1 I 4 Or FROM UNBEUEF TO BEUEF APOLOGETIC LECTURES r. 25c Ad Instructionem et Defensionem ! FROM UNBEUEF TO BELIEF A Series of Apologetic Lectures Dedicated to the Knights of Columbus and to ail Friends of Truth PHILADELPHIA 1916 Copyright, 1916 Rev. H. Joseph Koenenberg, C.M. Nihil obstat Imprimatur N. F. FISHER, S.T.L. tEDMUNDUS FRANCISCUS Censor Librorum Archiepiscopus Philad Philadelphia, Jan. 17, 1916 Philadelphia. Jan. 16, 1916 Descldinac! CONTENTS Page Preface 4 / Introduction 5 I. Is There a God? 7 II. Has Man a Soul? 16 III. Is the Human Soul Immortal? 22 IV. Is There a Divine Ruling or Providence and a Supernatural Order of the World? 27 V. Has God Revealed a Special Mode of Worship or is Religion an Invention? 33 VI. Is Jesus Christ the Son of God? 39 VII. Are Miracles Possible? 46 VIII. Can Miracles as Such Be Recognized? 52 IX. Did Christ Work Miracles and Thus Prove His Divinity ? 59 X. Has Christ Established the Church as a Visible Society and Made St. Peter Its Head? 65 XI. Is the Roman Pontiff the Successor in Peter's Primacy ? 71 XII. Is the Catholic Church the True Church of Christ? 79 XHI. What is the Right Interpretation of the Dogma: “Outside the Church There is No Salvation"? 88 XIV- Is the Pope Infallible in Matters of Faith and Morals ? 93 XV. Why is Mary so Highly Honored in the Catholic PREFACE. It is with great pleasure that I announce the publica- tion of an Apologetic Lecture Course of vital religious topics as the result of familiar conversations with the Chaplain of Bishop Neuman Council, Philadelphia. The logical and harm.onious connection between the single subjects, the thorough scientific and at the same time popular treatment of all fundamental questions of faith, will enlighten and strengthen you, Dear Brother Knights, in the same spirit with which Colum- bus, whose name we bear, was animated and guided when he first planted the Cross on our beloved land: the spirit of intellectual and practical Catholicism. Great, indeed, is the task which the Church expects our Organization to fulfill; greater is the need of defense and vigilance, but greatest of all must be our courage, our armament, our force in the battle against unbelief and indifference. We have. Dear Brother Knights, up to this day been faithful in our loyalty to our Mother, the Holy Church ; we have defended heroically her divine rights and have shown to the World and to this Country of ours that true member- ship in the Church includes and preserves and guar- antees true, faithful citizenship to the State, because he alone who is faithful to God will be faithful to men. Let us continue with the same zeal and youthful strength our noble work for God, His Church and our fellow-men. In order to facilitate these our duties, I wish to see in the hands of every Knight a copy of these lectures, which will enable him to give an account of his Faith and to defend it against all attacks as a valiant Knight of Columbus. Jas. a. Flaherty, Supreme Knight, Philadelphia, Dec. 25th, 1915, INTRODUCTION. The scope of the present Apologetic Lecture Course is to show to Catholics as well as to all friends of truth the reasonableness of our religious belief. For this purpose it proceeds with logical sequence from one proven truth to the necessary acceptance of the other, showing thus the inseparable union between Faith and Reason. Avoiding all that could offend our opponents of ‘'good faith and will,'’ we are fully confi- dent that our argumentation will appeal to the reason- ing mind of all those who are desirous to seek truth as well as to those who, rejoicing in the possession of this highest intellectual good, find delight in communi- cating it to others. As far as possible we have tried to treat the questions in popular style, not omitting, however, to refute scientifically the most current sophistical objections. Although many books treating Apologetic Questions have been published, of pon- derous length and vigorous defense, yet none of these show calmly in an up-to-date argument, appealing to the American Mind, in compact logical sequence, the necessary acceptance of our religious belief. But as we well know, that the embracing of Catholic Faith comprises a double element : the persuasion of intellect and the adherence of the heart to the truth, we hope that contributing by our humble essay to the first, God in His mercy will accomplish the latter in many hearts of our erring brethren of “good will” and will strengthen the faith in the humble ones, so that there l}e r^^li^ed the purpose of the Incarnation of His Qnly begotten Son, which He Himself announced by His angels on Christmas Day: ‘‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will.” Rev. Jos. Koenenberg, C. M. St. Vincent’s Seminary, Germantown, Philadelphia, Christmas Eve, 1915. I. Is There a God? In the nineteenth century an unbeliever wrote: there were a God in Heaven and if He wished men to believe in Him, He should have written His name upon the firmament/’ In what sort of writing and in what language God should have written upon the sky His signature and all that He wished to reveal to men, unfortunately this learned man did not state. The German would have demanded this in the German language, the Englishman in the English language, the Frenchman in French, the Chinaman in Chinese — in short, with equal right, each nation would have demanded that God’s handwriting be in its own mother-tongue. If every wish were satisfied, the firmament would no doubt resemble the picture post- card we sometimes see written crosswise and length- wise, then crosswise again to the despair and con- fusion of the recipient. Then the unbeliever would certainly have said that such a medley upon the firma- ment was unworthy of a God of infinite power and wisdom. For, as an Almighty and Omniscient God, He would have found a language for His communi- cations to man which could be understood by all. Rightly the royal singer, David, has told us, and the great Haydn has put the prophetic words into beauti- ful music: ‘‘The Heavens tell the glory of God and the firmament proclaims the work of His hands.” In his book, “Proofs of the Existence of God,” Rev. Fr. Hammerstein proves the existence of God from the following reasons ; 1. From the existence of the human race. 2. From the existence of the animal world. 3. From the existence of the vegetable world. 4. From the existence of a world at all. ; 5. From innumerable efiiciencies in the world. 6. From the instinct of animals. 7. From the correlations of many things. 8. From our conscience. 9. From the existence of a Universal Order. 10. From the universal belief of nations. The prince of scholastic philosophy, St. Thomas Aquinas, brings up five proofs and concludes : 1. From movable things a first Mover. 2. From acting causes a First acting cause. 3. From not necessarily existing, i.e,, contingent beings a necessarily existing—that is, a self-existing Being. 4. From more or less perfect things, a most perfect Being. 5. From the order of the universe, a Ruler of the universe. The leader of modern philosophy, E. Kant, rejects every metaphysical proof and holds forth the moral one from conscience, which is sufficient for the indi- vidual, but has no worth for others. We stand firm in the belief—and the Church has made it a dogma of faith—that we can by mere reason prove the existence of God. All proofs may be traced back to one which contains in itself all power of demonstration. Motipn, life, order, design, right and conscience presuppose a sub- ject, consequently, the existence of the things. Hence, our proof must rely upon the existence of things, com- 9 monly called the argument of causality. Philosoph- ically, the proof is as follows : The argument of the First Cause draws from the simple fact that some things exist the conclusion that there must be a First Cause, and then from the fact that intelligent beings, namely, men, exist, the further conclusion that this First Cause must be intelligent. It can thence proceed to the ultimate conclusion that such "a First Cause must be One and Infinite in all respects. Thesis. Not all things are effects of causes, but there exists an unproduced First Cause, endowed with intelligence and free will—in other words, a personal God. There is a universally admitted valid principle, abso- lutely demanded by our reason, that “whatever does not exist of absolute necessity cannot exist without a proportionate cause,’’ because that which does not exist of absolute necessity is of itself only contingent, de- pending for its existence on a condition outside itself ; otherwise, existing unconditionally, it v/ould be an absolutely necessary being. This principle of causality is not only violated if we admit a beginning of exist- ence without cause, but also if we admit such a begin- ning without a proportionate cause, namely, without a cause which, considered in its totality, contains a perfection at least equal to that of the effect. But not all beings can be effects ; there must be something which is a cause without being the effect of another cause, and this something must be self-existent and personal. Everything, in so far as it is an effect, is indebted for its actual existence to some other being. But sup- posing there be no self-existent being, then the totality 10 of being must be an effect, no matter whether it be a finite or an infinite series of various kinds of being. Consequently, in that supposition, whatever falls under the concept of existing being, past or present, must be indebted to another being for its existence. But this is evidently absurd, for it cannot be true without the existence of something beyond the bounds of what falls under the notion of existing being. Therefore, the supposition that there is a self-existing being is de- manded by reason. Now, among the existing beings is the human soul, an immaterial, i.e,, spiritual and free being. But the First Cause of an immaterial and free being cannot be a material being and one constrained by an irresistible natural impulse to the production of its effects. Conse- quently, the First Cause of the human soul must be an immaterial free being, which implies that we must consider a self-existent spiritual and free being to be the First Cause of man, superior* to him and to the material world or what amounts to the same, the exist- ence of a personal God is evident. Astronomers and geologists, palaeontologists and historians, agree that man did not always exist. How, then, did the first man come into existence ? We pass over the question as to the origin of his body, but whence came his spiritual, freely electing soul? A spiritual and free being cannot be the outcome of a mere organic development. Therefore, the First Cause of the human soul must be an agent itself spiritual and free. And if you suppose this agent to be not a self- existing but a created spirit, that created spirit must have a self-existing spirit for its First Cause. This follows evidently from the impossibility of any series of produced causes which is not dependent upon an 11 iinpfodliced f'lrst Cause; an impossibility We haV6 proved before. The conclusion is that the First Cause of the human race is a spirit, self-existent and freely choosing—in other words, a personal God, Summing up this philosophical proof, we might say : All things which do not necessarily exist derive their existence from an external cause. Now, it is gener- ally accepted that man at one time began to exist. He has, therefore, the cause of his existence not within himself, but externally. The reason or cause for man’s existence cannot, however, be a created one ; otherwise, we would have an infinite circle of created things, of which one stipulates or produces the other, and is, at the same time, brought into its own existence through the link of this chain—a self-contradiction. The first cause must, therefore, be an uncreated one ; that is, it must have the reason for its existence within itself. Now, man has a spiritual soul, consequently the First Cause must be spiritual, gifted in an infinite measure with intelligence and free will—in other words, a per- sonal one. This Cause we call God, the personal God. But could not the things of the world or, at least, the fundamental element from eternity be infinite ? Whence do we know that the world does not exist from eternity by force of necessity? We know it from this, that many things in the world pass away and change. Animals die, water evaporates, planets move and thus the whole world is subject to constant change. But what is changeable does not exist of necessity, otherwise it would remain as it is. Only God does not change and has not changed. Even the creation of the world did not necessitate in Him a passing from a state of rest to work, consequently, no 12 change. It needed only the will of God, existing from eternity, that at the given moment the world should result out of nothing. : That the world cannot from eternity be without God Cardinal Gotti explained beautifully by a similitude: “Let us suppose,’’ said he, “a chain consisting of many links hanging in the air. As the last link always needs a higher one by which it is supported, so all the links, and thus the entire chain would fall without a support. It is impossible for the links to be without support, even though their number were infinite. In order to exist, the world needs a constant support, a Creator, a Preserver, and this is God.” Whence does life originate? Did it begin from a lifeless matter, or does it come from a vital being, called God ? Even the unbelieyer, Virchow, declares: “No one has ever seen a primitive creation, the resulting of a living being from lifeless matter, and whoever has asserted that he had has been refuted not by theolo- gians, but by naturalists.” In the year 1868, Pluxley discovered a slimy sub^ stance at the bottom of the sea. In honor of the unbe- lieving Professor Haeckel, it was called “bathybius Haeckeli.” Haeckel triumphed: “Now, we are able to trace the miracle of the appearances of life back to this substance. We have been able to point out the infinitely manifold and complicated physical and chem- ical properties of albumen as the real cause of the appearances of life.” It was a pity for the learned gentleman that the slimy substance turned out to be gypsum, which had IS hetti precipitated into a jelly-like condition, conse- quently a body wholly and entirely of the inanimate world and not, by any chance, a bridge to the animate world. The great and renowned experiments of the learned Pasteur in Paris have settled the question that living beings can originate only from a living being. Darwin, himself, says in his first fundamental work, ‘'Origin of the Species'’ : I assume that evidently all organic beings which have ever lived on earth are descended from a primary species, into which life was breathed by the Creator." How deeply and firmly the knowledge of the exist- ence of God is implanted in the human heart the atheists themselves prove by their eternal futile efforts to deny. How often have men arisen with the bold statement that they had proven there is no God. For a time they were believed, but then the old unrest returned and again there came another with new “proofs"—again, many listened and swore by him that it was now a decided fact that there is no God. A short time, and then again the old unrest—the same anxious question- ing whether, after all, there were a God. Why this ? Why not be content thereon? Science has proved to us that the earth is not a solid disc, but a ball revolving around the sun. And the thing is settled. No one is further disturbed about it ; nobody desires new proofs, as though the old ones were insufficient. Why should it be so different with the assertion that there is no God? Why? Simply because in each human heart there is the indelible handwriting of God's existence ! Though thousands should arise and proclaim and affirm that there is no God; though they should flood the earth with ponderous tomes and books of learned 14 length announcing that there is no God, their undef-* taking would be as vain as that of the mole that would throw open his little mound and call forth, 'There is no sun,'' and yet the sun shines, powerful and un- dimmed from on high. Many men, well educated in the sciences of their profession and in other lines too, but little versed in the art of religion, or perhaps blinded by false princi- ples and prejudices, believe neither in God nor in religion. There cannot, however, be any convinced atheist, for the deeper, the real reason, is either lack of right thinking or a deceptive quieting of the accusing voice of conscience. Many of the greatest of the most important scholars are believers—some are even exem- plary Catholics. Among astronomers, we have the Catholic : Coperni- cus, Kepler, Tycho de Brahe, Newton, Herschel, Arago, Leverrier, Maedler, Lamont, De Vico, Sechi, Heis. Among the physicists and chemists, we have the believers: Huygens, Bart, Euler, Volta, Ampere, Cauchy, Davy, Liebig, Faraday, Claudius, Maxwell, Thomson, Wuellner, Perntner, Reutgen. Among geologists and palaeontologists, there are the believers: Lyell, Quatrefages, Barranda, Pfaff, Fraas, Lapparent. Among physiologists, zoologists and anthropologists, there are Linne, Von Haller, Cuvier, Agassiz, Von Muller, Abbe Conroy, Ludwig, Pasteur, Schwann, Ranke, Hirtl, etc. Ampere, whom the learned Arago refers to as "one of the keenest and most profound intellects which nature has ever produced," turned away for a time from religious practices as a result of evil influences, IS but later his greatest solace in the overwhelming sor- rows of life he found in Catholicity. He founded a society whose members met once a week for the common study of Christianity. In the year 1808 he wrote: ''God has wished to prove to me that every- thing is vanity, save loving God and serving Him alone.’’ The day before his death, some one wished to read to him from the "Following of Christ.” His answer was that he knew the book by heart. These were his last words. Ozanam states that his conver- sation with Ampere almost always led up to God as the Creator of nature. Then Ampere took his mighty forehead between his hands and cried out: "How great is God, Ozanam; how great is God!” He had, indeed, entered with heart and soul into the words of the psalmist : "The Heavens tell the glory of God and the firmament proclaim the work of His hands.” II. Has Man a Soul? A physician wished to prove to a priest that man has no soul and asked him : “Have you ever seen a soul ?” “No.” “Have you ever heard one ?” “No.” “Tasted one?” “No.” “Smelt one ?” “No.” “Have you ever touched a soul ?” “Yes, thanks be,” answered the priest. “Well, then,” continued the physician, “here we have four senses to one, and from this I conclude that there is no soul.” Then the priest replied by questioning in his turn : “Since you are a doctor of medicine, will you tell me whether or not you have ever seen a pain ?” “No.” “Or heard one?” “No.” “Smelt one ?” “No.” “Tasted one?” “No.” “Have you ever felt a pain ?” “Yes.” “Well,” continued the priest, “here we have four senses to one proving that there is no pain, and, not- withstanding, you know there is pain.” 17 All of us, thank God, believe in the existence of the soul; but just as there are many who deny the exist- ence of God, so there are those who deny the existence of the soul. If, among our friends, there should be one who desired instruction, how should we prove to him the existence of the soul ? First of all, then, what do we mean by the soul? We call the soul the bearer or subject of our spiritual life, the seat of our memory, intellect and v/ill. From the nature of these faculties, we assert that their prin- ciple or subject, i.e,, the soul, is a spiritual being, neither organic nor material Every form of existence consists either in itself or in another object. For instance, surface, color, pain cannot be or exist in themselves, nor can an infinite series of such exist without a bearer to whom they belong and in whom they reside. The seat of our spiritual life, of our physical acts, must be a self- existent being which we call SOUL. The various conditions of consciousness necessarily presuppose a possessor. Things that are perceived naturally suppose something which perceives them. Supposing even that they were the functions of the cerebral system, yet their origin must lie in a self- existent principle or being. Motion is inconceivable without something moved. Emotion presupposes a being which feels. Passions and desires must have a source, a subject from which they emanate. Now, if we analyze our recollections, for instance, we notice that each and every one of those memories indicates and refers to the similarity and identity of our present ‘T’’ of past experience ; that is to say, each of us is the same thinking and acting personality tl^t he was five, ten or twenty years ago. But this could not be possible 18 if the cerebral-material organism were the self-existent or substantial principle from which our spiritual actions proceed. The unity of consciousness consequently rests upon the unity of ourselves—upon that self- existent being we call SOUL. This proof of the existence of the soul is strength- ened by the simplicity and spirituality of the soul. Experience teaches us that we have various abstract' concepts or ideas which cannot be pictured, touched or sensibly perceived—for instance, being, identity, truth and so on. Now, these concepts are in their nature, simple, indivisible acts. Being indivisible, they cannot proceed from a compound principle—for exam- ple, from the brain. Let us illustrate by an example: If the simple, indivisible concept, “Truth,’’ for instance, were the product of the entire brain matter, then either the various parts of this concept would have to unite with various parts of the brain, or each part of the brain would have to be the bearer of the whole concept, or the whole idea or concept would have to belong to one part of the brain. It is impossible that the various parts of this concept should unite with various parts of the brain, because the act by which the brain creates the concept, “Truth,” is a simple one, and consequently, in accordance with its simple nature, cannot be composed of an aggregate of separate brain atoms. The second Jiypothesis is equally impossible, because if each part of the brain were the bearer of the con- cept, we would necessarily have several simultaneous and similar concepts. But our own consciousness and experience contradict this. We know very well that we do not conceive these simple ideas in multiplicity. 10 we see many reflections of ourselves in a miffOf maze. Finally, if the entire idea were the result of a single part of the whole brain matter, then this part must either be composite, that is, material; or simple, that is, immaterial. Now, the brain, as we know, is organic, and therefore composite. Therefore, the concept cannot be the product of a single part of the brain, but must result from a simple, that is, immaterial principle which we call SPIRIT or SOUL. This immaterial spiritual being is independent of matter in its existence, and, to a certain extent, inde- pendent of matter in its actions, and it is just this independence which makes it a spiritual principle. The proof is very simple. The human soul is the source of various spiritual activities. The subject or bearer of spiritual activities must be itself a spiritual being. That the subject of spiritual activities must be spiritual remains to be proved. An effect can never go beyond or exceed the power or nature of its cause, nor can an act possess more perfection than its source. Consequently, when a spir- itual activity can be shown to be independent of a material organ, the principle from which it originates must also be independent. Now, we all assert that we act of our own free will. If our willing and doing, however, were dependent on some organ and were nothing but an organic process and did not have its origin in a principle independent of matter, then the moral freedom^ of man’s actions would be denied, and there would be no such thing as responsibility. - Man would be the slave of mere matter. But no sane person . 20 would assert or admit such a degradation. CoU§6-» quently, the soul must be the self-existent, simple and spiritual principle of our life. In conclusion, let me advance another moral proof : What strength of will, what control of matter does not the striving for perfection and sanctity evince? Think for a moment of the heroes and heroines of Christian charity, those angels of mercy who have given up their glowing youth and their bright prospects in order to be entirely at the service of the poor, sorrow-laden humanity; the clergyman who remains on the Leper Isle, with nothing to look forv/ard to but a ghastly life amid those poor creatures who are in the throes of a living death; the Sister of Charity who bravely faces the danger of contagion and offers at the most loathsome of sick-beds the holocaust of her young life. Who will say or even think that they are swayed and ruled by matter, and not rather that here is shown most clearly and emphatically the souks splendid inde- pendence of and supreme dominion over matter? Let those who have never been obliged to overcome obsta- cles ; who have avoided every stone on their path ; who have swum with the stream ; who have been ruled by their passion say that matter rules man. But the men and women who see the aristocracy of man not in weakness, wealth, pleasure and idleness, but in the brave unfolding of a strong will power, are rightly indignant at such a degradation of humanity. If there were only a single such iron-willed hero, he alone would shatter the whole system of materialism. This strength of will—what is it but a proof of the Spirit? Those who deny the spirituality of the human soul 21 give these convincing facts a wide berth, which is a proof that they fear them. These eloquent facts prove that it is entirely unscien- tific, weak and superficiaL to say that the brain is the soul and that man has no spiritual soul. The brain is matter, indeed; but this matter is played upon as the instrument of a Master who is not dust but spirit ; yea, the very breath of the Divine Spirit, as Holy Scripture so simply and beautifully expresses it: ‘'And God breathed into man a spiritA III. Is the Human Soul Immortal? To the Christian the proof of the existence of the human soul seems to forecast the theory of its immor- tality. Yet not to the Christian alone is it reserved to feel the degradation to which a conclusive denial of its immortality would subject man. Mendelssohn, a Jew, has said : ‘‘Reason is a deceptive dream inspired by Jupiter, and we but cattle of a finer growth doomed to pasture in the world and die, if the soul is not immortal. If the soul is mortal, then what matters it whether I have been the honor of creation or its shame ; whether I have multiplied its blessed or its wretched; then the meanest man can shun the sovereignty of God ; then a dagger can cut Creation’s bond that links the human with the Divine. If our spirit is to die—the wisest and the best of human kind have fooled them- selves and us ; all men have cherished a deception and honored its false authors, and man, less favored than the unthinking brute, deprived—I shudder at the de- basement—of the hope of future life, becomes the most wretched of earth’s tenants, for he thinks of death and death as the end of all.” Without immor- tality, races are but herds which, says Darwin, fight unceasingly for existence, prey upon the other and bury their sorrow for a moment of exultation, only to raise it up again. It is truly a painful duty to shield from the mis- guided mind of man the teachings upon which his dignity and honor depend. But is a defense of the immortality of the soul really necessary? You can answer for yourselves after hearing Professor Vir- 23 * chow: ‘'No sane being believes in man’s eternal destiny, when Darwin and other modern naturalists see in him but a highly developed ape ; when Schopenhauer places him on a level with dogs and swine, and when materialism wishes to show that he is immortal only in his body, not, indeed, in his soul.” This, then, is the whole significance of the human race according to a false modern philosophy. Do we, on the. other hand, believe anything that is not est^ablished by reason and revelation? Is it not reasonable and revealed that, after its separation from the body, the soul continues to live as a conscious, thinking and perfected being? Here is the proof : 1 . Proof from the Nature of the Soul. The human soul must be immortal by its very nature if it cannot be destroyed either, first, by natural cor- ruption ; or, second, by accidental destruction ; or, third, by loss of the vital principle. It cannot be destroyed by corroding naturally, since it is not composed of parts subject to corruption. Neither can it be destroyed by accident, since it is intrinsically independent of the body, and so, not sub- ject to destruction with the body. Nor can it be de- stroyed by the loss of the vital principle, since it has its origin of life not in the body, but in itself, and therefore exists externally by nature of its being endowed with what God endowed it and of which He will not deprive it. Therefore, the rational soul cannot by its very nature cease to be. Consequently it is immortal. 2. Proof from the First. God, the Creator of Nature, does not deprive crea- tures of their inherent qualities. But the human soul 24 IS by its nature immortal and by the natural order of things possesses God's everlasting supporting influence. There is, however, no reason why God should deprive a creature created for His glory, whether it be in Heaven or in Hell, of His supporting influence. Con- sequently, the soul is immortal. 3. Proof from the Insatiate Desire of Happiness. Every one yearns for that summit where perfect, everlasting happiness causes him to say, ‘‘Oh, it is good to be here!" Yet neither among the lower nor the higher classes is this yearning satisfied. Ennui scourges the wealthy of the beau monde; need dis- satisfies the poor. The beast lives content; man, though he possess all that is beautiful and agreeable in. this world, still is not happy. With Cicero, he must say: “There is no happiness in that which you must fear to lose." The human will rests not in any finite creature. Shall this highest of rational instincts never be allayed? If not, then the loftiest and best yearnings of the noblest and best work of this rational universe are doomed to be forever vain. If so, the soul will achieve its happiness in immortal bliss. 4. Proof from Morality. The strongest moral sanction is that based upon eternal reward and eternal punishment. The im- perfect obedience of ethical laws is commensurate with the inadequacy of the threatened temporal re- wards and chastisements. Only the fear of an un- happy hereafter can keep man entirely from evil, and the hope of a blessed one can establish him perrna- fiently hi good. The immortality of the soul makeft morality reasonable. 5. Proof from the Universal Belief of Nations. The races of all ages agree that the soul is im.- mortal. Though the belief is vague, yet is it even found among the crudest peoples, that death does not end all. The Egyptians, the Jews, the Greeks, the Indians, the ancient pagan Teutons, all believed in existence after death. They had their Hades, their Elysium, their Valhalla, their home of the Blessed, their sacrifices for the dead. The development may be false; the fundamental idea is the same. Such a practical universality of belief must have its source in man’s rational nature, and, if it be not true, is an error fundamentally affecting his moral conduct. This latter condition we cannot admit without bending towards scepticism. Consequently, we hold tena- ciously that the immortality of the soul is verifiable. 6. Proof from Justice of God. The justice of God demands that the human soul be immortal. Justice must reward the good and pun- ish the evil, if not here, then hereafter. No one will attempt to prove that the pleasures and goods of life are apportioned strictly according to moral righteous- ness. True, many murderers and thieves meet with retribution even in this life. Yet, how often do not the wicked rejoice and the faithful mourn; how often is good crushed to earth while evil flourishes ? Thou- sands upon thousands of innocent people have died dishonored, marked with the brand of shame. Their persecutors and calumniators followed them in great 26 ^ iiOhof. Is this the end? Our consciousness will H5t permit us to believe so. Each and every one of us believes that he is answerable for his moral behavior not only to human justice, but to the Almighty Power that rules over all men. There the scales of justice will be balanced. Since justice is not to be found here, there must exist an hereafter where it will be found. We have but reminded oiir’selves that we Christians stand on the firm ground of reality in our belief in the immortality of the soul; that truth and science bear witness for us. We would be blind to facts, did we fail to see the difference between men and animals. The universe would still be the great rid- dle, a Chinese puzzle, if the human soul is not im- mortal. There is truth in St. Augustine’s: ‘"Thou hast created us for Thyself, O Lord, and our hearts are never at rest until they find their rest in Thee.” IV. 1$ There a Divine Ruling or Providence and a Supernatural Order of the World? Our theses have thus far established (a) the exis- tence of God as a necessary Being, and His office of Creator; (b) the existence, spirituality and immortal- ity of the human soul. From this, reason imposes upon man, not as a counsel, but as a stringent duty, the acknowledgment in the moral order of supreme subjection, and in the physical order of supreme dependence. Man cannot without incurring guilt, positively reject the belief that ‘‘God is and is a Rewarder of good and. an Avenger of evil,’’ and that “In Him we live and move and have our being.” If, then, the soul will after death continue to exist, so also will its relation to God continue to exist — the relation, we mean, of creature with Creator. But its life will be a new life—a bodyless life, a fleshless existence : an existence above nature ; a supernatural life. Again, the conditions of this supernatural life cannot logically be determined by purely natural means. A new relationship is postulated. God must, in His bounty, clothe certain natural acts with super- natural merit, in order that we ourselves may deter- mine the joy or sorrow of our future state. This, our Creator and Preserver, has done by becoming our last and final end. i > Consider the American Indian or the Chinese coolie, both in utter ignorance of Christianity. The one huddled in hi§ wigw^ro dreaming of the Happy Hunt' 28 ing Grounds; the other dividing his time between work and rest. Shall these be damned? Their ig- norance is blameless, their lives do not reproach them. A god they know, a Supreme Being, but vague is their conception of Him. They picture him not as the Jehovah of the old law, nor as the Triune God of the new. Yet, although the wonderful words of Christ’s priests have never fallen upon their ears;' although the beautiful plan of Redemption has never been unfolded to their eyes—their Creator and yours has not forgotten them. They may come to Him by paths as primitive as the life they lead. God offers them His grace, and gives to their natural acts a supernatural sanction. They, too, are led gently by the Divine Hand. If, with docility, they respond, after death their soul wilCenter into union with their Maker. Here again, in the Catholic view of the ^'Divine Providence and Supernatural Order of the World,” we have an elegant example of the harmony between Faith and Reason, which the following exposition will, I trust, serve only to intensify. The purpose of Creation is not, in fact could not be, other than God’s glory or the manifestation of His perfections. Even in the direction of human affairs, which are but faint copies of the Divine, we strive to lead each to its best end. After inquiring into the Original of this principle, we realize that God could not have created anything without a des- tiny; and to have ordered a work of Flis hands to any other destiny but Himself, would exhibit imper- fection either in His Knowledge or in Power, .y Need we add that this divine direction stops not at th^ fir^t greativ^ agt when God drew opt of thg 29 nothingness that was, the things that were on the First Seven Days of the World? For the preservation of the World, the maintenance of created beings, is only a successive, a continued creation, the powers thereof being supplied from the Infinite Fund of God. We are accustomed to call the Divine activity that causes created things to display the Glory of God and His infinite perfections, Divine Providence, As accurately as Creation conforms to the Divine Plan, so accurately does Divine Providence, consid- ered in its effects, reveal a Divine Design. For the world is gradually progressing along the lines that the Mind of God willed and foresav/ that it would progress, and each single creature fits into the Divine Scheme as threads fit into the design of the loom. This is but natural if we remember that no right is so supreme as the right of Creation, and no vigil- ance so necessary as the eternal vigilance of God. Suspend the Divine interference and you annihilate the world. The lower orders of creation comply out of neces- sity with the Divine Law. The heavens show forth the glory of the Lord; the spheres that spin in their allotted orbits are never early, nor ever late ; the sea’s surging waves heed the command ''So far shalt thou come and no further” ; the flowers that carpet the fields are not beyond the pale of God’s all-seeing eyes; the beasts, the birds obey His voice. He called to the v/hirL wind, to the waters of the sea, to the planets of heaven, and they replied : "Lord, here we are !” He makes known His will to all creation. Shall man alone cry back : "I will not serve !” Man, who alone has power to disobey ! Do you not now see the sanc- tion of th§ Mprd Law^ and th^t th^ one great reason 30 why you should obey it, is found on the lips of the Crusaders of old: God wills it! Conformity to God’s moral law is the fulfillment of Divine Providence. The complex physical laws of nature; the moral law that reaches through the free will to the dominion of rational creatures ; the inward tending after good ; the insatiate longing for satisfying joys; the whisper- ing of the voice of conscience—all supernatural re- ligious knowledge, faculties and impulses have for their object a single common cause—the realization of the Divine Plan. They are the sign posts strewn along the highway of life that direct creation to its God. We, mankind, are above all other creatures honored as instruments in the Divine Design. He who can- not but do well, and does so, does well. He who could do ill, yet does it not, does better. The former is the lot of lower orders ; the latter is the portion of man. They obey of necessity, servilely : we obey from choice, freely. Yet, while to conform ourselves to the Eternal Scheme freely is a privilege, it is none the less a duty. We can (or cannot) mould ourselves to the Divine Model, and again we cannot. This power, however, does not abolish our obligation—always and at all times ‘‘we must.” So the expression of the Omnipo- tent Will is Law. That we should honor and glorify God by our service is one df the purposes of our existence. We have been created to know God, to love Him and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in Heaven. Immediately the rational mind cQnceiv^s m objection; a disorder. Shall the 31 possession of so great a gift as the Vision ol thfi All-beautiful God, a truly supernatural favor, hinge upon the performance of hum-drum daily actions, base and natural? ^ut wait! The Almighty has thought before the feeble one. God has foreseen the objection—or rather He has caused its existence. According to His will. He has conditioned the posses- sion of the supernatural, on the performance of the natural. His method has been by establishing the Supernatural Order in the World. What is purely natural truly could not of itself ever purchase- what is purely supernatural; so He has set a supernatural value upon certain natural acts. He has, as it were, gilded the penny that it may buy even as the dollar. The acts are those of the moral order; the alchemy, the philosopher’s stone is grace. Here, then, is a wonderful feature of Divine Provi- dence. God, Avhose gifts are totally His own, and the dispensation of which is wholly in His hands, has deigned to lift up man above his order, and has bestowed on him the truly supernatural power of meriting the Kingdom of Heaven. The Divine Wisdom is revealed in the “modus agendi” of the Supernatural Order, for out of con- sideration for our lower nature God has deigned to use material means, natural channels through which pass the supernaturalizing flood of grace. Through the Sacraments and Prayer come the force that vivi- fies supernaturally our works that of themselves are supernaturally dead. The purpose of creation is renewed in the super- natural order, and more, it is elevated. If God could be glorified by the natural order, how much more is this possible in the new order? And if God mani- 32 festeci Mis love by creation, does He conceal it by lift- ing creation nearer to Himself? The supernatural order is based on the natural. The faculties are gifted with undue powers—they are endowed with virtue that reaches away and beyond their own in- trinsic due. In order that man might clearly progress along the path towards his supernatural destiny, God spoke to man. He revealed Himself to Him. In our modern times, too little thought is given to God’s providence. Too deeply absorbed with earthly things, man forgets the inhabitants of the other world; he forgets that the God who shapes the destinies of nations, directs also the fate of the individual. ‘Tt is through me,” he says in David, ‘‘that kings reign and legislators give laws.” A prevalent erring con- cept of evil can readily be traced to a false philosophy of history, that excludes the dabbling of God. The only hope of light and consolation lies in the return to the Catholic views. May these few lines help to revive in us St. Paul’s v/ords. “In Him we live, and move, and have our being.” V Has God Revealed a Special Mode of Worship^ or Is Religion an Invention? That religion and God are mere human inventions, mere fictions of the mind of man, is a widely diffused notion among Socialists. Religion and God would disappear, they erroneously teach, if no one would bother with them, and it is lamentably true that many put this^f^rnicious doctrine into practice. One of those Socialists, Liebknecht, has said: ‘‘Our party denies all authority in Heaven and on earth.’’ But can this be the trjath? Is Religion a human invention? No! The true worship of God was known to the first man who dwelt on this earth. God, Himself, revealed to Adam a religion, a simple wor- ship, a moral law, the principle of which he had im- planted in the human heart, and therefore God is the Author of Religion, or of that relation, interiorly and exteriorly manifested, of dependence towards a Su- preme Being. In this primary religion, the head of the family was the priest ; he transmitted to posterity the proper mode of worship and all revealed doctrines to be unto them ah everlasting inheritance. Diligent, indeed, must have been the endeavors of those rugged pioneers, for no race ever existed that did not have some form of religion. The learned O. Peschel finishes his ethnographic studies with the question: ‘Ts there a nation anywhere on earth with- out some religious practice or concept?” No, this uation does not exist. And again, Max Muller (Ori- 34 gin and Development of Religion) says: ^^After mak- ing all possible investigations we are prepared to as- sert that no human being who is without some sem- blance of religion can be found/’ How, then, did man come to have religion? We will first glance at some ridiculous opinions we occa- sionally overhear. 1. The cheapest explanation is that which ehdeav^ ors to trace back the origin of Religion to the cun- ning of some priests or statesmen. Of course, they forgot to explain precisely how it happened that all nations in all times and in all places could be so completely deceived. How could a mere fraud in such a vitally important matter, a frautl‘"fif you will have it) which demanded sacrifices keenly repellent to man’s pride and self-indulgence,, how could this be perpetrated through all the fluctuations of time? What is the inventor’s name? Why has it not come down to posterity? 2. Others, for instance, H. Spencer, trace the ori- gin of religion to the fear of the spirits of the dead — some tribes believed their chieftains were immortal, that they remained as ghosts and walked among the living, that they hovered around the tombs and were able to do harm or good in the darkness of the night. Here one may well wonder who is the more child- ish, men who are afraid of ghosts or the God-denying infidel who makes such a statement. We may ask how it came about that men thought that the dead lived as spirits, doing good or evil? Why did not ^ they worship slain animals ? How can one explain by this fear the widespread belief in God, as Supreme Being, rewarding and punishing, which we- find even among cannibals ? 35 3. According to Ed. V. Hartmann, religion in its primitive form is nothing else but man's belief in a similar but far superior Being, who manifests His superiority not only in hostile persecution, but also in- active benevolence. The reverence with which the dog looks up at his master is, according to the philosopher, religion. Just as the dog looks up at his master with respect, so man views with respect, astonishment, fear and hope the forces and phenomena of nature, attributes to Jhem divine attributes and thus religion is brought into existence, r Therefor our friend concludes: Fido's respect for his master is religion. If this is one's idea of religion, of course it is very easy to found a religion. But even here our philosopher did not succmd. . Man as a creature endowed with reason is far superior to the dog. But are the forces of nature infinitely superior to man? Man is made of matter,and spirit and is he not spiritually far superior to the material forces of nature? How could he adore these forces, if he were not persuaded that be- yond these forces there is a far Superior Being, Who holds therh; in the hollow of His hand? How will Hartmann explain the universal belief in God's exis- tence, the immortality of the soul, the reward in the world to come, these capital points of religion? All these explanations are untenable and arbitrary inventions. The historians prove that the first men and most ancient nations originally believed in ^^our" God; later, however, nations degenerated and lost the purity of belief and worshipped various deities. The various forms of superstition, it is true, orig- inated. from. different sources, but religion itself, the belfef: in God, been given to men by God, Him- 36 self. The All-wise Creator could not leave men on earth like ignorant children, giving them no chance to find their way to the house of their Heavenly Father. Our first parents had to be instructed in a sufficient knowledge of God and in the most important duties towards Him. It was easy for them, since they were not blinded by passion, to descend from the contemplation of the visible world and the moral lav/ of their conscience up to God as their Creator and ultimate end. Therefore, monotheism (the belief in one God) is the primitive form of religion and not polytheism (the belief in many gods). This is un- doubtedly proved by the ancient history of religion. Holy Writ, the truth of which has been a thousand times proved, gives us a concept of the primitive religion. It tells us that Adam and Eve, after their fall, trembled before God. But fear of God is mani- festation of religion. God’s judgment over the ser- pent, over Adam and Eve, the promise of a Messiah, the holocaust of Cain and Abel, are all signs that the first men knew and practiced the true religion. Fur- ther: it is related how through Seth and Henoch, the true religion was transmitted to the posterity of Adam. There is also no doubt that Noah had pre- served the right form of worship. But soon men rebelled against God, religion became a yoke they tried to shake oflf. The Bible speaks of Cain’s re- bellion and the iniquity of his posterity, which was so great that it repented God that he had made man. In His mercy He spared Noah and his family because they alone practiced true religion. The religiem re- vealed to Adam, propagated by his posterity and pre- served in its pure form by Noah was spread by Noah’s sons oyer the whole WQvkli Pvit before^ so 37 after the deluge, man neglected the true worship and fell into great immorality. God resisted human pride by the confusion of languages and thereby He ef- fected the separation of nations. He then chose one nation, the Hebrews, and gave to them certain laws. While other nations adored false deities and ob- served detestable religious practices, the Israelites preserved and developed more and more the true worship. But God made known His power by ter- rible miracles, not only to the Hebrews, but also to the Egyptians, Cananites, Syrians and Babylonians, that all might know Him as the Lord. In fact, the pagan nations more than once recognized the God of Israel as the only true God, although they could not make up their minds to worship Him alone. We prove also easily from the writings of the Chaldeans, Persians, Chinese, Greeks and Romans that they recognized one Supreme God, although they did not worship Him in a pleasing way. The Pers- ians, for instance, believed according to Mohsin Fani, in olden times in a Supreme God, Creator of the world, who governs the world by his providence, a God whom men must love and adore. In the course of time, the religion of the Persians was completely changed; not only did they adore the sun and fire, but also other deities—Jupiter, Venus and even the water. The Hebrews, too, fell many times into idola- try and embraced the vices and errors of their pagan neighbors. But God brought them back through pun- ishments to rectitude and made known to them through His prophets how He would perfect religion in future time, when all mankind would be able to embrace it. Ill the fuUpeis of time, under the government Qf 38 the Emperor Augustus, the dominator of the then known world, the Son of God, Himself, announced the universal religion, founded the Kingdom of God on earth, the state of God as St. Augustine calls it, which, howeyer, will find its ultimate perfection in Heaven. His plan was to assemble on earth one flock in one fold, indeed a divine plan, brought to realiza- tion by God's power and wisdom. God chose for the propagation of the Gospel poor and unlearned fishermen, but the powerful and wise of the world could not resist. The world, after long resistance, bowed down under the yoke of Jesus Christ and acknowledged that the Gospel taught the only one and true worship, which was no other than that which was revealed to Adam, Moses and the prophets, vnth this difference only: that it was now more perfect and appropriate and useful to all men on earth. It seemed evident now that from now on an improvement of religion was no more to be ex- pected and that, therefore, all later invented religious systems carry the stamp of untruth. ‘‘God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days, hath spoken to us by His Son." (Hebrews I. 1.) ; VI Is Jesus Christ the Son of God? During his exile on the island of St. Helena the emperor Napoleon I. was often delighted and con- soled by religious discussions with his companions. One day the sublimity of their subject roused and animated the speakers. They were speaking of the Divinity of Christ. Napoleon defended the truth that Christ was divine. General Bertrand, his adver- sary and the only one to hold his ground, was speak- ing: ‘'Sire,’’ said he, ‘T cannot understand how so great a man as your Majesty can assume that the Supreme Being has ever shown himself in human shape, with body, face, mouth and eyes like man. That Jesus Christ’s genius was the greatest and his mind the purest, I readily admit, and that he was the keenest and most original of legislators ; He might be all this and yet remain a mere man, instructing disciples, inspiring faithful souls in the same way as did Orpheus, Confucius and Brahma. The Greek and Egyptian deities have been dethroned and their places usurped by the Jewish God. Jesus, a great man and the successor of great men, allowed himself to be adored, because his predecessors, Isis and Osiris, Jupiter and Juno and many others, had the presump- tion to exact adoration. No other magic charm has Jesus exercised over his contemporaries than were employed by those legendary deities and heroes. If he succeeded in inspiring the multitudes, in changing the whole world, I see herein only the power of genius, only the active force of a great soul, which moves the world by its genius, as so many conquerors, 40 Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, and yoil yourself, sire, have done with the sword/' Napoleon replied : ‘‘Men I know and I tell you, Jesus is not a mere man. Shallow minds find a like- ness between Christ and the founders of empires, the conquerors and deities of other religious systems. There is no such likeness. Between Christianity and every other religion lies a bridgeless chasm. The wise men of Greece, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Anaxa- goras and Pericles accepted paganism never as absolute truth. These great men were amused rather with the histories of the gods as with charming fairy-land stor- ies, but they never adored these deities. On the con- trary, as soon as the apostles had delivered their gos- pel message, the greatest men believed its mysteries and its dogmas; they believed with a faith that Vv^as alive and active! What distinguishes those famous deities, those Greek or Roman legislators: Numa, Pompilius, Lycurgus, the priests in India and Mem- phis, a Confucius or a Mohammed or whatever their name may be from all other men? Nothing, abso- lutely nothing! They made chaos of moral doctrine. Has any one of them said anything new about our future destiny, our soul, the nature of God or the creation? Not one could tell us what is most im- portant for us. Their doctrine of deities is so vague, so obscure, that it does not pierce the core of the re- ligious question. With Christ everything is different. In Him everything is admirable. His mind surpasses my own. Between Him and me or any one else in the world no comparison is possible ; the basis thereof is missing. Neither His way of thinking, nor the truths He announces find their explanation in mere 41 human nature. His birth, His life, His doctrine, which by itself resolves all difficulties, His gospel, His singular and mysterious being. His appearance, His power, His continued influence over all centuries and all empires, all stand before me like a great, deep, inscrutable mystery. Is it not clear that true re- ligion cannot be confined to our country alone? Truth must embrace the universe. Such is Chris- tianity, the teaching of Christ. It is the only re- ligion not acknowledging nationality, the only one which establishes perfect unity and fraternity among men, the only one which as wholly spiritual points out t<^ all the kingdom of their God and Creator as their true home. Christ is the Son of God because time disappears before Him ; all His dogmas point to eternity. Therefore, the horizon of His fame reaches the infinite. Christ reigns in life and even beyond —over death. The past, the present and the future are in His hands. ‘‘J^sus Christ yesterday, to-day, and the same forever.” Such was the judgment of the great thinker, Na- poleon. Such indeed is the truth. Jesus was Man and God! In the proof for Christ’s divinity we dis- tinguish a threefold element ; first, as the basis of this truth Christ’s own words declaring His divinity ; secondly, the confirmation of this truth by Christ’s miracles, especially by the miracle of His resurrec- tion, and thirdly, the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies in the person of Christ. In the honor of Jesus Christ, in the name of the teaching Church, I establish my thesis and say: If Christ, asserting that He was the Son of God, was truly not the Son of God, then He was an impostor; but it is absurd to 42 believe that He was an impostor: Therefore, Christ was the Son of God. The words 'T am the Son of God” admit of a triple interpretation. If Christ was insincere, they may be false; if Christ was deluded, they are false; if Christ was neither insincere nor deluded. He meant to speak the truth and His words are true. If the very thoughts of Christ were revealed by His words, we must exclude the first hypothesis. St. Paul is our authority when we assert that Christ ''thought it no robbery to make Himself equal to God.” So His words and His thoughts agree, and all insincerity vanishes. Consequently, neither did the Son of Mary ad- monish others who thought Him to be the Son of God, but time and again, in private gatherings and in public throngs, before friends and enemies, the expression leaps from the lips of the ardent believ- ers, "‘Verily, Thou art the Son of God!” Who will dare to gaze upon the Divine Face that thrilled the hearts of lovers and won the friendship of the little children and say it was a mere mask? Who can behold the burning tears He shed upon the tomb of Lazarus and scoff: “Ah! a consummate Actor!” Who can study His life of heroic and holy deeds, immaculate of falsehood, teeming with the most af- fectionate protestations, and cry: “I grant He was truthful in all else, but in this my Friend has de- ceived me”? Is not a charge of insincerity here tantamount to such impious accusations? No! Christ did not lie. Even His enemies admit this ; yet il- logically they say: “He did not lie, only He meant not what He said.” We, however, hold that Christ 43 did Hot lie, and so He meant just what fete said. Oiif conclusion leaves us the choice of two alternatives : Was Christ deluded or did He know whereof He spoke ? Shall it be asserted that Christ was His own de- ceiver, imagining Himself to be what He was not? For my first answer I refer to the fact that He proved His divinity by frequent miracles, the supernatural character of which cannot for a moment be called in question: “If you will not believe me, believe my works!” and St. John says that Christ worked the works of God—Miracles ! Shall we say, then, that God made use of His power to confirm the assertion of a deluded creature, of a man setting himself up as the consubstantial Son of God? Shall it be said that God left us nineteen hundred years long in the miserable state of idolatry, so that we adore on the altar what is not adorable? No, God cannot be the author of evil—the devil—not He—is the “Father of lie”—His miracles then are a proof of His divinity, are certain signs that He stood in the continual favor of God. Since He did always the things that pleased the Father, although the voice was silent throughout His life, the attitude was the same as when at His baptism, the words came down from Heaven: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” After such testimony it were blasphemy to assert that Christ was deluded when He claimed for Him- self the title of God.—If there be anything certain in the teaching of the Gospel, it is Christ’s own declara- tion of His divinity. This was the culminating point of His doctrine, the fulcrum of His authority, the reason of the faith He imposed. 44 ‘‘I and the Father are one/' He says in St. Johtl (X. 30) ; ''They are one in nature, because the Father is in Him and He in the Father (38) one in power, because whatsoever the Father does, the Son also does in like manner (V. 19) ; one in Their claims to our worship, because all must honor the Son as they honor the Father (V. 23) ; one in all other absolute perfections, because "whatsoever the Father hath, the Son likewise possesses." This was so manifestly laid down in our Lord's teaching and so often and directly did He assert that He was God, the Son of God, equal to His Father, that His enemies took occasion from it to persecute, accuse and crucify Him. "Thou, being a man, mak- est Thyself God" (John X. 33). In order to have a greater evidence I point to the words in St. Matthew : "Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?" asked Jesus of His disciples. And they said: "Some say that Thou art John the Baptist and others Elias and others Jeremias or one of the prophets." That is, when people behold the austerity of Thy life, they liken Thee to John the Baptist; when they witness Thy zeal for God's glory, they imagine that Thou art another Elias ; when they drink in the wisdom of Thy teaching, they believe that Thou art one of the proph- ets, sent into the world by God to renew the wonders of bygone generations. But the Master desired to know still more ; to know what they themselves thought of Him and this because they were the chosen ones, possessed with fuller knowledge and therefore He asked them: "But whom do you say that I am?" And Simon Peter, answerilig, said: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." Evidently there is no question here of a sonship by adoption, such as be- longs to persons m the state of grace. John the Bap- tist, Elias, Jeremias and the other prophets were chil- dren of God by adoption, but Peter’s confession is to be understood as acknowledging in our Lord a truly divine nature, consubstantial with His Father. Now if our Lord did not look upon Himself as God, He should have rebuked His disciple and protested against such a declaration. But he administers no reprooi to him, on the contrary, Jesus declares Peter blessecLpn account of that very confession of faith; He asserts that it comes not from flesh and blood, but is inspired by His heavenly Father; He promises to reward it with the highest dignity : Peter is to be the foundation-stone of His Church. There can, then, be no doubt the disciple proclaimed the divinity of His Master, and the Master confirmed the state- ment of His disciple. Who art Thou, Lord? We end this question with the cry of the heathen cen- turion as, sore afraid, he stood in the noonday dark- ness beside the Cross: ‘Tndeed this Man was the Son of God I • ....... I VII Are Miracles Possible? The denial of God’s existence has for its necessary consequence the denial of miracles, because every miracle loudly proclaims God as absolute master of His creation. In ancient times, says Schanz- Sceptics and Pantheists strenuously maintained that miracles were impossible. And since the rise of Deism, this denial has been the watchword of all forces drawn up in battle array against Christianity. It is the war-cry of Spinoza, Hume and the entire pantheistic and semi-pantheistic host. It is the paean of modern rationalists and pantheists, who regard the impossi- bility of miracles as self-evident. Neither mechhhieal nor idealistic Monism, nor shallow Deism, not’ Dital- ism can give truce or quarter to miracles. Foi^ the Monist sees in all things a necessary evolution, either material or spiritual, of universal being, while the Deist banishes God, after creation, to an airy region beyond the universe. The one point in which all these systems agree is in denying, or setting aside, or scrupulously avoiding all reference to the super- natural. For, as science is bounded by nature, and as all but experience and sense-perceptions are beyond its ken, concern about the supernatural is considered beneath the dignity of a scientific man. And in truth, the theist’s standpoint is the only one from which miracles can be proved possible. According to it miracles must necessarily be possible, because God’s will and almighty power are infinite, and because with- out contradicting Himself, He can, in His infinite 47 wisdom, employ the creatures He has made for higher ends and purposes. Here the proof. What is a miracle ? St. Thomas answers : A miracle is a sensible effect, produced by God, which transcends all the forces of nature. Now, an event may transcend the forces of nature in three different ways. Firstly, it may involve an act which no power in nature can ever produce under any circumstances or conditions whatever ; for in- - stance, to bring back to life a cadaver in the state of corruption. • Secondly, it may involve an act which nature may . indeed produce, but not under the same circumstances, as rfor instance, the flowering of a dry and dead branch in the depths of winter. Nature can produce blossoms and flowers on a branch, but not under such circumstances. V Thirdly, it may involve an act which nature may ".'indeed produce but not in the same manner. If, for example, a man have his legs broken, nature may knit together the shattered bones and heal the wounds by a slow and gradual process. But a sudden and instantaneous and complete cure could not be ascribed to unassisted nature, but would partake of the char- ^acter of a miracle. Why are such events denied? It can only be on one of two grounds. It must be either because God cannot transcend the forces of nature, pr it must be because He will not. If we are ;rr-