De gratia Redemptoris

Above¹ the difference between disposition and merit was indicated, and it was said there that the act which is a disposition can at the same time be a merit. But since in the first part of this thesis merit of condignity has already been excluded, the question concerns merit of congruity alone. This too is a question on which not all theologians say the same thing². Billuart³ says of this matter: “Before all else, that equivocation may be removed and certain contrary opinions about merit of congruity reconciled, it must be observed that we distinguish, with the Author here⁴ at a. 6, a twofold merit of congruity: one proper and strict, the other broad and improper. Merit of congruity, and that the strict, we place in a right of friendship to a reward, whereby it is distinguished from merit of condignity, which imports a debt of justice. Merit of congruity taken broadly and improperly we place in the claim of a form by way of disposition or of impetration. Some, however, confuse these two merits of congruity; whence arises the discord between us and them, while they say that certain things fall under merit of congruity which we deny; but, as is plain, the controversy is about the name only, and comes from a different understanding of merit of congruity.” Then he lays down this assertion: “No one can merit for himself the first habitual grace, neither by condignity nor by proper congruity, but by improper congruity only.” And the reason is plain, because that right of friendship which is had in merit of congruity is found only in a friend of God, in a man already justified. In this view, therefore, all merit of congruity properly so called must be denied to those who are still in the state of sin⁵.

Moreover, the far more common opinion of theologians is that the state of grace is not required for merit of congruity, and consequently that it does not include a “right of friendship”; hence theologians generally do not have that distinction between merit of congruity strictly and broadly taken. And so they more commonly teach as well that the acts disposing to justification possess also the character of merit of congruity. — Besides, the FATHERS attribute some merit to these acts. ST JEROME: “Those who simply confess their sins merit clemency from the Saviour by their humility”⁶. — ST AMBROSE: “Peter therefore wept, and wept most bitterly, wept that he might wash away his offence with tears: and do you, if you wish to merit pardon, wash away your guilt with tears”⁷. ST AUGUSTINE: “They can indeed say that the remission of sins is a grace which is given to no preceding merits. For what good merit can sinners have? But not even that remission of sins is without some merit, if faith obtains it. For the merit of faith is not nothing, by which faith that man said: Lord, be merciful to me a sinner; and he went down justified by the merit of faithful humility, since he who humbles himself shall be exalted”⁸. — “But we know that God does not hear sinners, etc. He who is still unanointed speaks (namely the blind man). For God also hears sinners. For if God did not hear sinners, that publican would in vain have cast down his eyes to the earth and struck his breast, saying: Lord, be merciful to me a sinner. And that confession merited justification, as this blind man merited illumination”⁹. In the COUNCIL OF TRENT the Fathers, by denying merit, did not wish to exclude merit of congruity, as is clear from history¹⁰.

Some theologians dispute whether the act proximately and immediately disposing to justification is from habitual grace itself. This dispute arose chiefly on account of a certain difficult text of St Thomas¹¹, which the disciples of St Thomas themselves explain in different ways. Billuart¹² says: “It will perhaps seem strange that theologians should toil and torment themselves so in explaining this difficulty, when they themselves confess it to be more subtle than useful. We therefore, who pursue usefulness rather than subtlety, will set out briefly the various opinions on this matter and leave them to the judgment of the reader. Among the theologians who disagree on this point, then, some say that these further dispositions to habitual grace are effectively from actual help transiently communicated. So, among the Thomists, John of St Thomas, Sylvius, Contenson, with several outsiders. Some say that they are effectively from habitual grace itself. So Gonet, Serra and others. St Thomas seems to favour each opinion, and hence the difficulty is increased. A third opinion, which strives to reconcile both, says that these acts, the last disposing to justification, are effectively from the infused virtue of charity and of penance, communicated not permanently by way of habit but transiently by way of actual help and motion. So most recently our very wise Goudin.” On this question and the mind of St Thomas see Pesch, 5, 360; Stufler, D. Thomae doctrina de Deo operante 223 ff.; Lange, 343 ff.

III. The doctrine of fiducial faith must be rejected.

According to Luther the sinner apprehends justice by a firm faith, by absolute confidence that God in his mercy does not impute sin for Christ's sake, but holds the man as just. This justice, apprehended by fiducial faith, must be retained by the same faith. It is not lawful to doubt of one's justification; a doubt of this kind would by that very fact take away justice. Sometimes a distinction is drawn between fiducial and special faith, in the sense that fiducial faith is that by which justice is apprehended, and special faith that by which it is retained; but it is altogether the same faith, considered under a different respect. This doctrine therefore essentially includes absolute certainty, absolute confidence concerning the justice obtained. Hence the question of the certainty of grace is intimately connected with the question of fiducial faith. Against this doctrine stands this third part of the thesis.

St Thomas¹³ teaches on this matter: by revelation a man can know that he has grace, if God reveals this to him; by himself he cannot know it with certainty; but he can know it conjecturally by certain signs, inasmuch as he perceives that he delights in God and despises the things of the world, and inasmuch as the man is not conscious to himself of any mortal sin. Similarly Gabriel Biel¹⁴ denied strict certainty. Although texts are found in Scotus in which strict certainty seems to be denied¹⁵, yet several theologians thought that he affirmed such certainty, and they defended this doctrine. Hence in the Council of Trent, when this question was to be treated, disputes arose¹⁶, lest the opinion of the heretics should be condemned in such a form as would at the same time decide a doctrine then controverted among Catholics. There were several in the council who either defended that a man without a special revelation could be certain of his justification, or at least favoured this doctrine (card. Del Monte, and above all Ambrose Catharinus O. P.). Whoever, after receiving the sacrament, if he has sincerely done on his part all that is required for its fruitful reception, should not believe that he is in the state of grace, would distrust divine grace. There was one opinion in the council against the heretics, namely that a man, if he has not a special revelation, is not bound to believe that he is in grace, and that, if he did not believe it, he would lose grace; but on the question whether a man could have certainty of the state of grace, opinions were and remained divided in the council¹⁷. A special difficulty was found in the term “certainty of faith”, which could be understood in various ways. At length there was added “which cannot be subject to falsehood”, by which words the opinion of the heretics was clearly signified, and to this formula all consented.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH

COUNCIL OF TRENT: chap. 9, “Against the vain confidence of heretics. But though it is necessary to believe that sins are neither remitted nor ever have been remitted except freely by divine mercy for Christ's sake, yet it must not be said that sins are remitted or have been remitted to anyone who boasts of confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins and rests in that alone, since this vain confidence, remote from all piety, can exist among heretics and schismatics, and indeed in our own time is preached with great contention against the Catholic Church. Nor must it be asserted that those who are truly justified ought to settle with themselves, without any doubt at all, that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified unless he certainly believes that he is absolved and justified, and that absolution and justification are accomplished by this faith alone, as though he who does not believe this doubts of the promises of God and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For as no devout man ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, so may anyone, while he regards himself and his own infirmity and indisposition, be fearful and afraid about his own grace, since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to falsehood, that he has obtained the grace of God”¹⁸. — Can. 12: “If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy remitting sins for Christ's sake, or that this confidence alone is that by which we are justified: let him be anathema.” — Can. 13: “If anyone says that it is necessary for every man, in order to obtain the remission of sins, to believe with certainty, and without any hesitation about his own infirmity and indisposition, that his sins are remitted to him: let him be anathema.” — Can. 14: “If anyone says that a man is absolved from sins and justified by this, that he certainly believes himself to be absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified unless he who believes that he is justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are accomplished: let him be anathema”¹⁹.

SACRED SCRIPTURE

On the one hand no text of sacred Scripture is found in which our own justice is proposed as the object of faith; on the other hand it positively teaches the things that exclude fiducial faith in one's own justification. Phil 2, 12: “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. But fiducial faith properly excludes fear and trembling. — Prov 20, 9: “Who can say: My heart is clean, I am pure from sin?” He who has fiducial faith ought to say this, inasmuch as he altogether admits freedom from sin. — 2 Pet 1, 10: “Wherefore, brethren, labour the more that by good works you may make sure your calling and election.” Therefore grace is not preserved by fiducial faith alone. — Eccles 9, 1: “There are just men and wise men, and their works are in the hand of God: and yet man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred”. Although the text does not properly deal with our question (man knows neither love nor hatred), in tradition nevertheless it is quite often applied to this matter. St Jerome explains it thus: “Now this is the sense: In this too I gave my heart and desired to know whom God loved and whom he hated. And I found that the works of the just are indeed in the hand of God, and yet whether they are loved by God or not they cannot now know, and waver amid ambiguity”²⁰. — Cf. Eccli 5, 5; 1 Cor 4, 4.

THE FATHERS

ST JEROME. See above on Eccles 9, 1. — ST AUGUSTINE: “For however great the justice with which a man is endowed, he ought to consider lest something be found in him to be blamed which he himself does not see, since the just king sits on the throne, whose thought they cannot escape, not even those things of which it is said: Who understands his sins?”²¹. — ST GREGORY THE GREAT: “But what your sweetness (Gregoria) has added in your letters, that you are importunate with me until I write to you that it has been revealed to me that your sins are forgiven, you have asked a thing both difficult and even useless: difficult indeed, because I am unworthy that a revelation should be made to me; useless truly, because you ought not to be made secure about your sins, except when in the last day of your life you will no longer be able to bewail those same sins”²².

THE THEOLOGIANS

The theologians, as is plain, deny the doctrine of Luther, and hold generally that we cannot believe that we are in the state of grace except on account of a special revelation on this matter²³. For those things cannot be believed which God has not revealed; but the justification of individual men has not been revealed by God; therefore it is not an object of divine faith. It has indeed been revealed that God remits sins, but when certain conditions have been fulfilled; that those conditions have been fulfilled in a particular case, however, has not been revealed; therefore a special revelation is required for a man to be able to believe by divine faith that he is in the state of grace.

Further, most commonly and almost unanimously the theologians hold that not even theological certainty is had concerning one's own justification²⁴. For in the syllogism: “God has revealed that he remits sin under these conditions; but I have fulfilled those conditions; therefore I am in the state of grace”, the minor does not have that absolute certainty by which error would be altogether excluded. Hence they teach that conjectural knowledge can be had and is had, that is, a certain moral certainty in the broader sense; indeed they think it good for a man not to have absolute certainty, because of the danger of presumption. But by no means do they therefore teach that men must always doubt and hesitate about their reconciliation with God.

St Bellarmine: ²⁵ “The third opinion, which is the more common in the Church²⁶, does not indeed take away all fear, yet it takes away all anxiety and hesitation and even doubt itself, if a man is called doubtful who does not dare to assent to the other side. For the argument is not good: Catholics have not the certainty of faith about their justification, therefore they always doubt, hesitate, are anxious; just as neither would one rightly conclude on the other side: Catholics are not anxious nor do they hesitate about their justification, therefore they are certain with the certainty of faith that their sins are forgiven them. For something intermediate is given between these extremes, namely a certain moral certainty on the part of the intellect, and hope and confidence on the part of the will.

Moreover, solid consolation and peace, tranquillity and interior joy are far better engendered in Catholics by a good conscience, by contrition, by charity, by the pursuit of good works, by frequent reception of the Eucharist, by the visitation of the Holy Spirit, which is the hidden manna which no man knows but he who receives it, than by that empty confidence and truly rash presumption in the Lutherans. For of a good conscience the Apostle writes, 2 Cor 1: Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience. And St John in his first epistle, chap. 3: if our heart does not reprehend us, we have confidence with God. Of true contrition Solomon writes, Prov 14: the heart that knows the bitterness of its own soul, in its joy a stranger shall not be mingled. For truly an incredible joy arises from this, that a man sees himself most bitterly bewailing his sins. Moreover charity begets joy and peace before all else. Hence it is said, Gal 5: The fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy and peace, etc.

But from patience, to pass over other things now, a most solid consolation arises. For as the apostle says, Rom 5: We glory in tribulations, because tribulation works patience, and patience probation, and probation hope, but hope does not confound, etc. And 2 Cor 7: I am filled with consolation, I overflow with joy in all our tribulation. And chap. 8: We make known to you, brethren, the grace of God which is given in the churches of Macedonia, that in much experience of tribulation their abundance of joy was...

The holy Fathers too, whose testimonies the adversaries have wrongly adduced for the certainty of faith, and especially Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine and Leo, gathered the security of the soul not from faith in the remission of sins, but from the consciousness of charity and of good works. It pleases me, moreover, in the name of the others, to write here the testimony of St Bernard, whence solid consolation is to be sought. Thus therefore he speaks in sermon 69 on the Canticle: How great, think you, is the grace of familiarity that arises from this dwelling together of the soul and the Word; how great the confidence that follows from familiarity? There is not, as I think, anything that such a soul should now fear to say, my beloved is mine: which, from the fact that it feels that it loves and vehemently loves, does not at all doubt that it is also vehemently loved, and concerning its singular intention, solicitude, care, works, diligence and zeal, with which it unceasingly and ardently watches how it may please God, it equally and indubitably recognizes all these things in him, remembering his promise: in what measure you shall have measured, it shall be measured to you again. Therefore from its own things, which are with God, it recognizes, nor does it doubt that she who loves is loved. And below: not only does he make you certain of your love, if indeed you love him, but also of his solicitude, which he bears for you, if he has felt you solicitous for him.

This certainty, therefore, we gladly acknowledge, which does not arise from the presumption of imputed justice, nor is it the certainty of the Catholic faith, but arises from the experience of charity and of good works, and by this can be called moral and conjectural certainty”

Objections

There are several texts of sacred Scripture which were adduced either by the heretics for a special faith in one's own justification, or by Catholics for its strict certainty. Yet no text is had which deals with a special faith in one's own justification; other texts indeed say that all are justified through the faith of Christ, but say nothing about the conditions fulfilled; several deal with moral certainty, which all theologians admit, and which a man can have by examining his conscience, or from the fact that he leads a truly Christian life and exercises the works of charity. Let there be some examples:

Jn 3, 21: “but he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God”. — I answer. “To come to the light” in this place does not signify to come into the state of grace; the text does not deal with our question.

Jn 13, 35: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”. — I answer. The sign of Christianity is mutual charity, the new commandment of Christ; those who exercise it are thereby known by others to be true Christians; but it is not said that others thereby know by faith or by absolute certainty that they are in the state of grace, nor that they themselves know this; they can nevertheless, from a good Christian life, have that moral certainty which all admit. The same must be said to 1 Jn 3, 14; 4, 12; 5, 19.

Jn 14, 17: “but you shall know him (namely the Spirit of truth, whom the Father will give), because he shall abide with you and shall be in you”. — I answer. The disciples will know the Spirit of truth because he will be with them, by the help of the Spirit; but the discourse is not about their knowing that the Spirit is in their soul as indwelling; therefore the discourse is not about our question.

Jn 14, 20: “In that day you shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you”. — I answer. Several understand with St Augustine “in that day” of the day of eternity, of the blessed vision of God; yet it seems better understood of the time after the resurrection of Christ: for then the apostles will always better know the divinity of Christ and his intimate union with his own (cf. 15, 5: the vine, the branches), as of the head with the members. But it is not said that the justified man must believe his own justice, or that he has absolute certainty; individual men can have moral certainty of it.

Acts 13, 39: “In this (Christ) every one that believeth is justified”. — I answer. If the conditions have been fulfilled; but that they have been fulfilled is not had by divine faith, nor by that absolute certainty, but by moral certainty.

Rom 3, 21 f.: “But now without the law the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction”. — I answer. Justice is not from the law, but without the law unto all who believe. The conditions having been fulfilled, all, not only Jews but also Gentiles, are justified without the works of the law. Cf. Rom 4, 14; 16, 22.

Rom 5, 1: “Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”. — I answer. The justified man is no longer an enemy of God but in peace with God, and of this relation to God he has such certainty as excludes anxiety and hesitation; but for this moral certainty broadly taken suffices.

Rom 8, 1-18. If a man walks not according to the flesh but according to the spirit, he has that moral certainty so often mentioned; and the testimony of the Holy Spirit of which the apostle speaks is not a special revelation about one's own justification, but, as Bellarmine says, “the experience of a certain sweetness and interior peace, which engenders only conjectural certainty”.

Rom 8, 38 f.: “For I am sure that neither death nor life... nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”. — I answer. 1) Some understand the text of those who are truly predestined, and of them it holds that no creature shall separate them from the love of God; but individuals, without a special revelation, do not know whether they are predestined. 2) I am sure signifies: I have a firm confidence that by the power of the grace of Christ we overcome all difficulties; but for such firm confidence moral certainty suffices²⁷.

1 Cor 2, 12: “But we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God”. — I answer. From the whole context it is plain that the apostle does not speak of the justification of individuals, but of the gifts which have been brought by Christ, and of which we cannot have knowledge through the spirit of the world, but through the Spirit of God. Therefore the discourse is not about our question.

1 Cor 11, 28: “But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice”. — I answer. This proof does not lead to the certainty of faith, but to that moral certainty which a good conscience provides.

2 Cor 1, 12: “For our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity of heart and sincerity of God, and not in carnal wisdom, but in the grace of God, we have conversed in this world: and more abundantly towards you”. — I answer. The apostle begins to explain why he did not come to Corinth earlier; he appeals to the testimony of his conscience, that he did not act in carnal wisdom, but in sincerity and charity. Therefore nothing about our question.

2 Cor 13, 5: “Try your own selves if you be in the faith; prove ye yourselves. Know you not your own selves, that Christ Jesus is in you, unless perhaps you be reprobates? But I trust that you shall know that we are not reprobates”. — I answer. The Corinthians must examine their conscience concerning their living faith; but this examination does not lead to the certainty of faith, nor to absolute certainty, nor does the apostle say such a thing. “Reprobates” is not to be understood of “reprobation”, but signifies unfit, useless: “unless perhaps you are not genuine, namely Christians”.

Eph 3, 12: “In whom (Christ) we have confidence and access with assurance by the faith of him”. — I answer. Confidence ought not to presuppose absolute certainty, but moral certainty broadly taken²⁸.