* Meaning of "the imagination of the heart" 70.
* True theological definition of man 71.
9. The proof of natural depravity and that the natural is not perfect 72-73.
10. Consequence of false teaching on natural depravity and the natural 74-75.
* What sophists understand by Merito congrui and condigni 74.
11. How Scotus tried to prove that man"s natural powers were all he had, and how to refute his opinion 75-76.
* Value of the Scholastics and their theology 77.
12. How teachers in these things lead astray 78.
* The virtues of the heathen.
a. Estimate of them 79-80.
b. How they differ from the good works of the saints 81.
c. What they lack 82-83.
13. Natural depravity may sleep in youth, but it will awake as the years advance 84-86.
14. Those who ignore natural depravity may be refuted by experience 87.
15. Philosophy manifests its vanity and blindness in its att.i.tude to this doctrine 88-89.
16. Experience confirms natural depravity 89-90.
17. Whether natural depravity can be completely eradicated: how to check it 91.
* How to understand "G.o.d will not smite the earth again" 92.
* Nature thrown into great disorder by the deluge 93.
* Seasons of the year again put in their order 94.
* The people"s talk about the signs of the last times 95.
* The days of earth to be followed by the days of heaven, and we should prepare for them 96.
III. MAN"S NATURAL DEPRAVITY AND HIS NATURAL POWERS.
V. 21d. _For that the imagination of man"s heart is evil from his youth._
56. This is a powerful pa.s.sage, relating to original sin. Whoever weakens its force, goes straying like the blind man in the sunlight, failing to see his own acts and experiences. Look at the days of our swaddling clothes; in how many ways sin manifests itself in our earlier years. What an amount of switching it requires until we are taught order, as it were, and attention to duty!
57. Then youth succeeds. There a stronger rebellion becomes noticeable, and in addition that untamable evil, the rage of l.u.s.t and desire. If one take a wife, the result is weariness of his own and a pa.s.sion for others. If the government of a State is entrusted to him, an exceptionally fruitful harvest of vice will follow--as jealousy, rivalry, haughtiness, hope of gain, avarice, wrath, anger, and other evils.
58. It is true, as the German proverb has it, that sins grow with the years: Je laenger, je aerger; je aelter, je kaerger (worse with time, stingier with age). All such vices are so blatant and gross as to become objects of observation and intelligence. What, then shall we say of the inward vices when unbelief, presumption, neglect of the Word, and wicked views grow up?
59. There are those who are and desire to be considered powerful theologians, though they extenuate original sin by sophistry. But vices so numerous and great cannot be extenuated. Original sin is not a slight disorder or infirmity, but complete lawlessness, the like of which is not found in other creatures, except in evil spirits.
60. But do those extenuators have any Scriptural proof to rest upon?
Let us see what Moses says. As I pointed out in explaining the sixth chapter, he does not call such things evil, as l.u.s.t, tyranny, and other sins, but the imagination of the human heart; that is, human energy, wisdom and reason, with all the faculties the mind employs even in our best works. Although we do not condemn acts which belong to the social or civil sphere, yet the human heart vitiates these works in themselves proper, by doing them for glory, for profit, or for oppression, and either from opposition to the neighbor or to G.o.d.
61. Nor can we escape the force of this pa.s.sage by saying that those are meant who perished by the flood. G.o.d uses a generic term which denotes that the heart of man, as such, is meant. At the time this was spoken there were no other people than those saved in the ark, and yet the declaration is: the imagination of man"s heart is evil.
62. Therefore, not even the saints are excepted. In Ham, the third son, this imagination of the heart betrayed its nature. And the other brothers were no better by nature. There was only this difference, that they, believing in the promised seed, retained the hope of forgiveness of sin, and did not give way to the evil imagination of their hearts, rather resisting it through the Holy Spirit, who is given for the very purpose of contending against, and overcoming, the malignity of man"s nature. Because Ham gives way to his nature, he is wholly evil, and totally perishes. Shem and j.a.pheth, who contend against it in their spirit, though being evil, are not altogether so.
They have the Holy Spirit, through whom they contend against the evil, and hence are holy.
63. It would seem here that G.o.d might be accused of fickleness.
Before, when he was about to punish man, he a.s.signed as a reason for his purpose the fact that the imagination of man"s heart is evil; here, when he is about to give unto man the gracious promise that he will not thereafter show such anger, he puts forward the same reason.
To human wisdom this appears foolish and inconsistent with divine wisdom.
64. But I gladly pa.s.s by such sublime themes, and leave them to minds possessed of leisure. For me it is enough that these works are spoken to suit our spiritual condition, inasmuch as G.o.d points out that he is now appeased and no longer angry. So parents, having chastised their disobedient children as they deserve, win again their affections by kindness. This change of mood is not deserving of criticism but rather of commendation. It profits the children; otherwise they, while fearing the rod, might also begin to hate their parents. This explanation is good enough for me, for it appeals to our faith. Others may explain differently.
65. We should give diligent attention to this pa.s.sage because it plainly shows that man"s nature is corrupt, a truth above all others to be apprehended, because without it G.o.d"s mercy and grace cannot be rightly understood. Hence, the quibblers previously mentioned are to be despised and we have good reason to take to task the translator who gave occasion for this error by rendering the words so as to say, not that the imagination of man"s heart is evil, but that it is inclined to evil. Upon this authority the quibblers distort or set aside those pa.s.sages of Paul where he says that all are children of wrath (Eph 2, 3) that all have sinned (Rom 5, 12) and are under sin (Rom 3, 9). They argue from our pa.s.sage as follows: Moses does not say that human nature is evil, but that it is p.r.o.ne to evil; this condition, call it inclination or proclivity, is under the control of free will, nor does it force man toward the evil, or (to use their own words) it imposes no constraint upon man.
66. Then they proceed to find a reason for this statement and declare that even after the fall of man, there remains in him a good will and a right understanding. For the natural powers, say they, are unimpaired, not only in man but even in the devil. And finally they so twist Aristotle"s teachings as to make him say that reason tends toward that which is best. Some traces of these views are found also in the writings of the Church fathers. Using Psalms 4, 6 as a basis, where the prophet says, "Jehovah, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us," they distinguish between a higher part of reason which inquires concerning G.o.d, and a lower part employed in temporal and civil affairs. Even Augustine is pleased with this distinction, as we stated above when discussing the fall of man.
67. But if only a spark of the knowledge of G.o.d had remained unimpaired in man, we should be different beings by far from what we now are. Hence, those quibblers who pick flaws in the plain statements of Paul are infinitely blind. If they would carefully and devoutly consider that very pa.s.sage as they read it in their Latin Bible, they would certainly cease to father so bad a cause. For it is not an insignificant truth which Moses utters when he says the senses and the thoughts of the heart of man are p.r.o.ne to evil from his youth. This is the case especially in the sixth chapter (vs 5) where he says that the whole thought of his heart was bent on evil continually, meaning thereby that he purposes what is evil, and that in inclination, purpose and effort he inclines to evil. For example; an adulterer, whose desires are inflamed, may lack the opportunity, the place, the person, the time, and nevertheless be stirred by the fire of l.u.s.t, unable to dwell upon anything else. In this manner, says Moses, does human nature always incline toward evil. Can, then, the natural powers of man be said to have remained unimpaired, seeing that man"s thoughts are always set upon evil things?
68. If the minds of the sophists were as open toward the holy doctrine contained in the prophetical and apostolical writings as toward their own teachers who teach the freedom of the will and the merit of works, they surely would not have permitted themselves by so small an inducement as one little word to be led away from the truth so as to teach, contrary to Scripture, that man"s natural powers are uninjured, and that man, by nature, is not under wrath or condemnation.
Notwithstanding, it appears that they turn against their own absurdity. Although the natural powers of man are uninjured, yet they maintain that, to become acceptable, grace is required; in other words, they teach that G.o.d is not satisfied with man"s natural goodness, unless it be improved by love.
69. But what is the need to argue longer against the madness of the sophists, since we know the true meaning of the Hebrew text to be, not that man"s mind and thoughts are inclined to evil, but that the imagination of the human heart is evil from youth?
70. By imagination, as I stated several times before (ch 6, --148), he means reason itself, together with the will and the understanding, even when it dwells upon G.o.d, or occupies itself with most honorable pursuits, be they those of State or Home. It is always contrary to G.o.d"s law, always in sin, always under G.o.d"s wrath, and it cannot be freed from this evil state by its own strength, as witness Christ"s words: "If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed," Jn 8, 36.
71. If you wish a definition of the word "man" take it from this text teaching that he is a rational being, with a heart given to imagination. But what does he imagine? Moses answers, "Evil"; that is, evil against G.o.d or G.o.d"s Law, and against his fellow man. Thus holy Scriptures ascribe to man a reason that is not idle but always imagines something. This imagination it calls evil, wicked, sacrilegious, while the philosophers call it good, and the quibblers say that the natural gifts are unimpaired.
72. Therefore this text should be carefully noted and urged against the caviling quibblers: Moses declares the imagination of the human heart to be evil. And if it be evil, the conclusion is natural that the natural gifts are not unimpaired, but corrupted: Inasmuch as G.o.d did not create man evil, but perfect, sound, holy, knowing G.o.d, his reason right and his will toward G.o.d good.
73. Seeing we have clear testimony to the fact that man is evil and turned away from G.o.d, who would be mad enough to say that the natural gifts in man remain unimpaired? That would be practically saying that man"s nature is unimpaired and good even now, whereas we have overwhelming evidence in our knowledge and experience that it is debased to the utmost.
74. From that wicked theory there have sprung many dangerous and some palpably wicked utterances, for instance, that when man does the best in his power, G.o.d will unfailingly give his grace. By such teaching they have driven man, as by a trumpet, to prayer, fasting, self-torture, pilgrimages and similar performances. Thus the world was taught to believe that if men did the best that nature permitted, they would earn grace, if not the grace "de merito," at least that "de congruo." A "meritum congrui" (t.i.tle to reward based upon equity) they attribute to a work which has been performed not against but in accordance to the divine law, inasmuch as an evil work is subject not to a reward but a penalty. The "meritum condigni" (a t.i.tle to reward based upon desert) they attribute not to the work itself but to its quality as being performed in a state of grace.
75. Another saying of this kind is the declaration of Scotus that man by mere natural powers may love G.o.d above all things. This declaration is based upon the principle that the natural powers are unimpaired. He argues as follows: A man loves a woman, who is a creature, and he loves her so immoderately that he will imperil his very life for her sake. Similarly, a merchant loves his wares, and so eagerly that he will risk death a thousand times if only he can gain something. If therefore, the love of created things is so great, though they rank far below G.o.d, how much more will a man love G.o.d who is the highest good! Hence, G.o.d can be loved with the natural powers alone.
76. A fine argument, indeed, and worthy of a Franciscan monk! For he shows that, though he is a great teacher, he does not know what it means to love G.o.d. Nature is so corrupt that it can no longer know G.o.d unless it be enlightened by the Word and Spirit of G.o.d; how then can it love G.o.d without the Holy Spirit? For it is true that we have no desire for what we do not know. Therefore, nature cannot love G.o.d whom it does not know, but it loves an idol, and a dream of its own heart.
Furthermore, it is so entirely fettered by the love of created things that even after it has learned to know G.o.d from his Word, it disregards him and despises his Word. Of this the people of our own times are an example.
77. Such foolish and blasphemous deliverances are certain proof that scholastic theology has degenerated into a species of philosophy that has no knowledge of G.o.d, and walks in darkness because it disregards his Word. Also Aristotle and Cicero, who have the greatest influence with this tribe, give broad instructions concerning moral excellences.
They magnify these exceedingly as social forces since they recognize them as useful for private and public ends. In nowise, however, do they teach that G.o.d"s will and command is to be regarded far more than private or public advantage (and those who do not possess the Word are ignorant of the will of G.o.d). Quite plainly the scholastics have fallen victims to philosophical fancies to such an extent as to retain true knowledge neither of themselves nor of G.o.d. This is the cause of their lapse into such disastrous errors.