LAW OF PRESERVATION.

Instinct of preservation. — 2. Means of preservation. — 3. Enjoyment of earthly goods. — 4. The necessary and the superfluous. — 5. Voluntary privations. Mortifications.

Instinct of preservation.

Is the instinct of preservation a law of Nature?

“Without a doubt. All living beings possess it, whatever the degree of their intelligence.

In some it is purely mechanical, in others it is reasoned.”

To what end did God grant the instinct of preservation to all living beings?

“Because all must contribute to the fulfillment of the designs of Providence. That is why God gave them the need to live.

Moreover, life is necessary to the perfecting of beings. They feel this instinctively, without being aware of it.”

Means of preservation.

Having given man the need to live, has God provided him, in all ages, with the means of attaining it?

“Certainly, and if he does not find them, it is because he does not understand them.

It would not have been possible for God to create in man the need to live without giving him the means of attaining it.

That is the reason He causes the Earth to produce in such a way as to provide what is necessary to those who inhabit it, 4 since only the necessary is useful. The superfluous never is.”

Why does the earth not always produce enough to furnish man with what is necessary?

“It is because man, ungrateful, despises it! It is, however, an excellent mother.

Often, too, he accuses Nature of what is only the result of his own lack of skill or his own improvidence.

The earth would always produce the necessary, if with the necessary man knew how to content himself.

If what it produces does not suffice for all his needs, it is because he employs on the superfluous what could be applied to the necessary.

Look at the Arab in the desert. He always finds wherewithal to live, because he does not create factitious needs for himself.

Once he has squandered half of the produce in satisfying fancies, what reason has man to be astonished at finding nothing the next day and to complain of being deprived of everything when the days of want arrive?

In truth I tell you, it is not Nature that is improvident, it is man, who does not know how to regulate his living.”

By the goods of the Earth, are we to understand only the products of the soil?

“The soil is the primary source from which all other resources flow, for, in the end, these resources are simply transformations of the products of the soil.

By the goods of the Earth, then, we must understand all that man can enjoy in this world.”

It frequently happens that certain individuals lack the means of subsistence, even when surrounded by abundance. To what is this to be attributed?

“To the selfishness of men, who do not always do what is incumbent upon them. And then, most of the time, they owe it to themselves.

Seek and you shall find; these words do not mean that, in order to find what he desires, it is enough for man to look at the earth, but that he must seek it, not with indolence, but with ardor and perseverance, without becoming discouraged before the obstacles, which very often are simple means employed by Providence to test his constancy, his patience, and his firmness.”

If it is true that civilization multiplies needs, it is also true that it multiplies the sources of work and the means of living. It must, however, be granted that, in this respect, much still remains for it to do. When it has completed its work, there should be no one who can complain of lacking the necessary, except through his own fault.

For many, misfortune comes from setting out upon a path different from the one Nature traces for them. It is then that they lack the intelligence for success. There is a place in the sun for all, but on condition that each occupies his own and not that of others.

Nature cannot be held responsible for the defects of the social organization, nor for the consequences of ambition and self-love.

One would have to be blind, however, not to recognize the progress that, on this side, the most advanced peoples have made. Thanks to the praiseworthy efforts that Philanthropy and Science, together, never cease to expend to improve the material condition of men, and despite the incessant growth of populations, the insufficiency of production is mitigated, at least in large part, and the most calamitous years of the present cannot in any way be compared to those of former times.

Public hygiene, so essential an element of strength and health—public hygiene, which our fathers did not know—is the object of enlightened solicitude. Misfortune and suffering find where to take refuge. Everywhere Science contributes to increasing well-being. Can it be said that perfection has already been reached? Oh! no, certainly not; but what has already been done allows us to foresee what, with perseverance, will be achieved, if man shows himself wise enough to seek his happiness in positive and serious things and not in utopias that lead him to recede instead of making him advance.

Are there not situations in which the means of subsistence in no way depend on man's will, the privation of what he most imperiously needs being for him a consequence of the very force of things?

“That is a trial, often a cruel one, which it falls to him to suffer and to which he knew beforehand he would come to be exposed.

His merit then consists in submitting to the will of God, since his intelligence provides him no means of escaping the difficulty.

If death comes to take him, he must receive it without murmuring, considering that the hour of true liberation has sounded and that despair at the final moment may cause him to lose the fruit of all his resignation.”

Will those who, in certain critical situations, found themselves under the necessity of sacrificing their fellow beings in order to assuage their hunger have committed a crime? If there was a crime, was it not mitigated by the need to live, which results from the instinct of preservation?

“I have already answered, when I said that there is more merit in suffering all the trials of life with courage and abnegation. [See the previous answer.]

In such a case, there is homicide and a crime against nature, a fault that is doubly punished.”

In worlds of more refined organization, do living beings have need to nourish themselves?

“They do, but their food is in keeping with their nature.

Such food would not be substantial enough for your coarse stomachs; just as their stomachs could not digest your food.”

Enjoyment of earthly goods.

Is the use of the goods of the Earth a right of all men?

“This right is a consequence of the need to live.

God would not impose a duty without giving man the means of fulfilling it.”

To what end did God place attractions in the enjoyment of material goods?

“To incite man to the fulfillment of his mission and to test him by means of temptation.”

a — What is the purpose of this temptation?

“To develop his reason, which must preserve him from excesses.”

If man were incited to use the goods of the earth only by the usefulness they have, his indifference would perhaps have compromised the harmony of the Universe. God imparted to this use the attraction of pleasure, because thus man is impelled to the fulfillment of the providential designs.

But beyond this, in giving that use this attraction, God also willed to test man by means of temptation, which drags him toward abuse, from which reason must defend him.

Has Nature traced limits to enjoyments?

“It has, in order to indicate to you the limit of the necessary.

But, through your excesses, you reach satiety and punish yourselves.”

What is to be thought of the man who seeks in excesses of every kind the refinement of enjoyments?

“Poor creature! more worthy of pity than of envy, for he is very near death!”

a — Near physical death, or moral death?

“Both.”

The man who seeks in excesses of every kind the refinement of enjoyment places himself below the brute, for the brute knows how to stop when its need is satisfied. He abdicates the reason that God gave him as a guide, and the greater his excesses, the greater the preponderance he grants to his animal nature over his spiritual nature.

The illnesses, the infirmities, and even the death that result from abuse are, at the same time, the punishment for the transgression of the law of God. The necessary and the superfluous.

How can man know the limit of the necessary?

“He who is temperate knows it by intuition.

Many come to know it only by experience and at their own cost.”

By means of the organization given to us, has Nature not traced the limit of our needs?

“Without a doubt, but man is insatiable.

By means of the organization it gave him, Nature traced for him the limit of his needs; but vices altered his constitution and created in him needs that are not real.”

What is to be thought of those who hoard the goods of the Earth in order to procure for themselves the superfluous, to the detriment of those who lack the necessary?

“They forget the law of God and will have to answer for the privations they shall have caused to others.”

The boundary between the necessary and the superfluous has nothing absolute about it.

Civilization has created needs that the savage knows nothing of, and the Spirits who dictated the precepts above do not maintain that civilized man ought to live like the savage. Everything is relative, and it is for reason to regulate things.

Civilization develops the moral sense and, at the same time, the sentiment of charity, which leads men to lend one another mutual support.

Those who live at the cost of the privations of others exploit, for their own profit, the benefits of Civilization. Of it they have only the veneer, just as there are many who have only the mask of religion. Voluntary privations. — Mortifications.

Does the law of preservation oblige man to provide for the needs of the body?

“Yes, because, without strength and health, work is impossible.”

Does man deserve censure for seeking well-being?

“The desire for well-being is natural.

God forbids only abuse, because it is contrary to preservation.

He does not condemn the pursuit of well-being, provided it is not attained at the cost of others and does not come to diminish either your physical forces or your moral forces.”

Are voluntary privations, with the aim of an equally voluntary expiation, meritorious in the eyes of God?

“Do good to your fellow beings, and you will have more merit.”

a — Are there voluntary privations that are meritorious?

“There are: the privation of useless enjoyments, because it detaches man from matter and elevates his soul.

It is meritorious to resist the temptation that drags one toward excess or toward the enjoyment of useless things; 3 it is for man to take from what is necessary to him in order to give to those who lack the sufficient.

If the privation is no more than a sham, it will be a mockery.”

Is the life of ascetic mortifications, which from the most remote Antiquity has had practitioners among various peoples, meritorious from any point of view?

“Seek to know whom it benefits, and you will have the answer.

If it serves only the one who practices it and prevents him from doing good, it is selfishness, whatever the pretext with which they see fit to color it.

To deprive oneself and to work for others, such is true mortification, according to Christian charity.”

Is the abstention from certain foods, prescribed to various peoples, rational?

“Man is permitted to nourish himself with everything that does not harm his health.

Some legislators, however, with a useful aim, saw fit to forbid the use of certain foods and, in order to impart greater authority to their laws, presented them as emanating from God.”

Is animal food, with respect to man, contrary to the law of Nature?

“Given your physical constitution, flesh nourishes flesh, otherwise man perishes.

The law of preservation prescribes to him, as a duty, that he maintain his strength and his health, in order to fulfill the law of work.

He must therefore nourish himself as his organization requires.”

Is it meritorious for man to abstain from animal food, or from any other, as an expiation?

“Yes, if he practices this privation for the benefit of others.

In the eyes of God, however, there is mortification only when there is serious and useful privation.

That is why we call hypocrites those who only apparently deprive themselves of something.”

What is to be thought of the mutilations performed on the body of man or of animals?

“To what purpose such a question? Once again: always inquire of yourselves whether the matter in question is useful.

What is useless cannot please God, and what is harmful will always be displeasing to Him.

For, know this, God is sensible only to the sentiments that raise the soul toward Him.

It is by obeying His law and not violating it that you will be able to free yourselves from the yoke of your earthly matter.”

Since the sufferings of this world elevate us, if we bear them properly, may it be that those we create for ourselves also elevate us?

“Natural sufferings are the only ones that elevate, because they come from God.

Voluntary sufferings are of no use, when they do not contribute to the good of others.

Do you suppose that those who shorten their lives by superhuman rigors, as the bonzes, the fakirs, and certain fanatics of many sects do, advance on the path of progress? Why do they not rather work for the good of their fellow beings? Let them clothe the needy; let them console the one who weeps; let them work for the one who is ill; let them suffer privations for the relief of the unfortunate, and then their lives will be useful and, consequently, pleasing to God.

For someone to suffer voluntarily, merely for his own good, is selfishness; to suffer for others is charity: such are the precepts of Christ.”

Since we ought not to create voluntary sufferings that have no usefulness for others, ought we to take care to preserve ourselves from those we foresee or that threaten us?

“It is against dangers and sufferings that the instinct of preservation was given to all beings.

Scourge your spirit and not your body, mortify your pride, stifle your selfishness, which resembles a serpent gnawing at your heart, and you will do far more for your advancement than by inflicting upon yourselves rigors that are no longer of this age.”