Chapter XVII. Predestination according to the teaching of the post-tridentine augustinians
AUGUSTINIANISM is the name given in particular to the doctrine proposed in the seventeenth century by Cardinal Noris (1631-1704) and defended later on by the theologian Lawrence Berti (1696-1766), both of them being Augustinians. They were accused of Jansenism, though they were never condemned. Far from this being the case, their doctrine, as a matter of fact, differs essentially from Jansenism, in that it sincerely affirms liberty (freedom from necessity) and sufficient grace.
Though fully admitting for the present state of man intrinsically and infallibly efficacious grace, they differ from Thomism in their manner of conceiving the influence of the divine action on free will. For them it is a determining influence that is not physical, but merely moral. Grace acts on the soul by way of delectation. Man in his present state is determined to act either by reason of an evil delectation (concupiscence) or by reason of a good and spiritual delectation (charity). This latter is a sufficient grace when it gives the power to overcome concupiscence; it is an efficacious grace when it actually gains the victory over concupiscence, not necessitating but infallibly moving the will.
This explains the conclusions relative to predestination enunciated by L. Berti.t In these conclusions they draw a much finer distinction than the Thomists do, between the present state and that of original justice, and these conclusions
THE POST-TRIDENTINE AUGUSTINIANS 169 presuppose that grace intrinsically and infallibly efficacious is required in the present condition of man, not because the created free will, whether of angel or man, depends upon God, but because of the weakness of our free will since the fall. These conclusions appear at the beginning of Berti’s work,’ and are enunciated as follows: “Prop. LXXXVIII: God does not predetermine naturally free actions, and consequently He does not foresee them in the efficacious preordination of His will (p. 175). Prop. XCII: The creature in the state of innocence did not need the help of predetermining grace, and consequently God in the efficacious decree of His will had not the least knowledge of the perseverance of the angels (p. 186). Prop. XCVIII: God sees future free acts of the supernatural order, which acts refer to the state of fallen nature, and His seeing them is dependent upon the decree of His efficacious will (p. 197). Prop. XCIX: Human liberty is in no way affected by the divine preordinations (p. 208). Prop. C: By His antecedent will God wills all men to be saved, without a single exception (p. 215). Prop. CVI: In the dogma of predestination and grace there must be no departure from the teaching of St. Augustine (p. 228). Prop. CXIII: Morally virtuous acts, which are foreseen by God, by no means are the cause of our predestination (p. 235). Prop. CXIV: Predestination to glory precedes predestination to grace (p. 237). Prop. CXV: It is proved from Sacred Scripture that in the state of fallen nature predestination to glory is gratuitous (p. 239). Prop. CXVI: Our Holy Father Augustine most plainly taught that this same predestination to glory is gratuitous (p. 242). Prop. CXXXIII: On the part of the reprobate, original sin, of course, is partly the cause of negative reprobation (p. 289).”
The principal objection raised by the Thomists against these theses of seventeenth and eighteenth century Augustinianism is that the principle of predilection formulated by St. Augustine and St. Thomas is of absolute universality, and12 that it applies therefore not only to man in the present state, but also to man in the state of innocence and even to the angels. In speaking of the angels and their predestination, St. Augustine * said that if the good and the bad were created equally good, the former, since they received more help, attained eternal happiness, whereas the latter fell through their own fault, and this, moreover, was permitted by God for a greater good. St. Thomas gave a most universal scope to the principle of predilection, so that it applies not only to fallen man, but to every created being, and this not only because of the infirmity of their nature, but also because of their dependence upon God: “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 thing than for the other.” * No one angel or man, in whatever state he may be, would be better than another, unless he were loved more by God. The principle is of absolute universality.’
Moreover, in addition to this, the Thomists say that every salutary act, particularly if it is performed in a state of aridity, is not due to the victorious delectation. Finally, when this latter is present, since it is only a moral motion, operating by way of an objective attraction, and is not a physical motion, emanating from it and moving the will to act, it cannot be intrinsically and infallibly efficacious. God seen face to face certainly would infallibly attract our will; but the case is not the same with the pleasure we experience at the thought of God known in the obscurity of faith.
8 De Civitate Dei, XII, 9.
#Summa theol., la, q.20, a.3. 5 Cf. Billuart, Cursus theol., De gratia, diss. II, a.4.
Footnotes
Chapter 19 of 35