Chapter XXIV. Efficacious grace and sufficient grace according to scripture and the declarations of the church

THE PROBLEM

WE know it to be certain according to revelation, which is contained in Scripture and tradition, that there are many actual graces granted by God which do not produce the effect (at least the complete effect) intended, whereas others do. The former are called sufficient and merely sufficient. They give the power (proximate or remote) to perform a good act, though they do not effectively bring one to perform this very act. Man resists their appeal. The latter graces are called efficacious, because they cause us to act, so that we may perform the salutary act.

Hence arises the question: What is the principle in distinguishing between these two kinds of graces? In other words: The grace that is called efficacious, is it so of itself, intrinsically, because God efficaciously wills it so, or is it only extrinsically so, by reason of our consent foreseen by God?

The errors of the Reformers and the Jansenists gave rise to animated discussions on this question. It was at that time that the term sufficient was technically determined in meaning in opposition to the term efficacious."¹

The importance of the problem is evident because of the very opposition raised against it by the contrary heresies and the teachings of the Catholic theologians. We may say that for the Pelagians actual grace (for instance, the preaching of the gospel) is made efficacious by our good consent, and inefficacious by the perversity of the human will. For the Reformers and the Jansenists, there are two kinds of actual interior graces. One kind is efficacious of itself, the other is inefficacious and even is not truly sufficient.

For the Thomists, there are two kinds of actual interior graces; one kind is intrinsically efficacious of itself; for it causes us to perform the good act; the other is inefficacious but truly sufficient; for it gives us either the proximate or remote power to perform the good act.? For the Molinists, actual sufficient grace is itself either extrinsically efficacious, by reason of our consent that is foreseen by God by means of the scientia media, or else it is inefficacious and merely sufficient.*

DECLARATIONS OF THE CHURCH

The Church declared against Jansenism that there are graces truly and merely sufficient. They are truly sufficient because they really give the power to perform a good act; and they are merely sufficient because, through our own fault, they do not produce their effect, or at least the complete effect intended.

q-2, 4.2, q.2, ad 5um; d. 19, q.1, a.2; In Hebr., c. 9, lect. 5; in J ad Thess. 2: 5).

According to the author of this article, the famous distinction that is nowadays accepted, bears on its face the mark of its modern origin (for we find traces of it in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries), and of the preoccupation of those who imposed it, such as Lessius and Catharinus,

PROBLEM OF EFFICACIOUS GRACE 235

This teaching of the Church is clearly seen in the condemnation as heretical of the first proposition of Jansenius, which reads as follows: “Some of God’s commandments are impossible of fulfilment for the just according to their present powers, though they desire and strive to observe them; they stand in need, too, of the grace that would make them possible of fulfilment.” * Quesnel and the pseudo-synod of Pistoia were also condemned for having denied the existence of truly sufficient grace.’ The second proposition of Jansenius is very much like the first. It reads: “In the state of fallen nature interior grace is never resisted.” ® This was tantamount to saying that the only actual interior grace is efficacious grace.

After the condemnation of the five propositions of Jansenius, the great Arnauld’? admitted a little grace, which gives the power to act in general, though it does not really give this power at the moment when needed. The Catholic theologians showed that this little grace, for which the great Arnauld contended, does not safeguard the traditional teaching; for it must really be possible to keep the commandments not only in general, but in each particular case when occasion arises.®

Besides this, the Church teaches that there is an actual efficacious grace and that this latter does not restrain liberty. That there is such a grace follows from the condemnation of Pelagianism and Semipelagianism, which did not, strictly speaking, deny that grace gives the power to act, but they denied that it causes one to will and to act. Against these heresies the Second Council of Orange defined: “As often as we perform good acts, God works in us and with us, that²³

7 Dissert. quadripart. de gratia efficaci; and Apologie pour les Saints Pères, Bk. IV.

8Cf. Guillermin, O.P., Revue Thomiste, 1901-03, five important articles on sufficient grace. Consult especially 1902, p. 47 f.

we may act.”® There is therefore a grace that effectively operates, although it does not exclude our co-operation, but requires and elicits it.

As for the fact that efficacious grace does not restrain our liberty, this is clearly affirmed by the Council of Trent.’ The constant teaching of the Church affirms this, according to which the meritorious act is the result of both human freedom and efficacious grace. According to this teaching, sufficient grace leaves us with no excuse before God for having sinned, and efficacious grace does not permit us to glory in ourselves when we have performed a good act.

WHAT IS THE FOUNDATION IN SCRIPTURE FOR THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUFFICIENT GRACE AND EFFICACIOUS GRACE?

The Scripture often speaks of the grace that does not produce its effect, and this because of man’s resistance. In the Old Testament we read: “I called and you refused. 1 have spread forth My hands ali the day to an unbelieving people, who walk in a way that is not good after their own thoughts.” ** In the Gospel, Jesus says: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?” 1? St. Stephen, the first martyr, said to the Jews before he died: “You stiffmecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost.” ** St. Paul wrote: “And we helping do exhort you that you receive not the grace of God in vain.” ™

All these quotations show that there are truly sufficient

PROBLEM OF EFFICACIOUS GRACE 237 graces, which however, are fruitless because of our resistance. This doctrine is proved also from what St. Paul says to Timothy: “God will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth . . . for Jesus gave Himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.” ** This means that God wills to make it really possible for all to keep His commandments.

On the other hand the Scripture often affirms the existence of efficacious grace that produces its effect, the salutary act. This point is made particularly clear in the texts from the Scripture quoted by the Second Council of Orange against the Semipelagians, such as: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit in the midst of you, and I will cause you to walk in My commandments and to keep My judgments and do them.” ** St. Paul also wrote: “It is God who worketh in you both to will and to accomplish, according to His good will.” 1 And Jesus said: “My sheep shall not perish for ever. And no man shall pluck them out of My hand.” '* Hence these words of the Second Council of Orange: “As often as we perform a good act, God works with us that we may act.” 1? Farther on™ we shall quote scriptural texts similar to these, such as: “As the divisions of waters, so the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever He will He shall turn it.” * “As the potter’s clay is in his hand, to fashion and to order it; so man is in the hand of Him that made him, and He will render to him according to His judgment.” *

It seems, indeed, according to the language of Scripture, that the efficacivus grace of which it speaks is efficacious of itself, and not merely because God foresaw we would consent to it without offering any resistance.

Hence we see that for St. Thomas and his school, the distinction between efficacious grace and sufficient grace has its ultimate foundation in the distinction between God's consequent will (which concerns good infallibly to be realized at the present moment) and his antecedent will (which concerns good taken in the absolute sense and not as considered in certain determined circumstances), such as, for instance, the salvation of all men in so far as it is good for all to be saved.** From this antecedent or universal will to save come the sufficient graces that make it really possible for us to keep the commandments, without causing anyone, however, effectively to do so. God's consequent will in its relation to our salutary acts is the cause, on the contrary, of our effectively fulfilling our duty.

This doctrine appears to have the solid support of Holy Scripture. The same must be said of the Thomist teaching that actual grace, which is of itself efficacious as regards an imperfect act, such as attrition, is truly sufficient as regards a more perfect act, such as contrition.

Hence this is the question at issue: Is the grace that is said to be efficacious, truly so of itself intrinsically, or is it merely extrinsically efficacious by reason of our consent that is foreseen by God? In other words, how are we to conceive the divine motion that inclines our will and causes it to perform the salutary act? The relations between sufficient grace and efficacious grace are evidently connected with this question. Is efficacious grace included in the sufficient help that is granted to all, just as the fruit is included in the flower?

All Thomists agree in saying that, if a man did not resist

PROBLEM OF EFFICACIOUS GRACE 239 sufficient grace, he would receive the efficacious grace required to enable him to do his duty. But here again is the mystery: for to resist sufficient grace is an evil that can come only from us; whereas not to resist sufficient grace is a good that cannot be solely the result of our action, but one which must come from God who is the source of all good. How then shall we conceive the divine motion, the various modes of this, and its efficacy?

Footnotes

1. Cf. Father Chenu, O.P., “On the meaning of the word ‘sufficient’ according to St. Thomas,” in the Revue des Sciences Phil, et Théol., May, 1933. The author shows, following Nicolai, that for St. Thomas “sufficient” is at times a synonymous term for ‘efficacious’ (Ia, q.46, a.1, obj. 9; I Cor. c. 15, lect. 2; De verit., q.14, 4.1); in certain cases, however, he has given them opposite meanings (Illa, q.79, a.7 ad jum; De verit., q.29, a.7 ad gum; HI Sent., d. 13, ↩

2. Cf. Joannem a $. Thoma, O.P., Curs. theol., De gratia, disp. XXIV; Salmanticenses, Cursus theol., De gratia, disp. V, dub. 7; Lemos, O.P, Panoplia gratiae, Vol. IV, Part 2a, p. 36; Del Prado, O.P., De gratia et libero arbitrio, Vol. Il, chaps. 1-3. ↩

3. Cf. Molina, Concordia, in the index under the title Auxilium efficax. ↩