De gratia Redemptoris

Justification, according to what has been said, is not something merely external to the justified man, but truly internal: the justified man is inwardly just. The question now is how in the concrete this internal renewal of the sinner is obtained, and what and of what kind are the gifts that are conferred in the justification of the sinner. In this thesis we affirm that some created gift is conferred. “Created” is said here only in opposition to “uncreated”; therefore by this word we say nothing in the thesis itself about the mode by which that being arises, whether by creation properly so called or by eduction; but only: not uncreated. But we in no way deny that the uncreated gift is given in justification; indeed we shall establish this explicitly later; in this thesis, then, it is only positively affirmed that a created gift is given.

The opposite view is attributed to Peter Lombard, who held charity not to be a created infused virtue but the Holy Spirit himself. If moreover he taught that charity and “sanctifying grace” are identical, or if what other theologians attribute to that created being of which the thesis speaks he attributes to charity, that is, to the Holy Spirit, then we have an adversary of our assertion¹.

We say that this created being is physically permanent, that is, it is not an actual gift (e.g. an act of charity) which perseveres morally (in the same way as, after an act of sin, a man remains a “sinner”); but this being itself remains in the physical order, whether the operation of the justified man is present or not. This being is an accident, and indeed of the genus of quality; so all theologians now hold. They affirm, therefore, that in justification there is infused by God into the soul of the sinner a physical accident, a quality, which, since it makes the sinful man holy, is called sanctifying grace, and since it is conceived to be after the manner of a habit, is also called habitual grace.

Morinus, investigating historically the various opinions on the effect of sacramental absolution, says of that opinion “which attributes (to absolution) the infusion of habitual grace, that it is the most recent of all: for scarcely before the year 1200 did the Schools begin to dispute about the habits of grace. Therefore none of the most ancient Scholastics, whether when they dispute about the effect of contrition or about the power of the sacraments, makes express mention of infused habits”². “The Scholastics by disputing attained only this, that the grace by which the sinner is justified is a habit infused by God into the soul. Many doctors cried out against these habits, and long the battle was fought with equal fortune; but at length, around the year 1240, all that dispute cooled down, and all the Doctors agreed in the positing of habits. Meanwhile many great men, some of whom we shall report in chapter 7, have contended down to this very day that, although in fact the justification of the ungodly comes about through an infused habit, it can nevertheless come about without it through acts elicited by the will with the help of the Holy Spirit without a new habit”³. Then in ch. 7 he sets before the reader's eyes “the opinion of the most celebrated Scholastics in this matter, to which he may safely assent”. The authors he brings forward are: Dominic Soto, Melchior Cano, Bartholomew Medina, Ruard Tapper, John Vincent, Thomas Stapleton, Albert Pighius, Louis Molina, Gabriel Vázquez, who at least affirm that the matter has not been defined by the Church.

It is true that Sacred Scripture does not speak explicitly of infused qualities or habits, nor do the holy Fathers employ those terms when they speak of justification. But the Scholastics applied philosophical concepts to the explanation of this matter too, which in the time of the Fathers had already been done in other doctrines (cf. the treatise on the Trinity, on the Word Incarnate). Thus, however, the doctrine itself is not changed, but the same doctrine is presented in another way. In fact, within a short time the Scholastics agreed on this, that in the justification of adults grace and the virtues are infused as to habit. Yet they still disputed whether the same must be said also of the justification of infants. But after the Council of Vienne chose the affirmative opinion as more probable, this dispute too seems to have ceased⁴

How far anything has been defined by the Council of Trent in this matter is disputed. From the history of the council itself it would seem that one must say that the council understood a physically permanent created being⁵; hence the thesis would have to be called defined faith. Yet several theologians either deny the definition or doubt it; but at least the thesis must be called theologically certain. Thus, however, it is not affirmed that it is established with the same certainty that that created gift, physically permanent, is precisely a “quality” or a “habit”.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH

INNOCENT III, in the letter “Maiores”, reports, without deciding, two opinions about the effect of the baptism of infants: one which says that guilt indeed is remitted but grace is not conferred, the other which affirms both⁶. It is supposed that in adults both guilt is remitted and grace infused, since this was denied to little ones by some precisely for this reason, that they did not consent to this infusion.

CONC. VIENNENSE: “But because, as regards the effect of baptism in little ones, certain doctors of theology are found to have held contrary opinions... We, however, attending to the general efficacy of the death of Christ, which is applied through baptism equally to all the baptized, have judged the second opinion, which says that both to little ones and to adults there is conferred in baptism informing grace and the virtues, to be chosen as more probable, and more consonant and agreeable to the sayings of the Saints and to the theology of the modern doctors, with the sacred Council approving”⁷. Here too it is openly supposed that grace is infused into adults, since the reason is introduced: the efficacy of the death of Christ is applied through baptism equally to all the baptized (adults and infants).

CONC. TRID. 1) A created being: Sess. 6 cap. 7: “we are truly named and are just, receiving justice in ourselves, each one his own, according to the measure which the Holy Spirit divides to each as he wills, and according to each one's own disposition and cooperation”⁸. Can. 11: “If anyone says that men are justified... to the exclusion of grace and charity, which is poured forth into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them... let him be anathema”⁹. Therefore something distinct from the Holy Spirit himself. 2) A physically permanent being: this is had from the history of the council and from the use of the term “to inhere”, as it was understood in the council (cap. 7 and can. 11)¹⁰.

Pius V condemned prop. 42 of Baius: “The justice... does not (consist) in any grace of the soul infused...”¹¹.

SACRED SCRIPTURE

1. A physically permanent being. From what has so far been brought forward from Sacred Scripture it is clear that men in justification are regenerated, that a new life, a new nature is communicated to them, whence they are sons of God, and that they are a new creature; but all these things cannot signify a merely new moral condition, nor only a transient physical act, but a physical principle permanently in the just man himself.

2. A created being. This new nature is not the Holy Spirit himself. For St Paul calls it, as an effect of the Holy Spirit, a spirit (πνεῦμα), and distinguishes it from the Holy Spirit himself, Rom 8, 16¹². To this can also be referred Eph 1, 13: “in whom you also, believing, were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise”; Eph 4, 30: “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: in whom you were sealed unto the day of redemption”.

THE FATHERS

ST IRENAEUS: “And again, men who are unfruitful in justice and, as it were, wrapped round with thorns, if they receive diligence and, as it were, by an insertion receive the word of God, come back to the pristine nature of man, that which was made according to the image and likeness of God. But just as the wild olive, when grafted, does not indeed lose the substance of the wood, but changes the quality of its fruit and receives another name, being now called no longer a wild olive but a fruitful olive: so too man, grafted through faith and taking up the Spirit of God, does not indeed lose the substance of the flesh, but changes the quality of the fruit of his works and receives another name, signifying that transmutation which is for the better; he is now called no longer flesh and blood, but a spiritual man”¹³. ORIGEN: “But also, since many of the saints partake of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be understood as a body, which each of the saints would receive divided into bodily parts; but he is truly a sanctifying power, of which all are said to have a part who have merited to be sanctified by his grace”¹⁴. ST CYPRIAN: “Buy yourself a white garment, that you, who according to Adam were naked and before were foul and unsightly, may be clothed with the white raiment of Christ”¹⁵. ST AMBROSE: “We are therefore sealed by God with the Spirit. For as we die in Christ that we may be reborn, so also we are signed with the Spirit that we may be able to hold his splendour and image and grace; which is surely a spiritual seal. For although we are signed in the body in appearance, yet in truth we are signed in the heart, that the Holy Spirit may express in us the likeness of the heavenly image”¹⁶. “Whether then justification seems to you to be conferred according to the body or according to the soul, I ask you to answer. But you cannot doubt, since justice, from which justification is derived, is surely of the mind, not of the body. You have been painted, then, O man, painted by the Lord your God. You have a good artist and painter. Do not destroy the good picture, shining not with pigment but with truth, expressed not in wax but in grace”¹⁷. ST AUGUSTINE: “The justice of God has been manifested; he did not say: the justice of man, or the justice of one's own will; but: the justice of God, not that by which God is just, but that with which he clothes man when he justifies the ungodly”¹⁸. “Nor let it disturb us that he said that they naturally do the things of the law, not by the Spirit of God, not by faith, not by grace. For this is what the Spirit of grace does, that he restores in us the image of God, in which we were made by nature”¹⁹. ST CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: “Sin therefore has been condemned, put to death first in Christ, to be put to death also in us, when we receive him in our own souls through faith and the communication of the Spirit, who perfects us into the form of Christ, namely through the quality of sanctification. For the Spirit of our Saviour Christ is, as it were, his form, imprinting in us in some way through himself the divine figure”²⁰. “If, sealed by the Holy Spirit, we are reformed unto God, how shall that be created by which the image of the divine substance is imprinted on us and the marks of the uncreated nature inhere in us? For the Spirit does not, after the manner of a painter, paint the divine substance in us, as though he himself were alien to it; nor does he lead us to the likeness of God in this way; but he himself, who is God and proceeds from God, is invisibly imprinted in the hearts of those who receive him, as a seal on wax, repainting nature to the beauty of the exemplar through his own communication and likeness, and restoring to man the image of God”²¹. “Christ is formed in us, the Holy Spirit bringing into us a certain divine form through sanctification and justice. For thus, thus does the character of the substance of God and of the Father shine in our souls, the Holy Spirit, as I said, reforming us through sanctification into himself”²²

THE THEOLOGIANS

As has already been said, the theologians are entirely agreed on the fact; they dispute about the qualification of the thesis, or even about those things which could absolutely come about. St Thomas sets out the matter in 1, 2 q. 110 a. 1 (Whether grace puts something in the soul), and a. 2 (Whether grace is a quality), and answers both affirmatively.

If it is asked whether this created being, physically permanent, sanctifying grace, is really distinct from the soul, one must answer affirmatively; and so almost all theologians, with very few exceptions²³. Although perhaps it is not necessary to affirm that every real accidental change of a substance requires an accident really distinct from the substance²⁴, yet this cannot be denied, if the real change is such as to bring with it a new and greater perfection. In the present case, however, the matter is not as though the same perfection previously existing had only another mode of being, but a truly new and greater perfection supervenes, which the positive arguments prove. Therefore sanctifying grace must altogether be called really distinct from the soul. The opposite opinion is perhaps to be explained from the fact that it conceives an accident after the manner of a most subtle substance; but St Thomas rightly says: “As Boethius says, the being of an accident is to be in something; whence every accident is not said to be a being as though it had being itself, but because by it something is; whence also it is said to be rather of a being than a being, as is said in 7 Metaph.”. And in what follows he touches the question how grace arises: “and because it belongs to that whose being it is to come to be or to be corrupted, therefore, properly speaking, no accident either comes to be or is corrupted; but it is said to come to be or to be corrupted according as the subject begins or ceases to be in act according to that accident: and according to this grace too is said to be created, from the fact that men are created according to it, that is, are constituted in a new being out of nothing, that is, not from merits, according to that word to the Ephesians 2: Created in Christ Jesus in good works”²⁵. And elsewhere: “Grace, since it is not a subsistent form, neither to be nor to come to be belongs to it properly of itself: whence it is not properly created in that mode by which substances subsisting of themselves are created. Yet the infusion of grace approaches to the nature of creation insofar as grace has no cause in the subject, neither efficient, nor such a material in which it is in potency in such a way that it could be led into act by a natural agent, as is the case with other natural forms”²⁶.

For the objections against the thesis see Beraza nr. 730 ss.; and 743 s., which however are easily solved by attending to this, 1) that we do not deny that the Holy Spirit is also given; 2) that the question is not what is absolutely possible, or what God perhaps could have done, but what in fact is the case in the present order.