Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Liber IV

In the second place, St. Thomas shows from the premises that a man who falls into sin after receiving sacramental grace can again be restored to grace¹.

Concerning this, however, he does two things: first, he proves the intended point; second, he excludes a certain error, along with its foundation².

I. With respect to the first, he argues first as follows. As long as one lives here, the will is changeable with respect to vice and virtue, as has been shown. Therefore, just as a man can sin after receiving grace, so too, as it seems, can he return from sin to virtue.

It should be noted that St. Thomas added as it seems in order to show that absolutely (simpliciter) necessary reasons cannot be brought forward for conclusions of this sort, but only probable ones or ones that are necessary in a certain respect (secundum quid).

Secondly. The will of man is turned away from the state of grace through sin. Therefore, much more can it be recalled from sin through grace. — The consequence is clear. Because good is more powerful than evil, since evil does not act except in the power of the good.

Thirdly. As long as man lives here, he is on the way of tending toward the ultimate end. Therefore, he does not have an immobile will toward evil, since immobility of the will does not belong to anyone in this life. Therefore etc.

Fourthly. A man is freed from the sins which he committed before receiving grace in the sacraments through the grace of the sacraments, as is clear in 1 Cor. 6; and the grace itself conferred in the sacraments does not diminish the good of nature, but increases it. Therefore etc. — The consequence is proved. Because it pertains to the good of nature that it be reducible from sin into the state of nature, since potency toward the good is a certain good.

It should be noted that from the first proposition it is held that there is in man a potency for deliverance from sin; otherwise, he would not be freed through the grace of the sacraments from those sins which he committed before it. But from the second it is held that such a potency is not removed through the grace of the sacraments itself, since it is a good of nature. Whence the argument proceeds thus: In man there is a potency to rise again from sin before he has grace. But this is not removed through the grace itself conferred in the sacraments. Therefore, if it happens that a man sins after grace, he is still reducible to the state of justice. — The major premise is proved: because through the grace of the sacraments he is freed from sins committed before receiving the sacraments, as is clear through the Apostle. — But the minor is proved: because the grace of the sacraments does not diminish the good of nature; moreover, a potency of this kind pertains to the good of nature.

Fifthly. In this way the hope of salvation would be taken away from those who sin, and consequently a path toward sinning freely would be given from despair; according to what is said in Eph. 4 concerning certain men, that in despair etc. Therefore, this position is dangerous.

Sixthly. Then it would be dangerous to receive the sacraments, since the grace received in the sacraments does not render a man impeccable.

It should be noted that the foundation of this reason is that man could fall into a worse state after receiving the sacraments than he would be in before receiving them, if one who sins after the grace of the sacraments could not rise again from sin. For before receiving them, a man could return from sin to justice by receiving the sacraments. But after receiving them, he could fall into this state: that he could not rise again from sin, because even after the grace of the sacraments he could sin, and, that position standing, after such a sin he could not return to grace. And thus it would be dangerous to receive the sacraments.

The conclusion is confirmed by the authority of 1 John 2: My little children etc.; 2 Cor. 2: Sufficient for that one etc., and chapter 7: I rejoice etc.; Jer. 3: Thou however etc.; and the last chapter of Lamentations: Convert us etc.

II. With respect to the second³, through this, says St. Thomas, the error of the Novatians is excluded, who deny pardon to those who sin after baptism on the grounds of what is said in Heb. 6: It is impossible that they etc.

Now it is said that through those words of the Apostle, as is clear from what follows: Crucifying again etc., there is denied to those who have fallen after receiving grace that renewal in penance through which a man is crucified together with Christ; which indeed takes place through baptism, according to Rom. 6: All we who have been baptized etc. For just as Christ is not to be crucified again, so he who has sinned after baptism is not to be baptized again. He can, however, be converted again to grace through penance. Whence he said that it is impossible that they be renewed, which he is accustomed to attribute to baptism, according to Titus 3: According to his mercy etc.

III. For the evidence of this conclusion, the distinction must be noted which St. Thomas sets down in De Veritate, q. 24, a. 11. For that someone cannot return from sin can be understood in two ways. In one way, such that his own powers do not suffice for him to be totally freed from sin; and thus anyone existing in mortal sin can be said to be unable to return to justice. In another way, such that he cannot even cooperate in any way toward his rising again from sin. And this cannot belong to a man in the state of the way, although some have difficulty, on account of an evil habit, in cooperating toward their liberation from sin. In this way, therefore, we understand that a man who sins after the grace of the sacraments can return to justice because he can cooperate with God toward his liberation from sin, but not because he can be freed from sin by his own powers.