The Properties of Actual Grace — Section 3: The Universality of Grace, Article 2

ARTICLE 2: GOD’S WILL TO GIVE SUFFICIENT GRACE TO ALL ADULT HUMAN BEINGS IN PARTICULAR

In relation to adults, God manifests His saving will by the bestowal of sufficient grace upon all.¹ The bestowal of sufficient grace being evidently an effluence of the universal voluntas salvifica, the granting of such grace to all who have attained the use of reason furnishes another proof for the universality of grace.

God gives all men sufficient graces. But He is not obliged to give to each efficacious graces, because all that is required to enable man to reach his supernatural destiny is coöperation with sufficient grace, especially with the gratia prima vocans, which is the beginning of all salutary operation.

To prove that God gives sufficient grace to all adult human beings without exception, we must show that He gives sufficient grace (1) to the just, (2) to the sinner, and (3) to the heathen. This we shall do in three distinct theses.

Thesis I: God gives to all just men sufficient grace to keep His commandments.

This is de fide.

Proof. The Tridentine Council teaches: “If any one saith that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.”²

A contrary proposition in the writings of Jansenius³ was censured by Pope Innocent the Tenth as “foolhardy, impious, blasphemous, and heretical.”

The Church does not assert that God gives to the just sufficient grace at all times. She merely declares that sufficient grace is at their disposal whenever they are called upon to obey the law (urgente praecepto). Nor need God always bestow a gratia proxime sufficiens; in many instances the grace of prayer (gratia remote sufficiens) fully serves the purpose.⁴

This dogma is clearly contained in Holy Scripture. We shall quote the most important texts.

a) 1 John V, 3 sq.: “For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are not heavy. For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world.”⁵ According to this text the “charity of God” manifests itself in “keeping his commandments” and “overcoming the world.” This is declared to be an easy task. Our Lord Himself says: “My yoke is sweet and my burden light.”⁶ Hence it must be possible to keep His commandments, and therefore God does not withhold the absolutely necessary graces from the just.

St. Paul consoles the Corinthians by telling them that God will not suffer them to be tempted beyond their strength, but will help them to a happy issue, provided they faithfully coöperate with His grace. 1 Cor. X, 13: “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able, but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it.”⁷ As it is impossible even for the just to overcome grievous temptations without supernatural aid,⁸ and as God Himself tells us that we are able to overcome them, it is a necessary inference that He bestows sufficient grace. The context hardly leaves a doubt that St. Paul has in mind the just, for a few lines further up he says: “Therefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall.”⁹ But there is no exegetical objection to applying the text to all the faithful without exception.¹⁰

b) This dogma is clearly set forth in the writings of the Fathers. Some of them, it is true, when combating the Pelagians and Semipelagians, defended the proposition that “grace is not given to all men,”¹¹ but they meant efficacious grace.

α) A typical representative of this group of ecclesiastical writers is the anonymous author of the work De Vocatione Omnium Gentium,¹² whom Pope Gelasius praised as “probatus Ecclesiae magister.” This fifth-century writer, who was highly esteemed by his contemporaries, discusses the question whether and in what sense all men are called, and why some are not saved. He begins by drawing a distinction between God’s general and His special providence.¹³ “It so pleased God,” he says, “to give His efficacious grace to many, and to withhold His sufficient grace from none, in order that it might appear from both [actions] that what is conferred upon a portion is not denied to the entire race.”¹⁴

β) The Jansenists appealed in favor of their teaching to such Patristic passages as the following: “After the withdrawal of the divine assistance he [St. Peter] was unable to stand;”¹⁵ and: “He had undertaken more than he was able to do.”¹⁶ But the two Fathers from whose writings these passages are taken (SS. Chrysostom and Augustine) speak, as the context evinces, of the withdrawal of efficacious and proximately sufficient grace in punishment of Peter’s presumption. Had St. Peter followed our Lord’s advice¹⁷ and prayed instead of relying on his own strength, he would not have fallen. That this was the mind of St. Augustine clearly appears from the following sentence in his work De Unitate Ecclesiae: “Who shall doubt that Judas, had he willed, would not have betrayed Christ, and that Peter, had he willed, would not have thrice denied his Master?”¹⁸

c) The theological argument for our thesis may be formulated as follows: Since the state of grace confers a claim to supernatural happiness, it must also confer a claim to those graces which are necessary to attain it.

To assert that God denies the just sufficient grace to observe His commandments, to avoid mortal sin, and to persevere in the state of grace, would be to gainsay His solemn promise to His adopted children: “This is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.”¹⁹ Consequently, God owes it to His own fidelity to bestow sufficient graces upon the just.

Again, according to the plain teaching of Revelation, the just are obliged, under pain of sin, to observe the commandments of God and the precepts of His Church.²⁰ But this is impossible without the aid of grace. Consequently, God grants at least sufficient grace to his servants, for ad impossibile nemo tenetur.²¹

Thesis II: In regard to Christians guilty of mortal sin we must hold: (1) that ordinary sinners always receive sufficient grace to avoid mortal sin and do penance; (2) that God never entirely withdraws His grace even from the obdurate.

The first part of this thesis embodies a theological conclusion; the second states the common teaching of Catholic theologians.

1. Proof of the First Part. The distinction here drawn between “ordinary” and “obdurate” sinners has its basis in revelation and is clearly demanded by the different degrees of certainty attaching to the two parts of our thesis.

An “ordinary” sinner is a Christian who has lost sanctifying grace by a grievous sin. An “obdurate” sinner is one who, by repeatedly and maliciously transgressing the laws of God, has dulled his intellect and hardened his will against salutary inspirations. A man may be an habitual sinner (consuetudinarius) and a backslider, without being obdurate, or, which comes to the same, impenitent. Weakness is not malice, though sinful habits often beget impenitence, which is one of the sins against the Holy Ghost and the most formidable obstacle in the way of conversion.

With regard to ordinary sinners, our thesis asserts that they always receive sufficient grace to avoid mortal sin and do penance.

a) Experience teaches that a man falls deeper and deeper if he does not hasten to do penance after committing a mortal sin. But this is not the fault of Almighty God, who never withholds His grace; it is wholly the fault of the sinner who fails to coöperate with the proffered supernatural assistance.

α) A sufficient Scriptural argument for this part of our thesis is contained in the texts cited in support of Thesis I. If it is true that God suffers no one to be tempted beyond his strength,²² this must surely apply to Christians who have had the misfortune of committing mortal sin. St. John says that the commandments of God “are not heavy” and that faith is “the victory which overcometh the world.”²³ Faith in Christ remains in the Christian, even though he be guilty of mortal sin, and consequently if he wills, he is able, by the aid of sufficient grace, to overcome the “world,” i. e. the temptations arising from concupiscence,²⁴ and thus to cease committing mortal sins.

β) As for the teaching of Tradition, St. Augustine lays down two theological principles which apply to saint and sinner alike.

“God does not enjoin impossibilities,” he says, “but in His injunctions counsels you both to do what you can for yourself, and to ask His aid in what you cannot do.”²⁵ It follows that the sinner always receives at least the grace of prayer, which Augustine therefore calls gratia initialis sive parva, and of which he says that its right use ensures the gratia magna.

The second principle is this: “Cum lege coniuncta est gratia, quâ lex observari possit.” That is, every divine law, by special ordinance, carries with it the grace by which it may be observed. In other words, the laws of God can always be obeyed because the lawgiver never fails to grant sufficient grace to keep them.²⁶

b) That the sinner always receives sufficient grace to be converted, follows from the Scriptural injunction of conversion. If conversion to God is a duty, and to comply with this duty is impossible without the aid of grace,²⁷ the divine command obviously implies the bestowal of sufficient grace.

That conversion is a duty follows from such Scriptural texts as these: “As I live, saith the Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways!”²⁸ “The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.”²⁹

This teaching is faithfully echoed by Tradition.

2. Proof of the Second Part. Obduracy is a serious obstacle to conversion because the obdurate sinner has confirmed his will in malice³⁰ and by systematic resistance diminished the influence of grace. The question here is whether or not God in such cases eventually withdraws His grace altogether.

Some rigorists hold that He does so, with the purpose of sparing the sinner greater tortures in hell.³¹ Though this assertion cannot be said to contravene the dogma of the universality of God’s salvific will, (its defenders do not deny that He faithfully does His share to save these unfortunate reprobates), we prefer to adopt the sententia communis, that God grants even the most obdurate sinner—at least now and then, e. g. during a mission or on the occasion of some terrible catastrophe—sufficient grace to be converted. The theological reasons for this opinion, which we hold to be the true one, coincide in their last analysis with those set forth in the first part of our thesis.

a) Sacred Scripture, in speaking of the duty of repentance, makes no distinction between ordinary and obdurate sinners. On the contrary, the Book of Wisdom points to one of the most wicked and impenitent of nations, the Canaanites, as a shining object of divine mercy and patience.³² According to St. Paul, God calls especially upon hardened and impenitent sinners to do penance. Rom. II, 4 sq.: “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and patience, and long suffering? Knowest thou not that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his works.”³³

There are some Scriptural passages which seem to imply that God withdraws His grace from those who are obdurate, nay, that He Himself hardens their hearts in punishment of sin. Thus the Lord says of Pharao: “I shall harden his heart,”³⁴ and Moses tells us: “The Lord hardened Pharao’s heart, and he harkened not unto them.”³⁵ But it would be wrong to assume that this denotes a positive action on the part of God. Pharao, as we are told further on, “hardened his own heart” (ingravavit cor suum).³⁶ The fault in all cases lies with the sinner, who obstinately resists the call of grace. God’s coöperation in the matter is merely indirect. The greater and stronger graces which He grants to ordinary sinners, He withholds from the obdurate in punishment of their malice. This is, however, by no means tantamount to a withdrawal of sufficient grace.³⁷

b) The Fathers speak of God’s way of dealing with obdurate sinners in a manner which clearly shows their belief that He never entirely withdraws His mercy. They insist that the light of grace is never extinguished in the present life. “God gave them over to a reprobate mind,” says St. Augustine, “for such is the blindness of the mind. Whosoever is given over thereunto, is shut out from the interior light of God: but not wholly as yet, whilst he is in this life. For there is ‘outer darkness,’ which is understood to belong rather to the day of judgment; that he should rather be wholly without God, whosoever, whilst there is time, refuses correction.”³⁸

It follows that no sinner, how desperate soever his case may appear, need be despaired of. As long as there is life there is hope.³⁹ The Fathers consistently teach that the reason why reprobates are lost is not lack of grace but their own malice. Thus St. Chrysostom comments on Isaias’ prophecy regarding the impenitence of the Jews: “The reason they did not believe was not that Isaias had predicted their unbelief, but his prediction was based on the fact that they would not believe. They were unable to believe, i. e. they had not the will to believe.”⁴⁰

c) The theological argument for our thesis is well stated by St. Thomas. He distinguishes between obstinatio perfecta and obstinatio imperfecta and says: Perfect obstinacy exists only in hell. Imperfect obstinacy is that of a sinner who has his will so firmly set on evil that he is incapable of any but the faintest impulses towards virtue, though even these are sufficient to prepare the way for grace.⁴¹ “If any one falls into sin after having received Baptism,” says the Fourth Lateran Council, “he can always be restored by sincere penance.”⁴² As the power of the keys comprises all sins, even those against the Holy Ghost, so divine grace is held out to all sinners. The Montanistic doctrine of the unforgivableness of the “three capital sins” (apostasy, murder, and adultery) was already condemned as heretical during the life-time of Tertullian. The sinner can obtain forgiveness only by receiving the sacrament of Penance or making an act of perfect contrition.⁴³ Justly, therefore, does the Church regard despair of God’s mercy as an additional grievous sin. If the rigorists were right in asserting that God in the end absolutely abandons the sinner, there could be no hope of forgiveness, and despair would be justified.

Thesis III: The heathens, too, receive sufficient graces for salvation.

This proposition may be qualified as certa.

Proof. The “heathens” are those whom the Gospel has not yet reached. They are called infideles negativi in contradistinction to the infideles positivi, i. e. apostates and formal heretics who have fallen away from the faith. We assert that God gives to the heathens sufficient grace to know the truth and be saved. Pope Alexander VIII, on December 7, 1690, condemned Arnauld’s Jansenistic proposition that “pagans, Jews, heretics and others of the same kind experience no influence whatever from Christ, and it may therefore be rightly inferred that there is in them a nude and helpless will, lacking sufficient grace.”⁴⁴ A proposition of similar import, set up by Quesnel, was censured by Clement XI.⁴⁵ Though not formally defined, it is a certain truth—deducible from the infallible teaching of the Church—that God does not permit any one to perish for want of grace.

a) The Biblical argument for our thesis is based on the dogma that God wills all men to be saved. 1 Tim. II, 4: “[God] will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth [i. e. the true faith].” In speaking of the “day of wrath,” St. Paul emphasizes the fact that the Almighty Judge “will render to every man according to his works”—eternal life to the good, wrath and damnation to the wicked.⁴⁶ And he continues: “But glory, and honor, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek; for there is no respect of persons with God.”⁴⁷ “Greek” is here evidently synonymous with gentile or heathen. It follows that the heathens are able to perform supernatural salutary acts with the aid of grace, and that they will receive the reward of eternal beatitude if they lead a good life.

In another passage (1 Tim. IV, 10) the Apostle calls Christ “the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful.”⁴⁸ Consequently, Christ is the Saviour also of unbelievers and heathens.⁴⁹

b) St. Paul’s teaching is faithfully echoed by the Fathers. Thus St. Clement of Rome,⁵⁰ in commenting on the penitential sermons of Noë and the prophet Jonas, says: “We may roam through all the ages of history and learn that the Lord in all generations⁵¹ gave opportunity for penance to all who wished to be converted, … even though they were strangers to him.”⁵²

St. Chrysostom says in explanation of John I, 9: “If He enlightens every man that comes into this world, how is it that so many are without light? For not all know Christ. Most assuredly He illumines, so far as He is concerned… . For grace is poured out over all. It flees or despises no one, be he Jew, Greek, barbarian or Scythian, freedman or slave, man or woman, old or young. It is the same for all, easily attainable by all, it calls upon all with equal regard. As for those who neglect to make use of this gift, they should ascribe their blindness to themselves.”⁵³

Similar expressions can be culled from the anonymous work De Vocatione Omnium Gentium⁵⁴ and from the writings of SS. Prosper and Fulgentius, and especially from those of Orosius, who says that grace is given to all men, including the heathen, without exception and at all times.⁵⁵

c) Catholic theologians have devoted considerable thought to the question how God provides for the salvation of the heathen.

To the uncivilized tribes may be applied what has been said regarding the fate of unbaptized infants. The real problem is: How does the merciful Creator provide for those who are sufficiently intelligent to be able to speculate on God, the soul, the future destiny of man, etc.? Holy Scripture teaches: “Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.”⁵⁶ Faith here means, not any kind of religious belief, but that theological faith which the Tridentine Council calls “the beginning, the foundation, and the root of all justification.”⁵⁷ Mere intellectual assent to the existence of God, immortality, and retribution would not be sufficient for salvation, even if elevated to the supernatural sphere and transfigured by grace. This is evident from the condemnation, by Pope Innocent XI, of the proposition that “Faith in a wide sense, based on the testimony of the created universe, or some other similar motive, is sufficient unto justification.”⁵⁸ The only sort of faith that results in justification, according to the Vatican Council, is “a supernatural virtue, whereby, inspired and assisted by the grace of God, we believe that the things which He has revealed are true; not because of the intrinsic truth of the things, viewed by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, who reveals them, and who can neither be deceived nor deceive.”⁵⁹ Of special importance is the following declaration by the same Council: “Since without faith it is impossible to please God and to attain to the fellowship of His children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification… .”⁶⁰

The Catechism demands of every one who desires to be saved that he have a supernatural belief in six distinct truths: the existence of God, retribution in the next world, the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation, the immortality of the soul, and the necessity of grace. The first two are certainly necessary for salvation, both fide explicitâ and necessitate medii. With regard to the other four there is a difference of opinion among theologians. We base our argumentation on the stricter, though not absolutely certain view, that all six articles must be believed necessitate medii. On this basis God’s method of providing sufficient graces for the heathen may be explained in one of two ways, according as a fides explicita is demanded from them with regard to all the above-mentioned dogmas, or a fides implicita is deemed sufficient in regard to all but the first two. By fides explicita we understand the express and fully developed faith of devout Christians; by fides implicita, an undeveloped belief of desire or, in other words, general readiness to believe whatever God has revealed.

α) The defenders of the fides explicita theory are compelled to assume that God must somehow reveal to each individual heathen who lives according to the dictates of his conscience, the six truths necessary for salvation. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.”⁶¹

But how can the gentiles believe in a revelation that has never been preached to them? Here is an undeniable difficulty. Some theologians say: God enlightens them interiorly about the truths necessary for salvation; or He miraculously sends them an apostle, as He sent St. Peter to Cornelius;⁶² or He instructs them through the agency of an angel.⁶³ None of these hypotheses can be accepted as satisfactory. “Interior illumination” of the kind postulated would practically amount to private revelation. That God should grant a special private revelation to every conscientious pagan is highly improbable. Again, an angel can no more be the ordinary means of conversion than the miraculous apparition of a missionary. Nevertheless, these three hypotheses admirably illustrate the firm belief of the Church in the universality of God’s saving will, inasmuch as they express the conviction of her theologians that He would work a miracle rather than deny His grace to the poor benighted heathen.⁶⁴ The difficulties to which we have adverted constitute a strong argument in favor of another theological theory which regards explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation merely as a necessitas praecepti, from which one may be dispensed.

β) The fides implicita theory is far more plausible, for it postulates no miracles, implicit faith (or fides in voto) being independent of the external preaching of the Gospel, just as the baptism of desire (baptismus in voto) is independent of the use of water.

Cardinal Gotti regards the first-mentioned of the two theories as safer (tutior), but admits that the other is highly probable, because it has the support of St. Thomas.⁶⁵ However, a great difficulty remains. Though it may suffice to hold the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and a fortiori those of the immortality of the soul and the necessity of grace, with an implicit faith, it is the consentient teaching of Revelation, the Church, and Catholic divines that the two principal truths of religion, viz.: the existence of God and retribution, must be held fide explicitâ and necessitate medii, because a man cannot be converted to God unless He knows Him. But how is he to acquire a knowledge of God? Does this not also necessitate a miracle (e. g. the sending of an angel or of a missionary, which we have rejected as improbable)? There can be but one answer to this question. Unaided reason may convince a thoughtful pagan of the existence of God and of divine retribution, and as these two fundamental truths have no doubt penetrated to the farthest corners of the earth also as remnants of primitive revelation, their promulgation may be said to be contained in the traditional instruction which the heathen receive from their forebears. This external factor of Divine Revelation, assisted by interior grace, may engender a supernatural act of faith, which implicitly includes belief in Christ, Baptism, etc., and through which the heathen are eventually cleansed from sin and attain to justification.⁶⁶

Some theologians hold that those to whom the Gospel has never been preached, may be saved by a quasi-faith based on purely natural motives.⁶⁷

For the rest, no one will presume to dictate to Almighty God how and by what means He shall communicate His grace to the heathen. It is enough, and very consoling, too, to know that all men receive sufficient grace to save their souls, and no one is eternally damned except through his own fault.⁶⁸

Readings

*Didacus Ruiz, De Voluntate Dei, disp. 19 sqq. — Petavius, De Deo, X, 4 sqq.; De Incarnatione, XIII, 1 sqq. — Fontana, Bulla “Unigenitus” Dogmatice Propugnata, prop. 12, c. 5, Rome 1717. — Passaglia, De Partitione Voluntatis Divinae in Primam et Secundam, Rome 1851. — *Franzelin, De Deo Uno, thes. 49-51, Rome 1883. — *Palmieri, De Gratia Divina Actuali, thes. 59-62, Gulpen 1885. — A. Fischer, De Salute Infidelium, Essen 1886. — *J. Bucceroni, De Auxilio Sufficiente Infidelibus Dato, Rome 1890. — Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. VIII, § 421-428, Mainz 1897. — Fr. Schmid, Die ausserordentlichen Heilswege für die gefallene Menschheit, Brixen 1899. — Chr. Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. II, 3rd ed., pp. 144 sqq., Freiburg 1906. — L. Capéran, Le Problème du Salut des Infidèles, Essai Théologique; Essai Historique, Paris 1912. — A. Wagner, Doctrina de Gratia Sufficiente, Graz 1911.

---

Footnotes

1. On the notion and existence of sufficient grace see supra, Ch. I, Sect. 2, No. 6. ↩

2. Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, can. 18: “Si quis dixerit, Dei praecepta homini etiam iustificato et sub gratia constituto esse ad observandum impossibilia, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 828). Cfr. Sess. VI, cap. 11 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 804). ↩

3. “Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus iustis volentibus et conantibus secundum praesentes, quas habent vires, sunt impossibilia: deest quoque illis gratia, quâ possibilia fiant.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1092.) ↩

4. On the distinction between gratia proxime sufficiens and gratia remote sufficiens, cfr. supra, pp. 43 sq. ↩

5. 1 John V, 3 sq.: “Haec est caritas Dei, ut mandata eius custodiamus et mandata eius gravia non sunt (αἱ ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσίν): quoniam omne quod natum est ex Deo [= iustus] vincit mundum.” ↩

6. Matth. XI, 30. ↩

7. 1 Cor. X, 13: “Fidelis autem Deus est, qui non patietur vos tentari supra id quod potestis (πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε), sed faciet etiam cum tentatione proventum (ἔκβασιν), ut possitis sustinere.” ↩

8. V. supra, pp. 65 sq. ↩

9. 1 Cor. X, 12: “Itaque qui se existimat stare, videat ne cadat.” ↩

10. V. infra, Thesis II. Cfr. also Ecclus. II, 11 sqq.; John VI, 37; 2 Pet. I, 10 sq. ↩

11. “Gratiam non omnibus dari.” ↩

12. Migne, P. L., XVII, 1073 sqq. Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 515. ↩

13. Benignitas Dei generalis — specialis Dei misericordia. ↩

14. “Deo autem placuit et hanc [gratiam efficacem] multis tribuere et illam [sufficientem] a nemine submovere, ut ex utraque appareat, non negatum universitati, quod collatum est portioni.” (De Vocatione Omnium Gentium, II, 25.) For further information on the doctrinal character of this work see Fr. Wörter, Zur Dogmengeschichte des Semipelagianismus, Münster 1900. ↩

15. Chrysostom, Hom. in Matth., 82, n. 3. ↩

16. Augustine, Serm., 296: “Plus ausus erat, quam eius capacitas sustinebat.” ↩

17. Matth. XXVI, 41: “Watch ye and pray that ye enter not into temptation.” ↩

18. Lib. de Unitate Ecclesiae, 9: “Quis dubitaverit quod Iudas Christum, si voluisset, non utique tradidisset, et Petrus, si voluisset, ter Dominum non negasset?” ↩

19. John VI, 40. ↩

20. Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, can. 19-21. ↩

21. Cfr. Schiffini, De Gratia Divina, pp. 573 sqq. ↩

22. Cfr. 1 Cor. X, 13. ↩

23. 1 John V, 3 sq. ↩

24. Cfr. 1 John II, 16. ↩

25. De Natura et Gratia, c. 43, n. 50: “Deus impossibilia non iubet, sed iubendo admonet, et facere quod possis et petere quod non possis.” ↩

26. For an explanation of certain difficult passages bearing on this point in the writings of St. Augustine, see Schiffini, De Gratia Divina, pp. 531 sqq. ↩

27. V. supra, pp. 104 sq. ↩

28. Ez. XXXIII, 11: “Vivo ego, dicit Dominus Deus, nolo mortem impii, sed ut convertatur impius a via sua et vivat. Convertimini, convertimini a viis vestris pessimis.” ↩

29. 2 Pet. III, 9: “Non tardat Dominus promissionem suam, sicut quidam existimant, sed patienter agit (μακροθυμεῖ) propter vos, nolens aliquos perire, sed omnes ad poenitentiam reverti (μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι).” ↩

30. Cfr. Is. V, 20. ↩

31. According to Ruiz (De Praedest., disp. 39, sect. 1), there are but very few divines (valde pauci) who hold this view. ↩

32. Wisd. XII, 10. ↩

33. Rom. II, 4 sq.: “An divitias bonitatis eius et patientiae et longanimitatis contemnis? Ignoras quoniam benignitas Dei ad poenitentiam (εἰς μετάνοιαν) te adducit? Secundum autem duritiem (σκληρότητα) tuam et impoenitens cor (ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν) thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae et revelationis iusti iudicii Dei, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera eius.” Cfr. Prov. I, 20 sqq. ↩

34. Ex. VII, 3: “Ego indurabo cor eius.” ↩

35. Ex. IX, 12: “Induravitque Dominus cor Pharaonis, etc.” ↩

36. Ex. VIII, 15. ↩

37. For the solution of other difficulties see Schiffini, De Gratia Divina, pp. 529 sq. ↩

38. St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., VI, n. 8: “Dedit illos in reprobum sensum (Rom. I, 28); nam ea est caecitas mentis. In eam quisquis datus fuerit, ab interiore Dei luce secluditur, sed nondum penitus, quum in hac vita est. Sunt enim tenebrae exteriores, quae magis ad diem iudicii pertinere intelliguntur, ut penitus extra Deum sit, quisquis, dum tempus est, corrigi noluerit.” ↩

39. St. Augustine, Retractationes, 419: “De quocunque quamvis pessimo homine hac in vita constituto non est desperandum.” ↩

40. Tract. in Ioa., XII, 39. Similarly ibid., LIII, n. 6. For a complete exposition of St. Augustine’s teaching on this point consult Dechamps, De Haeresi Ianseniana, III, 6 sqq., and Palmieri, De Gratia Divina Actuali, thes. 40. ↩

41. Cfr. St. Thomas, De Veritate, qu. 24, art. 11: “Haec est obstinatio imperfecta, quâ aliquis potest esse obstinatus in statu viae, dum scilicet habet aliquis ita firmatam voluntatem in peccato, quod non surgunt motus ad bonum nisi debiles. Quia tamen aliqui surgunt, ex iis datur via, ut praeparentur ad gratiam.” ↩

42. Conc. Lateran. IV (1215), cap. “Firmiter”: “Et si post susceptionem baptismi quisquam prolapsus fuerit in peccatum, per veram poenitentiam semper potest reparari.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 430.) ↩

43. Cfr. Conc. Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 14; Sess. XIV, cap. 1. ↩

44. “Pagani, Iudaei, haeretici aliique huius generis nullum omnino accipiunt a Iesu Christo influxum, adeoque hinc recte inferes, in illis esse voluntatem nudam et inermem sine omni gratia sufficienti.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1295.) ↩

45. “Extra ecclesiam nulla conceditur gratia.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1379.) ↩

46. Rom. II, 6 sqq. ↩

47. Rom. II, 10 sq.: “Gloria autem et honor et pax omni operanti bonum, Iudaeo primum et Graeco (Ἕλληνι = pagano); non enim est acceptio personarum (προσωποληψία) apud Deum.” ↩

48. σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, μάλιστα πιστῶν. ↩

49. Cfr. 1 Tim. II, 1 sqq.; John I, 9. ↩

50. Ep. ad Corinth., 1, 7. ↩

51. ἐν γενεᾷ καὶ γενεᾷ. ↩

52. ἀλλότριοι τοῦ Θεοῦ. ↩

53. Hom. in Ioa., VIII, 1. ↩

54. II, c. 31. ↩

55. De Arbitrii Libertate, n. 19: ”… quotidie per tempora, per dies, per momenta, per ἄτομα et cunctis et singulis.” ↩

56. Heb. XI, 6. ↩

57. “Initium, fundamentum et radix omnis iustificationis.” Sess. VI, cap. 8, apud Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 801. ↩

58. “Fides late dicta, ex testimonio creaturarum similive motivo, ad iustificationem sufficit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1173.) ↩

59. ”… fides, quâ Dei aspirante et adiuvante gratiâ ab eo revelata vera esse credimus, non propter intrinsecam rerum veritatem naturali rationis lumine perspectam, sed propter auctoritatem ipsius Dei revelantis, qui nec falli nec fallere potest.” (Sess. III, cap. 3; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1789.) ↩

60. “Quoniam vero sine fide impossibile est placere Deo, … ideo nemini unquam sine illa contigit iustificatio.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1793.) ↩

61. Rom. X, 17. ↩

62. Cfr. Acts X, 1 sqq. ↩

63. Card. Toletus, Comment. in S. Th., I, qu. 1, art. 1. ↩

64. Cfr. St. Thomas, De Verit., qu. 14, art. 11, ad 1: “Hoc ad divinam providentiam pertinet, ut cuilibet provideat de necessariis ad salutem, dummodo ex parte eius non impediatur. Si enim aliquis taliter (in silvis vel inter bruta animalia) nutritus ductum naturalis rationis sequeretur in appetitu boni et fuga mali, certissime est tenendum quod ei Deus vel per internam inspirationem revelaret ea, quae sunt ad credendum necessaria, vel aliquem fidei praedicatorem ad eum dirigeret, sicut misit Petrum ad Cornelium.” ↩

65. Gotti, De Fide, qu. 2, dub. 4, § 1): “Sententia negans fidem explicitam Christi et Trinitatis esse ita necessariam, ut sine ea nemo iustificari vel salvari queat, valde probabilis est. Eam enim videtur docere S. Thomas tum 2 — 2 p., qu. 10, art. 4, tum 3 p., qu. 69, art. 4, ubi de Cornelio Centurione ait: Ante baptismum Cornelius et alii similes consequuntur gratiam et virtutes per fidem Christi et desiderium baptismi implicite vel explicite.” ↩

66. Cfr. Fr. Schmid, Die ausserordentlichen Heilswege für die gefallene Menschheit, pp. 225 sqq., Brixen 1899. ↩

67. A. Fischer, De Salute Infidelium, Essen 1886; Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. VIII, pp. 491 sqq. On their teaching see P. Minges, O. F. M., Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae Generalis, pp. 270 sqq., Munich 1902. ↩

68. With regard to certain other controversies on this subject consult Schiffini, De Gratia Divina, pp. 535 sqq., and Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. III, pp. 109 sqq., Paris 1896. ↩