Chapter XXI. The motive for reprobation

First of all it is clear that the positive reprobation of angels and men presupposes that their demerits were foreseen; for God can will to inflict the penalty of damnation only for failure in doing one’s duty. In this all Catholics agree that God wills not the death of the sinner, but that he be con- _ verted and live.’ The theologians often quote these words of God uttered by the prophet: “Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in Me.” ?

Moreover, it is evident that God can will a thing only in so far as it is good; and for punishment to be good and just, this presupposes a sin. In this it differs from reward, which is good in itself, regardless of merits. Reward, in virtue of its being an excellent gift, can be willed in the order of intention before foreseen merits, although in the order of execution and in virtue of its being a reward, it depends upon them. We cannot say as much about punishment, nor look for an absolute parallelism between good and evil.

The motive for negative reprobation, taken absolutely or in a general way, is not the foreseen demerits of the reprobates; for this negative reprobation is nothing else but the divine permission of these demerits, and therefore it logically precedes instead of following the foreseeing of them. Without this divine permission, these demerits would not happen in time, and from all eternity they would remain unforeseen. We must say, in accordance with the text just quoted t Ezech. 33: 11; II Pet. 3: 9.

THE MOTIVE FOR REPROBATION 207 from St. Thomas,’ that the motive for negative reprobation is that God willed to manifest His goodness not only by means of His mercy, but also by means of His justice, and that it belongs to Providence to permit certain defectible beings to fail and certain evils to happen, without which there would be no good things of a higher order.

If we ask why God chose this person and not that other, there is, as we have seen from St. Thomas, no reason for this but simply the divine will which is thus the motive both for individual predestination and the negative reprobation of this particular person rather than that other. In other words, among equally defectible rational creatures, why the defection of this particular person is permitted rather than of a certain other, there is no reason for this but the divine will. And somehow all Catholic theologians admit it, for all of them must admit at least that God could have preserved intact those who are lost, and permitted the fall of those who are saved.

The principal difficulty that confronts us here is this: the will to manifest the splendor of avenging justice before having foreseen the defection, is to will the punishment before the defection, and this is an injustice. Now, such would be the case according to the preceding explanation. Therefore it is inadmissible.

The Thomists reply by denying the major, because it confounds infinite justice with the punishment that is a manifestation of this justice. As a matter of fact, God does not will to permit the defection because of His love to chastise, for that would be repugnant to justice. But He permits it as a manifestation of His infinite justice and of the right of sovereign Good to be loved above all things, and He afterward inflicts the punishment on account of the defection.

In this way the punishment is but a finite means of manifesting infinite justice, and it is a means that is not an inter-

mediate end willed before the permission of the defection, for it is good and just to punish only for a defection. Therefore, most certainly God wills to permit sin, not from love of imposing a finite chastisement, but from love of His infinite justice, or from love of His sovereign goodness that has a right to be loved above all things. Finally, when God wills to manifest His avenging justice, this truly presupposes the possibility of sin, but not as yet that He permits or foresees it. The case is quite different when He wills to inflict the punishment of damnation.

Still the objection is raised that “God forsakes not those who have been justified, unless He be first forsaken by them,” as the Council of Trent says.‘ Now this would be so if He willed to permit the defection or the sin before He foresaw it.

To this we must reply: (1) This text of the Council is taken from St. Augustine, who admitted, however, that negative reprobation or the permission of sin is logically prior to the foreseeing of the same; (2) this text refers not to all men, but to the just, and it means that God does not deprive them of habitual or sanctifying grace except for mortal sin; (3) it means again in a more general way that nobody is deprived of an efficacious grace that is necessary for salvation except through his own fault, for God never commands what is impossible; (4) but this defect, on account of which God refuses efficacious grace, would not happen without God’s permission, which is certainly not its cause but its indispensable condition. We must therefore distinguish between God’s mere permission of sin, which is evidently prior to the sin permitted, and His refusal of efficacious grace on account of this sin. This refusal is a punishment that presupposes the defect, whereas the defect presupposes the divine permission,

THE MOTIVE FOR REPROBATION 209

God’s permission of sin, which is good in view of the end (for a greater good), implies certainly the non-continuance of the created will in the performance of good at that particular time. This non-continuance, not being something real, is not a good; but neither is it an evil, for it is not the privation of a good that is due to one; it is merely the negation of a good that is not due to one. Undoubtedly God is bound to maintain in existence a spiritual and created will, but He is not bound to maintain in the performance of good this will which by its nature is defectible. If God were bound to do so, sin would never happen, and the sinlessness of Mary would not be a privilege. The non-continuance of our will in the performance of good is not an evil, either of sin or of punishment; it is a non-good: just as nescience is not ignorance, but a negation and not a privation. On the contrary, God’s withdrawal of efficacious grace is a punishment, and it is a punishment that presupposes at least a first defection.

We may still say with St. Thomas ® that, after a first sin, the divine permission of a second and a third sin is already a punishment for the first. But we could not say this for God's permission of the first sin, and the Council of Trent just quoted cannot be applied to it.

It is certain that God's permission of the first sin is not subsequent to the foreseeing of it; for He can foresee a defect only in so far as He permits it; and without His permission it would never happen.

As a final objection, we may say that we understand, moreover, God permitting any sin whatever, especially in the life of the elect; for this sin is permitted only for a greater good that concerns them personally, which is to make them more truly humble. But how are we to explain God permitting the sin of final impenitence?

In reply to this we must say that as a rule the sin of final impenitence is permitted by God only as a punishment for

many other defects and for finally resisting His last appeal. St. Thomas writes: “The cause of grace being withheld is not only the man who raises an obstacle to grace; but God who, of His own accord, withholds His grace.” 7

Certainly there is a very great mystery in this, the most obscure of all those that concern us here; for the mysteries of iniquity are obscure in themselves, whereas the mysteries of grace are supremely luminous in themselves and obscure only for us. There is something that surpasses understanding in this, that God permits the final impenitence of some, for instance, of the bad thief rather than of the other, as a punishment for previous grave defects and for a greater good, which includes the manifestation of the splendor of infinite justice.

We must acknowledge that this proposition is the most obscure of all those formulated by us. But to show that no believer can deny it, we must take into direct consideration the contradictory proposition, and we shall see that no intellect can succeed in proving it. No one can establish the truth of this assertion, namely: God cannot permit the final impenitence of a sinner, of the bad thief, for instance, as a punishment for his preceding defects and in manifestation of the divine infinite justice. This assertion cannot be proved. Moreover, to deny the possibility of God’s permission of sin, would be to deny the possibility of sin: contra factum non valet ratio.

On the splendor of divine justice, it is worth noting what St. Thomas says, when asking whether angels grieve for the ills of those whom they guard. He replies in the negative, and the reason He gives is: “because their will cleaves entirely to the ordering of divine justice; while nothing happens in the world save what is effected or permitted by divine justice.” * The author of the Imitation sets forth this splen-

THE MOTIVE FOR REPROBATION 211 dor of divine justice when he says: “Be now solicitous and sorrowful because of thy sins, that at the day of judgment thou mayest be secure with the blessed. . . . Then shall he stand to judge them, who doth now humbly submit himself to the censures of men. Then shall the poor and humble have great confidence, but the proud man shall be compassed with fear on every side.” °

The question has been raised whether original sin is a sufficient motive for reprobation. Evidently not so, if it is a question of reprobates who have been freed from original sin, although the effects of this sin remain in them, such as concupiscence that inclines one to evil. But the case is not the same for unbaptized children who die before the age of reason. Because of original sin they are deprived of the beaufic vision, though they do not have to suffer the punishment of the senses.*°

Included among the effects of reprobation are: ¹ The permission of sins that will not be forgiven; (2) God's refusal of grace; (3) blinding of the intellect; (4) hardening of the heart; (5) the punishment of damnation. Sin itself is not the effect of reprobation, for God is in no way the cause of sin, either directly or indirectly, through lack of help. This lack of help would be neglect on God's part, and this is an absurdity.

As for moral defection that is permitted by God, this serves to show by way of contrast the value and power of divine grace that makes one faithful. It is in this sense that St. Paul said: “God... endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He hath prepared unto glory.” And again, when he says: “Who hath pre-

destinated us . . . according to the purpose of His will, unto the praise of the glory of His grace.” 12

Having discussed the motives for predestination and reprobation, it remains for us to consider the certainty of these.

Footnotes

1. Ibid., q.79, a.3. 8 Ibid., Ia, q,118, a.. ↩