Page images
PDF
EPUB

was thereby determined what the "unica forma" really was, or again that there might not be more forms than one (whether improper forms, or forms of the justifying justice or renovation); and he says so for the following

reasons:

First, Bellarmine, though he quotes the words of the Tridentine Fathers, declaratory of the "unica formalis causa" of Justification (de Justif. ii. 2), does not hesitate to say that it is an open question whether grace or charity is the justice which justifies; and, though he holds for his own part that these are different names for one and the same supernatural habit, yet he allows that there are theologians who think otherwise (ibid. i. 2). Though, then, there be but one formal cause (and there never can be more than one proper form of anything), still it is not settled precisely what that form is. We are at liberty to hold that it is, not the renewed state of the soul, but the Divine gift which renews it.

And Pallavicino, as he is quoted in the Appendix (infra, p. 351), says "Adhibitam datâ operâ fuisse à Patribus, vocem nunc gratiæ, nunc charitatis, et interdum etiam utramque, ut se abstinerent ab eâ declaratione, duæ res an una eademque res, illa forent."

Vasquez too allows (infra, p. 353) that there are two possible forms, "per quas homo justificari possit apud Deum."

Sporer holds two partial forms, as making up the "unica forma," an external Divine act and internal Divine

work,-"favor Dei" and "habitus justitia" (ibid.), which, with grace as an internal gift going between the two, make three forms, proper or improper.

Bellarmine furnishes a fourth, when he lays down that, according to the Council, living faith, "fides viva, est vera et Christiana justitia" (de Grat. i. 6, p. 401); and says also (de Justif. v. 15, p. 986), "Formalem causam justificationis . . . esse fidem charitate formatam."

Moreover, Petavius speaks of another, or fifth, viz. the substantial Presence of the Holy Ghost in the soul, as infra, pp. 352, etc. He speaks of the "infusio substantiæ Spiritûs Sancti, quâ

...

efficimur justi et sancti." And he calls this substantial Presence a

[ocr errors]

"tan

quam principalis," and a primaria forma,” and a “proxima causa, et, ut ita dixerim, formalis." And he maintains this to be the doctrine of the early Fathers. So much on the first point.

2. With these authorities preceding him, the author went on to speak of the Eucharistic Presence, or a Presence such as that in the Eucharist, as an additional form of Justification; and, in speaking of the fact of such a permanent Presence in the soul, he held nothing very different from what is taught by mystical theologians of authority such as Schram, who writes as follows:

"Quintus modus unionis [per Præsentiam Christi personalem Eucharisticam] est, quòd, corruptis etiam speciebus, non solum maneat Christus per gratiam et charitatem unitus animæ dignè communicanti, sed etiam

personaliter penes suam hypostasim et deitatem; ita nimirum ut, sicuti in omni justificatione, non modo per gratiam, sed etiam personaliter Spiritus Sanctus fit animæ justi præsens, . . sic etiam Christus personaliter scilicet penes suam hypostasim, virtute SS. Eucharistiæ, speciali modo, cum incremento gratiæ unionisque cum Deo, etiam corruptis speciebus, permanet."

And he goes on to mention a further "modus unionis" in the Eucharist, accorded only to very holy persons, by means of the continued Presence of the soul of Christ : a mode of union, "quo se Christus uniendum permanenter offert, non solùm per deitatem, hypostasim, et personam suam, sed etiam per suam sacratissimam animam, quatenus, corruptis speciebus, adeoque recedente corpore et sanguine, . . tamen . . cum [animâ] velut immediato instrumento, Verbo conjuncto, specialius quam per solam deitatem, permanet specialissime unitus nonnullis animabus valde perfectis.”—Theol. Myst. p. 1, §§ 152, 153.

These passages do not indeed countenance the idea that the ordinary form of Justification is the Real Presence of the Crucified and Risen Saviour in the soul, a doctrine which was never, it is conceived, even imagined by any writer in the Catholic Church; but they are sufficient to show that the hypothesis of a Personal Presence of our Lord in the soul, apart from His Incarnate Presence which is vouchsafed in the Eucharist, though not as a form of justification, is in itself neither preposterous nor inadmissible.

It may be well to explain the principle of succession on which these Lectures are arranged.

1. The first two introduce and open the subject which is to be discussed, by an exposition, first, of the Protestant, then of the Catholic doctrine of Christian. Justification.

2. Then follows in three Lectures-the 3d, 4th, and 5th-an inquiry into the meaning of the term "Justification."

3. In the next four-the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th-is determined what is the real thing which is denoted by the term "Justification."

4. In the 10th, 11th, and 12th, the office and nature. of Faith is discussed in its relation to Justification.

In the 13th and last, a practical application is made of the principles and conclusions of the foregoing Lectures, to the mode of preaching and professing the Gospel, popular thirty or forty years since, called "evangelical."

THE ORATORY,

January 6, 1874.

« PreviousContinue »