Scotus Academicus, Tomus octavus: De Divino Gratiae Beneficio, et initium De Virtutibus Theologicis

WHETHER, AND IN WHAT MANNER, GRACE IS NECESSARY TO FALLEN MAN, THAT HE MAY RISE AGAIN AND ABSTAIN FROM SIN.

Note 1. From the Seraphic Doctor in 2 dist. 28 art. 10 q. 1. > that concerning the first part of the question Philosophers have thought one thing, Heretics another, Catholic Tractators another. For Philosophers, ignorant in what manner the divine majesty is offended by sin, and in what manner through it the aptitude of the powers is taken away, said that man could become just by exercise, as he had been made unjust by inordination from right reason. Whence also the Philosopher says that the perverse, led to better exercises, will profit much, or is perfectly restored to a contrary habit. Heretics indeed, having some light of faith, knew that the divine majesty is offended by sin, and that the will, or free will, is in some manner damaged. Blinded nevertheless they did not consider in what manner nature is infirmed by guilt: and therefore they said that for free will to rise again from guilt no curing grace is necessary to it, but the gratuitous mercy of God alone suffices, which inclines to remitting our sins on account of the satisfaction which Christ willed to make to himself when he offered himself on the cross for us: but this position not only falls short of truth, but even while it implies contraries destroys itself. For it says: for free will to rise from guilt it is necessary that God remit guilt to it, and yet it is not necessary that he bestow anything upon it, or do anything about it. For if God does not change, and he himself again is just judge, so that he accept nothing except only so much as avails for this, that guilt be remitted, there be bestowed upon it that whereby the disease of sin be healed. Catholics truly hold the offense of God to be real, and in some manner damaging, while man thus passes from the service of God to the servitude of the devil, and even of his disfiguring image. And therefore they said that for free will to rise again from guilt grace is necessary not only insofar as grace is called the gratuitous will of God, nor even insofar as it is called the liberal Passion of Christ, but also insofar as it is called a habit of the soul. For the gratuitous will of God concurs unto this, that remission of offense be made: for voluntarily he pardons us the offense: but the liberal Passion of Christ concurs unto this, that cure of the disease be made, and grace, that reformation of the image be made, and therefore for this, that man rise again from guilt, grace is exceedingly in every manner necessary to him. »

Note 2. Sin is generally distinguished as twofold, namely mortal and venial. Mortal is that which despoils man not only of all sanctifying grace, which is the life of the soul, but also of every title to beatitude and eternal life; Venial however is a light deviation from the divine commands with easy pardon. It is certain moreover that man cannot without divine help of grace avoid mortal sins: since indeed, as we said, for observing the whole natural law grace is necessary; and straightaway also for avoiding sins which arise from the transgression of that law itself. It is likewise certain that man through his whole life cannot by natural powers utterly avoid all sins, even venial ones; for as Saint Prosper rightly sang in the verse De Ingratis, chapter 9.

That man can run through life without sin If he will… as the first was able to offend in nothing By his own liberty, these things surely were condemned And from the hands of the councils.

Therefore controversy is instituted here only about venial sin: First, whether namely a just man through ordinary actual aids, which are wont to be conferred on just men, can throughout his whole life, or at least through a long or short time, avoid not only mortal but also venial sins, and this either collectively or distributively: Secondly, whether anyone besides Christ the Lord, the grace of God shining forth, has been immune from every venial sin.

Note 3. Concerning the resolution of the present question, threefold must justifying grace be distinguished: The first indeed is viewed together with actual aids, which are conceded by ordinary law to all justified adults: The second truly is considered together with certain more efficacious and more excellent aids, which are granted indeed not to all the just, but only to certain ones anticipated by a privilege of the love of God. Thirdly finally that is called such which is conceded together with certain actual aids so rarely that it seems granted to one, or very few: wherefore it is called a singular benefit.

First Conclusion. — MAN CANNOT RISE FROM MORTAL SIN WITHOUT A SPECIAL ACTUAL GRACE. This is common among Catholics:

And it is proved first from Sacred Scripture, Psal. 40. Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee. Jeremiah 30. Thy fracture is incurable: that is, by the powers of nature. John 8. If the Son shall make you free, then shall you be truly free. And Matthew 6. Forgive us our debts. But no one asks of another what he has within his own power, says Saint Bonaventure in the cited place. Romans 5. By the works of the law no flesh is justified. And in the same place: Justified freely by his grace: but he is not justified freely who by the sole powers of nature can rise from sin, and has in himself whereof to glory. To Titus 5. Not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Finally to the Galatians 2. If justice be by the law: then Christ died gratis. For similarly we can gather: if justice and remission of sin be by the powers of nature: then Christ died gratis, which it is impious to assert, says the Seraphic Doctor.

It is proved secondly from Councils presupposing grace to be necessary for remission of sins, which even Pelagius himself did not deny. One above the rest I praise, the Council of Orange, Canon 19, which defines this present truth in these words: > No wretch is delivered from whatever misery unless he is anticipated by the mercy of God: < and Canon 19. > Since without the grace of God he cannot keep the salvation he has received, how without the grace of God shall he repair what he has lost? < To these adheres Trent, Session 6, Canon 1. > If anyone say that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by the powers of human nature, or by the doctrine of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. <

The supreme Pontiffs also support it, as many as proscribed the Pelagian dogma. Let Innocent the first be the pattern of all, in the rescript to the Council of Carthage, where he says: > Free will, formerly more perfect, while it used its goods more incautiously, falling into the abyss of prevarication, sank down, and found nothing whereby it might thereafter arise, and deceived in liberty would have lain oppressed in ruin forever, unless after its fall the coming of Christ had raised it up by his grace. <

This truth Holy Augustine hands down and commends in many places, especially book 1 of the Imperfect Work against Julian: > How does liberty remain in those who, that they may be freed from the servitude to which they are enslaved by the conquering devil, have need of divine grace? < And again in the same book: > Now in his ruin man is free with respect to justice and a slave to sin, nor can he be a servant of justice and free from sin dominating him, unless the Son shall have set him free. <

Finally it is proved by reason. Sin, says the Seraphic Doctor, is the privation of spiritual life and light: but spiritual life cannot be restored to the soul except from the fountain of life, nor light, except from the fountain of light: therefore it is impossible for the soul to rise again from guilt unless God, who is the fountain of life and everlasting light, quicken and illuminate it by his benignity. But this does not happen except through the gift of grace. — Moreover, says St. Thomas, by sinning man incurs a threefold detriment; namely, the stain, the corruption of natural good, and the guilt of punishment. He indeed incurs the stain inasmuch as he is deprived of the beauty of grace through the deformity of sin: but natural good is corrupted inasmuch as the nature of man is disordered by a will not subject to God: for this order being removed, it follows that the whole nature of sinful man remains inordinate. The guilt of punishment, however, is that by which man, by sinning mortally, merits eternal damnation. Now it is manifest concerning each of these three that they cannot be repaired except by God. For since the beauty of grace proceeds from the illumination of divine light, such beauty cannot be repaired in the soul except

by God illuminating it anew: hence there is required the habitual gift which is the light of grace. Likewise the order of nature cannot be repaired, so namely that the will of man be subjected to God, unless God draw the will of man, as was said. Likewise also the guilt of eternal punishment cannot be remitted except by him against whom the offense was committed, and who is the judge of men, and therefore the help of grace is required for this, that man rise again from sin, both as regards the habitual gift and as regards the motion of God.

You will say 1: The power of free choice is greater than nature; but nature, when it is weakened, can be healed without the help of medicine; therefore much more, when free choice is weakened through fault, it will be able to be healed without the help of grace. — The Seraphic Doctor answers by denying the parity. For, he says, bodily health is in the power of nature, but spiritual health is through something that is above nature. When something is weakened bodily, the whole virtue of nature, which is the principle of health, is not destroyed, and therefore from such an infirmity a return to health can naturally come about: but in sin the very grace of God and the justice in which spiritual health consisted are lost; for grievous sin is called mortal because it takes from man the principle of life; hence just as man cannot pass from death to life except by a wondrous virtue exceeding the powers of nature, so neither can the sinner become just naturally or voluntarily, but only through the benefit and miracle of grace.

You will say 2: It is easier for any thing to be moved according to nature than against nature: but from St. Damascene, book 2 On the Faith, chapter 30, sin is against nature, while virtue is according to nature: therefore if free choice can be moved by its own powers to sin against nature, likewise it will be able to return to virtue and rise again from sin according to the inclination of nature. — The same Seraphic Doctor answers that the major is true of that motion which is according to nature and through which neither the power of nature is corrupted nor diminished, as in the motion of a stone upward; for it easily slides downward because, while it is thrown upward, it does not lose its heaviness and weight; whence it happens that it easily slides downward: but it is not so in the matter at hand, both because to be moved toward justice is through a virtue above nature, and also because motion toward fault diminishes the aptitude and actuality of free choice; for by sin man is not only despoiled of graced gifts, but is also wounded in things natural.

You will say 3: Any sinner whatsoever, even while existing in mortal sin, can desire and will justice; but nothing more belongs to being just than to will justice, for justice is rectitude of the will, since then the will is right when it wills justice: therefore the sinner can be justified without grace gratum faciens. — The same Seraphic Doctor answers that willing something is twofold, either faintly and half-fully, as it is said: The sluggard wills, and wills not; or fully and sufficiently, as the Apostle says: God works in us to will and to accomplish. In the first mode it can be in the sinner: and such a will does not make anyone just: in the second mode it cannot be without grace preventing and assisting the will: but only in this second mode can there be a will of justice, and render the soul just.

Second conclusion. — A JUST MAN, SPEAKING ABSOLUTELY, WITH THE ORDINARY ACTUAL AIDS CAN OBTAIN GRACE, BY WHICH ALL SINS MAY BE AVOIDED, BOTH MORTAL AND VENIAL. This truth St. Augustine expressly teaches in many places, but especially book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 6, where he weighs the matter so accurately: > Those who say that man is able to be without sin in this life are not at once to be resisted with rashness of intemperance. For if we denied that it is possible, we would derogate both from the free choice of man, who desires it by cultivating it, and from the power or mercy of God, who brings it about by helping. And ours: if it be asked of me whether man can be without sin in this life, I confess that he can by the grace of God and free choice: and toward the end of the chapter: I cannot doubt either that God has commanded anything impossible to man, or that anything else is impossible to God toward aiding and assisting, that what he commands may come about: and by this man can, if he wills, be without sin, aided by God. < And in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 1: > I said that it can come about that man be without sin, if the will do not fail him, with the help of divine aid assisting: yet on account of the one sin in which all will be justified no one has been or will be, while living this life, in whom that perfection would exist. < — But since that doctrine of St. Augustine had seemed absurd to Marcellinus, to whom he had directed the three books On the Merits and Remission of Sins: for he thought it absurd that that could happen whose example nowhere appeared, St. Augustine, in the same chapter soon praised above, shows that many things are possible which nevertheless were never touched: > For it seems absurd to you (he says, addressing Marcellinus) that something can happen whose example is lacking, since, as I believe, you do not doubt that it never happened that a camel passed through the eye of a needle, and yet he said that even this is possible with God; you may read also that twelve thousand legions of Angels could have been prepared for Christ lest he suffer, yet it was not done; you may read that it could have happened that once the nations were rooted out of the land, which was given to the sons of Israel, yet God willed that this be done little by little: and six hundred other things might occur which we confess could have been done, or can be done, and yet we cannot bring forward examples of their having been done: therefore we ought not deny that it can happen that man be without sin because there is none of men, besides him who not only is man but also God by nature, in whom we can show this perfected. < Therefore according to the mind of St. Augustine the truth of our assertion stands.

Third conclusion — UNDER THE ORDINARY LAW, AND WITHOUT A SINGULAR PRIVILEGE OF GOD, NO ONE OF MEN INASMUCH AS HE IS JUST IS IMMUNE FROM ALL SINS. This is the doctrine of all Catholics together with St. Augustine in many places, most truly indeed in the book On Nature and Grace, and the book On the Spirit and the Letter, and likewise the book On the Merits and Remission of Sins, where he proves this truth with many texts of Sacred Scripture. First indeed from that text 3 Kings chapter 8: There is no man who sins not. Psalm 31: I said, I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord: and thou hast forgiven the wickedness of my sin. For this shall every one that is holy pray to thee in a due time. Hence St. Augustine book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 5: Not therefore everyone a sinner, but every Saint. And Psalm 142: Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight no man living shall be justified. Whence St. Augustine in the same place: Therefore the mercy of God is needed, which exalts itself above judgment. Proverbs 50: The just man is the first accuser of himself. St. Augustine adds in the same place: > Since at the beginning of his speech he is the accuser of himself, he certainly does not lie. < Ecclesiasticus 7: There is not a just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth not. Matthew 6: Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. Which certainly the just also say not in vain, says St. Augustine in the book On Nature and Grace, chapter 36. James 3: In many things we all offend. John 1: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Hence the Council of Milevis or Carthage, Canon 2, defines: whoever shall have thought that what St. John the Apostle says, > If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves <, is to be so taken as to say that on account of humility we must say we have sin, not that it is truly so, let him be anathema. Similarly in the Council of Carthage chapters 7 and 8 those are struck with anathema who said that the Saints say in the Lord's prayer, Forgive us our debts, not for themselves, because that petition is not necessary for them, but for others, who are sinners in their people, not shamelessly but humbly: likewise from the Tridentine, Session 6, Canon 23: > If anyone shall say that a man once justified can during his whole life avoid even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds regarding the blessed Virgin, let him be anathema. <

It is proved also by the reason which St. Augustine sets forth in the book On the Merits of Sins, chapter 10. If any just men had lived in this life without sins, especially Noe, Job, Daniel: > For, says St. Augustine, Scripture does not easily bear so great testimony to anyone as to his three men, Noe, Daniel, and Job, whom Ezechiel the Prophet, chapter 14, says alone could be delivered from a certain imminent wrath of God: prefiguring in those three men certain three kinds of men to be delivered. In Noe, as I judge, the just set over the peoples, on account of the governance of the ark as it were of the Church: in Daniel the just continent: in Job the just married: and yet those three most praised men were not without sin: for Noe, as we read, was at some time drunk although he was not a drunkard; but Daniel, after the prayer which he poured forth to God concerning himself, declares, chapter 9, that he pronounces himself a sinner. <

You will object that which is said of the same Job, chapter 1: that there is none like him upon the earth, blameless, just, a true worshiper of God, abstaining himself from every evil work: therefore he was truly immune from sin. - St. Augustine answers in the same place, chapter 12: > That Job is praised in the first words by comparison with the men who are on the earth, accordingly he excelled all who then could be just on the earth: not therefore did he on that account have altogether no sin, but he preceded the others in the progress of justice. Next is added: Blameless: of whose life no one would justly complain. Just, who had professed with such probity of morals that none was to be equaled to him, a True Worshiper of God: indeed also a truthful and humble witness of his own sins. Abstaining himself from every evil work, a wonder if from every evil word also, and thought. < Such is St. Augustine.

You will object 2. That text of 1 John chapter 3: Whosoever abideth in God, sinneth not, and whosoever is born of God, committeth no sin: therefore there are some just without sins. — St. Augustine answers, Epistle 15, that that saying was made concerning the state of charity and perfect virtue, to which man can be raised through a singular privilege of God: > Because, he says there, although a man without sin is not found in this life, yet it is said that it can be done, through the help of grace and the Spirit of God: which, that it may come about, must be believed and sought… but for us it suffices that none is found in the Church of the faithful, in whatsoever excellence and progress of justice, who would dare say to himself that the prayer of the Lord's prayer, Forgive us our debts, is unnecessary. < And that this was the mind of St. the Evangelist appears sufficiently from this, that in chapter 1 of the same Epistle he openly confesses: if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. — Secondly he answers in the book On the Grace of Christ, chapter 21, that the Apostle by these words cuts off what Pelagius asserted, namely that he had in himself the principle of good and evil. That he might show this false, the Apostle teaches that only he does not sin who is of God, that is, who is illuminated and anticipated by his grace and charity. > For, says St. Augustine there, chapter 20, one and the same root is not that of goods and evils; for charity is one thing, the root of goods, covetousness another, the root of evils, and they differ so much from each other as virtue and vice; but plainly that possibility is capable of either root, because not only can man have charity, whereby he be a good tree, but he can also have covetousness, whereby he be an evil tree. But the covetousness of man, which is a vice, man has as its author, or the deceiver of man, not the creator of man. <

You will object 3. That text of Luke 1 where we read of St. Zachary and Elizabeth his wife: And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame: therefore they lived without sin, and consequently others are able to live. — First answers St. Augustine book 2 On the Merits of Sins, chapter 13: > nothing else is signified in this place than that Zachary was eminent in justice among the princes of Priests with respect to offering the sacrifices pertaining to the Old Testament: for we read in Hebrews 7 that Christ alone is the Prince of Priests, who has not necessity, as had those who were called princes of priests, first to offer sacrifice daily for his own sins, then for the people. But that nothing of this sort is contained in this eulogy is taught by this, that there is not comprehended in it that which the Apostle writes of himself to the Philippians 3, saying that according to the justice which is in the law he was blameless, who nevertheless writes in the same Epistle that he esteems that justice not only detriments but even dung in comparison with justice. < — Secondly he answers in the book On the Grace of Christ, chapter 18: > That saying was made according to a certain conversation among men probable and laudable, which no man could justly call into complaint of accusation and elimination: which therefore Zachary and his wife are reported to have had in the sight of God; because in it men lived with no dissimulation, but as they appeared to men, so they were known to the eyes of God: but it was not said of this according to that perfection of justice, in which truly and in every manner we shall live immaculate and perfected: for the Apostle Paul also said, > that according to the justice which is of the law he was blameless; in which law also Zachary conversed blamelessly: but the Apostle reckoned this justice among dungs and detriments, in comparison with the justice which we hope for, and which we now ought to hunger and thirst for, that sometime we may be satiated with it in sight, which now is in faith, while the just liveth by faith <.

You will urge, that St. Ambrose book 1 on Luke from the aforementioned eulogy concerning Zachary and Elizabeth intends that a man can be without sin: therefore, etc. — The same St. Augustine answers, chapter 49 of the same book On the Grace of Christ, that a man can be without sin according to a certain probable mode; so that he cannot be called into complaint of accusation and crime by men: but not according to the mode more minutely examined, that is, so that man be exempt from every stain of sin however slight. St. Augustine adds that if such was then the mind of St. Ambrose, that he judged Zachary and Elizabeth to have been of the highest and altogether perfection of justice, that opinion was afterward corrected by him.

You will object 4. The Apostle writing 2 Timothy 4: I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: as to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice: but he would not say this if he had any sin: therefore truly he was immune from sin. - St. Augustine answers, book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 6, that the Apostle spoke not according to his present state, in which he was, but according to his future state, which he foresaw from the mercy of God, and therefore rejoiced with such words certain and secure: > says St. Augustine, because he who had already revealed to him that same passion threatened, had already made him certain and secure concerning the victory of so great a coming combat: not in fullest reality, but in firmest hope he said these things, and indicated what he presumed would be, as if it had been done… by which most sure promise of the Lord he was in that end, which was still to come, already believing it accomplished, to have had no sin; for that I may pass over other things, I wonder whether, when he spoke those words through which he seemed to these men to have had no sin, that sting of the flesh had already been taken from him, concerning whose removal from himself he had asked the Lord, and had received answer: My grace is sufficient for thee. Power is made perfect in infirmity. It was necessary for the perfecting of so great a man that the Angel of satan not be taken from him, by whom on that account he was buffeted, lest he be exalted by the magnitude of revelations: and does anyone dare to think or to say that anyone placed under the burden of this life is altogether clean from every sin? <

You will object 5. That saying of Christ the Lord Matthew 5: Be you perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect; in which certainly perfection consists in general abstinence from every sin, but Christ would not command this if he did not know that what he commands could be done: therefore, etc. — I answer first indeed that men can be without sin not by their own powers, nor with the ordinary help of God, but by a special benefit of God, which certainly we do not deny, as will appear in the following conclusion. — Secondly St. Augustine answers in the same place, chapter 15, that by those words he commands us to be perfect in some species of perfection, but not in that genus in which the heavenly Father is perfect; for the same Apostle to the Philippians 3 says of himself: > Whosoever therefore are perfect, let us be so minded: and in the same place, chapter 12, he confesses he is not yet perfect: Not that I have already received, or am already perfect. > Which both things, says St. Augustine, unless he were perfect in some thing, but in another not; whence St. Augustine gathers, chapter 15, Not on that account is everyone understood to be altogether without sin, because he is said to be perfect in some thing. Although even in this it can be so said, that not because he no longer is that in which he might profit, but because he has profited in part, he be held worthy of that name <.

You will object 6. God does not command man what is morally speaking impossible; but that anyone cannot avoid all sins, will be at least morally impossible for man to avoid all sins: therefore God does not command that man abstain from all sins. — The Seraphic Doctor answers in Book 2, distinction 28, doubt 5: > that to avoid something, or to do something, is understood in two ways: in one way someone can do something because by himself, without the help of another, he can fulfill it: thus someone can eat when he is healthy and has food: in another way someone is said to be able to do something, not only because he can do it by himself and in himself, but because he can with another who is present to him: and taking ability in this way, everything God commands is in our power, because he who commands is present to bestow efficacious assisting grace, which any of the just can obtain <. Whence St. Augustine book 2 On the Merits of Sins, chapter 17, professes that it is the fault of men if they do not avoid sins. > Since, he says, with the human will assisted by divine grace man can be without sin in this life, why he is not, I can most easily and most truthfully answer, because men are unwilling: but if it be asked of me why they are unwilling, I shall say briefly, men are unwilling to do what is just, either because it lies hidden whether it be just, or because it does not delight: for the more certainly we know each thing to be good, so much more vehemently do we will it, and the more ardently do we delight in it <. — I answer secondly that there are two genera of morally impossible things. Some are such that, although absolutely they can be done, yet they will never be done, even with whatever powers of the will employed, as to describe a perfect circle with the finger: others are such that with the whole and greatest powers of the will employed they can be done, yet never will be done, for the reason that those great powers of the will are not employed. Those things which are morally impossible of the prior genus God nowhere commands: but those which are impossible of the latter genus he can command, such as abstinence even from venial sins: for man with ordinary aids, if he should consent to them, and employ all the powers of the will, would obtain more abundant aids, whereby he would be rendered immune from whatever sins: > but says St. Augustine book 2 On the Merits of Sins, chapter 3, for overcoming some things which are either badly coveted or badly feared, sometimes great and total powers of the will are needed, which he foresaw we would not perfectly employ in all things, who willed it to be said truthfully by the Prophet: no man living shall be justified in thy sight. The Lord therefore foreseeing that we should be such, deigned to give and make efficacious certain salutary remedies against the guilt and chains of sins even after baptism, namely works of mercy, when he says: Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you <.

Fourth conclusion. — THROUGH EXTRAORDINARY AIDS OF GRACE AND FROM A SINGULAR PRIVILEGE OF GOD A MERE CREATURE CAN AVOID ALL VENIAL SINS. This is common among Catholics piously judging that the Mother of God was endowed with this illustrious and singular privilege, as the Council of Trent delivers, Session 6, Canon 23, praised in the prior conclusion, where it pronounced anathema against him who should say that a justified man can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds regarding the blessed Virgin. St. Augustine subscribes, book On Nature and Grace, chapter 36, where he says:

Excepting the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have no question whatsoever when sins are treated of: for from her we know that more grace was bestowed upon her to overcome sin on every side, who merited to conceive and bear him who is known to have had no sin. This Virgin therefore excepted, if we could gather together all those Saints and holy women while they lived here, and ask them whether they were without sin, what do we think they would have answered? Whether this which Pelagius said, namely that they lived without sin and justly, or that of John the Apostle? I ask you: however great may have been the excellence of holiness in this body of ours, 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?

The present Conclusion can also be confirmed by reason. For God can confer such grace upon the human will in whatever occasions; such grace St. Augustine describes in the book On Correction and Grace, chapter 12, in these words: It was taken away from the infirmity of the human will that divine grace move it infallibly and inseparably: and therefore although infirm, it would nevertheless not fail, nor be conquered by any adversity. But if such grace were conferred upon man in all occasions of sinning, he would nowhere sin, although he could sin, because his will would be moved infallibly and insuperably toward good and turned away from evil: therefore it could come about, by a singular privilege of God, that man avoid all sins.