GRACE
696
GRACE
zinger, n. 139). It is clearly evident that the Fathers
of the Church wished the universally expressed neces-
sity of grace to be understood not merely as a moral
necessity for the strengthening of human weakness,
but as a metaphysical one for the communication of
physical powers. For in their comparisons they state
that grace is not less necessary than are wings for fly-
ing, the eyes for seeing, the rain for the growth of
plants, etc. In accordance with this, they also de-
clare that, in as far as supernatural activity is con-
cerned, grace is just as indispensable for the angels
not subject to concupiscence, and was for man before
the fall, as it is for man after the sin of Adam.
There is need of special refutation of Pelagius's presumptuous contention that man is capable of avoiding unaided during his whole lifetime all sins; nay, that he can even rise to impeccability. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xxiii), with much more precision than the Synod of Mileve (416), an- swered this monstrosity with the definition of faith: "Si quis hominem semel justificatum dixerit . . . posse in tota vita peccata omnia etiam venialia vitare, nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de beata Virgine tenet ecclesia, anathema sit" (If any- one shall say that a man once justified . . . can, throughout his life, avoid all sins, even venial, unless by a special privilege of God, as the Church believes of the Bl. Virgin Mary, let him be anathema).
This celebrated canon presents some difficulties of thought which must be briefly discussed. In its gist it is an affirmation that not even the justified, much less the sinner and infidel, can avoid all sins, especially venial ones, through his whole life except by special privilege such as was granted to the Mother of God. The canon does not assert that besides Mary other saints, as St. Joseph or St. John the Baptist, possessed this privilege. Almost all theologians rightly con- sider this to be the sole exception, justified only by the dignity of the Divine maternity. Justice is done to the wording of the canon, if by totd vitd we under- stand a long period, about a generation, and by pec- cata venialia chiefly the semi-deliberate venial sins due to surprise or precipitancy. It is in no way declared that a great saint is unable to keep free from all sin during a short interval, as the interval of a day; nor that he is incapable of avoiding for a long time with ordinary grace and without special privilege all venial sins committed with full deliberation or complete liberty. The same must be said with still greater reason of mortal sins, although the preservation of baptismal innocence may be of rare occurrence. The expression, omnia peccata, must be understood collec- tively, as applying to the sum, and not distributively, as meaning each individual sin, which would no longer be a sin if it could not be avoided in every instance. For the same reason the words, non posse, designate not a physical, but a moral impossibility of avoiding sin, i. e. a difficulty based on insuperable obstacles which only a special privilege could suppress. The meaning is, therefore: The observer of a long series of temptations in the life of a just man will find that at some time or other, to-day or to-morrow, the will held captive by concupiscence will succumb with moral necessity. This may be due to negligence, surprise, weariness, or moral weakness — all of which are factors that do not completely destroy the freedom of the will and thus admit at least of a venial .sin. This hard truth must naturally grieve a proud heart. But it is precisely to curb pride, that most dangerous enemy of our salvation, and to nourish in us the precious virtue of humility, that God permits these falls into sin. Nothing incites us more powerfully to vigilance and perseverance in prayer than the consciousness of our sinfulness and infirmity. Even the greatest saint must, therefore, pray daily not out of hypocrisy or self-deception, but out of an intimate knowledge of his heart: "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our
debtors" (Matt., vi, 12). A holy Apostle had to
acknowledge of himself and his intimate friends: " In
many things we all offend" (James, iii, 2). Boldly
could the hagiographer in the Old Testament raise the
question not difficult of answer: "Who can say: My
heart is clean, I am pure from sin? " (Proverbs, xx, 9).
This view, defended by the Bible, was also the
constant sentiment of the Fathers of the Church,
to whom the proud language of the Pelagians was
unknown. To the latter's consideration Augustine
(De nat. et grat., xxxvi) presents the impressive
thoughts: "Could we bring together here in living
form all the saints of both sexes and question them
whether they were without sin, would they not ex-
claim unanimously: 'If we say that we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us'?" (I
John, i, 8.)
(7) Semipelagianism is an unsuccessful attempt to effect a compromise between Pelagianism and Augus- tinism, attributing to mere nature and its capabilities a somewhat greater importance in matters pertaining to salvation than Augustine was willing to concede. Several pious monks of Marseilles (hence also the name of "Massilians"), John Cassian (d. 432) at their head, held (about a. d. 428) the following opinion of the relationship between nature and grace: (1) A distinc- tion must be established between " the beginning of faith" (initium fidei) and "increase in the faith" {augmentum fidei) ; the former may be referred to the natural power of free will, while increase in the faith and faith itself can only be the work of Christian grace. (2) Nature can merit grace through its own efforts, but this natural merit (meritum naturw) is only founded in equity, it does not confer, as Pclagius con- tended, a right in strict justice. (3) " Final perse- verance" {donum perseveraniiw) specifically can be secured by the justified with their own strength, and is therefore not a special grace. (4) The bestowal or denial of baptismal grace in children is dependent on their conditional future merits or demerits, which the Omniscience of God foresaw not historically, but hypothetically from eternity. — Although this last proposition is philosophically false, the Church has never condemned it as heretical; the first three theses, on the contrary, have been rejected as opposed to Catholic teaching.
Informed by his disciples. Prosper and Hilary, of events at Marseilles, Augustine energetically set to work, in spite of his advanced age, and wrote his two books against the Semipelagians: "De Pra;destina- tione sanctorum" and "De dono perseverantis". Simultaneously he humbly acknowledged that he had the misfortune of having professed similar errors pre- viously to his episcopal consecration (a. d. 394). He attacked resolutely, though with mildness and mod- eration, all the positions of his adversaries, rightly looking upon their attitude as a relapse into the already defeated Pelagianism. After Augustine's death, his disciples resumed the struggle. They suc- ceeded in interesting in their cause Pope Celestine I, who, in his dogmatic writing to the bishops of Gaul (431), laid down as a rule of faith the fundamental teaching of St. Augustine on original sin and grace. But as this so-called " Indiculus" was issued more as a papal instruction than as an ex cathedrd definition, the controversy still continued for almost a century, until St. Ca>sarius of Aries convoked the Second Synod of Orange (a. d. 529). This synod received the solemn confirmation of Pope Boniface II (530) and was thus vested with oecumenical authority. (According to the opinion of Scheeljen and Gutliorlet this confirma- tion extended only to the first eii;ht canons and the epilogue.) From now on Seniipclanianism, also, was proscrilied as heresy, and Auguslinism was com- pletely victorious.
In "the refutation of Semipelagianism, in so far as the necessity of actual grace is concerned, it will not
