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

NOTE 1. Beyond controversy it is that the material, or subjective, cause of infused faith is the intellect of man, or of the Angel wayfarer; since, as we have said, because that habit is ordered to the knowledge of supernatural things, which become known only through divine revelation, it is necessary that it be seated in that faculty which alone is cognitive and capable of the perception of such objects. Moreover, the formal cause of it is nothing other than the first truth itself in speaking and revealing; for habits have no other formal cause, by which they become known and are distinguished from others, than that formal aspect of the object by which the acts of their habits are specified. And likewise the final cause of faith is the justification and salvation of man himself, according to that word of St. Peter, 1. chapter 1. Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. There remains therefore to say something about the efficient cause.

NOTE 2. All Theologians agree that the habit of infused faith is not produced or generated from repeated acts of believing the mysteries upon divine revelation; wherefore the habits of the theological virtues are said to be infused per se, and not only per accidens, because by their nature they require not to be made by acts, as acquired habits are made; but they are granted divinely in the manner of a potency, which is ordered not to acting more easily, but to acting simply; hence it is certain that these habits are infused by God. The difficulty, however, is whether the habit of faith can per se be so infused by God that it can be produced separately from the other habits of hope, especially charity, along with sanctifying grace. For the resolving of which difficulty there is a triple opinion of Authors: Most indeed teach, with Suarez, disp. 7. sect. 5. num. 6. that the habit of faith is often infused without the habit of sanctifying grace; but some, with Soto, book 1. De Natura, et Gratia, chapter 8. contend, that although the habit of faith is not infused outside the sacrament: nevertheless habitual faith is infused in baptism into a man otherwise disposed through actual faith, even though he has an obstacle to the habit of sanctifying grace; because, they say, since baptism is the sacrament of faith, it will at least have the infusion of this habit of faith for its effect. Finally, the third opinion denies that the habit of faith is ever infused without the habit of grace.

NOTE 3. A habit is a certain vestige of the act itself left by it in the potency, and impressed upon it, inclining it toward the object of the same act, so that it may produce other similar acts. For just as the act formally, after the manner of a thing passing through, moves and inclines the potency to its object, so the habit is a certain habitual and persevering inclination, moving the potency continuously, as far as lies with it, to the same object, especially when that occurs and is presented to the faculty; for when frequently we have elicited some acts concerning some object, we experience that we are gradually more and more inclined to exercise similar acts, and, the object being present, to be seized in a manner violently, so that it is necessary for us to apply force in order to abstain from such acts. Furthermore, that act by which the habit is generated can be considered in two ways: first, insofar as it is a certain quality inhering in the potency: so that the potency in no way perceives it, nor does it have anything sensible, either while it is produced or while it inheres; second, insofar as it affects the potency sensibly, and the potency by it tends vitally to the object.

These things premised, two points here occur to be determined: first, whether the habit of faith is necessarily infused together with the habit of charity, and sanctifying grace: second, whether the acts of infused faith can produce the habit of acquired faith.

First Conclusion — FAITH IS ALWAYS INFUSED TOGETHER WITH THE HABIT OF CHARITY, ALTHOUGH IN TRUTH THEY CAN BE INFUSED SEPARATELY. This is the Doctor's teaching, as to both parts, in 3. d. 36. num. 30. where speaking of the theological virtues, and their connection, he says:

but whether are they connected in coming to be, or in infusion, so that one cannot be infused without the other? I answer: whatsoever things can be separated in being, God can separate in coming to be: and therefore of themselves they are not necessarily connected in infusion, but they are connected by divine liberality. Because God perfects the whole man; so that just as corporally he healed no one unless perfectly, so also spiritually he heals man only if he heals him perfectly: but health is perfect if as regards the intellect he has faith, and as regards the will, hope, and charity. By which words the Doctor teaches according to the law and ordinary way that God in justification infuses at once Faith, Hope, and Charity, although he can infuse those virtues separately.

The first part is proven: first indeed from the Council of Vienna, where it is determined that it is more probable that grace and the virtues be infused through baptism both to infants and to adults. And from the Tridentine, Session 6. chapter 7. where it is said that in justification Faith, Hope, and Charity are infused at once.

Thence, it says, in justification itself, with the remission of sins, man receives all these things infused together through Jesus Christ, into whom he is engrafted, Faith, Hope, and Charity.

Which words I would not however have you take thus, as if those virtues could nowhere be infused separately, which would happen if the man to be justified were best disposed to those virtues, or unless he had previously had some of those virtues. For he adds:

For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites perfectly with Christ, nor makes a living member of his body, for which reason it is most justly said to be dead and idle without works.

There he openly supposes that faith is sometimes infused into us before charity; for he treats of the total conversion and justification of man, by which the infidel converted is justified through the infusion of Faith, Hope, and Charity, and he says that infused faith, unless hope and charity be added, does not make us a member of Christ, but is idle and dead, which certainly would be less fittingly said, if faith were never infused into us before charity. — But that this does not happen ordinarily, the Doctor proves from d. 3. De Poenit., chapter sunt plures, etc. where it is said, that God never healed anyone whom he did not make wholly whole, in proof of which is brought forward that word of Matth. 12. where it is said that he made the whole man whole on the Sabbath, because he freed both the body from infirmity, and the soul from every contagion of sin. Moreover, in that Canon is added the reason of this assertion: For a certain impiety of infidelity it is, to hope for half a pardon from him who is just and justice itself. It is fitting therefore, says the Doctor, that God, who heals man through the infusion of supernatural virtues, make him wholly whole, and consequently that he infuse the three virtues together.

Nevertheless the second part also is evident, namely, that God sometimes infuses faith and hope before charity, as St. Augustine teaches, book 1. ad Simplicianum, qu. 2. near the beginning, where he says:

In some there is so great a grace of faith as does not suffice for obtaining the kingdom of heaven.

He speaks however of Catechumens having faith without charity; whence he adds:

In some there is so great a one, that they are already set apart for the body of Christ, and for the holy temple of God.

Hence he concludes:

There arise therefore certain beginnings of faith like to conceptions: not however is it enough only to be conceived, but one must be born, etc.

By which words the holy Doctor signifies that someone at the beginning of his conversion can have faith, although he does not yet have hope and charity. Which certainly appears true also from John 12. where of certain Princes of the Jews it is said: However many of the Princes believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, that they might not be cast out of the Synagogue: for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God. By which it is signified that those Princes indeed had faith, but not hope and charity.

It is proven also by reason: For it seems fitting that when someone has the dispositions prerequisite of himself for the habit of faith, he receive it, even though on account of the lack of the disposition prerequisite for charity he cannot receive that: but an adult can sometimes have all the dispositions prerequisite for the habit of faith, even though he does not have those which are prerequisite for charity: therefore it is fitting that the habit of faith itself be infused into him, while he receives baptism with this disposition, v. g. even though on account of indisposition he cannot receive the habit of sanctifying grace, and charity. The major stands: for God, insofar as he is author of nature, or of grace, is wont to produce form according to the disposition of the subject. But the minor is proven: for it can happen that an adult has a mind prepared to believe, indeed and in fact believes all the mysteries of faith, as revealed by God, and proposed by the Church, as well as to profess that faith, that he come to baptism, having from elsewhere some depraved affection, namely, hatred of his neighbor; in which case he would have all the dispositions prerequisite for receiving faith, but not for receiving charity; and consequently he could receive faith without charity.

You will reply, that the very indisposition for receiving charity makes him unworthy that the habit of supernatural faith be conferred upon him; and consequently by the reason that he cannot receive charity, by the same he cannot obtain faith.

On the contrary. Demerit, or unworthiness sufficient, that God be moved to take away the habit of charity, does not suffice that he likewise be moved to take away the habit of faith, which is preserved in the soul even when charity has perished: therefore by equal reason unworthiness for receiving charity will not stand in the way, that one be able to receive the habit of faith. The consequence is proven: for it is no greater thing for God to infuse the grace of faith into a sinner than to preserve it in him: nor does the one become God less than the other; therefore both can equally happen.

From these things it appears easily reconciled the conflicting opinion of Authors concerning the infusion of faith conjointly, or separately, from charity, and sanctifying grace, namely, that God nowhere infuses the habit of faith without the habit of charity, when the subject is sufficiently disposed to receive both habits; but he infuses one without the other, when he has indeed the disposition for the reception of one habit, but not for the reception of the other.

Second Conclusion. — SUPERNATURAL ACTS OF FAITH, HOPE, AND CHARITY IN US WAYFARERS GENERATE NATURAL AND ACQUIRED HABITS CONCERNING THE SAME FORMAL OBJECT, INTO WHICH THE SUPERNATURAL ACTS OF THOSE HABITS TEND. This is likewise the Doctor's teaching, because if a Jewish boy not baptized were educated among Christian boys, and did not know himself to be a Jew, or unbaptized, he himself would believe the very same mysteries in which Christians believe: but he would not believe through infused faith, which is not granted to an infidel without baptism, which he did not receive: therefore he would believe through acquired faith. — He confirms it from this, that we ourselves believe many things upon the relation of parents, and others, whom we have not seen:

Therefore, he says, by equal reason, on account of the same truth, we could believe through acquired faith the same mysteries which we believe through divine faith. Finally also because if some baptized man, who believed through infused faith all the articles, fall into heresy by refusing to believe one article, namely, the Trinity of persons, in that state he no longer has supernatural faith, as was said above, yet nevertheless he believes the other articles no less firmly than before, insofar as he perceives them by his own experience; for he who falls into heresy on account of the denied real presence of the body of Christ our Lord in the Eucharist, experiences that he believes no less firmly the unity of God, the Trinity of persons, the Incarnation, etc. than before: but he does not believe those things through infused faith, because he lost it through heresy: therefore he believes through acquired faith; and consequently that acquired faith is given, not only actual, but even habitual.

Nor does it matter that the Doctor there asserts that acquired faith is not acquired through elicited supernatural acts of infused faith, but only through merely natural acts: for it suffices for the purpose at hand that the Doctor approves that acquired faith be given concerning the same formal object into which the habit of infused faith tends: which he proves also elsewhere, especially Quodlib. 14. where he expressly says that one could believe with acquired credulity God immediately revealing.

But that supernatural acts can truly produce a natural acquired habit, is plain, because the act produces the habit insofar as the potency is sensibly moved by it, or borne to the object: but the intellect is borne to the object in exactly the same perceptible, and as it were sensible manner by a supernatural act, and by a natural act: therefore each act produces a habit in it. The major stands: for not otherwise is the potency facilitated by repeated acts, and acquires the habit of producing subsequent acts, than because, as was said, those acts, as sensible, leave their vestige in the potency. The minor is proven: for not otherwise does the potency on its part influence into supernatural acts than into natural ones, nor do the former affect it sensibly otherwise than these; so that we can in no way perceive and distinctly know whether we produce a supernatural act, or indeed only a natural one; and consequently since the potency stands in the same way toward the object through supernatural acts, and natural ones, thence it happens that just as natural acts produce a habit, so also supernatural acts ought to produce one.

It is confirmed by experience itself, whereby it is established that the just, who exercise themselves more frequently in some act of supernatural virtue, acquire great facility in its exercise; which is an open sign that they acquire a natural habit: therefore supernatural acts beget a habit of this kind.

You will object 1. Acts do not produce habits unless like those from which they are generated: yet supernatural acts are not generated from natural habits: therefore they cannot produce such habits.

I distinguish the major: those acts do not produce habits unless wholly like those habits from which they are generated, I deny: in some respect, I concede. But habits generated through supernatural acts are like to infused habits, not indeed according to the aspect of supernaturality, but according to the aspect of inclination and determination of the potency to tending toward the object: for this suffices, that they formally incline the potency to eliciting some act concerning the formal object of such supernatural acts, abstracting from the aspect of natural, or supernatural; for by this very fact that the potency is so inclined, it is sufficiently determined to eliciting that act easily.

You will object 2. Acquired faith and infused faith are distinguished no less than science and opinion: but science cannot beget the habit of opinion, nor opinion the habit of science: therefore assent of faith elicited on account of the authority of God cannot generate the habit of believing on account of human authority alone.

I deny the major, and the reason of the disparity is, that opinion and science have entirely distinct formal objects, but infused and acquired faith are not distinguished by formal objects; since both tend to the same formal object, namely, to the thing revealed to be believed on account of the authority of God: for it would be absurd to say that one could not by the powers of nature believe something to be true because it is revealed by God, just as he can believe something to be true when he judges that man truthful who said it, for without doubt the revelation of God, probabilistically known, is a stronger motive to induce a man to believe, than the revelation of a man. Add that, if one could not for the same motive believe by human faith and divine faith, but would necessarily have to be moved by another motive to believe by human faith, and by another by divine faith, it would follow that he could also know when he was moved by one motive, and when by the other; and consequently he could know when he elicited an act of supernatural faith, or when he elicited only an act of acquired faith; and thus by parity of reason he could distinctly know when he had supernatural charity, and when he did not have it, and in consequence he could know certainly without any revelation that he was in the state of grace, or not; which certainly we shall demonstrate to be erroneous when treating of justifying grace. Therefore acquired faith and infused faith can be concerned about the same formal object, and through the same motive. Which is confirmed moreover: for God could reveal to a man, or to the Church, that to relieve a poor man, v. g. would be honest with natural honesty, revealing nothing about the particular honesty which it would have inasmuch as it conduces to eternal life; in which case the will could tend through the natural habit of mercy to that act: therefore a natural habit can tend to an object known by natural faith alone.