All grace _ex vi termini_ is a free gift.(406) This applies particularly
to Christian grace, which is so absolutely gratuitous that its gratuity,
together with its necessity, may be called the groundwork of the Catholic
religion.
1. STATE OF THE QUESTION.—To show what is meant by “gratuity”
(_gratuitas_) we must first explain the technical term “merit.”
a) “Merit” (_meritum_=that which is earned) is that property of a good
work which entitles the performer to receive a reward from him to whose
advantage the work redounds.
α) An analysis of this definition shows that (1) merit is found only in
such works as are positively good; (2) merit and reward are correlative
terms which postulate each other; (3) merit supposes two distinct persons,
one who deserves and another who awards; (4) the relation between merit
and reward is based on justice, not on benevolence or mercy. The
last-mentioned determination is by far the most important of the
four.(407)
β) Ethics and theology clearly distinguish two kinds of merit: (1) condign
merit,(408) which is merit in the strict sense (_meritum adaequatum sive
de condigno_), and (2) congruous merit (_meritum inadaequatum sive de
congruo_), so called because of the congruity, or fitness, that the claim
should be recognized. Condign merit presupposes some proportion between
the work done and the reward given in compensation for it (_aequalitas s.
condignitas dati et accepti_). It is measured by commutative justice and
thus confers a real claim to a reward. For example, a conscientious
workman has a strict claim to his wage. Owing to the lack of intrinsic
proportion between service and reward, congruous merit can claim a
remuneration only on grounds of fairness.
A distinction between these two kinds of merit was already made by the
Fathers, though not in the terms of present-day theology. It was known to
the older Scholastics and emphasized anew by Luther’s famous adversary
Johann Eck.(409)
No relation of strict justice is conceivable between the Creator and His
creatures. On the part of God there can only be question of a gratuitous
promise to reward certain good works,—which promise He is bound to keep
because He is veracious and faithful.(410)
b) Two other terms must also be clearly defined in order to arrive at a
true conception of the gratuity of Christian grace. They are prayer for
grace,(411) and a capacity or disposition to receive it.(412) To pray
means to incite God’s liberality or mercy by humble supplication.
α) Despite the contrary teaching of Vasquez(413) and a few other
theologians, congruous merit and prayer are really distinct because one
can exist without the other. As the angels in Heaven are able to pray for
us without earning a _meritum de congruo_, so conversely, all salutary
works are meritorious even without prayer. Moreover, humble supplication
does not involve any positive service entitled to a reward.
There is another important and obvious distinction, _viz._: between purely
natural prayer (_preces naturae_) and supernatural prayer inspired by
grace (_oratio supernaturalis_).
β) Capacity or disposition, especially when it takes the form of
preparation, may be either positive or negative. Positive capacity is
defined as “that real mode by which a subject, in itself indifferent,
becomes apt to receive a new form.” Such a capacity or disposition always
entails a claim to its respective form.
Positive capacity or disposition differs from both prayer or quasi-merit
(_meritum de congruo_). Quasi-merit is entitled to a reward on the ground
of fairness, whereas the _capacitas s. dispositio positiva_ is at most the
fulfilment of an expectation based upon purely teleological
considerations. Again, a reward can be bestowed upon some subject other
than the one by whom the service was rendered, whereas the introduction of
a new form necessarily supposes a subject disposed for or prepared to
receive it. Thus only he who is hungry is disposed for the reception of
food and entitled to have his craving satisfied.
Negative capacity consists in the absence or removal of obstacles that
impede the reception of a new form, as when green wood is dried to become
fit for burning.
c) There arises the important question whether or not divine grace is an
object of merit, and if so, to what extent it can be merited by prayer and
preparation.
It is of faith that the just man, by the performance of supernaturally
good deeds, can merit _de condigno_ an increase in the state of grace and
eternal glory, and that the sinner is able to earn justification _de
congruo_. On the other hand, it is also an article of faith that divine
grace is strictly gratuitous.(414) The two dogmas seem incompatible, but
they are not, as will become evident if we consider that the good works of
the just and the salutary works of the sinner are entirely rooted in
divine grace and consequently the merits which they contain are strictly
merits of grace in no wise due to nature.(415) When we speak of the
absolute gratuity of grace, therefore, we mean the very first or initial
grace (_gratia prima vocans_), by which the work of salvation is begun. Of
this initial grace the Church explicitly teaches that it is absolutely
incapable of being merited; whence it follows that all subsequent graces,
up to and including justification, are also gratuitous,(416) _i.e._
unmerited by nature in strict justice, in so far as they are based on the
_gratia prima_.
2. THE GRATUITY OF GRACE PROVED FROM REVELATION.—Keeping the above
explanation well in mind we now proceed to demonstrate the gratuity of
divine grace in five systematic theses.
*Thesis I: Mere nature cannot, in strict justice (de condigno), merit
initial grace (gratia prima), nor, consequently, any of the series of
subsequent graces in the order of justification.*
This proposition embodies an article of faith.
Proof. It was one of the fundamental errors of Pelagius that grace can be
merited by purely natural acts.(417) When, at the instance of the bishops
assembled at Diospolis (A. D. 415), he retracted his proposition that “the
grace of God is given according to our merits,”(418) he employed the term
_gratia Dei_ dishonestly for the grace of creation. The Second Council of
Orange (A. D. 529) formally defined that grace cannot be merited, but is
purely and strictly gratuitous.(419) And the Council of Trent declared:
“In adults the beginning of justification is to be derived from the
prevenient grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His
vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are
called....”(420) The non-existence of merits prior to the bestowal of the
_prima gratia vocans,_ so positively asserted in this definition, plainly
excludes any and all natural merit _de condigno._
a) St. Paul demonstrates in his Epistle to the Romans that justification
does not result from obedience to the law, but is a grace freely bestowed
by God.
The Apostle regards the merciful dispensations of Providence in favor of
the Chosen People, and of the entire sinful race of men in general, as so
many sheer graces. Rom. IX, 16: “So then it is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”(421) The gratuity
of grace is asserted in terms that almost sound extravagant two verses
further down in the same Epistle: “Therefore he hath mercy on whom he
will; and whom he will, he hardeneth.”(422) The same truth is emphasized
in Rom. XI, 6: “And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace
is no more grace.”(423) Lest any one should pride himself on having
obtained faith, which is the root of justification, by his own merits, St.
Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians: “For by grace you are saved
through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; not
of works, that no man may glory. For we are his workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in
them.”(424) These and many similar passages(425) make it plain that grace
cannot be merited without supernatural aid.
b) The leading champion of the dogma of the gratuity of grace among the
Fathers is St. Augustine, who never tires of repeating that “Grace does
not find merits, but causes them,”(426) and substantiates this fundamental
principle thus: “Grace has preceded thy merit; not grace by merit, but
merit by grace. For if grace is by merit, thou hast bought, not received
gratis.”(427)
c) The theological argument is based (1) on the disproportion between
nature and grace and (2) on the absolute necessity of grace for the
performance of salutary works.
There is no proportion between the natural and the supernatural, and it
would be a contradiction to say that mere nature can span the chasm
separating the two orders. To assume the existence of a strict _meritum
naturae_ for it, would be to deny the gratuity as well as the supernatural
character of grace. To deny these would be to deny grace itself and with
it the whole supernatural order that forms the groundwork of Christianity.
We know, on the other hand,(428) that grace is absolutely indispensable
for the performance of salutary acts. Hence, to deny the gratuity of grace
would be to credit nature with the ability to perform salutary acts by its
own power, or at least to merit grace by the performance of naturally good
deeds. In the first hypothesis grace would no longer be necessary for
salvation; in the second, it would be proportionate to natural goodness,
and therefore no grace at all. Consequently, the gratuity of grace cannot
be consistently denied without at the same time denying its
necessity.(429)
*Thesis II: There is no naturally good work by which unaided nature could
acquire even so much as an equitable claim to supernatural grace.*
This proposition may be technically qualified as _fidei proxima saltem_.
Proof. The Semipelagians held that, though nature cannot merit grace in
strict justice, it can merit it at least congruously, _i.e._ as a matter
of fitness or equity.(430) This contention was rejected by the Second
Council of Orange (A. D. 529), which defined that “God works many good
things in man that man does not work, but man works no good deeds that God
does not give him the strength to do.”(431) And again: “[God] Himself
inspires us with faith and charity without any preceding [natural] merits
[on our part].”(432) The phrase “without any preceding merits” (_nullis
praecedentibus meritis_) excludes both the _meritum de condigno_ and the
_meritum de congruo_.
a) The Scriptural argument given above for thesis I also covers this
thesis.
The Semipelagians quoted Matth. XXV, 15 in support of their teaching: “To
one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one, to every
one according to his proper ability.”(433) But this text is too vague to
serve as an argument in such an important matter. Not a few exegetes treat
it as a kind of rhetorical figure. Others, following the example of the
Fathers, take “talents” to mean purely natural gifts, or _gratiae gratis
datae_, while by “ability” (_virtus_) they understand the already existing
grace of faith or a certain definite measure of initial grace.(434) But
even if _virtus_ meant natural faculty or talent, it cannot be identical
with “merit.” Considering the common teaching of theologians that the
angels were endowed with grace according to the measure of their natural
perfection,(435) we may well suppose that man receives grace likewise
according to his natural constitution (_gratia sequitur naturam_)—a
predisposition or aptitude which God ordained in His infinite wisdom to be
the instrument through which His graces should operate either for personal
sanctification or the good of others.
b) St. Augustine and his disciples, in defending the orthodox faith
against the Semipelagians, strongly insisted on the gratuity of the grace
of faith, and above all of the initial _gratia praeveniens_.
α) St. Augustine comments on 1 Cor. IV, 7 as follows: “Nothing is so
opposed to this feeling as for any one to glory concerning his own merits
in such a way as if he himself had made them for himself, and not the
grace of God,—a grace, however, which makes the good to differ from the
wicked, and is not common to the good and the wicked.”(436) And in another
place he says: “For it would not in any sense be the grace of God, were it
not in every sense gratuitous.”(437)
β) Certain of the Greek Fathers have been suspected of Semipelagian
leanings because they appear to assign the chief rôle in the business of
salvation to nature.(438) A careful study of their writings, however,
shows that these authors had in mind co-operating, not prevenient grace.
The general teaching of the Orientals on the gratuity of grace is
sufficiently indicated by the demand made at the Council of Lydda (A. D.
415), that Pelagius be compelled to retract the proposition: “_Gratiam Dei
secundum merita nostra dari._” The Fathers who have been accused of
Semipelagian sympathies merely wished to emphasize free-will and to incite
the morally indifferent to co-operate heartily with divine grace.
St. Chrysostom, in particular, expressly asserts the absolute gratuity of
grace when he says of faith: “That which is a merit of faith, may not be
ascribed to us, for it is a free gift of God,”(439) and directly
contradicts Cassian and the Massilians when he declares: “Thou hast it not
of thyself, thou hast received it from God. Hence thou hast received
whatever thou hast, not only this or that, but all thou hast. For it is
not thine own merit, but the grace of God. Although thou allegest the
faith, thou hast received it by vocation.”(440)
c) The theological argument for our thesis may be succinctly stated thus:
The grace of God is the cause of our merits, and hence cannot be itself
merited. Being the cause, it cannot be an effect.(441)
*Thesis III: Nature cannot merit supernatural grace even by natural
prayer.*
This thesis, like the preceding one, may be technically qualified as
_fidei proxima saltem_.
Proof. Let us first clearly establish the state of the question. Our
thesis refers to that particular kind of prayer (_preces naturae_) which
by its intrinsic value, so to speak, obliges Almighty God to grant what
the petitioner asks for, as is undoubtedly the case with supernatural
prayer, according to our Saviour’s own promise: “Ask and ye shall
receive.”(442) The inefficacy of natural prayer asserted in our thesis, is
not, as in the case of merit,(443) due to any intrinsic impossibility, but
to a positive divine decree to grant supernatural prayer.
The Second Council of Orange defined against the Semipelagians: “If any
one says that the grace of God can be obtained by human [_i.e._ natural]
prayer, and that it is not grace itself which causes us to invoke God, he
contradicts the prophet Isaias and the Apostle who say: I was found by
them that did not seek me; I appeared openly to them that asked not after
me.”(444)
a) Sacred Scripture teaches that, unless we are inspired by the Holy
Ghost, we cannot pray efficaciously. It follows that to be efficacious,
prayer must be an effect of prevenient grace. We should not even know for
what or how to pray, if the Holy Ghost did not inspire us. Cfr. Rom. VIII,
26: “For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit
himself asketh for us [inspires us to ask] with unspeakable
groanings.”(445) 1 Cor. XII, 3: “No man can say: Lord God, but by the Holy
Ghost.”(446) Supernatural union with Christ is an indispensable condition
of all efficacious prayer. John XV, 7: “If you abide in me, and my words
abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto
you.”(447)
b) This is also the teaching of the Fathers. “Who would truly groan,
desiring to receive what he prays for from the Lord,” says St.
Augustine,(448) “if he thought that he received it from himself, and not
from God? ... We understand that this is also itself the gift of God, that
with a true heart and spiritually we cry to God. Let them, therefore,
observe how they are mistaken who think that our seeking, asking, knocking
is of ourselves, and is not given to us; and say that this is the case
because grace is preceded by our merits; that it follows them when we ask
and receive, and seek and find, and it is opened to us when we
knock.”(449)
c) From the theological point of view the inefficacy of purely natural
prayer in matters pertaining to salvation can be demonstrated thus:
Revelation tells us that the work of salvation requires for its beginning
an initial supernatural grace. Now prayer, that is to say, efficacious
prayer, is in itself a salutary act. Consequently, there can be no
efficacious prayer without prevenient grace, and purely natural prayer is
inefficacious for salvation.
Ripalda holds that, in an economy different from the present, natural
prayer would have a claim to be heard. This opinion can be defended
without prejudice to the dogma of the gratuity of grace. No doubt God
might condescend to hear such petitions if He would, though, of course, He
is not bound to do so by any intrinsic power inherent in natural prayer.
Unlike merit, prayer appeals to the mercy of God, not to His justice.
Ripalda’s theory, however, rests upon an unprovable assumption, namely,
that man in the state of pure nature would be able to know of the
existence, or at least the possibility, of a supernatural order and to
strive for the beatific vision as his final end.(450)
*Thesis IV: Man cannot move God to the bestowal of supernatural grace by
any positive disposition or preparation on his part.*
This thesis may be qualified as _propositio certa_.
Proof. Positive preparation or disposition for grace (_capacitas sive
praeparatio positiva_) is practically on a level with natural prayer. The
positive disposition for a natural good sometimes includes a certain
demand to satisfaction, as _e.g._ thirst demands to be quenched. This is
still more the case when the disposition has been acquired by a positive
preparation for the good in question. Thus a student, by conscientiously
preparing himself for examination, acquires a claim to be admitted to it
sooner or later. Can this also be said of grace? Does there exist in man a
positive disposition for grace in the sense that the withholding of it
would grievously injure and disappoint the soul? Can man, without
supernatural aid, positively dispose himself for the reception of
supernatural grace, confident that God will reward his efforts by
bestowing it on him? Both these questions must be answered in the
negative.
a) If there were something in the natural make-up of man which would move
the Almighty to give him grace, the bestowal of grace would no longer be a
free act of God. But to assert the consequent would be Semipelagian, hence
the antecedent must be false.
b) This truth can easily be deduced from the teaching of the Fathers in
the Semipelagian controversy. They declare, in perfect conformity with St.
Paul, that grace is bestowed gratuitously because God can give or withhold
it as He pleases. St. Augustine says(451) that the grace of Baptism is
granted freely, that is, without regard to any positive disposition on the
part of the baptized infant. It should be remembered, moreover, that
nature never existed in its pure form, and is now tainted by original
sin.(452) Surely a nature tainted by sin cannot possibly possess the power
of meriting divine grace.
c) The contention of the so-called Augustinians, that pure nature needs
actual grace to save itself, and consequently has a claim to such grace at
least _ex decentia Creatoris_ and _ex lege iustissimae providentiae_,
perilously resembles Baius’ condemned proposition that the state of pure
nature is impossible.(453)
*Thesis V: Man may prepare himself negatively for the reception of
supernatural grace by not putting any obstacles in its way.*
This proposition is held by a majority of Catholic theologians (_sententia
communior_).
Proof. The solution of this question is intimately connected with the
famous Scholastic axiom: “_Facienti quod est in se Deus non denegat
gratiam_,” that is, to the man who does what he can, God does not refuse
grace. This axiom is susceptible of three different interpretations.
a) It may mean: _Facienti quod est in se cum auxilio gratiae Deus confert
ulteriorem gratiam_, _i.e._, to him who does what he can with the help of
supernatural grace, God grants further and more powerful graces up to
justification. This is merely another way of stating the indisputable
truth that, by faithfully coöperating with the grace of God, man is able
to merit additional graces, and it holds true even of infidels and
sinners. The first freely performed salutary act establishes a _meritum de
congruo_ towards other acts disposing a man for justification. And since
the first as well as all subsequent salutary acts, in this hypothesis, are
pure graces, this interpretation of our axiom is entirely compatible with
the dogma of the gratuity of grace.(454)
b) _Facienti quod est in se ex viribus naturalibus Deus non denegat
gratiam_ (to him who does what he can with his natural moral strength, God
does not refuse grace.) This does not mean that, in consequence of the
efforts of the natural will, God may not withhold from anyone the first
grace of vocation. In this sense the axiom would be Semipelagian, and has
been rejected by a majority of the Schoolmen. It is said of Molina that he
tried to render it acceptable by the hypothesis that God bound Himself by
a contract with Christ to give His grace to all men who would make good
use of their natural faculties. But how could the existence of this
imaginary contract be proved? In matter of fact Molina taught, with a
large number of other divines,(455) that God in the bestowal of His graces
freely bound Himself to a definite rule, which coincides with His
universal will to save all mankind. In the application of this law He pays
no regard to any positive disposition or preparation, but merely to the
presence or absence of obstacles which would prove impediments to grace.
In other words, God, generally speaking, is more inclined to offer His
grace to one who puts no obstacles in its way than to one who wallows in
sin and neglects to do his share.(456)
c) _Facienti quod est in se ex viribus naturae negative se disponendo
[i.e. obicem non ponendo] Deus non denegat gratiam_ (to the man who does
what he can with his natural moral strength, disposing himself negatively
[_i.e._, by not placing any obstacle] God does not deny grace. In this
form the axiom is identical with our thesis. The question arises: Can it
be made to square with the dogma of the absolute gratuity of grace?
Vasquez,(457) Glossner,(458) and some others answer this question in the
negative, whereas the great majority of Catholic theologians hold with
Suarez(459) and Lessius,(460) that there is no contradiction between the
two. Though Lessius did not succeed in proving his famous contention that
the axiom _Facienti quod est in se Deus non denegat gratiam_, was for
three full centuries understood in this sense by the schools,(461) there
is no doubt that many authorities can be cited in favor of his
interpretation.(462)
The theological argument for our thesis may be formulated thus: The
gratuity of grace does not imply that the recipient must have no sort of
disposition. It merely means that man is positively unworthy of divine
favor. Otherwise the Church could not teach, as she does, that the grace
bestowed on the angels and on our first parents in Paradise was absolutely
gratuitous, nor could she hold that the Hypostatic Union of the two
natures in Christ, which is the pattern and exemplar of all true
grace,(463) was a pure grace in respect of the humanity of our Lord. The
dogma of the gratuity of grace is in no danger whatever so long as the
relation between negative disposition and supernatural grace is conceived
as actual (_facienti=qui facit_), not causal (_facienti=quia facit_). The
motive for the distribution of grace is to be sought not in the dignity of
human nature, but in God’s will to save all men. We must, however, guard
against the erroneous notion that grace is bestowed according to a fixed
law or an infallible norm regulating the amount of grace in accordance
with the condition of the recipient. Sometimes great sinners are
miraculously converted, while others of fairly good antecedents perish.
Yet, again, who could say that to the omniscient and all-wise God the
great sinner did not appear better fitted to receive grace than the
“decent” but self-sufficient pharisee?
READINGS:—Hurter, _Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae_, Vol. III,
thes. 187.—Oswald, _Lehre von der Heiligung_, § 8, Paderborn
1885.—*Palmieri, _De Gratia Divina Actuali_, c. 3, Gulpen
1885.—Heinrich-Gutberlet, _Dogmatische Theologie_, Vol. VIII, §
417-420, Mainz 1897.—Chr. Pesch, _Praelectiones Dogmaticae_, Vol.
V, 3rd ed., pp. 105 sqq., Freiburg 1908.—Schiffini, _De Gratia
Divina_, pp. 468 sqq., Freiburg 1901.