOUL § 1. Preliminary Notions .... § 2. Adversaries............................................ § 3. Proofs of Free Will .... $ 4. Objections............................................ II. SPIRITUALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL $ 1. Preliminary Notions .... . . . . . . . . 109 110 110 116 117 129 148 148 xix v CONTENTS XX PAGE CHAPTER § 2. Adversaries...................................................................... 154 § 3. Proofs of the Spirituality of the Human Soul . . 155 § 4. Objections...................................................................... 163 III. IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUI.............................. 167 § 1. Preliminary Notions......................................................... 167 § 2. Adversaries....................................................................... 170 § 3. Proofs of the Immortality of the Human Soul . . 171 § 4. Objections....................................................................... 180 Authors Consulted in Part II......................................................... 185 PART III THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION GENERAL IDEAS AND PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS 1. GENERAL IDEAS................................................................ 187 § 1. Religion ....................................................................... 188 § 2. Revelation....................................................................... 193 § 3. Object and Division of this Course . . . .199 § 4. The Three Historical Phases of Revealed Religion 199 II. EXAMINATION OF THREE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS 204 § 1. Of the Function of Reason in Matters of Faith . 204 208 § 2. The Mysteries of Religion.................................. § 3. The Criterion of Certitude in the Attainment of 213 Faith..................................... Authors Consulted in Part III..................................................... 224 PART IV THE SACRED SCRIPTURES Historical Value of the Sacred Scriptures . . 227 I. HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE PENTATEUCH . . .229 § 1. Authenticity of the Pentateuch................................. 230 § 2. Integrity of the Pentateuch........................................ 233 § 3. Veracity- of the Pentateuch........................................ 234 II. THE PENTATEUCH AND SCIENCE.................................237 § 1. The Bible and Geology................................................ 247 1. The Work of the Six Days or the Hexameron. 247 II. The Mosaic Deluge................................................254 § 2. The Bible and Astronomy................................................ 261 § 3. The Bible and Biology....................................................... 267 §4. The Bible and Paleontology........................................ 275 I. Order of the Creation of Organized Beings . 275 II. The Origin of Man and Transformism . . 277 III. Essential Difference between Man and the Lower Animals................................................ 281 . .Attitude of the Catholic Church and Her Loyal Subjects toward the Question of Evolution............................................ 301 IV. The Unity of Origin and Species of all CONTENTS xxi PAGE CHAPTER Human Races or their Descent from One Original Couple, Adam and Eve . . 303 V. Antiquity of the Human Species . . . 310 III. THE BIBLE AND MODERN DISCOVERIES IN EGYPT, ASSYRIA, AND CHALDEA . . . .327 IV. HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE GOSPELS .... 338 § 1. Authenticity of the Gospels........................................... 339 § 2. Integrity of the Gospels...................................................345 § 3. Veracity of the Gospels................................................... 348 A. General Answer to the Objections against the Authority of the Gospels . . . 355 B. Answer to Some Particular Objections . 358 Inspiration........................................................... 363 Tradition........................................................... 367 Authors The Pontifical Biblical Commission, and its decisions on each of the Four Gospels 369 Consulted in Part IV........................................................... 370 PART V THE DIVINITY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION 1. DEMONSTRATION OF THE DIVINITY ΟΓ THE CHRIS­ TIAN RELIGION......... 373 1. Observations as to the Method to be fol­ lowed in this Demonstration . . . 373 IT. Miracles and Prophecy................................... 375 § 1. Miracles................................................................................... 376 I. Nature or Idea of Miracles .... 376 II. Possibility of Miracles.................................. 379 III. Possibility of ascertaining the Occurrence of a Miracle................................................... 389 IV. The Value of Miracles as Proofs . . . 406 § 2. Prophecy................................................................................... 408 I. Its Nature...................................................... 408 IT. ThePossibility of Prophecy .... 409 TIT. The Value of Prophecies as Proofs . . 409 II. PROOFS OF THE DIVINITY OF ΤΠΕ MISSION OF JESUS CHRIST AND OF HIS AVORK, THE FOUNDING OR ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION . . 414 § 1. First Proof. The Miracles Performed by Jesus Christ...................................... 414 §2. Second Proof. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ . 419 $ 3. Third Proof. The Fulfilment of the Prophecies WHICH CONCERN THE PERSON AND THE MIS­ SION of Jesus Christ...... 433 I. Enumeration of some of the Prophecies . 433 II. Fulfilment of the Messianic Prophecies . 438 § 4. Fourth Proof. § 5. Fifth Miracles of the Apostles and of the Disciples of Jesus Christ .... 443 Proof. Fulfilment of the Prophecies made by Jesus Christ Himself .... 449 π 1 CONTENTS xxii PAGE CHAPTER § 6. Sixth Proof. The Miraculous Establishment of the Religion of Jesus Christ and its Perpetuation throughout the Centuries . 457 I. Establishment and Propagation of Chris· « § 7. § 8. § 9. . TiANiTY ................................................................... 457 II. Miracle of the Preservation of Christianity through the Centuries....................... 465 Seventh Proof. The Testimony of the Martyrs . 469 Additional Consideration on the Significance of Martyrdom ....................... 471 A Synthetic Summary; the Enemies to be over­ come and the Victory Achieved . . . 480 Eighth Proof. Wonderful Results Produced by Christianity, or the Prodigious Revolution which it brought about in the World . 485 Ninth Proof. The Doctrinal Teaching of Jesus Christ .............................. 491 I. The Dogmatic Teaching of Christ . . . 491 A. Doctrine of Christ concerning God . . 491 B. Doctrine of Jesus Christ concerning Man 494 The Remunerative Sanction . . · 500 The Punitive Sanction .... 501 C. Doctrine of Jesus Christ concerning the World ........................................................ 505 TT. The Moral Teaching of Christ . . . 506 III. Teaching of Jesus Christ concerning Worship........................................................511 General Remarks concerning the Teaching of Jesus Christ............................................ 511 First Objection taken from similarities be­ tween Christianity and other Religions 514 Second Objection taken from the Comparison between Christianity and Buddhism . . 522 I. Theoretic Buddhism or Buddhism of the Books.............................................................. 526 A. Dogmatic Part................................................ 526 B. Moral Part................................................529 II. Practical and Popular Buddhism . . .531 ΠΙ. TENTH PROOF. THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY DEMONSTRATED BY THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST, ITS FOUNDER.................................. 534 First Argument. The Incomparable Holiness which Christ exhibited......................................................... 534 Second Argument. Christ Himself on many occasions BORE EMPHATIC TESTIMONY TO H1S OWN DIVINITY . . 542 Third Argument. The Astounding Miracles whk h Christ Wrought as irrefutable Credentials of His Godhead . 551 The Roll of Honor.............................................................. 555 TV. SUMMARY OF THE TEN PROOFS AND CONCLUSION OF PART V......................................................... 556 Authors Consulted in Part V....................................................... 563 INDEX OF SUBJECTS...................................................................... 567 CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS PART I GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, HIS NATURE OR ESSENCE CHAPTER I THE EXISTENCE OF GOD § I. Preliminary Ideas and Division 1. Idea or Notion of God. We deem the following remarks by Bishop John S. Vaughan in his book “Faith and Folly” a fit introduction to our discussion: “To seek for proofs of God’s existence may seem to many of my readers a task as that of groping about in a broiling hot day of summer in search of the Sun, which is all the while shining out above our heads in dazzling splendor and mag­ nificence and being reflected in a thousand varying tints from countless objects on earth, sea and sky. Yet a mere glance at the current literature of the day is enough to dissipate such a fond delusion, and to show that a large number of minds are far from regarding this great central dogma of Catholic truth as at all settled. To many it is still a question to be proved and discussed; and many minds have become dis­ turbed and agitated in attempting to grapple with the objec­ tions against it that are being daily echoed and reechoed on every side.” The chief difficulties here referred to will be duly sifted and thoroughly refuted in the following pages: and it will be shown, at the same time, that in all ages and 2 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE regions the highest culture of the overwhelming majority of mankind has paid its willing, conscious homage to the sov­ ereign Creator and supreme Ruler of the Universe. Though, strictly speaking, at the threshold of our demon­ stration, we are not allowed to assume or take for granted the existence of God, the very point that we arc about to prove, yet we feel it to be our duty to determine with precision the nature of the being designated under the name God. But who ignores this truth? Is it not an incontestable fact that humanity is in possession of the knowledge of a Superior Being, the Supreme Cause of the Universe and the Sovereign Master of man ? 2. Not only is this concept of God found to exist in all human souls, but His existence is moreover proclaimed every­ where. We must, in the first place, examine the fact of this universal affirmation, and we shall be able to show that that fact alone constitutes by itself one of the proofs of the exist­ ence of God. But this conclusion being admitted, can we avoid asking whence comes to humanity the universal convic­ tion, in other words, on what foundation is this affirmation grounded? We answer with St. Paul (Rom. 1,19-20) and the author of Wisdom (13, 1 sqq.) that the existence of God is logically deduced from the existence of the visible world. To confirm the demonstration we shall enumerate the principal absurdities of atheism: hence, three parts in our treatise. I. The affirmation of mankind; first proof of the existence of God. II. The visible world; second proof. III. The absurdities of atheism; third proof. § II. Proofs of the Existence of God I. THE AFFIRMATION OF MANKIND 3. The existence of God is affirmed in two ways: The first, explicit and formal, is put forth in profession of faith and religious practices; the second is called implicit, because, without being expressly formulated, it is, as it were, AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 3 contained in the affirmation of another reality, that of the moral law. Let us separately study these two affirmations, commencing with implicit affirmation. A. Implicit Affirmation of the Existence of God To avoid all misunderstanding, lei us remark that accord­ ing to different points of view it is logically permissible to descend from the existence of God to that of the moral law. or to ascend from the moral law to the existence of God. If in any way man has attained to the knowledge of God, it would not be difficult to conclude that God, the sovereign and wise Master, must have established a moral law. In that case the moral law would be the logical consequence of the exist­ ence of God presupposed to be known. On the contrary, man in ignorance of the existence of God, perceives the existence of a moral law. Wo seek for a rational explanation of this fact, and we discover that it is possible only on condition that God exists. It is on this second argumentation that we intend to proceed. 4. Three points are to be demonstrated: (1) Mankind affirms the existence of a moral law. (2) This affirmation is true; in other words, the moral law is a reality. (3) Now this moral law would be an absurdity if there were no God. Therefore God exists. 5. 1. Affirmation of the Moral Law. Let us remember at the very outset that one thing is to deny all moral law; another thing to bo mistaken on the morality of this or that particular act; and, lastly, quite another thing to violate the moral law. We are assuredly far from claiming that men follow universally and scrupulously the guidance of their conscience: we acknowledge that gross errors have too often defiled the ideas of pure morality. Paganism did not recoil from deifying the vices themselves. In spite of their errors, their weakness and their crimes, men proclaim lhe existence of morality. Honesty, justice, right and duty, moral good and moral evil, virtue and vice, arc ideas acknowledged and affirmed to be true both by the 4 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE individual conscience and by universal practice. No sensible man ever believed that to honor one’s mother or to murder her, to observe or transgress the Ten Commandments, to tell the truth or to perjure oneself, are actions equally good and equally moral. Undoubtedly there are theorists who have denied the difference between good and evil, between right and wrong. What folly is there that did not have its par­ tisans? What blunder is there, said Cicero, that has not been taught by some philosopher? Have there not been men who claimed to have doubts of their own existence ? But the most obstinate skeptic, put to the proof of certain personal argu­ ments of a striking nature, is immediately convinced of the reality of his personal existence. It is thus with the theorists in question. Their conduct pitilessly, but fortunately, contra­ dicts their words. Man may deny morality, but when he is seriously wronged in his honor, his possessions, a voice more powerful than all theories rises in his heart and cries out with irresistible authority : “The scoundrel who has defrauded me, the thief who has robbed me, has violated his duty to his fellow man.” For the idealist, most skeptical about his duties, thinks quite differently when it is a question of his own personal rights. All men talk of their rights, of right of property, individual or collective, right to their reputation, to respect on the part of their fellow men, etc., etc. And they all speak on all occasions with an energy, vehemence and earnestness which bear witness to the fact of their profound conviction. Now, what right would that be which everyone might violate, I do not say legally but lawfully? It would simply be nonsense, an absurdity. If I have a right to own a piece of land, it is on condition that others be bound to respect my property. Right in one person always presupposes a corre­ sponding obligation in another, for right and duty arc cor­ relative terms; hence one cannot exist independently of the other. Therefore, whether we hearken to the voice of mankind or to the interior promptings of conscience, everywhere we hear affirmed a real obligation, a true moral law, Is this AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 5 affirmation wrong? Is the moral law an idle fancy, a mere chimera? We shall show at once that it is not. 6. 2. The Moral Law Is a Reality. Anyone who re­ fuses to accept the testimony of mankind must submit to the following consequences: (1) That human reason is invincibly, necessarily mistaken as to the most fundamental, the most essential questions of life. They alone would then be in lhe right who reject all law, every obligation; that is to say, the men whom all mankind repels as monsters! And again, these monsters would be convicted of contradicting in a thousand ways their own theoretic negation. (2) That society, which is a necessity for the human race, would have no other basis than an abominable lie. That morality is the foundation of society is a most evident truth. Can we imagine a society of men without honesty, without honor; a society where perjury would be held to be the same thing as veracity; a society im­ pelled to action only by the attraction of pleasure, without other curb than brutal force or mere utilitarian views? (3) Moreover, the erroneous system hold by our opponents would immediately turn against its authors. For if human reason is such that it errs invincibly, inevitably as to the most funda­ mental questions, how can there be an appeal to human reason against the moral law? For if human reason is essentially unreliable in one case, it must inevitably be untrustworthy in all others. Hence the choice, indeed inevitable, between the two alternatives; either the frightful chaotic condition of a society destitute of moral principles and of moral restraint is the normal condition of mankind—or society, to exist must lean on a conviction both contradictory and absurd. They are indeed to be pitied whom such logical deductions fail to enlighten. We arc then justified in admitting, as a legitimate conclusion, the reality of the moral law. 7. 3. There Can Be No Moral Law without God. (a) Most assuredly it is not man that imposes upon himself the moral law. For if he were its author, he would be free to modify its prescriptions according to his changeable whims and caprices; but this cannot be, because, as it is proved in ethics, the moral law is, in its first principles, absolute, noces- 6 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE sary and immutable. (See “Natural Law and Legal Prac­ tice,” by René T. Holaind, S.J., p. 48.) (ύ) Neither can political authority or civil society impose the moral law. For besides presupposing the existence and binding force of moral law, without which, as it has been shown (n. 6), it cannot exist, that authority may, and docs at times, enact prescriptions contrary to the dictates of con­ science, the secret voice revealing to man the injunctions of that law. At all events, the will, or ordinances of civil society, are neither absolute, nor necessary, nor unchangeable. There­ fore, the only conceivable lawgiver must be that Superior Being whose will is indefectible, that is God. (c) We shall reach the same conclusion by the following reflection: If we seek the ultimate reason or cause of the unlawfulness of certain human acts, such as blasphemy, per­ jury, hatred of one’s neighbor, we must go to the divine intel­ lect, which has, from all eternity, conceived the existing moral order as perfectly conformable to the immutable divine essence. This is the last and the only true reason or cause of all immutable moral laws and consequent obligations. Hence God Himself cannot change blasphemy, perjury, etc., into honest acts, for this would be something absolutely repugnant to 11 is very essence, and contrary to the necessary relations existing between Himself and His intelligent creatures. Hence God cannot render a human act honest when it is intrinsically wrong; for what is intrinsically proper of any being, constitutes the very essence of that being. Now. meta­ physics teaches us that the essences of beings are immutable, in as much as they are conformable to the divine ideas, which arc as immutable as the divine essence itself containing those ideas or concepts. But God can transform into moral obliga­ tions the several relations that result from the intrinsic nature of things. Such are, for instance, the relations and corre­ sponding rights and duties between a Sovereign and his sub­ jects, the parents and their offspring, the creditors and their debtors; between benefactors and the objects of their benevo­ lence. In conclusion, the moral order is conceived by the divine mind, decreed by the divine will, commanding its ob- AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 7 servance and forbidding its violation, it is mirrored in created intellects, and made binding on created wills. Hence, as it is absolutely impossible to assign a satisfactory reason of the binding force of the moral law independently of the existence of God, wc must logically conclude that Cod exists. (5 and much more admirably put together. Contemplate its beautiful wings, see how exquisitely they are adorned with gold and sapphire, and how richly stained with the most gor­ geous coloring; examine the muscles by which they are worked to and fro, and so carry the body through the air. See the six delicate and exquisitely-proportioned legs, with their subtle joints, their sinews and muscles; contemplate the various organs. Why! even the eye alone, with its complicated parts, throws every more human work in the shade. Take the but­ terfly as it stands, and, compared with it a clock is but a rude, crude, unskilled, and inartistic object. Further, who is there among men with genius and intelligence enough not only to manufacture a clock, but so to manufacture it that one clock may in its turn construct other clocks like to itself? He Who made the butterfly so fashioned it that it can reproduce others according to its kind. But can a watchmaker, however gifted, however skillful and clever, so construct a watch that it may give birth to other watches? Can he so design a chronometer that it can of itself bring forth a whole litter of young chronometers, each perfect, each the image of its parent ? Ah, you smile at the bare notion as being too ridiculous and impossible to entertain, and you do well. Yet a single butter­ fly will bring forth several hundreds of butterflies like to itself during the course of a single season. How is it possible that men can witness this and countless other similar marvels, and yet be stupid enough to deny the existence of a reasonable and intelligent cause, or, in other words, the existence of God presiding over nature? They strain at the gnat but they swallow the camel ! “Though they cannot bring themselves to believe that a common coin, or a steam-engine, or a clock, can possibly have come into existence without a living and intelligent person to make it, yet other things, which arc acknowledged to be vastly more wonderful, admirable and beautiful, they calmly ascribe to chance, to mere accident, to blind physical forces, to the survival of the fittest—yea, to anything what­ soever provided they need not acknowledge the only true Cause, the Infinite, Eternal, and Omnipotent God and 66 GOD, TDS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE Lord of Heaven and earth. 1 would not write on such a subject were it not for the melancholy fact that there are many, even in this modern and progressive agi*, who seem more willing to renounce reason itself, to contradict the clearest dictates of common sense, and to make themselves ridiculous in the eyes of honest Christians, than to openly believe in God and to confess Him to be the Author of the Universe. The Holy Spirit tells us that ‘the fool said in his heart there is no God.’ Observe the clause—‘in his heart’—not in his mind, not in his reason. No. it is a rooted unwillingness to obey and love God that causes men to try and persuade themselves that no such Divine Person exists, and in this effort they too often succeed. ‘The wish is father to the thought,’ as the poet says. It is their hearts, their desires, that speak, not their reason. In the inner depths of their own consciences they know that God does and must exist, and that the Universe would remain forever a wholly and absolutely inexplicable riddle unless we accept the doetrine of an intelligent Creator—a doctrine of reason and com­ mon sense. Man cannot disguise from himself the fact—if he reflects at all. That every object around and about him proclaims the presence of God far more certainly than the human footprints on the sand proclaims the presence of man. For the traces of God’s creative power are on every leaf and on every blade of grass. AVe cannot deny Him without de­ throning reason, stultifying ourselves, and committing an act of intellectual suicide—from which may God in His mercy preserve us.” ΙΠ. CONSEQUENCES OF ATHEISM AND ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 38. To demonstrate the untruth of an hypothesis, it has always been found sufficient to show the absurd consequences to which it leads, and this method, though indirect, is not less effective. Hence, though most of the absurdities of atheism have been already noticed, it will not be a useless work to set them forth in this place. This general view will bring them into greater relief and give them more prominence. AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 67 To be an atheist, in the full sense of the word, viz., deliberately to deny the existence of God, it is necessary to admit only contingent existences, which inevitably implies the negation of the principle of causality, one of the most ele­ mentary, fundamental and essential axioms of reason (n. 26). It is necessary even to go further, and. rather than admit a cause accounting for the existence of the Universe, to suppress the very idea of a cause, though this would be to contradict one’s self at every moment. (1) Can the atheist, even give the causes of his atheism without contradicting himself? (See n. 26.) (2) Or it is necessary to admit the existence of a neces­ sary being and to be constrained, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, to attribute this necessity to matter. (3) Or to attribute to chance, to a blind necessity, the marvels of nature, of art, of genius itself! (4) In another sphere of ideas, it would be necessary to proclaim a moral law without lawgiver and without a sanc­ tion to enforce its execution; or to deny altogether the very existence of this moral law, and place upon the same footing unselfishness and egotism, fidelity and treason, etc. (5) To destroy social order, which is impossible without morality, without religion. (6) To impute falsehood to Christianity, the doctrine which is the glory of humanity and without which men are but mere animals, struggling for existence, according to the theory of Darwin, devouring each other, eating, drink­ ing, enjoying life, and through their excesses, bursting im stead of dying. And at the same time to proclaim as true materialism, the most degrading doctrine that is possible to conceive. (7) To rise up against the testimony of all mankind, especially of the best among them; and this, without being able to put forth a shadow of proof. Indeed, such is the case, even with the positive Atheists, who deliberately deny the existence of God. Whilst they have failed to refute the arguments sustaining our belief and conviction of this mighty truth, they have been unable 68 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE to defend their position against their powerful assailants. They are incapable of either building up or of pulling down. The only thing they can do is to deny, for which it is enough to have a flippant tongue and an obstinate will. Moreover, though always appealing to science, atheism contradicts the best and the most clearly established results of science (for instance, by affirming the existence of spon­ taneous generation, n. 26); it goes out of the domain of experience and thereby of science, by proclaiming the eternity, the necessity of matter. It is, therefore, a system utterly anti-scientific, the very denial of science. It is un­ necessary to prolong this enumeration of absurdities. Every honest man, open to conviction, must admit them. *i There arc difficulties in admitting that there is a God; but there are absurdities in denying His existence,” says Voltaire. “Traité de la métaphysique” (Treatise on metaphysics), ch. 2. 39. Of atheists some are theoretical, others practical. Among the former are reckoned those individuals, who, though they recognize God as a Supreme, self-existing Being, the Creator of the Universe, yet attribute to Him what is absolutely re­ pugnant to His infinite perfection such as material, bodily constituents of His nature. They are called atheists, for the God they admit is purely chimerical. Now a chimerical God is no God at all. But. such men cannot be designated as atheists in the proper sense of the term, for atheism is the error that concerns not God’s essence or nature, but His very existence. To this class belongs the Pantheism of the Jewish Spinoza (1677) and the German philosophers: Fichte (1814) ; Hegel (1831) ; Krause (1832) ; Schelling (1864) and of the pessimistic Schopenhauer (1860). Practical atheists are those, who, though they do not ignore God, yet so live as if God did not exist and they were not accountable to any superior Being for their moral conduct. All Christian philosophers hold that, in the present order of Providence, in the full light of nineteen centuries of Christian civilization, there can be no atheists by conviction, and that consequently they cannot plead invincible ignorance of God’s AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 69 existence as Supreme Creator and Sovereign Judge rewarding virtue and punishing wickedness. The strongest difficulties alleged by would-be atheists have been completely refuted by Christian philosophers and theologians, whose works fill the libraries of the most cultured nations of the world in both hemispheres. The language of nature, which all understand, proclaims the existence of its Maker. “Through every star,” says Carlyle, “through every blade of grass, God is made visible, if we will but open our minds and eyes.” It is to this great fact that the Scriptures refer when they remind us that “by the greatness of the beauty of the creatures, the Creator of them may be seen so as to be known thereby.” (Wisdom 13, 5.) St. John Chrysostom (398) commenting on that passage exclaims: “The wonderful harmony of all things speaks louder on this subject than the loudest trumpet.” If therefore men refuse to recognize God in His works and fail to trace His power and glory in the starry firmament, it is not because they arc not clearly manifested there, but because they willfully close their eyes, preferring darkness to light. St. Paul thus speaks of the heathens who deny God: “The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world arc clearly seen, being understood by the things that arc made, Ilis eternal power also and divinity: so that they arc inex­ cusable.” (Rom. 1, 20.) The truth we are here considering distinctly taught by the Sovereign Pontiff Gregory XVI (Denzinger, “Enchiridion,” p. 433) has been clearly defined by the Vatican Council (1370) in the following terms: “The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that the existence of God, as the principle and end of all things can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the con­ templation of things created.” (Denzingcr, “Enchiridion,” p. 474.) The Apostle of the Gentiles, in the quoted letter to the Romans, thus characterizes the guilty pagans: “Professing themselves ivisc they become fools.” (Rom. 1,22.) A very old and highly respected authority, that of the inspired royal prophet, David, thus spoke of the willful, obstinate atheist. “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” (Ps. 13,1.) 70 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE The late Cardinal Manning thus commented on this text: “It would seem that the text should read: ‘The fool hath said in his head, there is no God,’ for it is the head that does 1he thinking. Not so: the Scripture is perfectly correct, for the profession of atheism is not the result of conviction, but is the inevitable consequence of the corruption of the heart.” In fact the same royal prophet assigns the chief reason of God’s denial by some men saying: “They are corrupt and are become abominable in their ways.” (Ps. 13, 2 ) Modern Christian apologists are agreed that among the chief moral causes of atheism arc reckoned hatred of selfknowledge, shrinking from honest inquiry, and all serious application to study. To the mind of such character the universal consent of past ages, the concurrent weight of both religious and civil authority, the teachings and examples of the noblest geniuses are to go for naught. Superficial culture or a mere smattering of knowledge implies a contempt for all higher things with its unfailing result gross and unre­ strained immorality. The clouds of vice will darken the brightest intellect, and blast the most promising career of youth. Intellectual pride is another baneful cause of unbelief. It is denounced by the poet Pope in the following scathing language : “Of all the causes which conspire to blind Man’s erring judgment and misguide the mind, What the weak head with strongest bias rules Is Pride, the never failing vice of fools.” Essay on Criticism, II. 40. The Rationalist Press Association of London in one of its infidel publications (1911) did not hesitate to print the following assertion: “It is extremely doubtful whether any scientist or philosopher really holds the doctrine of a personal God.” This sweeping assumption, unsupported by any proof, was taken up by an English writer, Mr. Arthur II. Tabrum, who in his work “Religious Beliefs of Scientists” (Hunter AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 71 and Longhurst, London) completely refutes the charge. Re­ ferring to modern English, Scotch and Irish scientists he quotes the very words of more than a hundred men dis­ tinguished in every branch of natural Science. To the ques­ tion addressed to them: “Has it been your experience to find men of Science irreligious ami antichristian?”, 1o quote one instance out of many, Sir George G. Stokes, for over fifty years Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, gave this peremptory answer; “That has not been my ex­ perience but the reverse. To confine myself to my own line of mathematical and physical science, and to those who are no longer on earth, though not very many years dead, I know that they were all deeply religious Christian men.” To the preceding Scientists who expressed in writing their unquali­ fied dissent from the Rationalists, are to be added the numer­ ous British doctors and professors cited by Mr. Tabrum, men fully committed to the belief in the existence of the Creator. We thus reach the total of three hundred and twenty-five eloquent witnesses to the truth of Theism radically opposed to Rationalism. American readers are naturally anxious to know the atti­ tude of the leading scientific men of this country towards the fundamental Christian truths firmly believed and ably defended by their fellow-scientists of Great Britain. They will be highly gratified to learn the loyal, conservative Chris­ tian stand they uphold in open contradiction to the unwar­ ranted libelous assumption of Joseph McCabe, the notorious apostate friar, the compiler of the Biographical Dictionary of Modern Rationalists. He boldly asserts: “Beyond all ques­ tion the higher culture of America is rationalistic from New York to California.” (Literary Guide, October, 1909.) Before proceeding to the refutation of this calumnious charge, let us sec what is the meaning of the term Rationalism as inter­ preted by the Rationalists themselves. “Rationalism is in direct antagonism with Theism as well as with Christianity. It is a very broad term and includes within its borders Sæcularism, Agnosticism and Freetbought.” In the judg­ ment then of the renegade friar McCabe, the American scien- 72 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE tists, in every state of the Union, • · from the Atlantic to the Pacific, constitute a formidable host of Rationalists, agnostics, atheists and antichristian freethinkers, a gross accusation far more drastic than that launched against their confrères in the British Isles. But what are the facts? Their own testimony shows that a large proportion, practically a majority of America’s cultured men are not only outside the ranks of antichristian Rationalism, but that they arc Christian be­ lievers, more than two hundred of them being members of some religious denomination. To many of them also was sent the inquiry, “Has it been your experience to find men of Science irreligious and antichristian?” Among the several replies received by the English inquirer, Mr. A. II. Tabrum, the following will suffice as specimens of all the others here omitted to economize space. Dr. William J. Holland, a dis­ tinguished naturalist, Chancellor of the Northwestern Univer­ sity of Wisconsin wrote: “I probably have as extensive an acquaintance with the scientific men of all lands, as it falls to the good fortune of most of men to have, and I know that the vast majority of my acquaintances in scientific circles are reverent, devout men, firm believers in the existence of the Power in whom we live, and move and have our being.” Professor David Starr Jordan, Chancellor emeritus of Stan­ ford University, California, answered: “It certainly is not my experience to find men of science irreligious or antichris­ tian. A few scientific men doubtless are, but it is with them a matter of temperament, and not of science.” For details and list of names, see “Men of America, a biographical Dictionary of Contemporaries” by J. W. Leonard (Hammerly and Co., New York), and “Religious Be­ liefs of Scientists” quoted above. Old Cicero in one of his Orations said: “The man who has once deviated from the truth (deflexit a veritate) is usually led to tell without scruple other lies.” Sec “Familiar Quotations from Latin Authors” (London, Routledge and Sons). We regret to be compelled to say that the aphorism of the Roman sage can be applied to Mr. J. McCabe, the compiler of the “Biographical Dictionary of Modem Ration­ AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 73 alists” (London, Watts and Co., 1900). A careful inspection of the names there recorded revealed to me the startling fact that as many as thirty distinguished European and American scientists have been reckoned among Rationalists, who, as proved by documentary evidence, either professed Christian­ ity throughout their career, or died converts to Catholic Faith. A further examination of that Dictionary is likely» to lead to the discovery of other eminent Christian men labelled by the compiler as Rationalist, atheist, and agnostic to swell the ranks of unbelievers. “Non tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis,” Virgil, Aencid, II, 521.—No cause can be won with such aid and by such defenders. “Mala causa patrocinio peior fit.”—To defend a bad cause is to make it worse. In examining the pages of the Dictionary in question I looked in vain for any quotation from the authors described therein assigning the reasons of their apostasy from Chris­ tianity or of their lifetime adherence to Rationalism. The intelligent reader is not surprised at this negative attitude. Here silence is golden. No apostate, no Rationalist can afford to challenge the criticism of the world by any attempt to justify his rebellion. Here no one can fail to see the striking contrast between the conduct of converts to Catholicism and that of the disciples of Rationalism: for while the former in public lectures and printed volumes set before the world the motives of their conversion, the latter invariably prefer the policy of a cowardly silence. 41. Summary and Conclusion of Chapter I on the Ex­ istence of God. The Sovereign legislator of the physical world and of the moral world. 1hc Necessary Being, the first and the ultimate cause of contingent beings that appear and disappear around us, in other words, (rod exists. This is the general conclusion of the foregoing demonstration. Moreover, it is important to remark, the arguments there developed do not point to the existence of three or four different beings. All, by diverse routes, converge upon one centre, the one and the same God. Nothing can be easier than to convince oneself of this (n. 46). 74 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE The Supreme Being which mankind proclaims {Explicit Affirmation, nn. 8-24) is the Being upon whom and from whom it acknowledges its essential dependence. He is the Sovereign Master of the world, the Supreme Judge, who rewards virtue and punishes crime. He is, therefore, the Author of the moral law {Implicit Affirmation, nn. 4-8). The moral law (the natural law), resulting from the very essence of men and creatures, has for its first, Author the Author of nature Himself, that is, the first cause, the neces­ sary Being, whose existence is proven by that of all contingent beings {Imperfections of the Visible World, nn. 25-30). Finally we have seen that He who established such an admirable order of all existing contingent beings, could not be any other than the Author or Creator of those same beings {Perfections of the Visible World, nn. 31-38). Thus, in most diverse ways, we are irresistibly, invincibly brought to the same conclusion : God exists. Dcistic philosophy, a reckless press, the flippant preten­ sions of modern science, all conspire to falsify in the minds of men the true notion or idea of God. Behold here the reason of the urgent necessity in our days of placing that concept in its true light. CHAPTER II NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 42. But what is the nature of this Being, so evidently real and nevertheless so mysterious? If we were composing a work on Natural Theology, viz., on the knowledge of God as attainable by reason, we should here have to set forth at full length the divine essence and attributes as discovered by unaided reason. The limits pre­ scribed for this introduction do not permit us to do so; more­ over. this long and laborious study is in nowise necessary. Our only object was to prepare the way for the treatise on Christian Apologetics. AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 75 It is for it to show that between man and the first cause, there exist necessary, immutable relations that constitute Nat ural Religion. It will then demonstrate the fact of Supernatural Revelat ion. Then all will be clear. God will come to the help of our weak intelligence. With the full certainty of Faith, we shall know II is essence and His attributes. Imperfectly, no doubt. How can we “comprehend,” enclose the Infinite in our finite intelligence? But even an imperfect knowledge may be true and certain. Do we know everything about electricity, heat, light ? And yet we know those natural agents and forces with full certainty. There is therefore a notable advantage for the truths of God known by natural reason to be proposed to men to be believed on faith, thus facilitating in a great measure the knowledge of God, which is the best instrument or means for attaining holiness and spiritual perfection, as we learn from the angelic Doctor, St. Thomas. (Contra Gent. I, 4.) It will, therefore, be sufficient for us to recapitulate the principal data of Revelation concerning God: and by adding a few philosophical arguments we will show how perfectly the teachings of divine Faith respond to the demands of reason. God can be considered under three distinct aspects, namely simply as an existing being, or as an operating being, or as a moral being. Hence the triple division into Quiescent, Opera­ tive, and Moral divine attributes. The Quiescent attributes arc, unity, immutability, eternity, immensity and infinity. The attributes of Operation arc those that imply action either internal or external referred to creatures, such as divine knowledge, will and omnipotence. Among God’s Moral at­ tributes arc reckoned His wisdom, goodness, holiness, provi­ dence, veracity, faithfulness, justice and mercy. God being one absolutely simple essence all His attributes are perfectly identified with it. This axiom must be borne in mind in our discussion to safeguard the perfect unity and simplicity of the divine substance as defined by the Fourth 76 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE Latcran Council (A.D. 1215) and the Vatican Council (A.D. 1870). 43. 1. God Is the Necessary Being·. This perfection con­ cerns the metaphysical essence of God, or that, divine attribute, by which the human intellect must principally distinguish Him from all created beings; it is the attribute of absolutely independent self-existence. Hence God is best defined by saying that He is the self-existing, necessary Being, or He who is. God has given to us in Scripture a sublime definition of Himself: “I am lie who Am.—Ego sum qui sum” (Exod. 3, 14). That is to say: I am the Being surpassing all. It is proper of my essence to exist. I am, and I cannot but be. I am self-existing. This was revealing to us the absolute necessity of the divine essence. But this is precisely what reason has shown us, viz., that a Being absolutely necessary, self-existing, could alone account for the existence of contingent, beings. (Sec nn. 26-28.) Hence here again there is perfect accord between reason and Faith. 44. 2. God Is Infinite. Revelation teaches us that God is an infinite Being; infinite in His essence, infinite in IIis perfections. Some writers have thought that reason is in­ capable of proving the divine infinity. This is false. AVe freely grant that this could not be accomplished except by means of a somewhat deep and subtle argumentation. The human mind would have to descend into the depths of the infinite essence in order to sound them, and weak as it is, would have to discover in those depths the intimate reason of that infinity, the most sublime, and therefore, the most difficult of all concepts. But when this infinity is once revealed, what light, what satisfaction for the human r intellect ! Reason instinctively felt the necessity of admitting such infinity. It perceived that the cause being proportionate to the effects, the Author of this wonderful Universe must Him­ self be perfect beyond all conception. It could see, moreover, no reason for setting any limit to the perfections of the first cause. In fact, if God’s perfections were finite or limited, AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 77 He would have received such limitation cither intrinsically from Himself, or extrinsically, viz., from a cause or being distinct, from Himself. But neither supposition can be ad­ mitted. First, He cannot have received any limit to His perfections intrinsically, namely, from Himself, that is by reason of His essence. For the essence of God, viz., of the Being that is self-existing—ens a se—is actually to be. But no simple or pure perfection can be repugnant to such an essence; for all perfection is some being, and therefore quite proper to Him, Λνΐιο is Himself the fullness of being. Moreover, as God is not the cause of His own existence, neither can He be the cause of His own limitation; for limita­ tion would affect His essence; but His essence is eternal, and consequently eternally identified with His existence. What He is now He has been from all eternity. In the second place, He cannot have received any limits to His perfections ex­ trinsically, viz., from a being or cause distinct from Himself, for this would imply a dependence on that being, whilst He is independent of all beings, as He is the first cause of all existing contingent beings. Again, the cause of such limita­ tion should have been eternal, like God’s existence. But God alone exists from all eternity. We are then justified in concluding that God is infinite. However great may be the finite perfection displayed by the Universe (grandeur, power, wisdom, beauty, etc.), human reason, in its dizzy flight, surpassed those limits and con­ ceived the possibility of far superior grandeur, of deeper wis­ dom and of more charming beauties. Nothing could induce it to believe that the absolutely necessary Being could be restricted, or bound by any limit. Here also Faith gives full satisfaction to reason. Before proceeding any further, we deem it necessary to call the reader’s attention to an important distinction, which sound philosophers are wont to make when treating of the perfections of God. It will enable us to understand clearly in what sense it is said that whatever is perfect in the crea­ ture must exist in God, the Creator; and it will show, at the same time, how much this idea of God’s perfections, held by 78 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE Christian Philosophy, differs from that- of the Pantheistic school of both ancient and modern times. (Sec Kammerstein, S.J., “The Existence of God,” p. vii.) Perfections arc of two kinds: first, simple perfections; second, mixed perfections. Simple perfections arc those which involve no imperfection, e.g. wisdom, life. Mixed perfections are those which do involve some imperfection, e.g. ihe power of reasoning. The power of reasoning is a perfection inas­ much as it enables us to attain Io truth. But it involves imperfection inasmuch as it is by its nature a slow and labori­ ous means of attaining to truth. It is greatly inferior to intuition, which apprehends the truth immediately or without need of the syllogistic process. Simple perfections we ascribe to God formally, that is to say, according to their own proper signification. Thus we ascribe to God life and wisdom in Ihe proper and strict sig­ nificance of the terms, life and wisdom. We do not, however, ascribe even these perfections Io God as they are found in creatures, or as we can conceive them. Wisdom, as we con­ ceive it, is a quality informing a subject, and distinct from the subject it informs. In God, by reason of His infinite simplicity, there can be no information, no composition. The creature has wisdom. But God is wisdom. He identifies His wisdom and His other attributes with Himself. Simple per­ fections, then, we ascribe to God formally, or according to their proper signification, but not as they are found in crea­ tures, nor as we can conceive them. Mixed perfections we ascribe to God, not formally but eminently. We cannot ascribe them formally to God, because in their proper signification they involve imperfection. But we do ascribe them eminently to God, inasmuch as, instead of any given mixed perfection, we attribute to God some higher perfection, which contains all the perfection of the mixed perfection, without the imperfection which the latter involves. Thus we do not ascribe the power of reasoning to God formally, but we do ascribe it to God eminently, inasmuch as we attribute to Him intelligence, or immediate intuition of truth. And this intelligence which we ascribe to God we Jiè**è*i■ AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 79 identify with Himself, and know Him to be substantial and subsisting intelligence. All this knowledge of God’s perfec­ tions, together with the knowledge that in God there can be no imperfection, is obtainable by the light of reason. 45. 3. God Is a Pure Spirit. Deus Spiritus est.—God is a spirit. (John 4, 24.) This is required by His infinite perfec­ tion. We have superabundantly proved the radical essential imperfections of matter. We have seen that its pretended necessity was repugnant to reason and common sense; that it could not be the first and sufficient cause of contingent beings (nn. 26-27). Hence the first cause is essentially immaterial. It is independent of matter; it is a spirit. The truth here enunciated is directed against the panthe­ ists and their adherents the monists, who hold that the as­ semblage of things, which w'e call the world, is really the one Divine, Absolute Being, under the various aspects, in which it is externally manifested. Hence the Universe and all its component elements are affections or modes of the divine substance and inherent in it. It is the system that confounds God and matter by identifying them. It asserts that in the universality of things there exists only one Being, which is called Substance by Spinoza, the Pure Ego by Fichte, //it Absolute by Schelling, the Logical Concept by Hegel, all pro­ fessional pantheists and leaders of their respective schools. It is a tissue of absurdities and contradictions, repugnant alike to reason and all ethical principles. In fact, it denies human liberty in direct contradiction to the testimony of conscience. It rejects future life and its retribution asserted by divine authority, prompted by the dictates of reason and confirmed by the universal consent of mankind. It frees man from all accountability to the Supreme Law­ giver and Judge. It radically supplants virtue and all heroic deeds, thus nullifying the whole moral order. What is said of God’s essence as a pure Spirit and what will be shown, in Part 11, of the spirituality of man’s soul evidently militates both against the different schools SO GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE of pantheism and materialistic monism soon to be dis­ cussed. The moral argument against pantheism has been briefly stated by a recent writer in the following terms. “What becomes of morality in the pantheistic hypothesis? Is there still room for a distinction between actions really good and really bad? If Pantheism be true, all actions are good. The coward and the hero, the miser and the philanthropist, the tyrant and the martyr, all are deserving of equal praise, for their actions are nothing but a manifestation of the pantheistic God. (Boeddcr, S.J., “Natural Theology,” p. 116.) A very high authority fully confirms the truth of what has been said. In his allocution of June 9, 1862, Pius IX, fcl. mem·., condemns pantheism in the following severe terms: “With a perversity only equalled by their folly they venture to assert that the Supreme, all Wise, and all Provident Deity, has no existence apart from the visible Universe: that every­ thing is God, and possesses the very substance of the Divinity. But God and the world then being one and the same thing, there is no difference between spirit and matter, necessity and liberty, truth and falsehood, good and evil, right and wrong. In truth nothing can be imagined more insane, impious and irrational than this teaching.” Among the many aberrations of modern would-be philos­ ophers, which utterly pervert, the notion of God as a pure spirit, essentially distinguished from all created beings, must be reckoned the theory of Monism closely allied to pantheism. We understand by monism (from the Greek μόνος, one), the doctrine which refers the explanation of all the existences, activities and developments of the Universe, including both material and spiritual beings, to one ultimate principle or substance. It is opposed to dualism the generally-admitted distinction between matter and spirit, and to pluralism which admits the existence of the many, practically countless diver­ sified beings that compose the Universe. The summary argument usually brought to refute monism in all its forms is thus briefly expressed: If all phenomena in the world were mere modifications and appearances of one AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 81 single substance, then that same substance would be at once free and necessary, material and spiritual, conscious and un­ conscious, endowed with intelligence and destitute of it, a series of contradictions and absurdities, which no sane mind can admit. Monism psychologically considered is rejected on the ground that it obliterates all distinction between body and soul. It is refuted in Part II in the chapter vindicating the spirituality of man’s soul. Monism in theology is synonymous with pantheism, winch has been confuted above. As we learn from the Catholic Encyclopedia (X, 486), in the year 1906 the Society of Zionists was founded in Ger­ many for the purpose of propagating the doctrine of monism, the notorious Haeckel having been elected its first honorary president. This Society is openly antichristian and makes active warfare against the Catholic Church, the only institu­ tion whose traditional, conservative philosophy is success fully holding its ground against the futile monistic and pantheistic attacks. The chief reason of Catholic hostility to monism lies in the fact that this modern fad is vaunted by its advo­ cates as a system of philosophy transcending Christianity, and as the only rational synthesis of science and religion, a boasted claim, which no monist has as yet attempted to justify. 46. 4. God Is Infinite Intelligence. The admirable order of the world, and especially the existence of intelligent crea­ tures attest the infinite wisdom of God. That the order and the government of the Universe require an infinite wisdom as well as infinite power may be shown by this that the supreme cause ruling over it must know all the possible com­ binations, untoward complications and disorders that might occur, and should be able either to prevent or counteract them. But an infinite intelligence and an infinite power arc required for that purpose. The existence of order in the Universe proves the existence of such intelligence and power. A Pure Spirit, God is intelligence; a Perfect Being, He is infinite intelligence. Therefore, God knows Himself, He understands Himself. He sees that His essence eminently contains all possible per­ S2 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE factions (n. 42) ; that it is, therefore, capable of imitation in different degrees by an indefinite number of contingent beings. These beings He knows distinctly, individually, in an adequate manner, for a general or indetermined, confused knowledge would imply an imperfect and restricted intelli­ gence. The past, the present, the future, all are equally open before Him. He sees all; 11c knows all. He penetrates into our innermost thoughts, into future free determinations of our will; and this not in a conjectural way, but with a knowl­ edge certain, precise, infallible. It would, indeed, be absurd to suppose that infinite perfection could perfect itself by the acquirement of new’ knowledge. 47. Here is a difficulty that is frequently urged and must bo answered. As the foreknowledge of God is certain, infallible, the event foreseen must necessarily occur. If God knows that Peter will deny his Master, it is impossible for Peter not to deny Him. What then becomes of human liberty? This is a captious objection which it is important to refute. (1) The liberty of man· is a certain indubitable fact. We shall prove it (nn. 65-83). Each one of us carries in the innermost feeling of his heart the firm conviction of this truth. I am as certain of writing at this moment, as I am certain that I am writing freely. This liberty is universally proclaimed by the human race when it speaks of virtue and vice, respon­ sibility, merit, reward and punishment. Sound philosophy demonstrates this in the clearest manner. (2) The infinite knowledge of God is a second fact no less certain. Hence, supposing that we could see no means of reconciling these two facts, simple common sense would oblige us to conclude that this means docs exist, no matter what may be our ignorance. It is absurd to deny a fact which is certain only because we happen to be ignorant of its wherefore. As the distinguished statesman, Joseph de Maistre, wisely remarks (Soirées de St. Pétersbourg, I, p. 256): “When a truth of the natural order, or a dogma, or article of divine revelation is thoroughly demonstrated, no objection, however forcible, can disprove it. For so long as the arguments, on which the AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 83 demonstration is based, arc not refuted, the truth remains untouched, and all the difficulties raised against it, if they cannot be completely answered, will simply prove the inca­ pacity of our mind, but they cannot convince us of the error of the doctrine or truth concerned.” If this observation is attended to, it will at once appear that the following truths and doctrines have nothing to fear from 1hc apparently in­ soluble objections raised against them: 1. The Foreknowledge of God and the Liberty of Alan. 2. The Existence of Physical and Moral Evil. As to the truth or fact that God’s foreknowledge does not, by any means, interfere with our liberty, let us reflect for a moment. I am now writing; no necessity compels mo. But now that I am writing it is impossible that at the same time I should not be in the act of writing. For it is impossible that the same thing, fact or event should be and not be at ihe same time. Hence it is true to say now: “On such a day, on such an hour, X is writing.” But yesterday it would have been true to say: “To-morrow at such an hour, X will be in the act of writing.” Now if any one had foreseen or conjectured this fact, would his conjecture have interfered with my liberty? Evidently not. And if his knowledge had been certain in place of being merely conjectural? Would it have interfered with my liberty? Surely not. Be it certain or conjectural, it is a matter of perfection or imperfection for 1he intelligence that knows. Aly liberty is in nowise tram­ melled or tampered with, for I write not because this particular fad of writing is known to some one, but, on the contrary, it is known from the fact that I am actually writing. Hence it is not the knowledge of God that renders my action neces­ sary; but without my act, the knowledge of God would not have thus foreseen. As this free act of mine would sometimes be true, because actually done, it could not escape the omnis­ cience of God, to whom is open the present as well as the future and the past. If any one should insist further and ask how could God foresee this free future decision of mine; there is only one answer to be given: I do not know. What is then to astonish us that we cannot sound the depths of 84 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE infinite intelligence? . . . Would that boa reason for denying either prescience, or liberty, two indubitable facts? Would not a man be considered insane if he were to deny the exist­ ence of the telephone, because he did not know how the spoken words are transmitted? (See nn. 144-147.) 48. A few additional remarks on this popular objection will not be out of place. It is sometimes expressed in the follow­ ing syllogistic form. What God foresees must infallibly hap­ pen; God foresees all human actions; therefore, they arc necessary, inevitable. Some silly philosophers, unable to ex­ tricate themselves from this apparently conclusive reasoning, have denied liberty to man, and others did not hesitate to deny prescience or foreknowledge to God. But an elementary acquaintance with the principles of logic suffices to detect the sophism contained in the aforementioned syllogism. The author of that objection, Damiron (Psych., vol. II, p. 75), confounds two notions that are essentially distinct, viz., in­ fallibility and necessity, of which the former belongs to the observer, in our case to the certain foreknowledge of God ; the latter concerns the agent, in our case, the intelligent crea­ ture. What God foresees will infallibly happen, because His foreknowledge cannot be deceived; but it does not follow that the things foreseen will happen necessarily, when it is a ques­ tion of actions depending on the free deliberation of man. In other words, things do not happen because God foresees them; but He foresees them because they will happen, either necessarily or freely, according as the agents are destitute of liberty or are endowed with it. This is exactly the solution given by some of the greatest thinkers to the objection of the infidels, who claimed that God’s foreknowledge tampers with man’s liberty. Origen (A. D. 254) : “Things do not happen because God foresees them in the distant future; but because they will happen, God knows them before they happen.’’ St. John Chrysostom (A. D. 407) : “We must not think that because scandals have been foreseen by God’s foreknowledge, therefore they will occur; but because they will, in the course of time, occur, He foresaw them ; and if they were not to occur, neither would AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 85 lie have foreseen and foretold them.” St. Jerome (A. D. 420) : ‘‘Not because God knows that something will happen, it must therefore happen; but God, knowing the future, fore­ sees it, because it is to happen.” St. John Damascene (A. D. 754): ‘‘The foreknowing power of God does not certainly come from us; but if He foresees this or that act, which we shall freely perform, this is owing to ourselves, the free authors of such actions.” (Urrâburu, S.J., “Theodicea,” P. II, p. 213; Boedder, “Natural Theology,” p. 272.) 49. 5. God Is Infinite Goodness. (1) Goodness is syn­ onymous with perfection; thus God is good in Himself, fully, totally good without mingling of evil. (2) God is the source of all good; from Him come all the goods which charm and delight us. His goodness is infinite, His liberality inexhaustible. It is God that enlightens us in the sun; that cheers us with its genial warmth, and delights us with the varied beauties of field and forest. His goodness is shown in the endless stores of teeming earth. His hand paints the petals of the flowers, shapes their tiny leaves, and fills their cups with honeyed fragrances. And what are we in soul and body, but living monuments to attest the good­ ness of God? Our souls are His gifts; they live and act, they know and feel through Him. Our eyes see with His sight; our tongues speak with his motion; our hands labor, and our feet walk with His power, for in “Him we live, and we move and we are.” (Acts 17, 28.) (3) In all his works God has for motive the communica­ tion of His bounty. He desires the good of His creatures, especially of His rational creatures. To suppose the con­ trary would be to deny the infinite perfection of the Divine Being. In fact, what induced God to create? Not to secure any good of which He stood in need, for an infinitely perfect and happy being was not in want of any temporal good ex­ ternal to Himself. The only reason or motive was His own infinite goodness, that is the wish to make His creatures par­ takers of His own happiness in the measure possible to finite beings. It is plain that only rational creatures, Angels and men, can be conscious sharers of such happiness, and realize, 86 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE in some manner, the unrivalled sublimity of such disinterested motive on the part of the Creator. As we learn from the Gospel, every just soul, as it reaches the threshold of Paradise, is welcomed by its Maker by the cheering salutation, “Well done, thou good and· faithful servant. Enter thou into the joy of the Lord.” (Matt. 25, 21.) How we would wish to set forth here the mysteries of love of the supernatural life, of the beatific vision, of redemption, and the Holy Eucharist! Here again, a difficulty arises: How can wo reconcile the goodness of God with lhe loo evi­ dent deluge of evils that afflict humanity? How can we resolve the problem of evil? 50. The Goodness of God and the Problem of Evil. In the first place we must make a distinction between physical evil and moral evil. Moral evil can affect only free will. It may be defined: “Disagreement between the free act and that which is required by the nature of the will, viz., the pursuit of what is right and good.’’ It is easy to show that moral evil is nothing else but sin, or the violation of the divine law. Physical evil is a disagreement between the condition or actual state of a being and the requirements of its nature, for instance, pain, sickness, etc. In other words, physical evil is the lack in a being of something becoming the nature of that being, e.g., blindness, deafness, insanity, etc. This being settled, let us show that God can (1) cause, though indirectly, physical evil, and (2) permit moral evil. 51. God may indirectly cause physical evil. Evidently it is repugnant to our ideas to think that God wishes evil for the sake oi evil, that He causes it through malevolence or want of reflection. But (a) is it not evident that, at times, a superior good may presuppose the loss of an inferior good? Thus, for the benefit of an animal, a plant may be destroyed; a painful operation may be performed to save a man’s life. (b) The general good is often secured only by the sacri­ fice of certain particular goods. The defense of one’s country is achieved at the price of the blood of its bravest citizens. AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 87 (c) Every violation of justice requires reparation. In this way punishment (a physical evil) becomes a true benefit. Now, what God seeks, in His infinite bounty, His infinite wisdom, is the general good, the superior good, the universal order. Undoubtedly we do not always sec the wherefore of this or that physical evil. But should we wonder at this, that our reason, like the human eye, whose range of vision is limited, should not bo able, to see beyond its narrow horizon, and encompass the full extent of the divine counsels? No doubt, also, the world is not absolutely perfect; it is not as perfect as it. might be. This absolute perfection in contingent beings would be mere nonsense, an absurdity. But such as it is, the world—Faith and reason prove it— is ruled by a Being infinitely perfect, therefore, infinitely good, XArho doesnot wish evil directly, but indirectly in view of a superior good. 52. Physical evil, as we have seen, is all that interferes with our physical, material well-being, such as poverty, destitution, hunger, 1 hirst, hard and painful labor, loss of friends, of property, bodily harm, sickness, old age. and, of course, death. In the first place, it is plain that a great number of such evils arc the result of man’s imprudence, foolhardiness, rashness and reckless daring. Is Almighty God to be hold responsible for calamities, which men could easily have avoided by the right use of the faculties they received from Him for their guidance? But some one might say, what about the accidents, dire calamities, which are exclusively due to the forces of nature, such as earthquakes, cyclones, volcanic eruptions, in­ undations and the like? Could not Almighty God prevent them? We answer, if we consider God’s omnipotence in itself, it is plain that it is entirely within His power to control all the forces of nature, which essentially depend on Him, both for their existence and their activity. But it must be carefully considered first, that God is by no means bound to do all that is possible to Him; and secondly, that the exercise or use of any one of His attributes is always regulated by the exigencies of the others, for God can never contradict Him­ self. Hence His omnipotence will never do what is not in 88 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE harmony with His wisdom, His justice, His goodness or any other of His infinite perfections. Now, in the present case, He would not be acting in conformity with His wisdom, if He were to interfere at every moment with the ordinary course of nature to prevent all the effects that might prove disastrous to men. Moreover, it is evident that men could in many cases avoid the consequences of these disasters by their foresight, or by heeding the warnings of competent counselors. An in­ stance in point is found in the terrible disaster that some years ago befell the population of Saint Pierre in the Island of Martinique. For the timely warning of the imminent danger given by competent scientists was rashly disregarded by the civil authorities, which became, in some measure, re­ sponsible for the fearful loss of life. Can any one blame God’s providence for that awful calamity? Do not men know, both from science and experience, the results of vol­ canic eruptions? (n. 50). And to speak of our present time and of our own country, who is chiefly to blame for the awful toll of human lives ushered into eternity in automobile accidents? Arc they not the reckless speeders, the intoxi­ cated, the inexperienced drivers, and the foolhardy who at­ tempt to beat the train at the grade crossings? The authentic statistics of the many unfortunate victims are staggering in an extreme degree, the result, in most cases, of open defiance to the traffic laws of the land. 53. Rising now to a higher plane, no sincere Christian be­ liever can fail to realize the fearful truth that the most dreadful consequence of sudden, unprovided death incidental to natural disasters, is to fall iiito the hands of the living God in the state of mortal sin, and thus incur the eternal punishment reserved to impenitent sinners in the next world. This is quite true. But here again, no reasonable man can accuse God of injustice, if the sinner is suddenly ushered into eter­ nity. Did he not know the consequence of a death in sin? Did he not receive from God’s goodness and mercy ample time for securing pardon, viz., the many years spent in sin? But, on the other hand, are there not many calamities, accidents, from which men have been miraculously delivered, AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 89 and the greatest number of which shall be known to us only in the next life? Arc not these a clear manifestation of God’s goodness and of His providential care toward His rational creatures? We admit that, in the course of events, there may arise particular instances, which we find it difficult to recon­ cile with our notions of God’s perfect goodness and infinite love. But does this difficulty justify us in arraigning God’s dealings before our fallible tribunal, and in doubting or even denying His goodness? Shall we make the limited powers of our puny intellect the supreme measure of all right and wrong, of all good and evil? Our knowledge of God’s goodness, as gathered from reason and fully confirmed by divine revelation, more than warrants our trusting Him, even when appearances are dead against Him. As St. Gregory Nazianzen (d. 390), in his seventeenth Oration, wisely re­ marks.: “Under God’s government there are many things, which we cannot understand, and which are to us like a dark enigma; this happens cither because the Lord wishes to rebuke our arrogance by restricting our knowledge within narrow bounds, or because lie intends to raise our minds to things eternal.” In conclusion, God's will cannot wish any evil as such, but it can wish 1hc evil of pain or punishment; and natural defects, not in themselves, but by reason of some good annexed to them and willed by His supernatural providence, frequently as a chastisement of sin, and a warning to the transgressors of God’s holy laws. But as to the evil of guilt, or moral evil, the divine will can in no wise wish it, but only permits it. In this connection it is well to recall to our memory the words of our Blessed Savior in St. Luke’s Gospel (13, 4-5): “Or those eighteen upon whom the tower fell in Siloe, and· slew them: think you that they also were debtors (sin­ ners) above all the men that dwell in Jerusalem ? No, I say to you; but except you do penance, you shall all likewise perish”; viz., you will incur the same endless penalty which befell those that were overtaken by a sudden death in the state of grievous sin. (2) God may permit moral evil. He could never cause it 90 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE directly or indirectly. It would be absurd to say that God was the cause of sin, of the violation of His own law. But causing is far different from merely permitting moral evil. What docs this permission presuppose? Two things: (a) that God gives to man free will, which implies the possi­ bility of sinning; (b) that He does not always prevent the abuse of liberty or the act of sin. Now God can do both things without running counter to the exigencies of His attri­ butes, such as wisdom and goodness. (a) Free will is a benefit, a great good, a perfection of rational nature. No doubt it is a double-edged weapon, but we have reason to teach us how to use it. And above all, free will is the only means of gaining merit, to secure our happi­ ness through our own free acts. It is for us to make good use of liberty, and a day will come when it shall be our for­ tune to possess a blessed, a fortunate incapacity of sinning. Sin, the abuse of liberty, cannot evidently come from God. God severely condemns it. On one hand He threatens an eternal punishment to the transgressors of His commands, and promises on the other ineffable rewards to the faithful ob­ servers of the divine law. (b) God is not bound to prevent lhe abuse of liberty. Nothing obliges Him to do it. If He were in any way the cause of sin, lie would be unjust in punishing it. But sin being committed solely and exclusively through the fault of man, by the abuse of his freedom, nothing prevents God from making sin itself serve for the manifestation of His glory— the principal and last end of creation. This end He will infallibly obtain, both by exercising 11 is justice ami by exhibit­ ing His infinite mercy (n. 270), and this in such a way that the good thus obtained will surpass in an incomparable degree the evil tolerated. (See De San, “De Deo Uno,” p. 591.) 54. Neither docs God's concurrence in the free actions of human creatures render Him responsible for the existence of moral evil, or the commission of sin. For as St. Thomas (I, II, q. 9, a. 6) lucidly explains: “God, as universal moving agent, moves the will of man to what is its universal object, viz., good; ami without this first motion or tendency man AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 91 could not act. But it is man himself that determines or directs his will to embrace this or that particular object, which may be cither a real, or only an apparent pood.” The real good is what is conformable to the law of God, which is the supreme, infallible rule of man’s actions, and constitutes a virtuous, honest action, worthy of supernatural reward, if accompanied by other requisite dispositions. The apparent good is something· contrary to that law, and is consequently a dishonest, vicious, sinful action, deserving a proportionate punishment. And as 1hc choice of any particular, apparent, sinful object comes exclusively from the willful and untram­ melled determination of man, it would be absurd to attribute the sinfulness of such an action to the action of God. A familiar illustration will set forth this truth in a yet clearer light : A sailing vessel is crossing the ocean, impelled by the force of the wind, but it is the pilot that directs its course, and directs it to this or that harbor according to his will. And if the carelessness or rashness of the pilot were to direct the vessel so as to have it dash into a rock, will anyone blame the force of the wind for the disaster? Certainly not. The appli­ cation is easy enough. What the force of the wind is to the sailing vessel, God’s action or impulse is regarding the will of man, on whom alone rests the responsibility of directing that action or tendency to what is only an apparent good, viz., to sinful objects, because contrary to the divine law. As Fr. Boedder pertinently remarks (Natural Theology, p. 393) : “Absolutely speaking, this difficulty against the moral attributes of God, such as holiness, goodness, justice, drawn from the divine permission of moral evil, or sin, is sufficiently solved by an appeal to the arguments by which we have proved to demonstration the existence of one per­ sonal, infinitely perfect, and infinitely wise God. These argu­ ments rest on solid grounds, and are wholly conformable to the dictates of sound reason. Hence the opponents of the doctrine proved will accomplish nothing with all their objec­ tions so long as they will not be able to dislodge us from our position by showing that our argumentation is faulty and 92 GOD, IIIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE unsound. No opposition, however cunningly devised and plausibly presented, can overthrow our evident conclu­ sions.” 55. As among the problems that come before us from time to time is that of the existence of evil apparently irreconcilable with the attribute of God’s infinite goodness, additional con­ siderations will assist the reader in forming sound Catholic ideas on this vexed subject, and in safeguarding him against false theories, highly detrimental to his faith. Both the dic­ tates of reason and the teachings of Revelation arc the princi­ pal means furnished to man by divine Providence to prove that the presence of evil of whatsoever kind is in full harmony with God’s attributes, and conducive to the universal good of creatures, particularly of such as may apply to themselves the words of St. Paul. “We know that to them, that love (rod, all things work together unto good.” (Rom. 8, 28.) When reason itself supplies us with unanswerable proofs of God’s infinite goodness, it is absurd to set aside all those proofs because we may be confronted with a difficulty, which our limited intelligence is unable fully to explain. Could we see the whole of God’s plan, and the ultimate results cf His providential dispositions, all difficulties would vanish, just as the rising sun dispels 1hc clouds of the lowering sky. So soon as we realize that the present momentary existence is but a preparation for another eternal and a most happy one, and that the whole purpose of God’s dealings with His rational creatures is to fit them for that other immensely better life, all our difficulties lose their force, and what is called evil is found, in sober truth, to be but evil in disguise, and, in reality, a substantial good. Moreover, no one can deny that spiritual, ever-enduring goods are as superior to purely material and temporal goods as Heaven is above earth, and eternity is above time; there­ fore we need not be surprised if the Lord should, at times, strip His creatures of the latter in order to secure to men the attainment of the former. On this account it is the acme of conceit for ignorance to attempt to sit in judgment on 1hc dispositions of Infinite Wisdom, and to arraign Supreme In- AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 93 telligence before the tribunal of fallible man. Free will, as noted above, is a necessary condition for the existence of even the least degree of virtue and consequent merit, as well as for the least degree of sin and resulting demerit. When set face to face with the prevalence of sin in its most hideous forms we need not be at all disconcerted, for evidently all responsibility rests with man, not with God, who hates it and forbids it under 1he severest penalties. The Lord gives man free will, and in so doing confers on him an inestimable privi­ lege, whereby he is lifted high above the brute creation and enabled to mould and work out his own destiny and gain the inconceivable happiness of life eternal. But to have the power of choosing the good is to have the correlative faculty of choosing what is evil. Sin, however, is so essentially an act of free will that man cannot be compelled to it by any tempter either human or diabolical. It has been well said that nothing in the vast universe resembles or approaches more closely the omnipotence of God than the untrammelled liberty of man. Whoever is foolish enough to blame Almighty God for bestowing on His rational creatures the gift of free­ dom, would deliberately rob the citizens of Heaven of one of their greatest accidental joys, the consciousness of glorious victory and of well-merited reward. To such additional heavenly happiness are, no doubt, referred the following words of Holy Scripture: “He that could have transgressed, and hath not transgressed: and could do evil things and hath not done them: who hath been tried thereby and made per­ fect, he shall have glory everlasting.” (Ecclus. 31, 10.) If wicked men were not permitted to abuse their free will and follow their iniquitous career, there would then be no persecu­ tion, no tyrants, no bloodthirsty rulers to imprison, torment and put to death the holy ones of God. The martyrs, now the brightest among the blessed, would be unknown, and heroism and sterling virtue, so honorable to mankind, would have no existence. Our conclusion then is that God permits moral evil for the several weighty reasons alleged above, and because He is so wise as to draw good out of evil, and through its agency 94 GOD, IÎIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE to add immeasurably to His own glory and to the everlasting beatitmle of the saints. (Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 1899.) 56. 6. God Is One, viz., there is but one God. The unity, or unicity, or oneness of God is a truth of reason, which clever minds, such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and others, acknowl­ edged, notwithstanding the thick clouds of Paganism that were liable. 1o obscure their intellects. After all. is it not a fact that such attribute of the Deity can be easily perceived? One supreme, necessary being is amply sufficient to ac­ count for the existence of all contingent beings. We have reason to demand some positive proofs before admitting a plurality of Gods. Moreover, do not the marvelous unity dis­ played by the Universe, and all the beings contained in it point out to the existence of one only Author and Ruler of all things? Here also Faith joins hands with reason, and shows the perfect harmony between rational science and revealed truth. I believe in one God—Credo in unum Down—such is the first article of the Christian symbol. Unity, or more properly, unicity or oneness, is a necessary property or attribute of the Supreme Being. Should there be many Gods, they would naturally be distinguished from one another by something proper to each one of them. Now this something, or charac­ teristic note found in any one of them, must naturally be wanting to all the others, which fact would prove that none of them is the infinitely perfect being, such as we proved above (n. 44) the first cause of contingent beings should be. The thesis “God is one in nature or essence” is opposed both to Polytheism, the absurd doctrine of the plurality of Gods, and to Manicheism, the equally absurd doctrine uphold­ ing the existence of two necessary, self-existing Beings, one supremely good and the author of all good, the other su­ premely evil and 1he cause of all evil. The attribute of God’s unity logically and necessarily follows from that of His in­ finity. For if God is not one in essence, then we must admit the existence of at least another God, His equal. But in this case neither of them could be infinite, for I may very well con­ ceive a third Being, so perfect as to have no equal, and to AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 95 contain in himself the perfections of the other two. A con­ siderable strength will be added to this argument if we reflect that the highest perfection we can attribute to any being is to say that it has no equal. The idea we have of God is that of a Supreme Being, the Sovereign, independent Creator and Ruler of the Universe, a Being so perfect in all its attributes as to infinitely surpass all other beings, cither actually exist­ ing or possible. Now such a being can evidently have no equal. God, therefore, is one in essence, nature and existence. Lastly, wo may reason thus: Let us suppose, for argument's sake, that there exists more than one God, all perfectly equal. When 1hc world was created, either they agreed together as to the order to be established, or they did not. If there was no agreement, there would be no order, but great confusion, for each one, acting freely and independently of the other, might have established contradictory laws governing lhe phenomena of the created world. But as proved above (nn. 32-33), instead of chaos and confusion, an admirable order prevails throughout the Universe; we must then admit the first alternative, that namely they all agreed in the appoint­ ing of the present laws and order that rule the world. But is this admission compatible with those essential attributes of 1hc Deity, which reason demonstrates, such as freedom, in­ finity and independent action? By no means. For if they consented to agree and act harmoniously together, none of them would bo independent in its action, and, what is worse, and highly derogatory to their perfection, they would all be necessarily compelled to surrender to one another their free­ dom and independence in order to avoid confusion in the phe­ nomena of the created universe. Once more, then, reason and common sense lead us to admit lhe unity of God, and confirm 1hc divinely revealed dogma asserting that attribute to Him. Here we must attentively observe that the mystery of Holy Trinity, taught by Christian Faith, is by no means in opposi­ tion Ιό the truth of the unity of God as manifested by the light of reason. This point is fully explained in the third Part of “Christian Apologetics” (nn. 146-147), to which the reader is referred. 96 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE 57. 7. God Is Immense. God is present everywhere, not only by His power (as the prince in his kingdom) , not only by His knowledge (as the spectator is present at the drama acted under his eyes), but also by His essence. How circumscribe within a limited space the infinite essence? God, there­ fore, is immense in the full acceptance of the word. To prevent misconception it is important to remember that there are three ways or manners, in which different beings may be in a given place. (a) By circumscription, or circumscriptively, if the being be material, therefore extended and divisible into parts, corre­ sponding to the parts of the surfaces surrounding it. Only material substances can exist in place or space circum­ scriptively. They are said to be formally extended. (&) By limitation, or definitely, if its presence be limited to a certain part of space and its whole substance be everywhere within the bounds of that part of space. This is proper of all contingent and therefore finite, simple, spiritual substances. Thus the human soul exists definitely in the body, because its presence is conterminous with the body in such a way that its whole substance exists whole in the whole body and whole in every part of it, and is found nowhere outside of the body. Such substances arc said to be virtually ex­ tended, inasmuch as they manifest, wherever they arc, their presence by their different operations and effects. (c) By omnipresence, or immensity—in Latin replctivc— when a being is not limited by any space, but is whole and entire in all places and in every part of a place. This mode of existence is exclusively proper of God, who is, on that account, said to be omnipresent, or immense. God, then, is present, not by circumscription, because being a pure spirit, He has no parts corresponding to the parts of space—not by limitation, because there is no space or place, real or possible, where He docs not or could not exist in His entirety. He is, therefore, everywhere, in virtue of His immensity, by His essence, presence and power. 58. 8. God Is Immutable. A Being absolutely necessary, God could not have come out of nothingness; He cannot enter / »·· 1 1 | I ! I i j I | I AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 97 into it; a Being infinitely perfect, lie cannot gain or lose a perfection; He is, therefore, physically immutable. All changes in the Will suppose inconstancy, ignorance or im­ providence, lack of foresight; imperfections which are inad­ missible in a Being infinitely perfect. God, therefore, is morally immutable. Physical immutability is, therefore, the absence of all change in the nature or accidents of a being; moral immutability is the absence of all change in the will. As Holy Scripture testifies in the words of God Himself “I am the Lord and 1 change not” (Malachy 3, 6), there can be no intrinsic change in God, but there may be extrinsic changes in the relations between God and contingent beings, between the Creator and His creatures. Here it is objected: If God performs some external act, for instance, creating the World, does He not by such an act pass from the state of non­ Creator to that of actual Creator? And does He not by this operation undergo a change? We answer: It is not true that the attribute of Creator has been added to the being of God, and that the fact of Creation has produced any intrinsic change in Him. He possessed the power of creating from all eternity. He executed it in definite time, but no change oc­ curred in the Creator’s mind. The truth is that by creation God has produced things outside Himself, and from this pro­ duction, which left His essence absolutely immutable, God is extrinsically denominated the Creator. 59. 9. God Is Eternal. It is manifestly evident that the absolutely necessary Being could not have a beginning nor an end. God, therefore, is eternal. On the other hand, being necessary, He is equally immutable. Nothing that exists in Him ever had a beginning or will ever have an end. There is no succession in His being; no past, no future; only an immovable present. Strictly speaking, therefore, it cannot be said of Him: God was; God will be, but only God is (n. 41). The wisdom of the ancients had already proclaimed this truth by the mouth of Plato (Timcus, 38) : “He was, He wall be, designate properties which belong to time, and which we unconsciously transfer to the eternal Being (to the Deity) erroneously. For we say He was, lie is and He will be, when 98 GOD, ITIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE in reality it is only true to say Ho is. The expressions, to have been or must bo, these ways of speaking belong to a being that had its origin in time, because they indicate motion, move­ ment. But the Being eternally immutable remains without variation of age throughout the duration of its existence. Tn Him, there is no past, no future, nothing which affects sensible things, from the fact that they have had a beginning.” Hence (tod’s eternity has been admirably defined by Boethius (A. D. 470 or 525) : Interminabilis vitee tota simul et perfecta possessio. Eternity is a simultaneously full and perfect pos­ session of life without beginning and without end. To assert that it cannot be said of God that lie was, is true only in the sense of thereby attributing to Him an existence that had a beginning, and may have an end, what is proper only of creatures. Hence God’s eternity is most clearly and accurately expressed in the following language of divine Revelation: “John to the seven churches, which are in Asia: Grace be unto you and peace from Him, who is, and who was and who is to come.” (Apoe. 1, 4.) A comparison may aid us in conceiving this divine pre­ rogative undoubtedly mysterious. Every necessary axiom, maxim or metaphysical principle, is, in a way, actually eternal. For instance, a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. For it cannot be said that this axiom rvas true, or that it will be true; but we must say that it is true. So it is with God. In Him there is neither past nor future, but only an eternal present. As Boethius, cited above, expresses it: “Aru?ic fluens facit tempus: nunc stans facitœt emit at em·.” The passing now makes time; the standing now makes eternity. GO. 10. God Is All-powerful. This is also an immediate consequence of His infinity. The power of. the infinitely per­ fect being has no other limit than the contradictory, the ab­ surd. For what is repugnant, contrary to the very essence of things, is self-contradictory, as it implies the existence of ob­ jects or ideas, whose intrinsic notes destroy one another, and which arc consequently destitute of all reality, such as a square circle, a quadrilateral triangle, etc. When we speak of AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 99 such matters as arc intrinsically impossible, as St. Thomas wisely observes, we ought not to say that God cannot do them, but rather that they cannot be done, because their intrinsic repugnance places them beyond the sphere of both meta­ physical and physical possibility, and consequently of divine omnipotence. For what is absurd and contradictory has no reality, and practically ends in nothing, whilst the term or result of an action always implies something capable of exist­ ing, and consequently real, or at least possible. When it is argued that God cannot be said to be omnipotent, because, lie cannot commit sin, we answer as follows: In the first place, the essence of sin docs not consist in the production of a given effect, but rather in the opposition of the free will of the creature to the eternal law of God, the Creator. Hence the same identical act may be sinful or not, according to circumstances. Now, it is plain that the will of God cannot be opposed to the law of God, because that law con­ sidered under its subjective aspect, is really identical with the act of the divine will. Hence the expressions divine will and divine laiu arc practically equivalent, as they mean one and the same thing. Therefore, the proposition, God can sin, is intrinsically contradictory, and as such implies something ab­ solutely impossible. Moreover, to sin instead of exhibiting evidence of power, proves rather the absence of it, as it is 1he result or effect, of weakness, which cannot be attributed to an infinitely perfect being. (See Part VII, p. 209.) In treating of God’s omnipotence it is highly important to bear in mind the following distinction quite available for the solution of difficulties against that divine attribute. Accord­ ing to the doctrine of the Schoolmen there is in God both Absolute and Regulated omnipotence, potentia absoluta cl po­ tentia ordinata. We attribute to God absolute omnipotence, when we assert that He can do all things at all possible, namely not involving any repugnance or contradiction. Thus God, though omnipotent, cannot create an infinitely perfect being, for such an act implies a contradiction, as a created being, by the very fact that it is a creature, and therefore necessarily dependent on its Maker, cannot be infinitely per­ 100 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE feet, since infinity is an attribute exclusively proper of a self­ existing, independent being such as God is. The Regulated or orderly omnipotence embraces all the possible things which God, according to the eternal decrees of His wisdom, justice, foreknowledge and providence has determined to do at. some future time. For example, even in the present order of fallen man, God can, by His absolute power, preserve any individual from death: but He will not actually do so by His orderly or Regulated omnipotence, because He has decreed otherwise, and such preservation or exception would consequently be contrary to the general sentence of death pronounced against our first parents and all their descendants. This omnipotence God has especially manifested by creating, that is, making the heavens and the earth out of noth­ ing. Creation is the production of a substantial being without the aid of pre-existing material. To bridge over the abyss be­ tween nothing and existence is an operation so proper to God alone that it is absolutely incommunicable to any creature. On this point all Christian philosophers are agreed. The phrase—God created the world out of nothing—is employed to exclude the necessity of pre-existing matter for the creative act: and it is only by the ignorant or the willful perversion of its meaning that the term “nothing” is taken as the starting point and origin of being. In the words of St. Thomas (I, q. 45) : “When we say that something is made of nothing, that in creation nothing is prerequisite, we mean to deny the exist­ ence of any material cause.” Here the holy Doctor evidently uses the term cause in its metaphysical sense, as one of the five kinds of causes explained in ontology, namely the efficient, the formal, the exemplary, the final and the material cause, that is the matter out of which the thing is made. Thus steel is the material cause of a watch spring. Hence the saying of the Epicureans: “From nothing nothing comes,” which some pretending modern philosophers so confidently quote against the doctrine of creation, is a sheer sophism, which any tyro in logic can expose and refute. Three suppositions are proposed to account for the origin of the world: (1) It is either an emanation from AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 101 God; (2) or it has been made from pre-existing material; (3) or it was brought into existence by creation. The first supposition is rank Pantheism refuted above. The sec­ ond supposition perverts the meaning of creation, which excludes all pre-existing material, and implies moreover the absurdity of an infinite series of contingent beings. Now as each of them is destitute of the power of creation proper to God alone, their multitude, even indefinitely multi­ plied, can no more achieve the feat of creation than an assemblage of countless blind men can produce the power of vision. The first and the second hypothesis being excluded, there remains only the third, Creation, as the only rational explanation of the existence of all contingent beings. A similar argument has been couched as follows: To account for the undeniable fact of the existing Universe three suppositions have been propounded: (1) that the World has made itself; (2) that the World has not been made because self-existing; (3) that, an external Power, God, has made the World. First supposition: The World made itself. Though, as Cicero said, there is no absurdity, which has not been taught by some philosopher, yet we can hardly believe that any one would hold that the world has been its own Creator. The mere statement of such a thing is enough to condemn it. To create is to perform an act ; but before any being can act, it must already be in existence. It is unthinkable that a power should act before it exists. We then summarily dis­ miss the first hypothesis and conclude that the world could not have made itself. Second supposition : The world has not been made because self-existing. It has been shown above (mi. 42-50) that a self-existing Being must be infinite, perfect, immutable and endowed with free activity and self determina­ tion. Are such attributes possessed by the material universe ? Certainly not ; for we detect in it the very opposite characters. It is finite, bristling with many imperfections, changeable, inert and absolutely incapable of any self-determination. It has therefore been proved that the world cannot be said to be self-existing. Having rejected the two preceding suppositions as untenable we arc logically led to conclude that it is alto­ 102 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE gether impossible to account for the existence of the World without admitting the action of an omnipotent power. 61. 11. God Is the Chief and Last End of All Things. (1) Z?i all His works God has a purpose in view. To imagine that God had created the world without reason and without purpose, and that lie abandoned it to the caprices of chance, would be to attribute the grossest of imperfections to Infinite Intelligence, Infinite Bounty. To act without a preconceived design, without a consistent order, is to act like one insane. Therefore, God in creating had in view an end worthy of Him­ self; and this end He wishes efficaciously. This first point is perfectly evident. (2) This end could not be other (han God Himself. Now what is the end, this purpose worthy of God? Would it be a being distinct from Himself? Impossible. Everything that exists outside of God comes from God, receives all from God, its existence, its essence, its perfection. Without God it would be pure nothingness; nay, it would not even be possible, lienee, it follows by a rigorous consequence, that in reality no creature is amiable for itself, through itself. That limited reason should not always perceive this essential dependence, that a contingent will should love a creature for itself, this alas! is only too possible. But such an inconsequent aberra­ tion would be absurd on the part of the Infinitely Perfect Being. Therefore, God cannot love any creature for itself. He cannot, therefore, propose to Himself any other encl than Himself. An unreflecting mind might assimilate this divine intention with egoism. To reject such idea one has only to recall that egoism is a disorder. The egotist refers to himself what docs not belong to him. There is no disorder in wishing that which the essence of things requires. Moreover, the good of every creature, especially of a rational creature, is his sub­ ordination to God. What reason teaches, divine revelation confirms; hence we read in holy Scripture, “The Lord hath made all things for Himself.” (Prov. 16, 4.) “And every­ one that call cl h upon My name, I hare created him for My glory; t have formed him and made him.” (Isaias, 43, 7.) (3) This end is the glory of God. But how can God refer AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 103 all creation to Himself? Can He receive therefrom an in­ crease of joy, of beatitude? No evidently: lie is fully, infinitely happy. The only good that He could have had in view was the manifestation of His glory. In this way: The creature, as we have seen, receives from Cod its whole being; it is the work of the divine wisdom and bounty; accord­ ing to the measure of its perfection, it reflects the power, the grandeur, the beauty of its Author. This manifestation of the divine attributes belongs therefore to the essence of the created being, God, in bringing it out of nothingness, wishes and must wish (under pain of contradiction) that it should manifest in some degree His infinite perfection. This mani­ festation is called the exterior glory of God. G2. (4) God is the chief and last end of man. Each crea­ ture is essentially a manifestation of God; but man, as an intelligent and free creature, is evidently, in the visible world, the most complete, the most noble image of the Deity. His very essence requires, therefore, that He should glorify the Author of his being, according to the degree of his perfection, that is, through his intelligence and will. These superior and highest faculties he should use according to the requirement of their nature. His intelligence must seek for the truth, his will must aspire to what is good. And as the first cause, the only source of all truth and of all good is, at the same time, the Sovereign Truth and the Supreme Good, it follows that God is necessarily the final term, the obligatory end, of the knowl­ edge and love of man. His intelligence will rise up by degrees to this height, by tracing in nature the footsteps of the Creator, thus ascending from the wonders of creation to its Maker. A sublime truth was uttered by St. Paschal Bayion, when he said: “God being infinite wisdom, they are true philoso­ phers, who love Him above all things.’’ Il is, therefore, through man, and through him alone, that the visible world attains its end. He is in truth the lord of creation, the link joining the temporal with the eternal, the creature with the Creator. Let us remark that this end of man, derived from his 104 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE essence, viz., his essential dependence, is necessarily willed by God. This efficacious will of God explains the obligation or binding force of the natural law. God wishes and must wish that man should glorify Him, He must make it a necessity for him to do so. Now the only necessity which is compatible with the essence of a free being is the moral obligation. In other words man is bound to act so as to procure the glory of God, which is the last and principal end that the Almighty had in view in the creation of the world. But God, in His infinite wisdom and goodness, has so combined together the further­ ance of His glory and the interests of His rational creatures, that, whilst man glorifies God by rendering to Him homage, reverence, obedience and love, he secures to himself, at the same time, the highest boon that may be attained by him, viz., perfect, infinite, eternal happiness in the world to come. But let us attentively remark that whoever aims at the fulfillment of this imperative, essential duty, viz., procuring God’s glory by rendering to Him homage, reverence, obedience and love, can do so only by the practice of virtue, that is, by the faithful observance of God’s holy law. And no sooner does any human creature swerve from the path of virtue by transgressing the divine law, than he ceases, from that very moment, to procure God’s glory; for no homage, no reverence, no worship can be acceptable to Him, which is not accompanied by a virtuous, sinless life. (See Part V, n. 270, for further explanation of this important subject.) But how sweet then and blessed is this obligation; the manifestation of the divine glory is identically the supreme happiness of man. His intelligence, created for truth, cannot be satisfied otherwise than by the possession of the whole truth, that is of God. His will, longing for happiness, infinite, so to speak, in its desire, is never satisfied with contingent, finite goods; it can rest only in the perfect Good, without admixture, in God. This reminds us of St. Augustine’s exclamation: “My heart, O Lord, is made for Thee, and it can find no rest until it repose in Thee. ’ ’ AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES 105 Thus, bound by his essence and essential dependence to manifest the glory of his Author, man can make no effort towards this end, without perfecting himself, without ad­ vancing towards happiness, his last blissful end. He cannot refuse to procure the glory of God without renouncing happiness here and hereafter. As the chief pri­ mary purpose, which God intended by the creation of man is His own glory, through the manifestation of His divine attributes and perfections, such an end, being absolute and unconditional, will be infallibly obtained. Therefore it does not depend on man to glorify God, or not to glorify Him. The only thing that depends on him, and is left to his free choice, is the manner of glorifying Him. By voluntary sub­ mission to God’s supreme will, through the faithful observance of His commandments, he will glorify God on earth, and will sing forever God’s mercy and goodness in Heaven. Hence in every just soul the Lord’s promise shall be fulfilled: “ Whoso­ ever shall glorify me, him will I glorify.” (I Kings, 2, 30.) On the other hand, by resistance to the divine will through the transgression of His holy law, man freely chooses as his everlasting lot the proclamation of God’s omnipotence and justice by his punishment in hell. It is then in our power either to secure to ourselves a blissful abode with God and His angels in Heaven through loyalty to His commands, or, by our rebellion against the Lord, to excavate for ourselves a dungeon with Satan and the reprobates in Hell. The alter­ native is terrible; but God cannot be robbed of His glory by the wickedness of men. Victory over sin is the indispensable condition for deserving eternal bliss (St. Thomas, I, q. 19, a. 6). 63. Conclusion. God, the first cause of all things, is therefore the final end of all things. Every existing thing comes from Him and returns to Him. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End: “Ego sum Alpha et Omega, principium et finis.” (Apoc. 1, 8.) It is for us, if we wish to be truly wise, so to live, that all our actions, all our thoughts shall tend always, and fully to the glory of God. There and there only is to be found duty as well as happiness. 106 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE Let us close this chapter with the elegant sentiments of Bishop John S. Vaughan (Faith and Folly, p. 436), most appropriate to our purpose : “All assures us that we are not as the flower that fades, nor as the butterfly which unfolds its beauty to one bright summer and is heard of no more. On the contrary, our whole nature demands a future in which our capacities may receive their full development, and every wish its complete satisfac­ tion. As well distrust the hunger that craves for food, or the thirst that seeks the cooling waters, as mistrust the deep and fervid language of the heart. He who has implanted these longings within us is God, the author of our being and the infinitely Wise. And docs infinite Wisdom create without a just and holy purpose? If He fills our hearts with insatiable yearnings after an eternal life of light and love, are we to suppose He has made no provision for their realization? Shall we dare affirm that God, who plants the irresistible de­ sire of eternal life in our souls, plants it there in mockery and derision? A thousand times, no! It is as certain as we live that, if He has so constituted our nature that it clamors for the eternal joys of heaven, it is simply because He intends to stay the cry He has raised, and to grant us one day the desires of our hearts. Eternity awaits us, and even now stretches out its arms to enfold us. We are children of eter­ nity, not of time. Such a truth is not merely most consoling, but it is one which must, when realized, exercise a most marked influence on our lives. “If made for eternity, then we must live for eternity; and not entangle ourselves in the interests of time. If we are des­ tined to live forever, then we must not sacrifice everything for the vain and empty pleasures of a day, nor make any tem­ poral pursuit whatever the end and supreme purpose of our life.” AND PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES Authors Consulted in 107 Part I Ballerini, Rev. J., “A Short Defense of Religion,” edited by Rev. W. McLaughlin (Μ. II. Gill and Son, Dublin, Ire­ land). Bocdder, Rev. B., S.J., “Natural Theology” (Longmans, Green and Co., New York). Brosnan, Rev. G. J., S.J., “Institutiones theologiae naturalis” (Loyola Press, Chicago). Brownson, O., “Essay in Refutation of Atheism,” in vol. II of his Works (Thorndike Nourse, Detroit, Mich.). Driscoll, Rev. T. J., “Christian Philosophy” (Benziger Bros., New York). England, Bishop, Works, 5 vols. (J. Murphy Co., Baltimore). Fiorani, Bishop, “Evil and God’s Government,” Italian original obtainable from F. Pustct Co., Rome. Hammerstein, Rev. T., S.J., “Foundation of Faith” (Ben­ ziger Bros, New York). Hettinger, Franz, “Natural and Revealed Religion,” edited by H. B. Bowden, in 2 vols. (Frederick Pustet Co., New York). Holaind, Rev. R., S.J., “Natural Law and Legal Practice” (Benziger Bros., New York). Joyce, Rev. G. H., S.J., “Principles of Natural Theology” (Longmans, Green & Co., New York). Koch. F. G., “A Manual of Apologetics,” edited by C. Bruehl, D.D. (Joseph F. Wagner, New York). Lilly, W. S., “Right and Wrong” (Chapman and Hall, Lon­ don ). Pettigrew, J. B., “Design in Nature” (Longmans, Green and Co., New York). Pohle, Rev. Joseph, D.D., “God. His Knowability. Essence and Attributes,” edited by Arthur Preuss (Herder, St. Louis, Mo.). Slavin, S. J., “Order in the Physical World” (J. Hodges, Charing Cross, London). Smith, Rev. Sydney, S.J., “The Problem of Evil” (Catholic Truth Society, London). 108 GOD, HIS EXISTENCE, ESSENCE Urrâburu, Rev. José, S.J., “Institutiones philosophicæ,” 8 vols. (Frederick Pustet Co., New York). Vaughan, Bishop John S., D.D., “Faith and Folly” (Benziger Bros., New York). Walshe, Rev. T. J., “The Principles of Christian Apologetics” (Longmans, Green & Co., New York). Wilhelm, J., and Scanncll, T. B., “A Manual of Catholic Theology, from Schcebcn’s “ Dogmat ik” (Kegan Paul, London). Wiseman, Cardinal, “Essays on Science and Religion” (Thomas Baker, London). PART II THE HUMAN SOUL ITS LIBERTY, SPIRITUALITY, IMMORTALITY 64. This part is not, like the preceding, a necessary pre­ liminary to Christian apologetics. It is impossible to bow to the divine revelation without first admitting God’s existence and His veracity. Both these truths must be either taken for granted or demonstrated. The foregoing part shows that we preferred to follow the latter course for grave reasons, pointed out in the preface to this work. But it is not so with regard to the human soul, its spirituality and immortality. It docs not necessarily play any important part in the prem­ ises and principles rationally demonstrating the foundations of Faith. Nevertheless, as the denial of its existence and principal faculties would carry along with it the ruin of the whole edifice of religion, as far, at least, as men are con­ cerned, we deem it opportune to establish on a firm basis the principal tenets that refer to the human soul. We intend then to present here a summary demonstration of its leading faculties or properties, and a refutation of the most common objections raised against our position. Though anxious to be plain, elementary and brief, yet we did not deem it advisable, cither to hide the difficulties of our opponents, or to exclude the most convincing proofs, even when somewhat difficult to grasp. To act otherwise would be treasonable to the cause of truth, and a reflection on our readers, who expect to be convinced by solid arguments, and deservedly scorn gratuitous assertions. And when in our days they are confronted by captious sophisms and so called 109 110 THE HUMAN SOUL, ITS LIBERTY, SPIRITUALITY scientific objections, must they be taken by surprise, and be unable to answer them? Nevertheless, our limited space necessarily compels us to omit certain more abstruse questions, which, however, arc not strictly needed for our purpose, and the discussion of which is the province of more cultured and mature minds. Our treatise is divided into three chapters. We will demonstrate: The Liberty of the human soul; its Spirituality ; and its Immortality. CHAPTER I LIBERTY OF THE HUMAN SOUL § I. Preliminary Notions 65. 1. The Soul. To ask: Have we a soul? is to propose an ambiguous question, as the answer may have two altogether different meanings, (a) The soul (in Latin anima) may mean, according to its literal definition, what animates or vivifies the body, the principle or cause of its spontaneous movements, of its life. Now it is clear that we live; this is an incontestable fact. Hence, unless we run counter to the principle of causality (n. 26), and admit effects without a cause to produce them, all must agree on this fact that we have in ourselves a principle of life, whatever that be. To put the question under this aspect is to answer it. But that same question, Have we a soul? may be under­ stood in a different sense. (b) For we may ask if this soul, this principle of life, is something totally distinct from the body, something essentially different from it, ruling over it and surviving it? This is the real problem that we have to solve. To some Materialists, the soul is a kind of collective noun, comprehending in itself the different functions of the bodily organism—and the or­ ganism itself, according to their view, is nothing else but the assemblage, the combination and particular association and harmonious working of physical and chemical forces. It is then our task to prove the existence in man of a principle »> ' IMMORTALITY AND SUPERNATURAL DESTINY 111 that is at once free, spiritual and immortal, and consequently essentially and radically distinct from the material organism which it animates. 66. 2. Liberty. This word has several meanings. («) If taken in a very general wide sense, it indicates freedom from impediment or restraint. In this sense we say that the swallow in the air, the lion in the desert and the stream winding its way in the valley arc free; modern nations, if exempt from servitude, call themselves free. As many as are the impediments or restraints so many are the kinds of liberty corresponding to them (Part VII, ch. v). Thus (u) we have physical liberty, when man’s actions are not subject to any external violence or constraint. Man enjoys (b) moral liberty, when neither his own normal conscience nor any competent authority forbids him to act. Citizens possess (c) civil or political liberty, when political authority docs not interfere with the exercise of their legitimate rights. Such liberty is guaranteed to all American citizens by Articles XIV and ΧλΓ of the amendments to the Constitution. There is (d) religious liberty, when civil rulers do not impede the exercise of one’s right of conscience in the practice of any religion compatible with the rights of the state. Such right is secured to all American citizens by Article I of the amend­ ments to the Constitution. (b) Without entering into an irrelevant examination of all the meanings in which the term liberty may be taken, let us at once inquire what kind of liberty there may be in the voluntary acts of man. Let us remark at the very outset that there arc in us two kinds of acts that arc called voluntary. One kind is produced or elicited by the will itself; the other is only commanded or enjoined by it. The former remain, so to speak, inside, in the interior abode of the will, such as desire, hatred, joy, resolution, etc. 'The latter are originated under the impulse of the ivill from diverse faculties, both exterior and interior, c.g., speaking, walking, certain fanciful combinations, etc. These previous concepts being understood, we may now proceed to consider two kinds of liberty; one regarding acts 112 THE HUMAN SOUL, ITS LIBERTY, SPIRITUALITY capable of being enjoined by the will; the other springing from the will itself; liberty then, in voluntary acts, signifies: 67. A. Immunity from Constraint, or External Violence. The prisoner loaded with chains, and a man whose arm or hand is forcibly held by another, arc not free. And why? Because their movements, instead of being subject to their will, are made in spite of it. Such constraint—as examples prove—may be brought to bear on acts ordinarily subject to the empire of the will, and on the faculties, whence they proceed; but it can exert no action on the acts emanating from the will, and much less on the will itself. The moment an external force attempts to constrain me and do me violence, I feel that I can either resist or consent; that I may will or not will, just as I choose. It is on the other hand absurd to suppose that there can be any such thing as violence or con­ straint on any act of the will. In fact, every act implying a constraint must be produced by an external force against the inclination or purpose of the will. Now, to will is a vital act by which the will moves or inclines itself toward some object. In the notion that the same identical act can be the result both of constraint and of the will, there is implied an evident contradiction. The will then is incontestably free, if taken in its first significance of freedom from external violence. Liberty in voluntary acts means also : B. Immunity from interior necessity, that is, the faculty of determination, of choosing one’s acts without being determined by an internal, necessary and irresistible impulse. This faculty, clearly understood by all, must not be con­ founded with what is called spontaneity. The first movements of passion, of fright, which escape or precede the deliberation of the will, are perfectly spontaneous; but they were not chosen by the will; they are not free in the sense that we have just described. We can never insist too much on the radical distinction between spontaneity and liberty properly so called. Many authors confound these two notions altogether disparate. Let us allege some instances in point. In a book otherwise credit­ IMMORTALITY AND SUPERNATURAL DESTINY 113 able on many accounts, we read as follows: “We arc endowed with internal liberty, conditioned by the general laws of the Universe, and within the limits of those general laws we preserve a certain amount of spontaneity or of reacting force more or less great.” (Prins, “Penal Science and Positive Right,” No. 268, Brussels, 1899.) Herzen, with a multitude of other writers, does not hesitate to hold that “the more a movement is spontaneous, the freer it is,” and then, pervert­ ing all established notions, openly declares that “liberty con­ sists in folloiving the laws of our own being.” (Physiological Chats, p. 333, Paris, Alcan, 1899.) That man believes he can choose certain acts, according to his pleasure, without being driven to such choice by an irresistible impulse, behold here an undeniable fact. Is it reasonable so to believe? Does the human will possess the faculty of self-determination ? In other words : Does the human τυϊΙΙ, enlightened by reason, and in the presence of all the conditions necessary for the exercise of its activity, really possess the power of acting or not acting, of making one choice rather than another? Or is it by a certain fatality or inevitable necessity driven to the performance of its acts? Such is the question so passionately debated in our days. Before enumerating the adversaries, and establishing our thesis, let us complete these preliminary ideas and definitions by some important remarks. Remarks. 1. Liberty, as defined above, is called also (a) Free Arbitrament—Free Judgment (Liberum Arbitrium of the Latins). The reason and meaning of this term will appear in the course of our demonstration (n. 74). (b) Liberty of Indifference, for when diverse goods, several choices are presented to it, the free being remains indifferent as to its deliberation; it is not necessitated, or determined by either interior or exterior causes; it remains master, so to speak, of the situation, free to embrace at its will the object of its choice. The capital point here is to understand well that this indifference is not to be likened to that of an inert mass 1 114 THE HUMAN SOUL, ITS LIBERTY, SPIRITUALITY of matter, that is indifferent to receive various forms, and to undergo various impulses from external agencies. On the contrary, the indifference of free will is wholly and essentially active, not inert. (c) Physical or Natural Liberty as opposed to Moral Lib­ erty. The latter is the faculty of acting without violating any law, or any moral obligation, when the act in question is not forbidden by any competent authority or legitimate injunction. Briefly, Physical Liberty is freedom from vio­ lence, or physical coercion ; Moral Liberty is the absence of any prohibition. The difference between the two is quite obvious. The man who has the physical power (physical liberty) of violating his oath knows full well that he is mor­ ally bound to keep it. 2. As in the course of this treatise we shall frequently speak of will, conscience, intelligence, etc., it is well that we should say something on the faculties of the soul with a view to prevent unpleasant misconceptions and embarrassing mis­ takes. Even without the aid of profound philosophical knowl­ edge, each one of us is fully aware of the diversity of his several actions, such as I imagine, I understand, I think, I will, . . . whence this immediate logical conclusion is drawn: therefore I possess the faculty of imagining, of understanding, of thinking and of willing. Now we ask: Arc these faculties so many realities? Arc they distinct powers of our nature, and are they also distinct from one another? We might make abstraction from this controversy, for it has no bearing on our present question of human liberty. What is important is to be on our guard against that too frequent deception of representing to ourselves human intelligence, will, imagina­ tion, conscience, as so many distinct personages or individuals appearing in turn on the scene to play their part, as is done by the several dramatis personae or characters on the stage—as if reason studied the motives, weighed both sides and then yielded its place to another agent, the will, which cuts off the question and decides. This supposed process is as ridiculous as it is dangerous. IMMORTALITY AND SUPERNATURAL DESTINY 115 Let us not for a moment forget that only one person is acting all along. It is I that think, deliberate and decide. It is the same identical individual that performs different acts. Our opponents take it for granted, of course, without a shred of proof, that such things as Spirituality and Liberty are simply mentally contrived hypotheses without foundations, or a priori suppositions fabricated without any anterior data of experience. According to them, on the contrary, it is determinism (n. 84) that is the result of experimental science. We, how­ ever, hold that liberty and spirituality are facts testified by experience, and we shall prove it. But here let us explain well what we mean. There are several kinds of experience. To suppose, as the majority of the determinist writers do, that liberty and spirituality are something that can be handled, weighed and measured—something that may be experimented upon on the table of the laboratory, as it is done with physical, chemical and physiological phenomena; obstinately to refuse all means of investigation except that of external experiments, all this is equivalent to closing to themselves the way to a successful search; it is to seek for a thing where one is assured beforehand that he will never find it. It is clear that unless one denies a priori that the human soul is both spiritual and free, it must be admitted that, if it exists at all, it must necessarily manifest itself by effects proportionate to its essence, consequently by operations altogether immaterial or spiritual ; for, as sound philosophy and common sense teach us, all effects must be proportionate or conformable to their cause. See in the “Revue scientifique,” vol. XII, p. 737, article entitled “Free Will and Positive Science.” In this produc­ tion, remarkable under many aspects, IM. Sully-Prudhomme demonstrates in a peremptory manner that positive science, with its methods and means of observation, is radically in­ capable of proving that the Universe is governed by an absolute necessity to the exclusion of a necessary self-exist­ ing personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the world. What is highly absurd and extremely amusing is to wit- 116 THE HUMAN SOUL, ITS LIBERTY, SPIRITUALITY ness most of these positivists declaring beforehand that liberty and spirituality are concepts unknown, nay unknowable to Science, and then conclude in the name of the same Science that liberty and spirituality do not exist. § II. Adversaries 68. I. Let us mention, at the very outset, the advocates of Absolute Indeterminism, viz: Descartes, Kant, Fichte, etc. According to them the will is so indetermined in itself that it deliberates in all its acts without any motive whatsoever. This kind of absolute free will is evidently contradicted by the testimony of experience (see Payot, “The Education of the Will,” Paris, Alcan). Unhappily this untenable, exag­ gerated notion of free will has proved favorable to the cause of our opponents, who pretend to saddle on all the defenders of free will the Cartesian view of it. II. But the true opponents of free will arc the so-called Determinists, according to whom all the acts of the human will are ruled, fixed and determined : (a) Either by Destiny or Fate (as the Fatalists hold) ; (b) Or by an irresistible impulse of divine grace, as Huss, Luther, Calvin, Jansenius and Baius taught ; (c) Or again, by psychological laws, as necessary and as uncontrollable as the mechanical laws ruling the phenomena and movements of the material world, the theory held by Leibnitz and the famous German psycho-physiologist, W. Wundt. To the same category belong the following writers of modern times: Molcschott, Herbert Spencer, Stuart Mill, Aug. Comte, Richet, Herzen, Büchner, A. Fouillée, and others ; (iZ) Or, by the intellect, which dictates to and imposes on the will all its acts; hence the school of the so-called Intel­ lectual Determinists, (e) Or lastly, by nothing else but the laws of mechanics. This is mechanical and materialistic determinism pure and simple, the most widely spread theory among infidel scientists, and the true enemy in the present hour. Its fundamental axiom is: There exists nothing outside of physico-chemical IMMORTALITY AND SUPERNATURAL DESTINY 117 forces; the acts of the will, the functions of the brain and of the nervous system, arc entirely subject, like all the planetary movements, to the universal laws of matter. § III. Proofs of Free Will 69. Let us state our thesis in the clearest terms: When all the conditions necessary for the performance of a given action are present, human will is not constrained either by an outward impulse, or by any interior necessity; it remains in full possession of its activity, capable of determining itself and of choosing its own acts. We shall now proceed to demonstrate it. First Proof—The Testimony of Conscience Preliminary Remarks. The conscience, or rather con­ sciousness here referred to, is not moral conscience, that is, the judgment that we pass on the motive, or goodness of our acts; it is the faculty, whatever it be, by which we perceive and realize the presence of our interior acts and their nature. Man believes that he is free. He is firmly convinced that many of his acts, far from being the result of fatalism, or an irresistible destiny, depend entirely on his will; that he alone has chosen these acts, and that on himself alone rests the responsibility of such acts. This is a fact or a result of experience; a fact so clearly testified that Determinism, whilst striving to evade this testi­ mony and to discard it as an illusion, still does not dare deny it. It is now for us to prove the veracity of the inner con­ sciousness of free will. Any manual of Catholic Philosophy can furnish to the reader abundant proofs of the trustworthi­ ness of the testimony of consciousness. But before reasoning on this fact, it is highly important to examine it attentively, and to study its characters and conditions. Were we to proceed otherwise, we should run the risk of building up a theory cither incomplete or false. 70. Object of This Internal Conviction. («) Whether we listen to the interior voice of our own 118 THE HUMAN SOUL, ITS LIBERTY, SPIRITUALITY conscience, or we consider the judgments and conduct of others, one primary truth becomes manifest, and it is the following: the liberty in which man believes, that which he attributes to himself and his fellow-beings, is no other but the liberty properly so called, the one that we have defined above (n. 67) under the terms of physical liberty, liberty of indifference, free will. (6) We are able to distinguish with perfect clearness the characteristic note or discriminating mark of our free acts, their difference from other acts, even those that are most spontaneous. This note, this difference we perceive as some­ thing positive, as a perfection of our own activity, as a privi­ lege of which we are deservedly proud. It is therefore false to assert that the idea of liberty only implies something negative. That is what Herzen asserts in his book entitled “Physio­ logical Chats,” p. 333, where he speaks thus: “From what­ ever point of view we examine human liberty, we find that it is a purely negative concept.” We admit that we give expression to the idea of liberty under a kind of negative form, a thing to be attributed to the imperfection of language; hence we say that liberty means negation or absence of ne­ cessity; but, nevertheless, it is plain that this idea presents to our mind something truly real, since all free acts are conceived as endowed with a special property, which dis­ tinguishes them from all the others. (c) What then are those acts which we judge to be free? They are precisely those of which we possess a perfect con­ sciousness, and which we recognize to be absolutely free. This is a point to be carefully considered. The Dcterminists pre­ tend to maintain that the consciousness of liberty is a sheer illusion. We grant that there may be at times some illusion, when it is a question of acts done without sufficient reflection and of which we may not be fully conscious; but is it at all possible that such illusion should grow, should endure, nay, become still more deceptive, even when we become more and more conscious of our own individual personal activity, and of the motives that move us to act? Hence we may reason­ bsu IMMORTALITY AND SUPERNATURAL DESTINY 119 ably conclude that the consciousness of liberty does not pro­ ceed from the ignorance of the cause or motives that determine us to act (n. 90). 2. Characters of this Conviction. (rz) It is universal; all men admit it. (b) It is indestructible. Man, no matter what he may do, can never reach a serious, honest, intimate conviction, that he is not free. AVe freely admit that, owing to the authority of some scientific man, and to some captious objection, and impelled by enticing allurements of certain passions, men may be found who will entertain some doubts on the existence of free will and admit, in theory at least, the comfortable and irresponsible system of Determinism. But they them­ selves are compelled to confess that theirs is not a true, honest conviction. In fact, do you wish to put it to the test ? Observe how the most obstinate Determinists act whenever they happen to be wronged in their property, or in their honor. See how they resent the injustice done to them, and how loudly they assert the fact of liberty and the personal accountability of those that have offended them! See, moreover, the striking contradiction of the Determinists, who, under the banner of freethought, combat against the Christians holding firmly to the truth attested by reason and confirmed by divine revela­ tion. We know and we shall prove in Part IX that the freethought theory is radically wrong. But if it be once admitted, reason and common sense will at once tell us that no man can consistently with it condemn or reject any other belief diametrically opposed to freethought. 3. Consequence of This Conviction. From the con­ sciousness and persuasion of free will follow notions, judg­ ments, actions, which possess a special character and a supreme importance. All these ideas, these judgments, these acts, that embrace and comprehend the whole moral life of men, can have no significance except on the supposition that the fact of man’s liberty is admitted. But let us consider this matter more closely still. (r doing so? Certainly not. It is well known that men in the full use of their reason may choose to do very wicked things. Therefore the expression to act rationally is ambiguous, as it may convey two altogether different mean­ ings. It may signify to act with the full use of the reasoning faculties cither rightly or wrongly, as the case may be; and may mean to act in accordance with the dictates of right reason, which in itself naturally tends to what is good and conformable to the divine law. Hence Tertullian said of the human soul that it is naturally Christian. We have previously seen (nn. 81-82) that reason, far from constraining the will, loudly proclaims the fact that a good, because apprehended as greater than another, does not, on that account, compel the will to embrace it. Moreover, is it not a fact, as evident as the light of noonday sun, that IMMORTALITY AND SUPERNATURAL DESTINY 133 man feels in himself no necessity whatever of doing in all things, and always, what appears to him more perfect ? Facts testify that it is so. 86. Third Objection. Man chooses what he prefers, what he judges to be best for himself. He is therefore determined to this or that choice not by his free will, but rather by his temperament, his tastes, his hereditary or acquired disposi­ tions. Hence he is not free. Answer. (