ARTICLE IV.

WHETHER MAN, WITHOUT GRACE, BY HIS NATURAL POWERS,\ CAN FULFILL THE PRECEPTS OF THE NATURAL LAW

 State of the question. In this article, as is evident in the body, we are especially concerned with the precepts of the decalogue which already belong to the natural law and can substantially be fulfilled without charity; indeed, even the acts of faith and hope can be accomplished in the state of mortal sin. Let us examine:

1. St. Thomas’ conclusions and arguments;

2. How they are based on Holy Scripture and tradition;

3. The refutation of the objections. (The article should be read.)

I. ST. THOMAS’ CONCLUSION

His first conclusion is that in the state of corrupt nature, man cannot, without healing grace, fulfill all the precepts of the natural law with respect to the substance of the works, while on the contrary he would be able to do this without grace in the state of integral nature (supposing, however, natural concurrence). From these last words, which are found in St. Thomas, it is evident that he is concerned in this instance with the precepts of the natural law in respect to the substance of the works, for the substance of a work correlative with a supernatural precept is supernatural and cannot, even in the state of integral nature, be produced without grace. In fact, precepts are called supernatural because they enjoin acts which surpass the powers of nature. In article two it is stated that “grace was necessary to man in the state of integral nature in order to perform or will a supernatural work.”

The argument supporting this conclusion is the same as in the preceding article for the impossibility of loving God, author of nature, with an affectively efficacious love; indeed the argument now holds with still greater reason, that is, in the case of effectively efficacious love or the fulfillment of all the precepts of the natural law.

In other words, a weak man cannot of himself perform the very superior work of a healthy man, unless he is first cured. Nor can a will turned away from even its natural final end be properly oriented in regard to all the means to that end. It would be rash to deny this first conclusion or to maintain that effectively efficacious love of God, author of nature, above all things can be attained without grace. This is conceded by the Molinists.9 It would be rash because the Council of Orange (Denz., nos. 181 ff., 199) refers not only to impotence arising from the supernaturalness of the work, but from the weakness of fallen nature.

The second conclusion is that in no state can man without grace fulfill the commands of the law with respect to the mode of acting, that is, performing them from charity. This is of faith. St. Thomas makes the assertion without proof, for he has already said, in article two, that man even in the state of incorrupt nature required “grace added to nature in order to perform or will supernatural good,” and particularly to elicit a supernatural act of charity. For acts are specified by their objects and therefore the act specified by a supernatural object is essentially supernatural.

II. THE BASES OF TRADITION

They are as indicated by Billuart, in addition to many texts of St. Augustine.

1. The Council of Milevum (Denz., no. 105), against the Pelagians who declared that without grace man can keep all the commandments of God, but with difficulty; with grace, however, he can do so with facility; it is defined that “if anyone should say . . . that grace . . . is given to us that we may more easily fulfill the divine commands, and . . ., that, without it, we are able to fulfill them, although not easily, let him be anathema.” From this it is deduced that the commandments of God cannot be fulfilled as is necessary for salvation, that is, from charity, without grace.

St. Augustine always defends this truth against the Pelagians in his De spiritu et littera, De gratia Christi, De libero arbitrio; in the book De haeresibus (heresy 88), speaking of the Pelagians, he says: “They are such enemies of the grace of God that they believe a man can accomplish all the divine commands without it.” Likewise, St. Augustine on Ps. 118, conc. 5, and in Sermon 148 (de tempore), chap. 5, where he is concerned with the precepts of the decalogue.

The opposite error in Baius (Denz., nos. 1061,1062) was condemned because it rejects the distinction between fulfilling the commandments in respect to substance and in respect to mode, supernaturally.

2. The Council of Orange (II, c. 25; Denz., no. 199) declared: “We must believe that through the sin of the first man free will was so inclined and weakened, that no one has since . . . been able to perform what is good for the sake of God unless the grace of divine mercy precedes him.” Hence St. Thomas’ second conclusion is of faith; that is, without grace, men cannot fulfill the commandments with respect to supernaturalness of mode, namely, so as to be performed out of charity. And the Molinists admit this.

Doubt. Whether grace is necessary for the fulfilling of any supernatural precept, in respect to its substance. Herein lies the controversy with the Molinists. Scotus and the Molinists hold that without grace men imbued with the teaching of faith can fulfill, substantially, even interior works correlative to the supernatural precepts of faith, hope, and charity.

Reply. The Thomists reply that it is not possible, since precepts are called supernatural because they enjoin acts which, in themselves, essentially surpass the powers of nature, and these acts are such, in fact, because they are specified by a supernatural formal object. Thus, for example, an act of Christian faith differs from an act of acquired temperance.

Insistance by Molina, Lugo, and Billot, that diversity of the activating principles (that is, of habits) alone is sufficient to cause acts to differ in species, even when they attain the same formal object.

Reply 1. These very activating principles, that is, habits and powers, should be specified by the formal object. 2. The Salmanticenses reply (De gratia, disp. III, dub. III, no. 60): “I deny the antecedent, for if it were true, as our adversaries contend, nothing in true philosophy but would waver (or be overturned) in regard to species and the distinction of powers and habits; we should be compelled to establish new bases such as were not taught by Aristotle, Master Thomas, or the leaders of other schools. Although younger writers would easily grant this, we should have no leader from among the ancients. The result would indeed be to the highest detriment of true wisdom; wherefore it is essential in this respect to hinder their proclivity with all our powers.” Cf. other texts of the Salmanticenses quoted in our De revelatione, I, 495.

To the same effect Thomas de Lemos, O.P., replied in the celebrated discussions of the Congregatio de Auxiliis, on May 7 and 28, 1604, before Clement VIII (cf. De revelatione, I, 491). He challenged the opinion of Molina in the following words: “By which system he would overturn faith as well as philosophy; faith, certainly, because thus God is feared and loved by the powers of nature, as the end is supernatural; philosophy indeed since, in this way, the formal object of a superior habit is attained by the inferior powers.” And on May 28, 1604, session 54 settled a problem proposed according to the interpretation of the Thomists explained by Lemos. Lemos expresses the same opinion in his Panoplia gratiae at the beginning of Bk. IV, nos. 24f. (Cf. De revelatione, I, 491; Del Prado, De gratia, I, 48; Suarez expresses agreement with us in De gratia, Bk. II, c. II, nos. 22 f., quoted in De revelatione, ibid.) Thus Suarez, as well as Lemos and the Salmanticenses considers it rash to deny the aforesaid traditional teaching of theologians. In respect to this matter many Jesuits follow Suarez, including the Wirzburg school (De virtutibus theologicis, disp. II, c. III, a. 3); Bellarmine is also cited and, among more recent writers, Wilmers (De fide divina, 1902, pp. 352, 358, 375); Mazzella, in the first two editions of De virtutibus infusis, and Pesch (De gratia, nos. 69, 71, 410).

Objection. The Molinists object, referring to Ia IIae, q. 54, a. 2 where it is stated that “the species of habits are distinguished in three ways: 1. according to the activating principles of such dispositions, 2. according to nature, 3. according to objects.” Therefore, declare the Molinists, habits are not specified only by their objects.

Reply. All of these are to be taken together and not separately. An act cannot be essentially supernatural from the standpoint of its eliciting principle and according as it presupposes habitual grace unless it is at the same time supernatural from the standpoint of its object. Moreover, we contend in De revelatione, I, 506, in agreement with the Salmanticenses and other Thomists, that from St. Thomas’context it is clearly evident that, when he says habits are specified according to their active principles, he means according to their objective, regulating, specifying principles; for he says in the answer to the second objection of the same article: “The various means (of knowledge) are like various active principles according to which the habits of science are differentiated.” And in answer to the third objection: “Diversity of ends differentiates virtues as diversity of active principles” or motives according as the end is the object of a prior act of the will, in other words, the intention.

Similarly in Ia IIae, q. 51, a. 3, St. Thomas shows that the regulating reason is the active principle of the moral virtues, and the understanding of principles is the principle of knowledge, that is, as proposing the formal object (objectum formale quo) or motive. Moreover, when he says that habits are specified according to nature, this is according as the habit is good or bad, suitable or not suitable to the nature; or according as it is suitable to human nature as such, or suitable to the divine nature in which man participates; but it cannot be of itself suitable to a higher nature, unless at the same time it has a formal object proportionate or of the same order; otherwise it would be an accidentally infused habit, such as infused geometry. Father Ledochowski, General of the Society of Jesus, further acknowledges that the teaching of Molina we are discussing is not that of St. Thomas (cf. De revelatione, I, 489).

III. REFUTATION OF THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE NECESSITY OF GRACE FOR OBSERVING SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE PRECEPTS OF THE NATURAL LAW

The first classical difficulty is indicated by St. Thomas in the first objection, taken from the text of St. Paul to the Romans (2:14): “The Gentiles who have not the (written) law, do by nature those things which are of the law.”

Reply. According to St. Augustine, followed by St. Prosper, St. Fulgentius, and by St. Thomas here in his refutation, these words are to be understood of the Gentiles acting from grace; and then “by nature” is not interpreted according as it is opposed to grace, and according as it is equivalent to “the powers of nature,” but according as it is opposed to the Mosaic law, so that the meaning is: “The Gentiles who have not the written law, do naturally those things which are of the law,” in other words, without the law of Moses, but not without the spirit of grace. Thus Augustine in De spiritu et littera, Bk. I, c. 27, quoted here by St. Thomas; likewise St. Chrysostom.”10 But other interpreters understand this of the infidel Gentiles and hence “by nature” of the powers of nature; but this disposes of the objection just as well, for the meaning is that the Gentiles by their own natural powers perform certain works of the law, but not all.

The second difficulty is as follows: if the observance of the whole natural law, in respect to the substance of the works, is impossible to fallen nature, then the Jansenist heresy follows logically, that is, that certain of the precepts of God are impossible to fallen man. Luther and Calvin held the same opinion.

Reply. “What we can do with divine assistance is not altogether impossible for us”; and we avoid Jansenism by declaring that the grace necessary to accomplish the commandments is not wanting to anyone except by reason of his own fault. All adults receive graces at least remotely sufficient for salvation, and if they did not resist them, they would obtain further graces. The error of Luther and Calvin is apparent from this: according to them, Christ did not come to form observers of the law, but to redeem the faithful from the obligation of observing the law, in accordance with Luther’s words : “Sin strongly and believe more strongly,” in other words, believe firmly that you are freely elect, and you are saved, even if you persevere in crimes and the transgression of the law until death.

The Jansenists erred similarly by maintaining that certain commands of God are impossible not only to fallen man, but even to the just man. This is manifest from the first proposition of Jansen (Denz., no. 1092): “Other precepts of God are impossible to just, willing, zealous men with the powers which they now possess; they also lack the grace which would make them possible”; in 1653 this was condemned as heretical. The Council of Trent had previously defined (Denz., no. 804): “God does not command the impossible, but by commanding He urges you both to do what you can and to ask what you cannot, and He assists you that you may be able.” Also in the corresponding canon (Denz., no. 828). The foregoing words of the Council are taken from St. Augustine, and, according to them, sufficient grace to pray is never wanting, and by it man has at least the remote power of observing the divine precepts, for “by commanding, God urges you to do what you can and to ask what you cannot, and He assists you that you may be able.”

I insist. God cannot demand that a blind man see, although he may see by a miracle; therefore, neither can He demand that fallen man observe the law, although he may do so by means of grace.

Reply. The disparity lies particularly in the fact that the blind man is not offered a miracle which would cure him; but fallen man is offered grace by which he may observe the law, and he would receive it if he did not voluntarily set obstacles in the way. Hence one must pray as did Augustine, saying: “Lord, grant what Thou commandest and command what Thou wilt,” that is, give us grace to fulfill Thy commands and command what Thou wilt.

First doubt. Which grace is required by fallen man for the keeping of the whole natural law?

Reply. As in the explanation of the preceding article: of itself, by reason of its object, help of the natural order would suffice, since the object is natural. Accidentally, however, and by reason of the elevation of the human race to a supernatural end, supernatural grace is required, which under this aspect is called healing grace. This is because in the present economy of salvation man cannot be converted to God, his final natural end, and remain estranged from God, his supernactural end, since this aversion is indirectly opposed to the natural law, according to which we ought to obey God, whatever He may command.

Second doubt. To observe the whole natural law for a long time is supernatural actual grace sufficient, or is habitual grace required?

Reply. According to ordinary providence, habitual grace is required, by which alone man is solidly well disposed toward his final end. And this firm disposition toward his final end is itself required that man may keep the whole natural law enduringly and perseveringly. Nevertheless, by an extraordinary providence, God can fortify a man’s will in regard to the observance of all the natural precepts by means of continuous actual graces; but if a man does what lies within his power by the help of actual grace, God will not withhold habitual grace from him. As we shall see below (a. 9), over and above habitual grace, actual grace is required for the just man to perform any supernatural good work, and even to persevere for long in the observance of the whole natural law, in spite of the rebellion of the sense appetites against reason, and the temptations of the world and the devil.

Third doubt. Whether in the state of pure nature man would be able to observe enduringly the whole natural law without special help of the natural order.

Reply. I reply in the negative with Billuart: Since to do so demands constancy of the will in good against the ternmations that arise. A constancy which man established in the state of pure nature would not have had, of himself, with the aid of ordinary concurrence alone; hence, to persevere he would have had need of special natural help which God would have given to many, but not to those in whom He would have permitted the sin of impenitence of this natural order in punishment for preceding sins.

Cajetan’s opinion. In his commentary on the present article, which preceded the disputes aroused by Molina, at a time when the terminology of this subject was not yet fully established, Cajetan spoke less accurately in explaining the answer to the third objection. He says, “man, by nature, can believe, hope, love God, with respect to the substance of the act,” and he cites the example of a formal heretic who adheres to certain dogmas. He expresses himself similarly in regard to IIa IIae, q. 171, a. 2 ad 3. But it is evident from the context and from this example that Cajetan is referring to the generic substance of the acts, not to the specific substance, not to the formal object itself (objectum formale quod et quo); for a heretic believes formally, not by divine, but by human faith.

Later Cajetan corrects his terminology (commenting on IIa IIae, q. 6, a. I, no. 3 ), declaring that “it should be said, therefore, that the act of faith springs forth as a result of no natural knowledge, of no natural appetite, but from the appetite for eternal beatitude and from an adherence to God supernaturally revealing and preserving His Church.” Cajetan likewise defends the common opinion of Thomists against Scotus and Durandus (Ia IIae, q. 51, a. 4): “Infused habits are of themselves essentially supernatural.” Also, q. 62, a:3; q. 63, a. 6, and IIa IIae, q. 17, a. 5, no. I, where he defends the opinion that with out infused virtue there would be no act “proportionate to the supernatural object,” nor to the supernatural end. (Cf. Del Prado, De gratia, I, 50 and our De revelatione, I, 484 f., note I.)