Part 12 (1/2)

Yet the ”Doctor of Grace” expressly teaches: ”G.o.d is good, G.o.d is just. He can deliver some without merits because He is good; but He cannot d.a.m.n any one without demerits, because He is just.”(664) St. Prosper re-echoes this teaching when he says of the reprobates: ”Of their own will they went out; of their own will they fell; and because their fall was foreknown, they were not predestined. They would, however, be predestined if they were to return and persevere in holiness; hence G.o.d's predestination is for many the cause of perseverance, for none the cause of falling away.”(665) St.

Fulgentius expresses himself in similar language.(666)

2. THE THEORY OF ”NEGATIVE REPROBATION.”-Negative reprobation is defined by its defenders as an eternal decree by which G.o.d excludes from Heaven those not absolutely predestined, in other words, determines not to save them.

a) Gonet explains the difference between negative and positive reprobation in Scholastic terminology as follows: ”_... quod haec [i.e. positiva]

habet non solum terminum a quo, nempe exclusionem a gloria, sed etiam terminum ad quem, scil. poenam sive d.a.m.ni sive sensus; illa vero [i.e.

negativa] solum habet terminum a quo, nempe exclusionem a gloria ut beneficio indebito, non vero terminum ad quem, quia ex vi exclusionis ut sic praecise et ut habet rationem purae negationis, non intelligitur reprobus esse d.a.m.nandus aut ulli poenae sive d.a.m.ni sive sensus deputandus._”(667)

The general principle laid down in this quotation is variously developed by Thomist theologians.

The rigorists (Alvarez, John a S. Thoma, Estius, Sylvius) a.s.sign as the motive of reprobation the sovereign will of G.o.d. G.o.d, they say, without taking into account possible sins and demerits, determined _a priori_ to exclude from Heaven those who are not predestined. De Lemos, Gotti, Gonet, Gazzaniga, and others condemn this view as incompatible with the teaching of St. Thomas, and, appealing to St. Augustine's doctrine of the _ma.s.sa d.a.m.nata_, find the ultimate reason for the exclusion of the reprobates from heaven in original sin, in which G.o.d, without being unjust, could leave as many as He saw fit. Goudin, Graveson, Billuart, and others a.s.sume that the reprobates are not directly excluded from eternal glory but merely from ”effective election” thereunto, G.o.d simply having decreed _ante praevisa merita_ to leave them to their weakness.(668)

While the Thomists found no difficulty in harmonizing this view with their theory of physical premotion, the few Molinists who espoused it were hard put in trying to square it with the _scientia media_.(669) On the whole these Molinists endorse the third and mildest of the above-quoted opinions, which differs only theoretically from the rigoristic view described in the first place. Practically it makes no difference whether G.o.d directly excludes a man from heaven or refuses to give him the graces necessary to attain it.

Surveying all three of the theories under consideration we cannot but regard the first and third as heartless and cruel, because they attribute eternal reprobation to a positive decree that takes effect independently of sin; the second, (which ascribes reprobation to original sin), is open to the serious dogmatic objection that it contradicts the teaching of St.

Paul and the Tridentine declaration that ”there is no condemnation (_nihil d.a.m.nationis_) in those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death.”(670)

b) Negative reprobation is rightly regarded as the logical counterpart of absolute predestination.(671) If Almighty G.o.d, by an absolute decree, without regard to any possible merits, merely to reveal His divine attributes and to ”embellish the universe,” had determined that only those could enter the ”Heavenly Jerusalem” who were antecedently predestined thereto, it would inevitably follow that the unfortunate remainder of humanity by the very same decree were ”pa.s.sed over,” ”omitted,”

”overlooked,” ”not elected,” or, as Gonet honestly admits, ”excluded from Heaven,” which is the same thing as being negatively condemned to h.e.l.l.

The logical distinction between positive and negative reprobation, therefore, consists mainly in this, that the former signifies absolute d.a.m.nation to h.e.l.l, the latter (equally absolute) non-election to Heaven.

To protect the Catholic champions of negative reprobation against unjust aspersions, however, it is necessary to point out certain fundamental differences between their theory and the heresy of Calvin.

Calvin and the Jansenists openly deny the universality both of G.o.d's saving will and of the atonement; they refuse to admit the actual bestowal of sufficient grace upon those fore-ordained to eternal d.a.m.nation; and claim that the human will loses its freedom under the predominance of efficacious grace or concupiscence. The Catholic defenders of negative reprobation indignantly reject the charge that their position logically leads to any such heretical implications.

c) The theory of negative reprobation can be sufficiently refuted by showing that it is incompatible with the universality of G.o.d's will to save all men. For if G.o.d willed absolutely and antecedently to ”exclude some men from Heaven,” as Gonet a.s.serts, or ”not to elect them to eternal glory,” as Suarez contends, then it would be His absolute will that they perish.

a) For one thus negatively reprobated it is metaphysically impossible to attain eternal salvation. To hold otherwise would be tantamount to a.s.suming that an essentially absolute decree of G.o.d can be frustrated.

This consideration led certain Thomists(672) to describe the divine _voluntas salvifica_ as rather an ineffectual _velleitas_.(673) But this conflicts with the obvious teaching of Revelation.(674) Suarez labors in vain to reconcile the sincerity of G.o.d's salvific will with the theory of negative reprobation. The two are absolutely irreconcilable. How could G.o.d sincerely will the salvation of all men if it were true, as Suarez says, that ”it is not in man's power to work out his eternal salvation in case he falls under non-election, non-predestination, or, which amounts to the same thing, negative reprobation”?(675)

) The cruel absurdity of the theory of negative reprobation becomes fully apparent when we consider the att.i.tude it ascribes to G.o.d. Gonet writes: ”Foreseeing that the whole human race would be depraved by original sin, G.o.d, in view of the merits of Christ who was to come, elected some men to glory and, in punishment of original sin and to show His justice towards them and His greater mercy towards the elect, permitted others to miss the attainment of beat.i.tude, in other words, He positively willed that they should not attain it.... In virtue of this efficacious intention He devised appropriate means for the attainment of His purpose, and seeing that some would miss beat.i.tude by simply being left in the state of original sin, and others by being permitted to fall into actual sins and to persevere therein, He formally decreed this permission, and finally ...

by a command of His intellect ordained these means towards the attainment of the aforesaid end.”(676) Translated into plain every-day language this can only mean that G.o.d tries with all His might to prevent the reprobate from attaining eternal salvation and sees to it that they die in the state of sin. Suarez is perfectly right in characterizing Gonet's teaching as ”incompatible with sound doctrine.”(677) But his own teaching is equally unsound and cruel. For he, too, is compelled to a.s.sert: ”Predestination to glory is the motive for which efficacious or infallible means towards attaining that end are bestowed. Hence to refuse to predestine a man for glory is to deny him the means which are recognized as fit and certain to attain that end.”(678)

Holy Scripture fortunately speaks a different language. It describes G.o.d as a loving Father, who ”wills not that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.”(679)

?) Practically it makes no difference whether a man is positively condemned to eternal d.a.m.nation, as Calvin and the Jansenists a.s.sert, or negatively excluded from Heaven, as held by the orthodox theologians whom we have just quoted. The alleged distinction between positive and negative reprobation is ”a distinction without a difference.” For an adult to be excluded from Heaven simply means that he is d.a.m.ned. There is no such thing as a middle state or a purely natural beat.i.tude. Lessius justly says that to one reprobated by G.o.d it would be all the same whether his reprobation was positive or negative, because in either case he would be inevitably lost.(680)

READINGS:-*Ruiz, _De Praedestinatione et Reprobatione_, Lyons 1628.-Ramirez, _De Praedestinatione et Reprobatione_, 2 vols., Alcala 1702.-*Lessius, _De Perfectionibus Moribusque Divinis_, XIV, 2.-*IDEM, _De Praedestinatione et Reprobatione_ (_Opusc._, Vol. II, Paris 1878).-Tournely, _De Deo_, qu. 22 sqq.-Schrader, _Commentarii_, I-II, _De Praedestinatione_, Vienna 1865.-J. P.

Baltzer, _Des hl. Augustinus Lehre uber Pradestination und Reprobation_, Vienna 1871.-Mannens, _De Voluntate Dei Salvifica et Praedestinatione_, Louvain 1883.-O. Rottmanner, O. S. B., _Der Augustinismus_, Munchen 1892.-O. Pfulf, S. J., ”_Zur Pradestinationslehre des hl. Augustinus_,” in the Innsbruck _Zeitschrift fur kath. Theologie_, 1893, pp. 483 sqq.-B. J. Otten, S. J., _A Manual of the History of Dogmas_, Vol. I, St. Louis 1917, pp. 281, 378, 382 sqq.

Chapter III. Grace In Its Relation To Free-Will