|
Introduction
To The Teaching
Of The Italian
Augustinians
Of The
18th Century
On The
Nature Of Actual Grace
CHAPTER I. PREPARING THE
WAY FOR THE AUGUSTINIAN TEACHING ON GRACE. A SUMMARY OF SOME HITHERTO
UNPUBLISHED SOURCES FROM THE PERIOD BEFORE L. BERTI.
Codex 2290 of the Biblioteca
Angelica in Rome gives us some idea of the difficulties and the
opposition which had to be overcome by the Augustiman theologians of the
eighteenth century. At that time the battle over grace is still in full
progress. We find one of the Consultors wondering whether after so many
accusations the Augustinian teaching may still be pronounced to be free of
censure, but proceeding to state at once that this doctrine is subscribed
to by theologians of the Augustinian order and by Benedictines and is
defended by members of other Orders as well, but that especially in France
and in Spain a theologis Instituti cuiusdam eorumque discipulis numero
sane plurimis, tum et ab Episcopis etiam in eorum scholis enutritis it
is qualified as Calvinistic, Bajanistic, Jansenistic etc. and is even
considered as a branch of Mohammedanism or atheism 1). Matters
went so far that in France, out of sheer hatred against their doctrine,
many Augustinians were not allowed to teach, to preach or to administer the
sacraments 2).
In August 1758 under the
pressure of these reverses the General of the Augustinian Order, Fr. X.
Vasquez, had recourse to Pope Clement XIII in a memorial, the full text of
which is to be found in MS. 2290 of the Biblioteca Angelica. The
Holy See pronounced no other judgement than that:
« Satis provisum
indemnitati Scholae Augustinianae in causa Norisiana et P. M. Laurentii
Berti et Bellelli, necnon per Apostolicas Litteras Pauli III Alias,
datas die 7 Augusti 1660 ; Innocentii XII Reddidit, datas die 6
Februarii 1694 ; Clementis XI Pastoralis officii, datas die 8
Augusti 1718 ; Benedicti XIII Demissas preces, datas die 6 Novembris
1724 ; necnon eiusdem Benedicti XIII Pretiosus, datas sub die 26
Maji 1727 ; Clementis XII Exponit, datas die 16 Aprilis 1732, et Apostolicae
providentiae, datas die 2 Octobris 1733, et postremo per Benedictum XIV
in Epistola ad Inquisitionem Hispaniae, quae incipit Dum praeterito
mense, die 3 Julii 1748 ; et Pater Generalis Ordinis recurrat in
casibus particularibus. Et addiderunt ad mentem, quae est, quod quatenus P.
Generalis hanc resolutionem sibi communicari quaeat, non fiat nisi de
speciali mandato Sanctitatis Suae summarie et per sequentia verba « Satis
provisum indemnitati Scholae Augustinianae... » per plura Brevia, Literas
et Constitutiones Apostolicas, et P. Generalis in casibus particularibus ad
S. Congregationem recurrat, facto de omnibus verbo cum Sanctissimo... ».
On the 6th of August 1765
the same General resorted to the Holy See once more, because since 1758 his
order had been subjected to an ever increasing number of new insinuations 3);
but the Holy See itself has never condemned the Augustinian school or its
teaching.
I shall now give a short
survey of what was stated concerning the teaching on nature of actual grace
by the various authors before Noris, whose writings are to be found mainly
in the Biblioteca Angelica in Rome and in the archives of the
Augustinian Generalate.
1. Michael Salon 4).
First of all in opposition to Molina he states that God does not operate in
man with a concursus simultaneus but with a concursus praevius.
Yet he supports Molina to a great extent by denying that grace is efficax
ab intrinseco and that the distinction between gratia efficax and
gratia sufficiens is determined by the effect which is produced by
the disposition of the free will. Though he seems therefore to make the
efficacity dependent on man’s consent, on the other hand he asserts that
this free cooperation must be assisted by this same divine grace. Salon is
practically the only one of all the early Augustinians consulted for the
present study whose views have a Molinistic tendency.
2. Jo. Bapt. Perusinus 5)
distinguishes gratia operans or excitans into gratia
sufficiens, which brings it about that we are able to will, and gratia
efficax, which brings it about that we do will, and which is not
rejected by any obdurate heart but is given in order to remove this
hardness of heart. In addition to the general concursus we must
accept gratia sufficiens and gratia efficax especially
because of our fallen nature.
Gratia efficax is efficacious
from its inner nature (ab intrinseco). In connection with Congruism,
which teaches that grace moves only moraliter, Perusinus expressly
states with St. Thomas, q. 3 de Malo, that a moral cause is not
really a true cause. God, however, is the true cause of our conversion ;
therefore not only can He move us moraliter, but He moves us
physically as well 6). Thus as early as the end of the 16th
century this Augustinian theologian clearly teaches a physical causality of
grace, though he is not in complete accord about it with the Dominican
Fathers who extend it to a praedeterminatio physica 7). The
meaning of Perusinus’s still undeveloped opinion was to be further
elucidated by the Augustinians after him.
3. Jo. Bapt. de
Plumbino (d. 1613), Procurator General of his order, whom Portalié
unjustly calls a defender of Molina at the time of the Congregatio de
Auxiliis 8), when giving a votum for this
Congregation expresses the opinion that the Thomists asserting that God in
his absolute and efficacious decree predetermines all good actions are not
in agreement with Calvin at all, but that their assertion is the true
doctrine of the Church. Moreover he repudiates the so-called Scientia
Media as well as the proposition that God with his efficacious grace
moves man’s free will by mere suasion, enticement or some other way of
acting moraliter only without actually bringing it about that free
will moved by grace consents freely and infallibly (libere et
infallibiliter). According to de Plumbino the opposite opinion is
definable as a dogma 9).
4. Gr. Nunnius Coronel,
a Portuguese Augustinian, appointed first secretary of the Congregatio
de Auxiliis by Clement VIII 10), was a fierce anti-Molinist.
His autograph writings are to be found also in the Biblioteca Angelica
11).
Gratia sufficiens, which in the
state of man’s fallen nature consists in interior inspirations, by v/hich
God stimulates, attracts, invites and persuades man, is given to aid man’s
potentiality, in this sense, however, that a richer grace is required for
the willing and acting done by man 12). But gratia efficax «
habet virtutem et efficaciam non ex futuro consensu liberi arbitrii, sed ex
intentione, voluntate et omnipotentia Dei et a dominio quod habet in
voluntatem hominum » 13). In contrast to gratia sufficiens
gratia efficax does not influence the will moraliter, but in a
real and physical manner « qua Deus facit ut delectet, quod non delectabat
et cum dilectione adimpleat, quod praecipit » 14). This real and
physical premotion of God upon man’s will is needed to preserve the
certainty and infallibility of the divine predestination, for they are not
so saved by a purely moral premotion. Finally, in making man consent freely
gratia efficax does not take away liberty, but it aids and perfects
it 15).
5. Ph. Visconti, a
Milanese, born in 1596. He taught the students of the Augustinian order
with great succes at Milan, Florence, Padua and Rome. In 1649 he was chosen
as Prior General. In 1657 Alexander VII appointed him bishop of a diocese
in Calabria. He died in 1664. For a sketch of his life and a list of his
writings see D. Perini O. E. S. A., Bibliographia Augustiniana, Vol.
IV, pp. 56-59.
In MS. 2290 of the Biblioteca
Angelica we read that he may be considered as a forerunner of Noris as
regards Augustinian doctrine, though at first he did not know Jansenius, whose
writings had not yet appeared. Visconti is said, however, to have followed
in the steps of his own forerunners 16). In MS. 895 we find a
summary made by Michael Heckius of a censura by Visconti 17).
Both of them start from a double aid in St Augustine, the adiutorium
sine quo non and the adiutorium quo, the former being the aid
for man’s state before the Fall, the latter being the aid for man’s fallen
nature. The distinction they make in grace is based on this double aid, for
to the second Adam a stronger grace is given by virtue of which man wills
and loves with such charity that the will of the flesh, desiring the
opposite, is overcome 18).
These few points herald as
it were the teaching of the Augustinians of the 18th century, in whose
writings we also find this double divine aid as well as concupiscence and gratia
victrix.
6. Christianus Lupus,
who was friendly with Noris in Rome, further develops this teaching of
victorious grace against concupiscence. He describes it as a good
concupiscence fighting against evil concupiscence 19). Lupus
calls grace also charity (caritas), not as a theological virtue, but
in so far as it touches the human heart by the illumination and inspiration
of the Holy Ghost ; this happens « per luminosam actualem caritatem
divinitus inspiratam ac infusam » 20). We see here the ideas of
illumination of the intellect and infusion of charity already fully
developed. Moreover Lupus clearly indicates the necessity of grace, when he
calls it « bellicose and yet always shy » 21).
Finally he also seems to
accept the doctrine of degrees in grace, held by later Augustinians, for he
teaches that there is great variety in the powers of the different evil
concupiscences and that therefore grace has also its « incunabula,
incrementum, robur et perfectionem » 22).
7. From France we have an
unusual representative of the Augustinian school in Carolus Moreau 23).
As is indicated by the long subtitle of his work this Augustinian is in
every respect an adherent of the Thomistic school, and especially so in
teaching that physical predetermination does not take away liberty in the
case of acts of the natural order either. For his argumentation he has
recourse to St Thomas, whom he calls « in hac praedeterminatione physica
Augustini discipulum » 24). But even more than for the natural
acts, physical predetermination is required for the supernatural acts, for
which the human will has more need of the divine grace which moves it and
predetermines it. There is a twofold reason for this: through Adam’s sin
the will is inclined to evil and therefore it has to be bent into the right
direction again by grace, and secondly the intellect has also weakened and
has become obscured by ignorance so that, like the will, it has to be
restored by grace. According to Moreau therefore actual grace is primarily medicinalis,
that is to say it is given to overcome rebellious concupiscence in man.
This gratia sanans operates by virtue of a physical premotion 25).
Moreau differs from the other
Augustinians by accepting the praedeterrninatio physica without
making any distinction, that is to say accepting it also for the natural
order, for which according to the later Augustinians it was not necessary.
In his teaching of the physical premotion of grace, however, he is their
illustrious forerunner.
8. The Belgian School.
This term is used here to cover the theologians of the Augustinian order
who taught at Louvain mainly in the seventeenth century ; the Biblioteca
Angelica in Rome possesses a great number of manuscripts and
unpublished theses written by them. The considerable influence of these
immediate predecessors of theirs on Berti and Bellelli is unmistakable. It
is evident for instance from the numerous quotations from Belgian Augustinians
in Berti’s works 26). My study of the relation between the
seventeenth century Belgian Augustinians and their eighteenth century
Italian brethern has only been cursory and confined to the topic of grace.
I surmise, however, that in other matters as well very interesting points
of agreement are to be found.
In order that the power of
redeeming grace — that is the grace for the state of fallen human nature —
may appear to fuller advantage these theologians distinguish with St Augustine
between the grace of Adam’s state of innocence before the Fall: the adiutorium
sine quo non, and the grace of fallen human nature: the adiutorium
quo. Adam needed grace, for he could not act salutarily without it, but
as he was without concupiscence which inclines the will to evil, he had no
need of the kind of grace which aids the will efficaciter. The first
grace of Adam was such that he could reject it if he wished, but in which
he could also persevere if he wished. Now the grace of fallen human nature
is much stronger ; it is the delectatio victrix 27).
And since this grace does
not only give man the ability, but also the will (in the case of gratia
efficax), or — as it is expressed by Petrus Clenaerts — not only the adiutorium
perseverantiae, but the perseverantia ipsa 28), it
can indeed be called a physical predetermination, which therefore with the
above distinction between man’s states is not present in the state of
innocence 29). The necessity of this gratia efficax,
which operates through the delectatio victrix and predetermines
physically, arises from the fact that through Adam’s sin the will has been
weakened and has received an inclination towards what is wrong, which, is
called concupiscence. The gratia efficax makes of man who is unwilling
(nolens) a « volentem et efficit ut homo tantum velit tantoque
ardore diligat, ut carnis voluntatem contraria concupiscentem voluntate
spiritus vincat » 30).
As the teaching on
concupiscence forms the basis on which the Augustinians build their theory
of the grace of our state, it is understandable that they call gratia
efficax — which has to fight against concupiscence — a victrix
delectatio 31). It is true that Bellelli and Berti were the
first to develop the theory of victorious delectation, but all the same by
their quite frequent use of this expression of St Augustine the earlier
Belgian Augustinians prepared the way for their Italian brethern who have
expounded the doctrine of grace in extensive publications.
On the subject of the
doctrine of grace Joannes Libens may well be considered one of the
most important representatives of the Belgian school. I have been able to
establish his authorship of a hitherto anonymous manuscript in the Biblioteca
Angelica 32). In the margin of this manuscript there is a
note — apparently by a different hand — to the effect that this treatise on
grace was written in the Augustinian school of Louvain under the
supervision of a certain N. for the purpose of having it examined by Rome.
The manuscript is not paged ; I follow my own pagination.
The conceptions occurring
in this unknown work by Libens seem to me to be of the utmost importance in
connection with the ideas on nature of actual grace developed later on by
Berti. From internal evidence I also concluded that Libens wrote his
treatise in 1713, that is two years after Bellelli published his Mens
Augustini de statu creaturae rationalis ante peccatum at Antwerp in
Belgium, our author’s country. It may therefore seem surprising that
Libens’s list of Augustinians who defend the gratia per se efficax does
not include Bellelli, who was one of its most ardent upholders. Nor does
Libens make any mention of Henricus Noris who had died in the meantime. It
is possible that he did not know Bellelli’s work published only recently ;
but it seems highly improbable that he did not know Noris. The fact that he
does not mention either of them may be an indication that he is independent
of them in his teaching.
On the other hand it is
very remarkable indeed that the works of Berti, who was for years librarian
at the Biblioteca Angelica and so knew exactly what writings of his
Belgian brethern it contained, show a great many points of resemblance to
the treatise in question, the author of which was probably unknown to him
too, for he does not mention his name anywhere. There are whole sentences
in Berti which occur word for word in this manuscript of Libens and the
latter’s line of thought is certainly a familiar one to Berti 33).
Though in his teaching J.
Libens does not differ from his Belgian brethern, he is conspicuous for his
clear mode of expression. He says of the distinction between the grace
given to Adam and that given to man’s fallen nature that Augustine bases
thereon his whole doctrine of grace 34). The grace of Adam was
exactly similar to what the Molinists call gratia sufficiens for the
state of fallen nature. Libens too finds the reason for the stronger grace
of the Redeemer in the concupiscence which is a consequence of original sin
and which has weakened the will and obscured the intellect ; in this state
of misery the perfect state of liberty no longer prevails 35).
Grace is distinguished
into gratia possibilitatis and gratia voluntatis et actionis:
the former gives only the ability, as the grace given to Adam in the state
of innocence, or the adiutorium sine quo non, also called gratia
mere sufficiens ; the latter is the adiutorium quo, which brings
about the exercise of the will and the performance of the act, that is to
say the gratia efficax of our fallen state 36). Libens
subdivides gratia per se efficax into the grace which brings about
an imperfect willing and acting and the grace which brings about the
perfect supernatural performance. The former he calls excitans, inefficax
in the same way as the Thomists regard gratia sufficiens ; the
latter corresponds to Thomistic gratia efficax 37). When
calling sufficient grace also per se efficax Libens, as we know, is referring
only to the grace, of whatever kind it may be, of fallen human nature,
which in contrast to the grace of the state of innocence intrinsically (per
se) moves the will and is not, inversely, either accepted or rejected
as it pleases the will 38).
From the above it is
evident that the Augustinians when speaking of gratia efficax often
understand by this also gratia sufficiens ; but according to Libens
there is no real difference of opinion between the Thomists and the
Augustinians, even if the choice of words is not always the same, « nam
etiam Augustini discipuli admittunt gratiam Thomistice sufficientem en
inefficacem » 39).
A very important feature
of Libens’s conception of grace is his insistence that grace has a physical
causality and not only a moral one 40). Moreover, what was said
above already implied the same idea, for grace which brings about the
actual willing in the will, as is taught by the Augustinians, must perforce
operate physically, since a moral motion is only suasion, or no more than
intellectual enlightenment, whereas physical causality operates on the will
directly and immediately, and even brings about the right will itself.
Libens calls this grace a delectatio
victrix in the same way as later Augustinians call it a victorious
delectation 41).
In order that with the
many distinctions made in grace its unity shall not be lost sight of Libens
finally indicates this unity in a few words by saying that, considered from
the side of God, grace is also called uncreated grace and is nothing but
God’s gratuitously given mercy, His goodness, benevolence, goodwill or God
Himself who effects in us the exercise of the will and the performance of
the act ; considered from our side grace is also called created grace and
is nothing but the effect of God’s mercy, goodness, benevolence etc. 42).
In his definition of grace
Libens uses, as do his successors, the wonderful description of St
Augustine: « Gratia est inspiratio dilectionis, ut cognita sancto amore
faciamus » 43).
This brief account
gathered from a few manuscripts in the Biblioteca Angelica may
suffice as an indication of the connection existing between the earlier
Augustinians and their Italian brethern of the eighteenth century whose
doctrine of grace will be discussed in the following pages.
|
Footnotes
1) Biblioteca Angelica (B. A.) MS. 2290, p. 413.
2) l. c.,
pp., 413 and 414. In Rome I came across a booklet entitled Enciclica del Rev. Padre Prior Generale degli
Agostiniani e motivi pressanti per mandarla a tutti i conventi, esposti in
alcune lettere fedelmente tradotte dalla francese nell’ italiana favella,
Ratisbona, etc.; printed c. 1780, without name of author or publisher. The
contents are one mass of calumnies strung together without any thought of
charity or even a spark of decency.
3) B. A. MS. 2295, pp. 91 ff., contains the full
text of this second memorial under the title: Supplex libellus a Rev. P. Generali Augustiniano die 6 Augusti anni
1765 Clementi XIII exhibitus cum adnexis thesibus a Patribus Societatis
Jesuitaram die 8 eiusdem mensis in Collegio Romano propugnatis.
4) See the archives of the Augustinian Generalate
in Rome. The unsigned codex is marked on the back: Censura Theologorum in materia de Divinis Auxiliis. From fol.
454 to 567 we find a censura in
regard to Molina’s teachings, written by Magister Michael Salon O. E. S. A.
by order of the Holy Office; other copies of this same criticism are to be
found in the B. A. MS. 888, fol. 2-70 and 72-143; MS. 877, fol. 398-469;
MS. 882, fol. 199-251 (in Spanish; probably the autograph copy); MS. 1113,
fol. 98-168.
For a sketch of Salon’s life (d. 1621) see G. DE
SANTIAGO VELA, Ensayo de una
Biblioteca Ibero-Americana de la Orden de San Agustin, Vol. VII, pp.
72-89. Escorial 1925.
5) B. A. MS. 894, pp. 115-122: Summa brevis de Gratia, tradita a M. Jo.
Bapt. Perusino (Ord. S. Aug.) Card. Romae pro instructione.
6) l. c.,
p. 120: « Item causa moralis non est vera et propria causa, ut docet D.
Thomas q. 3 de Malo. Sed Deus est propria causa nostrae conversionis. Ergo
non movet per gratiam moraliter, sed physice ».
7)
Ib.: « Tertia (opinio) asserit gratiam efficacem esse physicam et physice
movere et praedeterminare, nihilominus non tollere libertatem... (p. 121)
Attamen remanet difficultas quomodo possit stare gratia efficaci physice
movente cum libero arbitrio. Ego tamen puto vere et physice gratiam
efficacem movere voluntatem salvo libero arbitrio, non tamen
praedeterminare, sed ut intelligatur, dico quod aliud est movere physice et
aliud determinare ».
8) PORTALIÉ, Augustinianisme.
Dict. de Théol. Cath., Vol. . 1, col. 2485.
9) B. A. MS. 858 (an autograph signature proves
Plumbinus to be the author), fol. 6v. and fol. 10.
10) Cf. Gr. DE SANTIAGO VELA, o. c., Vol. VI, pp. 46-56. His chief published works are: Libri X de vera Christi Ecclesia,
Romae 1594; Libri VI de optimo
Republicae statu, Romae 1597; Apologeticum
de traditionibus Apostolicis, Romae 1597.
11) Cf. NARDUCCI, Codicum manuscriptorum... in Bibliotheca Angelica, Romae 1892.
I have used MS. 682, fol. 211 sq. : De
necessitate gratiae Christi et eius efficacia.
12) B. A. MS. 862. fol. 212 and 212v.
13) l. c.,
fol. 214, Prop. XIII.
14) fol. 217v.
15) fol. 218v: «... Quibus omnibus accedit, quod
si Deus per gratiae suae auxilia non aliter corda hominum moveret, quam
suadendo, invitando aut quovis alio modo moraliter tantum attrahendo,
proculdubio tolleretur certitude et infallibilitas fundamenti praedestinationis...
» and: « Deus sua efficaci gratia movet hommum voluntates... non solum
moraliter per modum proponentis obiectum divinis inspirationibus et
suasionibus interius docendo et illuminando, sed etiam vera, reali et in
hoc sensu physica motione agendo et efficiendo ut ipsae (fol. 219) sub
eiusdem gratiae efficaci praemotione certo, infallibiliter et
insuperabiliter se determinent ad actus libere eliciendos ».
16) B. A. MS. 2290, p. 408: « L’anno 1657 il
giorno 6 Febrajo l’accenato Generale dell’Ordine Filipo Visconti, che
certamente nella Scuola Agostiniana aveva preceduto al Cardinale de Noris
nella divisione de stati, e negl’altri punti della dottrina de S. Agostino,
e nulla avea potuto apprendere dai libri di Giansenio non ancor publicati,
quand’egli sequendo l’orme de suoi maggiori era giá provetto in questi
domestici studi, fú... ».
17) B. A. MS. 895, fol. 536-540: « Censura 5
Propositionum Jansenii dicta a Reverendissimo P. Nostro Phllippo Vicecomite
totius Ordinis nostn.Generali et Consultore et Qualificatore S. Officii,
coram S. Congregatione et Innocentio X. Per me M. Fr. Michaelem Hechium
Gandavensem ex manuscriptis eius congesta et in meliorem formam redacta ac
notis illustrata ». M. van Hecke (Heckius) was a Belgian Augustinian, who
died at Rome in 1687. The greater part of his manuscripts is preserved in
the Bibliotceca Angelica.
18) « Adeoque haec est gratia victrix, quae vincit
omnem supervenientem concupiscentiam, quali gratia Adam non egebat », MS.
895, fol. 539.
19) B. A. MS. 895, fol. 419-453v, entitled: Iudicium super quinque propositionibus
Cornelii Jansenii oblatum Reverendissimo Patri Vicecomiti tunc Generali,
per Patrem Magistrum Christianum Lupum... The manuscript is very hard
to read because the ink has corroded the paper.
Fol. 428; « Interior namque Jesu Christi gratia...
est nihil aliud quam concupiscentia bona pugnans adversus concupiscentiam
malam »
20) l. c.,
fol. 430.
21) l. c.,
fol. 428: « Moderna quippe nostra gratia nequaquam ad instar primae gratiae
in paradise est quieta et pacifica, sed bellicosa semperque pavida, utpote
confligere habens non adversum carnem et sanguinem, sed adversus
spiritualia nequitiae in coelestibus ac innumerabiles nobis ingenitas...
animales cupiditates ».
22) Ib.
Chr. Lupus (1612-1681) was an Augustinian of the Belgian province and used
to be called a « walking library » on account of his great erudition. He
taught ecclesiastical history and canon law at Louvain. See OSSINGER, Bibliotheca Augustiniana, Ingolstadii
et Augustae Vindeliorum 1768; this book also contains a list of his
writings.
Lupus’s Opera
omnia were published in twelve volumes at Venice in 1724-1729.
23) B. A. MS. 679; entitled: Spiritus medullae defaecatissimae Doctrinae summae Sancti Augustini.
For life and work of C. Moreau see OSSINGER, Bibliotheca Augustiniana, p. 613.
24) The manuscript has no pagination. The text
quoted is from the end of the first Homilia.
25) Homilia
secunda: « Vis aperte Augustinum audire asserentem Dei praedeterminationem
physicam in omni bono opere praemoventem, impellentem, incipientem, tamquam
causam primam efficientem et non solum moralem trahentem et allicientem,
suavissimo pellicientem motu gratiae ? Accipe quod habet exerta (?): Quoniam ipse ut velimus operatur
incipiens. ... Attendant hic quantum honori Dei detrahant... qui
fingunt sibi Deum solummodo causam finalem et moraliter tantum suavitate et
voluptate attrahere voluntatem ad bonum... ».
In the third homily are quoted several of St.
Augustine’s texts which mention grace operating through a certain
delectation, and, though we do not find Moreau using the word delectatio victrix, he has already
all the elements for the doctrine of grace as a victorious delectation.
26) Berti knew even these theses: « ... ad hanc
usque diem omnes Augustiniani Lovanienses tradiderunt et propugnarunt, ut
constat ex eorum thesibus collectis simul et in tria volumina distributis
atque in Angelica Bibliotheca asservatis » ; in Systema Vindicatum, p. 126.
27) Cf. B. A. MS. 421, fol. 17-20: Fr. PAUWENS, Assertlones Theologicae...
28) B. A. MS. 421, fol. 207 sq.: Augustinus per seipsum docens notis
explanatus. Praesidebit F. Petrus Clenaerts etc. Lovanii 1688.
29) l. c.,
fol. 215: « Atqui praedeterminatio physica non tantum dat posse, sed et
ipsum velle: ergo non habuit locum in natura integra, vel Angelis, inter
quos et ipsam paritas est Augustini ».
30) Cf. PAUWENS, o. c., fol. 20.
31) For a summary on the doctrine of concupiscence
as taught by the Augustinians see my article in Augustiniana IV (1954), pp. 178-184.
32) B. A. MS. 1144; entitled: Tractatus de arcano gratiae divinae mysterio.
33) MS. 1144 (fol. 7v) : «... unde solum
transtulerunt Molinistae gratiam ab Augustino naturae integrae descriptam in
locum gratiae medicinalis Christi quam S. Pater naturae lapsae et
vulneratae ubique depredicat necessariam » ; and BERTI, Theol. Disc., lib. XIV, c. 8, p. 14:
« Quare Molina nihil aliud praestitit, nisi quod gratiam Conditoris in
gratiam Salvatoris commutavit, et pro adiutorio huius status subrogavit
illud, quod Augustinus tradit Angelis et primo homini necessarium ». A
little further on we shall find a similar resemblance.
34) l. c.,
fol. 7: « Siquidem in eo discrimine, quod ponit inter adiutorium hominis
integri et adiutorium hominis lapsi fundat (Augustinus) totam doctrinam
suam de gratia, ut videri potest cap. 11 et 12 lib. De Corrept. et
Gratia... ».
35) After a quotation from St Augustine Libens
concludes (fol. 12): « ... ideo in
hoc statu opus esse huiusmodi gratia, quod homo cum illam arbitrii
libertatem et integritatem amiserit, in qua sola gratia possibilitatis ad
agendum sufficiebat, lapsus sit in magnam infirmitatem, in qua ipsi non
sufficiebat nisi gratia dans ipsum velle ».
36) MS. 1144 (fol. 4) « Gratia actualis duplex
est: alia possibilitatis, alia voluntatis et actionis. Gratia
possibilitatis est, quae dat tantum posse ut gratia quae data erat Adamo in
statu innocentiae. Gratia voluntatis et actionis est, quae dat velle et
agere: ut gratia quae datur in hoc statu naturae lapsae. Gratia illa
possibilitatis vocari solet ab Augustino adiutorium sine quo non; gratia autem voluntatis et actionis adiutorium quo. Hodie vero a
theologis illa passim dicitur gratia mere sufficiens ; haec vero gratia per
se efficax ».
37) Ib. :
« ... gratia voluntatis et actionis seu per se efficax iterum duplex est.
Alia dat tantum velle et agere imperfectum, ut quae peccatori dat tantum
initium bonae voluntatis et desiderium perfectae conversionis. Alia dat velle
et agere perfectum, ut quae dat peccatori confessionem perfectam. Illa
dicitur excitans, inefficax, sufficiens thomistice, haec vero thomistice
efficax ».
38) Libens here has in mind the gratia sufficiens of the Molinists,
as is shown by the following texts: «... illa gratia Augustino-Thomistice
sufficiens est gratia per se efficax, non quidem ratione effectus quem
excitat, sed ratione excitationis seu motus imperfecti. Gratia autem
Molinistice sufficiens nullo modo est per se efficax, cum nullum saepe
effectum producat, sed omni omnino effectu per voluntatem frustretur »
(fol. 36); and (fol. 35v): « Gratia sutficiens apud Thormstas est gratia
per se efficax quae voluntatem excitat ad effectum quem non producit ».
39) MS. 1144, (fol. 36).
40) Ib. (fol.
19v) : « ... gratia efficax est quae causalitatem habet physicam », and
(fol. 19) : « ...Pelagiani admiserunt internas illustrationes, imo
revelationes moraliter suadentes et voluntatem in Dei desiderium
suscitantes... atqui Augustinus non est contentus ea morali suasione... ».
41) Ib.
(fol. 19v) : « Gratia igitur efficax est victrix delectatio supra ipsum
liberum arbitrium, sic dicta ab effectu, quia eius vincit renisum et
duritiem, qua Deus operatur in homine voluntatem, ipsam volitionem, ipsum
velle, occultissima et efficacissima potestate, qua in homine reluctante
prius habitus divinae vocationis procuratur, qua homines fiunt ex
nolentibus volentes, ex repugnantibus consentientes, ex oppugnantibus
amantes, qua Deus tacit ut faciamus quod iubetur, qua voluntas
insuperabiliter et indeclinabiliter agitur, ratione cuius Deus magis habet
in potestate sua voluntates hominum quam ipsi suas, et habet humanorum
cordium quo placuerit inclinandorum omnipotentissimam potestatem, qua Deus
etiam rebellam ad se, citra tamen libertatis dispendio, comprimit
voluntatem ».
42) MS. 1144 (fol. 4): « Potest gratia intelligi
vel ex parte Dei, vel ex parte nostra; si ex parte Dei gratiam consideres,
gratia increata est nihilque aliud quam gratuita Dei misericordia, bonitas,
beneplacitum, bona voluntas, sive ipse Deus operans in nobis velle et
perficere pro bona voluntate... Si gratiam consideres ex parte nostra,
gratia est creata, nihilque aliud est quam effectus gratuitae Dei
misericordiae, bonitatis, beneplaciti, bonae voluntatis, sive ipsius Dei
gratuito in nobis operantis velle et perficere pro bona voluntate » .
The same distinction is made by BERTI in De Theol. Discipl., lib. XIV, cap.
7, p. 38.
43) l. c. (fol.
4).
|