Chapter XIV. Predestination according to the theory advocated by molina and the molinists

THAT we may bring out clearly the essential points of this theory, we shall summarize it in Molina’s own words.) We shall stress the principles on which it rests and compare his teaching with that of St. Augustine and St. Thomas.¹

WHAT MOLINISM AFFIRMS

Molina states that St. Augustine satisfactorily proved against the Pelagians and Semipelagians that the beginning of salvation is the result of prevenient and excitant graces, which are given to us by Christ, according to God’s good pleasure, and not according to the effort made by our free will. Then he adds: “But Augustine believed that, connected with what he had most correctly taught from the Scripture about grace against the Pelagian heresy, is the question of God's eternal predestination, which is not according to the merits and nature of the use of free will as foreseen by God, but only according to His election and good pleasure (and in this sense it is most true, as was explained in Member XII); and it was in this sense that he interpreted in many of his works the text of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (chap. g), and he restricted to this meaning the text: ‘He will have all men to be saved’; ? so that this is not understood to refer absolutely to all men, but only to the predestined; (in fact St. Augustine says so, if it be a question of the efficacious will to save). This doctrine alarmingly disturbed the minds of many of the faithful, especially of those living in France, not only of the uneducated but even of the learned, and it was even the occasion that their eternal salvation was placed in jeopardy... . The divine-like Thomas, and subsequently many of the Scholastics, followed Augustine’s opinion.” *

On the question of true predestination, and this means predestination to glory, which alone can be said to apply both to the elect and the reprobates, Molina thus recognizes, precisely when summing up all his teaching on this subject, that St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and the majority of the Scholastics taught this proposition, that God's eternal predestination was not according to the merits and nature of the use of free will

as foreseen by God, but solely according to God’s election and good pleasure. In other words, he recognizes that St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and the majority of the Scholastics taught the absolute gratuity of predestination to glory, not because of foreseen merits, and Molina finds this very difficult to reconcile with the freedom of our will.

Then he adds: “In our humble opinion we declare that the whole question of reconciling the freedom of the will with divine grace, foreknowledge, and predestination, which we have taught throughout article thirteen of question fourteen, and in article six of question nineteen, and throughout question twenty-two, rests upon the following principles .. . ; and if these principles had always been given and explained, perhaps neither the Pelagian heresy would have sprung up, nor would the Lutherans have dared so impudently to deny the freedom of our will... , nor would so many of the faithful have been disturbed in their mind because of Augustine’s opinion.” ¢

This page from Molina’s work has often been quoted in course of time by the Thomists as evidence that the author of the Concordia had it well in mind to propose a new theory, and one which he esteemed far superior to the teachings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and the majority of the Scholastics. According to this theory, predestination to glory is not absolutely gratuitous, but is on account of foreseen merits. What are the underlying principles of this theory?

PRINCIPLES OF MOLINISM

Molina * enunciates four that refer: (1) to the divine concurrence; (2) to final perseverance; (3) to foreknowledge (scientia media); (4) to the disposition of circumstances in the life of the predestined. For greater accuracy, let us give a close translation of the words of the Latin text.

1. The first and fundamental principle is the mode of the divine influence, both by the general concurrence in the natural acts of our free will and by the particular helps given for supernatural acts, as already explained.* In these passages Molina strove, in fact, to establish the sufficiency of a divine simultaneous concurrence and of a grace which is not of itself infallibly efficacious, but which moves one morally by way of attraction. It becomes efficacious in actu secundo (completed act) by means of our free consent. Thus it is that Molina affirmed: “The helps of prevenient and adjuvant graces, which in the ordinary course are given to people here below, and which may be either efficacious or inefficacious for conversion or justification, depend upon the free co-operation of our will with them, and so it is freely within our power either to make them efficacious by our consent . . . or inefficacious by withholding this consent.” * In like manner, he says: “Predestination was not the result of foreordaining to confer helps of themselves efficacious.” ë Hence we have the following affirmation by Molina: “Wherefore it can happen that of two persons who are called by God, each receiving an equal interior grace, one of them of his own free will is converted, and the other remains an unbeliever. . . . It can even happen that one prevented and called by a far greater grace, of his own free will is not converted, and another with a far less grace is converted.” ° St. Thomas had written the contrary of this in formulating the principle of predilection, which is the keystone of his doctrine on predestination. He says: “Since God's love is the cause of the goodness of things, no one thing would be better than another, unless God willed a greater good for this than for the other.” 1° We at once see that Molina starts out with a conception of the created will which at least does

6 Ibid., q.14, 2.13, disp. 7-25, 27. T Ibid. q.14, 4.18, disp. 40, pp. 230-31. 8 Ibid., p. 355: cf. p. 459-

9 Ibid., q.14, a.13, disp. 12, p. 51; cÉ. p. 565. 10 Summa theol., Ia, q.20, a.3.

not seem able to be reconciled with the principle of predilection, namely, that no one thing would be better than another, unless it were loved more and helped more by God. This principle is for St. Thomas the equivalent of the text: “For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received?” 1 It presupposes, as we have seen, that the decrees of divine love and grace are of themselves efficacious, and not because of our foreseen consent. We at once perceive that these two doctrines are in opposition and we see why Molina separated from St. Thomas concerning the divine concurrence and predilection. He wrote, indeed, in the above quoted question, as follows: “I am confronted by two difficulties with regard to what St. Thomas teaches (Ia, q. 105, a. 5) about the divine motion. I do not see what is this motion and application, in secondary causes, by which God moves and applies these causes to act. . . . And I candidly confess that I have difficulty in understanding this motion and application which St. Thomas requires in secondary causes.” +?

Farther on, too, after stating the doctrine according: to which divine election precedes predestination and the foreseeing of the merits of the elect, he writes: “And this seems to be the opinion of St. Thomas (Ia, q. 23, a. 4)... . But I never found it acceptable.” 13

2. Second principle. No less striking is the difference between these two teachings when we consider Molina’s second principle:

“The second principle is a lawful or rather orthodox one, which explains the way in which the gift of perseverance operates. We have, indeed, clearly shown that no adult at all can persevere long in the state of grace without God's help, and for this reason perseverance in grace is God's gift; but God denies no one the help sufficient for perseverance. Hence

11 I Cor, 4:7. 12 Ibid., q.14, 2.19, disp. 26, p. 152. 13 Ibid., q.22, a.1~2, disp. 2, p. 429.

two things are necessary for the gift of perseverance. One is that God has decided to confer those helps by means of which He foresaw that the adult freely will persevere. The other is that the adult’s free will is required as an indispensable condition; for without it the will to confer such helps would not imply the will to confer the gift of perseverance, which is such that the adult will, of course, freely co-operate with these helps so as to persevere; and it is in his power for him to do so.” 14

In other words, the actual grace of final perseverance for adults is not of itself efficacious, but only by reason of our foreseen consent, so that, as Molina says,!* of two dying persons who are helped by equal graces, one dies a good death, and the other does not; sometimes even the one who dies a Christian death received a lesser grace. St. Thomas had written the contrary of this in formulating the principle of predilection: “He who makes a greater effort, has received a greater grace; but that he makes a greater effort, he needs to be moved by a higher cause, according to the text: ‘Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted. Lam. 5: 21.” 18

According to the Thomist opinion, this Molinist conception depreciates this grace which is reserved for the elect and which the Council of Trent calls the great and special gift of perseverance." How can we possibly imagine this gift to be equal or even inferior to the assistance given to one who does not persevere?

3. The third principle to which Molina appeals as foundation for this theory on predestination concerns the scientia media: “The third principle is that foreknowledge mediate be-

16 Jn Matt. 25:15; cf. Summa, Ia, q.20, a.3-4: “No one thing would be better than another, unless it were loved more by God.” Also Ia Ilae, q.112, a.4.

tween God’s free knowledge and that which is merely natural. By this mediate foreknowledge, as explained (q. 14, a. 13, disp. 50 ff.), God knew, before any free act of His will, what in each particular case the created free will would do, if God decided to arrange the circumstances for these men or angels. If the created free will should decide upon an opposite course of action, as it can do, He would, nevertheless, know it by this same foreknowledge.” **

This theory of the scientia media, which, together with the Molonist definition of created liberty, constitutes the keystone of Molinism, is proposed by Molina as a new way of viewing the question. He writes: “I do not know of anyone who has ever advanced this theory of ours for reconciling the freedom of the will with divine predestination.”

What this new theory states is this: Before any free decree of His will, God foresaw what a certain man would freely choose, if he were situated in certain circumstances and prompted by a certain grace. It is not in God’s power to foresee by the scientia media any other thing, but He could do so if the created free will were to choose something different. This divine foresight depends upon the choice a person would make in these given circumstances.

This new way of viewing the question, rejected by all Thomists, Augustinians, Scotists, and other theologians as contrary to God’s sovereign independence with regard to every determination of the created order, was thus formulated by Molina: “It was not in God’s power to know by this knowledge (mediate) anything else than He actually knew. Then again it must not be called natural even in this sense, as if it were so innate in God that He could not know the contrary of what He knows by it. For, if the created free will had chosen to do the opposite, as it truly can do, this very same

thing He would have known by the same knowledge, but not that He actually knows it.” 2

According to this theory, God no longer determines what choice the creature would make in certain circumstances. His knowledge, said to be mediate in this case, is dependent upon this choice and is determined by it. Is not this a positing of passivity in pure Act, who is incapable of passivity or dependence upon anything whatsoever? The dilemma still remains to be solved, to wit: God determining or determined; there is no other alternative.

Molina, it is true, not only declares that his theory is a new one, but also that it seems to be contrary to the teaching of St. Thomas. After explaining it, deriving his inspiration from Origen, he adds: “Although, to tell the truth, St. Thomas seems to suggest the contrary (Ia, q. 14, a.8 ad 1um), when he explains and attempts to interpret in the opposite sense the passage of Origen to which we shall immediately refer, in which he is clearly of the same opinion as we are.” **

Origen, whose views on predestination are known to be very erroneous, had written: “A thing will happen not because God knows it as future; but, because it is future, it is on that account known by God before it exists.” ?* If we were to interpret literally these words of Origen, God’s knowledge, far from being like the artist’s knowledge, the cause of things, would be caused, measured by the things, dependent upon them, and passive with regard to them. It would follow that creatures do not depend upon the divine knowledge and will, but that God’s foreknowledge depends upon them.** That is why St. Thomas strove to give a more benign interpretation to these words of Origen. In this he was not followed by Molina.

4. The fourth principle to which Molina has recourse shows us clearly how predestination, according to his view of it, depends upon foreseen merits, and how the principle of predilection (that no one thing would be better than another, unless it were loved more by God) has thus charged against it, according to this theory, the note of relativity. We read, in fact, concerning this: “The fourth principle is that God willed to create this order of things preferably to any other, and in this order to confer these particular helps preferably to certain others, by means of which He foresaw these particular persons, and not certain others, will attain to eternal life, there being no cause or reason for this on the part of the adults, both predestined and reprobates. And so on this account we said that the use of free will on the part of the predestined and the reprobates is not the cause or reason of predestination; but this must be attributed to the free will of God.” *4

This means that God’s good pleasure alone is the cause that this particular man is placed in these particular circumstances, in which He foresees that the man will save his soul. God could have placed him in certain different circumstances, in which by means of the scientia media He foresees that He would be lost. In other words, it is perfectly gratuitous that this particular man is predestined to live in these particular circumstances and with these particular helps in which God foresaw that he would be saved.

Molina also remarks: “That the divine will to place a certain man in a certain order of things and circumstances with certain helps, can be called predestination, is due solely to the fact that it is dependent upon merits foreseen by the scientia media. In this sense there is a reason for the predestination of the adults, in that God foresees their merits. And for this reason we said that there is a reason for the predestination of adults, in that the use of their free will was foreseen.” **

As Father F. Cayré, A.A., says: “Without going so far as to make out almost the same case for the elect and the reprobates, as Vasquez does (in Jam, q. 23, disp. 8g), Molina so stresses the part played by the intellect that Suarez feels obliged, by a discreet counterstroke, to modify his teaching and insist much more on the role of the will, thus coming nearer, in this delicate question, to the stand taken by Bannez.” 2°

Father Billot, S.J.” holds that Molina, like Suarez and Bellarmine, admitted predestination to glory apart from foreseen merits. Certain texts of the Concordia seem to say that it is not because of future foreseen merits; but those we have quoted and many others show that it is at least subsequent to conditionally future foreseen merits, or else that it presupposes the foreseeing by means of the scientia media the merits which a certain man would acquire, if he were placed in certain circumstances.

Moreover, the majority of Molinists, like Vasquez and Lessius, hold that for Molina predestination to glory is not only because of conditionally but also of absolutely future foreseen merits; so that it presupposes the foreseeing of the merits that will actually be acquired by a certain man placed in certain circumstances; for the divine will to place him in such circumstances can be called predestination, so said Molina, only because of its dependence upon the foreseeing of his future merits. Thus Lessius wrote: “The absolute and immediate election to glory does not take place before it is foreseen that one will persevere or die in a state of grace, just as absolute reprobation does not take place before it is foreseen that one will die in a state of sin.” #* Vasquez, Valentia, and the majority of the Molinists made similar statements.”°

Such in substance is Molina’s view of predestination. It has undergone slight variations of relative unimportance. Some,

28 De praedestinatione et reprobatione, sect. II, no. 6. 29 Cf. Dict. de théol. cath., art. “Molinisme,” co}. 2170.

as we have just said, interpret it in the sense that predestination is the result of future foreseen merits; others that it is the result of conditionally future foreseen merits. These latter, like Father Billot, strive to make their teaching on this point differ but little from that of St. Augustine and St. Thomas. St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez almost succeed in accomplishing this, when they say that for God, as for every wise person, the choice of the means or of the graces follows logically the appointment of the end, or, in other words, predestination to glory, which, in this case, is conceived as previous to foreseen merits. Some Molinists also rejected Molina’s theory of simultaneous concurrence, preferring to admit a divine premotion that is indifferent or non-determining. We shall return to a discussion of these variations, but let us first state precisely their common ground of support.

WHAT IS THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN MOLINISM?

We can answer this question by stating what the Molinists are agreed upon in then defense of this doctrine. First of all, the essence of Molinism consists in a definition of created liberty which includes the denial of the intrinsic efficacy of the divine decrees and of grace, obliging one to admit the theory of the scientia media. All those theologians whose views are either closely or remotely connected with Molinism, are agreed on this point. Their opponents recognize also that such is the starting-point of the Molinist system, and they refuse to admit this definition which, in their opinion, is not at all the traditional teaching,

It is thus formulated by Molina at the beginning of his work: “That agent is said to be free, which, granted all the requisites for action, can either act or not act.” * This definition, which is quoted eventually by all Molinists, does not

Eey Loc. cit., pp. 51, 190, 225, 230-31, 304, 311 ff., 318, 356, 459 ff., 498, 502, 505.

seem at first sight to establish a precedent. But when we see that it is the underlying principle of all Molina’s theses,** and that it necessarily implies the theory of the scientia media unknown to all theologians previous to his time,** we conclude that it is just as new as the theory which Molina told us had never been proposed before him.**

What exactly do the terms of this definition of free will mean for Molina and the Molinists, when it is declared to be “a faculty which, granted all that is required for action, can either act or not act?” These words, “granted all that is required,” denote not only what is a prerequisite for the act to be free according to a priority of time, but also what is a prerequisite for it to be so according to a simple priority of nature and causality, like actual grace which is received at the very moment when the salutary act is performed. Moreover, according to its author, this definition does not mean that, under the influence of efficacious grace, the free will retains the power to resist, though it never does actually will to resist under the influence of this efficacious grace. It means that grace is not of itself efficacious, but only because of our foreseen consent. The nature of this grace is such that God could have foreseen not the good consent, but the actual resistance. This definition of free will is connected indeed with the two previously quoted propositions that concern the scientia media. They state: (1) That it was not in God’s power to know by this knowledge anything else than He actually knew; (2) But if the created will were to do the opposite, as it truly can, God would have known even this by the same knowledge, but not that He actually knows it.** It was not in God’s power to foresee anything else; but He would have foreseen something else, if the choice of the created free will had been different. The divine foreseeing thus depends upon the choice man

would and will make on the supposition that he is placed in certain circumstances.

This gave rise to all the controversies on this point since the Council of Trent. But we cannot really grasp the meaning of this definition and see all that it implies, unless we compare it with its opposite. In this way, by going back to what is the very point at issue in the controversy, it becomes clarified and simplified.

In the opinion of the Thomists, the Molinist definition of liberty is not formulated according to the true method of logical procedure, because it abstracts from the object that specifies the free act. It neglects the fundamental principle that faculties, habits, and acts are specified by their object. If, on the contrary, we consider the object to be the specifying principle, then we shall say with the Thomists: Liberty is the dominating indifference of the will as regards an object proposed by the reason as not being good in every respect. The essence of liberty consists in the dominating indifference of the will as regards every object proposed by the reason at the moment of consideration as good in one aspect, and not good in another; rightly so it is the indifference as to willing or not willing the object, an indifference that is potential on the part of the faculty, and actual on the part of the free act. For even when the will actually wills this object, when it is already determined to will the same, it still tends toward this object with an indifference that is no longer potential but actual. Liberty, therefore, results from the disproportion prevailing between the will that is specified by universal good and a certain finite good, this latter object being considered good in one aspect and not so in another. This is what St. Thomas says, for he remarks as follows: “If the will is offered an object that is not good from every point of view, it will not tend to this of necessity.” ** And in opposition to Suarez, the Thomists add: “Even by His absolute power, God cannot, by mov-

ing the will, necessitate it to will a certain object, when the indifference of judgment remains unchanged.” Why so? Because it implies a contradiction for the will to wish necessarily the object proposed to it as indifferent by the intellect, or one that is absolutely out of proportion to the universality of its scope. What are we to conclude about the subject in question that concerns us?

It was pointed out earlier in this work that the theologians of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries always use the same formula, stating that if God wills efficaciously a certain salutary act to be performed, such as the conversion of the good thief or of St. Paul, this act infallibly though freely is accomplished, according to a necessity not of consequent but of consequence “just as it is necessary for Socrates to sit whilst he is seated, though it is optional for him to be seated.” ** We have drawn particular attention to the following important text of St. Thomas: “If God moves the will to anything, it is incompossible with this suggestion, that the will be not moved thereto. But it is not impossible simply. Consequently it does not follow that the will is moved by God necessarily.” $8 Similarly, St. Thomas says: “It is incompossible for anyone to sit and stand at the same time, but whilst one sits, one has the power to stand.” To deny this is to say that he who sleeps is blind; he does not see, but he has the power to see.

In other words, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, under the influence of efficacious grace, the free will never wills in fact to resist and posit the contrary act (for then grace would cease to be efficacious), but it retains the power to do so. Does it follow then that efficacious grace is necessitating, as the Protestants and Jansenists thought, and that liberty strictly so called is destroyed, which consists in an indifference as regards the two opposites, and which is free not only from s6 Cf, De veritate, q.22, a.5.

87 Cf. Pohle-Preuss on Grace, p. 243, for a criticism of this distinction. (Tr.)

88 Loc. cit., la Ilae, q.10, a.4 ad gum; cf. Ia, q.105, a.4; Ia Hae, q.112, a.3; De veritate, q.22, a.8-9; De malo, q.6, a.1 ad gum, compulsion but also from necessity? By no means. For St. Thomas, efficacious grace affects liberty by a sort of virginal contact, without violating it. Under the influence of efficacious grace, at the indivisible instant in which the salutary act is performed, in our will which already determines itself and is determined (for becoming and done are simultaneous in those things that are done instantaneously), there is undoubtedly no more any question of a passive or potential indifference on the part of the will in determining itself to either of two contraries; but there is an actual and active dominating indifference in the free act itself already determined which, proceeding from a faculty, the scope of which is universal, tends not from necessity but freely toward the chosen good, having really within itself the power not to will it. Certainly one cannot, in willing this thing, actually not will it, for that would be a contradiction; but in willing it, one has really the power not to will it, just as, according to the classical example, one cannot at the same time be standing and seated, but, when one is seated, it is really within one’s power to rise. St. Thomas added that potential indifference is not of the essence of liberty, for it does not exist in God, who is simply pure Act, in no way potential, and sovereignly free, not only before but in choosing, and after having determined from eternity His choice, whom nothing created could infallibly attract or determine. Under the influence of the divine and efficacious motion, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, we still retain this dominating indifference, which is not potential but actual, and which is an image of the divine actuality. For Molina, on the contrary, it must of necessity be that, under the influence of this so-called efficacious grace (not taking into consideration the divine foreseeing of our consent), the free will retains not only the actual dominating indifference, which properly belongs to the free act that is already determined and that still tends freely toward its object; but he also will have it retain under the influence of this grace the poten- tial indifference, and that it be within its power actually to resist.

To this the Thomists reply that when the will actually resists, the grace is no longer efficacious but merely sufficient. Now most assuredly, he who actually fulfils a precept is certainly better, other things being equal, than he who can and does not do so. Therefore, in virtue of the principle of predilection, he who fulfils a precept is loved more and helped more by God than he who does not do so. He receives from God not only the power to fulfil the precept, but actually and freely to do so. “What hast thou that thou hast not received?” *

Certainly Molina could not ignore this last mentioned principle. But did his theory finally lead him to respect its truth? St. Thomas wrote: “If God moves the will to anything, it is incompossible with this supposition, that the will be not moved thereto.” *° Molina, however, declared it to be at the same time possible, at least abstracting from the fact of the divine foreseeing of our consent, a foreseeing which St. Thomas does not mention. For St. Thomas, it is a case of two total and subordinated causes, the secondary determining itself for good only under the influence of the primary cause. For Molina, even without taking too seriously here the famous comparison of the barge drawn by two horses, it seems truly to be a case of two partial and co-ordinated causes. The free will induced to act by grace has a causality that is exclusively its own; it is not applied to its act by God. We see that the two rival doctrines start from very different principles.

St. Thomas and the great theologians who preceded him start from this supreme principle: the love of God is the cause of the goodness in things. From this they conclude that divine love is the cause of the better part in our salutary act, its free determination, and this cannot be withdrawn from its de-

pendence upon the divine causality. They say that this free determination is not exclusively ours, but that it is totally from God as primary cause, and totally from us as premoved secondary cause. “There is no distinction between what flows from a secondary cause and from a first cause,” ** says St. Thomas. Taken in this sense we have here the case of two total subordinated causes and not of two partial co-ordinated causes.

St. Thomas adds that God’s transcendent causality ‘‘produces in us and with us even the free mode of our acts,” ** for this mode is still a being that is dependent upon the first Being. This free mode is the actual dominating indifference of our will, which tends actually toward some particular good that is incapable of irresistibly attracting it; for the will is specified by universal good, and it could not be irresistibly held captive except by the attraction of seeing God face to face. This dominating indifference of willing, which constitutes for the will its free mode, is a participation in one of God’s absolute perfections, this being His liberty; but it is merely an analogical participation, for no perfection can be attributed univocally, that is, in the same sense, to God and to us. From this St. Thomas concludes that no thing would be better than another unless it were loved more by God.** Thus his entire doctrine on predestination is derived from this principle: “Since God’s love is the cause of the goodness in things, ao one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than for another.” “ It is a corollary of the principles of causality and of the universal causality of the first Agent. Not for one moment does St. Thomas doubt that the laws governing free action are in harmony with those more general laws governing being and acting, and that they cannot contradict them.

41 Ibid., Ia, q.23, a.5. 42 Ibid., Ta, q.19, a.8. 48 Ibid., q.20, a.3 44 Ibid., q.20, a.3.

Molina, contrary to this, starts off with a definition of free will that excludes the intrinsic efficacy of the divine decrees and of grace. Consequently the better part in our salutary acts, their free determination, which makes them efficacious, seems to be withdrawn from its dependence upon God's universal causality. Hence his denial of the principle of predilection as formulated by St. ‘Thomas. In fact we read in the index to Molina’s work, under the heading “free will,” the following statement: “Free will is sufficient, so that in the case of two called and helped by an equal interior grace, one is converted and the other not.” *® Of two men equally helped by God, one occasionally becomes better than the other, better without having received more than the other. We shall see that the principal objections of the Thomists bear upon this point, and that at the end of the controversy we are confronted by the dilemma of either God determining or de termined. There is no other alternative; for the divine foreknowledge, united to the divine will, is either the cause of our free determination or else is passive in their regard. God is either the author or merely the spectator of that which begins to distinguish the just from the impious. In other words, what does St. Paul mean when he says: “For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received?” **

The essence of Molinism is to be found in the aforesaid definition of free will and in the consequences it entails, which are the denial of the intrinsic efficacy of the divine decrees and of grace, for which are substituted the theory of the scientia media and of grace extrinsically efficacious by reason of our foreseen consent. On these points, notwithstanding their incidental differences, all Molinists are agreed.

It must be noted that in the Molinist system this definition of free will ought to be applicable to the impeccable free will of Christ, who, for all that, freely obeyed in such manner

that He not only never did disobey, but that He never could do so. It is a most perfect image of God's sovereign and impeccable free will, in which there is no trace of any potential dominating indifference, but only an actual dominating indifference as regards all created things. This, the Thomists say, shows us that our free will persists even when, under the influence of efficacious grace, there remains no longer the potential but only the actual dominating indifference, understood in this sense that God, far from forcing us, causes in us and with us that our acts be performed freely.

THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST MOLINISM

It is easy to account for the objections raised against Molina’s work after its publication by referring to those mentioned in the appendix of that work. * They are directed principally against the three theses of Molinism, which are: (1) its definition of free will; (2) its theory of the scientia media and of efficacious grace, especially in its relation to the principle of predilection; (3) its theory of predestination after foreseen merits.

1. Its definition of free will. The first opponents of Molinism, as can be seen from the writings of the Thomists of this period, affirmed that it rests entirely upon a definition of human liberty which cannot be proved either by experience or a priori, and which is nothing but a begging of the question.** It cannot be shown from experience, they say, that the free determination of our salutary acts is independent as such of the divine causality, and that God does not cause this in us and with us, even to the extent that our actions are performed freely. This mysterious divine causality, which is more intimate to the free will than this latter is to itself, no more comes

48 Consult Bannez, Lemos, Alvarez, John of St. Thomas, Salmanticenses, in their treatises on God and grace within the scope of our experience than does the divine conservation which keeps us in existence.

No more could reason, so these theologians teach, prove the validity of this definition. On the contrary, it is manifest to reason that the potential indifference between two decisions is not of the essence of liberty, since it could not exist in God, who is sovereignly free, and no more is it present in our free act that is already determined. As for the actual or active indifference, which is included in the free act already determined, this cannot be attributed univocally to God and to us, but only analogically or as of things proportionately alike, according to a participation which makes what is more intimate and better in the choice of our salutary free act depend upon God's choice. It would be, so the Thomists said, a begging of the question to deny this dependence, thus discarding one of the elements of the problem to be solved; and in the name of the principle of causality, and of the universal and transcendent pre-eminence of the divine causality, they protest against this.

Revelation, they went on to remark, could not be invoked in favor of this definition, since it speaks to us in the following terms: “Lord almighty King . . . there is none that can resist Thy will”; ** “As the divisions of waters, so the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord”; ®© “for it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to His good will.” *

The Council of Trent does not impose this definition when it declares against the Protestants who maintained that grace efficacious of itself destroyed free will: “If anyone saith that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling does in no wise co-operate towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of jus-

tification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.” * By this definition, in the preparation of which several Augustinians and Thomists took part, is excluded, so Molina’s opponents say, the Protestant thesis according to which grace of itself efficacious is necessitating or irreconcilable with the principle of freedom from necessity. By this declaration of the council, it is affirmed that, under the influence of this grace, our will co-operates vitally and freely with the salutary act, and that it is within its power to resist, if it so wishes; but it does not say that under the influence of this efficacious grace, it happens that the will actually resists this grace and, if it were so, grace could no longer be said to be truly efficacious, but, on the contrary, it would be inefficacious, and through our own fault would be sterile.’

As these Thomists point out, the Protestants said that grace of itself efficacious is irreconcilable with freedom from necessity. Now, grace is of itself efficacious. Therefore there is no freedom from necessity. Molinism concedes the major of this syllogism and denies the minor. The Thomists, the Augustinians, and the Scotists deny the major, concede the minor, and deny the conclusion.

2. The scientia media. The difficulties encountered in this theory were as great as those presented by the Molinist definition of liberty which it presupposes. These objections of the Thomists and the Augustinians are fully discussed in their treatises on God."

a) They say that the theory of the scientia media supposes that, if Peter and Judas were placed in the same circumstances and given equal graces, it could happen that one is converted

52 Denz., no. 797. For an interpretation of this in favor of the Molinist theory, see Pohle-Preuss on Grace, pp. 243-44. (T r.) s3 Cf. A. Reginald, O.P., De mente concilii Tridentini, and A. Massoulié,

O.P., Divus Thomas sui interbres, Vol. I. diss. 2, q-9. $4 Cf. Billuart, Cursus theol., De Deo, diss. VI, a.6.

and the other not, or that entirely of his own accord the one distinguishes himself from the other. In fact, Molina said: “Given equal help, it can happen that of two persons called, one is converted and the other not.” * And Lessius added: “Not that he who accepts, does so by his free will alone, but because the difference is the result of free will alone, so as not to be due to the diversity of prevenient grace.” * Now, the Thomists, the Augustinians, and the Scotists say that, contrary to this, St. Paul wrote in one of his epistles as follows: “For what distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received?” * This text is explained by St. Augustine and St. Thomas in a sense quite the opposite of that which the theory of the scientia media claims it to have.**

b) Moreover, the opponents of Molinism remark that this so-called scientia media cannot have any object; for, previous to any divine decree, there cannot be any conditionate future or any conditionate future that is determined. Previous to any decree, God can well foresee, as we too can, that if Peter is placed in certain circumstances and helped by a grace not necessarily efficacious, there are two possibilities: for he can be either faithful to his Master or betray Him; but He cannot foresee infallibly which of these two possibilities Peter will choose; for neither the scrutiny of Peter’s will, which is of itself undetermined, nor a survey of the circumstances or of the grace not necessarily efficacious, admit of God infallibly foreseeing this, but merely of conjecturing it. The conditionate future, in fact, is more than a mere possible; it denotes a new determination in answer to the question: Which of these two possible alternatives would happen? To say that the conditionate future is infallibly known because of God's super-

58 Cf. Salmanticenses, Cursus theol., De gratia efficaci, disp. 2, dub. 1.

comprehension in knowledge of the created will and circumstances, is, instead of saving free will, to fall into the error of determinism of circumstances, which is the denial of free will; and so we cannot assign any object to the scientia media, if we wish to avoid determinism.

St. Thomas had written: “Contingent futures, the truth of which is not determined, are not in themselves knowable.” 5° In his opinion, that is true of conditionally free acts of the future as well as of absolutely free acts of the future. God cannot see them in His essence previous to any decree; for He would see them there on the same grounds as absolutely necessary truths, and this would thus be a reverting to the logical fatalism of the Stoics.

The Molinists tried hard to answer this objection, which is considered by their opponents to be incapable of solution. On this point Leibniz remarked: “It is amusing to see how they torment themselves to find a way out of a labyrinth when there is absolutely no way out.” © c) Again the Thomists object to the theory of the scientia media, stating that it leads to the denial of God’s universal causality since it takes away from the latter the better part in our salutary acts, which is their free determination. Hence it is derogatory to God’s omnipotence and supreme dominion, since it claims that God cannot be the cause in us and with us that we determine ourselves to act, and that we do so freely. It leads also to the admission of a passivity or a dependence of God’s foreknowledge upon this free determination of the created order, which at first is a conditional future, and then a simple future. God is no longer the cause but the passive spectator of that which distinguishes the just from the impious, who are equally helped by Him in the same circumstances. God, no longer being the first who determines by His free determination or election, is Himself determined;

His knowledge is passive with regard to one thing, a determination that does not come from Him. Now there is nothing more inadmissible than the positing of a passivity in the pure Act, or of a dependence in Him who is sovereignly independent and the cause of all good. The Thomists pointed out several other inconveniences that arise from the theory of the scientia media. It suffices to note here the principal ones.

All of them have said that the theory of the scientia media violates the principle of predilection as formulated by St. Thomas, which is: “Since God's love is the source of all good, no one thing would be better than another unless it were loved more by God.” * In fact, among the most criticized of Molina’s propositions, as the appendix to his work shows," there is one that must be quoted here. It is as follows: “Of two that are called and equally aided by an interior grace, it can happen that one of them of his own free will is converted and the other remains an unbeliever.” ° It was objected that this was contrary to the principle of predilection as formulated even before St. Thomas, by St. Paul and St. Augustine. The principle of predilection, as we have seen, presupposes that the divine decrees and grace are efficacious of themselves and not because of our foreseen consent. For this reason Molina is incapable of recognizing this principle to be of universal and absolute validity, and he reduces it to this: It is because God loved Peter more than Judas that He decided to place him in a certain situation of circumstances in which He foresaw that Peter would be saved; and this is due solely to God's good pleasure. But nevertheless it remains true that such a one elected is saved, without having been helped more than a certain person who is lost. Molina even said: “That those who received more help were not predestined and saved, but that those who received less were predestined and saved, was

due to no other reason than that the latter refused to make use of their native free will, so that of their own accord they might attain salvation; but the former most assuredly did so.” * This proposition was one of those most criticized from the outset of the controversies.

3. Predestination “because of foreseen merits.” Finally, the opponents of Molinism raised a serious objection against the theory of predestination “because of foreseen merits.” Regardless of St. Paul’s texts to which they appealed in refutation of this theory, they brought up against it the principle that God, like every intelligent being, wills the end before the means, since the latter are willed only in view of the end, and hence He wills glory to His elect before He wills the grace by which they will merit this glory. This is what St. Thomas had said. **

Such are the principal objections that were raised against the Molinist theory of predestination, especially in the Congregation appointed in Rome by Clement VIII and known as De Auxiliis. The conferences lasted from January 2, 1598 until August 20, 1607. Beginning with the year 1602, the sovereign pontiffs themselves took charge of the debates. Eighty-five papal congregations were held, sixty-eight under Clement VIII, and seventeen under Paul V. Under Clement VIII what particularly came up for examination was the Molinist doctrine concerning the natural power of free will, the scientia media, predestination, and the good use of the divine assistance. Especially so was Molina’s doctrine compared with that of St. Augustine. The principal defenders of Thomism were Didacus Alvarez, Thomas de Lemos, and Michael a Ripa; the leading theologians in the Society of Jesus were Michael Vasquez, Gregory of Valentia, Peter Arrubal, and de Bastida, who in general recognized that the congruism

proposed by St. Bellarmine and Suarez was more in conformity with the teachings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas than Molinism was. On the whole, under Clement VIII, the opinions were unfavorable to the author of the Concordia. However, no sentence of condemnation was issued by Clement VIII, who died in 1605. At the end of that year Paul V resumed the discussions and authorized even an examination of the question of physical predetermination; but most of the censors declared themselves to be in favor of Thomism. The commission upheld its censures against forty-two of Molina’s propositions. Neither Molina (+1600), nor Bannez (+1604) saw the end of this strife. On August 28, 1607, Paul V consulted for the last time the cardinals then present, who were very divided in their opinions. The Pope then adjourned the congregation, and ordered both parties not to indulge in mutual condemnations.

It is of particular importance here to quote the conclusion given by Paul V on August 28, 1607, after consulting various cardinals. This is to be found in the work of P. G. Schneeman, S.J.°7 It reads as follows: “By the grace of God the council defined it to be necessary for the free will to be moved by God. The difficulty consists in this, as to whether it is moved physically or morally; and although it would be desirable that there should be no strife of this kind in the Church, for disagreements often are the cause of the sudden rise of errors, it therefore is a good thing for these disputes to be finally settled. Nevertheless, we do not see the necessity for this at present, in that the opinion of the Dominican fathers differs very much from Calvin's; for the Dominicans say that grace does not destroy but perfects free will, and its power is such that man acts in his own way, which is freely. But the Jesuits differ from the Pelagians, who declared the beginning of salvation originated from us, whereas the former hold quite the

67 Cf. Controversiarum de divinae gratiae liberique arbitrii concordia initia et progressus, Freiburg-Breisgau, 1881, p. 291.

contrary. Since there is therefore no urgent need of a definition on our part, the question can be deferred until in course of time we are better informed about it.”

This decision was afterward confirmed by a decree of Benedict XIV, issued on July 13, 1748.

Footnotes

1. Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia, praedestinatione et reprobatione, 1595. Cf. q-23, a.4-5, disp. I, membr. ult., Paris ed. 1876, pp. 546-49. Here Molina sums up his doctrine on this subject. ↩