Grace, Actual and Habitual Part 18

A man outwardly justified but inwardly a sinner would be a moral monster, and Almighty G.o.d would be guilty of an intrinsic contradiction were He to regard and treat such a one as just. This contradiction is not removed but rather intensified by the Lutheran appeal to the extraneous justice of Christ.(952)

The incongruity of the Lutheran doctrine of justification becomes fully apparent from the consequences which it involves, to wit: (1) all Christians without distinction would possess exactly the same degree of sanct.i.ty and justice; (2) justification once obtained by fiduciary faith could not be lost except by the sin of unbelief; and (3) children would not be justified by Baptism because they are not sufficiently advanced in the use of reason to enable them to "apprehend" the external righteousness of Christ. The first of these inferences runs counter to common sense and experience. The second, which Luther clothed in the shameful exhortation, "_Pecca fort.i.ter et crede fortius et nihil nocebunt centum homicidia et mille stupra_,"(953) is repugnant to the teaching of Scripture and destructive of morality.(954) The third consistently led to the rejection of infant baptism by the Anabaptists, the Mennonites, and other Protestant sects.

3. SANCTIFYING GRACE THE SOLE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION.-In declaring that "inherent grace" is the "sole formal cause of justification," the Council of Trent(955) defined it as an article of faith that sanctifying grace of itself is able to produce all the formal effects of justification, _e.g._ forgiveness of sins, the sanctification of the sinner, his adoption by G.o.d, etc.,(956) and consequently requires no supplementary or contributory causes. In other words, justification is wholly and fully accomplished by the infusion of sanctifying grace.

a) It appears from the discussions preceding its sixth session that the Tridentine Council not only meant to condemn the heretical contention of Butzer that "inherent grace" must be supplemented by the "imputed justice of Christ" as the really essential factor of justification,(957) but also wished to reject the view of divers contemporary Catholic theologians(958) that "intrinsic righteousness" is inadequate to effect justification without a special _favor Dei externus_.(959) In this the Fathers of the Council were on Scriptural ground. The princ.i.p.al effects of justification,-forgiveness of sins and internal sanctification,-are both produced by sanctifying grace. Sacred Scripture is perfectly clear on this point. It represents sin as opposed to grace in the same way in which darkness is opposed to light,(960) life to death,(961) the new man to the old.(962) The one necessarily excludes the other. Sanctifying grace and sin cannot co-exist in the same subject.

Internal sanctification may be defined as a permanent, vital union with G.o.d, by which the soul becomes righteous and holy in His sight and obtains a claim to Heaven. That this is also a function of sanctifying grace appears from those Scriptural texts which treat of the positive element of justification.(963) With this doctrine Tradition is in perfect accord, and consequently the Fathers of Trent were right in teaching as they did, in fact they could not have taught otherwise.(964)

b) While all Catholic theologians admit the incompatibility of grace and sin in the same subject, they differ as to the kind and degree of opposition existing between the two. Some hold that this opposition is purely moral, others that it is physical, again others that it is metaphysical.

a) Nominalists(965) and Scotists(966) before the Tridentine decision maintained that the distinction between sanctifying grace and (original or mortal) sin is based on a free decree of the Almighty, and therefore purely moral. G.o.d, they held, by a _favor externus superadditus_, externally supplies what sanctifying grace internally lacks, just as a government's stamp raises the value of a coin beyond the intrinsic worth of the bullion. Followed to its legitimate conclusions, this shallow theory means that sanctifying grace is of itself insufficient to wipe out sin, and that, but for the superadded divine favor, grace and sin might co-exist in the soul. This is tantamount to saying that justification requires a twofold formal cause, _viz._: sanctifying grace and a _favor Dei superadditus_,-which runs counter to the teaching of Trent. Henno tries to escape this objection by explaining that the _favor Dei acceptans_ appertains not to the formal but merely to the efficient cause of justification. But this contention is manifestly untenable. Sanctifying grace is either able to wipe out sin, or it is unable: if it is unable to produce this effect, the _favor Dei acceptans_ must be part of the _causa formalis_ of justification, and then, in Henno's hypothesis, we should have a _duplex causa formalis_, which contradicts the Tridentine decree.

If, on the other hand, sanctifying grace is able to wipe out sin without any _favor superadditus_, then the Scotistic theory has no _raison d'etre_.

) From what we have said it follows that there must be at least a physical contrariety between grace and sin. The difference between physical and metaphysical opposition may be ill.u.s.trated by the example of fire and water. These two elements are incompatible by a law of nature.

But as there is no metaphysical contradiction between them, Almighty G.o.d could conceivably bring them together. It is this physical kind of opposition that Suarez and a few of his followers a.s.sume to exist between grace and sin. Absolutely speaking, they say, there is no intrinsic contradiction in the a.s.sumption that G.o.d could preserve the physical ent.i.ty of sanctifying grace in a soul guilty of mortal sin.(967) In so far as this school admits the existence of an internal opposition, which actually prevents original or mortal sin from ever co-existing in the soul with justifying grace, its teaching may be said to be acceptable to all Catholic theologians. The Scotistic view, on account of its incompatibility with the teaching of the Tridentine Council, is no longer held.

It may be questioned, however, whether Suarez goes far enough in this matter, and whether the opposition between grace and sin could really be overcome by a miracle. The simultaneous co-existence of grace and sin seems to involve an absolute, _i.e._ metaphysical, contradiction.

?) This is what the Thomists maintain with the majority of Jesuit theologians.(968) As some subtle objections have been raised against this view, it cannot be accepted as theologically certain; but it undoubtedly corresponds better than its opposite to the spirit and letter of Scripture. The Bible, as we have already pointed out, likens the opposition existing between grace and sin to that between life and death,(969) justice and injustice, Christ and Belial, G.o.d and an idol.(970) But these are contradictories, _ergo_.(971) The same conclusion can be reached by arguing from the character of sanctifying grace as a _partic.i.p.atio divinae naturae_.(972) If grace is a partic.i.p.ation in the divine nature, it must be opposed to sin in the same way in which G.o.d Himself is opposed to it. Now G.o.d as the All-Holy One is metaphysically opposed to sin; consequently, the same kind of opposition must exist between sanctifying grace and sin.

It is alleged against this teaching that between habitual grace and habitual sin there is merely a disparate opposition, _i.e._ that of a physical to a moral form, the concepts of which are not mutually exclusive. But sanctifying grace is more than a physical ornament of the soul; it is an ethical form which has for its essential function to render the soul holy and righteous in the sight of G.o.d.(973)

READINGS:-St. Thomas, _Summa Theol._, 1a 2ae, qu. 113, and the commentators, especially Billuart, _De Gratia_, diss. 7, art. 1 sqq.; *Bellarmine, _De Iustificatione_, l. II (_Opera Omnia_, ed.

Fevre, Vol. VI, pp. 208 sqq., Paris 1873).

Besides the current text-books cfr. *Jos. Wieser, _S. Pauli Apostoli Doctrina de Iustificatione_, Trent 1874; H. Th. Simar, _Die Theologie des hl. Paulus_, 2nd ed., --33 sqq. Freiburg 1883.

On the Protestant notion of justification cfr. Mohler, _Symbolik_, --10 sqq., Mainz 1890 (Robertson's translation, pp. 82 sqq., 5th ed., London 1906); _Realenzyklopadie fur prot. Theologie_, Vol.

XVI, 3rd ed., pp. 482 sqq., Leipzig 1905 (summarized in English in the _New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge_, Vol.

VI, pp. 275 sqq., New York 1910); Card. Newman, _Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification_, 8th impression, London 1900; J.

Mausbach, _Catholic Moral Teaching and its Antagonists_, New York 1914, pp. 150 sqq.-B. J. Otten, S. J., _A Manual of the History of Dogmas_, Vol. II, St. Louis 1918, pp. 246 sqq., 464 sq., 470 sqq.

Section 2. Justifying Or Sanctifying Grace

Sanctifying grace is defined by Deharbe as "an unmerited, supernatural gift, imparted to the soul by the Holy Ghost, by which we are made just, children of G.o.d, and heirs of Heaven." As it makes sinners just, sanctifying grace is also called justifying, though this appellation can not be applied to the sanctification of our first parents in Paradise or to that of the angels and the sinless soul of Christ. Justification, as we have shown, consists in the infusion of sanctifying grace, and hence it is important that we obtain a correct idea of the latter. We will therefore consider (1) The Nature of Sanctifying Grace, (2) Its Effects in the Soul, and (3) Its Supernatural Concomitants.

Article 1. The Nature Of Sanctifying Grace

1. SANCTIFYING GRACE A "PERMANENT QUALITY" OF THE SOUL.-Having no intuitive knowledge of sanctifying grace, we are obliged, in order to obtain an idea of its true nature, to study its effects, as made known to us by Revelation. Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church do, however, enable us to form certain well-defined conclusions, of which the most important is that sanctifying grace must be conceived as a permanent quality (_qualitas permanens_) of the soul. If it is a permanent quality, sanctifying grace cannot be identical with actual grace or with "uncreated grace," _i.e._ the Person of the Holy Ghost.

a) In conformity with such Biblical expressions as "the new life,"

"renovation of the spirit," "regeneration," "divine sonship," etc., the Council of Trent defines justifying grace as a supernatural something "infused" into and "inherent" in the soul. Both ideas denote a permanent state, not a mere transient act or the result of such acts. "The charity of G.o.d is poured forth by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein."(974) "That justice which is called ours, because we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice of G.o.d) because it is infused into us by G.o.d, through the merit of Christ."(975) "If any one saith that men are justified ... to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and is inherent in them,... let him be anathema."(976) Hence Justification is defined by the Fathers of Trent as "a translation ... to the state of grace and adoption of the sons of G.o.d."(977)

Before the Tridentine Council a number of theologians held that sanctifying grace consists in some particular actual grace or in a consecutive series of actual graces. This view is incompatible with the definition just quoted; in fact Suarez, Bellarmine, Ripalda, and others regard it as positively heretical or at least intolerably rash. During the preliminary debates at Trent some of the Fathers asked for an express declaration of the Council to the effect that justification is wrought by the instrumentality of an infused habit; but their request was set aside on the ground that the nature of justifying grace as a stable habit is sufficiently indicated by the word "_inhaeret_."(978)

That sanctifying grace is a permanent state of the soul may also be inferred from the Catholic teaching that the grace which Baptism imparts to children does not differ essentially from that which it imparts to adults. True, this teaching was not always regarded as certain;(979) but at the Ec.u.menical Council of Vienne, A. D. 1311, Pope Clement V declared it to be "the more probable opinion,"(980) and it was rendered absolutely certain by the Tridentine decision that infant Baptism results not only in the remission of sins, but likewise in an infusion of sanctifying grace.

This being so, there can be no essential difference between the justification of children and that of adults. Now it cannot be actual grace which renders children righteous in the sight of G.o.d, for they are unable to avail themselves of actual grace on account of the undeveloped state of their intellect. The grace that Baptism imparts to them is consequently a _gratia inhaerens et informans_, that is, a permanent state of grace; and it must be the same in adults.(981)

Peter Lombard(982) identified sanctifying grace with the _gratia increata_, _i.e._ the Person of the Holy Ghost. This notion was combatted by St. Thomas(983) and implicitly rejected by the Tridentine Council when it declared that sanctifying grace inheres in the soul and may be increased by good works.(984) To say that the Holy Ghost is poured forth in the hearts of men, or that He may be increased by good works, would evidently savor of Pantheism. The Holy Ghost pours forth sanctifying grace and is consequently not the formal but the efficient cause of justification.(985)

b) The _gratia inhaerens permanens_ is not a mere relation or _denominatio extrinseca_, but a positive ent.i.ty productive of real effects,(986) and must consequently be conceived either as a substance or as an accident. We have shown that it is not identical with the uncreated substance of the Holy Ghost. Neither can it be a created substance. The idea of an intrinsically supernatural created substance involves a contradiction.(987) Moreover, sanctifying grace in its nature and purpose is not an ent.i.ty independently co-existing with the soul but something physically inherent in it. Now, a thing which has its existence by inhering in some other thing is in philosophic parlance an "accident." St.

Thomas expressly teaches that, "since it transcends human nature, grace cannot be a substance nor a substantial form, but is an accidental form of the soul itself."(988) Agreeable to this conception is the further Thomistic teaching that sanctifying grace is not directly created by G.o.d, but drawn (_educta_) from the _potentia obedientialis_ of the soul.(989) Not even the Scotists, though they held grace to be created out of nothing(990) claimed that it was a new substance.

An accident that inheres in a substance permanently and physically is called a quality (_qualitas_, p???t??). Consequently, sanctifying grace must be defined as a supernatural quality of the soul. This is the express teaching of the Roman Catechism: "Grace ... is a divine quality inherent in the soul, and, as it were, a certain splendor and light that effaces all the stains of our souls and renders the souls themselves brighter and more beautiful."(991)

2. SANCTIFYING GRACE AN INFUSED HABIT.-Sanctifying grace may more specifically, though with a lesser degree of certainty, be described as a habit (_habitus_). Being ent.i.tatively supernatural, this habit must be infused or "drawn out" by the Holy Ghost.

a) Aristotle(992) distinguishes four different sets of qualities: (1) habit and disposition; (2) power and incapacity; (3) _pa.s.sio_ (the power of causing sensations) and _patibilis qualitas_ (result of the modification of sense); (4) figure and circ.u.mscribing form (of extended bodies). As sanctifying grace manifestly cannot come under one of the three last-mentioned heads, it must be either a habit or a disposition.

Habit denotes a permanent and comparatively stable quality, by which a substance, considered as to its nature or operation, is well or ill adapted to its natural end.(993) As a permanently inhering quality, sanctifying grace must be a habit. Hence its other name, "habitual grace."

The Scholastics draw a distinction between ent.i.tative and operative habits. An operative habit (_habitus operativus_) gives not only the power (_potentia_) to act, but also a certain facility, and may be either good, bad, or indifferent. An ent.i.tative habit (_habitus ent.i.tativus_) is an inherent quality by which a substance is rendered permanently good or bad, _e.g._ beauty, ugliness, health, disease.

Philosophy knows only operative habits. But sanctifying grace affects the very substance of the soul. Hence the supplementary theological category of ent.i.tative habits. "Grace," says St. Thomas, "belongs to the first species of quality, though it cannot properly be called a habit, because it is not immediately ordained to action, but to a kind of spiritual being, which it produces in the soul."(994) There is another reason why grace cannot be called a habit in the philosophical sense of the term:-it supplies no acquired facility to act. This consideration led Suarez to abstain altogether from the use of the term "habit" in connection with grace,(995) and induced Cardinal Bellarmine to describe sanctifying grace as a _qualitas per modum habitus_,(996) by which phrase he wished to indicate that it imparts a supernatural perfection of being rather than a facility to act. To obviate these and similar subtleties the Council of Trent defined sanctifying grace simply as a permanent quality.

Nevertheless scientific theology employs the term _habitus_ because it has no other philosophical category ready to hand. This defect in the Aristotelian system is somewhat surprising in view of the fact that besides the supernatural, there are distinctly natural qualities which "belong to the first species," though they impart no facility to act but merely a disposition to certain modes of being, _e.g._ beauty, health, etc.

There is also a positive reason which justifies the definition of sanctifying grace as a habit. It is that grace imparts to the soul, if not the facility, at least the power to perform supernaturally meritorious acts, so that it is really more than a _habitus ent.i.tativus_, namely, a _habitus_ (at least remotely) _operativus_.(997)

b) The Scholastic distinction between native and acquired habits does not apply in the supernatural domain, because the supernatural by its very definition can never be either a part or an acquisition of mere nature.(998) It follows from this that supernatural habits, both ent.i.tative and operative, can be imparted to the human soul in no other way than by infusion (or excitation) from above. Hence the name _habitus infusus_. When the Holy Ghost infuses sanctifying grace, the _habitus ent.i.tativus_ imparts to the soul a supernatural principle of being, while the _habitus operativus_ confers upon it a supernatural power, which by faithful cooperation with (actual) grace may be developed into a facility to perform salutary acts. Hence, if we adopt the division of habits into ent.i.tative and operative, sanctifying grace must be defined first as an ent.i.tative habit (_habitus ent.i.tativus_), because it forms the groundwork of permanent righteousness, sanct.i.ty, divine sonship, etc.; and, secondly, as an infused habit, because it is not born in the soul and cannot be acquired by practice. This view is in accord with Sacred Scripture, which describes the grace of justification as a divine seed abiding in man,(999) a treasure carried in earthen vessels,(1000) a regeneration by which the soul becomes the abode of G.o.d(1001) and a temple of the Holy Ghost.(1002)

3. THE CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE ALLEGED IDENt.i.tY OF SANCTIFYING GRACE AND CHARITY.-As justifying grace and theological love (charity) are both infused habits, the question arises as to their objective ident.i.ty. The answer will depend on the solution of the problem, just treated, whether sanctifying grace is primarily an ent.i.tative or an operative habit. Of theological love we know that it is essentially an operative habit, being one, and indeed the chief of the "three theological virtues." What we have said in the preceding paragraph will enable the reader to perceive, at the outset, that there is a real distinction between grace and charity, and that consequently the two can not be identical.

a) Nevertheless there is an imposing school of theologians who maintain the ident.i.ty of grace with charity. They are Scotus(1003) and his followers,(1004) Cardinal Bellarmine,(1005) Molina, Lessius, Salmeron, Vasquez, Sardagna, Tournely, and others. Their princ.i.p.al argument is that Holy Scripture ascribes active justification indiscriminately to theological love and sanctifying grace, and that some of the Fathers follow this example. Here are a few of the Scriptural texts quoted in favor of this opinion. Luke VII, 47: "Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much."(1006) 1 Pet. IV, 8: "Charity covereth a mult.i.tude of sins."(1007) 1 John IV, 7: "Every one that loveth is born of G.o.d."(1008) St. Augustine seems to identify the two habits in such pa.s.sages as the following: "Inchoate love, therefore, is inchoate righteousness; ... great love is great righteousness; perfect love is perfect righteousness."(1009) According to the Tridentine Council, "the justification of the impious"

takes place when "the charity of G.o.d is poured forth ... in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein."(1010) It is argued that, if charity and grace produce the same effects, they must be identical as causes, and there can be at most a virtual distinction between them. This argument is strengthened by the observation that sanctifying grace and theological love const.i.tute the supernatural life of the soul and the loss of either entails spiritual death.

These arguments prove that grace and charity are inseparable, but nothing more. All the Scriptural and Patristic pa.s.sages cited can be explained without recourse to the hypothesis that they are identical. Charity is not superfluous alongside of sanctifying grace, because the primary object of grace is to impart supernatural being, whereas charity confers a special faculty which enables the intellect and the will to elicit supernatural salutary acts.

b) The majority of Catholic theologians(1011) hold with St. Thomas(1012) and his school that grace and charity, while inseparable, are really distinct, sanctifying grace as a _habitus ent.i.tativus_ imparting to the soul a supernatural being, whereas charity, being purely a _habitus operativus_, confers a supernatural power.

Let us put the matter somewhat differently. Grace inheres in the substance of the soul, while charity has its seat in one of its several faculties.

Inhering in the very substance of the soul, grace, by a physical or moral power, produces the three theological virtues-faith, hope, and love. "As the soul's powers, which are the wellsprings of its acts, flow from its essence," says the Angelic Doctor, "so the theological virtues flow from grace into the faculties of the soul and move them to act."(1013) And St.

Augustine: "Grace precedes charity."(1014)

This is a more plausible view than the one we have examined a little farther up, and it can claim the authority of Scripture, which, though it occasionally identifies the effects of grace and charity, always clearly distinguishes the underlying habits. Cfr. 2 Cor. XIII, 13: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of G.o.d."(1015) 1 Tim. I 14: "The grace of our Lord hath abounded exceedingly with faith and love."(1016) Furthermore, "regeneration" and "new-creation" in Biblical usage affect not only the faculties of the soul, but its substance. Finally, many councils consistently distinguish between _gratia_ and _caritas_ (_dona_, _virtutes_)-a distinction which has almost the force of a proof that grace and charity are not the same thing.(1017) These councils cannot have had in mind a purely virtual distinction, because theological love presupposes sanctifying grace in exactly the same manner as a faculty presupposes a substance or nature in which it exists. The Roman Catechism expressly designates the theological virtues as "concomitants of grace."(1018)

The question nevertheless remains an open one, as neither party can fully establish its claim, and the Church has never rendered an official decision either one way or the other.(1019)

4. SANCTIFYING GRACE A PARTIc.i.p.aTION OF THE SOUL IN THE DIVINE NATURE.-The highest and at the same time the most profound conception of sanctifying grace is that it is a real, though of course only accidental and a.n.a.logical, partic.i.p.ation of the soul in the nature of G.o.d. That sanctifying grace makes us "partakers of the divine nature" is of faith, but the manner in which it effects this partic.i.p.ation admits of different explanations.

a) The fact itself can be proved from Sacred Scripture. Cfr. 2 Pet. I, 4: "By whom [Christ] He [the Father] hath given us great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature."(1020) To this text may be added all those which affirm the regeneration of the soul in G.o.d, because regeneration, being a new birth, must needs impart to the regenerate the nature of his spiritual progenitor. Cfr. John I, 13: "Who are born, not of blood, ... but of G.o.d."(1021) John III, 5: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."(1022) St. James I, 18: "For of his own will hath he begotten us by the word of truth."(1023) 1 John III, 9: "Whosoever is born of G.o.d, committeth no sin."(1024)

The Fathers of the Church again and again extol the deification (_deificatio_, ?e??s??) of man effected by sanctifying grace and compare the union of the soul with G.o.d to the commingling of water with wine, the penetration of iron by fire, etc. St. Athanasius(1025) begins his Christological teaching with the declaration: "He was not, therefore, first man and then G.o.d, but first G.o.d and then man, in order that He might rather deify us."(1026) St. Augustine describes the process of deification as follows: "He justifies who is just of Himself, not from another; and He deifies who is G.o.d of Himself, not by partic.i.p.ation in another. But He who justifies also deifies, because He makes [men] sons of G.o.d through justification.... We have been made sons of G.o.d and G.o.ds; but this is a grace of the adopting [G.o.d], not the nature of the progenitor. The Son of G.o.d alone is G.o.d; ... the others who are made G.o.ds are made G.o.ds by His grace; they are not born of His substance, so as to become that which He is, but in order that they may come to Him by favor and become co-heirs with Christ."(1027) The idea underlying this pa.s.sage has found its way into the liturgy of the Ma.s.s,(1028) and Ripalda is justified in declaring that it cannot be denied without rashness.(1029)