Part II, Chapter II, Section 2, Article 3: Various Heresies vs. the Dogmatic Teaching of the Church on the State of Original Justice

Pohle, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, Part II, Chapter II, §2, Article 3 (pp. 218–226)

The doctrine set forth in the preceding Article has in process of time been impugned by three great heresies; by Pelagianism in the early days of Christianity, by Protestantism at the beginning of the sixteenth century, and in modern times by Jansenism.

1. Pelagianism

Pelagianism, which flourished in the fifth century, held that the state of our first parents in Paradise was not one of supernatural grace, but essentially and purely a natural state.

a) In consequence of this fundamental fallacy the Pelagians denied the necessity and gratuity of actual grace, nay the very existence of original sin. They admitted that Adam possessed sanctifying grace, with its claim to the beatific vision of God, and that he enjoyed freedom from concupiscence, but insisted that man can merit Heaven and attain to absolute sinlessness by his own free volition, unaided and without transcending his natural faculties. Concupiscence, according to the Pelagians, is not a punishment for sin, nor yet, properly speaking, an inherent defect of human nature, it is simply a vigor naturae, the ordinate or inordinate use of which depends entirely on man’s free will. To bolster the fiction that our first parents in Paradise were in no essential respect superior to their descendants, the Pelagians disparaged Adam’s bodily immortality and impassibility, holding that the only deterioration which mankind suffered in consequence of sin consists in this that Adam’s descendants have his evil example and other incitements to do wrong. Hence the Pelagian maxim: “Peccatum imitatione, non propagatione,” that is, original sin is not really a sin of nature, but merely a sin of imitation. Aside from it, the condition of Adam’s descendants is identical with that of their progenitor in Paradise.

b) Against this arbitrary confusion of nature with the Supernatural the Church has again and again insisted that the sin of Adam resulted in a real deterioration of human nature by robbing it of sanctifying grace with its accompanying prerogatives. That these prerogatives were supernatural was not at first expressly emphasized, but taught rather by implication.

The second council of Mileve, which was confirmed by a plenary council held at Carthage, A.D. 418, and by Pope Zosimus in his Tractoria, defined: “Quicumque dixerit, Adam primum hominem mortalem factum, ita ut, sive peccaret sive non peccaret, moreretur in corpore, hoc est, de corpore exiret, non peccati merito, sed necessitate naturae, anathema sit.”¹ This definition embraces the following truths: (1) Adam enjoyed immortality of the body; (2) he lost this immortality through sin; (3) this loss was a punishment of sin.

In 431, Pope Celestine I wrote to the Bishops of Gaul against the Semi-Pelagians: “In praevaricatione Adae omnes homines naturalem² possibilitatem et innocentiam perdidisse, et neminem de profundo illius ruinae per liberum arbitrium posse consurgere, nisi eum gratia Dei miserantis erexerit” — By the fall of Adam all men lost their natural power and innocence, and no one can rise from the depth of that ruination by [his own] free-will, except the grace of a merciful God raise him up.³

Another important dogmatic pronouncement is contained in the fifteenth and nineteenth canons of the Second Council of Orange, A.D. 529. Canon 15 says: “Ab eo, quod formavit Deus, mutatus est Adam, sed in peius per iniquitatem suam. Ab eo, quod operata est iniquitas, mutatur fidelis, sed in melius per gratiam Christi” — Adam was changed from that state in which God created him, but he was changed for the worse by his own iniquity. The faithful Christian is changed from the state brought about by sin, but he is changed for the better through the grace of Christ. Canon 19: “Natura humana, etiamsi in illa integritate [i.e. sanctitate], in qua est condita, permaneret, nullo modo seipsam, Creatore suo non adiuvante, servaret. Unde cum sine gratia Dei salutem non possit custodire, quam accepit, quomodo sine Dei gratia poterit reparare, quod perdidit?” — Human nature, even if it had remained in the state of integrity [i.e. holiness] in which it was created by God, could in no wise have preserved [this prerogative] without the divine assistance. Hence, if it was unable without the grace of God to keep the salvation which it had received, how should it have been able without the assistance of that grace to regain that which it had lost?⁴

That the lost prerogatives were supernatural can be inferred from these definitions by the following process of reasoning: What is due to human nature on account of its creation, its conservation, and the divine concursus, ex intrinseco, can never be lost. Now the Church teaches that by original sin Adam and his progeny lost sanctifying grace, together with its concomitant prerogatives. Therefore the lost endowment was not due to human nature, but a gratuitous favor, in other words, it was a pure grace. Sanctifying grace, in particular, was essentially identical with that prerogative which mankind regained through the Redemption. But this latter favor is restored only per gratiam Christi, to employ the Council’s own words, and therefore must be supernatural in character.

2. Protestantism

In the sixteenth century erroneous notions on the subject of the original state of the human race were propagated by the so-called Protestant reformers, who, failing to draw the proper distinction between nature and the Supernatural, heretically affirmed that, besides his preternatural prerogatives, man by sin also lost certain essential properties of human nature itself, such as the moral freedom of the will.

a) Practically this basic error culminated in the doctrine of man’s justification by faith alone (sola fide), without co-operation on his part. Though Pelagianism and Protestantism agree in acknowledging that man enjoyed an ideal state in Paradise, they are yet diametrically opposed to each other, for while Pelagianism conceives original justice as a purely natural state, “orthodox” Protestantism admits that it contained a divine element, but falsely asserts that this element formed part and parcel of the very nature of man. This identification of the divine with the human, of nature with the Supernatural, is decidedly Pantheistic, and we need not wonder, therefore, that many later Protestant theologians (e.g., Schleiermacher) became true-blue Pantheists.⁵

b) Though the chief purpose of the Council of Trent was to guard the dogmas of original sin and justification, that holy ecumenical synod left no doubt as to what is the orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the primitive state of man.

The Tridentine Fathers implicitly condemned Pelagianism when they defined that Adam was created “in holiness and justice,” but “immediately lost” this state of grace, and thereby “suffered deterioration both in body and soul.” “Si quis non confitetur, primum hominem Adam, cum mandatum Dei in paradiso fuisset transgressus, statim sanctitatem et iustitiam, in qua constitutus⁶ fuerat, amisisse … totumque Adam per illam praevaricationis offensam secundum corpus et animam in deterius commutatum fuisse, anathema sit.”⁷ This deterioration of body and soul involved the loss of holiness and justice, and also of the gift of integrity⁸ and the immortality of the body.⁹ The two last-mentioned prerogatives were supplanted by “death and bodily punishments.”¹⁰ Since no one can “lose” what he does not possess, our first parents in Paradise must have actually enjoyed sanctifying grace, freedom from concupiscence, immortality of the body, and impassibility. That these prerogatives were supernatural is not expressly defined by the Tridentine Council.

3. Jansenism

The Jansenists applied Protestant principles to the domain of grace, which was their chief field of operation, and tried by various subterfuges to evade the dogmatic decrees of Trent.

a) Perhaps no other heresy has so deeply wounded the Church as Jansenism, despite its oft-repeated pretence of loyalty. The chief protagonists of this sect were Baius, Jansenius, and Quesnel. One of their palmary teachings was that the state of primitive justice was strictly due to man, something “connatural to him,” a debitum naturae which the Creator owed in justice to mankind. This assertion clearly involves a denial of the supernatural character of grace, though Baius tried to veil this inevitable conclusion by contending that to grant grace and glory to a sinner might be called gratia secundum quid. Other Jansenists asserted that sanctifying grace was due to human nature as such, not to its “works.” But it is quite obvious that what is debitum naturae cannot at the same time be indebitum naturae, i.e., a grace.

b) The Holy See upheld the true faith against Jansenism in a long series of struggles, which culminated in the explicit condemnation of this dangerous heresy.

The most important ecclesiastical pronouncements against Jansenism are: (a) The condemnation, by Pius V (A.D. 1567), of seventy-nine propositions extracted from the writings of Baius; (b) the rejection by Innocent X (A.D. 1653) of five theses formulated by Jansenius himself; (c) the censures uttered by Clement XI in the Bull “Unigenitus” (A.D. 1713), against one hundred and one propositions advocated by Quesnel; and (d) the reprobation of the Jansenistic decrees of the pseudo-synod of Pistoia by Pius VI in his Bull “Auctorem Fidei” (A.D. 1794). In studying the question of man’s original state of justice the errors of Baius and Quesnel prove indirectly helpful, inasmuch as their contradictories, though not formally defined articles of faith, clearly embody the teaching of the Church.¹¹

The definition of the Supernatural which we have formulated on a previous page is confirmed by the Church’s official condemnation of the twenty-fourth proposition of Baius, to wit: “A vanis et otiosis hominibus secundum insipientiam philosophorum excogitata est sententia, hominem ab initio sic constitutum, ut per dona naturae superaddita fuerit largitate conditoris sublimatus et in Filium Dei adoptatus.” The supernatural character of sanctifying grace may be inferred from the condemnation of the twenty-first proposition championed by Baius, viz.: “Humanae naturae sublimatio et exaltatio in consortium divinae naturae debita fuit integritati primae conditionis, et proinde naturalis dicenda est, et non supernaturalis,” and likewise from the rejection of the thirty-fifth of the propositions extracted from the works of Quesnel, to wit: “Gratia Adami est sequela creationis, et erat debita naturae sanae et integrae.”¹²

That Adam’s original immunity from concupiscence was a supernatural grace follows also from the condemnation of Baius’s twenty-sixth proposition: “Integritas primae creationis non fuit indebita humanae naturae exaltatio, sed naturalis eius conditio.”

The Church’s teaching on the subject of the bodily immortality of our first parents may be inferred from the reprobation of proposition number seventy-eight, extracted from the writings of Baius: “Immortalitas primi hominis non erat gratiae beneficium, sed naturalis conditio.”¹³

To sum up the argument: It is a Catholic doctrine, directly deducible from revelation (fidei proximum), that sanctifying grace, exemption from concupiscence, and immortality of the body, all of which Adam and Eve enjoyed in Paradise, were supernatural gifts. That the impassibility and infused knowledge enjoyed by our first parents were also supernatural prerogatives is not directly taught by the Church. The supernatural character of the beatific vision, however, so far as it is granted to existing rational creatures, is an express article of faith.

Notes

Readings

Petavius, De Pelagiana et Semipelagiana Haeresi. Ripalda, De Ente Supernaturali (Append. adv. Baium et Baianos). F. Wörter, Der Pelagianismus nach seinem Ursprung und seiner Lehre, Freiburg 1874. A. Krampf, Der Urzustand des Menschen nach der Lehre des hl. Gregor von Nyssa, Würzburg 1889. A. Hoch, Lehre des Johannes Cassianus von der Natur und Gnade, Freiburg 1895. F. Klasen, Die innere Entwicklung des Pelagianismus, Freiburg 1882. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. II, 2nd ed., §§ 56 sqq., Freiburg 1895. S. Dechamps, De Haeresi Janseniana ab Apostolica Sede Merito Praescripta, Paris 1654. A. Paquier, Le Jansénisme, Étude Doctrinale d’après les Sources, Paris 1909. A. Vandenpeerenboom, Cornelius Jansenius, Septième Évêque d’Ypres, sa Mort, son Testament, ses Épitaphes, Bruges 1882. B. Jungmann, S.J., Dissertationes Selectae in Hist. Eccles., Vol. VII, Diss. XL, Ratisbon 1887. Tixeront, Histoire des Dogmes, Vol. II, Paris 1909. J. Pohle in the Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Pelagius and Pelagianism,” Vol. XI. J. Forget, ibid., art. “Jansenius and Jansenism,” Vol. VIII.

Note on this transcription: this article is unusually clean by this book’s standards — mostly conciliar Latin and papal condemnations quoted directly, with few page-break or column-interleaving issues. French and German titles in the Readings list had accents/umlauts restored.