Sect. 148Relation of Nature and Natural Free Will to Grace—the “Obediential” Faculty—the Absolute Gratuity of GraceRelation of Nature and Natural Free Will to Grace—the “Obediential” Faculty—the Absolute Gratuity of Grace
1. The endowment of nature with grace must first of all be possible. But this supposes in nature a “receptivity” for grace, an aptitude or capacity for receiving it. Intellectual creatures alone possess this capacity, which is one of their specific perfections. Grace presupposes nature as a free and active principle which it endows with an activity of a higher order. Hence nature’s receptivity appears as an aptitude and capacity for the reception of superior activity and freedom, and, in this respect, implies the existence of natural activity as necessarily as the receptivity for a graft presupposes the life of the branch.
2. The receptivity for grace, as compared with other faculties (potentiæ) of the creature, is a natural faculty in as far as it is essentially given with rational nature; but it greatly differs from all other passive or active natural faculties. All these imply a possibility of realization in and by the natural order of things; just as a germ is developed and attains its final perfection in and by its environment. But the natural receptivity for grace and supernatural life is of a totally different character: its realization and development entirely depend on a free decree and on a fresh intervention of the creative power of God. Hence its “naturalness” must be reduced to this, that the creature is, by its nature, adapted, and, under certain circumstances, in duty bound, to obey the command of the Creator raising it to a higher estate. The receptivity in question, then, is an “obediential faculty” (potentia obedientalis), as St. Thomas, following St. Augustine, has styled it—that is, a power or faculty to obey God when He is working above nature, yet in and through nature; or, in other words, a capacity of receiving from God the power to produce effects beyond the receiver’s natural powers (see 3, q. 11, a. 1). Obediential capacity of some kind is common to all creatures, yet rational creatures alone have been transformed from simple images of God into His supernatural likeness.
Without entering into the subtle distinctions of the Schoolmen, we may say that when the possibility of supernatural life is once known, the mind, which naturally aspires to its highest possible happiness, desires such life. But the desire is not of a kind that requires fulfilment; it is merely a high aspiration. Supposing, however, that the creature has been actually called to supernatural life and has missed it, the non-fulfilment of these aspirations would cause positive unhappiness, which is in fact the greatest punishment of the damned. The obediential power, then, is an indifferent or neutral power—that is, a power by which something is possible but is not necessary. Yet it is not a cold indifference; it meets grace with an ardent desire; it makes the introduction of grace smooth and easy, and makes free opposition to grace to be an offence against God and against self.
II. 1. Free will is the chief faculty to be submitted to the elevating influence of grace. Although we cannot conceive grace as acting in a nature deprived of free will, still the exercise of unendowed free will is not essential to the acquisition or the working of grace. The efficacy of infant Baptism shows that grace is communicated even where the exercise of natural free will is physically impossible. When, however, the subject which receives grace is able to exercise its faculties, certain free acts may be admissible and even required, in order to dispose it to receive grace in a manner fitting the intellectual nature of the subject and the dignity of grace. But these free acts are not of necessity merely natural. Natural acts, as we shall see, cannot constitute a positive and direct preparation for the reception of grace, and, on the other hand, before bestowing habitual grace, God grants the “grace of internal vocation,” which is an actual grace, directly intended as a preparation and enabling free will to act supernaturally.
The denial of nature’s immediate receptivity for actual grace was one of the fundamental errors of the Semi-pelagians. They held that the congruous and fruitful acceptance of grace required a favourable disposition of the will, which they compared with the opening of the eye to catch the light, or with the setting of the sails to catch the wind. Hence their other error, that “grace is not entirely gratuitous,” because there is some merit in the natural preparatory disposition. The root of the whole heresy lies in a false conception of free will. Both Semi-pelagians and Pelagians held that an act which depended on a previous Divine influence could not be a free act. It is, however, evident that man’s free will, like all else in creation, is under Divine control, and, therefore, can be moved by God to act according to its own free nature.
2. Grace cannot be obtained, nor its acquisition be made easier, nor nature’s receptivity for grace be increased by the exercise of free will. It is first of all evident that no act of the natural will can obtain the destiny or vocation to eternal life, in the way that the services of a subject to his king might move the king to adopt the subject, or as the merits of Christ have obtained for man the vocation to grace. If such were the case, free will would naturally possess a power denied to it in the order of grace itself: for in this order the acts of free will are not meritorious of the vocation to eternal life—their meritoriousness presupposes the vocation. The personal dignity conferred upon the adopted sons enables them to perform acts worthy of eternal life. But such personal dignity is entirely wanting before the adoption; hence natural free will cannot produce an act proportionate in value to a supernatural good—in other words, cannot merit grace. The same argument proves that unendowed acts cannot even “positively” prepare or dispose the creature for the communication of grace. In fact, a disposition making the bestowal of grace, if not due, at least congruous, would imply between the disposing natural acts and the supernatural gifts a proportion which does not exist. Again, free will is unable to prepare, dispose, or move itself in such a manner that the infusion of grace should follow in a natural way, as the creation of the soul follows the organization of the matter to be informed by it. The natural disposition would be “a beginning of salvation,” whereas this beginning must be supernatural. In fact, such a disposition would constitute a positive participation in the acquisition of grace, either as inducing God to grant it, or as being a striving on the part of the creature in proportion with it.
All, then, that the creature is able to do is to keep and to perfect the capacity for grace. This preserving and perfecting of the “obediential power” is a purely negative preparation and disposition, as it consists entirely in removing the obstacles which the abuse of free will might put in the way. Considered in relation to the “smoother working” of grace, it is also a positive preparation, but as regards the first acquisition of grace, it is entirely negative and indirect, like the preparation of the soil for the reception of the seed, or the cutting of the branch for the insertion of the graft. No intrinsic connection exists between the acts of free will and the bestowal of grace. God may or may not give it to a well-disposed subject, just as He pleases. That He does usually give it is not in consequence of any law or rule, but of His own Divine pleasure. “To them that do what in them lies God does not deny His grace” and “God does not forsake unless He is forsaken” are axioms which apply to the will aided by grace, and only on that understanding express the ordinary way in which grace is communicated.
The above doctrine is laid down in the Second Council of Orange, can. 6, 7, quoting the texts, “What hast thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. 4:7); and, “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).
1. The endowment of nature with grace must first of all be possible. But this supposes in nature a “receptivity” for grace, an aptitude or capacity for receiving it. Intellectual creatures alone possess this capacity, which is one of their specific perfections. Grace presupposes nature as a free and active principle which it endows with an activity of a higher order. Hence nature’s receptivity appears as an aptitude and capacity for the reception of superior activity and freedom, and, in this respect, implies the existence of natural activity as necessarily as the receptivity for a graft presupposes the life of the branch.
2. The receptivity for grace, as compared with other faculties (potentiæ) of the creature, is a natural faculty in as far as it is essentially given with rational nature; but it greatly differs from all other passive or active natural faculties. All these imply a possibility of realization in and by the natural order of things; just as a germ is developed and attains its final perfection in and by its environment. But the natural receptivity for grace and supernatural life is of a totally different character: its realization and development entirely depend on a free decree and on a fresh intervention of the creative power of God. Hence its “naturalness” must be reduced to this, that the creature is, by its nature, adapted, and, under certain circumstances, in duty bound, to obey the command of the Creator raising it to a higher estate. The receptivity in question, then, is an “obediential faculty” (potentia obedientalis), as St. Thomas, following St. Augustine, has styled it—that is, a power or faculty to obey God when He is working above nature, yet in and through nature; or, in other words, a capacity of receiving from God the power to produce effects beyond the receiver’s natural powers (see 3, q. 11, a. 1). Obediential capacity of some kind is common to all creatures, yet rational creatures alone have been transformed from simple images of God into His supernatural likeness.
Without entering into the subtle distinctions of the Schoolmen, we may say that when the possibility of supernatural life is once known, the mind, which naturally aspires to its highest possible happiness, desires such life. But the desire is not of a kind that requires fulfilment; it is merely a high aspiration. Supposing, however, that the creature has been actually called to supernatural life and has missed it, the non-fulfilment of these aspirations would cause positive unhappiness, which is in fact the greatest punishment of the damned. The obediential power, then, is an indifferent or neutral power—that is, a power by which something is possible but is not necessary. Yet it is not a cold indifference; it meets grace with an ardent desire; it makes the introduction of grace smooth and easy, and makes free opposition to grace to be an offence against God and against self.
II. 1. Free will is the chief faculty to be submitted to the elevating influence of grace. Although we cannot conceive grace as acting in a nature deprived of free will, still the exercise of unendowed free will is not essential to the acquisition or the working of grace. The efficacy of infant Baptism shows that grace is communicated even where the exercise of natural free will is physically impossible. When, however, the subject which receives grace is able to exercise its faculties, certain free acts may be admissible and even required, in order to dispose it to receive grace in a manner fitting the intellectual nature of the subject and the dignity of grace. But these free acts are not of necessity merely natural. Natural acts, as we shall see, cannot constitute a positive and direct preparation for the reception of grace, and, on the other hand, before bestowing habitual grace, God grants the “grace of internal vocation,” which is an actual grace, directly intended as a preparation and enabling free will to act supernaturally.
The denial of nature’s immediate receptivity for actual grace was one of the fundamental errors of the Semi-pelagians. They held that the congruous and fruitful acceptance of grace required a favourable disposition of the will, which they compared with the opening of the eye to catch the light, or with the setting of the sails to catch the wind. Hence their other error, that “grace is not entirely gratuitous,” because there is some merit in the natural preparatory disposition. The root of the whole heresy lies in a false conception of free will. Both Semi-pelagians and Pelagians held that an act which depended on a previous Divine influence could not be a free act. It is, however, evident that man’s free will, like all else in creation, is under Divine control, and, therefore, can be moved by God to act according to its own free nature.
2. Grace cannot be obtained, nor its acquisition be made easier, nor nature’s receptivity for grace be increased by the exercise of free will. It is first of all evident that no act of the natural will can obtain the destiny or vocation to eternal life, in the way that the services of a subject to his king might move the king to adopt the subject, or as the merits of Christ have obtained for man the vocation to grace. If such were the case, free will would naturally possess a power denied to it in the order of grace itself: for in this order the acts of free will are not meritorious of the vocation to eternal life—their meritoriousness presupposes the vocation. The personal dignity conferred upon the adopted sons enables them to perform acts worthy of eternal life. But such personal dignity is entirely wanting before the adoption; hence natural free will cannot produce an act proportionate in value to a supernatural good—in other words, cannot merit grace. The same argument proves that unendowed acts cannot even “positively” prepare or dispose the creature for the communication of grace. In fact, a disposition making the bestowal of grace, if not due, at least congruous, would imply between the disposing natural acts and the supernatural gifts a proportion which does not exist. Again, free will is unable to prepare, dispose, or move itself in such a manner that the infusion of grace should follow in a natural way, as the creation of the soul follows the organization of the matter to be informed by it. The natural disposition would be “a beginning of salvation,” whereas this beginning must be supernatural. In fact, such a disposition would constitute a positive participation in the acquisition of grace, either as inducing God to grant it, or as being a striving on the part of the creature in proportion with it.
All, then, that the creature is able to do is to keep and to perfect the capacity for grace. This preserving and perfecting of the “obediential power” is a purely negative preparation and disposition, as it consists entirely in removing the obstacles which the abuse of free will might put in the way. Considered in relation to the “smoother working” of grace, it is also a positive preparation, but as regards the first acquisition of grace, it is entirely negative and indirect, like the preparation of the soil for the reception of the seed, or the cutting of the branch for the insertion of the graft. No intrinsic connection exists between the acts of free will and the bestowal of grace. God may or may not give it to a well-disposed subject, just as He pleases. That He does usually give it is not in consequence of any law or rule, but of His own Divine pleasure. “To them that do what in them lies God does not deny His grace” and “God does not forsake unless He is forsaken” are axioms which apply to the will aided by grace, and only on that understanding express the ordinary way in which grace is communicated.
The above doctrine is laid down in the Second Council of Orange, can. 6, 7, quoting the texts, “What hast thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. 4:7); and, “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).
Seção 50% da obra, de A Manual of Catholic Theology (Wilhelm & Scannell, sobre a Dogmatik de Scheeben). Ver o original.