Chapter XVI. The congruism of the sorbonne

WE come across this theory, though expressed with slight differences of meaning, in the works of several theologians of the eighteenth century, such as those of Tournely, Habert, Ysambert, Frassen, Thomassinus, and Duhamel. St. Alphonse is inclined to accept it. In the nineteenth century we find Father John Hermann, C.SS.R.., still admitting it, though the way he sums it up is according to its essential principles, which are: (1) “Grace is intrinsically efficacious, and in this we follow the Thomists and the Augustinians as against the Molinists. (2) Contrary to the Thomists, we say this intrinsically efficacious grace is not physical but merely a moral motion. (3) Intrinsically efficacious grace is required only for difficult salutary acts; for the easy acts, especially for prayer, sufficient grace, which is commonly granted to all, is the only grace that is required.” *

Thus a middle system is established, which is in opposition to the others, and which adopts the good points of the others. It is an eclectic system, which lays claim to the general rejection of the scientia media of the Molinists, and to the admission of a grace not extrinsically congruous, as Suarez does, but to one that is intrinsically congruous.

Father John Hermann writes: “According to the congruists of the Suarezian and Bellarminian type, the infallible effect of grace depends not upon its intrinsic power, but upon the consent of the will or the circumstances in which a man is placed. God cannot infallibly know what effect grace will have, unless He has first found out by means of the scientia

1Cf. Tractatus de divina gratia, no. 509. 163 media whether the will, situated in these or those particular circumstances is or is not going to accept the grace. We, however, say that it is a case of intrinsic congruousness, which is given by God Himself to the grace, and it consists not in any absolute entity that is superadded to the grace (and thus we reject physical premotion), but it consists in the special mode of the divine call, in its perfect adjustment, namely, to the will of the one called. . . . Wherefore, in our opinion, the congruousness of the grace reacts upon the will, and God has no need at all of the scientia media so that He may know what effect the grace will have.” ?

We see the consequence of this as regards predestination and the relations of this latter to salutary acts easy to perform, especially to the case of prayer. This same author adds: “Whereas Molinism and Thomism have their foundations in indemonstrable philosophical arguments (the former in the scientia media, the latter in physical premotion), our congruism has no special philosophic foundation, but rests solely on the truths of faith.” * Yet this same Father Hermann said elsewhere: “The Thomist system has for its foundation the metaphysical principle that God is the first Cause and universal Mover from whom all being and action must originate.” * Does not this principle transcend the limits of opinion and belong to the preambles of the faith? From this point of view, even eclecticism cannot afford to overlook it. We may ask ourselves whether this congruism does not violate this principle, by denying to salutary acts easy to perform the necessity of grace that is infallibly efficacious of itself.

THE DIFFICULTIES IN THE CONGRUISM OF THE SORBONNE

This new theory may seem more acceptable than Thomism and also than Molinism to those who scarcely consider things

2 Ibid., no. 561, 2 Ihid., no. 748. 4 Ibid., no. 390 otherwise than from the practical point of view. It tells us, indeed, that intrinsically efficacious grace is required only for salutary acts dificult to perform, but not for easier ones, such as for prayer to obtain the efficacious help. By this theory the obscurity in the mystery seems to a great extent to be eliminated. But if things are regarded from the speculative point of view, this new theory has, in the opinion of the Thomists, all the difficulties of Molinism for easy acts, and, in the opinion of the Molinists, all the obscurities of Thomism for difficult acts. In other words, from the theoretical point of view, this congruism accumulates to itself all the difficulties of the other systems, and, furthermore, the principles it admits for difficult acts have not the least metaphysical validity, since they no longer apply to other acts.

In their criticism of this theory, the Thomists and Molinists are agreed in saying that this congruism cannot help having recourse to the scientia media so that salutary acts easy to perform may be foreseen. Among Thomists of modern times, Father del Prado writes: “The congruism of the Sorbonne rejects the scientia media in name, but retains it in fact. Knowledge of simple intelligence is the name it gives to its knowledge, but in reality it is the same as the scientia media, because it precedes the decree of the divine will.” $ The essence of the scientia media consists, as a matter of fact, in the foreseeing of free conditionate futures previous to any divine determining decree. Now such is exactly the stand taken by the Sorbonne congruism in the case of salutary acts easy to perform, since in this theory these acts do not demand either divine determining decrees or grace that is infallibly efficacious of itself. Of two persons equally helped by God, it would happen, then, that one of them prays and the other does not, and the former would become better without having been loved more by God. Once more this is a violation, so the Thomists say, of the principle of predilection, that no one

thing would be better than another, unless it were loved more by God.

It will be said that at least man without a help that is efficacious of itself sometimes avoids resisting grace. Father del Prado replies to this, pointing out that for St. Thomas, “the very fact that one does not place an obstacle to grace, is due to grace.” ë Not to resist grace is a good thing which must originate from the source of all good things, that is, from God's love. Therefore he who does not resist is loved more by God than he who, situated in the same circumstances, does resist. God mercifully preserves him in the state of goodness, whereas he justly permits the other to commit sin, often as a punishment for previous sin. Thus we find ourselves confronted by two mysteries, the one of grace and the other of iniquity. This congruist theory of salutary acts easy to perform forgets this saying of St. Augustine: “Because all good things, great, mediocre, and least, come from God, it follows that even the good use of free will comes from God.’ In every salutary act, however trifling, there is to be found the mystery of grace.®

In the criticism of this congruism, Thomists and Molinists agree in saying with Schiffini: “The intrinsic and infallible efficacy of the divine decrees and of grace either is or is not in harmony with our liberty. If it is, why restrict it to difficult acts? If it is not, why admit it for them? The question here is one of salutary acts, considered as acts and as supernaturally free acts, whether they are easy or difficult to perform; because the greater or less difficulty in performing these acts does not change their species. Finally, prayer is not always an easy act, especially perseverance in prayer.” °

8 CÉ. del Prado, loc. cit., III, 404 ff. ; ° De efficaci gratia, disp. IV, sect. 6. On this point consult the first appendix in which a more recent opinion is examined by us concerning efficacious grace and salutary acts easy to perform (pp. 341-52).

We.might speak here of a congruism of later date, that of cardinals Satolli, Pecci, and Lorenzelli and of bishops Paquet and Janssens, O.S.B., who, rejecting outright the scientia media and predetermining decrees, endeavor to take an intermediate stand. They hold that God knows conditionally free acts of the future by means of His knowledge of simple intelligence, before any decree of His divine will.

To this the Thomists reply that it is a confounding of the possible with the conditionate future. This latter, even if it will never become a reality, is more than a mere possibility. It implies a new determination in answer to the question as to which of two possible contradictories Peter would choose if placed in certain circumstances. Would he or would he not be faithful to his Master? One does not have to be omniscient to see that there would be two possible choices here for Peter. But previous to any determining decree, God, by His knowledge of simple intelligence, cannot foresee what decision Peter would make, which of the two possibles he would choose.?® In the third part of this book and in the second appendix we shall resume the discussion of the view on the divine motion held by cardinals Satolli, Pecci, Lorenzelli, and also by Father Billot, S.J.

We see that the outstanding difficulty of these different forms of congruism, whether that of Suarez or of Tournely or of Satolli, is the difficulty that is raised against the theory of the scientia media, which truly seems to posit a dependence or passivity in God's foreknowledge toward a determination that is independent of His action. Chiefly on this account the Augustinians and Thomists who wrote subsequent to the Council of Trent attack the scientia media. It remains for us now to give an account of their teaching.