Sect. 145The State of Grace the Nobility of the Children of GodThe State of Grace the Nobility of the Children of God
I. The infused virtues give the created soul the physical power and the inclination to perform works proportioned in dignity to life eternal. To make these works perfectly worthy of reward, it is necessary that they should proceed from a person of Divine nobility—that is, of such high dignity and rank that the Divine inheritance is in keeping with it. Thus, among men, the most excellent services rendered by a subject to his king cannot merit the succession to the throne, whereas the king’s own or adopted children may succeed him on account of their personal dignity. The intrinsic supernatural value, then, which salutary acts draw from the infused virtues, attains its full force from the fact that the person acting is already worthy of eternal life on account of the dignity accruing to him from his union with God, the Owner and Giver of that life.
The Apostle points to such an elevation in dignity when he speaks of the grace of adoption, by which we are made the children of God, and, being children, heirs also, and coheirs of God’s only begotten Son (Gal. 4). The Church has decidedly defended against Baius the necessity of the “deifying state” for meriting eternal life (propp. xv., xvii.; also xviii. and xix.). The possession of this high state of dignity is described by theologians as specially and formally the state of grace making one acceptable to God (status gratiæ gratum facientis), and as “the state of sanctifying grace.” The latter appellation is given to it because it implies a Divine consecration of the person. Lastly, as man, deprived of Divine nobility, would be unable to attain that eternal life to which, as a matter of fact, God has called him, it follows that the dignity of adopted sons of God is an essential element of the state of justification.
II. The necessity of a higher personal dignity and rank in order to entitle and to fit the adopted sons of God to eternal life, is a defined dogma. All Catholic theologians are therefore bound to agree that Charity, whether considered as an act, disposition, habit, or virtue, does not contain in itself alone and entirely that personal dignity which is necessary for the attainment of eternal life. Charity can no more have this effect in the supernatural order than, in the order of nature, filial, friendly, or conjugal love can, by itself, transform the lover into a child, friend, or spouse, or claim in return the love due to child, friend, or spouse. The analogy, however, is not quite perfect. In the supernatural order the dignity of son of God cannot exist without filial love, and, on the other hand, it is acquired as soon as filial love begins. Yet this never-failing connection does not destroy the formal distinction between personal dignity and infused virtue: it is accounted for by the fact that God at the same time raises to the dignity of adoptive sons, and gives the habit of Charity as a connatural endowment. The connection only lasts as long as the adopted sons live according to their rank—that is, as long as they do not cast off Charity by acting against it.
Charity, then, is not the cause of the dignity of adoption. The acts of Charity and of other virtues lead up to and ask for this dignity, but do not give a formal right to it. On the contrary, supernatural virtues must be looked upon as a consequence of the adoption. In the same way as in natural adoption the new son receives all that is in keeping with his new position, and begins at once to live the same life as his father; so the new-born son of God is endowed with Charity, and begins at once to lead the supernatural life possible on this earth. Charity, then, is an attribute of Sonship. “Because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your heart, crying: Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6).
From this way of conceiving the relation between Sonship and Charity, it becomes at once clear how the dignity of sonship bears upon the meritoriousness of salutary acts. To merit eternal life, an act, besides being good in itself, must be performed by a person entitled to eternal life, and must belong to him as his own property. This latter element requires that the actions should be free, and that the powers from which they proceed should be the lawful property of the person acting, which they are only if their possession is based upon a dignity logically anterior.
III. We must touch on the famous question whether the grace of adoption is identical with infused Charity. The reader who has accepted our view that adoption by elevation to a higher personal status logically precedes the infusion of Charity, will find no difficulty in admitting a distinction between adoption and Charity. The distinction is not necessarily real, yet it must be such that the grace of adoption should not appear as an attribute of Charity, but as something fuller and deeper, round which, as a centre, are gathered the free gifts of Charity and all other infused virtues. Thus the real or ontological foundation of the life of grace is a something higher given to the soul in the act of adoption, that is, in the assimilation to God’s own life. Now the distinctive character of the Divine Life is its supreme spirituality, or more exactly its immateriality, which is spoken of in Scripture as “life of light.” Hence the higher being given to God’s adoptive children must likewise be conceived as a more refined spirituality, as a greater independence of matter, wrought in the created spirit by the indwelling Spirit of God. “That which is born of the Spirit, is spirit” (John 3:6); “You were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord: walk then as children of the light” (Eph. 5:8).
The supernatural being of the sons of God bears to Charity and the other infused virtues the relation which the natural substance of the soul bears to its faculties. It is their root, their end, their measure. Charity is the most perfect manifestation and the surest sign of the Divine life rooted in the supernatural being of the children of God. We cannot, indeed, give demonstrative proof for our opinion on this subject, because it is always possible to interpret the texts in a laxer sense. We give it as the only adequate and consistent development of the revealed doctrine concerning the dignity of the sons of God, the new birth out of God, and the participation in the Divine Nature. The language of the Church in the Councils of Vienne and of Trent, and in the condemnation of the forty-second proposition of Baius, is entirely in accordance with our view. The Roman Catechism is especially explicit: “Grace … is a Divine quality inhering in the soul, and, as it were, a sort of brightness and light which removes all the stains of our souls, and makes our souls more beautiful and bright.… To this is added a most noble company of virtues which are divinely infused into the soul together with grace” (part ii., c. 2, n. 50, 51).
Further information may be found in Gonet, Clypeus, De Gr., disp. 2.; and Goudin, De Gr., q. 4.; and also Comp. Salmant, tr. xiii., disp. iii., dub. 3, (strongly Thomistic).
I. The infused virtues give the created soul the physical power and the inclination to perform works proportioned in dignity to life eternal. To make these works perfectly worthy of reward, it is necessary that they should proceed from a person of Divine nobility—that is, of such high dignity and rank that the Divine inheritance is in keeping with it. Thus, among men, the most excellent services rendered by a subject to his king cannot merit the succession to the throne, whereas the king’s own or adopted children may succeed him on account of their personal dignity. The intrinsic supernatural value, then, which salutary acts draw from the infused virtues, attains its full force from the fact that the person acting is already worthy of eternal life on account of the dignity accruing to him from his union with God, the Owner and Giver of that life.
The Apostle points to such an elevation in dignity when he speaks of the grace of adoption, by which we are made the children of God, and, being children, heirs also, and coheirs of God’s only begotten Son (Gal. 4). The Church has decidedly defended against Baius the necessity of the “deifying state” for meriting eternal life (propp. xv., xvii.; also xviii. and xix.). The possession of this high state of dignity is described by theologians as specially and formally the state of grace making one acceptable to God (status gratiæ gratum facientis), and as “the state of sanctifying grace.” The latter appellation is given to it because it implies a Divine consecration of the person. Lastly, as man, deprived of Divine nobility, would be unable to attain that eternal life to which, as a matter of fact, God has called him, it follows that the dignity of adopted sons of God is an essential element of the state of justification.
II. The necessity of a higher personal dignity and rank in order to entitle and to fit the adopted sons of God to eternal life, is a defined dogma. All Catholic theologians are therefore bound to agree that Charity, whether considered as an act, disposition, habit, or virtue, does not contain in itself alone and entirely that personal dignity which is necessary for the attainment of eternal life. Charity can no more have this effect in the supernatural order than, in the order of nature, filial, friendly, or conjugal love can, by itself, transform the lover into a child, friend, or spouse, or claim in return the love due to child, friend, or spouse. The analogy, however, is not quite perfect. In the supernatural order the dignity of son of God cannot exist without filial love, and, on the other hand, it is acquired as soon as filial love begins. Yet this never-failing connection does not destroy the formal distinction between personal dignity and infused virtue: it is accounted for by the fact that God at the same time raises to the dignity of adoptive sons, and gives the habit of Charity as a connatural endowment. The connection only lasts as long as the adopted sons live according to their rank—that is, as long as they do not cast off Charity by acting against it.
Charity, then, is not the cause of the dignity of adoption. The acts of Charity and of other virtues lead up to and ask for this dignity, but do not give a formal right to it. On the contrary, supernatural virtues must be looked upon as a consequence of the adoption. In the same way as in natural adoption the new son receives all that is in keeping with his new position, and begins at once to live the same life as his father; so the new-born son of God is endowed with Charity, and begins at once to lead the supernatural life possible on this earth. Charity, then, is an attribute of Sonship. “Because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your heart, crying: Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6).
From this way of conceiving the relation between Sonship and Charity, it becomes at once clear how the dignity of sonship bears upon the meritoriousness of salutary acts. To merit eternal life, an act, besides being good in itself, must be performed by a person entitled to eternal life, and must belong to him as his own property. This latter element requires that the actions should be free, and that the powers from which they proceed should be the lawful property of the person acting, which they are only if their possession is based upon a dignity logically anterior.
III. We must touch on the famous question whether the grace of adoption is identical with infused Charity. The reader who has accepted our view that adoption by elevation to a higher personal status logically precedes the infusion of Charity, will find no difficulty in admitting a distinction between adoption and Charity. The distinction is not necessarily real, yet it must be such that the grace of adoption should not appear as an attribute of Charity, but as something fuller and deeper, round which, as a centre, are gathered the free gifts of Charity and all other infused virtues. Thus the real or ontological foundation of the life of grace is a something higher given to the soul in the act of adoption, that is, in the assimilation to God’s own life. Now the distinctive character of the Divine Life is its supreme spirituality, or more exactly its immateriality, which is spoken of in Scripture as “life of light.” Hence the higher being given to God’s adoptive children must likewise be conceived as a more refined spirituality, as a greater independence of matter, wrought in the created spirit by the indwelling Spirit of God. “That which is born of the Spirit, is spirit” (John 3:6); “You were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord: walk then as children of the light” (Eph. 5:8).
The supernatural being of the sons of God bears to Charity and the other infused virtues the relation which the natural substance of the soul bears to its faculties. It is their root, their end, their measure. Charity is the most perfect manifestation and the surest sign of the Divine life rooted in the supernatural being of the children of God. We cannot, indeed, give demonstrative proof for our opinion on this subject, because it is always possible to interpret the texts in a laxer sense. We give it as the only adequate and consistent development of the revealed doctrine concerning the dignity of the sons of God, the new birth out of God, and the participation in the Divine Nature. The language of the Church in the Councils of Vienne and of Trent, and in the condemnation of the forty-second proposition of Baius, is entirely in accordance with our view. The Roman Catechism is especially explicit: “Grace … is a Divine quality inhering in the soul, and, as it were, a sort of brightness and light which removes all the stains of our souls, and makes our souls more beautiful and bright.… To this is added a most noble company of virtues which are divinely infused into the soul together with grace” (part ii., c. 2, n. 50, 51).
Further information may be found in Gonet, Clypeus, De Gr., disp. 2.; and Goudin, De Gr., q. 4.; and also Comp. Salmant, tr. xiii., disp. iii., dub. 3, (strongly Thomistic).
Seção 49% da obra, de A Manual of Catholic Theology (Wilhelm & Scannell, sobre a Dogmatik de Scheeben). Ver o original.