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

We have said in the preceding pages that the formal cause of our justification is something intrinsic and inherent to it, and that constant and permanent; and forthwith sanctifying grace takes on the character and appellation of a habit, by which name also it is denominated by Theologians: nevertheless it is disputed by some, both Ancients and Moderns, whether that formal ratio of justification must so necessarily be something continually enduring after the manner of a habit, or rather sometimes through an act of contrition, or of the love of God above all things, such that one may be justified even formally without any infusion of supernatural habit. Which controversy, together with the others that concern formal justification, we shall weigh in the present Article, which will be resolved chiefly in three Questions: of which the First will disclose whether justifying grace is necessarily an act, or a habit, and whether that habit is simple and single, or multiple and composed from others. The Second, whether justice once possessed can be lost. The Third, what sort of justification it is, namely whether it is equal in all, and the greatest work of God.

Since the reason of an internal and inherent form belongs both to acts and to habits, and since it is certain among us Catholics that we are justified through an internal form, the question is rightly raised in the present place whether the internal formal cause of our justification consists in an act or in a habit.

Note 1°. Concerning the resolution of the present difficulty, Theologians agree among themselves: First, indeed, that it is certain from faith that infants are justified in baptism through an infused habit; for it must be believed with certain faith that every just man is justified by inhering justice, for this has been defined concerning infants as well as adults in the Council of Trent: concerning infants, Sess. 4. Can. 5.; but concerning adults, Sess. 6. cap. 7. Now this inhering justice cannot be any act; they are not capable of such a thing: therefore it must be some habit, since it can be nothing else than an accident. They agree secondly that all adults who are justified from sins by the virtue of the sacrament are also justified through a habit, because from the Council of Trent, Sess. 14. cap. 1., attrition or sorrow for sin committed, conceived from the consideration of the turpitude of sin or from fear of hell and punishments — which outside the sacrament would not suffice for blotting out sin nor have annexed to it grace whereby sin is formally blotted out — if joined with hope of pardon, suffices for the remission of sins with the sacrament: but with the sacrament added there does not appear what other grace and inhering justice should be infused into the penitent except habitual; for it cannot be said that an act of perfect contrition is infused, or of the love of God above all things, since of many who are justified from attrition through the sacrament scarcely one experiences that such an act is infused into him at that instant when the sacrament is completed. Therefore it must be certain among Catholics that upon an adult justified by the virtue of the sacrament some habit of grace and holiness is infused: but there remains the difficulty to be solved, whether that infusion of habit is so necessarily presupposed to the formal reason of justification that no man can be formally justified through any act of perfect contrition or charity.

Note 2°. From the Subtle Doctor, in 1. dist. 17. qu. 2. n. 18., that a human act can be conceived as necessary to the blotting out of sin in two ways; namely either by way of previous disposition, or by way of concomitance. In the first way, he says, an unformed act suffices, nay, it is always unformed, because the disposition preceding the blotting out of sin is always without grace and charity, by whose alone inherence and inclination toward the act the act is said to be formed. In the second way, I say that a formed act is required; for in that instant in which sin is blotted out, charity is present, and consequently if an act is required as concomitant, it is required as formed.

Note 3°. That it is certain that in justification together with sanctifying grace, and the habit of charity really distinct from it only conceptually, other supernatural habits also are infused, as the Council of Trent teaches, Sess. 6. cap. 7, in these words: In justification itself, together with the remission of sins, man receives all these things at once infused through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, faith, hope, and charity: for faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites him perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. Hence arises the difficulty whether all those infused habits are reckoned by equal reason necessary to justification as grace itself and charity, so that the formal cause of our justification is not one simple habit, but a collection of several. Three things therefore must be determined in this Question: First, whether formal justification takes place so necessarily through a habit that no one can be formally justified through acts of perfect contrition and charity. Second, whether for this formal justification several infused habits are necessarily required. Third, whether justification takes place properly through the habit of sanctifying grace under the precise formal reason of grace, or rather insofar as it is formally charity.

First conclusion. — NEITHER THE ACT OF CHARITY NOR OF PERFECT CONTRITION JUSTIFIES FORMALLY, BUT ONLY DISPOSITIVELY.

It is proved 1. from holy Scripture, in all those texts in which the remission of sins is promised to penitents, as some gift of God proceeding from His pure mercy. Thus Psal. 50: A contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Proverbs 28: He who shall confess and forsake them (namely his crimes) shall obtain mercy. Ecclesiastes 17: With great mercy of His and propitiation toward those who turn to Him, etc. Therefore formal justification is not partly an effect of man, partly a gift of God, but is a gratuitous benefit of God. — Moreover holy Scripture in several places distinguishes contrition or the love of God above all things from the remission of sins, as from a diverse and new benefit obtained from it and promised to it, as a new grace and mercy. Thus Joel 2 it is said: Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting and in weeping and in mourning: and rend your hearts, and not your garments: and be converted to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, patient and rich in mercy, and ready to forgive evil. By which former words, be converted to me with all your heart, perfect contrition is signified; but by these latter, for he is gracious and merciful, it is declared ⟦illegible: totum?⟧ that God may thus mercifully forgive the contrite: therefore that conversion through an act of love and contrition is not formally the remission of sins itself and justification, but something preparing for them and moving God to release sins and infuse the habit of sanctifying grace.

In the same manner speak the holy Fathers, who reckon and distinguish contrition and the remission of sins as two benefits; thus St. Chrysostom, Homil. 50. ad populum, says:

I have spent my whole life in sins, and if I do penance, I shall be saved; and especially hence it appears that this depends on the clemency of the Lord, lest you trust in your penance: for can your penance so blot out sins? If penance alone were sufficient, you might justly fear; but since into penance the mercy of God is mingled, take confidence.

St. Ambrose subscribes, lib. 1. De Paenitentia, cap. 1., where he says: He awaits our groans, but temporal ones, that He may remit eternal ones: He awaits our tears, that He may pour forth His piety: He awaits our conversion, that He Himself may return to grace: and he treats there of perfect contrition, of which alone that word of Isaiah 30 is generally true, which he expounds: When she shall have groaned, then shall she be saved. The same holds St. Augustine in Psal. 140, on those words, Gracious and merciful is the Lord, patient and very merciful, where he says thus: God has promised indulgence to your conversion: but He has not promised tomorrow to your delay. Now the conversion to which God promises pardon outside the sacrament is none other than perfect contrition, or the love of God above all things: therefore according to the mind of St. Augustine the pardon of sins is a new grace distinct from contrition.

It is proved 2. from the Council of Trent, and that Sess. 6. cap. 6., where among the dispositions to justifying grace it enumerates the acts of penance and of love, whereby man begins to love God as the fountain of all justice; for it says: and begin to love Him (namely God) as the fountain of all justice, and are therefore moved against sins by some hatred and detestation. Then in the following chapter it calls this very love and detestation of sins, together with the other acts of the sinner described above, a disposition or preparation for justification itself: This, it says, disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself: since however penance abstracts from perfect and imperfect, as does likewise the incipient love of God, and the Council speaks in general of penance and love, it follows that it equally comprehends perfect penitence and love of God inclined and imperfect: but a disposition to justification cannot be formal justification itself: therefore the mind of the Council is not that we can be justified through acts of contrition or of the love of God. —

Secondly, cap. 1. of that session, the Council teaches that there is one formal cause of our justification: since however it equally teaches that we are justified through a habit, it follows that it holds formal justification not to take place through an act; otherwise not one only, but two formal causes of our justification would exist: for if those formal causes were truly several, doubtless the Council would have enumerated them, just as it enumerates several efficient causes, namely God as principal cause, and Baptism as instrumental cause: and just as it also retains several final causes, namely the glory of God and of Christ, and life eternal. —

Thirdly, the same is gathered from Can. 3 of the same session, where it says: If anyone shall say that without the preventing inspiration and help of the Holy Spirit man can believe, hope, love, or repent, as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be conferred upon him, let him be anathema. By which words, as is apparent, the Council distinguishes the grace of sanctification from the acts of contrition and love, even as from the acts of faith and hope. —

Finally, the same Council, Session 14, chapter 4, teaches that the motion of contrition was necessary at any time whatsoever for obtaining the forgiveness of sins, and that in a man fallen after baptism it prepares him for the remission of sins only then: but who would say that a form prepares or obtains its own formal effect? Now that the discourse there concerns perfect contrition is evident: both because it declares the nature of this contrition by the example of David, whose contrition no one doubts was perfect: and because the Council in that chapter hands down not only the manner by which we can be justified through contrition within the Sacrament of Penance, but also outside the sacrament: finally because it teaches that it was necessary at any time whatsoever for obtaining the forgiveness of sins, where by the phrase at any time it signifies also the time of the law of nature and of Moses. But since in neither of those states did adults have sacraments by which grace would be conferred ex opere operato, it is certain that this motion of contrition, which for either state was necessary for restoring forgiveness, had to be perfect contrition; for according to the same Council in the same place, supernatural attrition outside the sacrament is insufficient for obtaining the forgiveness of sins: therefore since the Council says that that contrition, which at any time was necessary for obtaining forgiveness, was preparatory to the remission of sins, it judges that we are not formally justified by it.

It is proved thirdly by reason: First, the justification of an adult outside the sacrament with the vow of receiving it takes place in the same manner and through the same formal cause as his justification through the sacrament de facto received: but the justification of an impious adult in the really received sacrament takes place formally through the habit of grace, not however through acts of love and contrition: therefore this justification of an impious adult outside the sacrament does not take place through supernatural acts of love and perfect contrition, but through habitual grace itself infused by God. The minor is admitted by all, seeing that attrition suffices together with the sacrament for obtaining justification, which nevertheless can justify neither formally nor preparatorily outside the sacrament, and consequently the grace conferred through the sacrament is neither formally that act of attrition, nor its effect, but only the effect of the sacrament producing such grace ex opere operato. The major similarly holds: for the vow of the sacrament, beyond the real reception of it, adds to the act of contrition a tacit or express volition of receiving the sacrament, and an efficacious desire of the effect of such a sacrament: but such a volition, whether express or tacit, adds nothing of power and efficacy to the virtue of the act of contrition itself, nor does it bring it about that one who is not joined to the sacrament should come to the same justifying form outside the sacrament, for it confers nothing supernatural upon him: therefore just as that act of perfect contrition joined with the really received sacrament is not the formal cause of justification in the adult through the really received sacrament, but that cause is none other than habitual grace; so also that act of perfect contrition cannot be, together with the vow of the sacrament, the unformed cause of the justification of an adult outside the sacrament. —

Secondly, to forgive sin is the proper work and benefit of God, according to that of Isaiah 43: I am he that blots out your iniquities. And Mark 2: Who can forgive sins but God alone? Reason also supports these words: for to forgive sins belongs to him alone who is offended by them: but God alone is principally offended by sins: therefore it belongs to him alone to forgive sins: but if man could blot out his sins by contrition, not God alone, but man too would forgive himself his sins by effecting contrition. For the effect which the form formally bestows is effected efficiently by the efficient cause of the form.

Nor does it stand in the way that Priests also forgive sins, John 20: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: for Priests forgive sins as Christ's Ministers; in what way would a man not thereby forgive himself his own sins through contrition elicited by himself?

Second reason: because according to the Tridentine Session 6, chapter 8, we are said to be justified freely: and this for the reason that, as the Council itself testifies, no works preceding justification merit the grace of justification itself, namely de condigno, as the Theologians explain. But if contrition formally sanctified, we would not be justified freely in the sense expounded by the Council, because contrition, according to the more probable opinion, precedes grace in nature: therefore it would merit that same grace de condigno: hence grace, as the Council says in the same place, would not be grace, but reward and wage. The consequence is proved: because if contrition of itself formally sanctified the subject, in that prior state of nature, in which it would precede grace, it would be the work of a subject already worthy and sanctified by that very contrition, as by a form formally sanctifying: and accordingly in that prior state it would be condignly meritorious of the grace by which it is infused in the subsequent instant of nature.

You will object 1°. Various texts of Sacred Scripture seem to ascribe to contrition and love the sanctity of the soul and purgation from sin: thus John 14: If anyone loves me, he will keep my commandments, and my Father will love him, etc. By which words the love of God toward us is ascribed to our love toward God: but in this mutual love consists the perfect sanctity of the soul. Hence to the Colossians 3 charity is called the bond of perfection. And 1 Timothy 1: The end of the commandment and of the law is consummation, charity.

And Romans 13: the fullness of the law. To the same act of charity the remission of sins is attributed: thus Luke 7: Many sins are forgiven him because he loved much. Proverbs 10: Charity covers all offenses. 1 Peter 4: Charity covers a multitude of sins. 1 John 3: We know that we are translated from death to life, because we love the brethren. There, moreover, Scripture speaks not of the habit, but of the act of charity: because in those places it exhorts us to the act of charity, not to the habit, and while commending charity itself, it commends likewise the very act of love. —

I answer, all these texts are to be understood of actual charity, which reconciles divine love to us, indeed not formally, but only efficiently, and meritoriously de congruo, or by way of proximate disposition, from which such an effect infallibly follows; and consequently from them it is not evinced that actual charity is the formal reason by which we are justified, and by which sins are loosed; but only that it merits de congruo, and infallibly disposes us for the reception of sanctifying grace, which God infallibly bestows when this ultimate disposition is posited.

You will object 2°. Those texts of Scripture by which adherence with God is attributed to the actual love of God: 1 John 4: God is charity, and he who abides in charity abides in God, and God in him: but from 1 Corinthians 6: He who is joined to God is one spirit: yet man cannot, while remaining in the state of mortal sin, either abide in God, or be one spirit with him: therefore since through charity he abides in God and adheres to him, it must be that man through it is justified and loosed from sin. —

I answer, these texts of Scripture are solved by the same reasoning as the preceding ones; for they need not necessarily be expounded in the formal sense, but can be excellently understood in the causal sense, namely that love is the cause why we abide in God, and are one spirit with him, insofar namely as it is the cause why we are in turn loved by God, and why his Spirit inhabits us. A cause, I say, either morally efficient, and meritorious de congruo, always inferring such an effect, or also proximately dispositional, and infallibly connected with such an effect, but not a cause formalizing justification. That however the Apostle did not wish to signify anything else is gathered from similar words of the same Apostle: for in the same chapter he says: Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God: but the act of faith cannot be the formal reason, but only a dispositional one, why God abides in us: therefore the same must be said of the acts of charity, which concur to justification only dispositively, though in a more excellent and more infallible manner than the act of faith.

⟦Obiection opener and Augustinian citation illegible in the faded print; text resumes:⟧ He says: True charity is the fullest and most perfect justice: and in the last chapter: Charity begun is begun justice: charity advanced is advanced justice: charity great is great justice: charity perfect is perfect justice: therefore according to the mind of St. Augustine charity is the formal reason of our justification. St. Bernard subscribes, Sermon 83 on the Canticle, where expounding that word of Ephesians 5: Be imitators of God as most dear children, and walk in love, he speaks thus: The conformity of the whole marries the soul to the Word: since namely it is like him by nature, yet exhibits itself like to him by will, loving as she is chosen; therefore if she loves perfectly, she is united: therefore according to the mind of those holy Fathers, actual charity is the formal cause of our justification. —

I deny the consequence; for, as I have already said more than once, love and actual charity is called the justice and sanctity of the soul, not in the formal sense, but causal and meritorious, in that manner namely in which Christ is said 1 Corinthians 1 to be made for us wisdom from God, and justice, and sanctification, that is, the cause of the justice and of the sanctification granted to us through him and on account of his merits. Nor does it matter that St. Bernard in the book De modo bene vivendi, Sermon 1, which concerns the fear of God, says: This fear is holy, because it introduces into the mind of man perfect charity, for perfect charity is perfect sanctity. For I answer that there is a twofold sanctity: one actual, consisting in acts; another habitual, consisting in habits; now perfect actual charity is called perfect actual sanctity; not because it is a form perfecting and sanctifying the soul primarily and principally, but only secondarily, insofar namely as it is the most perfect and most holy among the supernatural acts proceeding from that very habitual charity and sanctity, and augmenting and perfecting them meritoriously, insofar namely as it merits their increase.

You will object 4°. If anyone existing in mortal sin, before sin were forgiven him, were assumed to see God and to love him, without any habit of grace and charity, he would be blessed, and consequently justified; since indeed sin conflicts with perfect beatitude: but such a justification would not take place through a habit, which we suppose is not infused: therefore it would take place through an act of charity, and consequently that act can suffice ⟦illegible: a few words illegible here between "sufficere potest" and "hac in hypothesi"⟧ hac in hypothesi, if habitual mortal sin be not forgiven him: for beatitude is a state perfected by the aggregation of all goods and the removal of all evils; and therefore with that state mortal sin, which is supreme misery, cannot subsist: but in that case that sin could remain unforgiven; because neither vision nor love is a condign satisfaction for mortal sin, nor equivalent to it: and even if it were such, still God could refuse to accept it.

You will object 5°. The love of God is more efficacious for converting the soul to God the ultimate end than was the will of the first man for turning away his posterity from God: therefore anyone existing in original sin can be justified and cleansed from it by love alone without a habit, and even from personal sin. The consequence is evident. But the antecedent is proved: for the posterity of Adam were turned away from God by another's will alone; but when they love God, they are converted to him by their own will, which surely seems a more efficacious manner of conversion. Similarly, although an adult has been converted by his own will through actual sin to a creature which he loved, nevertheless through the affection of contrition from his whole heart he turns away from it far more perfectly than he had been converted to it; since indeed he turns away from it expressly, insofar namely its love conflicts with love of God; but so he had not been converted to it. —

I deny the antecedent, and to the first part I say that the will of the first parent was far more efficacious for turning us away from God than our will is for converting us to God; for Adam's will turns us away from God by a habitual aversion; but the love of our will converts us to God only by an actual conversion. Now habitual aversion is greater, because it is the privation of habitual justice, which is more perfect than the very love which is an actual conversion. Nor does it matter that that was done by another's will, this by our own; for that only proves this to be more perfect in the order of free operation, not however in moral goodness and malice. —

To the second part of the antecedent I answer similarly, that the love of man is not so powerful for converting man to God, placating him, and perfectly satisfying him, as was mortal guilt powerful for offending him, and incurring his aversion and indignation; for habitual sin is a fault physically past remaining morally until gratuitous pardon, or perfect satisfaction, intervene, such as the very love or contrition of the sinner is not: for the offended party is not judged perfectly placated until he render back all that he had taken away by reason of the offense: therefore neither will God be judged placated toward the sinner until he render back to him the first robe, namely sanctifying grace.

You will object 6°. Justification which takes place through an act is more lasting than that which takes place through a habit; for when the habit is taken away habitual justice is removed: but truly even if the habit of justice were taken away from him who had exercised the act of contrition and love, he would always remain just and holy by virtue of that act, just as he always remains a sinner and unjust from the past act of sin: therefore contrition or love without a habit confers some sanctification distinct from habitual sanctification. —

I deny the subsumption; for, says the Friend, in the same way, once the habit of grace is removed, he who had been justified by habit and act together would cease to be holy and just no less than he who was so by habit alone; because since grace alone is the justifying form, once it is removed the formal effect of the just and holy would be taken away. Moreover, because such a habit would not cease demeritoriously and culpably, but only physically, and by the mere will of God, such cessation would induce no stain in the subject, but only a pure negation of grace, which would not constitute an object of hatred and uncleanness, but only of non-friendship, since the stain was already supposed to have been perfectly wiped away and pardoned through the past habit of grace, nor would it return through such a removal of grace: otherwise past stains already wiped away and pardoned would always return as new sins. But the case of the act of sin and of contrition is disparate, because the act of sin is able of itself alone formally to constitute the subject stained and unjust; but the act of contrition does not formally take away habitual sin, which is the foundation and object of our enmity toward God, but dispositively: whereas sin formally takes away grace, which is the foundation and object of our friendship toward God.

You will object 7°. The proper act of Penance is the intention of satisfying God for the offense or stain of the sin committed, whose intention's object is that form by which satisfaction is formally made to God; and consequently this cannot be a habit, but an act, because satisfaction is essentially an action; but no human action can be a true and formal satisfaction by the nature of the thing except that which formally of itself and by its own nature destroys that stain, because with that alone posited nothing further remains of right demanding satisfaction: but if any human action by its nature can destroy the stain of sin, most of all perfect contrition: therefore this is formally sanctifying and remissive of sin. —

I answer, denying the major: for the virtue of penance does not intend to exhibit to God condign satisfaction for a mortal offense, nor even for the eternal punishment which is remitted either through the sacrament or through the vow of the sacrament together with the guilt: but it intends to satisfy for the temporal punishment remaining after the guilt committed: and for the remission of the guilt itself, and the reparation of the divine right, as far as it is possible for a creature to repair the divine right.

It is urged. The act of contrition pleases God just as the offense morally displeases him: therefore satisfaction for the guilt is de condigno and equal by equal measure. The antecedent is proved: the act of contrition is as good as the act of sin was evil: for if anyone, for example, sinned mortally through omission of the act of love due from precept, the positing of this act is as good as its omission was evil. — I deny the antecedent: for the offense against God from a man so vile, and obligated to God by so many benefits, is far greater and graver than any satisfaction whatsoever owed to God could be: just as it is far less that a subject love the King than that he commit a capital offense against him, nor is he viler who judges that condign satisfaction be made to the King through the love and sorrow of the offender, so that the King should have nothing further which he might demand toward satisfaction from the offender.

Second Conclusion. — THE FORMAL RATIO OF JUSTIFICATION IS ONE AND SIMPLE REAL HABIT OF SANCTIFYING GRACE, REALLY INDISTINCT FROM CHARITY. This is the more common opinion.

It is proved first: if besides the real habit of sanctifying grace and of charity other habits were required, especially the habits of faith and hope: yet those habits do not formally contribute to sanctification, except by way of disposition and preparation: therefore the sanctifying form is not a collection of several habits. The major is evident. The minor is proved: both from the Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter 7, where although it declares that faith, hope, and charity are infused in justification, it nevertheless attributes the power of justifying to charity alone. For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites one perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of his body. It does not hold, then, that faith and hope of themselves formally contribute to justification, but only by benefit of charity. Next, by sanctifying grace we are made like Christ our Lord, according to that of Hebrews 2: Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren: but neither faith nor hope were in Christ, since he was always in possession: therefore those two virtues do not formally contribute to justification. Finally, at the instant of justification, in which man becomes from unjust just, and from impious holy, neither faith nor hope contribute anything to the expulsion of sin and the conciliation of the love of God: therefore that effect is attributed to sanctifying grace alone.

You will say: The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter 7 says: «In justification itself, together with the remission of sins, man receives through Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, all these infused at once — faith, hope, and charity»: therefore by the mind of the Council those three virtues equally contribute to justification. — I answer, that faith and hope are enumerated by the Council not indeed as partial justifying forms, but only as dispositions: faith indeed as foundation, and hope as buttress. Which Origen also admirably explains on chapter 1 of the Epistle to the Romans: The first beginnings of salvation, he says, and the very foundations are faith; the progress and increase of the building is hope; but the perfection and crown of the whole work is charity.

You will say 2. Of the nature of justice it is intrinsic that it formally accomplish two things in us: the first indeed, that it constitute us pleasing and friendly to God; the second, however, that it confer upon us the faculty of acting well: but it accomplishes the first through grace, and the second through the theological virtues: therefore both those virtues and grace alike are the form of justification. — I deny the consequence: for indeed if this were true, it would follow also that the intrinsic moral virtues, and likewise the gifts of the Holy Spirit, must be reckoned among the forms of justification, since they confer a principle of acting naturally: for just as man cannot be truly just unless he be truly faithful, so neither unless he be truly a worshipper of God, and truly penitent. Therefore just as penance and religion do not have the nature of the form of justification, so neither do the theological virtues: for just as it is said, 1 John 3, he who hath hope sanctifieth himself, so of the one doing penance it is said Ezekiel 18, He shall revive his own soul.

Third Conclusion. — GRACE UNDER ITS PROPER CONCEPT AS GRACE, AND NOT UNDER THE CONCEPT OF CHARITY, IS THE FORMAL RATIO OF JUSTIFICATION.

It is proved 1. From that passage of Titus 3: That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs according to the hope of life everlasting. Where by the same grace he says we are justified by which we are heirs of life everlasting: but by grace, and not by charity, we are given such right of inheritance, since charity is only the principle of operation: therefore we are justified precisely by grace. — It is confirmed from the Council of Trent, Session 5, Canon ⟦illegible: canon number lost in OCR⟧, where it decrees that by the grace of Jesus Christ our Lord, conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted. The argument is also aided: that must be called the formal justifying ratio which constitutes us sharers of the divine nature, and confers upon us eternal inheritance: but this grace performs under its formal concept, and not under the concept of charity: for charity indeed makes us partakers of the divine attribute of love, but not of the divine nature: therefore we are sanctified by grace under its formal concept of grace.

You will object 1. Many texts of Scripture pour the power of sanctifying into charity itself. Thus 1 John 3: Behold what manner of charity the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called, and should be the sons of God. And chapter 4: Every one that loveth is born of God. And there again: God is charity: and he that abideth in charity abideth in God, and God in him. Hence Romans 13: Love is the fulfilling of the law. — I answer, that all these things are indeed said truly of charity, not formally, but really, and inasmuch as it is one and the same real habit with sanctifying grace, as St Augustine also explains, book De Spiritu et Littera, c. 32, saying: The charity of God is said to be poured forth in our hearts, not whereby he himself loves us, but whereby he makes us lovers of himself: even as the justice of God, whereby by his gift we are made just. As if to say, we are made just by the gift of grace. Hence in Psalm 118: Who works justice in man, he says, but he who justifies the impious, that is, by the gift of grace he makes just the impious. Hence also the Apostle: being justified freely by his grace.

You will object 2. Sanctity, says Dionysius in De Coelesti Hierarchia, cap. 12. It is free from every crime, perfect, and on every side immaculate purity: but this belongs only to love and charity: for just as impurity is contracted from contact with an impure thing, so supreme purity is found from union with God, who is the fountain and origin of all purity. But that union is made only through love: therefore that purity and sanctity is also made through love. — I answer, that by these things is proved that love is a preparation for purity, which is grace; but not that it is itself formally purity, for if purity is born from adherence to God, which takes place through love, it follows that love is not purity itself, but a way leading to purity. Add that such conjunction of the soul to God takes place through actual love, not formally, but only dispositively; nor through the habit of charity formally, but only really, inasmuch namely as charity is really the same as sanctifying grace.

You will object 3. The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter 7, where speaking of justification it says: This happens in justification, when by the merit of that most sacred passion the charity of God is poured forth through the Holy Spirit into the hearts of those who are justified, and inheres in them. Therefore it holds that charity justifies formally qua charity. — I deny the consequence: for as is clear, the Council does not say that the form of justification is charity, but that justification takes place through grace while charity is poured forth. Nor does it matter that there it does not name grace; for earlier it had designated it as the formal cause of our justification at the beginning of the chapter, saying: through the reception of grace: wherefore it judged it superfluous to name it again.

Note 1. It was the most wicked opinion of Calvin, lib. 3. Instit., c. 2, that whoever has once attained the grace of justification can never lose it through any subsequent sin; but if any lose it, they in truth never had true justice, nor true faith, but only the shadow or image of justification and of faith; which, since it is of no moment whatever, is utterly unworthy of the appellation of true faith: and he thereupon teaches that true believers can nowhere fall away from justice, and that whatever more grievous crimes they commit, they will nowhere incur the indignation and damnation of God; which most certainly fanatical opinion, worthy of every execration, very many Calvinists follow, as is clear from the Pseudo-Synod of Dordrecht on the fifth point of controversy, article ⟦illegible: article numbers garbled in OCR ("art. 1. :. et 6.")⟧, although some few, estranged from the truth together with all Catholics, execrate it. The horrendous consequences of this opinion and teaching Grotius weighed in this manner in his discussion of the Apology of Andreas Rivetus, where at page 217 he says thus: «The Christian ⟦illegible: opening words garbled in OCR ("ext pectoris"); likely "decet pectus" or similar⟧ ought to shudder at those dogmas which harm piety: such is that one not fabricated by Grotius, but published often, and defended by some: fight manfully, but believe still more manfully; and a hundred homicides and a thousand acts of impurity shall do you no harm. These are the genuine fruits of that dogma, that everyone must believe that Christ died for him by name; that the justice of Christ is imputed to him as if he himself had furnished it; that he shall certainly persevere; that salvation is certainly and absolutely destined for him; that the sins of the faithful, however great and grievous they may be, are not imputed to them, because of faith in Jesus Christ; that they can fall into rebellion, homicide, adultery, treason, and other disgraces of that kind; nevertheless yet they hold it certain and firm that never, neither totally nor finally, can they fall away from the paternal charity of God and his grace toward them, but on the contrary that God their Father out of his eternal love, mercy, and grace covers and remits in Christ all their past, present, and future sins. These are surely, in the judgment of D. Rivetus, the thoughts of a Christian heart». And a little later: «Beza, he says, held that David, though polluted with homicide and adultery, had retained the Holy Spirit, and wished himself to perish if he taught otherwise». Hence the same Grotius in his Annotations defending his own notes against Casaubon, on the article concerning the distinction between mortal and venial sin, says: «No dogma could be introduced into Christianity more pernicious than this: that a man who has believed, or who has been regenerated (for these mean the same to many), may slip into crimes and disgraces; but that it cannot happen that on this account he falls from divine favor or incurs damnation. This no one among the ancients taught; no one would have endured the one teaching it».

Note 2. That the Calvinists, in order to ward off the wrong done to themselves by the dogma of this opinion, seek and devise various evasions. First indeed there are not lacking those who boldly pronounce that this nefarious dogma is gratuitously and falsely fastened upon them by Catholics. So Beza, in the book De Perseverantia Sanctorum, where against Batta, one of the Remonstrant Calvinists, among other things he says: What he adds — that we concede that if those once reborn slip into most atrocious crimes, homicides, adulteries, and things graver than these, they nonetheless remain in grace before God, retaining the Holy Spirit, faith, hope, and charity — is mere calumny; he maliciously fastens blasphemy upon us. How alien this assertion is from the truth appears from the opinion of other Calvinists, who steadfastly affirm with Calvin and Beza that true believers can nowhere fall away from justice. So Windelinus in Compendio Calvinianae Theologiae, lib. 1. cap. ⟦illegible: chapter number garbled in OCR ("2t")⟧: Of the points of faith, he says, there are five principal ones… Second: Perseverance, whereby whoever has once received saving faith never loses it nor casts it away. Chamierus, lib. 6. cap. 12. num. 1. The Calvinists (whom they call by the fictitious name of Catholics) deny that anyone received into grace by God falls from grace by any sin, however gravest, much less lightest. Piscator, part 12. Disputan., finally, a chief point objected to our doctrine is that the reborn lose faith by no disgraces. But John teaches the same in the place cited above. Perkinsus, in the dialogue De Statu Hominis, part 4. p. ⟦illegible: page number garbled in OCR ("p. It.")⟧, supposing with his followers that all true believers are elect and predestined, and objecting to himself: truly I beseech you, what seems good to you? Does not God will that his elect be condemned if they sin? thus he answers: He does not will it: for the foundation of our salvation is founded in the eternal election of God, so that a thousand sins, nay rather all the sins of the whole world, yea even all the devils who are in hell, cannot make void the election of God. Indeed it can happen that our hearts are hardened toward sin, weaken faith, and sadden the spirit of God within us by grief: but they cannot take away faith, or utterly shake out the Holy Spirit. God condemns no one for sin who has been adopted into sonship in Christ Jesus. Dannhauerus in Concordia, pag. 108. Certainly no believers, he says, can by any sin fall from the grace of God, and therefore believers cannot wholly fall from faith. — But most constantly does this assertion of the Calvinists stand forth from the controversy raised between the Remonstrant and contra-Remonstrant Ministers of the Batavians: for the former, as is clear from their Synodal Writings, article ⟦illegible: article number lost in OCR⟧, affirmed that believers can fall from true faith, and can slip into such sins as cannot consist with true and justifying faith, and that not only can this happen, but it happens not rarely. True believers can fall by their own fault into disgraces and atrocious crimes, persevere in them and die in them, and therefore fall away finally and perish. But the contra-Remonstrants taught the contrary; for they say in the conference held at the Hague in the year 1611, pag. 341. We shall prove from sacred Scripture that those who have been ingrafted into Jesus Christ through true faith, and have consequently been made partakers of the vivifying Spirit, although they can sin gravely through the weakness of the flesh, are nevertheless so preserved by God that it is certain they will not totally, nor finally, lose this faith and this vivifying spirit. Moreover this Calvinistic assertion the pseudo-Synod of Dordrecht proves most evidently, pag. 105, where among other things it says: God, who is rich in mercy, according to his unchangeable purpose of election, does not take away the Holy Spirit entirely even in their sorrowful falls, nor permit them to slip so far as to fall from the state of the grace of adoption and justification; or to commit sin unto death, or against the Holy Spirit, and, utterly deserted by him, to precipitate themselves into eternal destruction. And surely the Gallic Calvinists proved this doctrine, together with the other assertions of the same pseudo-Synod, in their Convention held at Alès in the year 1619, where among other acts of the same Convention the Ministers protest that they receive the decisions of the Synod of Dordrecht, and will defend them unto death; by which it stands that the aforementioned assertion about the non-losability of grace even through whatsoever grave sins is the common dogma of the Calvinists.

Note 3. When the Ministers of the Calvinists of this time were pressed by Catholics with so many and such open testimonies that they truly teach that grace is unlosable through sin however grave; and perceived that this most wicked dogma was received ungratefully not only by Catholics but even by their own followers, they devised various shifts by which they might delude the simple, and remove from themselves the wrong done to the doctrine of this opinion. For first some of them teach that justice is deemed unlosable for this reason, that although justifying faith be diminished through grave sins, yet there always remains a certain spark of faith, which afterwards being stirred up by serious penitence revives. Of this evasion indeed Andreas Rivetus had given a prelude in his animadversions against the notes of Grotius, saying: God in those who have sinned still keeps and cherishes little sparks, to be stirred up afterwards by serious penitence. But how futile and vain this evasion is appears from this, that they most constantly affirm with Calvin, lib. 9. cap. 2. n. 12, that however small the faith in the elect may be, yet the spirit of God is a sure pledge and seal of his adoption. Hence Scarpius De iustif., controversy 1, teaches: Faith even weak apprehends Christ whole with all his benefits; but what is weak in us is in Christ absolute and perfect. Finally, if it have even the least spark of true faith, I am certain and secure, because the gifts of God are without repentance. He holds, then, that faith, even the smallest, truly justifies; and thereupon they confess that justice is utterly unlosable through any grave sin whatsoever, and that whoever has that least faith is equally just and holy as if he had most perfect faith, as Windelinus openly teaches, lib. 1. cap. 21, saying: Equality of justification is that whereby the justice of Christ apprehended through faith is imputed equally by God to all: although the faith of some is stronger, of others weaker. Finally there are not lacking those who affirm believers to be justified even while lying in grave sins. So Robertus Abbas in Tompsonem, cap. ⟦illegible: chapter number garbled in OCR ("2t")⟧, who when he affirmed that David remained in death, that is, in the guilt of death, truly as long as he remained in homicide, and did not have eternal life abiding in him, Robertus answers thus: Well indeed justified not according to this sin, and yet simply as regards the person justified: but about to relapse from this justification, unless justified also from this sin. But how little sensible this answer is, and how discordant with Catholic doctrine and the christian faith, no one fails to see; for hence it would follow that David was also justified before penitence as regards the person, although he was not justified as regards the sin: and thereupon, if he had died before penitence was performed, one or the other would have been necessary, either that he would have been saved with actual sins on account of personal justification, or that he would have been damned on account of the sins, even if he had elsewhere been just. All these things I have wished to note somewhat at greater length beforehand, so that it may appear how much and how wickedly they deviate who have once fallen away from the path of truth, which he shall open

Single Conclusion. — JUSTICE AND SANCTIFYING GRACE ONCE RECEIVED CAN BE LOST, AND IS TRULY FORFEITED THROUGH SUBSEQUENT MORTAL SIN. This is determined as of faith in the Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 23, in these words: If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace; and hence that he who falls and sins was never truly justified: let him be anathema. And chapter 15 says: It must be lamented that not only through infidelity, whereby faith itself is lost, but even through any other mortal sin whatever, although faith be not lost, the grace of justification once received is lost.

Our assertion is proved from holy Scripture: first indeed by those parables, by the example of the prodigal son afterwards received again into grace and restored to his first robe, the lost drachma found and recovered, the hundredth wandering sheep sought and brought back to the fold, wherein it is signified that the just man falls utterly from grace, and is restored to the state of justification by penance. — It is proved secondly by the examples of those who having once had justice suffered its loss. Such were the evil Angels, the first Parents, David, Peter the Apostle, and the Galatians, to whom Paul reproaches in the first chapter: I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel: and chapter 3: Are you so foolish, that whereas you began in the spirit, you would now end in the flesh: and chapter 5: *You are made void of Christ, who justify yourselves in the law: you are fallen from grace.» It is proved thirdly by all those texts of Scripture wherein it is signified that men fall from vivifying grace through mortal sin, and are restored to it only through penance. Thus Ezekiel 13: When the just turneth himself away from his justice, and committeth iniquity, shall he live? All his justices which he hath done shall not be remembered; in the prevarication by which he hath prevaricated, and in his sin which he hath sinned, in them he shall die. 1 Cor. 9: But 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. 6: Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor servers of idols, nor adulterers… shall possess the kingdom of God. And these things indeed you were: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified. By which words the Apostle signifies that true believers can fall from grace; for he speaks of true believers, as is clear from the following words: but it would be false that they could fall from the kingdom of God if their grace were unlosable.

Similar things Ephesians 5 hands down, where having said: But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you; he brings forward this reason for his saying: For know this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person, which is a serving of idols, hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God: now it is manifest that he there speaks to believers, since he says: For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord: yet he commands them to abstain from the vices which he enumerates there; otherwise they will not have inheritance in the kingdom of Christ: therefore the Apostle holds that believers can commit vices, and on their account be excluded from participation of inheritance with Christ. — Finally it is proved by those oracles in which Scripture admonishes the justified diligently to guard themselves from sins, lest they fall from grace and eternal inheritance: thus Romans 11: But thou by faith standest: be not highminded, but fear. And there again: See then the goodness of God towards thee, if thou continue in goodness: otherwise thou shalt also be cut off. And Philippians 2: With fear and trembling work out your salvation. And Apocalypse 3: To the Bishop ⟦of Sardis?⟧ it is said: Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. But all these things would be vain and inept if the just could anywhere fall from grace: therefore they can truly do so.

To these add that St Augustine, book De haeresibus, Heresy 82, and Jerome, book 2 adversus Jovinianum, reckon among the errors of that heretic that he asserted sanctifying grace unlosable in the just. Wherefore St Augustine, book De dono perseverantiae, cap. 13, says plainly: Some who are regenerated and persevering we see held here even unto the end: who assuredly would not have fallen away, if they had departed from here before they fell. And again: Some also who have fallen return before they depart out of this life, who would assuredly perish if they departed before they returned. Therefore he holds that the just can fall from sanctifying grace.

They object, the Heretics 1. that passage 1 John 3: Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: and whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, nor known him; and whosoever is born of God committeth not sin: for his seed abideth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. — I answer 1. That this must be understood in the composite sense, namely that he does not sin according as he is born of God, and his seed abides in him, and he knows God: for grace cannot be the principle of sinning. For, says St Augustine, book De Gratia Christi, cap. 21: Charity, according to which he is born of God, doth not act amiss, nor think evil: therefore when man sins, he sins not according to charity, but according to concupiscence, according to which he is not born of God. — I answer 2. That the aforesaid texts can be understood of the predestined, who do not sin unto the end of life, nor forever. Thus St Bernard interprets, book De Libero Arbitrio: It was said, he says, of the Predestined unto life, not that they do not sin altogether, but that sin is not imputed to them, because it is either punished with condign penitence, or hidden in charity. — It can also be answered that it can be understood of birth consummated and perfect,

such as will be in glory. Thus St Augustine explains it, book De peccatorum meritis et remissione, cap. 8: Now therefore we have the firstfruits of the spirit, he says, whence already we are made sons of God in very deed, because not yet saved, therefore not yet perfectly regenerated, not yet true sons of God, but sons of the age. We advance therefore toward renewal and the life of the just, whereby we are sons of God, and hereby we can altogether not sin, until everything in this be transformed, even that whereby we are still sons of the age; for by this we can still sin: thus it comes to pass that he who is born of God sinneth not. And if we shall have said that we have no sin, we seduce ourselves, and truth is not in us. Let what we are as sons of flesh and of the age be consummated, and what we are as sons of God be perfected, and renewed in spirit. And in book De Perfectione iustitiae, cap. 18, expounding the same text, he says: According to that whereby we are born of God, and abide in him who appeared that he might loose sins, that is, in Christ, we abide and sin not: but this is, that the inward man is renewed day by day: but according to that whereby we are born of that man through whom sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and so passed into all men: we are not without sin, because we are not without that infirmity, until by that renovation which takes place day by day, since according to him we are born of God, the infirmity is wholly healed.

They object 2. that passage 1 John 2: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us. Therefore those who have true faith and justice cannot fall away from it. — I deny the consequence; since rather the contrary follows from the aforesaid text; for it signifies that believers, and true members of the Church, can sometimes defect from it; but these words, They were not of us, etc., do not signify that they were not truly believers, and true members of the Church like the rest, but that they were unlike the rest, namely not firm and stable and noble Christians: nay rather light and inconstant: after which manner of speaking it is said 1 Machabees 7: But they shall not be of the seed of those men, by whom salvation is wrought in Israel: that is, they were not strong and constant in war, like the Machabees.

They object 3. that passage 1 Cor. 13: Charity never falleth away. Whence Canticles 8: Many waters cannot quench charity, neither shall floods drown it. And Romans 8: Who shall separate us from the charity of Christ? I am sure that neither death, nor life, etc. Hence St Augustine, Epistle ad Julianum: Charity which can be destroyed was never true. Therefore charity, which is inseparable from faith, is true justice, which when once had is nowhere forfeited. — I deny the consequence; for the Apostle intends nothing else than that charity, as far as lies on the side of time, knows no setting, and that it will persevere in the just upon the advent of eternal felicity, when tongues, prophecy, and the other gifts cease; but thou hast left thy first love: be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works: or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance. In confirmation I say that by those texts likewise is not signified that charity cannot be extinguished through sins, but that so great is its force and efficacy against tribulations and persecutions that neither overflowing waters of calamities, nor urgent straits of tribulations can ever separate a man from charity toward Christ. As for that text of St Augustine adduced in the Epistle ad Julianum, charity which can be destroyed was never true, it is found indeed in book De salutaribus documentis, cap. 7. But that book is spurious, the offspring not of Augustine: and its author, whoever he may be, intends nothing else than to signify that friendship which depends upon place, or habit, or time, and the presence of a friend is not true and perfect charity, because it has not the true motive of charity, which ought to be abstracted from all these; after which manner of speaking St Jerome uses, Epistle 1. ad Rutinum: Friendship which can cease was never true.

Note 1. By the name of certitude is here understood the certitude of cognition, which is nothing else than the firmness and infallibility of assent itself; now this notion of certitude is customarily distinguished fourfold: namely of faith, of science, moral, and conjectural. The certitude of faith is that firm assent whereby we certainly and without any doubt assent to the things revealed by God. The certitude of science is that whereby the intellect firmly assents to some proposition by means of a demonstration deduced from other more evident things. Moral certitude is that whereby we assent to things proposed on account of the common assertion and knowledge of men, such as is that assent which we have concerning this proposition, Rome is in Italy, Jerusalem in Palestine. Finally conjectural certitude is that whereby we assent to some thing proposed on account of conjectures and arguments which indeed confer probability, yet do not remove every occasion of doubting.

Note 2. It is certain that the just cannot have any certitude of science concerning their justification: for such cognition must be either a priori or a posteriori: but in neither of those modes can anyone truly know himself to be in grace. Not indeed a priori, because no cause can be assigned from which it would be infallibly inferred that habitual grace is in a man; since this depends on the good pleasure of God, and even without sin he could recall it from a just man. Nor a posteriori, because we experience no effect of habitual grace in ourselves by which we could surely detect that grace to inhere in us. — It is certain secondly that all the just can have conjectural certitude concerning their justification, and can know by certain signs and probable conjectures that they are in grace, so that that certitude, although it does not exclude every fear, excludes nevertheless perturbation and anxiety of mind: for instance while one probably judges that he has exactly examined his conscience, and has received sacramental absolution with due and requisite dispositions: for, says St John cap. 13. For if our heart reprehend us not, we have confidence towards God. — Finally it is certain that through special divine revelation, and by singular privilege, a man can have infallible certitude, whether of faith or moral, concerning his justification: for God can reveal to whom he wills, and make more certain about this state; just as the Mother of God the Virgin had this certitude when the Angel saluted her ⟦greek: χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη⟧, full of grace: which certitude likewise had St John the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb at the Angel's announcement, and the paralytic when he heard: Thy sins are forgiven thee, as also Magdalene, Christ saying: Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much. Whence there remains only to be discussed whether all the just can and ought by some certitude of divine faith to believe with certainty that they are in the state of justifying grace.

NOTANDUM 3. That the heretics of this time assert that man not only can know, but ought to believe with certainty that he is in divine grace, otherwise he is neither just nor a believer, namely with that faith by which they hold believers to be justified. So Luther first taught, first indeed in public theses, which in the year 1518, before his apostasy from the Monastery, among which were these propositions 13. Hence they err into infidelity who assert remission of guilt to be uncertain, on account of the uncertainty of contrition: and 14. However uncertain both Priest and penitent may be about contrition, absolution is valid if he believes himself absolved. And 17. Therefore it is certain that sins are remitted, if he believes them remitted, because the promise of Christ the Savior is certain. And 16. One absolved ought rather to die out of heaven, and deny every creature, than doubt of his absolution. And in the conference which he had with Cardinal Cajetan among other things he affirms, No one can be justified except through faith: namely in such wise that it must needs be that he believe with certain faith that he is justified, and in no way doubt that he obtains justice. For if he doubts and is uncertain, he is no longer justified, but loses grace. To him subscribes Melancthon in Loci Theologici, on the word faith. « When Paul, he says, says we are justified by faith, the word faith signifies not only the knowledge of history, as the demons also know the history, or dogmas; but signifies assenting to all the articles of faith, and among these to this article: I believe the remission of sins, and life everlasting, not given only to others, but to me also. With this assent whereby thou believest thyself forgiven, the heart is raised up by confidence in the promised mercy, etc. »

This flagitious dogma Calvin innovated, lib. 8. Instit., cap. 2. n. 1. and in Antidote to Session 6. cap. 13. of the Council of Trent, where among other things he says, « It must be asserted that they who are truly justified ought without doubt to establish within themselves that they are justified. If it is so, let them see by what reason confidence can be reconciled with doubt »; and below: « and of what improbability, I beseech you, is it to assert that no one can know by the certitude of faith that he has obtained the grace of God; Paul and John acknowledge as sons of God none but those who know it. Of what science shall we interpret this, unless that which they have learned by the teaching of the Holy Spirit? » All the Sectators subscribe to these, in whose name Chamierus brings forward these things, lib. 13. cap. 1. n. 1. where he says: « The sum of those things which we teach in this part consists of two heads. First, that believers know through faith not only… that some will be saved, or that they who believe will be saved hereafter, but also in particular… that they themselves will be saved, because they believe… and moreover this application supplies the difference of faith truly justifying from historical faith, which conceives whatever it hears of God, and his mercy, in no other way than as holding it true, or rather truthful; which very many infidels can do: nay rather all devils do. The other head, that this knowledge is joined with certitude; whose measure is none other than that of faith ». These things thus posited, be it:

Single Conclusion. — NO ONE OUGHT NOR CAN BELIEVE WITH DIVINE FAITH THAT HE HAS SANCTIFYING GRACE WITHOUT A SPECIAL REVELATION MADE TO HIM BY SOME SINGULAR PRIVILEGE. The Conclusion is determined as of faith in the Council of Trent, Session 6. cap. 9. where, condemning the vain confidence of the heretics, it likewise condemns every infallible certitude which anyone could pretend concerning his own justification apart from divine revelation, in these words: For as no pious person ought to doubt concerning the mercy of God, concerning the merit of Christ, and concerning the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments: so each one, when he regards himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may fear and tremble concerning his own grace: since no one can know with the certitude of faith, which cannot admit of falsehood, that he has obtained the grace of God. Hence Canon 5 decrees: If anyone shall say that every one reborn and justified is bound by faith to believe that he is certainly among the number of the predestined: let him be anathema.

It is proved first from holy Scripture, Proverbs 20. Who can say: My heart is clean, I am pure from sin? For if he cannot say this, much less can he know it by divine faith. Likewise from that passage of Ecclesiastes: There are just men and wise, and their works are in the hand of God: and yet man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred: but all things are reserved uncertain to the future. Which passage St Jerome weighs thus. « Further, he says, this is the meaning: even in this did I give my heart, and wished to know whom God loved, whom he hated, and I found that the works of the just indeed are in the hand of God, and yet whether they are loved by God or not, they cannot now know, and fluctuate ambiguously, whether unto trial they sustain what they sustain, or unto punishment. In the future therefore they shall know, and in their countenance are all things, that is, truth of this matter precedes them when they depart from this life, because then is judgment, now contest, and of those who sustain adversities whether they sustain them through love of God, as Job, or through hatred, as very many sinners, it is now held uncertain ».

Likewise from that passage of Ecclesiastes: Be not without fear about sin forgiven, and say not: The mercy of the Lord is great: he will have mercy on the multitude of my sins. Finally from that passage ad Cor. 4. I am not conscious to myself of anything, but I am not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. By which the Apostle, according to the interpretation of St Chrysostom, signifies that it is not sufficient for certitude concerning one's own justice that he observe no sin in himself, since God could detect some sin in him. But if you should say that the Apostle, while writing these things, had a divinely given revelation concerning his own justification: I shall reply with this granted, that the sense of these words is, I am conscious to myself of nothing, but this would not suffice, that I might be certain of my justification, unless the Lord who judgeth me had made it known to me from elsewhere.

It is proved secondly by the authority of the holy Fathers: first indeed of Ambrose, Sermon on Psal. 118 upon these words: Take away my reproach, which I have suspected: where he says:

He wished reproach to be taken away, which he suspected, either because he had thought in his heart, and had not done, and although abolished by penance, he was nevertheless suspected, lest perhaps his reproach still remained, and therefore he prays God that he take it away, who alone knows what even he who did it can know.

Augustine book De perfectione iustitiae, cap. 15.

Whatever justice a man may be endowed with, he ought to consider lest something in him which he himself does not see be intended as blameworthy, when just law sits upon the throne, from whose cognition offenses cannot flee, nor those of which it was said: Who understandeth his faults?

Hence in book 50. Homiliarum 35 he pronounces plainly: As long as we are here, we cannot judge of ourselves, I say not what we shall be tomorrow, but what we are today. To him subscribes St Gregory, lib. 6. Epist. 22. to Gregoria chamberlain of the Empress, who had written to him desiring to know whether her sins had been forgiven her; among other things he answers: You have asked of me a thing difficult and useless to you: difficult, because I am unworthy that revelation be sent to me; useless, because you are certain of your penitence.

Proof finally by reason: only that can be believed by faith which has been revealed, whether through Scripture or through the Church: but neither through Scripture nor through the Church has it been revealed to justified man that he is just. For if it were revealed, it would be revealed either in general or in particular; not in general, otherwise all the just would know themselves to be truly justified, which plainly appears false; for very many are doubtful and anxious about their justification and salvation. Nor yet in particular, because if any of the just knew himself to be in grace, especially through the testimony of the Holy Spirit dwelling within: yet this cannot be affirmed; for since the same Spirit dwells by grace in all the just, He would testify to all that they are sons of God; yet the contrary appears.

Then too, justification depends not only on the divine promise and revelation, but also on our conversion and preparation; and yet no one can be certain that he has truly been converted to God, because man does not know whether that conversion is from grace or from concupiscence, and as Gregory says, part 1 of his Pastoral Rule, chapter 29: The human mind often lies to itself, and feigns to love the good which it does not love.

It is confirmed, for the disposition to justification to be valid, and the conversion perfect, it must proceed from a supernatural motive: but this cannot be certain to us; because although we may be certain that we are moved toward detesting sins from a supernatural motive materially, namely on account of God offended; yet it is uncertain whether we are moved thereto also by a supernatural motive formally, that is, by the form and grace divinely elevating and exciting; and accordingly no one can be certain that he has the sufficient dispo- sition whereby he may obtain the grace of justification. — Finally, the ordinary disposition of God's providence and of things does not require, nor is it expedient for men, that men should believe with certainty that they are justified: for that certainty would be for them an occasion of pride, of contempt of others, and of a looser life; pride indeed and complacency, if he knew himself to be pleasing to God; contempt of others truly, if indeed man knew himself to be just, but did not know whether others were likewise just: finally, of a looser life, since he would not care to bring forth fruits worthy of penance, nor to pro- fess in grace.

You will object 1. That passage of John 13: By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another: therefore much more can man know of himself that he is a disciple of Christ, if he has love for his neighbor. And in the following chapter: But you shall know him, because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. And afterward: In that day you shall know, that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you: therefore one can know with certainty, upon faith having its divine foundation in Sacred Scripture, believe that he is in grace without any other special revelation.

I deny the consequence. And to the first text I say that it is to be under- stood of conjectural certainty: namely because the love of neighbor is a sign of the love of God; whence Tertullian in the Apology, chapter 39, says: The greatest working of love imprints a mark upon us in the eyes of some: see, they say, how they love one another; but this cannot produce absolute certainty, because without special revelation no one can know whether this love arises from the effect of nature or of grace. As to the second, I say its meaning is that the faithful in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, when they know, not indeed with a barren knowledge, such as that which comes from unformed faith; but fruitful, such as arises from living faith: moreover this knowledge is only conjectural; for who knows whether the good works which he elicits proceed from living faith, or unformed? To the third, I say with St. Augustine, tractate 75 on John, that those words designate the day of the future age, and of blessed life, in which we shall see and know clearly and intuitively that Christ the Lord is the Son of the same nature with the Father, and that we are incorporated into Him as members to the head.

You will object 2. That passage of Rom. 8: The same Spirit gives testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God. But the testimony of the Holy Spirit is intel- ligible, and we are bound by divine faith to assent to it; whence St. Chrysostom on these words: When the Holy Spirit testifies, what ambiguity at last remains? for if even a man, or an Angel, or an Archangel, or some other power of this kind promised this, it would be fitting and proper for some so to doubt: but when the highest essence, and indeed that very one which bestows this gift, brings us testimony, who at last doubts its worthiness? Therefore the certainty which is caused in us by such testimony must needs be infallible. Hence St. Bernard, Sermon 1 On the Annunciation: If you believe your sins cannot be blotted out, except by him against whom alone you sinned, and in whom sin does not fall, you do well: but add further that you believe, because through him your sins are forgiven you, this is the testimony which the Holy Spirit gives in our hearts, saying: Your sins are forgiven you.

I answer 1. The words of the Apostle are to be understood of the whole Church, to which the Holy Spirit testifies that she has the spirit of adoption: partly because there he compares the Church with the Synagogue, contending that the Church has the spirit of adoption, while the Synagogue had only the spirit of fear: partly because in what follows he indicates that some of those to whom he writes are contentious and weak in faith, as appears from chapter 14.

I answer 2. But if these words are understood of the faithful in particular, that testimony of which the Apostle speaks is only through the experience of the sweetness and tranquillity of conscience, and through pious motions and affections toward God; namely by this, that the faithful, who think themselves just, may confidently dare to say: Abba, Father: all which things can also be found in men who are not just: for this confidence can arise even from a presumptuous and erroneous conscience. Finally, I say this testimony is only conditional, as appears from these following words: And if sons, heirs also: heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him: but it is uncertain to us whether with Christ, and after His example and grace, we suffer the ca- lamities of the present life with a strong and constant mind: therefore, etc. To St. Ber- nard I say that he teaches there only that those two things are to be believed: first, that God has the power of remitting sins; second, that He also has the will to grant us remission of sins through the means instituted by Him. But St. Bernard does not affirm that these means are here and now applied to us as is required, and according to every disposition which is required in order that remission follow infallibly.

You will object 3. That passage of 1 Cor. 2: We have received the Spirit of Christ, that we may know the things that are given us from God. 2 Cor. 1: This is our glory, the testimony of our conscience. And chapter 13: Prove yourselves if you be in the faith; prove you yourselves: know you not your own selves, that Christ Jesus is in you, unless perhaps you be reprobates?

I answer to 1. The Apostle in that place speaks not of all the just whatsoever, but only of the Apostles. 2. That he speaks not of sanctifying grace, but only of the mysteries of the Christian religion, as well as of the benefits prepared and granted, and also to be gran- ted to the society of the Elect in general, as these following words prove: Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom. To 2. I say, that this testimony of conscience is only conjectural: for that anyone may rejoice in the Lord, it suffices that he have good confidence in God. Then, the Apostle speaks only of his own per- son. Finally, this testimony is not about the state of holiness of the soul, but about the simplicity and sincerity of his conduct in discharging the Apos- tolic office: for he adds that we have conversed not in the wisdom of the flesh, but in the grace of God, where the phrase grace of God signifies not only the mighty operation of God known to himself from the miracles which he wrought, but also from the conversion of many to the faith. ⟦illegible: una vel plures versuum lineae OCR amissae⟧ according to habitual grace, but only of the presence of the Lord according to power and miracles; so that the sense is: examine your consciences, whether you have true ⟦ille- gible: …⟧ concerning the Ecclesiastical power, which Christ granted to His Church. But if you wish the Apostle to be understood of the presence of Christ through sanctifying grace, I say his words are to be ta- ken of moral and conjectural knowledge. Nor does the word reprobi stand in the way: for in that place it means the same as vile and degene- rate, whence he adds: but I hope that you shall know that we are not reprobi, that is, vile, and destitute of authority.

You will object 4. That passage of 1 John 3: We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. And that of Apoc. 3: To him that overcomes I will give hidden manna, which no man knows but he that receives it. And that of 2 Pet. 1: Brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure through good works: therefore from good works we can be certain of our election and calling unto holiness.

I answer 1. St. John speaks either of the Church, or of the assembly of the faithful itself, in such wise that we may be certain that in the Catholic Church there are men who have passed from death to life, because they love the brethren: or if it be understood of the faithful in particular, there follows only from it that we know this sometimes with moral certainty, but not by divine faith; for who without special revelation can know that he loves the brethren as is necessary for salvation? To the second I say, that whoever receives that grace signified by the hidden manna, can indeed know conjecturally that he has it, but not with certain faith and without all fear. To the third I say, the meaning of that place is not that we can make our vocation and election so sure by the good works of this present life that by such works we may be certain that we are of the number of the Elect, but that on our part we ought to labor in good works insofar as we may merit eternal life, and may thereby make our calling sure before God.

You will object 5. Someone can know with certainty of science, indeed even of faith, that another is in the state of sanctifying grace: therefore by the same certainty he will be able, for the same reason, to know that he himself is in the state of grace. The antecedent is proven: it is certain with the certainty of faith that an infant truly and lawfully baptized is in habitual grace, because it is of faith that baptism confers grace ex opere operato: someone, e.g. a Priest who baptized an infant, can know that he lawfully baptized him, namely by employing true elemental water, and pronouncing this formula of words: I baptize you, etc., and by having done all these things with the due intention of doing what the Church does, which three things suffice for a lawful baptism. It is likewise certain that an infant has not placed an obstacle to sanctifying grace, since he is not possessed of liberty and reason; accordingly one really can know that another is in the state of sanctifying grace.

I deny the consequence: for there is a far-reaching disparity between the state of an infant and of an adult who has been justified, since on the part of the infant no disposition toward grace is pre-required, but only that baptism be con- ferred on him lawfully; for whose conferral there is not required on the part of the confer- rer any supernatural act, but a natural intention suffices, actual or virtual, of doing what the Church does. Hence whoever baptized can know that he administered baptism lawfully, because all the things which are required for the lawful administration of baptism are purely natural: namely the ablution, the formula of words, and the intention of the Minister. But it is otherwise with the adult who, being possessed of reason and liberty, must prepare himself for his justification, and this from his own disposition elicited from a supernatural motive. Hence since his justification depends both upon such a disposition, and upon the will of another who confers the sacrament upon him. Hence it is that since he cannot know with certainty that he had a disposition from a supernatural motive, nor even know whether he who administered the sacrament to him had a true and lawful intention of conferring it, the consequence is that these things cannot be certain to him, nor can his own justification equally be certain to him.

You will object 6. The Church cannot be more certain of the Martyrdom of any man than he who suffered it: but the Church believes with certain faith that he who died for Christ is truly a Martyr, enrolls him in the sacred fasts of the Saints, and proposes him as a Saint to be believed in by the faithful: therefore the Martyr himself also can believe and know with certain faith that he has sanctifying grace.

I answer first by denying the major: for the Church in the canoniza- tion of Saints has a special assistance of the Holy Spirit: she is indeed the pillar and firmament of truth, against which the gates of hell, that is, error and deception, just as neither tyranny nor persecution, shall never be able to prevail, so as to deceive her and cast her down. But it is otherwise with the Martyr, who does not have such an infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit. Hence it is that very many heretics think that they die for Christ, and are truly Martyrs, when nevertheless they stubbornly lay down their lives in asserting error, and are not therefore rewarded with the glory and crown of Martyrdom. I answer secondly, that the argument in no way militates against our assertion: for either the objection is understood of the Martyr who is still being tortured, and has not consummated his Martyrdom: or of the Martyr already consummated and dead. If the former, it is certain that in that state he is not yet held by the Church as a Martyr: for very many in the very torments abjured Christ, and fell away from the Christian religion and faith. If the latter, then the Martyr knows with certainty that he has grace, since he is gloriously crowned by God, and only then is he enrolled by the Church in the fasts of the Saints.

You will object 7. Whenever some particular proposition is evidently pro- posed or deduced as contained under some universal which is of faith, its truth can certainly be believed with the certainty of faith or at least theological: but this proposition: I am in the state of sanctifying grace, is evidently de- duced from many revealed principles: therefore I can certainly believe its truth. The major is plain: for this reason, while I stand at the sacred rite, I believe with certain faith that Christ is in the consecrated host which the Priest presents for adoration, because this proposition, Christ is really in this host, is deduced from this proposition of faith: Christ is really under the species of bread and wine lawfully consecrated: and I believe this host to be lawfully consecrated: therefore equally I must believe that Christ is really present in this host. The minor is proven: one of the revealed principles is that whoever receives the sacrament of baptism or penance with sufficient sorrow obtains the remission of sins: but someone can know by certain experience that he approached baptism or penance with due disposition; namely with due inten- tion, and requisite affection: therefore he can be certain that he obtained grace.

I deny the minor: partly because no one can be certain that he had a lawful disposition from a supernatural motive: partly because he certainly does not know whether he who administers the sacrament has the true and lawful intention of conferring it, and accordingly he cannot be certain whether this proposition is true: I lawfully approached the holy sacrament.

You will object 8. One can be certain about his own faith with infallible certainty: therefore also about his charity, which is really undistinguished from sanctifying grace. The consequence seems legitimate: for precisely this is why one cannot be certain about his grace and charity, because grace and charity are something supernatural: but faith is also supernatural: therefore if notwithstanding this man can have infallible certainty about his faith, by equal reason he will be able to be certain about his grace and charity. The major is proven from that last chapter of 2 Corinthians: Prove yourselves if you be in the faith. On which place St. Anselm says: He who has the sense of faith in his heart knows that Christ Jesus is in him. — It is confirmed from St. Augustine, lib. 13. De Trinitate, chapter 1: Each one sees his own faith in himself. Likewise, Each holds his faith with most certain knowledge, and with conscience crying out.

I deny the major, and to its first proof I say that St. Paul, as we have already said, is to be understood of probation by moral certainty, as that passage also of 2 Corinthians 11 is understood: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, etc. For just as this probation is done only through a certain moral certainty, which those approaching the sacred Synaxis ought to have about the state of their justification; so too that probation of faith is done only through the moral certainty which each faithful man can have that he believes the mysteries of faith from divine faith; concerning which certainty St. Anselm likewise is to be interpreted. To St. Augustine I say that he speaks there not of justifying and supernatural faith, but of every act of divine or human faith, which each one experiences himself to have while he truly knows that he believes something on the authority of God or of man proposing and revealing; although he does not know whether that faith by which he believes is acquired or infused: thus those words of the holy Doctor can fit both the Jew and the Christian: for although the latter believes true things, the former false, yet each holds his faith with most certain knowledge and conscience crying out.

You will object finally. Unless the just man be certain about his justice, it is necessary that his conscience be ever harassed by fluctuating trepidation, and nowhere enjoy that peace which Christ gave to the Apostles, His followers, and the faithful: but this is against the Apostle saying Rom. 5: Therefore being justified by faith, let us have peace towards God: therefore, etc.

I deny the major: for in order that the just man not be harassed by perpetual tumult of conscience, whereby he might be driven into desperation, it suffices that he have conjectural certainty, which although it does not take away all fear, takes away at least anxiety. Nor indeed is it expedient for the just man to be secure about his justice: for Prov. 18: Blessed is the man who is always on his guard. Hence appositely the Apostle admonishes the Philippians, chapter 2: With fear and trembling work out your salvation.

From these things I conclude that no man, however holy, can have a moral certainty which excludes all fear that he is in grace, except from special privilege and singular revelation, as the Council of Trent teaches, Session 6, chapter 13, saying: No one ought to promise himself anything with absolute certainty, although all ought to place and repose the firmest hope in the help of God: for God will never fail in His grace unless they first fail therein; as He began the good work, so He will perfect it, working to will and to accomplish. Yet nonetheless those who think themselves to stand, let them see that they fall, and with fear and trembling work out their salvation, in labors, in watchings, in almsdeeds, in prayers and oblations, in fastings and chastity: for they ought to fear, knowing that unto the hope of glory ⟦illegible: …⟧ unto glory they are born again of combat, which remains with the flesh, with the world, with the devil, in which they cannot conquer except with the grace of God. Hence it is that most holy men, though shining with eminent piety, and illustrious by very many miracles and stupendous works, feared so greatly for their salvation that St. Hilarion himself, even at the moment of death struck by this vehement fear, was compelled to say to his soul: Go forth, my soul, why do you fear? For seventy years I served the Lord, and do you fear death?

Three things especially are proposed here for resolution: First indeed, whether justification is truly a miraculous work, and the greatest among divine works. Second, whether it can take place in an instant. Third finally, whether it is equal in all the just. That these may be more easily resolved,

NOTE 1. For a miracle two things are chiefly required: first indeed, that it be an unusual and extraordinary work, either in its effect or in its mode: second, however, that it cannot be done through natural causes acting by their proper powers. But it is certain that the first of those conditions is ordinarily lacking in justification; since the justification of men takes place daily through the administration of the sacraments, as through means ordained by God for its conferral, and received among us by common and frequent use. I said ordinarily: for it happens sometimes that certain notable sinners are called and justified in an unusual and extraordinary manner, such as were the conversion of Magdalene, of the penitent Thief, and of Paul, of whom there is no question here; for we are treating only of ordinary justification, which takes place through the common means instituted by God and customary among us; which justification certainly can be compared with creation, glorification, incarnation, and transubstantiation, which seem to be the greatest works of the Divinity: and accordingly it must be determined whether justification is more excellent than, or interior to, those most illustrious works of God. Now the greatness of some work can be considered either from the manner of the agent and of the production, or from the dignity and excellence of the thing produced. It must therefore be seen whether in both ways justification excels the other works of God.

NOTE 2. Justification can be regarded either insofar as it is a passage from the state of sin to the state of grace, comprising the ultimate disposition to the infusion of sanctifying grace: or insofar as it comprises all the other remote dispositions which the Council of Trent refers to, Session 6, chapter 6. The difficulty, however, is whether justification, regarded in both ways, can take place in an instant.

NOTE 3. That this was a flagitious error of Jovinian, who, as St. Jerome relates, book 2 against him, and Augustine, Epistle 20, thought with the Stoics that all virtues are equal, and all vices and sins are equal; and accordingly that one sinner cannot be worse than another, nor one just man more just than another. Which most wicked error, long since buried, Luther again raised from the dead; doing so first in a sermon which he preached on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, in which he dared to bring forth this impiety: All Christians are equally great as the Mother of God, and equally holy as she. To which afterward all the erring subscribed, especially the Calvinists. Hence Windelin in his Calvinistic Theology, book 1, chapter 24, says: The equality of justification is whereby the justice of Christ apprehended through faith is imputed equally to all by God; although the faith of some is stronger, that of others weaker: for, as Scarpius adds in De iustificatione, Controversy ⟦t.⟧ even weak faith apprehends Christ whole with His benefits; how erroneous this assertion is, and how adverse to Sacred Scripture, will appear within.

First Conclusion. — The justification of a sinner is truly a miraculous work, and therefore greater than creation, but not than incarnation or glorification.

This Conclusion consists of three parts, of which

The first is proven: That work is deemed miraculous which can be done solely by divine power beyond the order of nature and the exigency of natural causes: but such is justification: for it is wrought by God alone: for God it is who justifies, bestowing habitual grace and remitting sins. It is also beyond the exigency of natural causes, and exceeds their powers; because God, according to the prescribed laws of divine Providence, is bound by no reason to grant pardon to a sinner: for He would be bound thereto either by justice, or by fidelity, or by the administration of Providence; but such an obligation cannot be drawn from either head. First indeed, God does not owe this by justice: because divine justice is bound to inflict nothing else upon the sinner than punishment and vengeance: for every sin must be punished, either from man doing penance, or from God prevailing. Nor is He bound thereto by fidelity; because fidelity supposes a promise in what it executes: but nowhere did God promise the sinner the grace of justification, but only to man doing penance. Finally not from the administration of natural Providence: for justification is not ordered to a natural end, but supernatural; and accordingly is not comprehended within the line of natural divine Providence, by which He concurs with second causes and supplies to them the necessaries whereby they can attain their natural end: therefore justification is a work wholly beyond the due order and powers of nature, and accordingly is a miraculous work.

The second part is also proven, namely that justification is a greater work than creation itself: partly because the justification of the impious takes place not only out of nothing, as does creation itself, but moreover usually takes place with the human will previously resisting: for as men are created, no will of theirs is needed therefor; but that they may be justified, they must work willingly together with God: whence that oft-repeated saying of St. Augustine, Sermon 14 On the words of the Apostle: He who created you without you, will not justify you without you: partly because creation is terminated only at a natural good, but justification at a supernatural good: finally because Christ the Lord attested it in these words: He that believes in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do: for, says St. Augustine there, it is greater to justify the impious than to create heaven and earth; whence whoever concurs toward his own or another's justification does greater things than these.

And no one will call this into doubt who hears St. Thomas, part 3, q. 113, art. 9, ad 2, saying: The good of one grace is greater than the good of the nature of the whole Universe. Hence the Church preaches that the divine omnipotence shines forth more excellently in the conversion of a sinner than in the creation of the world; for it says in the Collect of the 8th Sunday after Pentecost: O God, who manifests your omnipotence chiefly by pardoning and showing mercy, etc. The reason of this lies ready to hand; for man in justification receives something divine, and is adopted and consecrated as a son of God. Which is indeed so wonderful and stupendous that deservedly St. Chrysologus, Sermons 66 and 68, exclaims: The Angels stand amazed, heaven marvels, earth trembles, flesh cannot bear it, hearing cannot grasp it, mind does not reach it, the creature cannot sustain the whole, estimation suffices not, believing fears. Nor indeed without cause; for the justification of a sinner is as it were the synopsis and encyclopedia of all the marvelous works of God; since it emulates and adumbrates them all. Doubtless God once wrought great marvels, which the Royal Prophet enumerates Ps. 135, saying: Who alone does great wonders, who made the heavens in understanding: who established the earth upon the waters: who made the great lights, the sun for power over the day, the moon and stars for power over the night; who smote Egypt with their firstborn: who brought out Israel from among them with a mighty hand and a stretched-out arm: who divided the Red Sea into divisions, who struck the rock, and the waters flowed, etc. All these He renews daily in the justification of the impious: there He makes the heavens in understanding, who once makes earthly and irrational sinners heavenly and rational: there He establishes the earth upon the waters, who works firmness in good from the flowing streams of tears of the heart: here He creates the great lights, who draws forth the light of grace from the darkness of sins: here He smote Egypt, and brought out the sons of Israel from the captivity of Pharaoh, who delivers sinners from the miserable servitude of the devil: here He divides the Red Sea, and plunges Pharaoh and his whole army into the waters, who restrains the insurgent furies of disorderly affections, and casts all our iniquities into the depth of the sea of His infinite mercy: here He converts the rock into pools of water, who draws forth from a most hard heart fountains of tears. Finally to the justification of the impious that saying of the Porta can deservedly be adapted: Non alibi miranda magis: for it is a work impassable to human intelligence, a mystery hidden in God, a secret of horror, a sacrament of the dread of the Saints, and a most sacred and most obscure enigma, which no subtlety of human genius can open, as Gonetus observes best.

The third part is proved, namely that justification is less than glorification and incarnation. It is indeed inferior to glorification on the side of the thing produced, because justification is only unto grace begun; glorification, however, unto grace consummated. Next, justification is frail and can perish; but glorification is constant and cannot be lost. Finally, justification can always advance, as we shall say presently; and therefore it has not in this mortal life the state and crown of perfection; but it is otherwise with glorification: For, says St. Paul, when that which is perfect shall come, that which is in part shall be done away with. — It is also inferior to the Incarnation; because justification is only an accidental union between God and man: the Incarnation is a substantial and personal union. Next, the Incarnation also includes habitual grace, and adds the hypostatic union in the divine person, which is the fount of all grace, of whose fullness we have all received. Finally, the Incarnation itself includes whatever there is of perfection in beatitude; and therefore, since glorification is more excellent than justification, even from this side the Incarnation excels. The same holds for transubstantiation, because transubstantiation of itself is terminated to the body and blood of Christ, and consequently includes all things that pertain to the terminus of the Incarnation: therefore for this reason it is greater than justification. Next, transubstantiation effects the presence of Christ the Lord in the adorable sacrament of the Eucharist, in which He is the fount of all grace and divine charisms, which He pours forth lavishly upon all those who receive this Sacrament worthily: now the fount of grace is reckoned to be far something more excellent than the simple infusion of grace, which takes place through justification.

Second Conclusion. — JUSTIFICATION ITSELF, INASMUCH AS IT CONNOTES THE TRANSIT FROM THE STATE OF SIN TO THE STATE OF SANCTIFYING GRACE, CAN TAKE PLACE IN AN INSTANT; BUT NOT INASMUCH AS IT ALSO COMPREHENDS ALL THE DISPOSITIONS OF THE MAN TO BE JUSTIFIED. Both parts of this Conclusion are easily established.

The first indeed, because the difficulty is not greater, that God bestow sanctifying grace upon a sinner in the same instant in which he detests his sin, whether through contrition, or through attrition joined to the sacrament of Penance, than that He grant it to a just man: but to a just man an increase of grace can be conferred in an instant: therefore also He can bestow it upon a sinner. The minor is evident: for just as God, in creating the Angels together with founding their nature, added grace also, so that the Angels were given grace in the first instant of their creation, as all Theologians commonly teach; so also He bestows an increase of grace in the same instant in which some just man has merited it by his good works. The major is proved: for if anything hindered God from being able to grant sanctifying grace together with the remission of sins in an instant, chiefly because sin would seem to stand together with grace in the same intrinsic instant: yet that does not follow, since the first being of grace is the last being of sin; nor can sin and grace be judged to exist simultaneously for any other reason than two substantial forms, of which one ceases, the other begins to be in the subject; but two substantial forms are not for this reason said to stand together, because the first being of one is the last being of the other: therefore neither are sin and grace on that account simultaneous.

The second part is also clear: for experience establishes that the dispositions can be brought to bear by sinful man only over some space of time, which the Council of Trent teaches are required, Session 6, chapter 6, namely faith, hope, fear, detestation of sins, the purpose of beginning a new life, and of keeping the commandments of God, all which acts cannot be done in an instant.

Third Conclusion. — NOT ALL THE JUST HAVE AN EQUAL JUSTICE, BUT ONE IS HOLIER AND MORE JUST THAN ANOTHER.

It is proved first from the Scriptures, Matth. 11: Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist. 2. Corinth. 9: He will supply the increase of the fruits of your justice. 2. Peter 3: But grow in grace. Apocalypse, last chapter: He that is just, let him be justified still.

Secondly from the Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter 10, and Canon 24, as well as from the condemnation of the Jovinians, with SS. Jerome and Augustine themselves as witnesses above.

Thirdly from St. Augustine, Epistle to Dardanus, question 1: Among the saints, he says, some are more blessed than others, possessing more abundantly the habitation of God.

Fourthly finally, because an inequality of glory will be given in heaven: therefore an inequality of grace is given on earth, because glory succeeds to grace, and grace is the seed of glory. The antecedent is that of Christ the Lord, John 14: In my Father's house there are many mansions. Whoever desires more, may have recourse to the preceding Disputation, where there was discourse concerning the increase of habitual grace.