De gratia Redemptoris

On the second justification

After justification has been received, man is not free from every further obligation towards God, nor will he, from the very fact that he has been justified, now certainly and altogether have eternal life. God wills that the just man order his whole life as becomes an adopted son of God; he must live according to the will of the heavenly Father, observe his commandments, and so grow more and more in grace. Even for the justified man there remain struggles against the flesh, the world, the devil, nor is he certain that he will be conqueror in them, that he will persevere in grace until death. He can again sin mortally and so lose the grace of justification, nor can he certainly promise himself a new justification after mortal sin. Hence it is possible that someone who was at one time justified and a son of God nevertheless perish for ever. But God is ready to help the just man, that he may be able to overcome temptations, to avoid sin and so persevere in grace. But it is a special benefit of God to persevere in act until the end, and to die in the state of divine sonship.

These things, then, are to be considered in the three following theses: 1) The just man must live according to the will of God and so grow and persevere in justice; 2) he can nevertheless after justification again sin mortally; 3) the gift of final perseverance is a special benefit. There is added: 4) to remain free from every venial sin is a special privilege.

This thesis contains three principal affirmations:

1. Justice is not equal in all and is capable of increase: it can and ought to grow.

2. The just man is obliged to observe the law of God: through the observance of the commandments.

3. This is possible for the just man, not indeed by his own natural powers, but only with the help of grace, which nevertheless is denied to no one: with the help of grace he can persevere.

I. Justice is not equal in all, and is capable of increase.

The innovators of the sixteenth century acknowledged only one justice, namely the justice of Christ, which is imputed to men extrinsically; thus all who are just (extrinsically) are just by this same justice of Christ. On this view there can logically scarcely any longer be question of an inequality of justice, nor of its increase. They distinguish sanctification from justification; but this is neither justice nor does it pertain to it¹.

In the fourth century Jovinian denied the inequality of good works and of sins, and the inequality of merit and of heavenly reward.

Against these things, therefore, it is affirmed in the thesis: this internal justice itself, which, as we proved above, is the very internal sanctification and renewal of man, is conferred on adults in a different degree, and this same justice can be increased in them; in other words, sanctifying grace and the infused virtues are not equal in all adult men and can grow in them.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH

CONC. TRIDENTINUM, Cap. 7: Adults receive justice in justification, “each his own, according to the measure which the Holy Spirit divides to each one as he wills, and according to each one's own disposition and cooperation”². But this disposition and cooperation is not equal in all.

Cap. 10: “Thus therefore, justified and made friends and domestics of God³, going from virtue to virtue⁴, they are renewed (as the Apostle says) from day to day⁵, that is, by mortifying the members of their flesh⁶ and presenting them as weapons of justice⁷ unto sanctification through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church: in that justice itself received through the grace of Christ, faith cooperating by good works⁸, they grow and are more justified, as it is written: He who is just, let him be justified still⁹, and again: Fear not to be justified even unto death¹⁰, and again: You see that by works a man is justified and not by faith only¹¹. But this increase of justice the holy Church asks when she prays: Give us, Lord, an increase of faith, hope and charity”¹².

Can. 24: “If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that works themselves are only the fruits and signs of justification obtained, and not also the cause of its increase: let him be anathema”¹³

SACRED SCRIPTURE

The Council of Trent adduced several texts: 2 Cor 4, 16: “Although he who is outside, our man, is corrupted: yet he who is within is renewed from day to day”. — Apoc 22, 11: “He who hurts, let him hurt still; and he who is in filth, let him be filthy still; and he who is just, let him be justified (let him do justice) still; and the holy one, let him be sanctified still”. — Eccli 18, 22: “Fear not to be justified even unto death, for the reward of God remains for ever”. In the version of the LXX this verse speaks of fulfilling a vow which someone has made to God. — Iac 2, 24: “You see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only”. These words, if they are understood with the Council as concerning works done after justification, signify that by such works a man is further justified. Besides, there are wont to be cited by theologians Prov 4, 18; 2 Cor 9, 10; 2 Petr 3, 18.

THE FATHERS

St Jerome, against Jovinian, who among other things had said: ‘Various indeed are the kinds of struggle, but one is the crown of the victors. Between that brother who was always with the father, and him who afterwards was received as a penitent, there is no difference’, says: “He who sows sparingly shall also reap sparingly, and he who sows in blessings shall also reap of blessings¹⁴. Certainly both he who sows more and he who sows less are of the right side. And although the seed is of one kind, nevertheless they differ in measure and in number. The same Paul writes to the Ephesians: That there might be made known now to the principalities and powers in the heavens, through the Church, the manifold and various wisdom of God¹⁵. Do you see that in the different companies of the Church the various and manifold wisdom of God is proclaimed? And also in the same epistle: But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the grace of Christ: not that the measure of Christ is different; but so much of his grace is infused as we are able to draw”¹⁶.

St Augustine: “That similitude (which the Stoics used), in which folly is set down as water and wisdom as air, so that the mind, as it were emerging from the suffocation of folly, suddenly breathes again into wisdom, does not seem to me sufficiently accommodated to the authority of our Scriptures: but rather that one, in which vice or folly is compared to darkness, and virtue or wisdom to light, insofar as these similitudes can be drawn from corporeal things to intelligible things. For it is not as one rising from the waters into the air, when he has passed their surface, is suddenly inspired with as much as suffices; but as one proceeding from darkness into light, he is illuminated by advancing gradually. And until this is most fully accomplished, we yet say that he, as it were going forth from a most hidden cave, is breathed upon by the nearness of the light, the more so the more he approaches the exit: so that what shines in him is indeed from the light toward which he advances; but what is still dark in him is from the darkness whence he goes forth. And so not every living man shall be justified in thy sight¹⁷; and yet the just man lives by faith¹⁸. And the saints are clothed with justice¹⁹, one more, another less: and no one lives here without sin, and this one more, another less; but he is best who has the least”²⁰.

“Since therefore he who is everywhere does not dwell in all; even in those in whom he dwells, he does not dwell equally. For whence is that which Elisha asked, that the Spirit of God which was in Elijah might be in him twofold? And whence are some saints holier than others, unless by having God as their indweller more abundantly?”²¹.

St Prosper: “The man therefore justified, that is, made pious from impious, with no good merit preceding, receives the gift, by which gift he may acquire merit also: so that what has been begun in him through the grace of Christ may be increased also through the industry of free will; the help of God being never removed, without which no one can either profit or remain in good”²².

THE THEOLOGIANS

St Thomas asks: Whether grace is greater in one than in another²³. He proves it from Eph 4, 7: “To every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the donation of Christ: but what is given by measure is not given equally to all; therefore not all have equal grace”. And he explains further: “As has been said above²⁴, a habit can have a twofold magnitude: one on the part of the end or object, according to which one virtue is called nobler than another, inasmuch as it is ordered to a greater good; the other on the part of the subject, which participates more or less in the inherent habit. According to the first magnitude, therefore, sanctifying grace cannot be greater and lesser; because grace according to its own notion unites man to the supreme good, which is God. But on the part of the subject grace can receive more or less; namely according as one is more perfectly illuminated by the light of grace than another. And the reason of this diversity is indeed partly on the part of him who prepares himself for grace; for he who prepares himself more for grace receives more abundant grace. But from this side the first reason of this diversity cannot be taken; because the preparation for grace is not man's, except insofar as his free will is prepared by God. Whence the first cause of this diversity must be taken on the part of God himself, who dispenses the gifts of his grace in different ways, to this end that from different degrees the beauty and perfection of the Church may arise; as he also instituted diverse degrees of things, that the universe might be perfect; whence the Apostle to the Ephesians 4, after he had said: To every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the donation of Christ, having enumerated the different graces, adds: For the consummation of the saints, unto the edifying of the body of Christ”.

As to the fact of the increase of grace, the theologians agree; but as to how the infused habits are increased, there are diverse opinions, for which let those be consulted which are indicated in “De virtutibus theologis”, nr. 637.

II. The justified man is bound to observe the commandments.

In the doctrine of justification by faith alone, according to which the works of man are altogether excluded from the business of justification, it was difficult to assign what good works were for; besides, according to Luther the works even of the just are properly sins, which nevertheless God does not impute to the just. Hence the consequence was easy, that a just man is no longer under any law which would impose obligations on him. Christ has freed us from the law and has brought the liberty of the sons of God, which cannot be combined with servitude under the law. And so in truth, shortly after the new gospel began to be preached, the Protestants had already to dispute among themselves about this matter against certain men who, drawing the consequence indicated above, defended liberty from the observance of the divine law (the antinomian controversies). Melanchthon especially defended the law and some necessity of works against John Agricola; but, as is clear, those works in no way regard justification itself²⁵.

The error that Christians are not obliged to good works had already been proposed before. St James perhaps has such tendencies in view in his epistle²⁶. In the Middle Ages the opinion of the brothers and sisters of the spirit of liberty was held, that perfect men are not bound to good works, which opinion was condemned in the Council of Vienna.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH

CONC. VIENNENSE condemned the errors of the Beghards and Beguines. Err. 2: “That a man ought not to fast or to pray after he has attained such a degree of perfection; because then sensuality is so perfectly subject to the spirit and to reason that a man may freely grant to the body whatever pleases”. — 3: “That those who are in the aforesaid degree of perfection and in the spirit of liberty are not subject to human obedience, nor bound to any precepts of the Church; because (as they assert) where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”. — 6: “That to exercise oneself in acts of the virtues is the part of an imperfect man, and the perfect soul dismisses the virtues from itself”²⁷.

CONC. TRID. sess. 6 cap. 11: “But no one, however much justified, ought to think himself free from the observance of the commandments... For those who are sons of God love Christ: but those who love him (as he himself testifies) keep his words, which indeed with divine help they can perform... And so no one ought to flatter himself on faith alone, thinking that by faith alone he is made an heir and will obtain the inheritance, even if he does not suffer with Christ, that he may also be glorified with him²⁸. For Christ himself also (as the Apostle says), although he was the Son of God, learned obedience from the things which he suffered, and being made perfect he became to all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation²⁹. Therefore the Apostle himself admonishes the justified, saying: Do you not know that those who run in the stadium all indeed run, but one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain. I therefore so run, not as it were uncertainly; so I fight, not as one beating the air, but I chastise my body and bring it into subjection, lest perhaps when I have preached to others I myself should become a castaway³⁰. Likewise the prince of the Apostles Peter: Be diligent, that by good works you may make your calling and election sure; for doing these things you shall not sin at any time”³¹. — Can. 19: “If anyone says that nothing is commanded in the Gospel besides faith, that the rest are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free, or that the ten commandments do not pertain to Christians: let him be anathema”. — Can. 20: “If anyone says that a justified man, and however perfect, is not bound to the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe, as though the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments: let him be anathema”. — Can. 21: “If anyone says that Christ Jesus was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom they may trust, and not also as a legislator whom they should obey: let him be anathema”³².

SACRED SCRIPTURE

Christ sets forth his law in the Sermon on the Mount, Matth 5-7. — 7, 21: “Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven”. Cf. 7, 24. — Matth 19, 17: “But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments”. — Io 13, 34: “A new commandment I give to you: that you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another”. — Io 14, 15: “If you love me: keep my commandments”. Cf. 14, 21. 23; 15, 10. 12. 14. — Matth 28, 18 ss.: “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth; going therefore teach all nations, baptizing them... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”.

Rom 7, 6: “But now we are delivered from the law of death, wherein we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter”. Cf. 8, 12 ss. — The Apostle is “in the law of Christ”, 1 Cor 9, 21. — Gal 5, 13 s.: “For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty: only give not liberty as an occasion to the flesh, but by the charity of the Spirit serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. — Gal 6, 2: “Bear ye one another's burdens, and so you shall fulfil the law of Christ”.

Iac 1, 22: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves”. — Iac 1, 25: “But he who has looked into the perfect law of liberty, and has continued in it, being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed”. — Iac 2, 8 ss.: “If then you fulfil the royal law according to the Scriptures: thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, you do well... But whoever shall keep the whole law, and offend in one point, is become guilty of all... So speak ye, and so do, as being to be judged by the law of liberty... What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he has faith, but has not works? Shall faith be able to save him?” — Faith without works is dead (2, 20. 26). — Cf. the texts cited by the Council of Trent, Rom 8, 17; Hebr 5, 8 s.; 1 Cor 9, 24 ss.; 2 Petr 1, 10.

If it is said that Christ is the end of the law (Rom 10, 4), or that the law is no longer (Gal 3, 25; 4, 5), or that the faithful are not under the law (Rom 6, 14), under servitude (Gal 5, 1. 13), it appears from the context that the discourse is about the old law, which has indeed been abrogated; but the sense is not that the just are in no way under any law, nor that they ought not to observe the divine commandments.

In a matter so clear there is no need to bring forward texts of the holy Fathers. In all times there are found exhortations to a good Christian life, as necessary for all Christians.

III. The just man, with the special help of grace, can persevere in justice.

In this part the thesis asks by what means it is possible for a just man to observe all the commandments of God.

“The just man” is understood of all the just.

“To persevere” is to remain in the state of divine sonship, in the state of grace; and since grace, as will be shown later, is lost by every mortal sin, it is the same as not to commit mortal sin.

“Can”: the question is only of the power of persevering, from which is well to be distinguished actual final perseverance, the gift of perseverance, of which in thesis 14. It is affirmed therefore that any just man has the physical and the moral power to avoid sin.

“With the help of grace”: grace is required, without it it is impossible. Since to persevere is in practice the same as not to succumb to temptation, not to sin, the sense of this part is: not even the just man can avoid mortal sins without the help of grace, and this is not understood of any brief time, but “for long”, as was said in thesis 11 of sinners; in like manner also are the impotence of man and the necessity and the nature of the help to be conceived.

“With special help”, that is, besides sanctifying grace and the infused virtues, another help of grace is still required. For even after justification there remains in man rebellious concupiscence, he himself still remains in the world and can still be tempted by the devil; hence the same difficulties also occur to him, of which there was discourse in thesis 11, and to overcome them he needs this special help. It is therefore a medicinal help against moral infirmity, and it is to be understood in the same way as the healing help of which in thesis 11, that is, it consists in the illumination of the intellect and the inspiration of the will. It is easily understood that helps are given to the just by which they can overcome temptations and observe the commandments not only honestly but salutarily, since they must thus grow in justice; the help conferred on them is therefore supernatural not only as to mode but entitatively. But in this part of the thesis grace is considered first of all insofar as it is healing.

This part therefore contains two assertions: 1) the just need grace in order to persevere; 2) all the just can persevere, they have the necessary grace.

Hence also a double class of those who are against this part:

1. Against that “with special help” are those who affirm that man without grace can keep the divine law and persevere in grace: the Pelagians, according to whom divine help is only for being able more easily³³.

2. Against “can” are those who indeed concede that grace is necessary, but deny that it is given by God to all the just: Baius (cf. condemned proposition 54: “This definitive sentence, that God has commanded man nothing impossible, is falsely attributed to Augustine, since it is Pelagius's”)³⁴; Jansenius³⁵, whose opinion was condemned as heretical by Innocent X³⁶.

Insofar as in this part the necessity of healing grace is affirmed, the qualification is the same as in thesis 11³⁷; insofar as it is said that all the just have sufficient help, whence it is possible for all to persevere in grace, the doctrine is of faith defined.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH

1. They need special help: INDICULUS, cap. 3³⁸, ARAUS. can. 10³⁹; ibidem in the conclusion: “This also we believe according to the catholic faith, that after the grace received through baptism all the baptized, with Christ helping and cooperating, can and ought to fulfil the things which pertain to the salvation of the soul, if they will labour faithfully”⁴⁰.

CONC. TRID. sess. 6 cap. 13⁴¹; can. 22: “If anyone says that a justified man can persevere in the justice received without the special help of God, or that with it he cannot: let him be anathema”⁴².

2. With divine help it is possible for all: CONC. ARAUSICANUM, the text just cited. CONC. TRIDENTINUM, cap. 11: “No one (ought) to use that rash voice, forbidden by the Fathers under anathema, that the commandments of God are impossible for a justified man to observe. For God does not command impossible things, but by commanding he admonishes both to do what you can and to ask what you cannot⁴³, and he helps you that you may be able; whose commandments are not heavy⁴⁴, whose yoke is sweet and burden light⁴⁵. For those who are sons of God love Christ; but those who love him (as he himself testifies) keep his words⁴⁶, which indeed with divine help they can perform... Whence it comes about that the just themselves ought to feel themselves the more bound to walk in the way of justice, the more they are now freed from sin, but made servants of God⁴⁷, living soberly and justly and piously⁴⁸, can profit through Christ Jesus, through whom they have had access into this grace⁴⁹. For God does not desert those once justified by his grace, unless he is first deserted by them”⁵⁰. — Cap. 15, treating of lethal sins, says: “from which with the help of divine grace they can abstain”⁵¹.

Can. 18: “If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a justified man and one constituted under grace: let him be anathema”⁵², Can. 22 see above pag. 245.

Pius V condemned proposition 54 of Baius⁵³.

INNOCENT X condemned as heretical the proposition of Jansenius: “Some commandments of God are impossible to just men who will and strive according to the present powers which they have: there is also wanting to them the grace by which they may become possible”⁵⁴.

Pius XI applies this doctrine in the encyclical “Casti connubii”: “Care must altogether be taken lest the baleful conditions of external things give occasion to a much more baleful error. For no difficulties can arise which can derogate from the obligation of the commandments of God, which forbid acts evil by their interior nature; but in all circumstances of things spouses can always, strengthened by the grace of God, faithfully discharge their duty and preserve chastity in marriage undefiled by this foul stain; for the truth of the Christian faith stands, expressed by the teaching of the Tridentine synod: No one is to use that rash⁵⁵... And the same doctrine has again and solemnly been commanded by the Church and confirmed in the condemnation of the Jansenist heresy, which against the goodness of God had dared to blaspheme thus: Some commandments of God...”⁵⁶.

SACRED SCRIPTURE

1. They need special help: Eph 6, 10 ss.; 1 Petr 5, 8; Matth 6, 13; 26, 41. These texts, already adduced in the former thesis, are universal; indeed in Eph, 1 Petr, Matth 26 the discourse is directly about those who are already converted. They therefore must still fight for their salvation (cf. 1 Cor 9, 26; 1 Tim 6, 12; 2 Tim 2, 3), in which fight without divine help they will not overcome; but the help is such as they ought to ask for; therefore it is not those gifts which the just have already received.

2. With divine help it is possible for all: 1 Cor 10, 13: In the example of the Israelites the Apostle shows that the faithful, from the fact that they have received great goods from God, specifically on account of the baptism received and the eucharistic supper, are not yet secure from some future fall; the Israelites also received many goods from God, had been baptized with a kind of baptism, had eaten spiritual food and drunk spiritual drink, and yet they sinned and were gravely punished by God. These things, says the Apostle, “were written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore he who thinks himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall. Let no temptation take hold of you (it has taken hold, namely, up to now) but such as is human (adapted to human powers, not exceeding your powers); but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able, but will make also with temptation issue (a prosperous outcome), that you may be able to bear (to endure)”.

Nay, for those who follow Christ it is not so difficult to observe the commandments: Matth 11, 30: “For my yoke is sweet and my burden light”. — 1 Io 5, 3: “For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy. For whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world: and this is the victory which overcomes the world, our faith”. — Hence Christians are admonished to perseverance: Io 15, 4: “remain in me”; v. 9: “remain in my love”. — 1 Cor 9, 24: “So run that you may obtain (that you may obtain the prize)”. — 2 Petr 1, 10: “Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election: for doing these things, you shall not sin at any time”. — Apoc 2, 10: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life”. — Apoc 3, 11: “Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown”.

THE FATHERS

1. They need special help: St Augustine: “But God himself, when through the mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ⁵⁷, he spiritually heals the sick man or gives life to the dead, that is, justifies the impious, and when he has brought him to perfect health, that is, to perfect life and justice, he does not desert him if he is not deserted, so that one may live always piously and justly. For as the eye of the body, even when most fully sound, cannot see unless it is aided by the brightness of light: so also a man, even when most perfectly justified, cannot live rightly unless he is aided from on high by the eternal light of justice”⁵⁸.

St Leo the Great: “Let not human obedience withdraw itself from the grace of God, nor fail from that good without which it cannot be good; and if it experiences anything impossible or arduous in the effects of the commandments, let it not remain in itself, but run back to him who commands, who for this reason gives the precept, that he may stir up desire and supply help, as the prophet says: Cast thy thought upon God, and he will nourish thee⁵⁹. Or does anyone perchance pride himself so insolently, and presume that he is so unharmed, so immaculate, that he now needs no renovation? That persuasion is altogether deceived, and whoever amid the temptations of this life believes himself immune from every wound grows old in excessive vanity”⁶⁰.

2. With divine help it is possible for all: St John Chrysostom: “It is not lawful to say: I cannot; for that is to accuse the creator. For if he made us weak and then commands, the accusation is his. How then, he says, do many not have the power? Because they do not will. How is it that they do not will? From sloth; for if they willed, they would altogether be able... For we have God cooperating and working with us; let us only choose, let us only come to the matter as to a work, let us only be solicitous, let us only apply the mind, and all things follow”⁶¹.

St Augustine: “If therefore we wish to stir up and inflame to right living the minds of Christians that are cold and slothful by Christian exhortations, let us first exhort them to the faith, by which they become Christians and are subjected to his name, without which they cannot be saved. But if they are already Christians and neglect to live rightly, let them be struck with terrors, and raised up by the praises of rewards: in such a way, indeed, that we remember to exhort them not only to good actions but also to pious prayers, and to instruct them with this sound doctrine, that they may both give thanks thence, when they have begun to live well, for that they have done something without difficulty; and where they feel some difficulty, may they persist in obtaining facility from the Lord by most faithful and most persevering prayers and by works prompt in mercy. But thus profiting, where and when they may be perfected in most full justice, I do not greatly care: but whenever and wherever they shall have been perfected, I confirm that they can be perfected only by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Indeed when they have clearly known that they have no sin, let them not say they have sin, lest the truth not be in them; as the truth is not in those who, when they have it, say that they do not have it.

But the commandments are very good, if we use them lawfully⁶², For by this very thing that it is most firmly believed that God, just and good, could not have commanded impossible things, we are admonished both what we should do in easy things and what we should ask in difficult ones. For all things are made easy to charity: to which alone the burden of Christ is light⁶³, or that alone is the burden which is light. According to this it was said: And his commandments are not heavy⁶⁴, so that he to whom they are heavy should consider that it could not have been said divinely, they are not heavy, unless because there can be an affection of the heart to which they are not heavy, and should ask for what he lacks, that he may fulfil what is commanded. And what is said to Israel in Deuteronomy, if it is understood piously, holily, spiritually, signifies this same thing: because indeed when the Apostle had recalled this testimony: The word is near thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart... this is, he says, the word of faith which we preach⁶⁵. Everyone therefore being converted, as is there commanded, to the Lord his God with his whole heart and with his whole soul, will not have the commandment of God heavy. For how is it heavy, since it is a commandment of love? For either a man does not love, and therefore it is heavy; or he loves, and it cannot be heavy. But he loves, if, as Israel is there admonished, he has been converted to the Lord his God with his whole heart and with his whole soul. A new commandment, he says, I give you, that you love one another⁶⁶; and: He who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the law; and: The fulfilling of the law is charity⁶⁷. According to this that also was said: If they had walked in good paths, they would surely have found the paths of justice easy⁶⁸. How then is it said: For the words of thy lips I have kept hard ways⁶⁹, unless because both are true? They are hard to those who fear, light to those who love”⁷⁰.

THE THEOLOGIANS

St Thomas 1, 2 q. 109 a. 9 asks: “Whether he who has already obtained grace can by himself work good and avoid sin without the help of grace”, and he answers: “Man needs the help of God for right living in two ways: in one way indeed as regards some habitual gift, by which human nature corrupted is healed and even, healed, is elevated to work works meritorious of eternal life, which exceed the proportion of nature; in another way man needs the help of grace, that he be moved by God to act. As regards therefore the first mode of help, a man existing in grace does not need another help of grace, as it were some other infused habit; he needs nevertheless the help of grace according to the other mode, namely that he be moved by God to act rightly. And this for two reasons: first indeed on a general ground, because, as was said above, no created thing can proceed into any act whatever except by the power of divine motion; secondly on a special ground, because of the condition of the state of human nature, which indeed, although it is healed by grace as to the mind, nevertheless there remains in it corruption and infection as to the flesh, by which it serves the law of sin, as is said in Rom 7; there remains also a certain obscurity of ignorance in the intellect, according to which, as is also said in Rom 8: We know not what we should pray for as we ought. For on account of the various outcomes of things, and because we do not perfectly know even ourselves, we cannot fully know what is expedient for us, according to that of Sap 9: The thoughts of mortals are timid, and our providences uncertain; and therefore it is necessary for us that we be directed and protected by God, who knows all things and can do all things. And on this account it also befits those reborn as sons of God through grace to say: And lead us not into temptation; and: Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven, and the rest which are contained in the Lord's Prayer pertaining to this”.

Calvin taught that only the predestined have true justifying faith, that they alone have the spirit of adoption, and that they never lose justice; whereas the reprobate were never justified in their whole life and never had true faith. According to him, therefore, justice is unlosable¹.

Jovinian had already taught the unlosability of justice before this, of whom St Jerome says: “His second proposition (of Jovinian) is that those who have been baptized cannot be tempted by the devil. And lest he should seem to have said this foolishly, he adds: But whoever have been tempted, are shown to have been baptized with water only and not with the spirit, which we read of in Simon Magus. Whence John also says: Everyone who is born of God does not commit sin: for his seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. And in this the sons of God and the sons of the devil are made manifest². And at the end of the Epistle: Everyone who is born of God does not sin; but the generation of God preserves him, and the evil one does not touch him”³.

Luther, according to his doctrine of fiducial faith, taught that justice, as it is apprehended by faith, is so retained by that same fiducial faith; and as soon as a man abandons this faith, he falls away from justice. And indeed in this way alone is justice lost. The just man sins in every work, and those sins are in themselves mortal; but they are not imputed to the just by God, and so they are venial for them. By them justice is not lost.

Against both errors the thesis is laid down.

“The just man… loses”: justice that has been received is losable. Therefore it is possible for a justified man to become again an enemy of God, a sinner, and, if he dies in such a state, to be damned; therefore a reprobate can for some time be in the state of grace and a son of God. This is against Calvin.

“By every mortal sin”: therefore not by unbelief alone, but by other sins as well, can the soul be deprived of the supernatural life — sins which are for that very reason called mortal⁴. This is against Luther.

“Alone”: there are certain lesser sins which can be found in the just man without his ceasing to be just; they are precisely those which are called venial.

“Justice”: it is understood proximately of that gift by which a man is formally constituted just, namely of sanctifying grace, with the Holy Spirit indwelling⁵. As regards the infused virtues, it has been proved in the treatise on the infused virtues⁶ that the virtue of charity is lost together with sanctifying grace, and therefore by every and only mortal sin; the virtue of hope, by the sin directly opposed to it, and the virtue of faith by the sin directly opposed to faith. This loss of grace is not so to be understood as if a man by sin physically destroyed grace; but just as supernatural habits are infused by God, so also they are physically destroyed by God, if a man places an obstacle against that habit.

The thesis is defined in the Council of Trent.

There are three parts of the thesis: 1) justice can be lost; 2) by every mortal sin; 3) by mortal sin alone.

I. Justice can be lost.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH

CONC. TRIDENTINUM, cap. 12: “No one also, as long as this mortal life is lived, ought to presume so far concerning the hidden mystery of divine predestination as to settle certainly that he is altogether in the number of the predestined, as though it were true that the justified man can either sin no more, or, if he has sinned, ought to promise himself a certain repentance. For, unless by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God has chosen for himself”⁷. Cap. 13: “Similarly concerning the gift of perseverance… let no one promise himself anything certain with absolute certainty… they are born again into the hope of glory and not yet into glory…”⁸. — Cap. 14: “But those who have fallen away from the grace of justification received through sin can be justified again, when, with God exciting them, through the sacrament of penance they have taken care to recover by the merit of Christ the grace they had lost…”⁹. — Can. 23: “If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified… A. S.”¹⁰.

CLEMENT XI condemned the error of Paschasius Quesnel 43: “The first effect of baptismal grace is to make us die to sin, so that the spirit, the heart and the senses have no more life for sin than a dead man has for the things of the world”¹¹.

SACRED SCRIPTURE

Rom 11, 20 ss.: “But thou standest by faith: Be not high-minded, but fear. For if God hath not spared the natural branches: fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee. See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, severity: but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off”. — 1 Cor 9, 27: “I chastise my body and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway”. — 1 Cor 10, 12: “He that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall”. — Apoc 3, 11: “Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown”.

See the Fathers in the following part.

II. By every mortal sin.

The documents of the Church

CONC. TRID. cap. 15: “Against also the crafty wits of certain men, who by sweet speeches and blessings seduce the hearts of the innocent¹², it must be asserted that not only by unbelief, by which even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, although faith is not lost, the grace of justification that has been received is lost: defending the doctrine of the divine law, which excludes from the kingdom of God not only unbelievers, but the faithful too who are fornicators, adulterers, the effeminate, those who lie with mankind, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners¹³, and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the help of divine grace they can abstain, and for which they are separated from the grace of Christ”¹⁴. — Can. 27: “If anyone shall say that there is no mortal sin except that of unbelief, or that no other sin, however grave and enormous, besides unbelief can make a man lose the grace once received: A. S.”¹⁵.

Sess. 7, De Baptismo, can. 6: “If anyone shall say that a baptized person cannot, even if he wishes, lose grace, however much he sins, unless he is unwilling to believe: A. S.”¹⁶.

SACRED SCRIPTURE

St Paul enumerates several sins which exclude from the kingdom of God: 1 Cor 6, 9 (cited in the Council of Trent); Gal 5, 19-21; Eph 5, 5; similarly Apoc 21, 8 (“their part shall be in the pool burning with fire and brimstone: which is the second death”).

Iac 1, 15: “But sin, when it is completed (perfected, perfectly committed), begets death”.

THE FATHERS

St ATHANASIUS: “Wherefore when anyone has fallen away from the Spirit by some fault, that grace indeed remains irrevocably with those who have willed it, provided only that they repent after they have fallen; yet he who has fallen is no longer in God, because the holy and paraclete Spirit, who is in God, has withdrawn from him”¹⁷.

St JEROME, explaining the words of John which Jovinian had objected: “For this cause, he says, I write to you, my little children: Everyone who is born of God does not sin, that you may not sin, and that you may know that you remain in the generation of the Lord as long as you have not sinned. Nay, those who persevere in the generation of the Lord cannot sin. For what fellowship is there of light and darkness? of Christ and Belial?¹⁸ As day and night cannot be mingled, so neither can justice and iniquity, sin and good works, Christ and Antichrist. If we have received Christ into the lodging of our breast, we put the devil to flight at once. If we have sinned, and the devil has entered through the door of sin, Christ straightway withdraws”¹⁹.

St AUGUSTINE: “But if one already regenerated and justified falls back by his own will into a wicked life, certainly he cannot say: I have not received it, because he has lost, by his own free will turned to evil, the grace of God that he had received”²⁰.

III. By mortal sin alone.

The documents of the Church

CONC. TRID. cap. 11: “For although in this mortal life the saints and just, however holy, sometimes fall into light and daily sins, which are also called venial, they do not therefore cease to be just. For that voice of the just is both humble and true: ‘Forgive us our debts’”²¹. — Sess. 14, cap. 5, De confessione: “For venial sins, by which we are not excluded from the grace of God and into which we fall more frequently…”²².

SACRED SCRIPTURE

Iac 3, 2: “For in many things we all offend”. Certainly he does not mean to say that all are spiritually dead and separated from Christ. — All must pray: “Forgive us our debts”, Matth 6, 12.

For more on this part see thesis 15, where it is shown that it is a singular privilege to be able to avoid venial sins throughout one’s whole life; but it is not a singular privilege to remain in the justice received; for every just man can do that (cf. thes. 12 part. 3).

The just man can persevere in justice, he can with special divine help avoid mortal sins (thes. 12); but he can sin again and lose grace (thes. 13); therefore not everyone who can persevere by that very fact already de facto perseveres to the end of life and obtains eternal beatitude. To persevere in act is without doubt a greater good than to be able to persevere. Final perseverance is called in the thesis a great gift of God in order to signify 1) that it really is a gift of God and not identical with those gifts which every just man has and whereby he is able to persevere; 2) that this gift is for that reason called great, because he who receives it will obtain eternal beatitude.

The discourse in the thesis is not about the virtue of perseverance, which is a virtue annexed to fortitude and inclines one to persist in a good work notwithstanding the difficulties which arise precisely from the length of the work.

Perseverance in the thesis is understood as remaining in the justice received.

It is temporal, if the just man remains in justice for some time, but afterwards sins again; this in practice every just man has, since a man is scarcely found who sins immediately after justification; but it is clear that it is a greater gift if someone remains free from sin for a longer time than if only for a short time.

Final perseverance is that which endures from the last justification to the end of life. Of itself it need not last long, because it is possible for someone to die very shortly after receiving justification.

Final perseverance can be potential, that is, the power of persevering, which according to thesis 12 every justified man has; actual perseverance, however, is that which includes the act of persevering; it is therefore the actual remaining in the justice received until death. This a man can have who is at present indeed a sinner, but who will be converted and will then remain in grace and die in it; the same can be lacking in someone who is now in the state of grace, who nevertheless will afterwards sin and die in sin. Hence it is already clear that the principal element in actual final perseverance is death itself in the state of grace, which is usually called passive final perseverance; active perseverance, however, is understood as remaining in good works from the last justification until death.

The gift of final perseverance comprises both; yet there can be cases in which final perseverance is only passive; thus in baptized infants, who die before the use of reason; and in adults who die at once or shortly after their last justification.

From what has been said it is clear why this perseverance is rightly called a great gift of God, which is not conferred by justification itself as such: 1) by reason of passive perseverance: the end of man’s life is under divine providence; it does not depend on man that, while he is in the state of mortal sin, he does not die, but that time for justification is still granted him, and that he then dies in grace; 2) by reason of active perseverance: for the power to persevere special divine help is already required; but without doubt it is a far greater benefit to receive from God graces with which a man can indeed persevere but will not de facto persevere (truly and merely sufficient graces), than graces with which he will de facto cooperate, avoid sin and persevere in grace (efficacious graces); 3) there can be added the special providence by which God keeps a free man from the temptations to which he would succumb; but this can in some way be reduced to 2).

Against the thesis stand, besides the Pelagians, the Semi-Pelagians, whose opinion Hilary sets out to St Augustine thus: “But what your Holiness says, that no one perseveres unless he has received the virtue of persevering, they understand thus far, that to those to whom it is given, although inert, it is nevertheless attributed to their own preceding will; which they assert to be free only to this extent, that it may will or not will to admit the remedy. For the rest, they also testify that they abominate and condemn it, if anyone should think that any power has remained in anyone by which he could advance to health. But they do not wish this perseverance to be preached in such a way that it cannot either be obtained by supplication or lost by contumacy. Nor do they wish to be brought to the uncertainty of the will of God, where it is evident to them, as much as they think suffices for obtaining or admitting it, whatever beginning of the will there is. That testimony also which you have set down: He was taken away lest malice should change his understanding¹, they define as to be omitted as not canonical. Whence they so take that foreknowledge, that they are to be understood as foreknown on account of future faith: nor is such perseverance given to anyone that he is not permitted to transgress it, but such that he can by his own will fail and be weakened… For the rest, whatever has been given to the predestined, they contend that it can both be lost and retained by their own will; which would then be false, if they thought it true that some have received perseverance in such a way that they cannot but be persevering”².

The error seems to consist in this, that they deny that there is any gift of perseverance which cannot by man’s free will be actually frustrated of its effect, or which does not infallibly include death in grace. For if anyone has the gift of perseverance, as has been explained above, it is metaphysically repugnant that he should not actually persevere.

The documents of the Church

CONC. TRID. cap. 12 says that the just man, if he has sinned, cannot promise himself a certain repentance, because without revelation it cannot be known whom God has chosen for himself; therefore it depends on the election of God³.

Cap. 13: The gift of perseverance “of which it is written: He who shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved⁴… cannot be had from elsewhere, except from him who is able to establish him who stands⁵, that he may stand perseveringly, and to restore him who falls…”⁶; therefore final perseverance is a gift of God. Can. 16 calls it “that great gift of perseverance unto the end”⁷.

SACRED SCRIPTURE

According to Sacred Scripture death in the state of friendship with God is a divine gift: Sap 4, 11: “He was taken away, lest malice should change his understanding”; 4, 14: “For his soul was pleasing to God; for this cause he hastened to bring him out of the midst of iniquities”. — The Lord warns that they should pray constantly in order to obtain this perseverance: Luc 21, 34 ss.: “And take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness and the cares of this life: and that day come upon you suddenly: for as a snare shall it come upon all that sit upon the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, praying at all times, that you may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that are to come and to stand before the Son of man”.

THE FATHERS

St AUGUSTINE treats this question at length in the book “De dono perseverantiae”⁸. At the beginning he shows what this perseverance is: “Now perseverance must be discussed more diligently: for in the earlier book⁹, when we were treating of the beginning of faith, we also said something about it. We assert therefore that perseverance, by which one perseveres in Christ unto the end, is a gift of God. But I call the end that by which this life is ended, in which there is only the danger lest one fall. And so whether each one has received this gift, as long as he has led this life, is uncertain. For if he falls before he dies, he is said not to have persevered, and is said most truly. How then is he who has not persevered to be said to have received or to have had perseverance? For if someone has continence, and falls from it and becomes incontinent, if he has justice similarly, if patience, if faith itself, he is rightly said to have had it and not to have it: for he was continent, or he was just, or patient, or faithful, as long as he was: but when he ceased to be, he is not what he was: but he who has not persevered, how was he persevering; since each one shows himself persevering by persevering, which this man did not do? But lest anyone should strive against this and say: if each one, from the time he became faithful, lived, for example, ten years, and in the middle of that time lapsed from the faith, did he not persevere five years? I do not contend about words, if that also is thought to be called perseverance, as it were of its own time: this perseverance certainly, of which we now treat, by which one perseveres in Christ unto the end, he who has not persevered unto the end is in no way to be said to have had; and rather did the faithful man of one year have it, and, as much less as can be conceived, if he lived faithfully until he died, than the man of many years, if he defected from the stability of faith a short time before death. This being settled, let us see whether this perseverance, of which it has been said: He who shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved¹⁰, is a gift of God”¹¹.

Then by many arguments he proves that perseverance is not from the powers of free will, not from our merits, but a gratuitous gift of God, where among other things he insists greatly on this, that perseverance is the object of prayer (nr. 3: “But why is that perseverance asked of God, if it is not given by God?”)¹², an argument which he finds already set out at length in Cyprian (nr. 4-9).

Cap. 7, nr. 15: “For from whom, unless from him, do we receive, by whom it has been commanded that we ask? Altogether in this matter let the Church not expect laboured disputations: but let her attend to her daily prayers. She prays that unbelievers may believe; God therefore converts them to the faith. She prays that believers may persevere: God therefore grants perseverance unto the end”¹³.

Cap. 17, nr. 41: “There remains among these goods perseverance unto the end, which is daily asked of the Lord in vain, if the Lord does not work it by his grace in him whose prayers he hears. See now how alien it is from the truth to deny that perseverance unto the end of this life is a gift of God: since he himself gives to this life its end when he wills; which if he gives before an imminent fall, he makes the man persevere unto the end”¹⁴.

Towards the end of the book he shows that he teaches these things not as new, but had already taught the same before, cap. 21, nr. 55: “And I indeed in that book whose title is De correptione et gratia, which could not suffice for all our lovers, think that I so laid it down that even to persevere unto the end is a gift of God¹⁵, that this, before that, if forgetfulness does not deceive me, I had written either nowhere or almost nowhere so expressly and evidently. But I have now said this in such a way that it is not the case that no one before me has said it. For blessed Cyprian in the Lord’s Prayer, as we have already shown, so expounded our petitions, that in the very first petition he said that we ask for perseverance; asserting that we pray this, by saying, ‘Hallowed be thy name’¹⁶, when we have already been sanctified in Baptism; that in that which we have begun to be, we may persevere. Yet let those see, to whom, loving me, I ought not to be ungrateful, who besides this which has come into question profess, as you write, to embrace all my works: let them see, I say, whether in the later parts of the first book, of those two which I wrote at the beginning of my episcopate, before the Pelagian heresy appeared, to Simplician bishop of Milan¹⁷, there has remained anything by which it may be called in doubt that the grace of God is given not according to our merits: and whether there I have not sufficiently treated that even the beginning of faith is a gift of God: and whether from those things which are said there it does not consequently shine forth, even if it is not expressed, that perseverance even unto the end is given by no one except by him who has predestined us into his kingdom and glory. Then the epistle itself, which I have already made against the Pelagians to Saint Paulinus bishop of Nola¹⁸, to which epistle they have only now begun to contradict, did I not publish it many years ago? Let them inspect also that which I gave to Sixtus, presbyter of the Roman Church¹⁹, when we strove against the Pelagians in a most keen conflict; and they will find it such as that to Paulinus. Whence let them recall that against the Pelagian heresy these things were said and written already some years ago, which now they wonder to find displeasing to them.

Although I would not wish anyone so to embrace all my works as to follow me, except in those things in which he has perceived that I have not erred. For I am now making the books in which I have undertaken to retract my little works for this reason, that I may show that I have not followed even myself in all things, but I think that I have written with profit, by the mercy of God, yet not begun from perfection: since I should speak more arrogantly than truly, if even now I said that I had already come to perfection in this age without any error in writing. But it matters how much and in what matters one errs; and how easily each one corrects himself, or with how great pertinacity he tries to defend his error. For a man is of good hope, if the last day of this life finds him so advancing, that there may be added to him the things which were lacking to him as he advanced, and he be judged rather to be perfected than punished”²⁰.

THE THEOLOGIANS

Although the opinions of theologians about predestination, about efficacious grace and its nature are diverse, yet in this all agree, that final perseverance is a great gift of God. St THOMAS: “Perseverance is spoken of in three ways: for sometimes it signifies a habit of mind, by which a man stands firmly, so as not to be removed from that which is according to virtue, by sorrows rushing in; so that perseverance is related to sorrows as continence to concupiscences and pleasures, as the Philosopher says in 7 Eth. In another way perseverance can be called a certain habit, according to which a man has the purpose of persevering in good unto the end: and in both of these ways perseverance is infused together with grace, as also continence and the other virtues. In another way perseverance is called a certain continuation of good unto the end of life; and to have such perseverance a man established in grace does not indeed need any other habitual grace, but divine help directing and protecting him against the impulses of temptations, as appears from the preceding question. And therefore, after a man has been justified through grace, he needs to ask of God the aforesaid gift of perseverance, namely that he be kept from evil unto the end of life. For to many grace is given, to whom it is not given to persevere in grace”²¹.

If it is asked in what the gift of perseverance properly consists, it is clear already from what has been said that it does not consist in the gifts which are conferred in justification itself, and therefore neither in the grace which is called sacramental, however that be explained; moreover not, as St Thomas observes above, in some other infused habit; nay, in no particular gift, but in the complex of gifts which have already been indicated, namely divine direction through providence, protection through efficacious graces, and death in the state of grace²². He who has the gift of perseverance is in some sense impeccable, which impeccability is external, since there is not in the subject himself the reason by which sin is excluded from the subject.

There is to be distinguished from the gift of final perseverance the gift of confirmation in grace, which has been granted by God to some saints. In what the difference consists is explained by theologians in different ways, and that explanation depends for the most part on the different opinions about predestination and about the nature of efficacious grace²³.

“The just man”: the thesis treats of the justified; but if it holds of them, then a fortiori the same must be said of the rest of men.

“All venial sins”: what venial sin is, see above pag. 253, note 74. A sin can be venial either from the nature of its object or from a defect of deliberation; the latter are called sins of surprise. The thesis of itself speaks of all venial sins, deliberate and of surprise, but it is chiefly understood of sins of surprise, although to remain free from every deliberate venial sin is already altogether a great gift of God. Further, the thesis treats of venial sins taken collectively, not of individual sins taken one by one.

“In the whole of life”: so the thesis itself has it, and it is defined in this sense; from this, moreover, the conclusion is easily drawn that not even for a long time can the just man remain free from venial sin, “for a long time” being understood in the sense in which it is understood in thesis 11.

“Without a privilege”: a privilege is defined as an exception to a general law, and an odious exception. If therefore to avoid every venial sin is a privilege, there must exist some law according to which all men, even the just, commit venial sins. But this is not to be understood as though God had established a law that all men should commit venial sins; but God in the present order does not will to give the just those graces with which they would avoid all venial sins, but wills to permit such sins to be committed by the just. As is shown in the treatise on providence, God can permit this, because even sin can be ordered outwardly to some good¹.

“A special privilege” is one that is granted only most rarely. This privilege was in fact granted to the Blessed Virgin, that she should remain free from every venial sin throughout her whole life. It is clear that it is a great privilege if anyone remains free “for a long time” from every venial sin.

“Cannot”: this is to be understood in the same way as in thesis 11, not of physical but of moral impotence.

Against the thesis stand the Pelagians, of whom St Augustine said: “They even go so far as to say that the life of the just in this world has no sin at all, and that from such men the Church of Christ is made perfect in this mortal state, so that she is altogether without spot and wrinkle; as though the Church of Christ were not she who cries to God throughout the whole world: Forgive us our debts”².

Further, the Beghards thought that a man could arrive at such a degree of perfection as to be altogether impeccable.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH

CONC. VIENNENSE condemned the error of the Beghards, 1: “That a man in the present life can acquire so great and such a degree of perfection that he will be rendered wholly impeccable and will be able to advance no further in grace: for, as they say, if anyone could always advance, someone could be found more perfect than Christ”³.

CONC. TRIDENTINUM, can. 23: “If anyone says that a man once justified... can throughout his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, unless by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds concerning the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema”⁴.

SACRED SCRIPTURE

Sacred Scripture says or supposes, in a wholly universal way, of all the just, that there are in them sins which, since they cannot be understood as mortal (for they are just), must be understood as venial; therefore in the present order God does not will to give the just those graces with which they would avoid all venial sins; therefore if in some special case he nevertheless grants such graces, there is an exception to that universal law.

The texts are the same as those adduced in thesis 13, part III: Iac 3, 2: “In many things we all offend”; and Matth 6, 12: all must pray: “forgive us our debts”.

THE FATHERS

St Gregory Nazianzen: “Let us hold this as known, that to be free from every vice truly exceeds the measure of man; and it belongs to God alone”⁵.

St Augustine: “For all sins baptism was instituted; for light sins, without which we cannot be, prayer was instituted. What does prayer have? Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. Once we are washed in baptism, daily we are washed in prayer”⁶. — “For as certain venial sins, without which this life is not lived, do not keep the just man from eternal life, so to eternal salvation no good works avail the impious, without which the life of any most wicked man is found only with the greatest difficulty”⁷.

“Except therefore the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, for the honour of the Lord, I wish no question at all to be raised when there is question of sins — for whence do we know what abundance of grace was conferred on her for conquering sin in every respect, she who merited to conceive and bring forth him whom it is certain had no sin? — this Virgin, then, excepted, if we could gather together all those holy men and women, while they lived here, and ask them whether they were without sin, what do we think they would have answered? Would it be what this man (Pelagius) says, or what the Apostle John says? I ask you, however great the excellence of holiness in this body, if they could have been asked this, would they not have cried out with one voice: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?”⁸. — “Man cannot, so long as he bears the flesh, but have at least light sins”⁹.

THE THEOLOGIANS

St Thomas: “But in the state of corrupted nature man needs habitual grace healing nature in order that he abstain altogether from sin; and this healing is first wrought in the present life as regards the mind, the carnal appetite not yet being wholly repaired; whence the Apostle says in Rom 7 in the person of the man repaired: I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin; in which state man can abstain from every mortal sin, which consists in reason, as was said above (1, 2 q. 74 a. 5), but man cannot abstain from every venial sin because of the corruption of the lower sensitive appetite, whose movements reason can indeed repress one by one, and from this they have the character of sin and of the voluntary; but not all, because while it strives to resist one, perhaps another rises up, and also because reason cannot always be watchful to avoid movements of this kind, as was said above (1, 2 q. 74 a. 10)”¹⁰.

On merit

The Council of Trent defined the doctrine on merit against the innovators of the sixteenth century. That Luther denied merit is clear from the passages cited at pag. 38 s. Nor is it to be forgotten that according to him all works, even those of the just, are sins, which nevertheless are not imputed to them by God. We have seen too that the innovators affirm some necessity of good works after justification, but that these are in no way meritorious as regards justice. This appeared most of all in the antinomian controversy, in which some conceded merit in some way, as Melanchthon did, but in a wholly restricted sense. In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession he writes as follows: “And here we add also concerning rewards and concerning merit. We teach that rewards have been set before and promised to the works of the faithful. We teach that good works are meritorious, not of the remission of sins, of grace or of justification (for these we obtain by faith alone), but of other rewards, corporal and spiritual, in this life and after this life, because Paul says: Every one shall receive his reward according to his own labour. There will therefore be unlike rewards on account of unlike labours... Therefore because we do not merit justification by our works, by which we are made sons of God and co-heirs of Christ, we do not merit eternal life by our works. For faith obtains it, because faith justifies us and has God appeased. But it is owed to the justified according to that saying: Whom he justified, them he also glorified. Paul commends to us the commandment concerning the honouring of parents by the mention of the reward which is added to that commandment, where he does not mean that obedience toward parents justifies us before God; but once it takes place in the justified, it merits other great rewards”¹.

Calvin teaches concerning merit: “What all our works deserve, Scripture shows when it denies that they can bear the sight of God, because they are full of uncleanness; and what the perfect observance of the law (if any could be found) would deserve, when it commands that we reckon ourselves unprofitable servants when we have done all things that are commanded us (Luc 17, 10); because we shall have bestowed nothing on the Lord freely, but shall have discharged only due services, to which no thanks are to be given. The Lord nevertheless calls the good works which he has conferred upon us our own, and testifies that they are not only acceptable to him, but will also have a recompense. It is ours in turn to be animated by so great a promise, and to gather heart, lest we grow weary in well doing, and to pursue so great a goodness of God with true gratitude. There is no doubt that whatever there is in works which deserves praise is the grace of God; that there is not a drop which we ought properly to ascribe to ourselves. If we acknowledge this truly and seriously, there vanishes all confidence in merit, and not only confidence but the very opinion of it. The praise of good works, I say, we do not (as the sophists do) divide between God and man; but we keep it whole, entire and unimpaired for the Lord. We assign to man only this, that he defiles and contaminates with his own impurity those very works which were good. For nothing goes forth from man, however perfect, which is not stained with some blemish. Let the Lord therefore call to judgment what is best in human works: he will acknowledge therein indeed his own justice, but man's disgrace and shame. Good works therefore please God, nor are they unfruitful to their authors; nay rather they bring back the most ample benefits of God in the place of a recompense: not because they so merit, but because the divine goodness has of itself set this price upon them. But what malice is this, not to be content with that liberality of God, which rewards with undeserved recompenses works that merit no such thing, and with sacrilegious ambition to strive further, so that what is wholly of divine munificence should seem to be repaid to the merits of works?”².

Baius³ taught that a holy conversation, perseverance to the end of life, and the resurrection of the body are properly to be ascribed to the merits of Christ alone. But the attainment of eternal life, according to him, is not to be assigned to the merits of Christ nor to the decree of the grace of God, but to be ascribed to the natural institution of the human race. He rejects the opinion of those who say that merit is to be measured by the dignity of the one acting (the Son of God, etc.); but the whole reason of merit is to be measured from this, that works are the obedience of the commandments.

Jansenius⁴ denied that freedom from necessity is required for a meritorious work.

The words of the thesis are taken from can. 32 of the Council of Trent.

“Justified”: that a man may be able to merit, he must be in the state of grace, vitally united with Christ. Io 15, 4: “As the branch cannot bear fruit, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me”. The sinner has no merit strictly so called before God. Further, a man must be in the state of the way¹.

“By good works”: good works are those by which a man observes the commandments or counsels of God, by which he acts according to the will of God. But such a work, in order to be meritorious, must be free; for a meritorious work is one worthy of retribution; therefore in the work a man must contribute something of his own, and this only insofar as he is free. Freedom from coercion does not suffice, but freedom from necessity is required, as was defined against Jansenius², that is, freedom of indifference, and this either of exercise or of specification, at least if it is between acts of diverse moral goodness. Whether it suffices for merit if freedom of exercise is absent and there is only freedom of specification between acts of the same moral goodness, is disputed; but it seems better to deny it, because it does not appear how in such a supposition a man can really contribute something of his own³. Properly meritorious of itself is the act of the will alone, for that alone is intrinsically free and moral, the other acts only extrinsically and in their dependence on the act of the will; but it is clear that external acts can increase merit by increasing the intensity and duration of the internal act.

“Through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ”: by our own natural powers we have no merit properly so called before God; the whole possibility of meriting is from divine grace, which is granted to us on account of the merit of Christ, and so our whole merit is essentially founded upon and depends upon the merit of Christ. “For since Christ Jesus himself, as the head into the members⁴ and as the vine into the branches⁵, continually pours his virtue into the justified themselves, which virtue always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could in no way be pleasing and meritorious to God: nothing further is to be judged wanting to the justified themselves, so that they... should not be reckoned to have merited”⁶.

“Truly merits”: what merit is has been explained at pag. 135 ss. That the merit of which the Council speaks in this place is to be understood as the merit of condignity is clear both from the history of the definition itself⁷ and from the words themselves; for to merit truly is to merit in the proper sense, which cannot be said of the merit of congruity; the Council cites the words of St Paul concerning the crown to be rendered by the “just judge”⁸; but the merit to which a reward from justice corresponds is the merit of condignity.

That a work may be meritorious of condignity, equality is required between the work and the reward, which reward must be given from justice if the work has been accepted. These things are verified in the good works of the just. There is an equality, not indeed quantitative, which is not required, but of proportion. The reward is heavenly glory; but the just man is a partaker of the divine nature, an adopted son of God, and so is in the same order of supernaturalness in which the reward is; by this his dignity the acts also are dignified, the works which he does as an adopted son of God; besides, these very works are also in the same order according to their entity, because they are entitatively supernatural acts. As therefore there is a proportion between the grace which makes us sons of God and heirs of eternal life, and this eternal life itself, so there is the same proportion between the supernatural works of the sons of God and eternal life. The dignity of the works of the just in the present order grows further from this, that the just man as a living member is intimately united with Christ, that he has from the merit of Christ the power to merit, and that through our meritorious works the merits of Christ are applied to us. The other thing required for the merit of condignity is acceptation; and this is had in this case through God's own promise that he wills to give eternal life as a reward for good works.

Therefore eternal life is given to the just after death not only by title of inheritance, but also as a condign reward, by title of a certain justice. But this justice seems to be in some way legal justice, and most of all distributive; according to St Thomas there is there even a certain commutative justice⁹, which can rightly be said on account of God's promise made before the work was performed. But although true justice intervenes in rendering the reward, yet the rigour of justice is not there; for since the works which we can do from our own proper powers have no proportion to the eternal reward, the whole possibility of meriting rests upon the gifts freely conferred on us by God. “When God crowns our merits”, says St Augustine, “he crowns nothing else than his own gifts”.

“Increase of grace”: this is understood of sanctifying grace. It has already been shown in thesis 12 that the justice of the just man grows through the good works which he does; now it is said more precisely that that increase of grace is given precisely as a reward for the good work. Therefore the good works of the just man do not only stand as a disposition, in whose presence God would increase grace, but they are meritorious of this increase, so that the increase of grace truly has the character of a reward for the good work. Hence those things which avail in relation to disposition cannot for that very reason be applied to the increase which a man has merited for himself.

“Eternal life, the attainment of eternal life, the increase of glory”: eternal life, although it is a grace, the inheritance of an adopted son, is nevertheless also a reward for a meritorious work: “And therefore eternal life is to be set before those who work well unto the end¹⁰ and hope in God, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward to be faithfully rendered according to the promise of God himself for their good works and merits”¹¹. Since the reward of the increase of grace can already be conferred in this life, the reward of eternal life is granted only in the other life; a man therefore merits eternal life “to be attained also in its own time”¹²; for the condition is: “if nevertheless he departs in grace”. Since the just man merits through good works the increase of grace, and since glory is given according to the degree of grace and holiness, it is clear that through good works there is had also the merit of the increase of glory; this is understood of itself of essential glory, although the increase of accidental glory is not excluded.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH

CONC. ARAUSIC. can. 18: “Grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is owed to good works, if they are done; but the grace which is not owed precedes, that they may be done”¹³.

CONC. TRIDENTINUM speaks rather often of merit; besides the principal texts, cap. 16 and can. 32, cf. can. 2; can. 24 (good works are the cause of increasing justification); can. 26.

Pius V condemned the propositions of Baius: Prop. 2: “As an evil work is by its nature meritorious of eternal death, so a good work is by its nature meritorious of eternal life”¹⁴. Cf. prop. 3-6; 8; 10: “... the resurrection of the body is properly to be ascribed to the merits of Christ alone”. Prop. 11: “That we who have lived piously and justly in this mortal life unto the end of life attain eternal life, is not properly to be assigned to the grace of God, but to the natural ordination established at the very beginning of creation by the just judgment of God: nor in this retribution of goods is regard had to the merit of Christ, but only to the first institution of the human race, in which it was established by the natural law that by the just judgment of God eternal life be rendered to the obedience of the commandments”. — 12: “It is the opinion of Pelagius that a good work done without the grace of adoption is not meritorious of the kingdom of heaven”. — 13: “Good works done by the sons of adoption do not receive the character of merit from the fact that they are done through the spirit of adoption dwelling in the hearts of the sons of God, but only from the fact that they are conformable to the law, and that by them obedience is rendered to the law”. Similar things in prop. 14, 15. — 17: “They think with Pelagius who say that it is necessary for the character of merit that a man be raised by the grace of adoption to the deified state”. — 18: “The works of catechumens, such as faith and penance done before the remission of sins, are merits of eternal life: which life they themselves will not attain unless the impediments of their preceding sins be first removed”.

SACRED SCRIPTURE

Sacred Scripture affirms, between the works of the just who are on the way and eternal life, the relation which is between a truly meritorious work and its reward. For it calls eternal life a reward, a prize, a crown; eternal life is a recompense, a retribution; it is given for good works and according to the measure of works; it is given by a just judge. But the acceptation of God is contained in this, that God has promised eternal life as a reward, etc., for good works.

Reward: Matth 5, 11 s.: “Blessed are you when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: be glad and rejoice, for your reward is great in heaven”. Cf. 5, 46; 6, 1; 10, 42. — 1 Cor 3, 8: “But every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour”. — V. 14: “If any man's work abide, which he has built upon it, he shall receive a reward”. — 2 Io 8: “Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward”. — Apoc 11, 18: “And thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead to be judged, and to render a reward to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and to them that fear thy name, small and great, and to destroy them that have corrupted the earth”. — 22, 12: “Behold, I come quickly: and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works”. But a reward is that which someone merits by a work performed for another, and which is justly paid to him: Matth 20, 8, the parable of the labourers in the vineyard: “Call the labourers and pay them their hire”, concerning which he had agreed with them in v. 2; cf. v. 14: “Take what is thine and go”. Cf. Luc 10, 7; 1 Tim 5, 18; Iac 5, 4.

Recompense: Hebr 10, 35: “Do not therefore lose your confidence, which has a great recompense”. Cf. 11, 6. 26; 2 Cor 6, 13. Recompense (μισθαποδοσία) is the payment of a reward.

Prize: Phil 3, 14: “I press towards the mark (I run towards the goal, the end), to the prize of the supernal vocation of God in Christ Jesus”. The prize is the reward which the president of the contest in the public games gives to the victor of the contest; cf. 1 Cor 9, 24: “Know you not that they who run in the race, all run indeed, but one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain”.

Crown: 2 Tim 4, 7 s.: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice (a crown, the reward of justice, Zorell), which the Lord, the just judge, will render to me in that day: and not to me only, but to them also that love his coming”. Cf. 2 Tim 2, 3. 5. — Iac 1, 12: “Blessed is the man that endures temptation: for when he has been proved, he shall receive the crown of life, which God has promised to them that love him”. — Apoc 2, 10: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life”.

Retribution: Col 3, 23 s.: “Whatsoever you do, do it from the heart, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that you shall receive of the Lord the retribution of inheritance”.

For good works: Matth 25, 34 s.: “Possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave me to eat...”. — 2 Cor 4, 17; 5, 10.

According to works: Matth 16, 27: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works”. — Rom 2, 6; 1 Cor 3, 8; Apoc 22, 12. — 2 Cor 9, 6: “He who sows sparingly shall also reap sparingly: and he who sows in blessings (ἐπ’ εὐλογίαις. Εὐλογία here signifies liberality; hence ἐπ’ εὐλογίαις in opposition to “sparingly” signifies “largely”; Zorell) of blessings shall also reap”.

The just judge: 2 Tim 4, 7 s.

THE FATHERS

St Justin: “Having been taught by the prophets that punishments and torments and good recompenses are rendered according to the merit of each one's actions, we also show forth the truth”¹⁵.

St Theophilus: “Read the prophetic Scriptures diligently, and they will guide you more safely, that you may escape eternal punishments and attain the eternal goods of God. For he who gave a mouth for speaking, and formed ears for hearing, and made eyes for seeing, will examine all things and will pass a just judgment, giving to each one his reward according to his merits”¹⁶.

St Irenaeus: “Let us reckon the crown precious, namely that which is acquired for us by struggle, and not one that grows of itself. And the more it comes to us through struggle, the more precious it is; and the more precious, the more let us always love it. But neither are those things loved in like manner which come of themselves, as those which are found out with much solicitude”¹⁷.

Tertullian: “A good deed has God for its debtor, as also an evil one, because the judge is the recompenser of every cause”¹⁸.

St Hippolytus: “Before whose (God the Word's) judgment all standing, men, angels, demons, will utter this one voice, saying thus: Thy judgment is just. The equity of which voice the retribution made to both shows; since to those who do well eternal enjoyment is justly rendered, but to the covetous of evil things eternal punishment is paid back”¹⁹.

St Cyprian: “Buy for yourself a white garment, that you who were naked according to Adam and before were foul and loathsome may be clothed with the shining raiment of Christ. And you who are a wealthy and rich matron, anoint your eyes not with the devil's antimony but with the eye-salve of Christ, that you may be able to come to the sight of God, while you merit God by your conduct and works”²⁰.

St Cyril of Jerusalem: “The root of every good work is the hope of the resurrection; for the expectation of the reward strengthens the soul to undertake good works. And indeed every labourer is ready to endure labours if he has looked forward to the reward of his labours; but for those who labour with no reward set before them, the mind falls together with the body beforehand”²¹.

St Basil: “Tell me, I pray, of what times will you demand the reward — of those in which you lived, or of those which followed after death? But in the time when you were living, given over to the pleasures of life and dissolving in delights, you did not endure even to look upon the needy; but now what action is there of a dead man? and what reward of work is owed to him? Show your works and demand the recompense”²².

St Ambrose: “The scale of our merits hangs upon each one of us, and by the slight weights of a good deed or of a degenerate crime it is often inclined this way and that... On the day of judgment either our works will help us, or they themselves will plunge us into the deep, sunk as by a millstone”²³.

St Jerome: “God created us with free will, nor are we drawn to virtues or to vices by necessity. Otherwise, where there is necessity, there is no crown”²⁴. — “It is now our task to prepare for ourselves different rewards in proportion to the diversity of our virtues”²⁵.

St Augustine: “He has granted pardon, he will render the crown: he is the giver of pardon, the debtor of the crown. Whence a debtor? Has he received anything?... The Lord has made himself a debtor, not by receiving, but by promising. It is not said to him: Render what you have received; but: Render what you have promised”²⁶. — “It is commanded that we live rightly, with this reward certainly set before us, that we may merit to live blessedly for ever. But who can live rightly and work well, unless justified by faith?”²⁷.

“Nor let a man say to himself: If it is from faith, how is it gratis? For what faith merits, why is it not rather rendered than given? Let not a faithful man say these things, because, when he has said: I have faith that I may merit justification, it is answered him: What have you that you have not received²⁸? When therefore faith obtains justification, as God has divided to each one the measure also of faith²⁹, no human merit precedes the grace of God, but grace itself merits to be increased, that being increased it may merit also to be perfected, the will accompanying and not leading, following and not going before”³⁰.

“For he (God) has been made a debtor, not by receiving anything from us, but by what it pleased him to promise. For in one way we say to a man: You owe me because I gave you; and in another way we say: You owe me because you promised me... In that way, then, we can demand of our Lord, saying: Render what you promised, because we have done what you commanded; and this you have done, because you have helped those who laboured”³¹.

“What merits, then, will the delivered man boast of, when if what was worthy of his merits were rendered, he would be nothing but condemned? Are there therefore no merits of the just? There are plainly, because they are just. But that they might become just, they had no merits”³². — “What then is the merit of man before grace, by which merit he may receive grace, when our every good merit is wrought in us by grace alone, and when God crowns our merits he crowns nothing else than his own gifts”³³. — “For when he had said: The wages of sin is death³⁴, who would not judge that he would most fittingly and consequently add, if he said: But the wages of justice is life eternal? And it is true; because as to the merit of sin death is rendered as its wages, so to the merit of justice eternal life is rendered as its wages”³⁵.

St Prosper: “The man therefore justified, that is, made pious from impious, with no good merit preceding, receives the gift by which gift he may acquire merit also”³⁶. — The same (?): “It has been shown, as I judge, abundantly by these testimonies, although other documents too could have been gathered, that the faith by which the impious is justified is not had except from the gift of God, and is bestowed with no merits preceding, but is given for this, that it may be the beginning of merits; and that, when it has been given though not asked for, the other goods follow from its petitions”³⁷.

St Fulgentius: “He therefore who has given us what we may owe by rendering, will himself give us the ability by which we may render what we owe. He therefore is the author of the debt who is the author of the gift; for he has deigned to make himself a debtor by his own liberality, not because being in need he received from anyone, but because being abundant he bestowed largely”³⁸.

St Gregory the Great: “The good which we do is both God's and ours: God's through prevenient grace, ours through the obedient free will. For if it is not God's, whence do we give him thanks for ever? Again, if it is not ours, whence do we hope that rewards will be rendered to us? Because therefore we give thanks not without reason, we know that we are preceded by his gift; and again, because we seek a retribution not without reason, we know that with free will following we choose the good things which we would do”³⁹.

THE THEOLOGIANS

It is clear that the theologians agree in the things which the thesis affirms. They raise, however, certain special questions, in which diverse opinions are held:

The first sanctifying grace is not the object of merit, but only the increase of grace; for as long as a man is without sanctifying grace he is unjust, a sinner, and as such he cannot have merit of condignity before God. But a similar reasoning does not hold in relation to heavenly glory. Moreover, in Sacred Scripture eternal life is simply proposed as a reward, as the object of the merit of the just, and not merely as its increase. Hence many theologians hold that the first glory itself is given not by the title of inheritance alone but also by the title of merit. So Suárez¹, Vázquez² and others. De Lugo³, Ripalda⁴ and others deny it, according to whom the first glory is given by the title of inheritance alone.

Some think that the solution of the question depends on the view whether the last act disposing to justification proceeds effectively from sanctifying grace or not⁵, and that only on the former supposition can the first glory be said to be the object of merit. St Bellarmine, however, shows that the solution cannot be derived from that, but from the question whether one and the same thing can be due on various titles, which must certainly be affirmed. Thus the glory of the body was due to Christ by reason of the hypostatic union, and was also the object of merit. “But if it be granted, which is what we contend for, and what St Thomas teaches in 3 Sent. dist. 18 quaest. 1 art. 5, that one and the same thing can be due on various titles, without doubt that last disposition, continued after the infusion of grace, will be meritorious of eternal life, as St Thomas confirms in 1, 2 quaest. 112 art. 2 ad 1”⁶. Whether this view can appeal to the Council of Trent, which says that eternal life and the increase of glory are objects of merit, is not certain, since in the history of this definition it does not appear that the council wished to touch or to define this question.

The meritorious act is entitatively supernatural. Those, then, who say that a supernatural act necessarily has a formal object proper to itself, which is unattainable by natural powers, must necessarily affirm the same of the meritorious act. But from the fact that someone, as we have done, does not hold this view to be true, the matter is not for that reason decided. For God could of himself have established for the meritorious act the condition that it must proceed from some motive known by faith¹, for example the motive of acquiring supernatural beatitude; on this supposition the act would have to proceed from such a motive in such a way that by his act the man willed to tend to that end.

Those who affirm the necessity of a motive known by faith must of themselves concede that acts can be found in the just man which are neither sins nor meritorious, but indifferent in relation to eternal life — namely those acts which do indeed proceed from an honest motive, but are not ordered by the man's intention to the end known by faith, God, eternal life.

But those who deny that necessity say: Every just man has faith, has ordered himself to God, to the supernatural end, to eternal life; through the supernatural habits he can elicit acts that are entitatively supernatural. If now from some honest motive, not precisely known by faith, he elicits a morally good act, he himself remains in his ordering and tendency to his end, and by that very fact proceeds on the way to this end, without its being necessary to order the act by a special intention to God or to the attainment of eternal life. For every honest end is in fact ordered to the supreme end and subordinated to it; and the man who acts has chosen God as his last end when he became a believer and was justified, and so also by reason of the subject the act has that order to God, to eternal life, which is required.

On this matter there are very many disputations; Lange² gives the best survey of the more recent controversies, and finally concludes³: “Historically and speculatively our question is solved with difficulty. Most theologians affirm the necessity of some motive of faith. Many testimonies of the Fathers also seem to require it. But it can be disputed when faith has sufficient influence on works.”

Besides, it can also be asked whether the views differ speculatively, that is, in the explanation itself, or are in reality so very different. For even those who require the necessity of a “good intention” concede that it need not be actual and explicit, but that a virtual and implicit one suffices. For example, Pesch writes thus⁴: “From what has been said it is manifest how faith is necessary for each salutary work, and how it is not. For faith is required first of all for this, that a man be able to have the intention of a supernatural end and be moved towards it. Hence in each work faith must have efficacy to this extent, that the man walk within the way and not take steps outside the way. For this, however, there is no need that in each work an act of faith be elicited or the intention of the supernatural end renewed. But as he who, undertaking a pilgrimage to a distant city, elicits at the outset a firm purpose of going there, and by virtue of this purpose proceeds on the journey as long as he has not placed a contrary act, either explicitly or implicitly..., so the Christian who has once elicited a firm purpose of acquiring eternal life by his acts acts from this purpose as long as he does not revoke it, neither negatively nor positively, neither explicitly nor implicitly, which revocation is present in every grave sin. If, however, he has revoked it, a new conversion to the end is required... Nor is the thought that this act in particular has been revealed by God as salutary necessary in every good work, since Christians know that the observance of the natural law too has been proposed by God to us as the way to the supernatural end, as for example in the Sermon on the Mount... If, however, a Christian were to do works naturally honest only for the sake of the honesty of this world, so that through them he in no way tended to the supernatural end, he would not only not act well, but would sin, because he would not wish to conform himself to the divine ordinance... That vehement dispute which is stirred among later theologians on this matter seems to have arisen from the fact that some did not always sufficiently attend to what was required for the intention of the end to influence the choice of means and to dignify it, and therefore demanded too much; while others interpreted this exaggerated concept in a bad sense and so attacked a chimera. Surely any good Christian, asked why he does good works, will answer: Because I wish to come to heaven. This habitual intention plainly suffices for a man to act from the motive of faith. Wherefore such men are not to be disturbed about the motives of their good works, but simply exhorted to renew the good intention more often. This intention in ordinary men hardly ever proceeds from a philosophical consideration of natural honesty, but rather from the doctrine of faith concerning the heavenly kingdom to be obtained by merits.” Much less again does it seem to be required in the opposite view.

The question proposed treats only of what is absolutely required for a meritorious act; it is plain of itself that the act is better and more meritorious the more perfectly the “good intention” is present and influences the act.

It must be premised that the Church condemned the following propositions against Quesnel: Prop. 53: “Charity alone in a Christian manner performs (Christian actions) through relation to God and Jesus Christ”. — 54: “Charity alone is what speaks to God; it alone God hears”. — 55: “God crowns only charity: he who runs from another impulse and from another motive runs in vain”. — 56: “God rewards only charity: since charity alone honours God”¹. Hence it must now be said that it is not only acts elicited by charity that are meritorious. Nor does the Council of Trent restrict merit to acts of charity, but speaks universally of good works.

Some theologians hold that an act of virtue is not meritorious² unless it proceeds imperatively or virtually from an act of charity previously elicited. So several Thomists and Augustinians; besides St Bonaventure³, St Bellarmine⁴. But neither does the Council of Trent speak of this condition, though it indicated everything that is required for merit⁵. It requires the state of grace and good works. Can it be said that an act of virtue not commanded by charity is not a good work?

Hence preference is to be given to the view which is defended by very many theologians, and which Suárez states thus: “acts of the infused virtues performed by a man in grace are meritorious of condignity of supernatural beatitude by the force of their own goodness and connatural weight or relation to that end, without any other, so to speak extrinsic, relation accruing to them through a past or present act of charity”⁶.

This view corresponds perfectly to what the Council of Trent teaches, and adds no new condition to the conditions of merit established by the council. But if it is objected that the council requires works to be done “in God”, it must be answered that “in God” is not the same as “from charity”; the good works which are done by a just man under the influence of Christ, with the help of grace, are done in God. Nor does Sacred Scripture say that, for a work to be meritorious, it is required that it proceed from charity; cf. for example Matth 5 on the beatitudes. Therefore no other ordering “to the end of charity” is required in a meritorious work than that which consists in this, that the man who acts be in the state of grace and charity and, as an adopted son of God, do what God wills and what pleases God; thus in the work itself there is an ordering to the last end. If the condition which the other view establishes were so necessary that without it a work would not be meritorious, God would have made this clear.

Since the act of charity is the noblest act of the virtues and the most meritorious, it is plain that the acts of the other virtues are better the more charity influences them.

In this question we suppose that every supernatural act of virtue in the just is meritorious; it is only asked whether the increase of grace which a man has merited for himself by such acts is conferred immediately after the merit. For there are some theologians who think that this increase is had at once only if the man is disposed to receive it. This view seems to have arisen chiefly from what St Thomas says in 1, 2 q. 114 a. 8 ad 3. According to some, that disposition is then present in a man if the act of virtue is equally or more intense than the habit of grace; others think that the increase of grace which a man has merited for himself by remiss acts is given only in the other life.

In the sources of revelation nothing is found for this view. The increase of a supernatural habit must not be compared simply with the increase of a natural habit, in which the act itself as a physical cause contributes to the increase of the habit. But this in no way obtains in the meritorious work in relation to the supernatural habit; rather, God works the increase of the habit physically, and indeed as a reward, a retribution. But no reason appears why God cannot and will not give such an increase as a reward if the meritorious act is less intense. In this view there seems to be insufficient attention to the great difference which exists between disposition and merit. Altogether, therefore, preference is to be given to the view which says that the increase of grace is always conferred immediately after the meritorious act, even if that act is less intense. The Council of Trent says simply that the just grow in the justice received through good works, through the observance of the commandments, that they go from virtue to virtue, are renewed from day to day, nor does it ever indicate that they do not grow in justice unless their acts are equally or more intense than the habit.

There are those who say that at least for practice the former view is safer; for they think there is a danger that a man find himself deceived in the judgment, when he believes that through all those acts he has acquired an increase of grace which nevertheless he does not obtain. This could perhaps be said if that view had foundations in the sources of revelation. But since these are not found, neither is that danger present. For what was said before holds in this place too: if a greater intensity of the act were a condition as necessary as is affirmed, God would have made this clear.

But since merit grows with the goodness of the act, the faithful are to be exhorted to ever greater fervour, not indeed that they may merit the increase of grace altogether, but that they may have greater merit and be more pleasing to God.

The question could still be touched on in this place, whether the meritorious act must proceed from actual grace; but it seems better to speak of this matter in the fourth part, where the nature of actual grace is treated.

Objections

Very many objections of the innovators against the Catholic doctrine on merit are found in St Bellarmine, De iustificatione, lib. 5.

1. When eternal life is called a reward in Sacred Scripture, this is not to be understood in the proper sense but in a figurative one; for eternal life is called an inheritance; but an inheritance is not a reward; for it is due to sons because they are sons, not because they merited it by their labours.

I answer. “Since in the Scriptures eternal life is called a reward no less often, perhaps even more often, than an inheritance, how will Calvin prove that it must be called an inheritance properly and a reward improperly, and not rather the contrary, a reward properly and an inheritance improperly? Then, what if both can be said properly? For eternal life has the character of a reward and of an inheritance. For it is given by promise to those who labour, which is proper to a reward; and it is not given except to sons, which is proper to an inheritance”¹

“But if an inheritance is due to sons because they are sons, what need is there to labour to obtain it?

The answer is ready to hand: for although eternal life is given to little children who die soon after baptism by the title of inheritance alone, nevertheless God willed that his sons who have the use of reason should acquire it by their own labours and merits, so that eternal life should be due to them on a double title, namely the title of inheritance and the right of reward; for since it is more honourable to have something by merit than by mere donation, God, in order the more to honour his sons, granted them this besides, that they should procure eternal life for themselves by merits. For the glory of his body and the exaltation of his name were due to Christ himself by this very fact, that he was the Son of God; and yet because he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, therefore God exalted him and gave him a name which is above every name. To pass over for the present the fact that to the merits of works there is rendered some degree of eternal glory, which those who rejoice in the title of inheritance alone do not attain”²

2. From Matth 25 (possess the kingdom... for I was hungry) merit is not proved. For “‘for’ does not state a cause, but only an order and consequence: God willed that the works of mercy should first be done by the elect, and that the kingdom should afterwards be obtained by them” (Calvin).

I answer. Whether “for” can sometimes indicate only order, I pass over; certainly it can also signify causality. That it is to be understood thus in this place is plain a) from the parallel member: Go, you cursed, into eternal fire, for I was hungry and you gave me not to eat... But no one says that here only order is indicated and not causality; b) from the fact that in other places the attainment of glory is attributed to the works themselves (cf. the texts cited in the argument).

3. Ps 102, 4: “Who (the Lord) crowneth thee in mercy and compassion”; therefore not on account of merit, out of justice.

I answer. Beatitude is attributed to mercy “not because it is not a true reward of merit, but because the merits themselves have been given out of mercy. For a man cannot do meritorious works unless he has first been justified. But he is justified not from works, but from grace and mercy. Wherefore St Augustine too is accustomed to distinguish thus, saying that to justice itself eternal life is a reward, not a grace; but to the man himself it is a grace, not a reward, since to man justice is a grace”³

4. Luc 17, 10: “When you shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do”. Therefore merit does not arise from works.

I answer. “As St Augustine expounds, serm. 3 de verbis Domini, we can be called unprofitable servants when we have kept all the divine commandments, since we do nothing beyond what we owe, and could ask nothing from it as a just reward, unless God had willed to make a liberal covenant with us. For by our condition we are the slaves of God, and if he wills, he can bind us to all works whatever that please him without any reward. This condition of ours, then, Christ wills us to acknowledge in order to preserve humility. Although by the gratuitous covenant which he deigned to make with us, we can say with the Apostle: There is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the just judge will render to me in that day. For the Lord himself also says: Didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take what is thine and go. O great, says Augustine, is the goodness of God: when by our condition we owe him obedience as servants to a lord, he promises us the rewards of friendship, so that he may extort from us the service of due servitude”⁴

5. Rom 6, 23 says: “For the wages of sin is death, but the grace of God is life everlasting”, and it does not say: the wages of good works is eternal life; therefore eternal life is not the object of merit.

I answer. “St Augustine diligently solves this argument in epist. 105, in the Enchiridion cap. 107, and especially in the book De gratia et libero arbitrio cap. 8 and 9. But he says two things. First, that the Apostle could rightly have said, the wages of justice is eternal life, as he said, the wages of sin is death. And this confession of St Augustine utterly cuts the throat of the adversaries' case. Secondly, that it was not said, the wages of justice is eternal life, as the wages of sin is death, lest anyone should think that we have justice from ourselves as we have sins from ourselves. And so eternal life is called a grace, not because it is not the reward of merit, but because we have the merits themselves from grace”⁵

6. A great injury is done to Christ if anything is attributed to our merits, as though the merits of Christ were not sufficient.

I answer. “The more rhetorically, or rather tragically, the adversaries amplify this argument, the more empty it is found to be when it is discussed. For the merits of the just are not opposed to the merits of Christ, but are born from them, and whatever praise the merits of the just have, all of it redounds to the praise of the merits of Christ. For he is the vine, we the branches; and as the branch cannot bear fruit unless it abide in the vine, so neither can we do anything without Christ. And as no one was ever so foolish as to say that the glory of the vine is diminished if its branches bear much fruit, so no one, unless plainly foolish, can say that the glory of Christ is diminished if his servants, through his grace, through his spirit, through the faith and charity inspired by him, do good works which are so truly just that a crown of justice is owed to them by a just judge.

But, they say, if the merits of men are required, then the merits of Christ were not sufficient.

It is not so. For the merits of men are not required because the merits of Christ are insufficient, but because of their very great efficacy. For the works of Christ merited before God not only that we should obtain salvation, but also that we should obtain it through our own merits. Or, what is the same, they merited for us not only eternal salvation but also the power of meriting...

But at least, they say, glory is divided between God and man, if we attain salvation not by his merits alone but also by our own.

Nor is that true. For our merits are the gifts of Christ. And although in the good work which we do with God's help nothing is ours that is not God's, nor is anything God's that is not ours, but God does the whole and man does the whole: yet the reason why that work is worthy of eternal life depends entirely on grace. Finally, we are no less bound to Christ, nor do we refer our salvation whole and entire to him any the less, when we acquire it by our own merits, than if we received it without any merits of ours; indeed we confess ourselves much more his debtors now, since we are saved not only through his grace, but are saved through it in a most noble and most honourable manner”⁶

7. Rom 8, 18: “For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us”. Therefore St Paul denies the condignity of works with future glory.

I answer. The Greek text has οὐκ ἄξια, that is, “they are not weighty”, if they are compared with future glory⁷; the discourse is not about the condignity by which some work is meritorious of condignity.

In substance the same is found in St Bellarmine⁸: “For the Apostle speaks of the substance of the works themselves, not of an absolute proportion. For the sufferings of this time are brief, that glory is eternal; yet there is a proportion between these sufferings and that glory, on account of the dignity of the charity from which they proceed. For the passion of Christ too was much briefer than the eternal punishments of the damned, and yet on account of the dignity of the person suffering it was most worthy to satisfy most justly for those punishments. And the delights of sinners are incomparably less than the torments of hell, and yet on account of contempt of God they are most worthy to be punished with those torments.⁹ And the seed is much smaller, as regards bulk, than the tree itself; and yet there is so great a proportion between the seed and the tree that by a kind of natural justice the tree is owed to the seed rightly sown. And so blessed Paul says indeed in 2 Cor 4 that the sufferings of this time are momentary and light, if they are compared with the weight of eternal glory which we await, and yet he adds that these same momentary and light sufferings work the weight of eternal glory; but he understands them to work it without doubt not physically but morally, that is, not efficiently but meritoriously, and by this very fact to be worthy that that glory, however great and eternal, be attributed to them by a just judgment”.

Similarly St Thomas¹⁰: “The meritorious work of man can be considered in two ways: in one way according as it proceeds from free will; in another way according as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Spirit. If it be considered according to the substance of the work and according as it proceeds from free will, then there cannot be condignity there on account of the greatest inequality; but there is congruity on account of a certain equality of proportion. For it seems congruous that to a man working according to his own power God should recompense according to the excellence of his power. But if we speak of the meritorious work according as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Spirit, then it is meritorious of eternal life by condignity. For thus the value of the merit is attended to according to the power of the Holy Spirit moving us to eternal life, according to that of Ioannis 4: He shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting. The price of the work is attended to also according to the dignity of grace, through which man, made a partaker of the divine nature, is adopted as a son of God, to whom an inheritance is due from the very right of adoption, according to that of Rom 8: If sons, then heirs.”

8. In this doctrine God would be a debtor to man; but this is impossible; therefore.

I answer with St Augustine: “The Lord made himself a debtor, not by receiving, but by promising”¹¹. — Bellarmine: “A promise made with the condition of a work not only makes the thing promised due — for he who has promised is bound by justice to stand by his promises — but also brings it about that he who has fulfilled the work is said to have merited the thing promised and to be able to demand it as a reward by his own right”¹².