ARTICLE X.

WHETHER THE JUSTIFICATIONOF SINNERS IS MIRACULOUS

State of the question. It seems to be so, since: 1. it is a greater work than other miraculous works; it is, as it were, the resurrection of the soul, surpassing that of the body; 2. the will of the sinner tends toward evil as a corpse toward corruption; 3. it is miraculous for a person to obtain wisdom from God suddenly, without any study; therefore it is equally so to attain to grace in an instant. 

The first conclusion, nevertheless, is that the justification of a sinner, so far as it is ordinarily accomplished, cannot be termed miraculous, although it is a very wonderful thing.

Proof. It is said to be wonderful since it can be effected only by God. However, for a miracle, strictly speaking, it does not suffice that God alone be able to accomplish it; it must be out of the ordinary course of divine providence, such as raising of the dead or giving sight to one born blind. But justification, inasmuch as it commonly comes to pass, is within the ordinary course of supernatural providence; that is, imperfect conversion takes place first, which is the disposition for perfect conversion. The soul is naturally, by reason of its obediential power, “capable of grace,” and is made “capable of God by grace.” Certain immanentists misunderstood these words of St. Thomas: “the soul is naturally capable of grace”; it does not possess within itself the germ of grace but only an obediential power, as St. Thomas declares in several places; cf. ad 3.

Second conclusion. Sometimes, however, justification or conversion is miraculous, according as God, operating outside the usual order of His providence, suddenly moves a sinner to perfect conversion, without any preceding disposition in priority of time. This occurred in the conversion of St. Paul which is commemorated by the Church as a miracle for two reasons: I. because, as St. Thomas says, St. Paul “suddenly attained to a certain perfection of justice”; 2. and because a miraculous external prostration was also added to it. The sudden conversion of Mary Magdalen is also cited by many theologians, such as Billuart, as miraculous. And in the nineteenth century such was the conversion of Father Ratisbonne in Rome.

Reply to first objection. Very many miracles, such as the resurrection of the body, are inferior to justification, with respect to the good they produce, although they possess more of the nature of a miracle. In the same way, the grace of the virtues and the gifts is higher than the graces gratis datae, for example, than prophecy, Ia IIae, q. III, a. 4; cf. Salmanticenses.

THE INDWELLING OF THE MOST BLESSED TRINITY

TO WHICH JUSTIFICATION TERMINATES

We have dealt with this question at length in the treatise De Deo Trino, explaining St. Thomas’ article, Ia, q. 43, a. 3: Whether the invisible mission of a divine person is only according to the gift of sanctifying grace. Only the principal points will be outlined here. 

God is already present in all things according as He preserves them in being (Ia, q. 8, a. 3) ; but He is especially present in the just, according as He is in them as an object quasi-experimentally knowable and lovable, and sometimes actually known and loved. Thus Christ promises (John 14:23): “If anyone love Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him.” And again, St. Paul writes (Rom. 5:5): “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.” Cf. the encyclical of Leo XIII, Divinum illud munus, May 9, 1897. It is a question of the special presence of the most Blessed Trinity according as, through living faith illuminated by the gift of wisdom, God is known quasi-experientially and loved, and we take delight in Him, as St. Thomas explains (Ia, q. 43, a. 3; IIa IIae, q.45, a.2)

But there are three different interpretations of this doctrine, the first proposed by Vasquez, the second by Suarez, and the third by the most eminent Thomists.

Vasquez holds that this special presence is not of itself real, but only affective, like the presence of a friend who is physically at a distance; God is, nevertheless, really present in us by His ordinary presence as preserving us in being. But Vasquez does not sufficiently safeguard the words of Holy Scripture on this special presence. 

Suarez maintains that the most Blessed Trinity is really present in the just as object of charity, even independently of its ordinary presence; for the charity of a wayfarer demands and constitutes a presence not merely affective but real of the object which we enjoy. 

The foremost Thomists, notably John of St. Thomas, declare that the charity of a wayfarer demands the affective presence and craves the real presence of the God it loves, but does not constitute that presence. Thus we love the humanity of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary, although they do not dwell in us. Hence a special presence of the most Blessed Trinity presupposes the ordinary presence of God preserving us in being, but it is nevertheless a real presence by a reason of its own in the sense that it is the presence of an object known and loved quasi-experientially; for a quasi-experiential knowledge has its term in a thing present, not at a distance. (Similarly accident pre-supposes substance but is itself a reality.) We know God quasi-experientially by the filial affection He excites in us; thus “the Spirit Himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:16).  

1 Cf. Rouet de Journel, Enchir. patrist., Theological index, nos. 354 ff., which cites evidence from many of the Fathers on this subject.

2 From this article and the following one it appears evident that the gift of original justice was not only the integrity of nature, but included sanctifying grace as well, as its intrinsic root, from which charity flowed according to which the “highest in I man was subjected to God.” This is opposed to Father Kors’ opinion, as we explained in the treatise De Deo creatore, pp. 431-37. 3 Divine adoptive filiation follows from deification, unless a man is already the natural Son of God, which is true only of Christ.

4 Cf. Rouet de Journel, Enchir. patrist., Theological index, no. 362, for the opinions of the Fathers on this subject.

5 “We account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28); “If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God” (Rom. 4:2); “Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16); “. . . And may be found in him, not having my justice, which is of the law, but that which is of the faith” (Phil. 3:9). 

It is certain that the innovators misunderstood these texts, as appears from the context. For, in the first place, St. Paul is not speaking of fiduciary faith, but of the Christian faith whereby we believe the mysteries; and in the second place, he excludes only the works of the law, or the legal obligations of the Jews, who observed the Mosaic law according to the flesh, and those merely natural works which proceed only from the powers of nature and neither from faith, nor from grace or charity. But he does not exclude the supernatural works of charity, for he himself declares to the Galatians (5:6): “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity.” (Cf. also I Cor. 13:2 and Rom. 2:13, texts to be cited below.)

6 Cf. Rouet de Journel, Enchir. patrist., Theological index, no. 363: Man should dispose himself for justification by faith and by acts of the other virtues. (The testimony of the Fathers on this subject.)

7 Denz., no. 1290: “Philosophical sin or moral is a human act unbecoming to ra-tional nature and right reason; theological, mortal sin is the transgression of the divine law. A philosophical sin, although grave, in him who either docs not know God or docs not think of God when he acts, is a grave sin, but it is not an offense against God nor a mortal sin dissolving friendship with God, nor is it deserving of eternal punishment.” This proposition was condemned as scandalous, audacious, and erroneous.

8 This question has been explained more profoundly than by other Thomists in the De auxiliis of Alvarez, disp. 56, no. 22, and subsequently even more satisfactorily by John of St. Thomas, who writes (De praedestinatione, disp. 10, a.3, nos. 40-41): “This child, to whom the whole law of living according to reason is proposed, cannot accept it unless it is represented to him that the observance of the whole law is something great and for the sake of which something great is to be done which he himself cannot fully attain to; and it is the supernatural which is then implicitly proposed to him.

“And this is because, in the state of fallen nature, he cannot fulfill and accept the whole law, so as to accomplish it by his natural powers alone, but only by the help of grace, whereby eternal life is promised to those who keep the commandments; and thus the observance of the commandments cannot be separated from God, the supernatural end. . . . Hence those who, in that first instant, accept the law and fulfill the natural precept with regard to the whole law present a manifest sign of having received supernatural help, since the powers of nature do not suffice. And such persons will most assuredly be enlightened and obtain knowledge of those mysteries which are necessary for justification and salvation, either through an angel or by means of the preaching of the word, as Peter was sent to Cornelius.” This whole text of John of St. Thomas should be read; he has penetrated more deeply into the subject than many other Thomists either among his predecessors or among subsequent and more recent authorities.

The words of St. Thomas must be completely safeguarded, IIa IIae, q.2, a.3: “For man to arrive at the perfect vision of beatitude, it is prerequisite that he believe in God, as a pupil in the master who instructs him.” Hence belief in something above natural reason (namely, that God is and is a rewarder in the order of salvation) has always been necessary to salvation. Cf. ibid., a.8 ad I: “At all times and with respect to all things, it has been necessary to believe explicitly in these two primary articles of faith concerning God.” 9 Thus Peter would not have reached heaven had he not done penance, and God permitted his threefold denial so that Peter might become more humble and attain a greater degree of glory. 10 Father Henri Bouillard, S.J., in his recent book, Conversion et grâce chez  S. Thomas d’Aquin, Paris, 1944, coming to the heart of the problem, writes (pp. 169-70): “It will be observed that St. Thomas, la IIae, q. 113, a. 8 ad  I, no longer has recourse to reciprocal causality. In the works of his youth he did so.” On the contrary, as we have remarked (a.8), St. Thomas clearly resorts to reciprocal causality, as all Thomists agree. In fact, this mutual causality always comes into play when the four causes are involved. Cf. above, pp. 204 ff. Nor can we admit the opinions expressed in Father Bouillard’s volume on pages 212, 219, 221, 224.  

Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, Chapter Eleven Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.