Grace, Actual and Habitual Part 5

) Catholic theologians are unanimous in admitting that all salutary acts are and must needs be supernatural; but they differ in their conception of this supernatural quality (_supernaturalitas_). The problem underlying this difference of opinion may be stated thus: A thing may be supernatural either ent.i.tatively, _quoad substantiam_, or merely as to the manner of its existence, _quoad modum_. The _supernaturale quoad substantiam_ is divided into the strictly supernatural and the merely preternatural.(286) The question is: To what category of the supernatural belong the salutary acts which man performs by the aid of grace? Undoubtedly there are actual graces which are ent.i.tatively natural, _e.g._ the purely mediate grace of illumination,(287) the natural graces conferred in the pure state of nature, the actual graces of the sensitive sphere,(288) and the so-called _cogitatio congrua_ of Vasquez.(289) The problem therefore narrows itself down to the _immediate_ graces of intellect and will. Before the Tridentine Council theologians contented themselves with acknowledging the divinely revealed fact that these graces are supernatural; it was only after the Council that they began to speculate on the precise character of this _supernaturalitas_.

Some, following the teaching of the Scotist school, ascribed the supernatural character of salutary acts to their free acceptation on the part of G.o.d, holding them to be purely natural in their essence and raised to the supernatural sphere merely _per denominationem extrinsecam_.(290) This view is untenable. For if nature, as such, possessed the intrinsic power to perform salutary acts, irrespective of their acceptation by G.o.d, the Fathers and councils would err in teaching that this power is derived from the immediate graces of illumination and strengthening.(291)

Others hold that the salutary acts which grace enables man to perform, are supernatural only _quoad modum_; because while it is the Holy Ghost Himself who incites the natural faculties to salutary thoughts and good resolves, He does not _eo ipso_ raise these thoughts and resolves to the supernatural plane. This theory, besides being open to the same objection which we have urged against the first, involves another difficulty. If all salutary acts were supernatural only _quoad modum_, sanctifying grace, which is as certainly supernatural in its essence as the beatific vision of G.o.d,(292) would cease to have an adequate purpose; for the intrinsic reason for its existence is precisely that it raises the nature of the justified into a permanent supernatural state of being.

A third school of theologians tries to solve the difficulty by adding to the natural operation of the intellect and the will some accidental supernatural _modus_. There are several such _modi_, which, though inhering in nature and really distinct therefrom, depend solely on the Holy Ghost, and consequently transcend the natural powers of man, _e.g._ the duration or intensity of a salutary act. This theory at first blush appears more plausible than the other two, but it cannot be squared with the teaching of Tradition. In the first place, the duration or intensity of a salutary act cannot affect its essence or nature. Then again, every such accidental supernatural _modus_ is produced either by grace alone, or by grace working conjointly with free-will. In the former hypothesis it would be useless, because it would not render the free salutary act, as such, supernatural; in the latter case it could do no more than aid the will to do what is morally impossible, whereas every salutary act is in matter of fact a physical impossibility, that is, impossible to unaided nature.(293)

There remains a fourth explanation, which ascribes to every salutary act an ontological, substantial, intrinsic _supernaturalitas_, whereby it is elevated to a higher and essentially different plane of being and operation. This theory is convincingly set forth by Suarez in his treatise on the Necessity of Grace.(294)

It may be asked: If the salutary acts which we perform are supernatural in substance, why are we not conscious of the fact? The answer is not far to seek. Philosophical a.n.a.lysis shows that the intrinsic nature of our psychic operations is no more a subject of immediate consciousness than the substance of the soul itself. Consequently, sanctifying grace cannot reveal its presence through our inner consciousness. Having no intuitive knowledge of our own Ego, we are compelled to specify the different acts of the soul by means of their respective objects and their various tendencies (cognition, volition). To our consciousness the supernatural love of G.o.d does not present itself as essentially different from the natural.(295)

Article 3. The Necessity Of Actual Grace For The States Of Unbelief, Mortal Sin, And Justification

Every adult man, viewed in his relation to actual grace, is in one of three distinct states:

(1) The state of unbelief (_status infidelitatis_), which may be either negative, as in the case of heathens, or positive, as in the case of apostates and formal heretics;

(2) The state of mortal sin (_status peccati mortalis_), when the sinner has already received, or not yet lost, the grace of faith, which is the beginning of justification;

(3) The state of justification itself (_status iust.i.tiae sive gratiae sanctificantis_), in which much remains yet to be done to attain eternal happiness.

The question we have now to consider is: Does man need actual grace in every one of these three states, and if so, to what extent?

1. SEMIPELAGIANISM.-Semipelagianism is an attempt to effect a compromise between Pelagianism and Augustinism by attributing to mere nature a somewhat greater importance in matters of salvation than St. Augustine was willing to admit.

a) After Augustine had for more than twenty years vigorously combatted and finally defeated Pelagianism, some pious monks of Ma.r.s.eilles, under the leaders.h.i.+p of John Ca.s.sian, Abbot of St. Victor,(296) tried to find middle ground between his teaching and that of the Pelagians. Ca.s.sian's treatise _Collationes Patrum_,(297) and the reports sent to St. Augustine by his disciples Prosper and Hilary, enable us to form a pretty fair idea of the Semipelagian system. Its princ.i.p.al tenets were the following:

a) There is a distinction between the "beginning of faith" (_initium fidei_, _affectus credulitatis_) and "increase in faith" (_augmentum fidei_). The former depends entirely on the will, while the latter, like faith itself, requires the grace of Christ.

) Nature can merit grace by its own efforts, though this natural merit (_meritum naturae_) is founded on equity only (_meritum de congruo_), and does not confer a right in strict justice, as Pelagius contended.

?) Free-will, after justification, can of its own power secure the gift of final perseverance (_donum perseverantiae_); which consequently is not a special grace, but a purely natural achievement.

d) The bestowal or denial of baptismal grace in the case of infants, who can have no previous _merita de congruo_, depends on their hypothetical future merits or demerits as foreseen by G.o.d from all eternity.(298)

b) Informed of these errors by his disciples, St. Augustine energetically set to work, and in spite of his advanced age wrote two books against the Semipelagians, ent.i.tled respectively, _De Praedestinatione Sanctorum_ and _De Dono Perseverantiae_. The new teaching was not yet, however, regarded as formally heretical, and Augustine treated his opponents with great consideration, in fact he humbly acknowledged that he himself had professed similar errors before his consecration (A. D. 394).(299)

After Augustine's death, Prosper and Hilary went to Rome and interested Pope Celestine in their cause. In a dogmatic letter addressed to the Bishops of Gaul, the Pontiff formally approved the teaching of St.

Augustine on grace and original sin, but left open such other "more profound and difficult incidental questions" as predestination and the manner in which grace operates in the soul.(300) But as this papal letter (called "_Indiculus_") was an instruction rather than an ex-cathedra definition, the controversy continued until, nearly a century later (A. D.

529), the Second Council of Orange, convoked by St. Caesarius of Arles, formally condemned the Semipelagian heresy. This council, or at least its first eight canons,(301) received the solemn approbation of Pope Boniface II (A. D. 530) and thus became vested with ec.u.menical authority.(302)

2. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.-The Catholic Church teaches the absolute necessity of actual grace for all stages on the way to salvation. We shall demonstrate this in five separate theses.

*Thesis I: Prevenient grace is absolutely necessary, not only for faith, but for the very beginning of faith.*

This is _de fide_.

Proof. The Second Council of Orange defined against the Semipelagians: "If any one say that increase in faith, as well as the beginning of faith, and the very impulse by which we are led to believe in Him who justifies the sinner, and by which we obtain the regeneration of holy Baptism, is in us not as a gift of grace, that is to say, through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but by nature, ... is an adversary of the dogmatic teaching of the Apostles...."(303)

a) This is thoroughly Scriptural doctrine, as St. Augustine(304) and Prosper(305) proved. St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians had opened the eyes of Augustine, as he himself admits. 1 Cor. IV, 7: "For who distinguisheth(306) thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received?

And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" The Apostle means to say: In matters pertaining to salvation no man has any advantage over his fellow men, because all receive of the grace of G.o.d without any merits of their own. This statement would be false if any man were able to perform even the smallest salutary act without the aid of grace.

With a special view to faith the same Apostle teaches: "For by grace you are saved through faith,(307) and that not of yourselves,(308) for it is the gift of G.o.d;(309) not of works,(310) that no man may glory."(311) This, too, would be false if faith could be traced to a purely natural instinct or to some _meritum de congruo_ in the Semipelagian sense.(312) Our Lord Himself, in his famous discourse on the Holy Eucharist, unmistakably describes faith and man's preparation for it as an effect of prevenient grace. "No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him."(313) The metaphorical expression "come to me," according to the context, means "believe in me;" whereas the Father's "drawing" plainly refers to the operation of prevenient grace. Cfr. John VI, 65 sq.: "But there are some of you that believe not.... Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by the Father." John VI, 29: "This is the work of G.o.d,(314) that you believe in him whom he hath sent." According to our Saviour's own averment, therefore, preaching is of no avail unless grace gives the first impulse leading to faith.

b) As regards the argument from Tradition, it will suffice to show that the Fathers who wrote before Augustine, ascribed the beginning of faith to prevenient grace.

a) In the light of the Augustinian dictum that "prayer is the surest proof of grace,"(315) it is safe to a.s.sume that St. Justin Martyr voiced our dogma when he put into the mouth of a venerable old man the words: "But thou pray above all that the gates of light may be opened unto thee; for no man is able to understand the words of the prophets [as _praeambula fidei_] unless G.o.d and His Christ have revealed their meaning."(316) Augustine himself appeals to SS. Cyprian, Ambrose, and Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus, and then continues: "Such doctors, and so great as these, saying that there is nothing of which we may boast as of our own, which G.o.d has not given us; and that our very heart and our thoughts are not in our own power, ... attribute these things to the grace of G.o.d, acknowledge them as G.o.d's gifts, testify that they come to us from Him and are not from ourselves."(317)

) Like the Pelagians in their teaching on original sin,(318) the Semipelagians in their teaching on grace relied mainly on the authority of St. John Chrysostom, from whose writings they loved to quote such perplexing pa.s.sages as this: "We must first select the good, and then G.o.d adds what is of His; He does not forestall our will because He does not wish to destroy our liberty. But once we have made our choice, He gives us much help. For while it rests with us to choose and to will antecedently, it lies with him to perfect and bring to an issue."(319)

To understand St. Chrysostom's att.i.tude, and that of the Oriental Fathers generally, we must remember that the Eastern Church considered it one of its chief duties to safeguard the dogma of free-will against the Manichaeans, who regarded man as an abject slave of Fate. In such an environment it was of supreme importance to champion the freedom of the will(320) and to insist on the maxim: "Help yourself and G.o.d will help you." If the necessity of prevenient grace was not sufficiently emphasized, the circ.u.mstances of the time explain, and to some extent excuse, the mistake. St. Augustine himself remarks in his treatise on the Predestination of the Saints: "What need is there for us to look into the writings of those who, before this heresy sprang up, had no necessity of dwelling on a question so difficult of solution as this, which beyond a doubt they would do if they were compelled to answer such [errors as these]? Whence it came about that they touched upon what they thought of G.o.d's grace briefly and cursorily in some pa.s.sages of their writings."(321) Palmieri remarks(322) that it would be easy to cite a number of similar pa.s.sages from the writings of the early Latin Fathers before Pelagius, who certainly cannot be suspected of Semipelagian leanings.(323)

The orthodoxy of St. Chrysostom can be positively established by a twofold argument. (1) Pope Celestine the First recommended him as a reliable defender of the Catholic faith against Nestorianism and Pelagianism.(324) (2) Chrysostom rejected Semipelagianism as it were in advance when he taught: "Not even faith is of ourselves; for if He [G.o.d] had not come, if He had not called, how should we have been able to believe?"(325) and again when he says in his explanation of the Pauline phrase ??????? t??

p?ste??:(326) "He Himself hath implanted the faith in us, He Himself hath given the beginning."(327) These utterances are diametrically opposed to the heretical teaching of the Semipelagians.(328)

c) The theological argument for our thesis is effectively formulated by Oswald(329) as follows: "It is faith which first leads man from the sphere of nature into a higher domain,-faith is the beginning of salutary action.

That this beginning must come wholly from G.o.d, and that it cannot come from man, goes without saying. By beginning we mean the very first beginning. Whether we call this first beginning itself faith, or speak, as the Semipelagians did, of certain preambles of faith,-aspirations, impulses, desires leading to faith (_praeambula fidei: conatus, desideria, credulitatis affectus_), makes no difference. Wherever the supernatural domain of salutary action begins-and it is divided off from the natural by a very sharp line-there it is G.o.d who begins and not man, there it is grace which precedes,-_gratia praeveniens_, as it has come to be known by a famous term."

Indeed, if man were able by his own power to merit for himself the first beginnings of grace, then faith itself, and justification which is based on faith, and the beatific vision, would not be strictly graces.

As for the precise moment when prevenient grace begins its work in the soul, the common opinion is that the very first judgment which a man forms as to the credibility of divine revelation (_iudicium credibilitatis_) is determined by the immediate grace of the intellect,(330) and that the subsequent _affectus credulitatis_ springs from the strengthening grace of the will. St. Augustine, commenting on 2 Cor. III, 5, demonstrates this as follows:

"Let them give attention to this, and well weigh these words, who think that the beginning of faith is of ourselves, and the increase of faith is of G.o.d. For who cannot see that thinking is prior to believing? For no one believes anything unless he has first thought that it is to be believed.... Therefore, in what pertains to religion and piety [of which the Apostle was speaking], if we are not capable of thinking anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of G.o.d, we are certainly not capable of believing anything as of ourselves, since we cannot do this without thinking, but our sufficiency, by which we begin to believe, is of G.o.d."(331)

*Thesis II: The sinner, even after he has received the faith, stands in absolute need of prevenient and co-operating grace for every single salutary act required in the process of justification.*

This proposition also embodies an article of faith.

Proof. The Semipelagians ascribed the dispositions necessary for justification to the natural efforts of the will, thereby denying the necessity of prevenient grace. This teaching was condemned as heretical by the Second Council of Orange (A. D. 529),(332) and again by the Council of Trent, which defined: "If any one saith that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without His help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema."(333)

a) The Scriptural texts which we have quoted against Pelagianism(334) also apply to the Semipelagian heresy.

Our Lord's dictum: "Without me you can do nothing,"(335) proves the necessity of prevenient and co-operating grace, not only at the beginning of every salutary act, but also for its continuation and completion. St.

Augustine clearly perceived this. "That he might furnish a reply to the future Pelagius," he observes, "our Lord does not say: Without me you can with difficulty do anything; but He says: Without me you can do _nothing_.... He does not say: Without me you can _perfect_ nothing, but _do_ nothing. For if He had said _perfect_, they might say that G.o.d's aid is necessary, not for beginning good, which is of ourselves, but for perfecting it.... For when the Lord says, Without me you can do nothing, in this one word He comprehends both the beginning and the end."(336)

St. Paul expressly ascribes the salvation of man to grace when he says: "... with fear and trembling work out your salvation; for it is G.o.d who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish."(337)

The Tridentine Council, as we have seen, designates the four salutary acts of faith, hope, love, and penitence as a preparation for justification.

Now St. Paul teaches: "The G.o.d of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope and in the power of the Holy Ghost;"(338) and St. John: "Charity is of G.o.d."(339)

b) The argument from Tradition is chiefly based on St. Augustine, who in his two treatises against the Semipelagians, and likewise in his earlier writings, inculcates the necessity of grace for all stages on the way to salvation.

Thus he writes in his _Enchiridion_: "Surely, if no Christian will dare to say this: It is not of G.o.d that showeth mercy, but of man that willeth, lest he should openly contradict the Apostle, it follows that the true interpretation of the saying (Rom. IX, 16): 'It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of G.o.d that showeth mercy,' is that the whole work belongs to G.o.d, who both prepares the good will that is to be helped, and a.s.sists it when it is prepared. For the good will of man precedes many of G.o.d's gifts, but not all; and it must itself be included among those which it does not precede. We read in Holy Scripture, both 'G.o.d's mercy shall prevent me' (Ps. LVIII, 11), and 'Thy mercy will follow me' (Ps. XXII, 6). It precedes the unwilling to make him willing; it follows the willing to render his will effectual. Why are we taught to pray for our enemies, who are plainly unwilling to lead a holy life, unless it be that G.o.d may work willingness in them? And why are we admonished to ask that we may receive, unless it be that He who has created in us the wish, may Himself satisfy the same? We pray, then, for our enemies, that the mercy of G.o.d may precede them, as it has preceded us; we pray for ourselves, that His mercy may follow us."(340)

That grace accompanies us uninterruptedly on the way to Heaven is also the teaching of St. Jerome: "To will and to run is my own act; but without the constant aid of G.o.d, even my own act will not be mine; for the Apostle says (Phil. II, 13): 'It is G.o.d who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish.'... It is not sufficient for me that He gave it once, unless He gives it always."(341)

St. Ephraem Syrus prays in the name of the Oriental Church: "I possess nothing, and if I possess anything, Thou [O G.o.d] hast given it to me.... I ask only for grace and acknowledge that I shall be saved through Thee."(342)