# Prayer, the Great Means of Salvation

## About this edition

St. Alphonsus Liguori’s *Del gran mezzo della preghiera*, first published in 1759, treats the necessity and power of prayer and the dispositions with which to pray. Prayer is itself a gift of grace. Alphonsus urges us to ask God for the graces necessary for salvation and to persevere in doing so. The second part considers grace, human freedom, and salvation; the author’s prayers and devout aspirations follow.

This English reading translation follows the Italian text in the [IntraText transcription](https://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_IDX049.HTM) of *Opere ascetiche*, volume II (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1962), pages 3–178. The modern reading guide and critical apparatus are excluded. Biblical quotations and references generally follow the source, including its historical numbering. The inherited bibliographic citations are incomplete; selected structural and transcription errors have been corrected.

Three sections on humility, confidence, and perseverance, and a paragraph in Part II, were missing from the supplied draft and have been restored from the Italian. This remains a reading translation, without a complete independent scholarly review. This introductory note is editorial; the author’s dedications follow.

These English drafts were prepared with AI assistance using SWE-2 Max and then edited for Remember Eternity. Website review has checked structure, source provenance, and selected passages and corrections; it has not checked every sentence against the original. This is not a certified translation or an ecclesiastically approved edition.

This edition is available to read and download free of charge. No open reuse licence is stated for this modern English edition. Free access does not establish republication permission; the source transcriptions and editorial material may have separate terms.

### DEDICATION

#### TO JESUS AND MARY

O Incarnate Word, You gave Your Blood and Your Life to obtain for our prayers (as You have already promised) so great a worth that they obtain whatever they ask; and we, O God, are so negligent of our own salvation that we will not even ask You for the graces we need to be saved! By this means of prayer You have given us the key to all Your divine treasures, and yet, rather than pray, we choose to remain in the misery in which we find ourselves! Ah, Lord, enlighten us, and make us know how much our supplications, made in Your name and through Your merits, are worth in the sight of Your Eternal Father. I consecrate this little book of mine to You; bless it Yourself, and grant that all who hold it in their hands may be stirred to pray always, and may strive to inflame others also, so that they may avail themselves of this great means of their salvation.

To You also I commend this little work of mine, O great Mother of God, Mary: protect it by obtaining for all who read it the spirit of prayer, so that they may have recourse always, in all their needs, to Your Son and to You, who are the Dispenser of graces, and who are the Mother of Mercy, unable to leave unsatisfied anyone who recommends himself to You, and who are at the same time the Powerful Virgin who obtains from God for Your servants whatever You ask.

### TO THE INCARNATE WORD

JESUS CHRIST

Delight of the Eternal Father,

Blessed of the Lord,

Author of Life,

King of Glory,

Savior of the World,

Awaited by the Nations,

Desire of the eternal hills,

Heavenly Bread,

Universal Judge,

Mediator between God and men,

Master of the virtues,

Lamb without blemish,

Man of sorrows,

Eternal Priest and Victim of love,

Hope of sinners,

Fount of graces,

Good Shepherd,

Lover of souls,

Alphonsus, a sinner, consecrates this work

## PART ONE

### INTRODUCTION

*Necessary to be read*

I have published various little spiritual works, but I judge that I have produced no work more useful than this little book, in which I speak of prayer, since it is a necessary and sure means for obtaining salvation and all the graces we need for it. I do not have the means to do this, but if I could, I would wish to have printed as many copies of this little book as there are faithful living on the earth, and to distribute them to each one, so that all might understand the need we all have to pray in order to be saved.

I say this because on the one hand I see this absolute necessity of prayer, so strongly inculcated by all Sacred Scripture and by all the holy Fathers; and on the other hand I see that Christians pay little heed to practicing this great means of their salvation. And what grieves me most is that I see preachers and confessors take little care to speak of it to their hearers and penitents; and I see that even the spiritual books circulating today do not speak of it enough. Yet all preachers and confessors, and all books, should impress nothing else upon souls with greater urgency and warmth than this matter of prayer. They do indeed inculcate many good means for souls to preserve themselves in the grace of God: the flight from occasions, the frequenting of the sacraments, resistance to temptations, hearing the divine word, meditating on the eternal maxims, and other means — all of them, it is not denied, most useful; but of what use, I say, are sermons, meditations, and all the other means given by spiritual masters, without prayer, since the Lord has declared that He will grant His graces only to those who pray? «Petite, et accipietis» "Ask, and you shall receive." Without prayer (speaking according to the

(ordinary) providence of God) all the meditations made, all our resolutions, and all our promises will remain useless. If we do not pray, we shall always be unfaithful to all the lights received from God and to all the promises made by us. The reason is that, to actually do good, to overcome temptations, to practice the virtues — in short, to observe the divine precepts and counsels — the lights we have received and the considerations and resolutions we have made do not suffice; the actual help of God is also needed. And this actual help (as we shall see below) the Lord grants only to those who pray, and who pray perseveringly. The lights received, the considerations, and the good resolutions conceived serve to this end: that in the dangers and temptations to transgress the divine law we actually pray, and by prayer obtain the divine assistance that will then preserve us from sin; but if we do not pray then, we are lost.

I have wished, my reader, to set down this conviction of mine before all that I shall write below, so that you may thank the Lord, who by means of this little book of mine gives you the grace to reflect more deeply on the importance of this great means of prayer; for all who are saved (speaking of adults) are ordinarily saved by this means alone. And therefore I say: thank God for it, since it is too great a mercy that He shows to those to whom He gives the light and the grace to pray. I hope that you, my beloved brother, after reading this brief work, will no longer be careless from this day forward about having recourse to God in prayer whenever you are tempted to offend Him. If ever in the past you found your conscience burdened with many sins, know that this was the cause: negligence in praying, and in asking God for help to resist the temptations that afflicted you. In the meantime I beg you to read it and reread it with all attention — not because it is a work of mine, but because it is a means by which the Lord offers you the good of your eternal salvation, thereby giving you to understand in a particular way that He wills your salvation. And after you have read it, I beg you to have it read by others (as you are able), friends or fellow townsmen with whom you converse. Now let us begin in the name of the Lord.

The Apostle wrote to Timothy: «Osecro igitur primum omnium fieri obsecrationes, postulationes, gratiarum actiones» "I beseech, therefore, first of all, that supplications, petitions, and thanksgivings be made" (1 Tim. 2:1). St. Thomas the Angelic Doctor explains that prayer is properly the raising of the mind to God. Petition, then, is prayer in the proper sense; and when the request concerns definite things it is called petition, while when it concerns indefinite things (as when we say, «Deus in adjutorium meum intende» "O God, come to my assistance"), it is called supplication. Obsecration is a devout adjuration, that is, a solemn entreaty, to obtain grace, as when we say, «Per Crucem et Passionem tuam libera nos Domine» "By Your Cross and Passion, deliver us, O Lord." Finally, the action of thanksgiving is the giving of thanks for benefits received, by which, says St. Thomas, we merit to receive greater benefits: «Gratias agentes meremur accipere potiora» "By giving thanks we deserve to receive greater things." Prayer taken in its particular sense (says the holy Doctor) signifies having recourse to God; but taken in its general sense it contains all the other parts named above; and in this sense we shall understand it, calling it from now on by the name of prayer.

Now, to make us love this great means of our salvation, let us consider how necessary it is, and how much it avails to obtain for us all the graces we desire from God, if we know how to ask for them as we ought. Therefore in this First Part we shall speak first of the necessity and the power of prayer, and then of its conditions, so that it may prove efficacious with God. In the Second Part we shall then show that the grace of prayer is given to all; and there we shall treat of the ordinary way in which grace works.

### CHAPTER I - OF THE NECESSITY OF PRAYER

It was once the error of the Pelagians to say that prayer is not necessary for obtaining salvation. Their impious master Pelagius used to say that man is lost only insofar as he neglects to know the truths necessary for him to know. But how well did St. Augustine say: «Omnia (Pelagius) disputat, quam ut oret» "(Pelagius) disputes about everything rather than pray." Pelagius wished to treat of everything except prayer, which is the only means (as the Saint held and taught) of acquiring the Science of the Saints, according to what St. James wrote long ago: «Si quis indiget sapientia, postulet a Deo, qui dat omnibus affluenter, nec improperat» "If any man need wisdom, let him ask it of God, who gives to all abundantly and upbraids not" (Jas. 1:6).

The Scriptures are only too clear in showing us the need we have to pray, if we wish to be saved. «Oportet semper orare, et non deficere» "We ought always to pray, and not to faint" (Luke 18:1). «Vigilate, et orate, ut non intretis in tentationem» "Watch and pray, that you enter not into temptation" (Matt. 26:41). «Petite, et dabitur vobis» "Ask, and it shall be given you" (Matt. 7:7).

The aforesaid words Oportet, Orate, Petite, as the theologians commonly hold, signify and imply a precept and a necessity. Wycliffe used to say that these texts were to be understood not of prayer, but solely of the necessity of good works, so that in his view to pray was nothing else than to do good; but this was his error, and it was expressly condemned by the Church. Hence the learned Leonard Lessius wrote that it cannot be denied without erring in the faith that prayer is necessary for adults in order to be saved, since it is evident from the Scriptures that prayer is the only means of obtaining the aids necessary for salvation: Fide tenendum est Orationem Adultis ad salutem necessariam, ut colligitur ex Scripturis; quia Oratio est medium, sine quo auxilium ad salutem necessarium obtineri nequit (We must hold by faith that prayer is necessary for adults unto salvation, as is gathered from the Scriptures; because prayer is the means without which the aid necessary for salvation cannot be obtained).

The reason is clear. Without the help of grace we can do no good: Sine me nihil potestis facere (Without Me you can do nothing) (John 15:5). St. Augustine observes on these words that Jesus Christ did not say, "you can accomplish nothing," but, "you can do nothing": Non ait perficere, sed facere (He did not say "to accomplish," but "to do"). For thereby our Savior wished to give us to understand that without grace we cannot even begin to do good. Indeed, the Apostle wrote that of ourselves we cannot even have the desire to do it: Non quod sufficientes simus cogitare aliquid a nobis, sed sufficientia nostra ex Deo est (Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything, but our sufficiency is from God) (2 Cor. 3:5). If, then, we cannot even think of good, much less can we desire it. So many other Scriptures tell us the same: Deus operatur omnia in omnibus (God works all things in all) (1 Cor. 12:7). Faciam ut in praeceptis meis ambuletis, et judicia mea custodiatis, et operemini (I will cause you to walk in My precepts, and to keep My ordinances, and do them) (Ezek. 36:27). So that, as St. Leo I wrote, Nulla facit homo bona, quae non Deus praestet, ut faciat homo (Man does no good that God does not enable man to do). We do no good except that which God by His grace causes us to do. Hence the Council of Trent, in Session 6, Canon 3, declared: Si quis dixerit, sine praeveniente Spiritus Sancti inspiratione, atque ejus adjutorio, hominem credere, sperare, diligite, aut poenitere posse, sicut oportet, ut ei justificationis gratia conferatur, anathema sit (If anyone says that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Spirit and His aid a man can believe, hope, love, or repent as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be conferred upon him, let him be anathema).

The Author of the Opus Imperfectum, speaking of the brute animals, says that the Lord has provided some with speed, others with claws, others with feathers, so that they may thereby preserve their being; but man He formed in such a state that God alone should be all his strength: Alios munivit cursu, alios unguibus, alios pennis. Hominem autem sic disposuit, ut virtus illius Ipse sit (Others He has provided with speed, others with claws, others with feathers; but man He has so disposed that He Himself is his strength). Thus man is altogether powerless to procure his salvation, since God has willed that whatever he has and can have, he should receive entirely from the sole aid of His grace.

But this aid of grace the Lord, in the ordinary course of His providence, grants only to those who pray, according to the celebrated maxim of Gennadius: Nullum credimus ad salutem, nisi Deo invitante, venire; nullum invitatum salute suam, nisi Deo auxiliante, operari; nullum, nisi orantem, auxilium promereri (We believe that no one comes to salvation except at God's invitation; that no one who is invited works out his salvation except with God's help; and that no one merits that help unless he prays). Since, then, on the one hand we can do nothing without the help of grace, and on the other hand such help is ordinarily not given by God except to those who pray, who does not see that it follows as a consequence that prayer is absolutely necessary to us for salvation? It is true that the first graces, which come to us without any cooperation on our part, such as the call to the faith or to penance — St. Augustine says that God grants these even to those who do not pray; nevertheless the Saint then holds it for certain that the other graces

(and especially the gift of perseverance) are granted only to those who pray: Deum nobis dare aliqua etiam non orantibus, ut initium Fidei; alia non nisi orantibus praeparasse, sicut Perseverantiam (that God gives us some things even to those who do not pray, such as the beginning of faith; but that He has prepared other things only for those who pray, such as perseverance). Hence it is that theologians commonly teach, together with St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, and others, along with St. Augustine himself, that for adults prayer is necessary not only by a necessity of precept, as we have seen, but also by a necessity of means — that is to say, that in the ordinary course of providence it is impossible for a believer to be saved without commending himself to God and asking Him for the graces necessary for salvation. St. Thomas teaches the same, saying: Post Baptismum autem necessaria est homini jugis oratio, ad hoc quod Caelum introeat; licet enim per Baptismum remittantur peccata, remanet tamen fomes peccati nos impugnans interius, et Mundus, et Daemones qui impugnant exterius (After Baptism, however, unceasing prayer is necessary for man in order to enter Heaven; for although sins are remitted through Baptism, there still remains the tinder of sin that assails us from within, and the world and the demons that assail us from without). The reason, then, which according to the Angelic Doctor makes us certain of the need we have of prayer is this, in brief: to be saved we must fight and conquer: Qui certat in agone non coronatur nisi legitime certaverit (He who strives in the contest is not crowned unless he has striven lawfully) (2 Tim. 2:5). On the other hand, without the divine aid we cannot resist the forces of so many and such great enemies; now, this divine aid is granted only through prayer: therefore without prayer there is no salvation.

That prayer, moreover, is the sole ordinary means of receiving the divine gifts, the same holy Doctor confirms more distinctly in another place, saying that the Lord wills to bestow upon us all the graces which He has from eternity determined to give us through no other means than prayer. And St. Gregory wrote the same: Homines postulando merentur accipere, quod eis Deus ante saecula disposuit donare (By asking, men merit to receive what God ordained before all ages to give them). Not, says St. Thomas, that prayer is necessary in order that God may know our needs, but in order that we may know the need we have of having recourse to God, to receive the aids suited to save us, and thereby to acknowledge Him as the sole Author of all our goods: Sed ut nos (these are the Saint's words) consideremus in his ad Divinum auxilium esse recurrendum; et recognoscamus Eum esse bonorum nostrorum Auctorem (but that we may consider that in these things we must have recourse to the divine aid, and may acknowledge Him as the Author of all our goods). Since, then, the Lord has ordained that we should be provided with bread by sowing grain, and with wine by planting vines, so He has willed that we receive the graces necessary for salvation by means of prayer, saying: Petite, et dabitur vobis; quaerite et invenietis (Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find) (Matt. 7:7).

In short, we are nothing but poor beggars, who have only what God gives us as alms: Ego autem mendicus sum et pauper (But I am a beggar and poor) (Ps. 39:18). The Lord, says St. Augustine, indeed desires and wills to bestow His graces upon us, but He wills to bestow them only on those who ask Him: Deus dare vult, sed non dat nisi petenti (God wills to give, but He does not give except to him who asks). He solemnly assures us, saying: Petite, et dabitur vobis (Ask, and it shall be given you). Seek, and it shall be given you; therefore, says St. Teresa, he who does not seek does not receive. As moisture is necessary for plants to live and not dry up, so, says Chrysostom, is prayer necessary for us to be saved. Elsewhere the same Saint says that as the soul gives life to the body, so prayer keeps the soul alive: Sicut corpus sine Anima non potest vivere, sic Anima sine Oratione mortua est, et graviter olens (As the body cannot live without the soul, so the soul without prayer is dead and stinks). He says graviter olens (stinks), because whoever ceases to commend himself to God immediately begins to stink of sins. Prayer is also called the food of the soul, because without food the body cannot sustain itself, and without prayer (says St. Augustine) the soul cannot keep itself alive: Sicut escis alitur caro, ita orationibus homo nutritur (As the flesh is nourished by food, so is man nourished by prayer). All these similitudes which these holy Fathers adduce denote the absolute necessity which they teach there is for all to pray in order to obtain salvation.

Prayer, moreover, is the most necessary weapon for defending ourselves against our enemies; he who does not avail himself of it, says St. Thomas, is lost. The Saint does not doubt that Adam fell precisely because he did not commend himself to God when he was tempted: Peccavit, quia ad Divinum auxilium recursum non habuit (He sinned because he did not have recourse to the divine aid). And St. Gelasius wrote the same, speaking of the rebel angels: Dei gratiam in vacuum recipientes, non orando constare nequierunt (Receiving the grace of God in vain, they could not stand firm because they did not pray). St. Charles Borromeo, in a Pastoral Letter, observes that among all the means which Jesus Christ has recommended to us in the Gospel, He gave the first place to prayer; and therein He willed that His Church and Religion should be distinguished from all other sects, willing that she should be called especially a House of Prayer: Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur (My house shall be called a house of prayer) (Matt. 21:13). St. Charles concludes in the aforesaid Letter that prayer Est omnium virtutum principium, progressus, et complementum (is the beginning, the progress, and the consummation of all virtues). So that amid the darkness, the miseries, and the dangers in which we find ourselves, we have nothing else on which to ground our hopes than to lift our eyes to God and to obtain from His mercy our salvation through prayer: Sed cum ignoramus (said King Jehoshaphat) quid agere debeamus, hoc solum habemus residui, ut oculos dirigamus ad te (But since we know not what we ought to do, this alone is left to us, to turn our eyes to You) (2 Chr. 20:12).

And so David also did, finding no other means of not falling prey to his enemies than to pray continually to the Lord to deliver him from their snares: Oculi mei semper ad Dominum, quoniam ipse evellet de laqueo pedes meos (My eyes are ever toward the Lord, for He shall pluck my feet out of the snare) (Ps. 24:15). So that he did nothing else but pray, saying: Respice in me et miserere mei, quia unicus et pauper sum ego (Look upon me and have mercy on me, for I am alone and poor) (ibid., v. 16). Clamavi ad te, Domine, salvum me fac, ut custodiam mandata tua (I cried to You, O Lord; save me, that I may keep Your commandments) (Ps. 118:146). Lord, turn Your eyes to me, have pity on me, and save me; for I can do nothing, and apart from You I have no one who can help me.

And in fact, how could we ever resist the forces of so many enemies and observe the divine precepts — especially after the sin of our first father Adam, which has rendered us so weak and infirm — if we did not have the means of prayer, by which we can indeed obtain from the Lord the light and the strength sufficient to observe them? What Luther said was indeed blasphemy, namely, that after the sin of Adam the observance of the divine law became absolutely impossible for men. Jansenius also said that some precepts were impossible even for the just, according to the strength they presently have; and up to this point his proposition could have been explained in a good sense; but it was justly condemned by the Church for what he then added, saying that divine grace was also lacking to render them possible: "Deest quoque Gratia qua possibilia fiant" — "Grace is also lacking by which they may become possible." It is true, says St. Augustine, that man in his weakness cannot fulfill certain precepts with his present strength and with the ordinary grace that is common to all, but he certainly can, through prayer, obtain the greater help that is needed to observe them: "Deus impossibilia non jubet, sed jubendo monet et facere quod possis, et petere quod non possis, et adjuvat ut possis" — "God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding He admonishes you both to do what you can and to ask for what you cannot, and He helps you so that you can." Excellent is this text of the Saint, which was afterwards adopted and made a dogma of faith by the Council of Trent (Sess. 6, ch. 11). And there the holy Doctor immediately added:
"Videamus unde" (that is, how can man do what he cannot?) "medicina poterit, quod vitio non potest" — "Let us see whence by the remedy he will be able to do what by his defect he cannot." And he means that through prayer we obtain the remedy for our weakness, since, when we pray, God gives us the strength to do what we cannot do. We cannot believe, St. Augustine goes on to say, that the Lord willed to impose on us the observance of the law and then imposed on us an impossible law; and therefore the Saint says that when God makes us aware that we are powerless to observe all His precepts, He admonishes us to do the easy things with the ordinary grace that He gives us, and then to do the difficult things with the greater help that we can obtain by means of prayer: "Eo ipso quo firmissime creditur Deus impossibilia non potuisse praecipere, admonemur et in facilibus quid agamus, et in difficilibus quid petamus" — "By the very fact that it is most firmly believed that God could not have commanded impossibilities, we are admonished both what we are to do in easy things and what we are to ask in difficult ones." But why (someone will say) has God commanded us things impossible to our strength? Precisely for this reason, says the Saint: so that we may apply ourselves to obtaining through prayer the help to do what we cannot do: "Jubet aliqua, quae non possumus, ut noverimus quid ab illo petere debeamus" — "He commands some things that we cannot do, so that we may know what we ought to ask of Him." And elsewhere: "Lex data est, ut gratia quaereretur, gratia data est, ut lex impleretur" — "The law was given so that grace might be sought; grace was given so that the law might be fulfilled." The law cannot be observed without grace, and God gave the law for this end, that we might always beseech Him to grant us the grace to observe it. In another place he says: "Bona est lex, si quis ea legitime utatur" — "The law is good if one uses it lawfully." "Quid est ergo legitime uti lege?" — "What then is it to use the law lawfully?" And he answers: "Per legem agnoscere morbum suum, et
quaerere ad sanitatem Divinum adjutorium" — "through the law to know his own malady, and to seek the divine help for healing." St. Augustine therefore says that we must make use of the law — but for what? To know by means of the law (which is impossible for us) our powerlessness to observe it, so that we may then obtain by praying the divine help that heals our weakness.

St. Bernard wrote the same, saying: "Qui sumus nos, aut quae fortitudo nostra, ut tam multis tentationibus resistere valeamus? Hoc erat certe, quod quaerebat Deus, ut videntes defectum nostrum, et quod non est nobis auxilium aliud, ad ejus Misericordiam tota humilitate curramus" — "Who are we, or what is our strength, that we should be able to resist so many temptations? This was certainly what God sought: that, seeing our weakness and that there is no other help for us, we should run to His mercy with all humility." The Lord knows how useful to us is the necessity of praying, to keep us humble and to exercise our confidence; and therefore He permits enemies insuperable to our strength to assail us, so that through prayer we may obtain from His mercy the help to resist. Let it be especially noted that no one can resist the impure temptations of the flesh unless he commends himself to God when he is tempted. This enemy is so terrible that when she attacks us she almost takes away all light from us; she makes us forget all our meditations and the good resolutions we have made, and she makes us despise even the truths of the faith, so that we almost lose even the fear of the divine chastisements; for she conspires with our natural inclination, which drives us with the utmost violence toward sensual pleasures. Whoever does not then have recourse to God is lost. The only defense against that temptation is prayer, says St. Gregory of Nyssa: "Oratio pudicitiae praesidium est" — "Prayer is the safeguard of chastity."

And Solomon said it before him: "Et ut scivi, quoniam aliter non possem esse continens, nisi Deus det... adii Dominum, et deprecatus sum illum" — "And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent unless God gave it... I went to the Lord and besought Him" (Wis. 8:21). Chastity is a virtue that we have not the strength to observe unless God grants it to us; and God does not grant this strength except to the one who asks for it. But whoever asks for it will certainly obtain it.

Therefore St. Thomas says, against Jansenius, that we must not say that the precept of chastity, or any other precept, is impossible for us; for although we cannot observe it by our own strength, we can nevertheless observe it with the divine help: "Dicendum, quod illud quod possumus cum auxilio Divino, non est nobis omnino impossibile" — "It must be said that what we can do with the divine help is not altogether impossible for us." Nor let it be said that it seems an injustice to command a lame man to walk straight; no, says St. Augustine, it is not an injustice, provided he is given the means of finding the remedy that heals his defect; so that if he then continues to walk crookedly, the fault is his own: "Consultissime homini praecipi, ut rectis passibus ambulet, ut, cum se non posse perspexerit, medicinam requirat ad sanandam peccati claudicationem" — "It is most fittingly prescribed to man that he walk with straight steps, so that, when he perceives that he cannot, he may seek the remedy to heal the lameness of sin."

In short, the same holy Doctor says that whoever does not know how to pray well will never know how to live well: "Recte novit vivere, qui recte novit orare" — "He knows well how to live who knows well how to pray." And on the contrary, St. Francis of Assisi used to say that without prayer no good fruit can ever be hoped for in a soul. Wrongly, then, do those sinners excuse themselves who say they have not the strength to resist temptations. But if you (St. James rebukes them) do not have this strength, why do you not ask for it? You do not have it because you do not seek it: "Non habetis, propter quod non postulatis" — "You do not have, because you do not ask" (Jas. 4:2). There is no doubt that we are too weak to resist the assaults of our enemies; but it is also certain that God is faithful, as the Apostle says, and does not permit us to be tempted beyond our strength: "Fidelis autem Deus est, qui non patietur vos tentari supra id quod potestis, sed faciet cum tentatione proventum, ut possitis sustinere" — "But God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able, but will with the temptation also make a way out, that you may be able to bear it" (1 Cor. 10:13). Primasius comments: "Illud faciet provenire gratiae praesidio, quod possitis tentationem sustinere" — "He will bring this about by the protection of grace: that you may be able to withstand the temptation." We are weak, but God is strong; when we ask Him for help, then He communicates His strength to us, and we shall be able to do all things, as the same Apostle rightly promised himself, saying: "Omnia possum in eo, qui me confortat" — "I can do all things in Him who strengthens me" (Phil. 4:13). Therefore (says St. John Chrysostom) whoever falls because he neglects to pray has no excuse, since if he had prayed he would not have remained vanquished by the enemies: "Nec quisquam poterit
excusari, qui hostem vincere noluit, dum ab orando cessavit" — "Nor can anyone be excused who would not conquer the enemy, because he ceased to pray."

Here then arises the question whether it is also necessary to have recourse to the intercession of the Saints in order to obtain the divine graces. As for saying that it is a lawful and useful thing to invoke the Saints as intercessors, to obtain for us through the merits of Jesus Christ what we by our demerits are not worthy to obtain — this is already the doctrine of the Church, as the Council of Trent declared (Sess. 25, in the Decree on the Invocation of the Saints): "Bonum atque utile est suppliciter eos invocare, et ob beneficia impetranda a Deo per Filium ejus Christum ad eorum opem auxiliumque confugere" — "It is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly, and to have recourse to their aid and assistance in order to obtain benefits from God through His Son Christ." This invocation was condemned by the impious Calvin, but most unjustly; if it is lawful and profitable to invoke the living Saints for our help and to beg them to assist us with their prayers, as the prophet Baruch did, who said: "Et pro nobis ipsis orate ad Dominum Deum nostrum" — "And pray for us to the Lord our God" (Bar. 1:13). And St. Paul: "Fratres orate pro nobis" — "Brethren, pray for us" (1 Thess. 5:25). And God Himself willed that the friends of Job should commend themselves to his prayers, so that through the merits of Job He might then show them favor: "Ite ad servum meum Job... Job autem servus meus orabit pro vobis; faciem ejus suspiciam" — "Go to My servant Job... and Job, My servant, shall pray for you; his face I will accept" (Job 42:8). If it is lawful, then, to commend oneself to the living, why should it not be lawful to invoke the Saints, who in heaven enjoy God more intimately? This does not detract from the honor that is due to God, but doubles it, as does honoring the King not only in His own person but also in His servants. Therefore St. Thomas says it is good to have recourse to many Saints, "quia plurium
orationibus quandoque impetratur, quod unius oratione non impetratur" — "because that is sometimes obtained by the prayers of many which is not obtained by the prayer of one." And if someone should then say: But what is the use of having recourse to the Saints so that they may pray for us, when they already pray for all those who are worthy of it? The same holy Doctor answers that no one would be worthy that the Saints should pray for him, but "ex hoc fit dignus, quod ad ipsum (Sanctum) cum devotione recurrit" — "he becomes worthy by this very fact, that he has recourse to him (the Saint) with devotion."

It is further disputed whether it is profitable to commend oneself to the souls in Purgatory. Some say that the souls undergoing purification cannot pray for us, being moved by the authority of St. Thomas, who says that those souls, since they are being purified amid sufferings, are inferior to us, and therefore non sunt in statu orandi, sed magis ut oretur pro eis ("they are not in a state to pray, but rather to be prayed for"). But many other Doctors, such as Bellarmine, Sylvius, Cardinal Gotti, etc., most probably affirm it, since it must be piously believed that God makes our prayers known to them, so that those holy souls may pray for us, and so that between us and them there may be preserved this beautiful commerce of charity — namely, that we pray for them, and they for us. Nor does it stand in the way (as Sylvius and Gotti say) that the Angelic Doctor said the souls in Purgatory are not in a state to pray; for it is one thing not to be in a state to pray, and another not to be able to pray. It is true that those holy souls are not in a state to pray, because (as St. Thomas says), being in suffering, they are inferior to us and rather in need of our prayers; nevertheless, in that state they can indeed pray, because they are souls that are friends of God. If a father loves his son tenderly, but keeps him in prison in order to punish him for some fault he has committed, the son is then indeed not in a state to pray; but why can he not pray for others, and hope to obtain what he asks, knowing the affection his father bears him? So too, since the souls in Purgatory are greatly loved by God and confirmed in grace, there is no impediment that can forbid them to pray to Him for us. The Church, moreover, is not accustomed to invoke them and implore their intercession, because ordinarily they do not know our prayers. But it is piously believed (as has been said) that the Lord makes our prayers known to them; and then they, who are full of charity, certainly do not fail to pray for us. St. Catherine of Bologna, whenever she desired some grace, had recourse to the souls in Purgatory, and quickly saw herself heard; indeed, she attested that many graces which she had not obtained through the intercession of the saints, she afterwards obtained by means of the souls in Purgatory.

But here permit me to make a digression for the benefit of those holy souls. If we desire the help of their prayers, it is good that we too should apply ourselves to helping them with our prayers and works. I said "it is good"; but it must also be said that this is one of the Christian duties, since charity requires that we succor our neighbor when our neighbor is in need of our help, and we can help him without grave inconvenience. Now it is certain that among our neighbors are also the souls in Purgatory, who, although they are no longer in this life, nevertheless do not cease to be in the Communion of Saints. Piorum Animae mortuorum, says St. Augustine, non separantur ab Ecclesia ("The souls of the devout dead are not separated from the Church").

And St. Thomas declares this more distinctly to our purpose, saying that the charity owed to the departed, who have passed to the other life in grace, is an extension of that same charity which we owe to our living neighbors: Caritas quae est vinculum Ecclesiae membra uniens non solum ad vivos se exstendit sed etiam ad Mortuos qui in Caritate decedunt ("Charity, which is the bond uniting the members of the Church, extends not only to the living, but also to the dead who die in charity"). Hence we must succor those holy souls, as our neighbors, according to our ability; and since their needs are greater than those of our other neighbors, our duty to assist them seems on this account to be still greater.

Now, in what necessities do those holy prisoners find themselves? It is certain that their pains are immense. The fire that burns them, says St. Augustine, is more tormenting than any pain that can afflict man in this life: Gravior erit ille ignis quam quodquod potest homo pati in hac vita ("That fire will be more severe than anything that man can suffer in this life"). And St. Thomas judges the same, adding that it is the very same fire as that of hell: Eodem igne torquetur Damnatus et purgatur Electus ("By the same fire the damned is tormented and the elect is purified"). And this is with regard to the pain of sense; but far greater still is the pain of loss — that is, the privation of the sight of God which afflicts those His holy spouses — for those souls, drawn not only by natural but also by the supernatural love with which they burn toward God, are drawn with such impetus to unite themselves with their supreme Good that, seeing themselves hindered by their sins, they suffer a pain so bitter that, if they were capable of death, they would die at every moment.

So that, as Chrysostom says, this pain of the privation of God torments them immensely more than the pain of sense: Mille Inferni ignes simul uniti non darent tantam poenam, quanta est sola poena damni ("A thousand fires of hell united together would not inflict so great a pain as the pain of loss alone"). Hence those holy spouses would rather suffer all other pains than be deprived of a single moment of that longed-for union with God. The Angelic Doctor therefore says that the pain of Purgatory exceeds every sorrow that can be suffered in this life: Oportet, quod poena Purgatorii excedat omnem poenam istius vitae ("It must be that the pain of Purgatory exceeds every pain of this life"). And Denis the Carthusian relates that a certain dead man, afterwards raised to life through the intercession of St. Jerome, told St. Cyril of Jerusalem that all the torments of this earth are reliefs and delights in comparison with the least pain there is in Purgatory: Si omnia tormenta mundi minori, quae in Purgatorio habentur, poenae comparentur, solatia erunt ("If all the torments of the world were compared with the least pain found in Purgatory, they would be consolations"). And he added that if a man had experienced those pains, he would rather suffer all the sorrows of this life that men have endured until the day of judgment than endure for a single day the least pain of Purgatory. Hence the aforementioned St. Cyril wrote that those pains, as to their severity, are the same as those of hell; in this alone do they differ, that they are not eternal. The pains of those souls, then, are exceedingly great; and on the other hand, they cannot help themselves; according to what Job says, they are in catenis, et vinciuntur funibus paupertatis ("in chains, and are bound with the cords of poverty") (Job 36:8). Those holy queens are already destined for the kingdom, but they are detained from taking possession of it until the term of their purification arrives; so that they cannot help themselves (at least not sufficiently, if we are to believe those Doctors who hold that those souls can indeed obtain some relief even by their prayers) so as to loose themselves from those chains, until they fully satisfy Divine Justice; just as a Cistercian monk said from Purgatory to the sacristan of his monastery: "Help me (he begged) with your prayers, for by myself I can obtain nothing." And this is according to what St. Bonaventure says: Mendicitas impedit solutionem ("Poverty prevents payment"). That is, those souls are so poor that they have no means of making satisfaction.

On the other hand, since it is certain — indeed, a matter of faith — that we can indeed relieve those holy souls by our suffrages, and principally by prayers, commended in a particular way and also practiced by the Church, I do not know how he can be excused from fault who neglects to offer them some help, at least by his prayers. Let us be moved at least to succor them, if duty does not move us, by the pleasure that is given to Jesus Christ in seeing that we apply ourselves to set free those His beloved spouses, so that He may have them with Him in Paradise. Finally, let us be moved at least by the gain of the great merits that we can acquire by exercising this great act of charity toward those holy souls; who, on their part, are most grateful, and well know the great benefit we do them in relieving them from those pains, and in obtaining by our prayers the hastening of their entrance into glory; hence they will not fail, once they have arrived there, to pray for us. And if the Lord promises His mercy to him who shows mercy to his neighbor: Beati misericordes, quoniam ipsi misericordiam consequentur ("Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy") (Matt. 5:7), with great reason may he hope for his salvation who attends to assisting those holy souls, so afflicted and so dear to God. Jonathan, after having procured the deliverance of the Hebrews by the victory he obtained over the enemies, was himself condemned to death by his father Saul, for having eaten honey contrary to the order he had given; but the people presented themselves before the king, and said:

Ergo ne Jonathas morietur, qui fecit salutem hanc magnam in Israel? (Shall Jonathan then die, who has wrought this great salvation in Israel?) (1 Sam. 14:45) Now this is exactly what we must hope: that if ever one of us obtains by his prayers that a soul leaves Purgatory and goes to Paradise, that soul will say to God: Lord, do not permit that the one who freed me from torments should be lost. And if Saul granted Jonathan his life at the entreaties of the people, God will not deny eternal salvation to that faithful one for the prayers of a soul that is His spouse. Moreover, St. Augustine says that those who in this life have most succored those holy souls will, in the next life, when they are in Purgatory, be most succored by others, for God will so ordain it. Let it be noted here, as regards practice, that it is a great suffrage for the souls in Purgatory to hear Mass for them, and in it to commend them to God through the merits of the Passion of Jesus Christ, saying thus: Eternal Father, I offer You this Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, with all the sorrows He suffered in His life and death; and through the merits of His Passion I commend to You the souls of Purgatory, and especially etc. And it is an act of great charity to commend at the same time also the souls of all those in their agony.

What has just been said regarding the souls in Purgatory — concerning the point whether they can or cannot pray for us, and whether it therefore benefits us or not to commend ourselves to their prayers — certainly does not apply with respect to the Saints; for with regard to the Saints it cannot be doubted that it is most useful to have recourse to their intercession, speaking of the Saints already canonized by the Church, who already enjoy the vision of God. In this matter, to believe the Church fallible cannot be excused from the fault of heresy, as St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others hold, or at least from a fault proximate to heresy, as Suárez, Azorius, Gotti, etc., maintain, since the Supreme Pontiff in canonizing the Saints is principally, as the Angelic Doctor teaches, guided by the infallible instinct of the Holy Spirit.

But let us return to the doubt proposed above, whether there is also an obligation to have recourse to the intercession of the Saints. I do not wish to enter into this point, but I cannot omit setting forth a doctrine of the Angelic Doctor. He, first of all, in several places cited above, and especially in the book of the Sentences, takes it as certain that everyone is bound to pray; since otherwise (as he asserts) the graces necessary for salvation cannot be obtained from God unless they are asked for: Ad orationem quilibet tenetur, ex hoc ipso quod tenetur ad bona spiritualia sibi procuranda, quae non nisi divinitus dantur; unde alio modo procurari non possunt, nisi ut a Deo petantur (Everyone is bound to prayer, from the very fact that he is bound to procure for himself spiritual goods, which are given only by God; whence they cannot be procured in any other way than by being asked of God). Elsewhere in the same book the Saint then proposes precisely the doubt: Utrum debeamus Sanctos orare ad interpellandum pro nobis? (Whether we ought to pray to the Saints to intercede for us?) And he answers thus (to make the Saint's meaning well understood, his entire text must be quoted): Ordo est divinitus institutus in rebus secundum Dionysium, ut per media reducantur in Deum. Unde, cum Sancti, qui sunt in Patria, sint Deo propinquissimi, hoc Divinae legis ordo requirit, ut nos qui manentes in corpore peregrinamur a Domino, in Eum per Sanctos medios reducamur; quod contingit, dum per eos Divina Bonitas suum effectum diffundit (An order is divinely established in things, according to Dionysius, whereby they are led back to God through intermediaries. Hence, since the Saints who are in the heavenly homeland are nearest to God, this order of the divine law requires that we, who while dwelling in the body are pilgrims away from the Lord, be led back to Him through the Saints as intermediaries; which comes to pass when the divine Goodness diffuses its effect through them).

Et quia reditus noster in Deum respondere debet processui bonitatum Ipsius ad nos, sicut mediantibus Sanctorum suffragiis Dei beneficia in nos deveniunt, oportet nos in Deum reduci, ut iterato beneficia Ejus sumamus mediantibus Sanctis. Et inde est, quod eos Intercessores pro nobis ad Deum constituimus, et quasi Mediatores, dum ab eis petimus, quod pro nobis orarent (And because our return to God must correspond to the procession of His benefits toward us, just as God's benefits come down to us through the mediation of the Saints' suffrages, so must we be led back to God, that we may again receive His benefits through the mediation of the Saints. And hence it is that we constitute them intercessors for us before God, and as it were mediators, when we ask them to pray for us).

Note those words, Hoc Divinae Legis ordo requirit (This the order of the divine law requires); and then especially note the last ones, Sicut mediantibus Sanctorum suffragiis Dei beneficia in nos deveniunt, ita oportet nos in Deum reduci, ut iterato beneficia ejus sumamus mediantibus Sanctis (Just as God's benefits come down to us through the mediation of the Saints' suffrages, so must we be led back to God, that we may again receive His benefits through the mediation of the Saints). So that, according to St. Thomas, the order of the divine law requires that we mortals be saved by means of the Saints, receiving through them the helps necessary for salvation.

And to the objection that the Angelic Doctor raises (ad primum), namely that it seems superfluous to have recourse to the Saints, since God is infinitely more merciful than they and more inclined to hear us, he answers that the Lord has so disposed, not by reason of any defect in His clemency, but to preserve the right and universally established order of working by means of secondary causes: Non est propter defectum (the Saint's words) misericordiae ipsius, sed ut ordo praedictus conservetur in rebus (It is not on account of any defect in His mercy, but so that the aforesaid order may be preserved in things).

And on that authority of St. Thomas, the Continuator of Tournély writes, together with Sylvius, that although God alone is to be prayed to as the Author of graces, nevertheless we are bound to have recourse also to the intercession of the Saints, in order to observe the order that the Lord has established concerning our salvation, namely that inferiors be saved by imploring the help of superiors: Quia lege naturali tenemur eum ordinem observare, quem Deus instituit; at constituit Deus, ut ad salutem Inferiores perveniant implorato Superiorum subsidio (For by the natural law we are bound to observe that order which God has instituted; and God has ordained that inferiors attain salvation by imploring the aid of superiors).

And if this holds when speaking of the Saints, it must hold all the more for the intercession of the divine Mother, whose prayers avail with God certainly more than those of all Paradise; for St. Thomas said that the Saints, in proportion to the merit with which they have earned grace, can save many others; but that Jesus Christ, and likewise His Mother, have merited so much grace that They can save all men: Magnum est enim in quolibet Sancto quando habet tantum de Gratia, quod sufficit ad salutem multorum; sed quando haberet tantum quod sufficeret ad salutem omnium, hoc esset maximum; et hoc est in Christo, et in B. Virgine (For it is a great thing in any Saint when he has so much grace that it suffices for the salvation of many; but if he had so much that it sufficed for the salvation of all, this would be the greatest; and this is found in Christ and in the Blessed Virgin). And St. Bernard, speaking of Mary, wrote: Per Te accessum habemus ad Filium, o Inventrix gratiae, Mater salutis, ut per Te nos suscipiat, qui per Te datus est nobis (Through You we have access to the Son, O finder of grace, Mother of salvation, that through You He may receive us, who through You was given to us). By which he meant that just as we have no access to the Father except through the Son, who is the Mediator of justice, so we have no access to the Son except through the Mother, who is the Mediatrix of grace, and who obtains for us by her intercession the goods that Jesus Christ has merited for us. And in consequence of this, the same St. Bernard says elsewhere that Mary received from God two fullnesses of grace. The first was the Incarnation of the eternal Word made man in her most holy womb. The second was the fullness of the graces that we receive from God by means of the prayers of that divine Mother. Hence the Saint adds: Totius boni plenitudinem (Deus) posuit in Maria, ut proinde si quid spei nobis est, si quid gratiae, si quid salutis, ab Ea noverimus redundare, quae ascendit deliciis affluens. Hortus deliciarum, ut undique fluant et effluant aromata Ejus, charismata scilicet gratiarum (God placed the fullness of every good in Mary, so that accordingly, whatever hope we have, whatever grace, whatever salvation, we may know that it overflows from her, who ascends abounding in delights — a garden of delights, so that on every side her fragrances, that is, the gifts of graces, may flow and pour forth). So that whatever good we have from the Lord, we receive it all through the intercession of Mary. And why is this? Because (the same St. Bernard answers) God so wills it: Sic est voluntas Ejus qui totum nos habere voluit per Mariam (Such is the will of Him who willed that we should have everything through Mary).

But the most particular reason is drawn from what St. Augustine says, who wrote that Mary is rightly called our Mother, because she cooperated by her charity so that we faithful might be born to the life of grace, as members of our Head Jesus Christ: Sed plane Mater membrorum Ejus (quae nos sumus), quia cooperata est caritate, ut Fideles in Ecclesia nascerentur, qui illius Capitis membra sunt (But she is truly the Mother of His members — which we are — because she cooperated by charity, that the faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that Head). Hence it is that just as Mary cooperated by her charity in the spiritual birth of the faithful, so also God wills that she cooperate by her intercession in obtaining for them the life of grace — we faithful, as members of our Head Jesus Christ: Sed plane Mater membrorum Ejus (quae nos sumus), quia cooperata est caritate, ut Fideles in Ecclesia nascerentur, qui illius Capitis membra sunt (But she is truly the Mother of His members — which we are — because she cooperated by charity, that the faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that Head). Hence it is that just as Mary cooperated by her charity in the spiritual birth of the faithful, so also God wills that she cooperate by her intercession in obtaining for them the life of grace in this world and the life of glory in the next. And therefore holy Church has us call her and greet her, in absolute terms, our Life, our Sweetness, and our Hope: Vita, Dulcedo, et Spes nostra salve (Hail, our Life, our Sweetness, and our Hope).

Hence St. Bernard exhorts us always to have recourse to this divine Mother, because her prayers are certainly heard by the

Son: Ad Mariam recurre, non dubius dixerim, exaudiet utique Matrem Filius (Have recourse to Mary; I do not hesitate to say, the Son will surely hear His Mother). And then he says: Filioli, haec peccatorum Scala, haec maxima mea Fiducia, haec tota Ratio spei meae (My children, this is the ladder of sinners; this is my greatest confidence; this is the whole reason for my hope). The Saint calls her a Ladder, because just as on a ladder one does not ascend to the third step without first setting foot on the second, and one does not reach the second without setting foot on the first, so one does not reach God except through Jesus Christ, and one does not reach Jesus Christ except through Mary. He then calls her his greatest Confidence, and the whole Reason for his hope, because God (as he supposes) wills that all the graces He dispenses to us should pass through the hands of Mary. And he finally concludes by saying that all the graces we desire we must ask for through Mary, because she obtains whatever she seeks, and her prayers cannot be repulsed: Quaeramus gratiam, et per Mariam quaeramus, quia quod quaerit invenit, et frustrari non potest (Let us seek grace, and let us seek it through Mary; for what she seeks she finds, and she cannot be refused). And with a sentiment in conformity with St. Bernard speak also St. Ephrem: Nobis non est alia quam a Te fiducia, o Virgo sincerissima (We have no other confidence than in You, O most pure Virgin). St. Ildephonsus: Omnia bona quae illis summa Majestas decrevit facere, tuis manibus decrevit commendare. Commissi quippe sunt Tibi thesauri, et ornamenta gratiarum (All the good things which the sovereign Majesty has decreed to do for them, He has decreed to commit to Your hands; for the treasures and the ornaments of graces have been committed to You). St. Germanus: Si nos deserueris, quid erit de nobis, o Vita Christianorum? (If You forsake us, what will become of us, O Life of Christians?). St. Peter Damian: In manibus tuis sunt omnes thesauri miserationum Dei (In Your hands are all the treasures of the mercies of God). St. Antoninus: Qui petit sine Ipsa, sine alis tentat volare (He who asks without her attempts to fly without wings). St. Bernardine of Siena in one place says: Tu dispensatrix omnium gratiarum; salus nostra in manu tua est (You are the dispenser of all graces; our salvation is in Your hand). In another place he not only says that through Mary all graces are transmitted to us, but also asserts that the Blessed Virgin, from the time she was made Mother of God, acquired a certain jurisdiction over all the graces that are dispensed to us: Per Virginem a capite Christi vitales gratiae in ejus Corpus mysticum transfunduntur. A tempore quo Virgo Mater concepit in utero Verbum Dei, quandam (ut sic dicam) jurisdictionem obtinuit in omni Spiritus Sancti processione temporali; ita ut nulla Creatura aliquam a Deo obtinuerit gratiam, nisi secundum Ipsius piae Matris dispensationem (Through the Virgin the life-giving graces are poured forth from Christ the Head into His Mystical Body. From the time the Virgin Mother conceived the Word of God in her womb, she obtained, so to speak, a certain jurisdiction over every temporal procession of the Holy Spirit; so that no creature has obtained any grace from God except according to the dispensation of His holy Mother). And he concludes: Ideo omnia dona, virtutes, et gratiae, quibus vult, quando vult, et quomodo vult, per Ipsius manus dispensantur (Therefore all gifts, virtues, and graces are dispensed through her hands, to whom she wills, when she wills, and in the manner she wills). St. Bonaventure wrote the same: Cum tota Natura Divina intra Virginis Uterum exstiterit, non timeo dicere, quod in omnes gratiarum effluxus, quandam jurisdictionem habuerit haec Virgo, de cujus Utero quasi de quodam Divinatis Oceano flumina emanant omnium gratiarum (Since the whole Divine Nature existed within the Virgin's womb, I am not afraid to say that this Virgin had a certain jurisdiction over all the outpourings of graces, from whose womb, as from a certain ocean of the Divinity, flow the rivers of all graces). Hence many theologians, relying on the authority of these Saints, have piously and rightly defended the opinion that there is no grace dispensed to us except through the intercession of Mary: thus Vega, Mendoza, Paciucchelli, Segneri, Poiré, Crasset, and many other authors, together with the learned Fr. Natalis Alexander, who wrote: Deus vult, ut omnia bona ab Ipso expectemus, potentissima Virginis Matris intercessione impetranda, cum Eam (ut par est) invocamus (God wills that we should expect all goods from Him, as things to be obtained through the most powerful intercession of the Virgin Mother, when we invoke her, as is fitting). And he adduces in confirmation the aforesaid passage of St. Bernard: Sic est voluntas Ejus, qui totum voluit nos habere per Mariam (Such is the will of Him who willed that we should have all things through Mary). And Fr. Contenson says the same; on the words of Jesus Christ on the cross addressed to St. John, Ecce Mater tua (Behold your mother), he thus added: Quasi diceret, Nullus Sanguinis mei particeps erit, nisi intercessione Matris meae. Vulnera gratiarum fontes sunt, sed ad nullos derivabuntur rivi, nisi per Mariae canalem. Joannes Discipule, tantum a Me amaberis, quantum Eam amaveris (As if He were saying: No one shall share in My Blood except through the intercession of My Mother. The wounds are the fountains of graces, but their streams shall flow to no one except through the channel of Mary. John, My disciple, you shall be loved by Me in the measure in which you love her). For the rest, it is certain that if it is pleasing to God that we should have recourse to the Saints, much more will it please Him that we should avail ourselves of the intercession of Mary, so that she may supply by her merit for our unworthiness, as St. Anselm says: Ut dignitas intercessoris suppleat inopiam nostram (That the dignity of the intercessor may supply for our poverty). Unde Virginem interpellare, non est de Divina Misericordia diffidere, sed de propria indignitate formidare (Hence to appeal to the Virgin is not to distrust the Divine Mercy, but to stand in fear on account of our own unworthiness). St. Thomas, moreover, speaking of the dignity of Mary, calls it well-nigh infinite: Ex hoc quod est Mater Dei, habet quandam dignitatem infinitam (From the fact that she is the Mother of God, she has a certain infinite dignity).

Hence it is rightly said that the prayers of Mary are more powerful with God than the prayers of all Paradise together.

Let us conclude this first point, summing up from all that has been said, that he who prays is certainly saved; he who does not pray is certainly damned. All the Blessed

(excepting infants) have been saved by praying. All the damned have been lost for not praying; had they prayed, they would not have been lost. And this is, and will be, their greatest despair in hell: that they could have been saved with as much ease as it was to ask God for His graces, and that now the wretched are no longer in time to ask for them.

o Epist. 5 ad Episc. in Picaeno contra Pelag.

p Act. Eccle. Med. pag. 1005.

t Idem in Psal. 502. (102).

aa S. Aug. Hom. 43.

ab S. Chrysost. Serm. de Moise.

ac S. Th. in 2 sentent. Dist. 45 q. 3 a. 2. ad 2.

ad Loco cit. ad 5.

ae S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 83. a. 11. ad 3.

af Bellarm. lib. 2 de Purgat. cap. 15. Sylvius in qu. 71. Suppl. aart. 6. Gotti tom. 3. trat. 14. q. 4. § 3. in fin. Less. de Justitia lib. 2. cap. 37. Dub. 5. cum Sylv. Medina etc.

ag S. Aug. lib. 20 de Civ. Dei cap. 9.

ah S. Aug. in Psalm. 37.

ai D. Thom. in 4 Sent. Dist. 21.

al S. Thom. in 4 Sent. Dist. 21. q. I, a. I. q. 3.

am Dionys. Chart. Noviss. l. 4 p. 3 a. 19.

an S. Cyr. Jeros. in Ep. ad. S. Aug.

ao Hist. of the Cisterc. Order.

ap S. Bonave. Serm. de Mort.

aq S. Thom. in 4. Sent. Dist. 15. q. 4. a. I. Solut. ad q. 3.

ar S. Thom. In 4. Sent. Dist. 45. q. 3. a. 2.

as S. Thom. Quodlib. 9. art. 16. ad. I.

at Continuat. Tournely tom. I. de Relig. cap. 2 de Orat. art. 4. q. I cum Sylvio.

au S. Th. Epist. 8.

av S. Bern. Serm. in Dom. infr. oct. Assumpt.

az S. Bernard. Serm. de Aquaeduct.

ax S. Aug. lib. 3 de Symb. ad cat. cap. 4.

ba S. Bern. cit. Serm. de Aquaed.

bb Nat. Alex. Epist. 76. in calce To. 4. Moral.

bc Contens. Theol. mentis. et cord. c. 2. 1. 10. D. 4. cap. I.

bd S. Ans. de Excell. Virg. cap. 6.

be S. Th. I. par. q. 25. a. 6. ad 4.

### CHAPTER II - OF THE VALUE OF PRAYER

Our prayers are so dear to God that He has appointed the Angels to present them to Him as soon as they are made by us.

The Angels, says St. Hilary, praesunt Fidelium Orationibus, et eas quotidie Deo offerunt (preside over the prayers of the faithful, and offer them daily to God). This is precisely that sacred smoke of incense — that is, the prayers of the Saints — which St. John saw ascend to the Lord, offered to Him by the hands of the Angels (Rev. 8). And elsewhere (Rev. 5) the same holy Apostle writes that the prayers of the Saints are like so many golden vials, full of sweet odors and most pleasing to God. But to better understand how much prayers avail with God, it suffices to read in the Divine Scriptures the innumerable promises that God makes to those who pray, both in the Old and in the New Testament: Clama ad me, et exaudiam te (Cry to Me, and I will hear you) (Jer. 33:3). Invoca me, et eruam te (Call upon Me, and I will deliver you) (Ps. 49:15). Petite, et dabitur vobis; quaerite, et invenietis; pulsate, et aperietur vobis (Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you) (Matt. 7:7). Dabit bona petentibus se (He will give good things to those who ask Him) (Matt. 7:11). Omnis enim qui petit accipit, et qui quaerit invenit (For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds) (Luke 11:10). De omni re, quamcumque petierint, fiet illis a Patre meo (Concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done for them by My Father) (Matt. 18:19). Omnia quaecumque orantes petitis, credite, quia accipietis, et evenient vobis (All things whatsoever you ask in prayer, believe that you shall receive, and they shall come to you) (Mark 11:24). Si quid petieritis me in nomine meo hoc faciam (If you ask Me anything in My name, this I will do) (John 14:14). Quodcumque volueritis, petetis, et fiet vobis (Whatever you will, you shall ask, and it shall be done for you) (John 15:7). Amen, amen dico vobis: si quid petieritis Patrem in nomine meo dabit vobis (Amen, amen, I say to you: if you ask the Father anything in My name, He will give it to you) (John 16:23). And there are a thousand other similar texts, which are omitted for brevity.

God wills that we be saved, but for our greater good He wills that we be saved as conquerors. Since, then, we are in this life, we must live in a continual warfare, and to be saved we must fight and conquer. Nullus sine victoria poterit coronari (No one can be crowned without victory), says St. John Chrysostom. We are very weak, and the enemies are many and most powerful: how shall we be able to withstand them and overcome them? Let us take courage, and let each one say with the Apostle: Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat (I can do all things in Him who strengthens me) (Phil. 4:13). We shall be able to do all things by prayer, by means of which the Lord will give us that strength which we do not have. Theodoret wrote that prayer is omnipotent; it is but one, yet it can obtain all things: Oratio, cum sit una, omnia potest (Prayer, though it is one, can do all things). And St. Bonaventure asserted that by prayer is obtained the acquisition of every good and escape from every evil: Per ipsam impetratur obtentio omnis boni, et liberatio ab omni malo (By it is obtained the possession of every good, and deliverance from every evil). St. Lawrence Justinian used to say that by means of prayer we build for ourselves a most strong tower, where we shall be defended and secure from all the snares and violence of the enemies: Per Orationis exercitium secum arcem erigere valet homo (By the exercise of prayer man can raise up a fortress for himself). The powers of hell are strong, but prayer is stronger (says St. Bernard) than all the demons: Oratio Daemonibus omnibus praevalet (Prayer prevails over all the demons). Yes, because by prayer the soul obtains the divine aid, which surpasses every created power. Thus did David encourage himself in his fears: I (he said) will call upon my Lord for aid, and I shall be delivered from all my enemies: Laudans invocabo Dominum, et ab inimicis meis salvus ero (Praising, I will call upon the Lord, and I shall be saved from my enemies) (Ps. 17:4). In short, says St. John Chrysostom: Magna armatura precatio, tutela, portus, et thesaurus (Prayer is a great armor, a protection, a harbor, and a treasure). Prayer is a weapon able to overcome every assault of the demons; it is a defense that preserves us in every danger; it is a harbor that saves us from every storm; and it is at the same time a treasure that provides us with every good.

God, knowing the great good that the necessity of praying brings us, for this end (as was said in Chapter I) permits us to be assailed by the enemies, so that we may ask Him for the help that He offers us and promises us. But as much as He is pleased when we have recourse to Him in dangers, so much does it displease Him to see us neglectful in praying. Just as the king, says St. Bonaventure, would esteem unfaithful that captain who, finding himself besieged in the citadel, did not seek help from him: Reputaretur infidelis, nisi expectaret a Rege auxilium (He would be reckoned unfaithful if he did not look for aid from the king), so God considers Himself, as it were, betrayed by him who, seeing himself beset by temptations, does not have recourse to Him for help, while He desires and is waiting to be asked, in order to succor him abundantly. Isaiah indeed declared this when, on God's behalf, he told King Ahaz to ask Him for some sign, in order to be assured of the help that the Lord wished to give him: Pete tibi signum a Domino Deo tuo (Ask a sign for yourself of the Lord your God) (Isa. 7:11-13). The wicked king replied: Non petam, et non tentabo Dominum (I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord). I will not ask it, because I will not tempt God. He said this because he trusted in his own strength to overcome the enemies without the divine aid. But the Prophet then reproved him: Audite ergo Domus David, numquid parum vobis est molestos esse hominibus, quia molesti estis et Deo meo? (Hear, therefore, O house of David: is it too little for you to be troublesome to men, that you are troublesome also to my God?) Thereby signifying to us that one who neglects to ask God for the graces that the Lord offers him becomes troublesome and offensive to God.

Venite ad me omnes, qui laboratis, et onerati estis, et ego reficiam vos (Come to Me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you) (Matt. 11:28). My poor children, says the Savior, who find yourselves harassed by the enemies and oppressed by the weight of your sins, do not lose heart; have recourse to Me in prayer, and I will give you strength to resist, and will provide a remedy for all your misfortunes. In another place He says through the mouth of Isaiah: Venite, et arguite me (dicit Dominus), si fuerint peccata vestra ut coccinum, quasi nix dealbabuntur (Come, and accuse Me, says the Lord: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made white as snow) (Isa. 1:18). Men (He says), have recourse to Me; and even though your consciences were deeply stained, do not fail to come, and I give you leave even to reproach Me (so to speak) if, after you have had recourse to Me, I do not cause you by My grace to become white as snow. What is prayer? Let us hear Chrysostom: Oratio est fluctuantibus anchora, pauperum thesaurus, morborum curatio, custodia sanitatis (Prayer is an anchor for those tossed by the waves, a treasure of the poor, a cure of diseases, a guardian of health). Prayer is a sure anchor for one who is in danger of shipwreck; it is an immense treasure of riches for one who is poor; it is a most efficacious medicine for one who is sick; and it is a certain safeguard for one who wishes to preserve himself in health. What does prayer do? Let us hear St. Lawrence Justinian: Placat Deum, postulata reportat, adversarios superat, immutat homines (It appeases God, obtains what is asked, overcomes adversaries, transforms men). Prayer appeases the wrath of God, who forgives him who prays to Him with humility; it obtains the grace of all that is asked; it overcomes all the powers of the enemies; in short, it changes men from blind to enlightened, from weak to strong, from sinners into saints. Let him who needs light ask it of God, and it will be given him: as soon as I had recourse to God, said Solomon, He granted me wisdom: Invocavi, et venit in me spiritus sapientiae (I called upon God, and the spirit of wisdom came upon me) (Wis. 7:7). Let him who needs fortitude ask it of God, and it will be bestowed upon him: as soon as I opened my mouth to pray, said David, I received help from God: Os meum aperui, et attraxi spiritum (I opened my mouth, and drew in the spirit) (Ps. 118:134). And how did the holy Martyrs acquire such great fortitude to resist the tyrants, if not by prayer, which obtained for them the vigor to overcome torments and death?

He who avails himself, in short, of this great weapon of prayer, says St. John Chrysostom: Nescit mortem, relinquit terras, Caelos intrat, convivit Deo (He knows not death, he leaves the earth, he enters heaven, he dwells with God). He does not fall into sin, he loses his attachment to the earth, he enters to dwell in heaven, and he begins already in this life to enjoy the conversation of God. What good is it, then, for anyone to distress himself by saying: Who knows whether I am written or not in the book of life? Who knows whether God will give me efficacious grace and perseverance? Nihil solliciti sitis, sed in omni oratione, et obsecratione, cum gratiarum actione, petitiones vestrae innotescant apud Deum (Be solicitous about nothing, but in every prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your petitions be made known to God).

What good is it, says the Apostle, to perplex yourselves amid these anguishes and fears? Come, cast away from yourselves all these anxieties, which serve only to lessen your confidence and to make you more tepid and slothful in walking the way of salvation. Pray, seek always, and make your prayers heard by God, and always thank Him for the promises He has made you of granting you the gifts you desire (provided you ask Him for them): efficacious grace, perseverance, salvation, and all that you desire. The Lord has placed us in the battle to fight against powerful enemies, but He is faithful in His promises, nor does He suffer us to be assailed beyond what we are able to resist: Fidelis autem Deus est, qui non patietur vos tentari supra id quod potestis (But God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able) (1 Cor. 10:13). He is faithful, for He at once succors him who invokes Him. The most learned and eminent Cardinal Gotti writes that the Lord is not otherwise bound always to give us a grace equal to the temptation; but He is obliged, when we are tempted and have recourse to Him, to supply us through grace (which He holds prepared and offers to all) with sufficient strength whereby we can actually resist the temptation: Tenetur

Deus, cum tentamur, nobis ad Eum confugientibus per gratiam a Deo paratam et oblatam vires adfuturas praebere, et qua possimus resistere, et actu resistamus; omnia enim possumus in Eo, qui nos confortat per gratiam, si humiliter petamus (God is bound, when we are tempted, to furnish us who flee to Him, through the grace prepared and offered by God, with the strength that will be at hand, by which we both can resist and actually do resist; for we can do all things in Him who strengthens us by grace, if we humbly ask). We can do all things with the divine aid, which is given to everyone who humbly asks for it; hence we have no excuse when we let ourselves be overcome by temptation. We are conquered solely through our own fault, because we do not pray. By prayer all the snares and forces of the enemies are indeed overcome: Per Orationem cuncta noxia effugantur (By prayer all harmful things are put to flight), wrote

St. Augustine.

St. Bernardine of Siena says that prayer is a faithful ambassadress, well known to the King of heaven, and wont to enter even into His private chamber, and by her importunity to bend the merciful heart of the King to grant every succor to us poor wretches, who groan amid so many combats and miseries in this valley of tears: Est Oratio Nuncius fidelissimus, notus Regi, qui cubiculum Regis adire, et qui importunitate pium Regis animum flectere, et laborantibus opem impetrare solitus est (Prayer is a most faithful messenger, known to the King, who is wont to enter the King's chamber, and by her importunity to bend the King's merciful heart, and to obtain aid for those who labor). Isaiah likewise assures us that when the Lord hears our prayers, He is at once moved to compassion for us, and does not leave us long weeping, but at that very moment answers us and grants us whatever we ask of Him: Plorans nequaquam plorabis, miserans miserebitur tui, ad vocem clamoris tui, statim ut audierit, respondebit tibi (Weeping, you shall not weep; having mercy, He will have mercy on you; at the voice of your cry, as soon as He hears it, He will answer you) (Isa. 30:19). And in another place the Lord speaks through the mouth of Jeremiah, and complaining of us He says: Numquid solitudo factus sum Israeli, aut terra serotina? Quare ergo dixit Populus meus: Recessimus, non veniemus ultra ad te? (Have I become a wilderness to Israel, or a late-fruiting land? Why then has My people said: We have gone away, we will come to You no more?) (Jer. 2:31). Why (says God) do you say that you will have recourse to Me no more? Is My mercy perhaps a barren land for you, that it cannot yield you any fruit of graces? Or a tardy land, that yields its fruit very late? By this our loving Lord wished to give us to understand that He never fails to hear, and to hear at once, our prayers; and by it He also wished to reprove those who cease to pray to Him out of distrust of being heard.

If God admitted us to lay our petitions before Him once a month, it would still be a great favor. The kings of the earth give audience a few times a year, but God always gives audience. St. Chrysostom writes that God is continually ready to hear our prayers; nor is there ever a case in which He, being invoked as He ought to be, fails to hear the one who prays to Him: Deus paratus continue ad vocem Servorum suorum est, nec unquam ut oportet vocatus non obaudivit (God is continually attentive to the voice of His servants, nor, when invoked as He ought to be, has He ever failed to hear). And elsewhere he says that when we pray to God, before we finish laying our petitions before Him, He already grants them: Semper obtinetur, etiam dum adhuc oramus (It is always obtained, even while we are still praying).

Indeed, of this we have the promise of God Himself: Adhuc illis loquentibus, ego audiam (While they are yet speaking, I will hear) (Isa. 65:24). The Lord, says David, is near to everyone who prays to Him, to please him, to hear him, and to save him: Prope est Dominus, omnibus invocantibus eum; omnibus invocantibus eum in veritate (that is, as they ought). Voluntatem timentium se faciet, et deprecationem exaudiet, et salvos faciet illos (The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth; He will do the will of those who fear Him, and He will hear their prayer, and will save them) (Ps. 144:19). This was the very thing in which Moses gloried, saying: Non est alia Natio tam grandis, quae habeat deos appropinquantes sibi; sicut Deus noster adest cunctis obsecrationibus nostris (There is no other nation so great that has gods drawing near to it, as our God is present to all our petitions) (Deut. 4:7). The gods of the Gentiles were deaf to those who invoked them, because they were wretched creatures that could do nothing; but our God, who can do all things, is not deaf to our prayers, but is always near to the one who prays to Him and ready to grant all the graces he asks: In quacunque die invocavero te, ecce cognovi, quoniam Deus meus es (On whatsoever day I call upon You, behold, I have known that You are my God) (Ps. 55:11). "Lord," said the Psalmist, "in this I have known that You are my God, all Goodness and Mercy: in seeing that whenever I have recourse to You, You at once come to my aid."

We are poor in everything, but if we ask, we are no longer poor. If we are poor, God is rich; and God is all-generous, says the Apostle, toward those who call upon Him for help: Dives in omnes, qui invocant illum (Rich toward all who call upon Him) (Rom. 10:12). Since then (St. Augustine exhorts us) we have to do with a Lord of infinite power and infinite riches, let us not ask Him for small and paltry things, but let us ask Him for something great: Ab Omnipotente petitis, aliquid magnum petite (Since you ask of the Omnipotent, ask for something great). If someone were to ask a king for a paltry coin, a farthing, it would seem that he did the king a dishonor. On the contrary, we honor God, we honor His Mercy and His Generosity, when, seeing ourselves as wretched as we are and unworthy of every benefit, we nonetheless ask Him for great graces, trusting in the Goodness of God and in His Faithfulness, because of the promise He made to grant to whoever prays to Him whatever grace he asks: Quodcumque volueritis petetis, et fiet vobis (Whatsoever you will, you shall ask, and it shall be done for you) (John 15:7). St. Mary Magdalene de' Pazzi used to say that the Lord feels so honored, and is so consoled, when we ask Him for graces, that in a certain way He thanks us, since it seems that we then open the way for Him to benefit us and to satisfy His inclination, which is to do good to all. And let us be convinced that when we ask God for graces, He always gives us more than we ask of Him. Si quis indiget sapientia, postulet a Deo, qui dat omnibus affluenter, nec improperat (If any one lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all abundantly, and upbraids not) (Jas. 1:5). So says St. James, to show us that God is not, like men, miserly with His goods. Men, however rich, however pious and generous, when they dispense alms are always tight-fisted, and for the most part give less than what is asked of them, because their wealth, however great it may be, is always finite wealth; hence the more they give, the more they come to lack. But God, when He is prayed to, gives His goods affluenter — that is, with an open hand — always giving more than what is asked of Him, because His wealth is infinite; the more He gives, the more He has left to give. Quoniam tu Domine suavis, et mitis, et multae misericordiae omnibus invocantibus te (For You, O Lord, are sweet and mild, and of great mercy to all who call upon You) (Ps. 85:5). "You, my God," said David, "are too generous and gracious toward those who invoke You; the mercies You show them are all abundant — they surpass their petitions."

In this, then, all our attention must consist: in praying with confidence, certain that by praying all the treasures of heaven will be opened in our favor. Hoc studeamus (says St. Chrysostom), et aperiemus nobis Caelum (Let us give heed to this, and we shall open heaven for ourselves). Prayer is a treasure: the more one prays, the more one receives of it. St. Bonaventure says that every time a man devoutly turns to God in prayer, he gains goods that are worth more than the whole world: In quacumque die lucratur homo oratione devota plus, quam valeat totus Mundus (On whatsoever day a man prays devoutly, he gains more than the whole world is worth). Some devout souls spend a great deal of time in reading and meditating, but attend little to praying. There is no doubt that spiritual reading and the meditation of the eternal truths are very useful things; but far more useful, says St. Augustine, is praying. In reading and meditating we understand our obligations, but by prayer we obtain the grace to fulfill them: Melius est orare quam legere; in lectione cognoscimus quae facere debemus, in oratione accipimus quae postulamus (It is better to pray than to read; in reading we learn what we ought to do, in prayer we receive what we ask). What good is it to know what we are obliged to do and then not do it, except to make ourselves more guilty before God? Let us read and meditate as much as we wish; we shall never satisfy our obligations if we do not ask God for the help to fulfill them.

And therefore St. Isidore observes that at no other time does the Devil labor harder to turn us aside with thoughts of temporal cares than when he notices that we are praying and asking God for graces: Tunc magis Diabolus cogitationes ingerit, quando orantem aspexerit (The Devil injects more thoughts when he sees a man praying). And why? Because the Enemy sees that at no other time do we gain more treasures of heavenly goods than when we pray. This is the greatest fruit of mental prayer: to ask God for the graces we need for perseverance and for eternal salvation. It is principally for this reason that mental prayer is morally necessary for the soul to preserve itself in the grace of God: for if a person does not collect himself at the time of meditation to ask for the aids that are necessary for perseverance, he will not do so at any other time, since without meditating he will not think of the need he has to ask for them. On the contrary, one who makes his meditation every day will clearly see the needs of his soul, the dangers in which he finds himself, and the necessity he has to pray; and so he will pray and obtain the graces that will then make him persevere and be saved. Fr. Segneri used to say, speaking of himself, that at the beginning, in meditation, he dwelt more on making affections than on petitions, but afterward, recognizing the necessity and the immense benefit of prayer, from then on, in the abundant mental prayer he made, he applied himself for the most part to praying.

Sicut pullus hirundinis, sic clamabo (Like a young swallow, so will I cry), said the devout King Hezekiah (Isa. 38:14).

The chicks of swallows do nothing but cry out, thereby seeking help and nourishment from their mothers. So must we all do, if we wish to preserve in ourselves the life of grace: we must always cry out, asking God for help, in order to avoid the death of sin and to advance in His holy love. Fr. Rodriguez relates that the ancient Fathers, who were our first masters of the spiritual life, took counsel among themselves to see which exercise was the most useful and most necessary for eternal salvation, and they resolved that it was the frequent repetition of the short prayer of David: Deus in adjutorium meum intende (O God, come to my assistance). The same (writes Cassian) must one do who wishes to be saved, always saying: "My God, help me; my God, help me." This we must do from the moment we awake in the morning, and then continue doing it in all our needs and in all the occupations in which we find ourselves, spiritual as well as temporal, and most especially when we see ourselves troubled by some temptation or passion. St. Bonaventure says that sometimes grace is obtained more quickly by a short prayer than by many other good works: Quandoque citius brevi oratione aliquis obtinet, quod piis operibus vix obtineret (Sometimes one obtains by a short prayer more quickly what he would scarcely obtain by pious works). St. Ambrose added that one who prays already obtains while he prays; for the very act of asking is receiving: Qui petit a Deo, dum petit, accipit; ipsum namque petere est accipere (He who asks of God receives while he asks; for the asking itself is receiving). Hence St. Chrysostom wrote that there is no one more powerful than a man who prays: Nihil potentius homine orante (Nothing is more powerful than a man who prays), because such a one becomes a sharer in the power of God. To ascend to perfection, said St. Bernard, meditation and prayer are needed: by meditation we see what we lack, by prayer we receive what we need: Ascendamus meditatione, et oratione; illa docet quid desit, haec ne desit obtinet (Let us ascend by meditation and prayer; the former teaches what is lacking, the latter obtains that it be not lacking).

In short, to be saved without praying is most difficult, indeed impossible (as we have seen) according to the ordinary divine providence; but by praying, to be saved is a sure and very easy thing. To be saved it is not necessary to go among the infidels to give one's life; it is not necessary to withdraw into the deserts to feed on herbs. What does it take to say: "My God, help me; Lord, assist me; have pity on me"? Is there anything easier than this? And this little will be enough to save us, if we are careful to do it. St. Lawrence Justinian especially exhorts us to force ourselves to pray at least at the beginning of every action: Connitendum est, ut in primordio saltem cujusque operis dirigatur oratio (We must strive that prayer be offered at least at the beginning of every work). Cassian attests that the ancient Fathers most earnestly exhorted having recourse to God with short but frequent prayers. Let no one think little of his prayer (said St. Bernard), since God does not think little of it, and He then gives us either what we seek or what is more profitable for us: Nemo parvipendat orationem suam, quia Deus non parvipendit eam... aut dabit quod petimus, aut quod novit utilius (Let no one esteem his prayer lightly, for God does not esteem it lightly... He will give either what we ask or what He knows to be more profitable). And let us understand that if we do not pray, there is no excuse for us, because the grace to pray is given to everyone; it is in our hands to pray whenever we wish, as David said, speaking of himself: Apud me oratio Deo vitae meae, dicam Deo, susceptor meus es (With me is prayer to the God of my life; I will say to God: You are my support) (Ps. 41:9-10). This point will be treated at length in Part Two, in which I will make it clear enough that God gives to all the grace to pray, so that by praying they may then obtain all the aids, even abundant ones, to observe the Divine Law and to persevere until death. For now I say only this: if we are not saved, the whole fault will be ours, and we shall have only ourselves to blame, because we did not pray.

### CHAPTER III - OF THE CONDITIONS OF PRAYER

Amen, amen dico vobis, si quid petieritis Patrem in nomine meo, dabit vobis (Amen, amen, I say to you, if you ask the Father anything in My name, He will give it to you) (John 16:23). It is, then, a promise of Jesus Christ that whatever we ask the Father in His name, the Father will grant us all; but it is always understood that we ask with the due conditions. Many (says St. James) ask and do not obtain, because they ask badly: Petitis, et non accipitis, eo quod male petatis (You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss) (Jas. 4:3). Hence St. Basil, following the saying of the Apostle, says: Ideo quandoque petis, et non accipis, quia perperam postulasti, vel infideliter, vel leviter, vel non conferentia tibi, vel destitisti (For this reason you sometimes ask and do not receive, because you have asked amiss: either without faith, or lukewarmly, or for things that do not profit you, or you have given up). Infideliter — that is, with little faith or little confidence. Leviter — with little desire to obtain the grace. Non conferentia tibi — asking for goods not profitable to salvation. Vel destitisti — without perseverance. Therefore St. Thomas Aquinas reduces to four the conditions required in prayer for it to obtain its effect: namely, that a man ask pro se, necessaria ad salutem, pie, et perseveranter (for himself, for things necessary for salvation, devoutly, and perseveringly).

The first condition of prayer, then, is that it be made pro se (for oneself); for St. Thomas Aquinas holds that a man cannot obtain for others ex condigno (by condign merit) eternal life, and consequently not even those graces that belong to their salvation, since the promise (as he says) is made not for others, but only to those who pray: Dabit vobis (He will give it to you). Nevertheless, there are many Doctors who hold the opposite, relying on the authority of St. Basil, who teaches that prayer, by virtue of the divine promise, infallibly has its effect, even for others for whom one prays, provided those others place no positive obstacle in the way. And they ground themselves on the Scriptures: Et orate pro invicem, ut salvemini; multum enim valet oratio justi assidua (And pray for one another, that you may be saved; for the continual prayer of a just man avails much) (Jas. 5:16). Orate pro persequentibus, et calumniantibus vos (Pray for those who persecute and calumniate you) (Matt. 5:44). And better still on the text of St. John: Qui scit fratrem suum peccare peccatum non ad mortem, petat, et dabitur ei vita peccanti non ad mortem (He who knows his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him who sins not to death) (1 John 5:16). That phrase peccanti non ad mortem (who sins not to death) is explained by St. Augustine and others to mean: provided that sinner is not one who intends to live obstinately until death, since for such a one a very extraordinary grace would be required.

For the rest, for other sinners, not guilty of such malice, the Apostle promises their conversion to the one who prays for them: Petat, et dabitur ei vita peccanti (Let him ask, and life shall be given to the one who sins).

Moreover, it is not doubted that the prayers of others greatly benefit sinners and are most pleasing to God; and God complains of His servants who do not commend sinners to Him, as He complained to St. Mary Magdalene de' Pazzi, to whom He said one day: "See, My daughter, how Christians lie in the hands of the devil; if My elect did not deliver them by their prayers, they would be devoured." But the Lord desires this especially from priests and religious. The aforesaid saint used to say to her nuns: "Sisters, God has not separated us from the world so that we may do good only for ourselves, but also that we may appease Him on behalf of sinners." And the same Lord said to her one day: "I have given to you, My chosen spouses, the City of Refuge (that is, the Passion of Jesus Christ), so that you may have somewhere to have recourse in order to help My creatures; therefore have recourse to it, and there bring help to My creatures who are perishing, and lay down your lives for them." Hence the saint, inflamed with holy zeal, offered to God the Blood of the Redeemer for sinners fifty times a day, and consumed herself with desire for their conversion, saying: "Oh, what a torment it is, O Lord, to see that I could benefit Your creatures by laying down my life for them, and not to be able to do it!" Moreover, in every exercise she commended sinners to God; and it is written in her Life that hardly an hour of the day passed in which the saint did not pray for them; frequently she even rose at midnight and went to the Most Blessed Sacrament to pray for sinners; and with all this, she was once found weeping bitterly, and when asked why, she answered: "Because it seems to me that I do nothing for the salvation of sinners." She went so far as to offer herself, for their conversion, to suffer even the pains of hell, provided she would not have to hate God there; and several times God granted her to be afflicted with grievous pains and infirmities for the salvation of sinners. She prayed especially for priests, seeing that their good life was the cause of the salvation of others, and their bad life the cause of the ruin of many; and therefore she prayed the Lord to punish their sins upon her, saying: "Lord, make me die and come back to life as many times as needed, until I have satisfied Your Justice for them." And it is narrated in her Life that the saint by her prayers did in fact deliver many souls from the hands of Lucifer.

I have wished to say something more particular about the zeal of this saint. Besides, all souls that are truly in love with God never cease to pray for poor sinners. For how is it possible that a person who loves God, seeing the love He bears toward souls, and all that Jesus Christ has done and suffered for their salvation, and the desire this Savior has that we pray for sinners; how is it possible, I say, that he can then look with indifference upon so many poor souls who live without God, slaves of hell, and not be moved and exert himself to pray frequently to the Lord to give light and strength to those unhappy souls, so that they may escape the miserable state in which they slumber and live lost? It is true that God has not promised to hear us when those for whom we pray place a positive obstacle to their conversion; but many times the Lord, in His goodness and in regard for the prayers of His servants, has been pleased, by extraordinary graces, to bring back to a state of salvation the most blinded and obstinate sinners. Therefore let us never fail, in saying or hearing Mass, in making our Communion, our meditation, or our visit to the Most Blessed Sacrament, always to commend poor sinners to God. And a learned author says that one who prays for others will all the sooner see the prayers he makes for himself heard. Let this be said in passing; but let us return to see the other conditions that St. Thomas Aquinas requires for prayer to have its effect.

The other condition that the saint assigns is that we ask for those graces that are needed for salvation, necessaria ad salutem (things necessary for salvation); since the promise made to prayer is not for temporal graces, which are not necessary for the salvation of the soul. St. Augustine, explaining the words of the Gospel in nomine meo (in My name) cited above, says that non petitur in nomine Salvatoris, quicquid petitur contra rationem salutis (whatever is asked contrary to the order of salvation is not asked in the name of the Savior). Sometimes we ask for certain temporal graces, and God does not hear us; but He does not hear us (says the same holy Doctor) because He loves us and wishes to show us mercy: Fideliter supplicans Deo pro necessitatibus hujus vitae, et misericorditer auditur, et misericorditer non auditur; quid enim Infirmo sit utile magis novit Medicus, quam Aegrotus (He who faithfully implores God for the necessities of this life is both mercifully heard and mercifully not heard; for the physician knows better than the patient what is good for the sick man). The physician who loves the sick man does not grant him those things which he sees would do him harm. Oh, how many, if they were sick or poor, would not fall into the sins into which they fall while healthy or rich! And therefore the Lord denies to some who ask Him for bodily health or the goods of fortune — He denies them because He loves them, seeing that those things would be for them an occasion of losing His grace, or at least of growing lukewarm in the spiritual life. With all this, however, we do not mean to say that it is a fault to ask God for the things necessary for the present life, insofar as they conduce to eternal salvation, as the Wise Man asked: Tribue tantum victui meo
necessaria (Give me only what is necessary for my sustenance)

(Prov. 30:8) Nor is it a defect, says St. Thomas Aquinas, to have an ordered solicitude for such goods; the defect lies in desiring and seeking these temporal goods as one's chief goods, and in having a disordered solicitude for them, as if all our good consisted in them. Therefore, when we ask God for these temporal graces, we must always ask for them with resignation, and on the condition that they are profitable to our soul; and when we see that the Lord does not grant them to us, let us hold it for certain that He then denies them to us out of the love He bears us, and because He sees that they would harm our spiritual salvation.

Many times we ask God to deliver us from some dangerous temptation, and God does not even hear us, but permits the temptation to go on molesting us. We must understand that God permits this also for our greater good. It is not temptations and evil thoughts that draw us away from God, but evil consents. When the soul in temptation commends itself to God, and with His help resists, oh how it then advances in perfection, and comes to be united more closely with God! and for this reason the Lord does not grant its petition. St. Paul prayed earnestly to be freed from the temptations of impurity: Datus est mihi stimulus carnis meae, Angelus satanae, qui me colaphizet; propter quod ter Dominum rogavi, ut discederet a me — "A thorn was given me in my flesh, an angel of Satan to buffet me; therefore I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me" (2 Cor. 12:7). But the Lord answered him that it was enough for him to have His grace: Sufficit tibi gratia mea — "My grace is sufficient for you." So even in temptations we must pray to God with resignation, saying: Lord, deliver me from this affliction, if it is expedient to deliver me from it; and if not, at least give me the help to resist. And here what St. Bernard says applies, that when we ask God for some grace, He either gives us that, or something more useful than that. God often leaves us to suffer in the storm, in order to test our fidelity, and for our greater profit. It seems that He is then deaf to our prayers, but no, let us be sure that God then truly hears us, and helps us in secret, strengthening us with His grace to resist every assault of the Enemies. Behold how He Himself assures us of this by the mouth of the Psalmist: In tribulatione invocasti me, et liberavi te; exaudivi te in abscondito tempestatis, probavi te apud aquam contradictionis — "In tribulation you called upon Me, and I delivered you; I heard you in the secret place of the storm, I proved you at the waters of contradiction" (Ps. 80:8).

The other conditions, finally, that St. Thomas Aquinas assigns to prayer are that one pray pie, et perseveranter — "devoutly and perseveringly." Pie — "devoutly" — is understood as with humility and confidence; perseveranter — "perseveringly" — without ceasing to pray until death. Now of these conditions, namely humility, confidence, and perseverance, which are the most necessary to prayer, it is necessary here to speak of each of them distinctly.

c Corn. a Lapide, Sylvest. Tolet. Habert. et alii.

#### I. On the humility with which we should pray

The Lord indeed regards the prayers of His servants, but of His humble servants: *Respexit in orationem humilium* — “He has regarded the prayer of the humble” (Ps. 101:18). Otherwise He does not regard them, but rejects them: *Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam* — “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (Jas. 4:6). God does not hear the prayers of the proud, who trust in their own strength; therefore He leaves them in their own misery, and in that state, deprived of divine help, they will undoubtedly be lost. David lamented this: *Priusquam humiliarer, ego deliqui* — “Before I was humbled, I sinned” (Ps. 118:67). I have sinned, he said, because I have not been humble. The same happened to St. Peter. Although Jesus Christ had warned him that on that night all His disciples would abandon Him — *Omnes vos scandalum patiemini in me in ista nocte*, “All of you will be scandalized in Me this night” (Matt. 26:31) — nevertheless, instead of acknowledging his weakness and asking the Lord for help so as not to be unfaithful to Him, Peter trusted too much in his own strength and said that, even if all abandoned Him, he would never leave Him: *Et si omnes scandalizati fuerint in te, ego nunquam scandalizabor* — “Even if all should be scandalized in You, I will never be scandalized” (ibid., v. 33). And although the Redeemer again foretold to him in particular that on that night, before the cock crowed, he would deny Him three times, Peter still trusted in his courage and boasted, saying: *Etiam si oportuerit me mori tecum non te negabo* — “Even if I must die with You, I will not deny You” (ibid., v. 35). But what happened? Scarcely had the unhappy man entered the high priest's house and been accused of being a disciple of Jesus Christ, when he did indeed deny Him three times, with an oath, saying that he had never known Him: *Et iterum negavit cum juramento: Quia non novi hominem* — “And again he denied with an oath: I do not know the man” (Matt. 26:72). Had Peter humbled himself and asked the Lord for the grace of constancy, he would not have denied Him.

We must all be convinced that we stand as though on the summit of a mountain, suspended over the abyss of every sin, and supported only by the thread of grace. If that thread lets us go, we certainly fall into that abyss and shall commit the most dreadful crimes. *Nisi quia Dominus adjuvit me, paulo minus habitasset in inferno anima mea* — “Unless the Lord had helped me, my soul would almost have dwelt in hell” (Ps. 93:17). If God had not helped me, I would have fallen into a thousand sins and would now be in hell: so said the Psalmist, and so each of us must say. St. Francis of Assisi understood this too, when he said that he was the worst sinner in the world. “But, my father,” his companion said to him, “what you say is not true; there are many in the world who are certainly worse than you.” “What I say is only too true,” the Saint answered, “because if God did not hold His hands over me, I would commit every sin.” It is of faith that without the help of grace we can do no good work, nor even have a good thought. *Sine Gratia nullum prorsus, sive cogitando, sive agendo faciunt homines bonum* — “Without grace men do absolutely no good, whether in thought or in deed,” said St. Augustine.[^ph7-a] As the eye cannot see without light, so, said the Saint, man can do no good without grace. The Apostle had already said this before him: *Non quod sufficientes simus cogitare aliquid a nobis quasi ex nobis, sed sufficientia nostra ex Deo est* — “Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5). And before the Apostle, David had already said: *Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum, in vanum laboraverunt, qui aedificant eam* — “Unless the Lord builds the house, they who build it have labored in vain” (Ps. 126:1). In vain does man labor to become holy unless God puts His hand to the work. *Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem, frustra vigilat, qui custodit eam* — “Unless the Lord guards the city, he who guards it watches in vain” (ibid.). If God does not guard the soul from sins, it will strive in vain to guard itself by its own strength. And therefore the holy Prophet declared: *Non enim in arcu meo sperabo* — “For I will not trust in my bow” (Ps. 43:7). I will not, then, trust in my weapons, but only in God, who can save me.

Therefore, whoever finds that he has done something good and has not fallen into greater sins than those he has committed should say with St. Paul: *Gratia autem Dei sum id, quod sum* — “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10). And for the same reason he must never cease to tremble and fear falling on every occasion. *Itaque qui se existimat stare, videat ne cadat* — “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). By this the Apostle wishes to warn us that he who thinks himself safe from falling is in great danger of a fall. He gives the reason in another place, where he says: *Nam si quis existimat se aliquid esse, cum nihil sit, ipse se seducit* — “For if anyone thinks himself to be something, whereas he is nothing, he deceives himself” (Gal. 6:3). Hence St. Augustine wisely wrote: *Multos impedit a firmitate praesumptio firmitatis; nemo erit adeo firmus, nisi qui se sentit infirmum* — “The presumption of strength keeps many from strength; no one will be so strong as he who feels himself weak” (*Serm.* 13, *de Verb. Dom.*). If someone says he has no fear, it is a sign that he trusts in himself and in the resolutions he has made. But with this harmful confidence he deceives himself: trusting in his own strength, he ceases to fear; ceasing to fear, he ceases to commend himself to God; and then he will certainly fall. Likewise each person must guard against looking with any vainglory upon the sins of others. He should instead consider himself, so far as he is concerned, worse than others, and say: “Lord, if You had not helped me, I would have done worse.”

Otherwise the Lord, in punishment for his pride, will permit him to fall into greater and more dreadful faults. Therefore the Apostle admonishes us to work for eternal salvation — but how? Always with fear and trembling: *Cum metu, et tremore vestram salutem operamini* — “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). Yes, because he who greatly fears to fall distrusts his own strength, and therefore, placing his confidence in God, will have recourse to Him in dangers. God will help him, and thus he will overcome temptations and be saved. Philip Neri, walking one day through Rome, kept saying: “I despair.” A certain religious corrected him, but the Saint then said: “My father, I despair of myself, but I trust in God.” So must we do if we wish to be saved. We must always live despairing of our own strength; for by doing so we shall imitate St. Philip, who, from the first moment he awoke in the morning, said to God: “Lord, hold Your hands over Philip today, for otherwise Philip will betray You.”

This, then, in conclusion, is the whole great knowledge of a Christian, says St. Augustine: to know that he is nothing and can do nothing. *Hoc est tota magna scientia, scire quia homo nihil est* — “This is the whole great knowledge: to know that man is nothing.”[^ph7-b] For thus he will not cease to seek from God through prayer that strength which he does not have, and which he needs to resist temptations and to do good. Then he will do everything with the help of that Lord who cannot refuse anything to one who prays to Him with humility. *Oratio humiliantis se nubes penetrabit, et non discedet, donec Altissimus aspiciat* — “The prayer of one who humbles himself will pierce the clouds, and will not depart until the Most High looks upon it” (Ecclus. 35:21). The prayer of a humble soul penetrates the heavens, and, presenting itself before the divine throne, does not depart until God regards and hears it. And however many sins that soul may be guilty of, God cannot despise a heart that humbles itself: *Cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non despicies* — “A contrite and humbled heart, O God, You will not despise” (Ps. 50:12). *Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam* — “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (Jas. 4:6). As severe as the Lord is toward the proud, resisting their petitions, so kind and generous is He toward the humble. This is precisely what Jesus Christ said one day to St. Catherine of Siena: “Know, My daughter, that whoever humbly perseveres in asking Me for graces will acquire every virtue”: *Scito Filia, quod Anima perseverans in humili oratione adipiscitur omnem virtutem*.[^ph7-c]

It is helpful here to adduce an excellent admonition which the learned and most devout Bishop Palafox of Osma gives to spiritual souls who desire to become holy, in a note on Letter XVIII of St. Teresa. There the Saint writes to her confessor and gives him an account of all the degrees of supernatural prayer with which the Lord had favored her. The aforesaid prelate, for his part, writes that these supernatural graces which God deigned to grant St. Teresa, and has granted other Saints, are not necessary to attain holiness: many souls have indeed attained it without them; and, on the contrary, many have attained these gifts and afterwards been damned. Therefore, he says, it is needless, indeed presumptuous, to desire and seek such supernatural gifts, since the true and only way for a soul to become holy is to practice the virtues and to love God. This is attained through prayer and by corresponding to the lights and helps of God, who wills nothing but to see us holy: *Haec est enim voluntas Dei sanctificatio vestra* — “For this is the will of God, your sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:3).

Thus the aforesaid devout writer, speaking of the degrees of supernatural prayer about which the Saint wrote — namely, the prayer of quiet, the sleep and suspension of the faculties, union, ecstasy, rapture, flight and impulse of the spirit, and the spiritual wound — writes wisely. Concerning the prayer of quiet, he says that what we should desire and ask of God is that He free us from attachment to, and desire for, worldly goods, which bring no peace but cause restlessness and affliction of spirit. *Vanitas vanitatum*, as Solomon aptly called them, *et afflictio spiritus* — “Vanity of vanities, and affliction of spirit” (Eccles. 1:14). Man's heart will never find true peace unless it empties itself of everything that is not God, leaving all the room for His holy love, so that He alone may possess it entirely. But the soul cannot do this of itself; it must obtain it from the Lord by repeated prayers. Concerning the sleep and suspension of the faculties, we should ask God for the grace to keep them asleep toward everything temporal, and awake only to consider the divine goodness and to aspire to divine love and eternal goods. Concerning the union of the faculties, let us pray that He give us the grace to think of, seek, and will nothing but what God wills, since all holiness and the perfection of love consist in uniting our will with the will of the Lord. Concerning ecstasy and rapture, let us pray God to draw us out of the disordered love of ourselves and of creatures, so as to draw us wholly to Himself. Concerning the flight of the spirit, let us pray Him to give us the grace to live entirely detached from this world, and to act as the swifts do: even to feed themselves they do not settle on the ground, but take their food in flight. That is to say, let us use these temporal goods insofar as they are necessary to sustain life, but always in flight, without settling on the earth to seek worldly pleasures. Concerning the impulse of the spirit, let us pray God to give us courage and strength to do violence to ourselves when necessary, to resist the assaults of our enemies, to overcome our passions, and to embrace suffering amid desolations and spiritual weariness. Finally, concerning the wound of love, just as a wound, by its pain, continually renews in a person's memory the thought of his affliction, so we should pray God to wound our heart so deeply with His holy love that we may always remember His goodness and the affection He has borne us. Thus may we live continually loving Him and pleasing Him by our works and affections. But none of these graces is obtained without prayer; and through prayer, provided it is humble, confident, and persevering, everything is obtained.

#### II. On the confidence with which we ought to pray

The chief admonition that the Apostle St. James gives us, if we wish to obtain graces from God by prayer, is that we should pray with confidence, certain of being heard if we pray as we ought, without wavering: *Postulet autem in fide nihil haesitans* ("But let him ask in faith, without wavering"). James 1:6. St. Thomas teaches that, just as prayer receives its power of meriting from charity, so it has its efficacy in obtaining what it asks from faith and confidence: *Oratio habet vim merendi a caritate, efficaciam vero impetrandi a fide et fiducia* ("Prayer has the power of meriting from charity, but the efficacy of obtaining what it asks from faith and confidence").[^ph8-a] St. Bernard teaches the same, saying that our confidence alone obtains the divine mercies for us: *Sola spes apud Te, Domine, miserationis obtinet locum* ("Hope alone finds a place for mercy with You, O Lord").[^ph8-b] The Lord takes great pleasure in our confidence in His mercy, because by it we honor and exalt that infinite goodness of His which, in creating us, He intended to manifest to the world. Let all those who hope in You rejoice, O my God, said the royal Prophet, for they will be eternally blessed, and You will always dwell in them:

*Laetentur omnes qui sperant in te, in aeternum exultabunt, et habitabis in eis* ("Let all who hope in You rejoice; they shall exult forever, and You shall dwell in them"). Ps. 5:12. God protects and saves all who trust in Him. *Protector est omnium sperantium in se* ("He is the protector of all who hope in Him"). Ps. 17:31. *Qui salvos facis sperantes in te* ("You who save those who hope in You"). Ps. 16:7. Oh, the great promises made in the divine Scriptures to those who hope in God! Whoever hopes in God will not fall into sin. *Non delinquent omnes qui sperant in eo* ("None who hope in Him shall fall into sin"). Ps. 33:23. Yes, because, says David, the Lord keeps His eyes turned toward all who trust in His goodness, to deliver them by His help from the death of sin: *Ecce oculi Domini super metuentes eum, et in eis qui sperant super misericordia ejus, ut eruat a morte animas eorum* ("Behold, the eyes of the Lord are upon those who fear Him and upon those who hope in His mercy, that He may deliver their souls from death"). Ps. 32:18–19. And elsewhere God Himself says: *Quoniam in me speravit, liberabo eum, protegam eum... eripiam eum, et glorificabo eum* ("Because he has hoped in Me, I will deliver him; I will protect him... I will rescue him and glorify him"). Ps. 90:14–15. Note the word *quoniam*: because this man has trusted in Me, I will protect him; I will deliver him from his enemies and from the danger of falling; and at last I will give him eternal glory. Speaking of those who place their hope in God, Isaiah says: *Qui autem sperant in Deo, mutabunt fortitudinem, assument pennas sicut aquilae; current et non laborabunt, ambulabunt et non deficient* ("But those who hope in God shall renew their strength; they shall take wings like eagles; they shall run and not grow weary; they shall walk and not faint"). Isa. 40:31. They will cease to be weak as they are and will acquire great strength in God; they will not fail, nor even grow weary in walking the way of salvation, but will run and fly like eagles. *In silentio, et in spe erit fortitudo vestra* ("In silence and in hope shall your strength be"). Isa. 30:15. In short, the same Prophet teaches us that all our strength consists in placing all our confidence in God and in keeping silence, that is, in resting in the arms of His mercy, without trusting in our own efforts or in human means.

And where has there ever been a case of anyone who trusted in God and was lost? *Nullus speravit in Domino, et confusus est* ("No one has hoped in the Lord and been put to shame"). Ecclus. 2:11. It was this confidence that assured David that he would never be lost. *In te Domine speravi, non confundar in aeternum* ("In You, O Lord, I have hoped; let me never be put to shame"). Ps. 30:1. And can God, says St. Augustine, be a deceiver, offering to sustain us in danger if we lean upon Him, and then wishing to withdraw from us when we have recourse to Him? *Non est illusor Deus, ut ad supportandum se offerat, et nobis innitentibus ei se subtrahat* ("God is no deceiver, that He should offer to support us and withdraw when we lean upon Him").[^ph8-c]

David calls blessed the man who trusts in the Lord: *Beatus homo, qui sperat in te* ("Blessed is the man who hopes in You"). Ps. 83:13. And why? Because, says the same Prophet, whoever trusts in God will always find himself surrounded by the divine mercy: *Sperantem autem in Domino misericordia circumdabit* ("Mercy shall surround the man who hopes in the Lord").

Ps. 31:10. Thus he will be so surrounded and guarded on every side by God that he will remain safe from his enemies and from the danger of being lost.

For this reason the Apostle so strongly urges us to preserve our confidence in God, which, he assures us, certainly receives a great reward from Him: *Nolite itaque amittere confidentiam vestram, quae magnam habet remunerationem* ("Do not, therefore, lose your confidence, which has a great reward"). Heb. 10:35. The graces we receive from God will correspond to our trust: if our trust is great, the graces will also be great. *Magna fides magna meretur* ("Great faith merits great things"). St. Bernard writes that the divine mercy is an immense fountain: whoever brings to it the larger vessel of confidence carries away a greater abundance of blessings. *Nec Oleum misericordiae nisi in vasa fiduciae (Domine) ponis* ("You pour the oil of mercy, O Lord, only into vessels of confidence").[^ph8-d] The Prophet had already expressed this, saying: *Fiat misericordia tua, Domine, super nos, quemadmodum speravimus in te* ("Let Your mercy, O Lord, be upon us, according as we have hoped in You"). Ps. 32:22. This was fully realized in the centurion, to whom the Redeemer said, praising his confidence: *Vade, et sicut credidisti fiat tibi* ("Go, and as you have believed, so let it be done for you"). Matt. 8:13. And the Lord revealed to St. Gertrude that whoever prays to Him with confidence in a certain way does Him such violence that He cannot but hear him in everything he asks. *Oratio*, said St. John Climacus, *pie Deo vim infert* ("Prayer devoutly does violence to God"). Prayer does violence to God, but a violence that is dear and pleasing to Him. Therefore St. Paul exhorts us: *Adeamus cum fiducia ad thronum gratiae, ut misericordiam consequamur, et gratiam inveniamus in auxilio opportuno* ("Let us approach the throne of grace with confidence, that we may obtain mercy and find grace for timely help"). Heb. 4:16. The throne of grace is Jesus Christ, who now sits at the right hand of the Father, not on a throne of justice but of grace, to obtain pardon for us if we are in sin, and help to persevere if we enjoy His friendship. We must always have recourse to this throne with trust, that is, with the confidence which faith gives us in the goodness and faithfulness of God, who has promised to hear whoever prays to Him with confidence—but with a confidence that is steadfast and sure. On the other hand, St. James says that whoever prays to Him with wavering should not expect to receive anything: *Qui enim haesitat, similis est fluctui maris, qui a vento movetur et circumfertur; non ergo aestimet homo ille, quod accipiat aliquid a Domino* ("For whoever wavers is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed about by the wind; therefore let that man not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord"). James 1:6–7. He will receive nothing, because the unjust distrust by which he is agitated will prevent the divine mercy from granting his petitions. *Non recte petisti, quia dubitabundus petisti*, says St. Basil ("You did not ask rightly, because you asked with doubt").[^ph8-e] You have not received the grace because you asked for it without confidence. David said that our confidence in God must be firm as a mountain, which is not moved by any blast of wind: *Qui confidunt in Domino, sicut mons Sion, non commovebitur in aeternum* ("Those who trust in the Lord are like Mount Sion, which shall never be moved"). Ps. 123:1. And this is what the Redeemer taught us, if we wish to obtain the graces we ask: *Quaecumque orantes petitis, credite quia accipietis, et evenient vobis* ("Whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you shall receive, and it shall come to you"). Mark 11:24. Whatever grace you ask, be sure of receiving it, and thus you will obtain it.

But where, someone will say, am I, wretched as I am, to ground this certain confidence of obtaining what I ask? Where? On the promise made by Jesus Christ: *Petite, et accipietis* ("Ask, and you shall receive"). John 16:24. Ask, and you will have it. *Quis falli metuet, dum promittit Veritas?* says St. Augustine ("Who will fear being deceived when Truth makes the promise?"). How can we doubt that we shall be heard when God, who is Truth itself, promises to grant us what we ask of Him in prayer? *Non hortaretur ut peteremus*, says the same holy Doctor, *nisi dare vellet* ("He would not urge us to ask unless He wished to give").[^ph8-f] Certainly the Lord would not exhort us to ask Him for graces if He did not wish to grant them to us. Yet this is precisely what He urges so strongly and repeats so often in the sacred Scriptures: pray, ask, seek—*Orate, petite, quaerite*, and so forth—and you will obtain all that you desire: *Quodcumque volueritis, petetis, et fiet vobis* ("You shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you"). John 15:7. And so that we may pray to Him with the confidence we ought to have, the Savior has taught us in the prayer of the Our Father that, when we have recourse to God to receive the graces necessary for our salvation, all of which are contained in the Our Father, we should call Him not Lord but Father, *Pater noster*. For He wishes us to ask God for graces with the same confidence with which a poor or sick child asks his own father for food or medicine. If a child is about to die of hunger, he need only make this known to his father, and his father will immediately provide him with food. And if he has been bitten by a venomous serpent, he need only show his father the wound he has received, so that his father may at once apply the remedy he already has.

Trusting, then, in the divine promises, let us always ask with confidence, not wavering, but steadfast and firm, as the Apostle says: *Teneamus spei nostrae confessionem indeclinabilem; fidelis enim est, qui repromisit* ("Let us hold unwaveringly to the confession of our hope, for He who has promised is faithful"). Heb. 10:23. As certain as it is that God is faithful to His promises, so certain also must be our confidence that He will hear us when we pray to Him. And although at times, finding ourselves perhaps in a state of dryness or troubled by some fault we have committed, we do not experience in prayer the felt confidence we would wish to have, nevertheless let us make ourselves pray, because God will not fail to hear us. Indeed, He will hear us all the more readily then, because we shall pray with greater distrust of ourselves and trust only in the goodness and faithfulness of God, who has promised to hear whoever prays to Him. Oh, how pleasing to the Lord, in times of tribulation, fear, and temptation, is our hoping even against hope—that is, against the feeling of distrust we then experience because of our desolation! For this the Apostle praises the patriarch Abraham, saying: *Qui contra spem in spem credidit* ("Who against hope believed in hope"). Rom. 4:18.

St. John says that whoever places firm confidence in God certainly becomes holy: *Et omnis qui habet hanc spem in eo, sanctificat se, sicut et ille sanctus est* ("And everyone who has this hope in Him makes himself holy, as He also is holy"). 1 John 3:3. For God causes graces to abound in all who trust in Him. With this confidence so many martyrs, so many young virgins, so many children, despite the terror of the torments prepared for them by tyrants, have overcome both torments and tyrants. At times, I say, we pray, but it seems to us that God is unwilling to listen. Ah, let us not then cease to persevere in prayer and hope. Let us say then with Job: *Etiam si occiderit me, in ipso sperabo* ("Even if He should kill me, I will hope in Him"). Job 13:15. My God, even if You were to drive me from Your presence, I would not cease to pray to You and to hope in Your mercy. Let us do this, and we shall obtain from the Lord what we desire.

Thus did the woman of Canaan act, and she obtained all that she wished from Jesus Christ. This woman, whose daughter was possessed by the devil, begged the Redeemer to deliver her: *Miserere mei, filia mea male vexatur a Daemone* ("Have mercy on me; my daughter is grievously afflicted by a demon"). Matt. 15:22. The Lord replied that He had not been sent to the Gentiles, as she was, but to the Jews. Yet she did not lose heart and returned to pray with confidence: Lord, You can console me; You must console me. *Domine adjuva me* ("Lord, help me"). Jesus Christ replied: But it is not right to give the children's bread to the dogs. *Non est bonum sumere panem filiorum, et dare canibus* ("It is not right to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs"). But, my Lord, she added, even the little dogs are given the crumbs of bread that fall from the table: *Etiam catelli edunt de micis* ("Even the little dogs eat of the crumbs"). Then the Savior, seeing this woman's great confidence, praised her and granted her the grace, saying: *O mulier, magna est fides tua, fiat tibi sicut vis* ("O woman, great is your faith; let it be done for you as you wish"). Ibid. And who, says Ecclesiasticus, has ever called upon God for help, and God has despised him and failed to assist him? *Aut quis invocavit eum, et despexit illum?* ("Or who has called upon Him, and He has despised him?"). Ecclus. 2:12.

St. Augustine says that prayer is a key which opens Heaven for our good: at the very moment that our prayer rises to God, the grace we ask descends to us. *Oratio Justi clavis est Caeli; ascendit precatio, et descendit Dei miseratio* ("The prayer of the just is the key of Heaven; prayer ascends, and the mercy of God descends").[^ph8-g] The royal Prophet wrote that our supplications and the mercy of God are joined together: *Benedictus Deus, qui non amovit orationem meam, et misericordiam suam a me* ("Blessed be God, who has not removed my prayer or His mercy from me"). Ps. 65:20. Hence the same St. Augustine says that, when we find ourselves praying to the Lord, we should be certain that He is already hearing us: *Cum videris a te non amotam deprecationem tuam, securus esto, quod non est a te amota misericordia ejus* ("When you see that your supplication has not been taken from you, be sure that His mercy has not been taken from you").[^ph8-h] And I, to tell the truth, never feel more consoled in spirit or more confident of being saved than when I find myself praying to God and commending myself to Him. I think the same happens to all the other faithful, because all the other signs of our salvation are uncertain and fallible; but that God hears whoever prays to Him with confidence is a certain and infallible truth, just as it is infallible that God cannot fail in His promises.

When we see ourselves weak and unable to overcome some passion or some great difficulty in carrying out what the Lord asks of us, let us say courageously with the Apostle: *Omnia possum in eo, qui me confortat* ("I can do all things in Him who strengthens me"). Phil. 4:13. Let us not say, as some do: I cannot; I do not feel able. With our own strength we certainly can do nothing, but with divine help we can do everything. If God said to someone: Take this mountain upon your shoulders and carry it, for I am helping you, would that man not be foolish or unbelieving if he replied: I do not wish to take it, because I do not have the strength to carry it? And so, when we know ourselves to be wretched and weak as we are, and find ourselves more fiercely assailed by temptations, let us not lose heart. Let us lift our eyes to God and say with David: *Dominus mihi adjutor, et ego despiciam inimicos meos* ("The Lord is my helper, and I shall look down upon my enemies"). Ps. 117:6. With my Lord's help I shall conquer and scorn all the assaults of my enemies. And when we find ourselves in some danger of offending God, or in some other matter of consequence, and in our confusion do not know what we ought to do, let us commend ourselves to God, saying: *Dominus illuminatio mea, et salus mea, quem timebo?* ("The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?"). Ps. 26:1. And let us be certain that God will then enlighten us and save us from every harm.

But I am a sinner, someone says, and in Scripture I read: *Peccatores Deus non audit* ("God does not hear sinners"). St. Thomas replies with St. Augustine that this was said by the blind man when he spoke before he had yet been fully enlightened: *Illud verbum est Caeci nondum perfecte illuminati, et ideo non est ratum* ("That saying is that of the blind man not yet fully enlightened, and therefore it is not authoritative").[^ph8-i] Yet the Angelic Doctor adds that it is well said if one is speaking of the petition made by a sinner *in quantum est peccator* ("insofar as he is a sinner"), that is, when he asks out of a desire to go on sinning: for example, if he were to ask for help in taking revenge on his enemy or in carrying out some other evil intention. The same holds for the sinner who prays to God to save him, but without having any desire to leave the state of sin. There are some unhappy people who love the chains with which the devil holds them bound as slaves. God does not hear their prayers, because they are presumptuous and abominable prayers. And what greater presumption could there be than for a man to wish to ask favors of a prince whom he has not only offended many times, but whom he intends to go on offending? This is how we should understand what the Holy Spirit says, that the prayer of one who turns away his ears so as not to hear what God commands is detestable and hateful to God: *Qui declinat aures suas, ne audiat legem, oratio ejus erit exsecrabilis* ("The prayer of one who turns away his ears so as not to hear the law shall be abominable"). Prov. 28:9. To such people the Lord says: There is no point in your praying, for I shall turn My eyes away from you and shall not hear you. *Cum extenderitis manus vestras, avertam oculos meos a vobis, et cum multiplicaveritis orationem, non exaudiam* ("When you stretch out your hands, I shall turn My eyes away from you; and when you multiply your prayer, I shall not hear"). Isa. 1:15. Such indeed was the prayer of the wicked King Antiochus, who prayed to God and promised great things, but falsely and with his heart obstinate in sin, praying only to escape the punishment that hung over him. Therefore the Lord did not listen to his prayers, but caused him to die devoured by worms. *Orabat hic scelestus Dominum, a quo misericordiam non esset consecuturus* ("This wicked man prayed to the Lord, from whom he was not to obtain mercy"). 2 Macc. 9:13.

Others, however, who sin through weakness or through the force of some great passion, groan beneath the enemy's yoke and desire to break those chains of death and escape that wretched slavery, and therefore ask God for help. Their prayer, if it is constant, will surely be heard by the Lord, who says that everyone who asks receives, and whoever seeks grace finds it: *Omnis enim qui petit, accipit* ("For everyone who asks receives"):

*et qui quaerit, invenit* ("and whoever seeks finds"). Matt. 7:8. *Omnis*, explains the author of the *Unfinished Work*, *sive justus, sive peccator sit* ("Everyone, whether he is just or a sinner").[^ph8-l] And in St. Luke, Jesus Christ, speaking of the man who gave his friend all the loaves he had, not so much because of their friendship as because of the friend's persistence, said: *Dico vobis, etsi non dabit, quia amicus est, propter improbitatem tamen surget, et dabit illi quotquot habet necessarios. Sicque et ego dico vobis, petite et dabitur vobis* ("I tell you, even if he will not give because he is his friend, nevertheless because of his persistence he will rise and give him as many as he needs. And so I say to you: ask, and it shall be given to you"). Luke 11:8. Thus persevering prayer obtains mercy from God even for those who are not His friends. What is not obtained through friendship, says Chrysostom, is obtained through prayer: *Quod non perfecit amicitia, perfectum est ab Oratione* ("What friendship did not accomplish was accomplished by prayer").[^ph8-m] Indeed, the same saint says that prayer has greater power with God than friendship: *Non tam valet amicitia apud Deum, quam Oratio; et quod amicitia non perfecit, perfectum est ab Oratione* ("Friendship has not so much power with God as prayer; and what friendship did not accomplish was accomplished by prayer").[^ph8-n] And St. Basil does not doubt that even sinners obtain what they ask if they persevere in prayer: *Peccatores impetrant, quod petunt, si perseveranter petunt* ("Sinners obtain what they ask, if they ask perseveringly").[^ph8-o] St. Gregory says the same: *Clamet et peccator, et ad Deum sua perveniet Oratio* ("Let the sinner too cry out, and his prayer will reach God").[^ph8-p] St. Jerome writes the same,[^ph8-q] saying that even a sinner may call God his Father if he prays to Him to accept him again as His son, following the example of the prodigal son, who called Him Father—*Pater peccavi* ("Father, I have sinned")—although he had not yet been forgiven. If God did not hear sinners, says St. Augustine, the publican would have asked pardon in vain: *Si enim peccatores Deus non exaudit, frustra ille Publicanus diceret: Deus, propitius esto mihi peccatori* ("For if God does not hear sinners, that publican would have said in vain: God, be merciful to me, a sinner").[^ph8-r] But the Gospel attests that the publican did obtain pardon by prayer: *Descendit hic justificatus in domum suam* ("This man went down to his house justified"). Luke 18:14.

But above all, the Angelic Doctor examines this point in greater detail,[^ph8-s] and does not hesitate to assert that even the sinner is heard if he prays. He says that although the sinner's prayer is not meritorious, it nevertheless has the power to obtain what it asks, because this obtaining rests not upon justice but upon the divine goodness: *Meritum*, says the saint, *innititur justitiae, sed impetratio innititur gratiae* ("Merit rests upon justice, but obtaining what one asks rests upon grace").[^ph8-t] This is precisely how Daniel prayed: *Inclina, Deus meus, aurem tuam, et audi... Neque enim in justificationibus nostris prosternimus preces ante faciem tuam, sed in miserationibus tuis multis* ("Incline Your ear, my God, and hear... For it is not on account of our righteous deeds that we lay our prayers before Your face, but on account of Your many mercies"). Dan. 9:18. When we pray, therefore, says St. Thomas, it is not necessary to be friends of God in order to obtain from Him the graces we ask; prayer itself makes us His friends: *Ipsa Oratio familiares nos Deo facit* ("Prayer itself makes us intimate with God"). St. Bernard moreover adds a beautiful reason, saying that the sinner's prayer to leave sin springs from the desire to return to God's grace. Now this desire is a gift which certainly comes to him from none other than God Himself. Why then, the saint goes on to say, would God give the sinner such a holy desire if He did not wish to hear him? *Desiderium ad quid daret, nisi vellet exaudire?* ("Why would He give the desire unless He wished to hear?"). Indeed, the divine Scriptures themselves contain so many examples of sinners who were delivered from sin through prayer. Thus King Achab was delivered (3 Kings 2); thus King Manasses (2 Paralip. 33); thus King Nabuchodonosor (Dan. 4); thus the good thief (Luke 23:43). What a great thing, and what great power prayer has! Two sinners die on Calvary beside Jesus Christ: one, because he prays—*memento mei* ("remember me")—is saved; the other, because he does not pray, is damned!

In short, Chrysostom says: *Nullus ab eo beneficia dolenter postulavit, qui non impetravit quod voluit* ("No one has asked Him for blessings with sorrow and failed to obtain what he desired").[^ph8-u] No repentant sinner has prayed to the Lord without obtaining what he desired. But what need is there for further authorities and reasons to prove this, when Jesus Himself says: *Venite ad me omnes, qui laboratis, et onerati estis, et ego reficiam vos* ("Come to Me, all who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you"). Matt. 11:28. By *onerati*, according to St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and others generally, are understood sinners who groan beneath the weight of their sins; when they have recourse to God they will surely, according to this promise, be refreshed and saved by His grace. Ah, says St. John Chrysostom, we do not desire to be forgiven so much as God longs to forgive us: *Non adeo cupis dimitti peccata tua, sicut ille cupit peccata dimittere* ("You do not desire your sins to be forgiven so much as He desires to forgive sins"). There is no grace, the saint adds, that cannot be obtained by prayer, even if it is offered by the most abandoned sinner there is, provided it is persevering: *Nihil est, quod non obtineat oratio, etiam si mille peccatis obnoxius sit, sed vehemens, sed assidua* ("There is nothing that prayer cannot obtain, even if the one who prays is guilty of a thousand sins, provided it is fervent and constant").[^ph8-v] And let us note what St. James says: *Si quis indiget sapientia, postulet a Deo, qui dat omnibus affluenter, et non improperat* ("If anyone needs wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives abundantly to all and does not reproach"). James 1:5. Thus God never fails to hear all those who have recourse to Him in prayer and to fill them with graces: *dat omnibus affluenter* ("He gives abundantly to all"). But let us reflect particularly on the words that follow: *et non improperat* ("and does not reproach"). This means that God does not act as men do, who, when someone who has previously offended them on some occasion comes to ask them a favor, immediately reproach him with the injury they have received from him. The Lord does not act thus with whoever prays to Him. Even if he is the greatest sinner in the world, when he asks for some grace useful to his eternal salvation, the Lord does not reproach him with the offenses he has committed against Him. Instead, as though he had never offended Him, the Lord at once receives him, consoles him, hears him, and abundantly enriches him with His gifts. Above all, to encourage us to pray, the Redeemer says: *Amen, amen dico vobis, si quid petieritis Patrem in nomine meo, dabit vobis* ("Amen, amen, I say to you: if you ask the Father anything in My name, He will give it to you"). John 16:23. It is as though He were saying: Come, sinners, do not lose heart; do not let your sins hold you back from having recourse to My Father and hoping to receive your salvation from Him, if you desire it. You have no merits by which to obtain the graces you ask; you have only demerits deserving punishment. Do this: go to My Father in My name; ask through My merits for the graces you desire; and I promise you and swear to you—St. Augustine says that *amen, amen dico vobis* is a kind of oath—that My Father will grant you whatever you ask.

O God, what greater consolation can a sinner have after his ruin than to know with certainty that he will receive everything he asks of God in the name of Jesus Christ?

I say everything concerning eternal salvation, for as regards temporal goods, we have already said above that the Lord sometimes does not grant them to us, even when asked, because He sees that such goods would harm our soul. But as regards spiritual goods, His promise to hear us is not conditional but absolute. Therefore St. Augustine exhorts us to ask with assurance of receiving those things which God promises absolutely: *Quae Deus promittit, securi petite* ("Ask with assurance for what God promises").[^ph8-z] And how, the saint writes, can the Lord deny us anything when we pray to Him with confidence, since He desires to bestow His graces upon us more than we desire to have them? *Plus vult Ille tibi beneficia elargiri, quam tu accipere concupiscas* ("He wishes to bestow blessings upon you more than you long to receive them").

Chrysostom says that the Lord is angry with us only when we neglect to ask Him for His gifts: *Non nisi quando non postulamus irascitur* ("He is angry only when we do not ask"). And how can it be that God would be unwilling to hear a soul who asks Him for things wholly pleasing to Him? When the soul says to Him: Lord, I do not ask You for the goods of this earth, riches, pleasures, honors; I ask only for Your grace. Deliver me from sin; give me a good death; give me Paradise; give me Your holy love—which, as St. Francis de Sales says, is the grace we should ask of God above all others; give me resignation to Your will. How is it possible that God would be unwilling to hear her? And what prayers, says St. Augustine, will You hear, my God, if You do not hear these, which are all according to Your heart? *Quas preces exaudis, si has non exaudis?* ("What prayers do You hear, if You do not hear these?"). But above all, when we ask God for spiritual graces, our confidence should be renewed by what Jesus Christ said: *Si ergo vos, cum sitis mali, nostis bona data dare filiis vestris; quanto magis Pater vester de caelo dabit Spiritum bonum petentibus se?* ("If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father from Heaven give the good Spirit to those who ask Him?"). Luke 11:13. If you, says the Redeemer, who are so attached to your own interests because you are full of self-love, cannot refuse your children what they ask of you, how much more will your heavenly Father, who loves you more than any earthly father, grant you spiritual goods when you pray to Him for them?

#### III. On the perseverance required in prayer

It is necessary, then, that our prayers be humble and confident; but this is not enough to obtain final perseverance, and with it eternal salvation. Particular prayers will indeed obtain the particular graces that are asked of God, but if they are not persevering, they will not obtain final perseverance. Since this contains the sum of many graces together, it requires multiplied prayers, continued until death. The grace of salvation is not a single grace, but a chain of graces, all of which are then united with the grace of final perseverance. Now this chain of graces must be answered by another chain, so to speak, of our prayers. If, through neglecting to pray, we break the chain of our prayers, the chain of graces that are to obtain salvation for us will also be broken, and we shall not be saved.

It is true that we cannot merit final perseverance, as the holy Council of Trent teaches, saying: *Aliunde haberi non potest, nisi ab eo qui potens est eum qui stat statuere, ut perseveranter stet* — “It cannot be obtained from any other source than from Him who is able to establish the one who stands, so that he may stand perseveringly” (Sess. 6, ch. 13). Nevertheless, St. Augustine says that this great gift of perseverance can in a certain manner indeed be merited by prayers — that is, obtained by asking: *Hoc ergo donum (Perseverantiae) suppliciter emereri potest, id est supplicando impetrari potest* — “This gift, then, of perseverance can be humbly merited, that is, obtained by supplication.”[^ph9-a] And Fr. Suárez adds that whoever prays infallibly obtains it. But to obtain it and be saved, says St. Thomas Aquinas, persevering and continual prayer is necessary: *Post Baptismum autem necessaria est homini jugis oratio, ad hoc quod Caelum introeat* — “After Baptism, however, continual prayer is necessary for man, so that he may enter heaven.”[^ph9-b] Our Savior Himself had already said this many times: *Oportet semper orare, et non deficere* — “We ought always to pray, and not to faint” (Luke 18:1). *Vigilate itaque omni tempore orantes, ut digni habeamini fugere ista omnia quae futura sunt, et stare ante Filium hominis* — “Watch, therefore, praying at all times, that you may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that are to come, and to stand before the Son of Man” (Luke 21:36). The same had been said before in the Old Testament: *Non impediaris orare semper* — “Do not be hindered from praying always” (Ecclus. 18:22). *Omni tempore benedic Deum, et pete ab eo, ut vias tuas dirigat* — “Bless God at all times, and ask Him to direct your ways” (Tob. 4:20). Therefore the Apostle insisted that his disciples should never cease to pray: *Sine intermissione orate* — “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). *Orationi instate vigilantes in ea* — “Be constant in prayer, watching in it” (Col. 4:2). *Volo ergo viros orare omni loco* — “I will, therefore, that men pray in every place” (1 Tim. 2:8). The Lord indeed wishes to give us perseverance and eternal life, but, says St. Nilus, He wishes to grant it only to those who perseveringly ask it of Him: *Vult beneficio afficere in oratione perseverantes* — “He wishes to bestow His benefits on those who persevere in prayer.”[^ph9-c] Many sinners, with the help of grace, come to be converted to God and to receive forgiveness; but afterwards, because they cease to ask for perseverance, they fall again and lose everything.

Nor is it enough, says Bellarmine, to ask for the grace of perseverance once or a few times: we must ask it always, every day until death, if we wish to obtain it. *Quotidie petenda est, ut quotidie obtineatur* — “It must be asked for daily, so that it may be obtained daily.” Whoever asks it one day will obtain it for that day; but if he does not ask it tomorrow, tomorrow he will fall. This is what the Lord wished us to understand in the parable of that friend who would not give bread to the man who asked it of him, except after many importunate requests, saying: *Si non dabit illi surgens, eo quod amicus sit, propter improbitatem tamen ejus surget, et dabit illi quotquot habet necessarios* — “Even if he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needs” (Luke 11:8). Now if such a friend, says St. Augustine, merely to rid himself of the man's importunity, would give him, even unwillingly, the bread he asks for, *quanto magis dabit Deus bonus, qui nos hortatur ut petamus, cui displicet si non petamus?* — “How much more will the good God give, who encourages us to ask, and is displeased if we do not ask?” How much more will God, who, being infinite Goodness, so greatly desires to communicate His goods to us, give us His graces when we ask Him for them? All the more because He Himself exhorts us to ask for them, and is displeased if we do not ask. The Lord, then, indeed wishes to grant us salvation and all the graces needed for it, but He wishes us never to cease asking Him for them continually, even to the point of importunity. Cornelius a Lapide says on the Gospel passage cited: *Vult nos esse Deus perseverantes in oratione usque ad importunitatem* — “God wishes us to persevere in prayer to the point of importunity.” Men on earth cannot bear the importunate, but God not only bears with us; He desires us to be importunate in asking Him for graces, and especially for holy perseverance. St. Gregory says that God wishes us to do violence to Him by our prayers, since such violence does not anger Him, but appeases Him: *Vult Deus vocari, vult cogi, vult quadam importunitate vinci... Bona violentia, qua Deus non offenditur, sed placatur* — “God wishes to be called upon, wishes to be constrained, wishes to be overcome by a certain importunity... Good is the violence by which God is not offended, but appeased.”[^ph9-d]

Thus, to obtain perseverance, we must always commend ourselves to God: in the morning, in the evening, in meditation, at Mass, in Communion, and always — especially in time of temptation, then always saying and repeating: “Lord, help me; Lord, assist me; hold Your hands over me; do not abandon me; have pity on me.” Is anything easier than to say: “Lord, help me; assist me”? On the words of the Psalmist, *Apud me oratio Deo vitae meae* — “With me is prayer to the God of my life” (Ps. 41:10), the Gloss says: *Dicet quis non possum jejunare, dare eleemosynas; si dicitur ei, ora, non potest hoc dicere* — “Someone will say: I cannot fast or give alms; if he is told, Pray, he cannot say this.” For there is nothing easier than to pray.

But we must never cease to pray; we must continually, so to speak, constrain God to help us always — but with a constraint that is dear and pleasing to Him. *Haec vis grata Deo* — “This force is pleasing to God,” wrote Tertullian. And St. Jerome said that the more persevering and importunate our prayers are, the more acceptable they are to God: *Oratio quandiu importuna est, plus amica est* — “As long as prayer is importunate, it is the more welcome.”[^ph9-e]

*Beatus vir qui audit me, et vigilat ad fores meas quotidie* — “Blessed is the man who hears me and watches daily at my doors” (Prov. 8:34). Blessed is that man, says God, who listens to Me and watches continually with holy prayers at the doors of My mercy. And Isaiah says: *Beati omnes qui expectant eum* — “Blessed are all who wait for Him” (Isa. 30:18). Blessed are those who, until the end, await their salvation from the Lord in prayer. Therefore, in the Gospel, Jesus Christ exhorts us to pray — but in what manner? *Petite, et accipietis; quaerite, et invenietis: pulsate, et aperietur vobis* — “Ask, and you shall receive; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you” (Luke 11:9). It would have been enough to say *petite*, “ask”; what need was there to add *quaerite* and *pulsate*, “seek” and “knock”?

But no, adding them was not needless. By this the Redeemer wished to teach us that we must act as the poor do when they go begging. If they do not receive the alms they ask for and are sent away, they do not cease to ask and to ask again; and if the master of the house no longer appears, they begin knocking at the doors until they become very importunate and troublesome. This is what God wishes us to do: to pray, and pray again, and never cease to pray that He assist us, help us, give us light, give us strength, and never permit us to lose His grace. The learned Lessius says that one who does not pray while in sin or in danger of death cannot be excused from grave fault; nor can one who neglects prayer for a considerable time — that is, as he says, for one or two months. But this is understood outside times of temptation; for one who finds himself assailed by some grave temptation undoubtedly sins gravely if he does not have recourse to God in prayer, asking for help to resist it, when he sees that otherwise he puts himself in proximate, indeed certain, danger of falling.

But someone will say: Since the Lord can and wishes to give me holy perseverance, why does He not grant it to me all at once, when I ask Him for it? The holy Fathers give many reasons. God does not grant it all at once, but delays it, first in order to test our confidence more fully. Furthermore, says St. Augustine, He does so that we may long for it more ardently. The Saint writes that great gifts require great desire, since goods received quickly are not afterwards held in the same esteem as those that have long been desired: *Non vult (Deus) cito dare, ut discas magna magne desiderare; diu desiderata dulcius obtinentur; cito autem data vilescunt* — “God does not wish to give quickly, so that you may learn to desire great things greatly; things long desired are obtained more sweetly, whereas things quickly given are held cheap.”[^ph9-f]

Furthermore, He does this so that we may not forget Him. If we were already sure of perseverance and of our salvation, and did not have continual need of God's help to remain in His grace and be saved, we would easily forget God. Need makes the poor frequent the houses of the rich. Hence the Lord, to draw us to Himself, as St. John Chrysostom says, and to see us often at His feet so that He may bestow greater benefits upon us, for this purpose withholds the full grace of salvation until the time of our death: *Neque renuens nostras preces differt, sed hac arte, sedulos nos efficiens, ad Semet ipsum attrahere vult* — “He delays, not because He refuses our prayers, but because by this means, making us diligent, He wishes to draw us to Himself.”[^ph9-g] Furthermore, He does this so that, by continuing to pray, we may bind ourselves more closely to Him with sweet bonds of love. *Oratio*, says the same Chrysostom, *non parvum vinculum est dilectionis in Deum, quae cum Eo colloqui assuefacit* — “Prayer is no small bond of love toward God, since it accustoms us to converse with Him.”[^ph9-h] That continual recourse to God in prayer, and that confident expectation from Him of the graces we desire — oh, what a great incentive and bond of love it is, to inflame us and bind us more closely to God!

But for how long must we pray? Always, answers the same Saint, until we receive the favorable sentence of eternal salvation — that is, until death. *Non desistas*, says the Saint, *donec accipias* — “Do not cease until you receive.”[^ph9-i] And he adds that whoever says, “I will not cease to pray until I am saved,” will certainly be saved: *Si dixeris, Nisi accepero non recedam, prorsus accipies* — “If you say, Unless I receive, I will not go away, you will certainly receive.” The Apostle writes that many run for the prize, but only the one who reaches it receives it: *Nescitis quod ii qui in stadio currunt, omnes quidem currunt, sed unus accipit bravium? Sic currite, ut comprehendatis* — “Do you not know that those who run in the stadium all indeed run, but one receives the prize? So run, that you may obtain it” (1 Cor. 9:24). It is not enough, then, to pray in order to be saved; we must pray always, until we come to receive the crown which God promises, but promises only to those who remain constant in praying to Him until the end.

Thus, if we wish to be saved, we must do as David did, who always kept his eyes turned toward the Lord, to implore His help and not be overcome by his enemies. *Oculi mei semper ad Dominum, quia ipse evellet de laqueo pedes meos* — “My eyes are always toward the Lord, for He will draw my feet out of the snare” (Ps. 24:15). As the devil never ceases laying snares for us in order to devour us, according to what St. Peter writes — *Adversarius vester diabolus, sicut leo rugiens, circuit quaerens quem devoret*, “Your adversary the devil goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8) — so we must continually stand with weapons in hand to defend ourselves against such an enemy, and say with the royal Prophet: *Persequar inimicos meos, et non convertar, donec deficiant* — “I will pursue my enemies, and will not turn back until they fail” (Ps. 17:4). I will not cease to fight until I see my adversaries defeated. But how can we obtain this victory, so important to us and so difficult? *Perseverantissimis precibus*, St. Augustine answers us: only by prayers, and prayers most persevering. And for how long? For as long as the battle lasts. *Sicut nunquam deficit pugna*, says St. Bonaventure, *sic nunquam cessemus petere misericordiam* — “As the battle never ceases, so let us never cease to ask for mercy” (*Serm.* 27, *de Conf.*). As we must fight continually, so we must continually ask God for help, lest we be overcome. Woe, says the Wise Man, to one who ceases to pray in this battle: *Vae his qui perdiderunt sustinentiam* — “Woe to those who have lost endurance” (Ecclus. 2:16). We shall be saved, the Apostle admonishes us, but on this condition: *Si fiduciam, et gloriam spei usque ad finem retineamus* — “If we hold fast our confidence and the glory of hope unto the end” (Heb. 3:6), if we remain constant in praying with confidence until death.

Let us, then, say with the same Apostle, encouraged by the mercy of God and by His promises: *Quis ergo separabit nos a caritate Christi? tribulatio? an angustia?... an periculum? an persecutio? an gladius?* — “Who, then, will separate us from the love of Christ? Tribulation? Or distress?... Or danger? Or persecution? Or the sword?” (Rom. 8:35). Who will separate us from the love of Jesus Christ? Will it be tribulation? The danger of losing this world's goods? The persecutions of demons or men? The torments of tyrants? *In his omnibus superamus*, St. Paul encourages us, *propter eum qui dilexit nos* — “In all these things we overcome through Him who loved us” (ibid., v. 37).

No, he said, no tribulation, distress, danger, persecution, or torment will ever be able to separate us from the love of Jesus Christ; for we shall overcome everything with divine help, fighting for love of that Lord who gave His life for us. Fr. Ippolito Durazzo, on the day when he resolved to leave the prelacy in Rome and give himself entirely to God by entering the Society of Jesus, as he afterwards did, feared his own unfaithfulness because of his weakness, and said to God: *Non me deseras* — “Do not abandon me”; Lord, now that I have given myself wholly to You, for pity's sake do not abandon me. But he heard God say to him in his heart: *Tu non me deseras* — “You must not abandon Me”; rather, God said to him, I tell you not to leave Me. And so the servant of God, trusting in the divine goodness and in His help, finally concluded: “Then, my God, You will not leave me, and I will not leave You.”

In conclusion, if we wish God not to leave us, we must never cease praying to Him always not to abandon us. If we do this, He will certainly always assist us and will never permit us to lose Him and separate ourselves from His love. To this end, let us not only strive always to ask for final perseverance and the graces necessary to obtain it; but at the same time let us always ask the Lord beforehand for the grace to continue praying. This was precisely the great gift which He promised His elect through the mouth of the Prophet: *Et effundam super Domum David, et super habitatores Jerusalem spiritum gratiae, et precum* — “And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of prayers” (Zech. 12:10). Oh, what a great grace is the spirit of prayer — that is, the grace which God grants a soul to pray always! Let us, then, never cease asking God for this grace and this spirit of praying always; for if we pray always, we shall certainly obtain from the Lord perseverance and every other gift we desire, since His promise to hear those who pray to Him cannot fail. *Spe enim salvi facti sumus* — “For we have been saved by hope” (Rom. 8:24). With this hope of praying always, we may regard ourselves as saved. *Hujus nobis Urbis fiducia latum praebebit ingressum* — “Confidence will provide us with a broad entrance into this City.”[^ph9-l] This hope, said the Venerable Bede, will give us sure entrance into the City of Paradise.

## PART TWO

Since, therefore, it is certain — as we proved in Part One, Chapter I — that we have the need of praying in order to attain salvation, we must consequently also hold for certain that everyone has the divine help to be able actually to pray, without need of any other special grace, and by prayer then to obtain all the other graces necessary for observing the Commandments perseveringly, and so to gain eternal life; so that no one who is lost can ever have any excuse of having been lost for lack of the helps necessary to save himself. Just as God in the natural order has disposed that man is born naked and in need of many things to live, but then gave him hands and a mind with which he can clothe himself and provide for all his other needs, so in the supernatural order man is born powerless to obtain eternal salvation by his own strength, but the Lord in His goodness grants to everyone the grace of prayer, by which he can then obtain all the other graces he needs to observe the Commandments and save himself.

But before coming to explain this point, it is expedient to set forth two preliminaries. The first, that God wills the salvation of all, and that therefore Jesus Christ died for all. The second, that God, for His part, gives to all the graces necessary to save themselves, with which each one is saved if he corresponds to them.

### FIRST PRELIMINARY

God wills the salvation of all, and therefore Jesus Christ died to save all

God loves all the things He has created: Diligis enim omnia, quae sunt, et nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti — "For You love all things that are, and hate none of the things You have made" (Wis. 11:25). Love cannot remain idle: Habet omnis amor vim suam, says St. Augustine, nec potest vacare — "All love has its own power, nor can it be idle." Hence love necessarily brings benevolence with it, so that the lover cannot fail to do good to the person loved whenever he can: Amor, quae bona illi esse credit quem amat, ea studet efficere — "Love strives to bring about the goods it believes to belong to the one it loves" — wrote Aristotle (Rhet. 1). If therefore God loves all men, He consequently wills that all should attain eternal salvation, which is the supreme and only good of man, since this is the only end for which He created them: Habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificationem, finem vero vitam aeternam — "You have your fruit unto sanctification, but the end is eternal life" (Rom. 6:22). This doctrine, that God wills the salvation of all and that Jesus Christ died for the salvation of all, is today a certain and Catholic doctrine of the Church, as the theologians commonly say — Petavius, Gonet, Gotti, and others along with Tournely, who adds that it is a doctrine proximate to faith. Hence the Predestinarians were rightly condemned, who, among other errors, as may be seen in Noris, Petavius, and more distinctly in Tournely, said that God does not will the salvation of all, as Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, attested in his letter to Nicholas I, saying: Veteres Praedestinatiani dixerunt, quoniam non vult Deus omnes salvos fieri, sed tantum eos qui salvantur — "The ancient Predestinarians said that God does not will all men to be saved, but only those who are saved." These were condemned first by the Council of Arles in 475, where it was said: Anathema illi qui dixerit, quod Christus non pro omnibus mortuus sit, nec omnes homines salvos esse velit — "Anathema to him who says that Christ did not die for all, and that He does not will all men to be saved." And then by the Council of Lyon in 490, where Lucidus was forced to retract by declaring: Damno eum qui dicit quod Christus non mortem pro omnium salute susceperit — "I condemn him who says that Christ did not undergo death for the salvation of all." And likewise in the ninth century Gottschalk, who renewed the same error, was condemned by the Council of Quierzy, in which in art. 3 it was decreed: Deus omnes homines sine exceptione vult salvos fieri, licet non omnes salventur — "God wills all men without exception to be saved, although not all are saved." And in art. 4: Nullus est pro quo (Christus) passus non fuerit, licet non omnes ejus mysterio redimantur — "There is no one for whom (Christ) has not suffered, although not all are redeemed by His mystery." The same error was finally condemned in Propositions 12 and 30 of Quesnel. In one it was said: Quando Deus vult salvare Animam, effectus indubitabilis sequitur Voluntatem Dei — "When God wills to save a soul, an indubitable effect follows the will of God." In the other: Omnes quos Deus vult salvare per Christum, salvantur infallibiliter — "All whom God wills to save through Christ are infallibly saved." These propositions were justly condemned, precisely because they meant that God does not will the salvation of all; for by saying that those whom God wills to be saved are infallibly saved, it was deduced that God does not will the salvation of all the faithful, and still less of all men.

And this was also clearly expressed by the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, ch. 2, where it was said that Jesus Christ died Ut omnes adoptionem filiorum reciperent — "so that all might receive the adoption of sons." And in ch. 3: Verum, etsi ille pro omnibus mortuus est, non omnes tamen mortis ejus beneficium recipiunt — "But although He died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death." The Council therefore takes it for certain that the Redeemer died not only for the elect, but also for those who through their own fault do not receive the benefit of the Redemption. Nor is it valid to say that by this the Council meant only that Jesus Christ gave the world a price sufficient to save all; for in this sense it could be said that He died also for the demons. Moreover, here the Council of Trent intended to reprove the error of the Innovators, who did not deny that the Blood of Jesus Christ was sufficient to save all, but said that in fact it had not been shed and given for all; and this error the Council intended to condemn by saying that the Savior died for all. Furthermore, in ch. 6 it says that sinners dispose themselves to justification by hope in God through the merits of Jesus Christ: In spem eriguntur, fidentes Deum sibi propter Christum propitium fore — "They are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake." Now if Jesus Christ had not applied the merits of His Passion for all, since no one could be certain (without special revelation) of being among the number of those to whom the Redeemer had willed to apply the fruit of His merits, no sinner could dispose himself with such hope, not having a certain and sure foundation (necessary for hope) that God wills the salvation of all, and wills to forgive all disposed sinners for the merits of Jesus Christ. And this, besides the error already condemned in Baius, who said that Jesus Christ died only for the elect, is also condemned in Jansenius in his fifth proposition: Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, aut Sanguinem fudisse — "It is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died, or shed His Blood, for absolutely all men." And Innocent X in his constitution of the year 1653 expressly declared that to say Christ died only for the salvation of the elect is an impious and heretical proposition.

But, on the other hand, both the Scriptures and all the holy Fathers assure us that God sincerely, with a true will, wills the salvation of all and the conversion of all sinners while they live on this earth. Of this we have, first of all, the express text in St. Paul (1 Tim. 2:4): "Qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri, et ad agnitionem veritatis venire" ("Who wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth"). The statement of St. Paul is absolute and decisive: "Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri" ("God wills all men to be saved"). These words, in their proper sense, declare that God truly wills all to be saved; and it is a certain rule, commonly received by all, that the words of Scripture must not be twisted to an improper sense, except in the sole case where the literal sense is repugnant to faith or to good morals. And this is just what St. Bonaventure meant to say, for our purpose, when he wrote: "Dicendum quod cum Apostolus dicat, quod Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri, necesse habemus concedere, quod Deus velit" ("We must say that, since the Apostle says that God wills all men to be saved, we must necessarily grant that God so wills"). It is true that St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas report various interpretations that some have given to this text, but both these holy Doctors understood it of the true will that God has to save all without exception. And, speaking of St. Augustine, we shall see further on that this was the true mind of the Saint; hence St. Prosper rejects, as injurious to the holy Doctor, the assertion that St. Augustine ever supposed that the Lord does not sincerely will
all, and each one of men, to be saved; wherefore St. Prosper himself, who was his most faithful disciple, wrote thus: "Sincerissime credendum atque profitendum est, Deum velle omnes homines salvos fieri; siquidem Apostolus (cujus haec sententia est) sollicite praecipit, ut Deo pro omnibus supplicetur" ("It must be most sincerely believed and professed that God wills all men to be saved; since the Apostle, whose saying this is, carefully enjoins that supplication be made to God for all"). The argument with which the Saint proves this is clear, since St. Paul in the place cited first says thus: "Obsecro igitur primum omnium. fieri obsecrationes... pro omnibus hominibus" ("I beseech, therefore, first of all, that supplications be made... for all men"). And then he adds: "Hoc enim bonum est et acceptum coram Salvatore nostro Deo, qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri" ("For this is good and acceptable before God our Savior, who wills all men to be saved"). St. Paul therefore wills that prayer be made for all, inasmuch as God wills all to be saved. And St. John Chrysostom made use of the same argument: "Si omnes ille vult salvos. fieri, merito pro omnibus oportet orare. Si omnes Ipse salvos fieri cupit, Illius et tu concorda voluntati" ("If He wills all to be saved, it is right to pray for all. If He Himself desires all to be saved, do you also conform your will to His"). And if in some place St. Augustine, disputing against the Semipelagians, seems to have held a different interpretation of the cited text, saying that God does not will each one of men to be saved, but only some; the most learned Petavius well observes that there the Saint spoke incidentally, and not of set purpose; or else he spoke of the grace of the absolute and conquering will, by which God absolutely wills some to be saved, the Saint having said in speaking of this: "Omnipotentis voluntas semper invicta est" ("The will of the Almighty is always unconquered").

Let us hear, by another way, how St. Thomas Aquinas reconciles the opinion of St. Augustine with that of St. John Damascene, who holds that God wills all, and each one of men, to be saved by the antecedent will: "Deus praecedenter vult omnes salvari, ut efficiat nos Bonitatis suae participes ut bonus; peccantes autem puniri vult ut justus" ("God antecedently wills all to be saved, so as to make us partakers of His goodness, inasmuch as He is good; but He wills sinners to be punished, inasmuch as He is just"). St. Augustine, on the contrary, seems in some place (as has been said) not to hold this. But St. Thomas Aquinas reconciles the two opinions, and says that St. Damascene spoke of the antecedent will of God, by which He truly wills all to be saved, and St. Augustine spoke of the consequent. St. Thomas Aquinas then goes on to explain, in the place cited, what this antecedent will of God is and what the consequent, and says: "Voluntas antecedens est, qua (Deus) omnes homines salvos fieri vult. Consideratis autem omnibus circumstantiis personae, sic non invenitur de omnibus bonum esse quod salventur; bonum enim est eum qui se praeparat, et consentit salvari, non vero nolentem et resistentem etc. Et haec dicitur voluntas consequens, eo quod praesupponit praescientiam operum, non tanquam causam voluntatis, sed quasi rationem voliti" ("The antecedent will is that by which God wills all men to be saved. But when all the circumstances of the person are considered, it is then not found to be good for all that they should be saved; for it is good that he who prepares himself and consents to be saved should be saved, but not one who is unwilling and resists, etc. And this is called the consequent will, inasmuch as it presupposes the foreknowledge of works, not as a cause of the will, but as it were the reason of the thing willed").

So St. Thomas Aquinas was also of the same mind — that God truly wills all, and each one of men, to be saved — and he confirms it in several other places; on the words, "Eum qui venit ad me, non ejiciam" ("Him who comes to Me I will not cast out"), adducing the authority of Chrysostom, he makes the Lord say: "Secundum Chrysostomum: Si ergo pro salute hominum incarnatus sum, quomodo debeo eos eicere? Et hoc est quod dicit: Ideo non ejicio, quia descendi de Caelo ut faciam voluntatem Patris, qui vult omnes salvos fieri" ("According to Chrysostom: If, therefore, I am incarnate for the salvation of men, how ought I to cast them out? And this is what He says: I do not cast them out because I came down from Heaven to do the will of the Father, who wills all to be saved"). In another place: "Deus voluntate sua liberalissima dat (gratiam) omni praeparanti se. I. Tim.. Qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri. Et ideo gratia Dei nulli deest, sed omnibus quantum in se est se communicat" ("God by His most liberal will gives [grace] to everyone who prepares himself. 1 Tim.: 'Who wills all men to be saved.' And therefore the grace of God is wanting to no one, but, as far as it is concerned, communicates itself to all"). Moreover, he declares it still more expressly in explaining the cited text of St. Paul (1 Tim. 2:4): "Qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri" ("Who wills all men to be saved"); the holy Doctor says: "In Deo salus omnium hominum secundum se considerata habet rationem ut sit volibilis, et sic ejus voluntas est antecedens; sed si consideretur bonum justitiae, et quod peccata puniantur, sic non vult, et haec est voluntas consequens" ("In God, the salvation of all men, considered in itself, is of such a nature as to be willed, and thus His will is antecedent; but if the good of justice be considered, and that sins should be punished, thus He does not will it, and this is the consequent will"). And here it is seen that St. Thomas Aquinas was firm in declaring what he meant by antecedent will and what by consequent; since here he confirms the same thing that he had already said on the Sentences, as we related a little before. He only adds in this place the similitude of the merchant, who antecedently wills to save all his merchandise; but when the storm comes on, he then no longer wills it to be saved, in order to save his life. And so likewise the Saint then says that God, considering the iniquity of some, wills them to be punished for the good of His justice, and consequently does not will them to be saved; but antecedently, with a true will (speaking in itself), He wills the salvation of all. So that, as he wrote before in another place, the Divine Will to save all is absolute on its own part, and is conditioned only on the part of the object willed, that is, if man wills to correspond, as the right order requires for attaining salvation: "Nec tamen (dice) est imperfectio ex parte Voluntatis Divinae, sed ex parte voliti quod non accipitur cum omnibus circumstantiis, quae exiguntur ad rectum ordinem in salutem" ("And yet [he says] there is no imperfection on the part of the Divine Will, but on the part of the thing willed, which is not accepted with all the circumstances that are required for the right order unto salvation"). And in the cited question 19 (art. 6 ad 1), St. Thomas Aquinas again and more distinctly declares what he means by antecedent will, and what by
consequent, saying thus: "Iudex antecedenter vult omnem hominem vivere, sed consequenter vult homicidam suspendi. Similiter Deus antecedenter vult omnem hominem salvari, sed consequenter vult quosdam damnari, secundum exigentiam suae justitiae" ("A judge antecedently wills every man to live, but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. Similarly God antecedently wills every man to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, according to the exigency of His justice").

I do not intend here to reprove the opinion that holds the predestination to glory before the prevision of merits; I only say that I cannot comprehend how those who hold that God, without any regard to merits, has elected some to eternal life and excluded others, can then persuade themselves that He wills all to be saved; unless perhaps they mean that this will of God is not true and sincere, but rather a hypothetical or metaphorical will. I do not understand, I say, how it can ever be asserted that God wills all men to be saved and partakers of glory, when by Him the greater part of them had already been excluded from this Glory antecedently to any demerit of theirs. Petavius says in defense of his contrary opinion: What did it avail, he says, that God had given all men the desire for eternal beatitude, when, antecedently to any demerit of theirs, He had excluded the greater part of them from it? What did it avail Jesus Christ to come and save all by His Death, when so many wretches had already been deprived of it by God beforehand? What did it avail to give them the means, if they had already been excluded beforehand from attaining the end? Wherefore the same Petavius adds (and this is a reflection of great weight) that if this had been so, we would have to say that God, who loves all the things He has created, in creating men did not love them all, but hated the greater part of them in the highest degree, by excluding them from the Glory for which He had created them. It is certain that the happiness of the creature consists in attaining the end for which it was created. It is certain, for its part, that God creates all men for eternal life. Now if God had created some men for eternal life, and then, without regard to their sins, had excluded them from it, in creating them He would have hated them in the highest degree and without cause, doing them the greatest harm they could ever incur, namely, being excluded from the attainment of their end, that is, from the Glory for which they had been created. Non enim
(these are the words of Petavius, but abridged) medio quodam modo amorem inter et odium circa creaturas potest affici Deus, maxime circa homines, quos vel amat ad Vitam aeternam, vel odit ad damnationem. Est autem summum hominis malum alienari a Deo, ac reprobari. Quare, si cui Deus sempiternum vult exitium Animae, hunc non amat, sed odit odio illo, quod esse maximum potest in eo genere, quod naturalem ordinem excedit (For God cannot be affected toward creatures, most of all toward men, with either love or hatred in some middle way: He either loves them unto eternal life or hates them unto damnation. Now the greatest evil of man is to be alienated from God and reprobated. Wherefore, if God wills the eternal ruin of anyone's soul, He does not love him, but hates him with that hatred which can be the greatest of that kind which exceeds the natural order). And by that eternal ruin (sempiternum exitium) the Author does not mean the positive damnation that God destines for anyone, but the exclusion from Glory; since in fact, says Tertullian, what good would it do us that God did not create us for hell, if in creating us He had set us apart from the number of the elect? For to be separated from the elect necessarily entails losing salvation and being damned, since between the one and the other there is no middle ground. Quis erit enim (writes Tertullian) exitus segregatorum? nonne amissio salutis? (For what will be the end of those set apart? Will it not be the loss of salvation?) Hence Petavius concludes: Quamobrem, si omnem Deus amat hominem eo affectu, qui merita illorum antecedit, non eorum odit Animam, ac proinde non summum vult illis malum. (Wherefore, if God loves every man with that affection which precedes their merits, He does not hate their soul, and consequently does not will them the greatest evil.) If therefore

God loves all men, as is certain, we must hold that He wills all to be saved, and that He has never hated anyone to such a degree as to will him this great evil of excluding him from Glory before foreseeing his demerits.

Yet I do not say — and I repeat it again — that I can understand it; for in any case, this matter of Predestination is a mystery so profound that it made the Apostle exclaim: O altitudo divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei, quam incomprehensibilia sunt judicia ejus, et investigabiles viae ejus! Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini? (Rom. 11:33: O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord?) We must submit ourselves to the will of the Lord, who has chosen to leave this mystery obscure in the Church, so that we may all humble ourselves beneath the lofty judgments of His Divine Providence. All the more so because divine grace, by which alone eternal life can be obtained by men, is without doubt dispensed by God more or less abundantly, altogether gratuitously and without any regard to our merits. Hence, to be saved, it will always be necessary for us to cast ourselves into the arms of the Divine Mercy, that He may assist us with His grace to obtain salvation, ever trusting in His infallible promises to hear and save those who pray to Him.

But let us return to our point, that God with a sincere will wills all to be saved. Let us see the other texts that prove the same. The Lord says through Ezekiel (33:11): Vivo ego, dicit Dominus: Nolo mortem impii, sed ut convertatur a via sua, et vivat (As I live, says the Lord: I do not will the death of the wicked, but that he turn from his way and live). He not only says that He does not will the death, but that He wills the life of the sinner; and He swears, as Tertullian observes, in order to be more readily believed in this: Jurans etiam, Vivo dicens, cupit sibi credi (Moreover, in swearing — saying, As I live — He desires to be believed).

Moreover David says: Quoniam ira in indignatione ejus, et vita in voluntate ejus (Ps. 29:6: For wrath is in His indignation, and life in His will). If He chastises us, He does so because our sins provoke Him to indignation; but as for His will, He wills not our death but our life: Et vita in voluntate ejus (And life is in His will). St. Basil, explaining this very text, says: Et vita in voluntate ejus. Quid ergo dicit? nimirum quod vult Deus omnes vitae fieri participes (And life in His will. What then does he say? Surely that God wills all to become partakers of life). Moreover the same Prophet says: Deus noster, Deus salvos faciendi: et Domini Domini exitus mortis

(Ps. 67:21: Our God is the God of salvation; and to the Lord, to the Lord belong the issues from death). Bellarmine comments: Hoc est Illi proprium, haec est ejus natura, Deus noster est Deus salvans, et Dei nostri sunt exitus mortis, id est liberatio a morte (This is proper to Him, this is His nature: our God is a God who saves, and to our God belong the issues from death, that is, deliverance from death). So that it is proper to God, and His very nature, to save all and to deliver all from eternal death.

Moreover the Lord says: Venite ad me omnes, qui laboratis, et onerati estis, et ego reficiam vos (Matt. 11:28: Come to Me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you). If He calls all to salvation, then He has a true will to save all. Moreover St. Peter says: Nolens aliquos perire, sed omnes ad poenitentiam reverti (2 Pet. 3:9: not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance). He does not will the damnation of anyone, but wills that all (omnes) do penance and be saved by it.

Moreover the Lord says: Sto ad ostium et pulso, si quis aperuerit, intrabo (Rev. 3:20: Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone opens to Me, I will come in). Quare moriemini domus Israel? revertimini, et vivite (Ezek. 18:31: Why will you die, O house of Israel? Return, and live). Quid est quod debui ultra facere vineae meae et non feci? (Isa. 5:4: What is there that I ought to have done more for My vineyard, and have not done?) Quoties volui congregare filios suos, quemadmodum gallina congregat pullos suos sub alas, et noluisti? (Matt. 23:38: How often would I have gathered your children, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not?) How could the Lord say that He stands knocking at the hearts of us sinners? How exhort us so earnestly to return to His arms? How reproach us, saying, What more ought I to have done to save you? How say that He willed to gather us as children, if He did not have a true will to save all? Moreover St. Luke relates that Jesus Christ, beholding Jerusalem from afar and considering the ruin of that people by reason of their sin, videns civitatem flevit super illam (Luke 19:41: seeing the city, He wept over it). Why then did He weep, says Theophylact with Chrysostom, on seeing the ruin of the Jews, if not because He truly desired their salvation? Now after so many attestations of the

Lord, by which the will He has to see all saved is made manifest, can it ever be said that God does not will the salvation of all? Quod si ista (Petavius goes on to say) Scripturae loca, quibus hanc suam voluntatem, tam illustribus ac saepe repetitis sententiis, imo lacrymis, ac jurejurando testatus est Deus, calumniari licet, et in contrarium detorquere sensum, ut (praeter paucos) Genus humanum omne perdere statuerit, nec eorum servandorum voluntatem habuerit, quid est adeo disertum in Fidei decretis, quod simili ab injuria et cavillatione tutum esse possit? (But if these passages of Scripture, by which God has attested this will of His with such illustrious and oft-repeated declarations, nay, with tears and with an oath, may be calumniated and twisted into a contrary sense, as though He had decreed to destroy the whole human race (except a few) and had no will to save them, then what is there so plainly expressed in the decrees of the Faith that can be safe from similar outrage and cavil?) To say that God does not truly will all to be saved, says this great Author, is an outrage and a cavil against the clearest decrees of the Faith. And Cardinal Sfondrati adds: Plane qui aliter sentiant, nescio an ex Deo vero Deum scenicum faciant, quales sint qui Reges in Theatro se fingunt, cum tamen nihil minus quam Reges sint (Plainly, those who think otherwise — I know not whether they make of the true God a stage-god, like those who play kings in the theater, when yet they are anything but kings).

This truth, moreover, that God wills all to be saved, is commonly confirmed by the holy Fathers. There is no doubt that on this point all the Greek Fathers were uniform in saying that God wills all men, and each one of them, to be saved: so St. Justin, St. Basil, St. Gregory, St. Cyril, St. Methodius, St. Chrysostom, all cited by Petavius. But let us see what the Latin Fathers also say of it. St. Jerome: Vult (Deus) salvare omnes, sed quia nullus absque propria voluntate salvatur, vult nos bonum velle, ut cum voluerimus, velit in nobis et Ipse suum implere consilium ((God) wills to save all; but because no one is saved without his own will, He wills us to will the good, so that when we have willed, He Himself may also will to fulfill His counsel in us). And elsewhere: Voluit itaque Deus salvare cupientes; et provocavit ad salutem, ut voluntas haberet praemium sed illi credere noluerunt (God therefore willed to save those who desire it; and He urged them on to salvation, that the will might have its reward; but they refused to believe). St. Hilary: Omnes homines Deus salvos fieri velit, et non eos tantum qui ad Sanctorum numerum pertinebunt, sed omnes omnino, ut nullas habeat exceptiones (God wills all men to be saved, and not only those who will belong to the number of the saints, but absolutely all, so as to admit no exceptions). St. Paulinus: Omnibus dicit Christus venite ad me etc. omnem enim (quantum in Ipso est) hominem salvum fieri vult, qui fecit omnes (To all Christ says, Come to Me, etc.; for, as far as in Him lies, He wills every man to be saved — He who made all). St. Ambrose: Etiam circa impios suam ostendere debuit voluntatem, et ideo nec proditurum debuit praeterire, ut adverterent omnes, quod in electionem etiam proditoris sui salvandorum omnium insigne praetendit... et, quod in Deo fuit, ostendit omnibus, quod omnes voluit liberare (Even toward the impious He had to show His will, and therefore He could not pass over even the betrayer, so that all might perceive that even in the choice of His betrayer He displayed the pledge of saving all... and, as far as in God lay, He showed to all that He willed to deliver all). The Author of the work that bears the title of the Commentaries of St. Ambrose (and who is believed to be Hilary the Deacon, as Petavius writes), commenting on the text of St. Paul, Qui vult omnes homines etc. (Who wills all men, etc.), asks thus: But since God wills all to be saved, being omnipotent, why are so many not saved? And he answers: Vult illos salvari, si et ipsi velint, nam utique qui legem dedit, neminem exclusit a salute... haec medicina non proficit invitis (He wills them to be saved if they themselves also will it; for He who gave the law has excluded no one from salvation... this medicine does not profit the unwilling). He says that the Lord has not excluded anyone from glory for any other reason, and that He gives grace to all to save them, but on the condition that they are willing to correspond, since His grace is of no avail to one who rejects it. St. Chrysostom similarly asks: Cur igitur non omnes salvi fiunt, si vult (Deus) omnes salvos esse? (Why, then, are not all saved, if (God) wills all to be saved?) And he answers: Quoniam non omnium voluntas illius voluntatem sequitur, porro ipse neminem cogit (Because the will of all does not follow His will; and moreover, He compels no one). St. Augustine: Vult Deus omnes homines salvos fieri, non sic tamen ut eis liberum adimat arbitrium (God wills all men to be saved, yet not so as to take away their free will). And St. Augustine is of the same mind in several other places, which we shall shortly cite below.

That Jesus Christ, moreover, died for all, and for each one of men, is also clear, both from the Scriptures and from what the holy Fathers say of it. Great indeed was the ruin that the sin of Adam brought upon the whole human race; but Jesus Christ, by the grace of the Redemption, repaired all the evils brought upon us by Adam. Hence the Council of Trent declared (Sess. 5, in the Decree on Original Sin, ch. 5) that baptism renders souls pure and immaculate; and that the fomes that remains in them is not left for their harm, but to enable them to gain a greater crown, if they resist and do not consent to it: In Renatis enim nihil odit Deus... innocentes, immaculati, puri, ac Deo dilecti effecti sunt etc. Manere autem in Baptizatis concupiscentiam vel fomitem, haec Sancta Synodus fatetur et sentit: quae cum ad agonem relicta sit, nocere non consentientibus non valet quinimo, qui legitime certaverit, coronabitur (For in the reborn God hates nothing... they are made innocent, immaculate, pure, and beloved of God, etc. But this holy Synod confesses and holds that concupiscence or the fomes remains in the baptized; which, since it is left for the struggle, cannot harm those who do not consent; nay rather, he who has striven lawfully shall be crowned). Nay rather, as St. Leo says, Ampliora adepti (sumus) per Christi gratiam, quam per Diaboli amiseramus invidiam (We have gained greater things through the grace of Christ than we had lost through the envy of the Devil). The gain we have made through the Redemption of Jesus Christ has been greater than the harm we suffered through the sin of Adam. And the Apostle well declared this, saying: Non sicut delictum, ita et donum. Ubi autem abundavit delictum superabundavit gratia (Rom. 5:15, 20: Not as the offense, so also is the gift. But where the offense abounded, grace abounded all the more). And our Savior Himself declared it: Ego veni, ut vitam habeant, et abundantius habeant (John 10:10: I came that they may have life, and have it more abundantly). And David and Isaiah had well foretold it beforehand. David said: Et copiosa apud eum redemptio (Ps. 129:7: And with Him is plentiful redemption). And Isaiah: Suscepit de manu Domini duplicia pro omnibus peccatis suis (Isa. 40:2: She has received from the hand of the Lord double for all her sins). On which words the interpreter wrote: Deus ita dimisit Ecclesiae iniquitates per Christum, ut duplicia (id est multiplicia bona) susceperit pro poenis peccatorum quas merebatur (God so forgave the Church her iniquities through Christ that she received double — that is, manifold goods — instead of the punishments for sins which she deserved).

Now that our Savior, as I said, died for all, and that for the salvation of each man He offered the work of His Redemption to the Eternal Father, the Divine Scriptures assure us: Venit Filius hominis salvare quod perierat (Matt. 18:11: The Son of Man came to save that which was lost). Qui dedit redemptionem semet ipsum pro omnibus (1 Tim. 2:6: Who gave Himself a redemption for all). Pro omnibus mortuus est Christus, ut et qui vivunt, non jam sibi vivant, sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est (2 Cor. 5:15: Christ died for all, that they who live may no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them). In hoc enim laboramus, et maledicimur, quia speramus in Deum vivum, qui est Salvator omnium hominum, maxime fidelium (1 Tim. 4:10: For to this end we labor and are reviled, because we hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of the faithful). Et ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris; non pro nostris autem tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi (1 John 2:2: And He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world). Caritas enim Christi urget nos, existimantes hoc, quoniam si unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt (2 Cor. 5:14: For the charity of Christ urges us, judging this: that if one died for all, then all were dead). And speaking only of this last passage, I ask how the Apostle could ever deduce, from the fact that Jesus Christ died for all, that all were dead, if he did not hold it for certain that Jesus Christ truly died for all? All the more since St. Paul draws from this same truth an argument for the love that it kindles in us toward our Savior. But above all, to display the desire and will that God has to save all, what the same Apostle says avails (Rom. 8:32): Qui etiam proprio Filio suo non perpecit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum (Who spared not even His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all). And the words that follow carry still greater force: Quomodo non etiam cum illo omnia nobis donavit? (How has He not also, with Him, given us all things?) If God has given us all things, how then should we fear that He has denied us the election to glory, save on the condition of our correspondence? And if He has given us the Son, says the learned Cardinal Sfondrati, how will He deny us the grace to save ourselves? Hic diserte nos instruit (the aforesaid author says, speaking of St. Paul) Deum nos certos facere, non negaturum minus, qui dedit majus, non negaturum gratiam ad salvandum, qui dedit Filium ut salvaremur (Here he expressly teaches us that God gives us assurance that He who gave the greater will not deny the lesser; that He who gave the Son that we might be saved will not deny the grace to save us). And in truth, how could St. Paul say that God, in giving us the Son, has given us all things, if the Apostle had believed that the Lord has excluded many from glory, which is the only good and the only end for which He created us? To these same many, then, has the Lord given all things, and then denied them the best — eternal beatitude, without which (since there is no middle way) they cannot but be eternally miserable? Unless indeed we wish to say another thing still more unseemly, as another learned author well observes — that God gives to all the grace to attain glory, but then denies many the entrance to enjoy it: He gives the means, but denies the end.

For the rest, all the holy Fathers agree in saying that Jesus Christ died to obtain eternal salvation for all. St. Jerome: Christus pro omnibus mortuus est: solus inventus est, qui pro omnibus, qui erant in peccatis mortui, offerretur (Christ died for all: He alone was found to be offered for all who were dead in sins). St. Ambrose: Venit (Christus) ut vulnera nostra curaret; sed quia non omnes medicinam expetunt... ideo volentes curat, non adstringit invitos (Christ came to heal our wounds; but since not all seek the remedy... therefore He heals the willing; He does not constrain the unwilling). In another place: Omnibus opem sanitatis detulit, ut quicumque perierit, mortis suae causas sibi adscribat, qui curari noluit, cum remedium haberet. Christi autem manifesta in omnes praedicetur misericordia, qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri (He brought the help of healing to all, so that whoever perishes may ascribe the cause of his death to himself, since he refused to be cured though he had the remedy; and that the mercy of Christ, who wills all men to be saved, may be proclaimed as manifest toward all). And in another place more clearly: Non ad unum quidem, non ad paucos, sed ad omnes testamentum suum scripsit Jesus, omnes scripti haeredes sumus; testamentum commune est, et jus omnium; haereditas universorum, et soliditas singulorum (Jesus wrote His testament not for one, not for a few, but for all: we are all written heirs; the testament is a common one and the right of all; the inheritance of all, and the entire possession of each). Mark the words, omnes scripti haeredes sumus (we are all written heirs); so the Redeemer has written us all as His heirs of Heaven. St. Leo: Sicut Christus nullum a reatu liberum reperit, ita liberandis omnibus venit (As Christ found no one free from guilt, so He came to set all free). St. Augustine, on those words of St. John (3:17), Non enim misit Deus Filium suum, ut judicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum (For God did not send His Son to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him), says: Ergo, quantum in Medico est, sanare venit aegrotum (Therefore, as far as the Physician is concerned, He came to heal the sick man). Mark the words, quantum in Medico est (as far as the Physician is concerned); therefore God, as far as He is concerned, efficaciously wills the salvation of all, but cannot heal (as St. Augustine adds) one who does not will to be healed: Sanat omnino Ille, sed non sanat invitum (He heals entirely, but He does not heal the unwilling). Quid enim in te beatius, quam ut tanquam in manu tua vitam, sic in voluntate tua sanitatem habeas? (For what is more blessed in you than that, as life is in your hand, so you should have health in your will?) When the Saint says sanat (He heals), he speaks of sinners who are sick and unable to procure health by their own strength; in saying omnino (entirely), he declares that nothing is wanting on God's part for sinners to be healed and saved; and in then saying, in manu tua vitam, sic in voluntate tua sanitatem habeas (life is in your hand, so you have health in your will), he declares that God with a true will, for His part, wills all to be saved — otherwise it would not be in our power to obtain health and eternal life. In another place: Qui nos tanto pretio redemit, non vult perire, nec enim emit quos perdat, sed emit
quos vivificet (He who redeemed us at so great a price does not will us to perish; for He did not buy those whom He would lose, but bought those whom He would bring to life). He has redeemed us all, to save us all. And hence he encourages all to hope for eternal beatitude with that celebrated sentence: Erigat se humana fragilitas; non dicat, non ero beatus... Plus est quod (Christus) fecit, quam quod promisit. Quid fecit? Mortuus est pro te. Quid promisit? quod vives cum Illo (Let human frailty lift itself up; let it not say, I shall not be blessed... Greater is what (Christ) has done than what He has promised. What has He done? He died for you. What has He promised? That you shall live with Him). Some have wished to say that Jesus Christ offered His Blood for all in order to obtain grace for them, but not salvation. But Petrocorensis, speaking against these, cannot abide this opinion, and exclaims: O contentiosam nugacitatem! Quomodo Dei Sapientia medium salutis voluit, et non finem salutis? (O contentious trifling! How could the Wisdom of God have willed the means of salvation, and not the end of salvation?) St. Augustine, moreover, speaking against the Jews, says: Agnoscitis latus quod pupugistis, quoniam et per vos, et propter vos apertum est (You acknowledge the side that you pierced, since it was opened both by you and for you). If Jesus Christ had not truly given His Blood for all, the Jews could have answered St. Augustine that it was indeed true that they had opened the side of the Lord, but not that it had been opened for them.

St. Thomas Aquinas likewise does not doubt that Jesus Christ died for all, and from this he concludes that He wills all to be saved: "Christus Jesus est mediator Dei et hominum, non quorumdam, sed inter Deum et omnes homines, et hoc non esset, nisi vellet omnes salvare" ("Christ Jesus is the mediator of God and men, not of some only, but between God and all men; and this would not be so, unless He willed to save all"). This is confirmed (as has already been said above) by the condemnation of the fifth Proposition of Jansenius, which stated: "Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus hominibus mortuum esse, aut sanguinem fudisse" ("It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died, or shed His blood, for all men"). The sense of this Proposition, according to the context of the other condemned Propositions and according to the principles of Jansenius, is this: Jesus Christ did not die to merit for all the graces sufficient for salvation, but only for the Predestined, as Jansenius himself clearly expressed it in a passage where he wrote thus: "Nullo modo ejus (scil. Augustini) principiis consentaneum est, ut Christus Dominus vel pro Infidelium in infidelitate morientium, vel pro Justorum non perseverantium aeterna salute mortuum esse, et Sanguinem fudisse sentiatur" ("In no way is it consistent with his [scil. Augustine's] principles to hold that Christ the Lord died and shed His blood either for the eternal salvation of unbelievers dying in their unbelief, or of the just who do not persevere"). The contrary Catholic sense, therefore, is this: it is not Semipelagian, but right, to say that Jesus Christ died to merit — not only for the Predestined, but for all, and even for the Reprobate — the graces for attaining eternal salvation according to the present providence.

Moreover, that God truly, on His part, wills all to be saved, and that Jesus Christ died for the salvation of all, is assured to us by the precept of hope, which the Lord imposes on all. The reason is clear. St. Paul calls Christian hope the anchor of the soul, sure and firm: "Qui confugimus ad tenendam propositam spem, quam sicut anchoram habemus animae tutam ac firmam" ("We who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us, which we have as an anchor of the soul, secure and firm") (Heb. 6:18). Now where would we find this sure and firm anchor of our hope, if not upon the truth that God wills all to be saved? "Qua fiducia (says the Petrocoriensian author) Divinam Misericordiam sperare poterunt homines, si certum non sit quod Deus salutem omnium eorum velit? Qua fiducia Christi mortem Deo offerre, ut indulgentiam consequantur si incertum est, an pro ipsis oblata sit?" ("With what confidence will men be able to hope for the Divine Mercy, if it be not certain that God wills the salvation of them all? With what confidence can they offer the death of Christ to God to obtain pardon, if it is uncertain whether it was offered for them?"). And Cardinal Sfondrati says that if God had elected some to eternal life and excluded others, we should have greater reason to despair than to hope, seeing already in fact that the Elect are far fewer than the Damned: "Nemo firmiter (says the aforesaid author) sperare posset, dum ei plura desperandi quam sperandi fundamenta suppetunt; nam multo plures sunt Reprobi, quam Electi" ("No one could firmly hope while he has more grounds for despairing than for hoping; for the Reprobate are far more numerous than the Elect"). And if Jesus Christ had not died for the salvation of all, how could we have a certain foundation for hoping for salvation through the merits of Jesus Christ, without a special revelation? But St. Augustine did not doubt this, saying: "Omnis namque spes, et Fidei certitudo mihi est in pretioso Sanguine Christi, qui effusus est propter nos et propter nostram salutem" ("For all my hope and the certainty of my faith is in the precious Blood of Christ, which was shed for us and for our salvation"). So that the Saint placed all his hope in the Blood of Jesus Christ precisely because faith assured him that Jesus Christ had died for all. But we shall have to examine this argument from hope more fully in Chapter IV, when we speak of the principal Point, namely, that the grace of prayer is given to all.

But it remains here to answer the objection that is raised concerning children who are lost, dying before Baptism and before the use of reason. If God wills all to be saved (it is objected), how then do these little ones perish through no fault of their own, since they are deprived of every divine help for attaining eternal salvation? There are two answers, the one more correct than the other. I will state them briefly. First, it is answered that God, by His antecedent will, wills all to be saved, and for that reason has already given the universal means whereby all may be saved; but these means sometimes fail of their effect, either by reason of the will of those who refuse to avail themselves of them, or by reason that others cannot avail themselves of them on account of secondary causes (such as the natural deaths of children), whose course God is not bound to impede, having disposed all things according to the just judgments of His general Providence. All this is gathered from what St. Thomas Aquinas says: Jesus Christ offered His merits for all, and for all He instituted Baptism. The application of this remedy of salvation, then, in the case of children who die before they are capable of reason, is not impeded by the direct will of God, but by His merely permissive will; for, being the universal Provider of all things, He must not disturb the general order in order to provide for the particular.

The second answer is that not to be blessed is not the same thing as to perish; for eternal beatitude is an entirely gratuitous gift, and hence the privation of it has not the character of a punishment. Very just, moreover, is the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas, that children who die in their infancy suffer neither the pain of sense nor the pain of loss: not the pain of sense, says the holy Doctor, "Quia poena sensus respondet conversioni ad creaturam, et in peccato originali non est conversio ad creaturam" (there being no personal fault),

"et ideo peccato originali non debetur poena sensus" ("because the pain of sense corresponds to the turning toward the creature, and in original sin there is no turning toward the creature, and therefore the pain of sense is not due to original sin"), since original sin involves no act. To this, opponents object the doctrine of St. Augustine, who in a certain passage shows that he held that children are condemned also to the pain of sense. But in another place the Saint declares that on this point he was himself greatly perplexed; these are his words: "Cum ad poenam ventum est Parvulorum, magnis (mihi crede) angustiis arctor, nec quidquid respondendum penitus invenio" ("When it comes to the punishment of little children, I am, believe me, in great straits, and I find nothing at all to answer"). And in another place he writes that it can well be said that such children receive neither reward nor punishment: "Non essim timendum est, ne non potuerit esse sententia media inter praemium et supplicium cum sit vita media inter peccatum et recte factum" ("For it is not to be feared that there could be no middle sentence between reward and punishment, since there is a middle life between sin and right action"). And this

St. Gregory Nazianzen then wrote assertively: "Parvuli nec caelesti Gloria, nec suppliciis a justo Judice afficientur" ("Little children will be affected neither by heavenly glory nor by punishments from the just Judge"). And of the same opinion was St. Gregory of Nyssa: "Immatura mors Infantium demonstrat neque in doloribus et maestitia futuros eos, qui sic vivere desierunt" ("The untimely death of infants shows that those who thus ceased to live will be neither in pains nor in sorrow").

As for the pain of loss, although children are excluded from glory, nevertheless St. Thomas Aquinas, who has reflected more deeply on this point, teaches that no one grieves over the privation of a good of which he is not capable; hence, just as no man grieves that he cannot fly, or that, being a private person, he is not emperor, so children do not grieve at being deprived of a glory of which they have never been capable, since they could lay claim to it neither by the principles of nature nor by their own merits. St. Thomas Aquinas adds, in another place, another reason for this, saying that the supernatural knowledge of glory is had only by means of actual faith, which surpasses every natural knowledge; and hence it is that children can suffer no pain from the privation of glory, since they have never had any supernatural knowledge of it. Moreover, he says in the place first cited that such children will not only not grieve at being deprived of eternal beatitude, but will moreover enjoy their natural goods, and will in some manner also enjoy God, insofar as natural knowledge and natural love imply: "Immo magis gaudebunt de hoc quod participabunt multum de Divina Bonitate, et perfectionibus naturalibus" ("Nay rather, they will rejoice the more in this, that they will partake greatly of the Divine Goodness and of natural perfections"). And he adds further that, although such children are separated from God as regards the union of glory, nevertheless "Illi conjunguntur per participationem naturalium bonorum, et ita etiam de Ipso gaudere poterunt naturali cognitione, et dilectione" ("they are united to Him through the participation of natural goods, and so they will also be able to rejoice in Him by natural knowledge and love").

q Nodus Praedest. part. I. § I.

aa S. Aug. de Spirit. et litt. cap. 3.

ab S. Leo Serm. I. de Ascens.

ac Apud Corn. a Lapide in loco cit. Isaiae.

ad Nod. praedest. vide p. I. § 2. n. I.

ae S. Hier. Comment. in 2. ad Cor. cap. 5.

af S. Ambr. in Ps. 72.

ag Idem lib. 2. de Abel cap. 3.

ah Idem in Psalm. 118. v. 111.

ai S. Leo. Serm. I. de Nativ. Dom. c. I.

al S. Aug. tr. 12. in Jo. circa fin.

am Idem Serm. 109. de Temp.

an Petrocor. tom. I. lib. 3. cap. 4.

ao S. Aug. lib. 2. de Symb. ad Cat. cap. 8.

ap S. Thom. ad I. Tim. 2. Lect. I.

aq Jans. lib. De gratia Christi, cap. 21.

ar Petroc. to. I. c. 3. qu. 4.

as S. Thom. I. p. q. 22. a. 2. ad 2.

at S. Thom. de Malo q. 5. a. 2.

au S. August. lib. 5. contra Jullian. cap. 8, et Epist. 28 ad Hieron.

av Idem lib. 3. de lib. arb. cap. 23.

az S. Greg. Naz. Serm. in S. Lavacr.

ax S. Greg. Nyss. de Infant.

ba S. Thom. 2. Sent. Dist. 33. q. I. a. 2.

bb Idem de Malo q. 5. a. 2.

bc Idem 2. Sent. dist. 33. q. I. a. 2.

bd S. Thom. loco cit. infra ad 5.

### CHAPTER II - SECOND PRELIMINARY

God commonly gives the necessary grace to all the just to observe the commandments, and to all sinners to be converted

If, then, God wills all to be saved, He consequently gives to all the grace and the aids necessary to attain salvation; otherwise it could not be said that He has a true will to save all. "Antecedentis voluntatis (says St. Thomas Aquinas), qua Deus vult omnium salutem, effectus est ordo naturae in finem salutis, et promoventia in finem omnibus communiter proposita, tam naturalia, quam gratuita" ("By the antecedent will, whereby God wills the salvation of all, the effect is the ordering of nature to the end of salvation, and the means of advancing to that end set before all in common, both natural and gratuitous"). And it is certain, against what Luther and Calvin blasphemed, that God does not impose a law impossible to observe. On the contrary, it is certain that without the help of grace the observance of the law is impossible, as Innocent I declared against the Pelagians, saying: "Necesse est ut quo (scil. Deo) auxiliante vincimus, Eo non adjuvante vincamur" ("It must needs be that we conquer when He [scil. God] helps us, and that we are conquered when He does not help"). And Pope Celestine declared the same. Therefore, if the Lord gives to all a law that can be observed, He consequently also gives to all the grace necessary to observe it, either immediately or mediately by means of prayer, as the holy Council of Trent has declared all too clearly: "Deus impossibilia non jubet sed jubendo monet et facere quod possis, et petere quod non possis, et adjuvat ut possis" ("God does not command impossibilities; but by commanding He admonishes you both to do what you can and to ask for what you cannot, and He helps you so that you may be able") (Sess. 6, ch. 13). Otherwise, if God denied us grace, both proximate and remote, to fulfill the law, either the law would have been given in vain, or sin would be necessary — and, being necessary, it would no longer be sin, as we shall show at length below.

This is the common teaching of the Fathers. Let us see it. St. Cyril of Alexandria says: "Quod si (quis) perinde, atque alii, et ex aequo, cum ipsis Divinae gratiae opibus praeditus propria voluntate delapsus est; quomodo non eum servasse dicitur Christus, qui, quantum ad cavendi peccati auxila concessa pertinet, hominem liberavit?" ("But if anyone, endowed equally with others and on the same footing as they with the resources of divine grace, has fallen by his own will, how is it not said that Christ saved him, since, as far as concerns the helps granted for avoiding sin, He delivered the man?"). How (says the Saint) can that sinner, who received the aids of grace equally with the others who remained faithful, and who chose to sin of his own accord, then complain of Jesus Christ, who on His part had already delivered him by means of the aids granted him? St. John Chrysostom asks: "Unde nam alii vasa irae, alii misericordiae sunt?" ("Whence is it that some are vessels of wrath, others of mercy?"). And he answers: "Ex libera sua utique voluntate; nam Deus cum sit valde bonus in utrisque parem benignitatem ostendit" ("From their own free will, surely; for God, being exceedingly good, shows equal kindness to both"). Then, speaking of Pharaoh, who in Scripture is called hardened of heart, he adds: "Si salutem Pharao non est adeptus, totum id illius voluntati tribuendum est, cum nihil minus, quam qui salutem assecuti sunt, concessum illi fuerit" ("If Pharaoh did not attain salvation, the whole must be attributed to his will, since nothing less was granted to him than to those who attained salvation"). And in another place, speaking of the request of the mother of Zebedee's sons concerning the words "Non est meum dare vobis" ("It is not Mine to give you") etc., he says thus: "Hoc Illum (sc. Christum) significare voluisse, non suum esse tantummodo dare, sed et certantium esse capere; nam si istud ex Se uno penderet, omnes utique salvi essent Homines" ("By this He [scil. Christ] meant that it was not His alone to give, but belonged also to those who strive to win it; for if it depended on Him alone, all men would surely be saved"). St. Isidore of Pelusium: "Etenim serto, et modis omnibus (Deus) vult eos
adjuvare, qui in vitio volutantur, ut excusationem eripiat" ("For certainly, and in every way, God wills to help those who are wallowing in vice, so as to take away their excuse"). St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "Ad aeternae vitae januam (Dominus) aperuit, ut omnes ea, quantum in ipso est, nullo impediente potiantur" ("The Lord has opened the gate of eternal life, so that all, as far as in Him lies, may enter it with none to hinder").

But the doctrine of these Greek Fathers does not please Jansenius, who has the temerity to say that the Greek Fathers have spoken most imperfectly of grace: "Nulli imperfectius de Gratia quam Graeci locuti sunt" ("None have spoken more imperfectly about grace than the Greeks"). Therefore, in the matter of grace, are we not to follow the teachings of the Greek Fathers, who were the first Teachers and Pillars of the Church? Was the doctrine of the Greeks, especially in so important a matter, perhaps different from that of the Latin Church? — when, on the contrary, it is certain that the true doctrine of the faith passed from the Greek Church to the Latin; hence, as St. Augustine wrote against Julian, who set against him the authority of the Greek Fathers, it cannot be doubted that the faith of the Latins is the same as that of the Greeks. And whom, pray, are we to follow? His errors, perchance, already condemned by the Church as heretical — he who had the audacity to say that even the just lack the grace which would render some commandments possible to them, and that man merits and demerits even when he acts by necessity, provided he is not forced by violence? These and his other errors spring from his utterly false system of relatively victorious delectation, which will be dealt with at length in refuting it in Chapter III.

But since the Greek Fathers do not satisfy Jansenius, let us see what the Latins say. Yet these differ in nothing from the Greeks. St. Jerome says: "Nihil boni operis (Homo) agere potest absque Eo, qui ita concessit liberum arbitrium, ut suam per singula opera gratiam non negaret" ("Man can do no good work without Him who so granted free will that He did not refuse His grace for each single work"). Note: "per singula opera gratiam non negaret" ("He did not refuse His grace for each single work"). St. Ambrose: "Quia enim venit, et januam pulsat, vult semper intrare, sed in nobis est quod non semper ingreditur" ("For since He comes and knocks at the door, He wills ever to enter; but it is in us that He does not always enter"). St. Leo: "Juste instat praecepto, qui praecurrit auxilio" ("He justly insists on the precept who runs ahead with His aid").

St. Hilary: "Nunc per unum in omnes donum justificationis gratia abundavit" ("Now through One the gift of justification has abounded in grace unto all"). Innocent I: "Quotidiana praestat (Homini) remedia, quibus nisi freti nitamur, nequaquam humanos vincere poterimus errores" ("He daily offers man remedies; unless we strive in reliance upon them, we shall never be able to overcome human errors").

St. Augustine: "Non tibi deputatur ad culpam quod invitus ignoras, sed quod negligis quaerere quod ignoras. Neque illud quod vulnerata membra non colligis, sed quod (nota) volentem sanare contemnis, ista tua propria peccata sunt: nulli enim homini ablatum est scire utiliter quaerere" ("It is not imputed to you as a fault that you are ignorant against your will, but that you neglect to seek what you do not know; nor that you do not bind up your wounded members, but that (note) you despise Him who wills to heal you: these are your own sins; for no man has been deprived of knowing how to seek profitably"). In another place: "Quod ergo ignorat (Anima) quid sibi agendum sit, ex eo est quod nondum accepit, sed hoc quoque accipiet, si hoc quod accepit bene usa fuerit: accepit autem, ut pie ac diligenter quaerat, si volet" ("That the soul does not know what it must do comes from its not yet having received; but it will receive this too, if it makes good use of what it has received; for it has received to seek devoutly and diligently, if it wills"). Note: "accepit autem, ut pie ac diligenter quaerat" ("it has received, that it may seek devoutly and diligently"). So that everyone receives at least the remote grace to seek, of which if he makes good use he will then receive the proximate grace to do what before he could not do. And the holy Doctor grounds all this on the principle that no one sins in what he cannot avoid; therefore (he adds), if man sins in anything, he sins insofar as he could have avoided it with the grace of the Lord, which is lacking to no one: "Neminem peccare in eo, quod nullo modo caveri potest. Peccatur autem; caveri igitur potest, sed opitulante Illo, qui non potest falli" ("No one sins in that which can in no way be avoided. But sin is committed; therefore it can be avoided, but with the aid of Him who cannot be deceived"). Evident reasoning, by which it becomes clear (as we shall examine more fully below, when speaking of the sins of the obstinate) that if the grace necessary to observe the commandments were lacking, there would be no sin.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches the same in several places. In one place, explaining the text of the Apostle, "Qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri" ("who wills all men to be saved"), he says: "Et ideo gratia nulli deest, sed omnibus (quantum in se est) se communicat, sicut nec sol deest oculis caecis" ("And therefore grace is lacking to no one, but communicates itself to all (as far as in it lies), just as the sun is not lacking to the eyes of the blind"). So that, just as the sun spreads its light to all, and only those are deprived of it who voluntarily blind themselves, so God communicates grace to all for observing the law, and men are lost only because they will not avail themselves of it. In another place: "Hoc ad Divinam providentiam pertinet, ut cuilibet provideat de necessariis ad salutem, dummodo ex parte ejus (scilicet hominis) non impediatur" ("It pertains to divine providence to provide each one with the things necessary for salvation, provided it is not hindered on his part [scil. the man's]"). If, then, God gives to all the graces necessary for salvation, since actual grace is necessary to overcome temptations and to observe the commandments, it must necessarily be concluded that He gives to all actual grace to do good, either immediately or mediately, but without need of another grace to put into effect the means (such as prayer) in order to obtain proximate actual grace. In another place, on those words of St. John, "Nemo venit ad me" ("No one comes to Me") etc., he says: "Si non elevatur (cor humanum), non est defectus ex parte Trahentis, qui quantum in Se est non deficit, sed est propter impedimentum ejus qui trahitur" ("If the human heart is not lifted up, the defect is not on the part of the One drawing it, who as far as in Him lies does not fail, but is due to the impediment of the one being drawn"). Scotus says the same: "Vult omnes homines salvare, quantum est ex parte sui, et voluntate sua antecedente, pro qua dedit eis dona communia sufficientia ad salutem" ("He wills to save all men, as far as depends on Him and by His antecedent will, for which He gave them common gifts sufficient for salvation"). The Council of Cologne: "Quanquam nemo convertatur nisi tractus per Patrem, attamen nemo excusationem praetexat quod non trahatur; Ille semper stat ante ostium pulsans per internum et externum verbum" ("Although no one is converted unless drawn by the Father, yet let no one plead the excuse that he is not drawn; He ever stands before the door, knocking through the inward and the outward word").

Nor have the holy Fathers spoken at random, but on the foundation of the divine Scriptures, for the Lord in so many places most clearly assures us that He does not fail to assist us with His grace, if we will avail ourselves of it to persevere once justified, or to be converted if we are sinners: "Sto ad ostium et pulso, si quis mihi aperuerit, intrabo" ("Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone opens to Me, I will come in") (Rev. 3:20). Bellarmine argues well on this text, saying that the Lord, knowing already that man cannot open without His grace, would knock in vain at the door of his heart if He had not first conferred on him the grace to open when he wills. And this is precisely what St. Thomas Aquinas taught in explaining the same text; he said that God gives to each one the grace necessary for salvation, that he may correspond if he wills: "Deus voluntate sua liberalissima dat eam (scil. gratiam) omni praeparanti se (Apoc. 3. Ecce sto ad ostium, et pulso). Et ideo gratia Dei nulli deest, sed omnibus, quantum in se est, se communicat" ("God by His most liberal will gives it [scil. grace] to everyone who prepares himself (Rev. 3: Behold, I stand at the door and knock). And therefore the grace of God is lacking to no one, but communicates itself to all, as far as in it lies"). Adding in another place: "Hoc ad Divinam providentiam pertinet, ut cuilibet provideat de necessariis ad salutem" ("It pertains to divine providence to provide each one with the things necessary for salvation").

So that, as St. Ambrose wrote, the Lord knocks at the door because He truly wills to enter; yet He does not enter, or does not abide in our souls, because we hinder His entrance, or, once He has entered, we drive Him out: Quia enim venit, et januam pulsat, vult semper intrare; sed in nobis est quod non semper ingreditur, non semper manet (For since He comes and knocks at the door, He wills always to enter; but it lies with us that He does not always enter, nor always remain).

Quid est quod debui ultra facere vineae meae, et non feci? An expectavi ut faceret uvas, et fecit labruscas? (Isa. 5:4: What is there that I ought to have done more to My vineyard, and have not done? Did I look for it to bring forth grapes, and it has brought forth wild grapes?) Bellarmine says on this passage: Si non dedisset facultatem ad faciendas uvas, quorsum diceret Dominus, Expectavi? (If He had not given the faculty of producing grapes, to what purpose would the Lord say, I looked for it?) And if God did not give to all the grace necessary to be saved, He could not have said to the Jews: Quid debui ultra facere? (What more ought I to have done?) for they could have answered that they bore no fruit only because the help necessary for it was lacking to them. Bellarmine says the same in the place cited on those words of Jesus Christ: Quoties volui congregare filios tuos... et noluisti? (Matt. 23:38: How often would I have gathered your children... and you would not?) Quomodo voluit (asks the aforesaid Cardinal) ut quaeratur a nolentibus, si eos non juvit ut possint velle? (How did He will that fruit should be sought from those unwilling, if He did not assist them so that they could will?)

Suscepimus Deus misericordiam tuam in medio templi tui (Ps. 47:10: We have received Your mercy, O God, in the midst of Your temple). St. Bernard comments: In medio enim Templi misericordia est, non in angulo aut diversorio, quia non est personarum acceptio apud Deum; in communi posita est, offertur omnibus, et nemo illius expers, nisi qui renuit (For mercy is in the midst of the Temple, not in a corner or a private chamber, because there is no respect of persons with God; it is placed in the common place, it is offered to all, and no one is without a share in it, except him who refuses it).

An divitias bonitatis ejus... contemnis? ignoras quia benignitas Dei ad poenitentiam te adducit? (Rom. 2:4: Or do you despise the riches of His goodness...? Do you not know that the kindness of God leads you to penance?) Behold, the sinner through his own malice does not convert, despising the riches of the Divine Goodness that calls him and never ceases to move him by His grace to conversion. God hates sin, but at the same time He never ceases to love the sinful soul, while she lives on this earth, by giving her the help necessary to be saved. Parcis autem omnibus, quoniam tua sunt, Domine, qui amas animas (Wis. 11:28: But You spare all, because they are Yours, O Lord, who love souls). From this it is seen, says Bellarmine, that God does not deny the grace of resisting temptations to any sinner, however obstinate and blinded he may be: Auxilium ad novum peccatum vitandum semper omnibus adest vel immediate, vel mediate (that is, by means of prayer), quo possint a Deo majora praesidia impetrare, quibus adjuti peccata vitabunt (The help for avoiding a new sin is always at hand for all, either immediately or mediately — that is, by means of prayer — whereby they can obtain from God greater aids, assisted by which they will avoid sins). To this also pertains what the Lord says through Ezekiel: Vivo ego, dicit Dominus Deus, nolo mortem impii, sed ut convertatur impius a via sua, et vivat (Ezek. 33:11: As I live, says the Lord God, I will not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live). St. Peter says the same: Patienter agit propter vos, nolens aliquos perire, sed omnes ad poenitentiam reverti (2 Pet. 3:9: He deals patiently for your sakes, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance). If therefore God wills that all should actually be converted, it must necessarily be supposed that He gives all the grace they need in order actually to be converted.

I well know there are theologians who maintain that God denies even sufficient grace to certain obstinate sinners; and among other things they avail themselves of a doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, who says: Quamvis autem illi, qui in peccato sunt, vitare non possint per propriam potestatem, quin impedimentum gratiae praestent vel ponant, ut ostensum est, nisi auxilio gratiae praeveniantur, nihilominus tamen hoc eis imputatur ad culpam, quia hic defectus ex culpa praecedente in eis relinquitur, sicut ebrius ab homicidio non excusatur, quod per ebrietatem committit, quam sua culpa incurrit. Praeterea, licet ille qui est in peccato, non habeat hoc in propria potestate, quod omnino vitet peccatum, habet tamen potestatem nunc vitare hoc vel illud peccatum, ut dictum est; unde quodcunque committit, voluntarie committit, et ita non immerito sibi imputatur ad culpam (Yet although those who are in sin cannot, by their own power, avoid placing an impediment to grace, as has been shown, unless they are prevented by the help of grace, nevertheless this is imputed to them as fault, because this defect is left in them from a preceding fault, just as a drunkard is not excused from the homicide which he commits through drunkenness, which he incurred by his own fault. Moreover, although he who is in sin has it not in his own power to avoid sin altogether, yet he has power now to avoid this or that sin, as has been said; wherefore whatever he commits, he commits voluntarily, and thus it is not undeservedly imputed to him as fault). From this they will have it that the Saint means to say that some sinners can indeed avoid sins in particular, but not all sins, because in punishment for the sins previously committed they are deprived of all actual grace.

But we answer that in this place St. Thomas is not speaking of actual grace, but of habitual, that is, sanctifying grace, without which the sinner cannot keep himself for a long time from falling into new sins, as he teaches in many places. And that he means the same in the passage quoted above is clearly seen from the context of the words he premises there, and which must be set down more at length in order to understand the true mind of the Saint. First of all, the title of the cited Chapter 160 is this: Quod homo in peccato exsistens sine gratia peccatum vitare non potest (That man, being in sin without grace, cannot avoid sin). Behold, the very title makes clear that the holy Doctor means nothing other than the same thing he has said in the other places cited.

Then in the cited place he says thus: Cum enim mens hominis a statu rectitudinis declinaverit, manifestum est quod recessit ab ordine debiti finis... Quandocunque igitur aliquid occurrerit conveniens inordinato fini, repugnans fini debito, eligetur, nisi reducatur ad debitum ordinem ut finem debitum omnibus praeferat, quod est gratiae effectus. Dum autem eligitur aliquid quod repugnat ultimo fini, impedimentum praestat gratiae quae dirigit in finem: unde ab omni peccato, antequam pergratiam ad debitum ordinem manifestum est quod post peccatum non potest homo abstinere reducatur... Unde apparet stulta Pelagianorum opinio, qui dicebant, hominem in peccato existentem sine gratia posse vitare peccatum (For when the mind of man has declined from the state of rectitude, it is manifest that it has withdrawn from the order of the due end... Whenever, therefore, something occurs that is suited to the inordinate end but repugnant to the due end, it will be chosen, unless it be brought back to the due order so as to prefer the due end to all things, which is the effect of grace. But when something is chosen that is repugnant to the last end, it places an impediment to the grace that directs to the end: whence it is manifest that after sin man cannot abstain from every sin before he is brought back through grace to the due order... Whence appears the foolish opinion of the Pelagians, who said that man, being in sin, could avoid sin without grace). And immediately afterwards he writes the words already reported above, Quamvis autem illi etc. (Yet although those, etc.), of which the opponents make use. So that in the first place the intention of St. Thomas is not to prove that some sinners are deprived of all actual grace, and that nevertheless, though unable to avoid every sin, they still sin and are deserving of punishment; but his intention is to prove, against the Pelagians, that man, while he is without sanctifying grace, cannot abstain from sinning. And it is already clear that the Saint here certainly speaks of sanctifying grace, since this alone is what restores the soul to the right order. Now of this same sanctifying grace he means to speak when he says afterwards, Nisi auxilio gratiae praeveniantur (Unless they are prevented by the help of grace);
meaning that if the sinner is not prevented, that is, is not first informed by grace and brought back into the right order of holding God for his last end, he cannot avoid committing new sins. And so the Thomists understand it, as does Ferrariensis in the said place, and Gonet in expounding this same place. But without having recourse to others, this becomes evident from what the same St. Thomas says in the Summa, where he speaks of the same point, and puts forward identically the same arguments, with the same words that he wrote in the book Contra Gentes in the cited Chapter 160; and there he expressly speaks only of habitual, that is, sanctifying grace.

And it could not be that the holy Doctor meant otherwise, since on the one hand he teaches elsewhere that the Divine Grace is never lacking to anyone, as he says in commenting on St. John: Sed ne credas effectum ipsum esse ex remotione verae lucis, hoc excludens Evangelista subdit: Erat lux vera, quae illuminat omnem hominem. Illuminat scilicet Verbum, quantum de se est, quia ex parte sua nulli deest, imo vult omnes homines salvos fieri Quod si aliquis non illuminatur, ex parte hominis est avertentis se a lumine illuminante (But lest you believe that this effect itself comes from the removal of the true light, the Evangelist, excluding this, adds: He was the true light, which enlightens every man. Namely, the Word enlightens, as far as in Him lies, because on His part He is lacking to no one; nay, He wills all men to be saved. But if anyone is not enlightened, it is on the part of the man who turns himself away from the light that enlightens). And on the other hand he teaches that there is no sinner so lost and abandoned by grace that he cannot lay aside his obstinacy and unite himself to the Divine Will, which he certainly cannot do without the help of grace: In statu viae nullus est qui mentis obstinationem non possit reponere, et sic Divinae voluntati conformari (In the state of this present life there is no one who cannot put away the obstinacy of his mind, and so conform himself to the Divine Will). Elsewhere he says: Quandiu manet homini usus liberi arbitrii in hac vita... potest se praeparare ad gratiam de peccatis dolendo (As long as the use of free will remains to man in this life... he can prepare himself for grace by grieving over his sins). To repent of one's sins cannot be done without grace. Elsewhere he says: Aliquis homo in statu viae non potest esse ita obstinatus in malo, quin ad suam liberationem cooperari possit (A man in the state of this present life cannot be so obstinate in evil that he cannot cooperate in his own deliverance). To cooperate necessarily implies that the help of grace is present. Elsewhere, on the words of St. Paul, Vult omnes salvos fieri (He wills all men to be saved), he says: Ideo gratia Dei nulli deest, sed omnibus quantum in se est se communicat (Therefore the grace of God is lacking to no one, but communicates itself to all, as far as in it lies). Elsewhere,
on the same words of the Apostle, Vult omnes etc. (He wills all, etc.), he says: Deus quantum in se est, paratus est omnibus dare gratiam. Illi ergo soli gratia privantur, qui in seipsis gratiae impedimentum praestant; et ideo excusari non possunt, si peccent (God, as far as in Him lies, is ready to give grace to all. They alone, therefore, are deprived of grace who place in themselves an impediment to grace; and therefore they cannot be excused if they sin).

And when the Saint says, Paratus est omnibus dare gratiam (He is ready to give grace to all), he does not intend to speak of actual grace, as we have seen above, but of sanctifying grace alone. Hence Cardinal Gotti rightly refutes those who say that God keeps the aids sufficient for salvation prepared and at hand, but in fact does not give them to all. Of what use would it be to the sick man (says this learned Author) if the Physician merely kept the remedies ready at hand, but then refused to apply them to him? Therefore, speaking to our point, he concludes that it must necessarily be said: Deus nedum offerre, sed etiam conferre singulis hominibus, et infidelibus, et induratis auxilia sufficientia, vel proxima, vel saltem remota, ad observanda praecepta (God not only offers, but also bestows on every single man, even on unbelievers and the hardened, sufficient aids, whether proximate or at least remote, for observing the precepts). Moreover, St. Thomas Aquinas says that the only sins which cannot be blotted out by penance are those of the demons and of the damned; on the contrary: Dicere quod aliquod peccatum sit in hac vita, de quo quis poenitere non possit, erroneum est... quia per hoc derogaretur virtuti Gratiae (To say that there is any sin in this life of which one cannot repent is erroneous... because this would detract from the power of grace). If anyone lacked grace, he certainly could not repent. Besides, as we have already seen above, the same St. Thomas expressly teaches in several places, especially in his commentary on chapter 12 of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, that, as far as He is concerned, God denies to no one the grace necessary for conversion, saying: Gratia Dei nulli deest, sed omnibus quantum in se est, se communicat (The grace of God is wanting to no one; rather, as far as it is concerned, it communicates itself to all). Hence the learned Author of the Theology for the Use of the Seminary of Périgueux rightly asserts: Non nisi ergo calumniose S. Thomae inputari potest quod peccatores aliquos a Deo totaliter deseri docuerit (It can therefore only be calumniously imputed to St. Thomas that he taught that some sinners are totally abandoned by God). Speaking on this point, Cardinal Bellarmine wisely distinguishes and says that, as regards avoiding new sins, every sinner, at every time, has at least the mediate aid: Auxilium sufficiens ac necessarium ad vitanda peccata omnibus, et omni tempore, vel immediate vel mediate, a Divina benignitate praestatur (A sufficient and necessary aid for avoiding sins is provided by the divine goodness to all, at all times, either immediately or mediately)... Dicimus vel mediate, quoniam certum est aliquos non habere [sufficiens auxilium, quod possit immediate resistere tentatori, et evitare peccatum, tamen habere] auxilium, quo possint a Deo majora praesidia impetrare, quibus adjuti peccata vitabunt (We say "or mediately," because it is certain that some do not have [sufficient aid for immediately resisting the tempter and avoiding sin, yet have] the aid by which they can obtain from God still greater helps, assisted by which they will avoid sin).[^editorial-bellarmine-help]

As regards the grace of conversion, he says that it is not given to the sinner at every time, but that no one will ever be so abandoned that ut certo et absolute per omnem vitam destituatur auxilio Dei, ut de salute desperare possit (he is certainly and absolutely deprived of the help of God for his whole life, so that he could despair of salvation).

The Thomist theologians, his disciples, say the same. The most learned Fr. Dominic Soto says: Certo certior sum, quin vero et certissimos credo semper fuisse sanctos Doctores, qui fuerint hoc nomine digni, neminem unquam a Deo fuisse derelictum, in hac mortali vita (I am more than certain — indeed, I hold it most certain — that the holy Doctors who have been worthy of that name have always held that no one in this mortal life has ever been abandoned by God). And the reason is clear: if the sinner were utterly abandoned by grace, either his sins could no longer be imputed to him as faults, since he goes on sinning, or else he would remain bound to what he cannot fulfill; but it is an undoubted rule of St. Augustine that one never sins in that which cannot be avoided: Neminem peccare in eo quod nullo modo caveri potest (No one sins in that which can in no way be avoided). And this accords with what St. Paul says: Fidelis autem Deus est, qui non patietur vos tentari supra id quod potestis, sed faciet etiam cum tentatione proventum, ut possitis sustinere (But God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above what you are able, but will with the temptation also make a way of escape, so that you may be able to bear it) (1 Cor. 10:13).

This proventum is to be understood as the divine aid that the Lord always gives to the tempted, so that they may resist the temptation, as St. Cyprian explains: Faciet cum tentatione facultatem evadendi (He will make with the temptation the means of escaping). And more clearly Primasius: Illud faciet provenire, quod poterimus sustinere; id est in tentatione roborabit gratiae praesidio, quo possitis eam sustinere (He will bring about that which we shall be able to bear; that is, in temptation He will strengthen us with the support of grace, so that you may be able to endure it). St. Augustine and St. Thomas go so far as to say that God would be unjust and cruel if He bound anyone to a precept he cannot observe.

St. Augustine says: Peccati reum tenere quenquam, quia non fecit quod facere non potuit, summae iniquitatis est (To hold anyone guilty of sin because he did not do what he could not do is the height of injustice). And St. Thomas then says: Deus non est magis crudelis quam homo; sed homini imputatur ad crudelitatem, si obliget aliquem per praeceptum ad id quod implere non possit; ergo de Deo nullatenus est aestimandum (God is not more cruel than man; but it is imputed to a man as cruelty if he obliges someone by a precept to what he cannot fulfill; therefore this must in no way be thought of God). The case is otherwise, the Saint says, when ex ejus negligentia est, quod gratiam non habet, per quam potest servare mandata (it is through his own negligence that he does not have the grace by which he can keep the commandments). This is properly understood when a man neglects to avail himself of the remote grace of prayer, by which he can well obtain the proximate grace to observe the precept, according to what the Council of Trent teaches: Deus impossibilia non jubet, sed jubendo monet et facere quod possis, et petere quod non possis, et adjuvat ut possis (God does not command impossibilities; but by commanding He admonishes you both to do what you can and to ask for what you cannot, and He helps you that you may be able) (Sess. 6, ch. 13).

What St. Augustine said in the passage cited — namely, that there is no sin in what cannot be avoided — he confirms in many other places. In one place he says: Sive autem iniquitas, sive justitia, si in potestate non esset, nullum praemium, nulla poena justa esset (Whether it be iniquity or justice, if it were not within our power, there would be no just reward, no just punishment). Elsewhere he says: Si denique his abstinendi ab opere suo potestas nulla conceditur, nullum peccatum eorum tenere possumus (If, finally, no power of abstaining from their work is granted them, we can hold them guilty of no sin). Elsewhere he says: Dat quidem ille (Daemon) consilium, sed Deo auxiliante nostrum est eligere vel repudiare quod suggerit; et ideo cum per Dei adjutorium in potestate tua sit, quare non magis Deo, quam ipsi obtemperare deliberas? (He [the devil] indeed gives counsel, but with God's help it is ours to choose or to reject what he suggests; and therefore, since through God's aid it is in your power, why do you not resolve to obey God rather than him?). In another place he says: Ex eo igitur quod o non accepit, nullus reus est (Therefore no one is guilty for what he did not receive). In another: Nemo vituperatione dignus, qui id non facit, quod facere non potest (No one deserves blame who does not do what he cannot do). St. Jerome says the same: Nec ad virtutes, nec ad vitia necessitate trahimur; alioquin ubi necessitas est, nec damnatio, nec corona est (We are drawn by necessity neither to virtues nor to vices; otherwise, where there is necessity, there is neither damnation nor crown). Tertullian: Non enim poneretur lex ei, qui, non habet obsequium debitum legi in sua potestate (For a law would not be imposed on one who does not have within his own power the obedience due to the law). Mark the Hermit: Occulta nobis opitulatur gratia;. verum in nobis situm est agere, vel non agere bonum pro potestate (Grace secretly comes to our aid; but it lies in us to do good or not to do it, as far as we are able). St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, and others say the same.

Nor is it an objection that St. Thomas says that grace is denied to some in punishment for original sin: Auxilium (Gratiae) quibuscunque datur, misericorditer datur; quibus autem non datur, ex justitia non datur in poenam praecedentis, aut saltem originalis peccati, ut Augustinus dicit (The aid of grace is given mercifully to whomever it is given; but to those to whom it is not given, it is withheld out of justice, in punishment for a preceding, or at least original, sin, as Augustine says).

For the most learned Cardinal Gotti answers well that St. Augustine and St. Thomas are speaking of actual proximate grace for fulfilling the precepts of faith and charity, which is in fact what St. Thomas treats of in the said passage; but they do not thereby mean to deny that the Lord gives to each one the interior grace by which he can at least mediately obtain the grace of faith and of salvation; for, as we have seen above, the aforementioned holy Doctors do not doubt that God grants to each one at least remote grace for fulfilling the precepts. To this may be added the authority of St. Prosper, who wrote: Adhibita semper est universis hominibus quaedam supernae mensura doctrinae, quae etsi parcioris gratiae fuit, sufficit tamen quibusdam ad remedium, omnibus ad testimonium (A certain measure of heavenly teaching has always been applied to all men, which, though it was of a more sparing grace, nevertheless suffices for some as a remedy, and for all as a testimony).

Nor could this be understood otherwise, because if it were ever true that some sinned while lacking even remote sufficient grace, on account of original sin being imputed to them as a fault, it would have to be said that in order to sin, the liberty of the will suffices which we interpretively had in Adam's sin; but this cannot be said, because it stands expressly condemned in Proposition I of Michael Baius, which says: Ad peccatum formale, et ad demerendum sufficit illa libertas, qua voluntarium ac liberum fuit in causa sua, peccato originali, et libertate Adami peccantis (For formal sin and for incurring demerit, that liberty suffices by which an act was voluntary and free in its cause — in original sin and in the liberty of Adam sinning). Against this proposition, what Cardinal Bellarmine wrote is well said: that to commit a personal sin distinct from Adam's sin there is needed a new exercise of liberty, and a liberty distinct from Adam's liberty; otherwise it is not a distinct sin — according to the doctrine of St. Thomas, who teaches: Ad peccatum personale requiritur potentia absoluta personalis (For a personal sin, an absolutely personal power is required). Moreover, with regard to the baptized, the Council of Trent has declared that nothing of damnation remains in them: In renatis nihil odit Deus, quia nihil est damnationis iis, qui vere consepulti sunt cum Christo per Baptisma in mortem (In the reborn God hates nothing, because there is nothing of condemnation in those who have been truly buried with Christ through Baptism into death). And it adds that concupiscence is not left as a punishment, but ad agonem relicta est, quae nocere non consentientibus non valet (was left for the struggle, and cannot harm those who do not consent) (Sess. 5, in the Decree on Original Sin). The concupiscence left behind, on the contrary, would greatly harm man if, on account of it, God denied men even the remote grace to obtain salvation.

From all that has been said, several theologians conclude that to say God denies to some the aid sufficient for fulfilling the precepts would be contrary to the faith, since God would then be binding them to the impossible; so says Fr. Nugnez: Deus nunquam denegat auxilium sufficiens ad implenda praecepta, alias nullo pacto possent impleri; et sic rediret Lutheri haeresis, quod Deus obligavit hominem ad impossibile (God never denies the sufficient aid for fulfilling the precepts; otherwise they could in no way be fulfilled, and thus Luther's heresy would return — that God obliged man to the impossible). And elsewhere he says: Fidei est, ita ut oppositum sit haeresis manifesta, quod omnis homo, dum est in via, potest poenitentiam agere de peccatis (It is of faith — so much so that the opposite is manifest heresy — that every man, while he is on the way, can do penance for his sins). And Fr. Ledesma: Certum est secundum Fidem, quod non est peccatum, quod non est in hominis libera potestate (It is certain according to the faith that what is not within man's free power is not a sin).

Juvenin says that the sinner then makes himself guilty through the liberty of exercise, in voluntarily choosing this or that sin, even though he then necessarily sins, since the actual grace that would suffice to free him from every sin is wanting. But this doctrine — namely, that a fallen man sins, having no other liberty than that of choosing which sin he wishes to commit, yet being necessitated to sin — rightly horrifies the learned Monsignor de Saleon, Archbishop of Vienne in France, who in his book Jansenismus redivivus wrote thus: Quis patietur audire posse hominem lapsum absente gratia, non alia gaudere libertate, praeter eam qua cum necessitate ad peccandum potest unum prae alio eligere? (Who could bear to hear that a fallen man, grace being absent, can enjoy no other liberty than that whereby, with the necessity of sinning, he may choose one sin in preference to another?) Shall it then be said that a man condemned to death, who has no other liberty than that of choosing the iron, the poison, or the fire that must kill him, in choosing his own death dies voluntarily and freely? And how can sin be imputed as guilt to him who is necessitated to sin in one way or another? Proposition 67 of Baius was condemned, which said: Homo peccat etiam damnabiliter in eo quod necessario facit (Man sins even damnably in that which he does necessarily). Where is liberty, where there is the necessity of sinning? Jansenius answers that the liberty of will which we interpretatively had in the sin of Adam suffices for sinning. But this also was condemned in Proposition 1 of the same Baius: Ad peccatum formale, et ad
demerendum, sufficit illa libertas, qua voluntarium ac liberum fuit in causa sua, peccato originali, et libertate Adami peccantis (For formal sin, and for demeriting, that liberty suffices whereby it was voluntary and free in its cause, in original sin and in the liberty of Adam sinning).

The opponents go on to say that the sinner abandoned by grace, although he cannot avoid all mortal sins collectively, can nevertheless avoid each sin distributively, that is, speaking of them singly, per simplicem suspensionem seu negationem actus (by a simple suspension or negation of the act), as they say. But this cannot be admitted for several reasons. First, because when a vehement temptation urges, which requires great effort to resist, it cannot morally be overcome (as all theologians say) except with the help of grace, or else by taking hold of another opposing vicious passion; so that such a sinner, deprived of grace, would then be without remedy necessitated to sin in one way or another — which is horrifying to say, as has been said above. Secondly, when a great sinful concupiscence presses in a certain matter, there is not always — indeed, rarely — another disordered motive to the contrary that has such force as to induce man to abstain from consenting to it; wherefore, when this opposing motive is wanting, the sinner would then be necessitated to commit that particular evil to which he feels inclined. Thirdly, that abstaining from sin per simplicem negationem actus (by a simple negation of the act), as they say, can hardly be imagined in the negative precepts, but can have no place at all, as Tournely and Cardinal Gotti well observe, when some positive precept urges the fulfilling of some supernatural act, such as the acts of faith, of hope, of love, and of contrition; for since these acts are supernatural, the divine supernatural assistance is necessarily required to fulfill them. So that at least in such a case, grace being wanting, man would necessarily sin by not satisfying such a positive precept, even though he could not avoid the sin. But to assert this, says Father Bannez, is contrary to the faith: Quotiescunque aliquis peccat (these are his words), necesse est ut ille de
facto receperit Divinam inspirationem. Haec conclusio asseritur a nobis certa secundum Fidem, quia nemo peccat, propter quod non facit, quod facere non potest, ut certum est secundum Fidem; sed homo cui nihil datum est, quam quod ad naturam humanam pertinet, non habet unde possit operari supra naturam, ergo non peccat non operando aliquid supernaturale (Whenever anyone sins, it is necessary that he has in fact received a divine inspiration. This conclusion is asserted by us as certain according to faith, because no one sins by reason of not doing what he cannot do, as is certain according to faith; but a man to whom nothing has been given beyond what pertains to human nature has not that wherewith he can act above nature; therefore he does not sin by not performing something supernatural).

Nor does it avail to say that if that sinner is deprived of grace, he is deprived of it through his own fault; and that therefore, although he is abandoned by grace, he still sins. For Cardinal Gotti answers this well, that the Lord can justly punish such a sinner for the faults previously committed, but not for the transgressions he will commit in the future with regard to those precepts which he can no longer fulfill. If a servant, says the aforesaid author, were sent to a place and through his own fault fell into a ditch, his master could indeed punish him for his negligence in falling, and also for the future fault of refusing to obey, if he gave him the means (such as a rope or a ladder) to get out of the ditch and he refused to avail himself of them; but supposing the master did not offer him the help to get out, he would be a tyrant if he wished to impose upon him that he should continue the journey, and punished him if he did not continue it. Hence he concludes: Cum ergo homo peccando in foveam lapsus impotens factus sit prosequendi iter ad aeternam salutem, esto ipsum possit ob talem culpam punire, et similiter si gratiam, qua fiat potens, oblatam respuet; sed si Deus ipsum in sua impotentia relinquere velit, non poterit nisi injuste obligare, ut viam percurrat, et nisi percurrat punire (Since, therefore, man, having fallen by sin into a ditch, has been made powerless to pursue the journey to eternal salvation, grant that He may punish him for such a fault, and likewise if he rejects the grace offered whereby he would be made able; but if God wills to leave him in his powerlessness, He could not, except unjustly, oblige him to traverse the way, and punish him if he did not traverse it).

They then object many texts of Scripture, where this divine abandonment seems to be declared: Excaeca cor populi hujus... ne forte videat, et convertatur, et sanem eum (Isa. 6:10: Blind the heart of this people... lest perhaps it see, and be converted, and I heal it). Curavimus Babylonem, et non est sanata, derelinquamus eam (Jer. 51:9: We would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed; let us forsake her). Appone iniquitatem super iniquitatem eorum, et non intrent in justitiam tuam (Ps. 68:28: Add iniquity upon their iniquity, and let them not enter into Your justice). Propterea tradidit illos in passiones ignominiae (Rom. 1:26: Therefore He delivered them up to shameful passions). Ergo (Deus) cujus vult miseretur et quem vult indurat (Rom. 9:18: Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens). And other similar texts. But to all these passages it is commonly and easily answered that in the Sacred Scriptures the divine permissions are often called operations; hence, in order not to blaspheme with Calvin that God positively destines and determines some to sin, it must be said that He permits that some sinners, in punishment of their faults, be on the one hand assailed by vehement temptations (which is the punishment from which we pray the Lord in the Pater noster to deliver us with those words, Et ne nos inducas in tentationem [And lead us not into temptation]); and on the other hand that they remain morally abandoned in their sin; so that their conversion, and the resistance they could make to temptations, although it is not impossible and hopeless, nevertheless through their own fault and through the evil habits formed becomes very difficult, since, placed in such laxity of life, they will have only very weak and rare desires and impulses to resist their evil habits and to return to the way of salvation. And this is that imperfect obstinacy in which the sinner remains hardened, and of which St. Thomas Aquinas speaks, saying: Induratum esse eum, qui non de facili possit cooperari ad hoc quod exeat de peccato; et haec est obstinatio imperfecta quia aliquis potest esse obstinatus in statu viae, dum scilicet habet ita firmatam voluntatem in peccato, quod non surgunt motus ad bonum nisi debiles (He is hardened who cannot easily cooperate so as to come out of sin; and this is imperfect obstinacy, because one can be obstinate in the state of this present life, namely when he has his will so fixed in sin that movements to good do not arise except weak ones). On the one hand, the mind darkened; the will made hard to the divine inspirations and attached to the pleasures of the senses, so that it despises and loathes spiritual goods; the passions and the sensible appetites which, through the evil habits formed, dominate in the soul; on the other hand, the lights and the calls of God, which render themselves little efficacious to move her through the fault of the soul, because of the contempt and the evil use she has made of them — nay, she feels a certain aversion to them, not wishing to be disturbed in her sensual delights; all these things then constitute the moral abandonment in which the sinner, once placed, can with the greatest difficulty come out of his miserable state and bring himself to lead an ordered life.

To come out and pass at one stroke from such disorder to a state of salvation, an abundant and extraordinary grace would be needed; but God rarely grants this grace to such obstinate sinners. Sometimes He grants it to some, says St. Thomas Aquinas, choosing them as vessels of mercy, as St. Paul writes, in order to make known His goodness; but to others He justly denies it, and leaves them in their unhappy state, to show His justice and His power: Interdum (says St. Thomas Aquinas) ex abundantia bonitatis suae etiam eos qui impedimentum Gratiae praestant, auxilio suo praevenit, convertens eos etc. Et sicut non omnes caecos illuminat, nec omnes languidos sanat, ita non omnes qui Gratiam impediunt, auxilio suo praevenit ut convertantur... Hinc est quod Apostolus dicit (Rom. 9:22): Deus volens ostendere iram, et notam facere potentiam suam sustinuit in multa patientia vasa irae apta in interitum, ut ostenderet divitias gloriae suae in vasa misericordiae, quae preparavit in gloriam (Sometimes, out of the abundance of His goodness, He anticipates with His help even those who place an obstacle to grace, converting them, etc. And as He does not enlighten all the blind, nor heal all the sick, so He does not anticipate with His help all who impede grace, that they may be converted... Hence it is that the Apostle says (Rom. 9:22): God, willing to show His wrath and to make known His power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, that He might show the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared for glory). Then the holy Doctor adds: Cum autem Deus hominum qui in eisdem peccatis detinentur, hos quidem praeveniens convertat, illos autem sustineat, sive permittat secundum ordinem rerum procedere, non est ratio inquirenda, quare hos convertat, et non illos. Hinc est quod Apostolus dicit (Rom. 9:21): An non habet potestatem figulus luti ex eadem massa facere aliud quidem vas in honorem, aliud
vero in contumeliam? (Since, however, God, of men who are held in the same sins, converts some by anticipating them, while He bears with or permits others to proceed according to the order of things, no reason is to be sought why He converts these and not those. Hence it is that the Apostle says (Rom. 9:21): Has not the potter power over the clay, to make from the same mass one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?)

We do not deny, therefore, in concluding this point, that there is a moral abandonment of certain obstinate sinners, so that their conversion is morally impossible, that is, extremely difficult. And this, moreover, may well suffice for the good aim of the opponents in defending their opinion, namely, to put a curb on evil-doers and to induce them to amend before they come to fall into so deplorable a state. But it is then cruelty (as the Petrocorensis rightly says) to wish to take away from them all hope and to close to them altogether the way of salvation, by holding them to have fallen into total abandonment, so that they remain deprived of every actual grace for avoiding new sins and for being converted, at least mediately, by means of prayer (which is denied to no one while he lives, as we shall demonstrate in the following chapter), through which they can then obtain the abundant aids to put themselves in a state of salvation; for the fear of total abandonment would not only induce them to despair, but would also lead them to abandon themselves still more to vice, believing themselves utterly destitute of grace, so that no hope would remain to them of avoiding eternal damnation.

b Innoc. I. In Epist. ad Conc. Carthag.

f Idem Homil. 33.

ha Jansen. tom. 3. l. 3. c. 1. de Gratia Christi.

o Innoc. I. Ep. ad Conc. Carth.

t Scotus I. Sent. Dist. 46. quaest. un. ad I. arg.

aa Bellarm. tom. 4. lib. I. cap. II.

ab S. Bern. Serm. in Purif. B. M. Virg.

ac Bellarm. tom. 4. contr. 3. lib. 2. cap. 8.

ad S. Thom. lib. contra Gentes cap. 160.

ae Idem quaest. 24. de Verit. artic. 12. et I. 2. q. 109. art. 8.

af S. Th. cit. lib. Contra Gentes cap. 160.

ag Gonet tom. 4. tract. 8. art. 6. § I.

ah S. Th. I. 2. q. 109. a. 8.

ai Idem in Joan. cap. I. Lect. 5. ad verba: Erat Lux.

al S. Thom. I. Sent. Dist. 48. q. I. a. 3. ad 2.

am Idem. In 4. Sent. Dist. 20. q. I. a. I. qu. I.

an Idem in cap. 12. ad Hebr. Lect. 3.

ao Idem Lib. 3. contra Gentes c. 159.

ap Idem ibid. in fin.

aq Card. Gotti tom. I. Theol. tract. 5. q. 2. D. 3. § 2. n. 8.

ar S. Thom. 3. p. q. 86. a. I.

as Petroc. tom. I. cap. quaest. 4.

at Bellarm. Tom. 4. Controv. 3. l. 2. c. 5.

au Sotus Lib. I. de Nat. et Grat. cap. 18.

av S. Aug. de Nat. et Grat. cap. 68. Et de lib. arb. l. 3. n. 46.

az S. Cypr....

ax S. Aug. lib. 2. de Anima cap. 12. n. 17.

ba S. Thom. in 2. Sent. Dist. 28. q. I. art. 3. in arg. ad Contra.

bb Idem quaest. 24. de Verit. art. 14. ad 2.

bc S. Aug. lib. 22. contra Faust. cap. 88.

bd Idem lib. I. Retract. cap. 15.

be Idem Hom. 12. de 50.

bf S. Aug. lib. 2. de Anima cap. 21. num. 4.

bg Idem in eod. cap. II.

bh S. Hieron. lib. 2. cont. Jovin.

bi Tertull. lib. 2. cont. Marcian. cap. 5.

bl Marc. Erem. de Justif. et Oper.

bm S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 2. art. 5. ad I.

bn S. Aug. lib. de Corrept. et Grat. cap. 5. et 6. alias 11.

bo Gotti Theol. tr. 5. q. 2. dub. 3. num. 51. et 52.

bp S. Prosp. de Vocat. Gent. cap. 5.

bq Bellarm. Contr. lib. 2. de Grat. et lib. arb. cap. 7.

br S. Thom. in 2. Sent. Dist. 20. q. I. a. 2 in corp.

bs P. Nugnez. I. 2. quaest. 109. art. 8.

Pag. 111.

bt P. Ledesm. de Auxil quaest. unic. art. 19.

bu Jansen, rediv. pag. 193.

bv P. Bannez. in I. p. q. 23. a. 3.

bz Gotti Theol. tom. I. q. 2. Dub. 3. § 3. n. 22. pag. 261.

bx S. Thom. quaest. 24. de Verit. art. II.

ca S. Thom. lib. 3. contra Gent. cap. 161.

### CHAPTER III - THE SYSTEM OF JANSENIUS ON RELATIVELY VICTORIOUS DELECTATION IS SET FORTH AND REFUTED

In the following chapter, as we have noted above, we shall demonstrate that the grace of prayer is given to all. But this opinion does not please Jansenius; he even goes so far as to call it a hallucination: Hallucinatio est, qua putant semper adesse homini gratiam ut petant (It is a hallucination to suppose that the grace to pray is always present to man). Whereas, speaking according to his system, he says that even in order to pray there is needed the relatively victorious delectation, which is not granted to all; he therefore adds that not all have sufficient grace and the power to fulfill the precepts, since many lack the remote grace of praying as one ought, or of praying in any way at all: Cum ergo (as Jansenius continues) plurimi vel non petant gratiam illam qua possint praecepta implere vel non ita petant ut necessarium est, nec omnibus gratiam, vel ferventer petendi, vel omnino petendi Deus largiatur, apertissimum est Fidelibus multis deesse illam sufficientem gratiam, et consequentem illam perpetuam quam quidam praedicant, faciendi praecepti potestatem (Since therefore many either do not ask for that grace by which they could fulfill the precepts, or do not ask as is necessary, and God does not bestow on all the grace either of praying fervently or of praying at all, it is most evident that many of the faithful lack that sufficient grace, and consequently that perpetual power of fulfilling the precepts which some proclaim). Hence, before passing on to prove our own opinion, it is necessary to refute his pernicious system, from which all his errors derive, and to show that it was he, not the others, who was laboring under a hallucination.

The five Propositions of Jansenius, already condemned by the Church as heretical, are by now known to all. Now, as Tournely proves, all the aforesaid Propositions arise from his above-mentioned system of preponderant delectation, on which Jansenius founds his whole doctrine. And the same is said by Fr. Ignatius Graveson: Ex hoc infesto principio Jansenium ejusque Discipulos has erroneas deducere consecutiones (that is, the five Propositions), quae cum illo principio arctissimo vinculo colligatae cohaerent (From this pernicious principle Jansenius and his disciples deduce these erroneous conclusions, which are bound to that principle by the closest possible tie). The same is said by Fr. Berti, who writes that it is evident: ex principio duarum delectationum invincibilium tanquam ex radice fluere alios fere omnes Jansenii errores, ac praesertim quinque damnatae Proposihones (from the principle of the two invincible delectations, as from a root, there flow almost all the other errors of Jansenius, and especially the five condemned Propositions). And Fr. Fortunato of Brescia, in his work newly brought to light under the title Cornelii Jansenii Systema confutatum etc., demonstrates clearly that, once the system of Jansenius is admitted, the aforesaid condemned Propositions would necessarily have to be admitted.

Let us therefore set forth the system of Jansenius distinctly. He says that the will of man, after the sin of Adam, cannot act otherwise than by following either the delectation of grace, which he calls heavenly, or the delectation of concupiscence, which he calls earthly, according as the one prevails over the other. So that, if the heavenly delectation is greater, then it necessarily prevails; if the earthly delectation preponderates, then the will must necessarily yield to it.

And here it must be noted that Jansenius does not mean to speak of deliberate, or consequent, delectation — for in that all the Catholic Doctors would agree with him, since when the delectation is deliberate and embraced without necessity, but freely, by the will, then it is certainly necessary that the will act according to the delectation — but of indeliberate delectation. And it is in this sense that the celebrated text of St. Augustine is to be understood: Quod amplius delectat, secundum id operemur, necesse est (It is necessary that we act according to that which delights us more). Which text, as we shall demonstrate below, must necessarily be understood of deliberate and consequent delectation; but Jansenius falsely understands it (and on it he founds his whole doctrine) of indeliberate delectation, antecedent to every act of the will.

Hence, according to him, there is no longer any sufficient grace, since either it is of lesser weight, and can never suffice; or it surpasses concupiscence, and then it is necessarily efficacious: for he makes the whole efficacy of grace consist in nothing else than in the relative preponderance of indeliberate delectation: Non erit sufficiens gratia (these are his words), sed vel efficax vel ita inefficax, ex qua operatio nequidem sequi potest (There will be no sufficient grace, but it will be either efficacious, or so inefficacious that no operation can even follow from it).

Now, once such a system is posited, all the aforesaid five condemned Propositions follow from it as so many necessary conclusions. Let us leave aside the others and speak here only of the First and of the Third, which are most to our purpose. The First says: Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus et conantibus, secundum praesentes quas habent vires, sunt impossibilia, deest quoque illis gratia qua possibilia fiant (Some precepts of God are impossible for just men who will and strive to observe them, according to the powers they presently have; and they also lack the grace by which they might become possible). To such a degree, then (says Jansenius), do some precepts become impossible even for the just, who will and strive to observe them, inasmuch as they lack the grace that prevails over concupiscence. Nisi major, he writes, fuerit caelestis delectatio quam terrena, fieri non potest quin propriae voluntatis infirmitate vincamur (Unless the heavenly delectation is greater than the earthly, it cannot but be that we are overcome by the weakness of our own will). And elsewhere: Vigente enim delectatione carnali, impossibile est ut virtutis consideratio praevaleat (For when carnal delectation holds sway, it is impossible that the consideration of virtue should prevail). Although (Jansenius said) grace, speaking absolutely in itself and considered apart from the act and the circumstances, was most sufficient to move the will to good, nevertheless, speaking relatively — that is, when the carnal delectation is greater than the heavenly delectation (which, preponderating over grace, is always united to the act) — then grace is in act insufficient to draw to itself the consent of the will. And as Fr. Graveson wisely writes, the absolute power that man would have by virtue of grace to observe the
precepts, when it derives from a grace inferior to concupiscence, is in act no longer a power, but a true impotence, so that the will is then altogether unable to do good, just as the lesser weight cannot overcome the greater.

But how then can man be blamed if he does not satisfy the precept, lacking as he does that help which would at least suffice for him to fulfill it? The objection is strong, and too manifestly just, so that Jansenius himself cannot help putting it to himself by saying: Quomodo non sint excusati, qui illo adjutorio carent, quandoquidem sine illo praeceptum implere non possent? (How are they not excused, who lack that help, since without it they could not fulfill the precept?) Let us see how he answers it. The difficulty is great, so he seeks to free himself from it in several ways. First he answers that impotence then excuses, when man wills to fulfill the precept and cannot; but not when he does not will to fulfill it. But we answer Jansenius that when, according to his principle, the will must necessarily yield to the indeliberate delectation of concupiscence because it prevails over grace, then it is physically impossible for man to will to fulfill the precept; for once the carnal preponderance is posited, grace no longer has active power sufficient to overcome it. And of this Jansenius does not doubt, saying that the superior delectation intrinsically determines and insuperably moves the will to accept it, the will remaining then altogether deprived of the relative power to resist. Quo fit, says Father Graveson, ut haec necessitas, in doctrina Jansenii eiusque Discipulorum, non sit necessitas moralis; sed antecedens et invincibilis, quae citra apertam haeresim admitti non potest (Whence it comes that this necessity, in the doctrine of Jansenius and his disciples, is not a moral necessity, but an antecedent and invincible one, which cannot be admitted without open heresy).

And Jansenius says that without the preponderant delectation of grace, it is as impossible for man to fulfill the precept as it is impossible to fly for one who has no wings, to see for one who is blind, to hear for the deaf, and to walk straight for one who has broken legs: Sine qua non magis potest homo bene operari, quam volare sine alis (Without which man can no more do good than fly without wings), (and elsewhere) quam homini caeco ut videat, vel surdo ut audiat, vel tibiis fracto ut recte gradiatur (than for a blind man to see, or for a deaf man to hear, or for one with broken legs to walk straight). And the same would be of one who had eyes but was deprived of light, because it is as physically impossible to see for the blind man who lacks eyes as for one who has eyes but lacks light; since physical impossibility is nothing other than that which surpasses the natural powers.

So everyone sees how unfounded this first answer of Jansenius is. Let us see the second; but the second is more unfounded than the first. He says that all the precepts are possible to man insofar as God can give him the grace to observe them: Omnes homines dicuntur posse credere, posse diligere Deum... haec enim potestas non est aliud, nisi flexibilis capacitas, per quam possunt suscipere fidem, et caritatem (All men are said to be able to believe, able to love God... for this power is nothing other than a flexible capacity through which they can receive faith and charity). So that according to Jansenius man sins in transgressing them insofar as he is capable of being able to receive the grace to fulfill them. But in this manner we say that even the blind man can see and the deaf man can hear, since God could indeed make him see and hear; yet meanwhile it is physically impossible, if God does not grant it, for the blind man to see and for the deaf man to hear. Wherefore to say that every precept, in order to be called possible, need only be possible to man in the event that God gave him the power to fulfill it — this is a manner of speaking either vain or fraudulent, in order to hide the truth; for I ask: what help can anyone ever receive from that grace which he could have, but at present does not have! This is the same as saying: man could observe all the precepts if he could observe them, but for now he cannot. When the sick man, says St. Augustine, has need of care in order to be healed, he can never be healed without the care, even though he wills it: Nec tamen, cum vult, potest, sed
cum fuerit adhibita curatione, sanatus (Yet when he wills it, he cannot; but he is healed when the cure has been applied).

Jansenius gives the third answer, saying that the whole liberty of the free will consists in the complacency and in the knowledge of the delectable object: Quapropter (these are his words) lustratis fundamentis Augustini, quibus tota doctrina de arbitrii libertate nititur, nihil aliud existimamus quam cognitionem, ac delectationem seu delectabilem objecti complacentiam esse id quod tantam potestatem in liberum arbitrium habet, ut eam faciat velle vel nolle... De cognitione hic non multum solliciti sumus, illam enim ad volendum esse necessariam vix quisquam dubitat (Wherefore, having examined the foundations of Augustine on which the whole doctrine of the liberty of the will rests, we judge that it is nothing other than knowledge and delectation, or the delectable complacency of the object, which has such power over the free will as to make it will or not will... Of knowledge we are here not much concerned, for that it is necessary for willing, hardly anyone doubts). So that according to Jansenius the liberty of man consists as much in the complacency of delectation as in the knowledge of the object, that is, in the indifferent judgment by which man knows the good and the evil of the action, as for example in murder one already knows the evil of the crime and the pleasure of revenge. Hence he says elsewhere that the wicked sin insofar as through the law they already know the malice of sin: Profertur primus effectus legis dare cognitionem peccati (The first effect of the law is brought forward: to give the knowledge of sin); availing himself of the text of St. Paul, Peccatum non cognovi nisi per legem (Rom. 7:7: I did not know sin except through the law). Which Calvin had already said before him, writing: Finis ergo legis est, ut reddatur homo inexcusabilis; nec male hoc modo definietur, quod sit conscientiae cognitio inter justum et injustum discernentis, ad tollendum ignorantiae praetextum (The end of the law, therefore, is that man be rendered inexcusable; nor would it be badly defined in this way: that it is the knowledge of conscience discerning between the just and the unjust, to remove the pretext of ignorance). But we answer that it can never be that the indifferent judgment — that is, the knowledge of good and evil, which belongs solely to the intellect — could constitute the liberty of the will, which belongs entirely to the will; for liberty consists in nothing other than the free choice which the will makes to do or not to do a thing.

Jansenius gives the fourth answer, but the fourth is more incongruous and unfounded than all the first three. He says that for sinning, the liberty of indifference is not necessary — so that man must be free from every necessity of sinning — but that the liberty of exercise, or of choice, suffices, by which he can abstain from that sin to which concupiscence pushes him by committing another: Qua quis (these are his words) potest facere, et ab eo, saltem aliud perpetrando, abstinere (By which one can act, and abstain from it, at least by perpetrating another). Thereby he places man in such a necessity that, in order to avoid one sin, he must necessarily commit another; and he says that such a liberty already makes him guilty of fault, although he is necessitated to sin in one way or the other. Here is how he explains it more clearly elsewhere: Arbitrium lapsorum hominum nullo modo in peccando desinit esse liberum, quamvis generali quadam peccandi necessitate vinciatur; erit enim liberum quoad exercitium, ut loquuntur, necessitatum quoad specificationem (The free will of fallen men in no way ceases to be free in sinning, although it is bound by a certain general necessity of sinning; for it will be free as regards exercise, as they say, necessitated as regards specification). Against this last answer could be opposed all those things that we said above against Juenin (in Chapter II, p. 111), who holds that some sinners, although deprived of sufficient grace, nevertheless sin by such a liberty of exercise. But what sort of liberty is this (as we already said), by which a man — whether just or a sinner — could be called guilty when he is necessitated to sin in one way or another? St. Thomas Aquinas says that it is heresy to say that the will merits or demerits in acting by necessity, although it is not forced to act: Quidam posuerunt, quod voluntas hominis ex necessitate movetur ad aliquid eligendum; nec tamen ponebant, quod voluntas cogeretur... Haec autem opinio est haeretica, tollit enim rationem meriti et demeriti in humanis actibus; non enim videtur esse meritorium vel demeritorium, quod aliquis sic ex necessitate agit, quod vitare non possit (Certain men have held that the will of man is moved of necessity to choose something; yet they did not hold that the will is forced... But this opinion is heretical, for it destroys the notion of merit and demerit in human acts; for that does not seem to be meritorious or demeritorious which someone so does of necessity that he cannot avoid it). Moreover, when someone is necessitated to commit one or another sin, according to what all theologians commonly say, in choosing the lesser, although he chooses it voluntarily, he does not sin, because he is deprived of the liberty necessary for the deed to be imputed to him as sin. So that, speaking in our case, when by reason of concupiscence superior to grace man were to have recourse to the lesser sin, he would not sin.

But setting aside all these reflections, the direct answer is that, given Jansenius's principle of relatively victorious delectation, this liberty of exercise — of abstaining from one sin by committing another — can in no way exist. His principle is, as we have ascertained above, that when the carnal delectation surpasses the heavenly, then the will is determinately necessitated to consent to it, according as it is physically impelled by it. And therefore in one place he says that the superior delectation takes away the indifference of the will; for just as the weight pushes down the pan of the balance which was before in equilibrium, so the delectation pushes the will to accept that lust to which it moves it: Cum hoc efficiat (delectatio carnalis) blanditiis motus sui, ut qui ad agendum et non agendum ante motum esset indifferens ipso motu libidinis in alteram partem, instar aequilibrii cui pondus additur, impellatur (Since carnal delectation effects by the blandishments of its motion that he who before the motion was indifferent to acting and to not acting is, by the very motion of lust, driven to the one side, like a balance to which a weight is added). He says the same in another place, where, rejecting those who maintain that the superior delectation moves morally, he says that it does not move morally, but physically impels and predetermines the will to embrace the object proposed: Siquidem moralis praedeterminatio illa dicitur, quae tantum se habet ex parte objecti, quemadmodum facit ille qui consulit, praecipit, rogat, sed haec (delectatio) se habet in ipsa potentia voluntatis, quam propriae suae suavitatis magnitudine ad volendum applicat et applicando determinat, utpote causans in ea hoc ipsum ut se determinet, ideoque praedeterminat (For that is called a moral predetermination which acts only on the part of the object, as does he who counsels, commands, or entreats; but this [delectation] acts upon the very power of the will, which it applies to willing by the greatness of its own sweetness, and in applying determines, inasmuch as it causes in it this very thing, that it determine itself; and therefore it predetermines it). So that, according to Jansenius, delectation predetermines the will to embrace that object to which it moves it, before the will determines itself. And that this is the true mind of Jansenius, the learned Dirois does not doubt, who says that for this reason Jansenius does not differ from the Astrologers, who made the will of man subject to the influence of the planets, so that voluntas determinatur ad electionem sui finis aliqua impressione, quae illius determinationem antecedat (the will is determined to the choice of its end by some impression which precedes that determination). The same wrote the Archbishop of Vienna, Author of the book Bajanismus, et Jansenismus redivivus, saying: Jansenistas contendere delectatione gradibus superiori voluntatem invincibiliter determinari ad operandum, absque ullo respectu ad futuram ipsius voluntatis determinationem (the Jansenists contend that by the delectation superior in degree the will is invincibly determined to act, without any regard to the future determination of the will itself).

This being supposed, where is the liberty of exercise any longer? For the preponderant delectation, according to Jansenius, alone predetermines the will to accept it; in such a way that, just as in a balance it is necessary that the lesser weight yield to the greater, so it is necessary that the will yield to the relatively victorious delectation. If therefore anyone (for example) is impelled by the delectation of having another's goods, it is true that this man could abstain from the theft out of affection for his own good name, but in the case that this affection is either not present, or is not greater than the delectation of stealing, the affection for his good name certainly cannot prevail; and behold, then all liberty of exercise certainly ceases.

But let us now pass on to speak of the Third Proposition of Jansenius, which says: Ad merendum, et demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas a necessitate, sed sufficit libertas a coactione (For meriting and demeriting in the state of fallen nature, there is not required in man liberty from necessity, but liberty from compulsion suffices). Jansenius says, therefore, that in order to merit or to sin the liberty of indifference which excludes necessity is not necessary, but it is enough that the will does not resist. And he goes on to assert that it is a paradox to say that the act of the will is free insofar as the will can accept it and refuse it. This Proposition, also condemned as heretical, springs in like manner from the same system; for, supposing that the will, when it is moved by the preponderant delectation, must necessarily obey it, it necessarily follows (according to Jansenius) that in order to merit or to sin it is enough that man should will to consent to the delectation, even though he cannot help willing it, and is physically necessitated to will it. A doctrine rightly called monstrous by Father Serry: Stare meritum posse cum agendi necessitate (That merit can stand together with necessity of acting). And earlier already called heretical by St. Thomas Aquinas, whose words already reported above may I be permitted here to repeat: Quidam posuerunt, quod voluntas hominis ex necessitate moveatur ad aliquid eligendum, nec tamen ponebant quod voluntas cogeretur. Haec autem opinio est haeretica, tollit enim rationem meriti ac demeriti in humanis actionibus; non enim videtur esse meritorium vel
demeritorium, quod aliquis sic ex necessitate agit, quod vitare non possit (Certain men have held that the will of man is moved of necessity to choose something; yet they did not hold that the will was compelled. But this opinion is heretical, for it takes away the notion of merit and demerit in human actions; for that does not seem to be meritorious or demeritorious which a person so does of necessity that he cannot avoid it).

And it is rightly called heresy, since it is contrary to all the divine Scriptures. Fidelis autem Deus (wrote St. Paul) est, qui non patietur vos tentari supra id quod potestis; sed faciet etiam cum tentatione proventum, ut possitis sustinere (1 Cor. 10:13: But God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able; but will also make with the temptation an issue, that you may be able to bear it). But Jansenius will have it that man is sometimes so abandoned by grace that he cannot resist the temptation, and is necessitated to yield to it. Moses said to the people: Mandatum hoc quod ego praecipio hodie, non supra te est (Deut. 30:11: This commandment which I command you this day is not above you). Beatus... qui potuit transgredi, et non est transgressus; facere mala, et non fecit (Sir. 31:10: Blessed... is he that could have transgressed, and has not transgressed; that could do evil, and has not done it). Therefore, in order to merit, it is not enough that man act voluntarily, but it is further necessary that he act freely — that is, that he be able to leave off fulfilling the precepts, and that it be not necessary for him to fulfill them. And the same holds conversely in sinning — namely, that he have the grace to abstain from it, and through his own fault does not abstain from it. Nor does it avail to say, as the impious Theodore Beza answered to this, that such necessity depends not on nature but on original sin, whereby man has voluntarily deprived himself of liberty, and is therefore justly punished by sinning, even though he sin by necessity. For it is answered that if a servant through his own fault were to break his legs, the master would be unjust if, after having forgiven him that fault, he then wished to command him to run, and were to punish him if he did not run. Peccati reum (said St. Augustine) tenere quenquam, quia non fecit quod facere non potuit, summae iniquitatis esse, et insaniae (To hold anyone guilty of sin because he did not do what he could not do is the height of iniquity and of madness).

Moreover, granted that man merited and demerited by acting of necessity, without the relative power to the contrary, I would not know how this could be made to agree with the other Scriptures that say: Optio vobis datur.

Eligite hodie quod placet, cui servire potissimum debeatis, utrum diis Amorrhaeorum... Ego autem, et domus mea serviemus Domino (Josh. 24:15: The choice is given you: choose this day what pleases you, whom you should chiefly serve, whether the gods of the Amorites... But I and my house will serve the Lord). There can be no choice where one acts of necessity and without liberty; wherefore in the said text the liberty which man has from necessity is clearly proved. Plena utriusvis (says the learned Petavius on this passage) eligendi potestas ostenditur, ut quasi suspensa et in medio posita voluntas, alterum quod volet e duobus asciscat (A full power of choosing either is shown to be present, so that the will, as it were suspended and placed in the middle, may take to itself whichever of the two it wills). The same is said in other places of Scripture:

Testes invoco hodie caelum et terram, quod proposuerim vobis vitam et mortem, benedictionem et maledictionem. Elige ergo vitam, ut et tu vivas, et semen tuum (Deut. 30:19: I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have proposed to you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both you and your seed may live). Deus ab initio constituit hominem, et reliquit illum in manu consilii sui. Adjecit mandata et praecepta sua... Ante hominem vita et mors, bonum et malum; quod placuerit ei dabitur illi (Sir. 15:14-18: God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. He added His commandments and precepts... Before man is life and death, good and evil; what pleases him shall be given to him). Petavius adds on this other passage, and says: If Ecclesiasticus now found himself having to decide the present point, how could he have more clearly expressed the liberty which man enjoys from necessity? Non potuit expressioribus vocibus, si inter nos viveret, ac de vita nostra judicaret, quam isthic fecit, ut libertatis humanae, arbitriique liberi naturam ac proprietatem describeret (He could not, if he lived among us and were to pass judgment on our life, have expressed in clearer words than he there did the nature and property of human liberty and of free will). The other Scriptures signify the same: Vocavi, et renuistis (Prov. 1:24: I called, and you refused). Ipsi fuerunt rebelles lumini (Job 24:13: They have been rebellious to the light). Expectavi ut faceret uvas, et fecit labruscas (Isa. 5:2: I looked for it to bring forth grapes, and it has brought forth wild grapes). Vos semper Spiritui Sancto resistitis (Acts 7:51: You always resist the Holy Spirit). It is certainly the work of the Holy Spirit to call, to enlighten the minds, and to move the wills to good; but how can it be said that he opposes the calls, is rebellious to the light, and resists grace, who is destitute of the preponderant grace, and therefore must necessarily yield to the concupiscence that prevails?

But how comes it, says Jansenius, that what I have said, St. Augustine has already said before me — namely, that we must necessarily do what most delights us, according to the text of the Saint so often cited: Quod amplius delectat secundum id operemur, necesse est? (that we must necessarily act according to what delights us more?) But before answering Jansenius, it is necessary to premise that St. Augustine, because in his days he had to refute many heresies then current in the matter of grace, all different from one another, had to speak of it in various ways and at length, and therefore in many places spoke obscurely. Whence it has since happened that not only does each of the Catholic Schools boast of having him on its side, although they are of different opinions among themselves; but even Calvin and Jansenius, whose errors have already been condemned by the Church, have had the boldness to claim him as their supporter. Calvin, writing against Pighius, says: Nos nihil quam Augustinum sequimur... Etiamsi crepet Pighius, nobis extorquere hoc non potest quin Augustinus sit noster (We follow nothing but Augustine... Even should Pighius burst with spite, he cannot wrest this from us — that Augustine is ours). Jansenius, moreover, reports St. Augustine as his sole Master, so much so that he entitled his Work with the single name of Augustinus. And all the Jansenists call themselves by no other name than Augustinians. From this premise I mean to infer nothing else here than that many passages of St. Augustine, lest we should err, need to be explained by comparing them with other texts of his, where the Saint declares his true mind. Let us now come to the point.

We already mentioned above that the aforesaid doctrine of St. Augustine neither should nor can be understood of undeliberate delight, which precedes all cooperation of the human will, but must be understood of deliberate and consequent delight: for when man freely accepts the delight, then it is certainly necessary that he act according to it. And this is proved by what the holy Doctor says in other places, where he identifies delight with love, or rather explains that the superior delight is nothing else than that deliberate love and that affection which predominates in us by our free choice; in which delight, when we freely take pleasure, it is then necessary that we act according to it. So that in substance the Saint means nothing else than that it is necessary for the will to act according to what it deliberately loves more; since in one place he says that delight is, as it were, a weight of the soul that draws it along with itself: Delectatio quippe quasi est pondus Animae (Delight is indeed, as it were, the weight of the soul). In another place he says that this weight which draws the soul is each one's love: Amor meus, pondus meum (My love is my weight). He explains this more clearly in another place, where he writes that our attention must be directed to this: ut nos ita Deo opitulante ordinemus, ut inferioribus non offendamur, solis autem superioribus delectemur (that with God's help we should so order ourselves as not to be allured by lower things, but to delight only in higher things). See how clearly he speaks of deliberate and freely accepted delight. In another place he says the same: Quid est trahi voluptate? Delectare in Domino, et dabit tibi petitiones cordis tui (What is it to be drawn by pleasure? Delight in the Lord, and He will give you the petitions of your heart). In another: Videte quomodo trahit Pater, docendo delectat, non necessitatem imponendo (See how the Father draws: by teaching He delights, not by imposing necessity). In another: Si frui delectaverit, delectatio illicita refraenanda est; velut cum jejunamus, palati appetitus assurgit: non fit nisi delectatione (that is, undeliberate), sed eam dominantis rationis jure cohibemus (If enjoyment delights, the unlawful delight must be restrained; as when we fast, the appetite of the palate rises up: it is produced only by delight — that is, undeliberate delight — but we restrain it by the right of dominant reason). So that according to St. Augustine the delight that incites to what is unlawful is indeed freely repressed by man with dominant reason and with the help of grace. Hence the Saint exhorts us: Justitia sic delectet, ut vincat etiam licitas delectationes (Let justice so delight us that it overcomes even lawful delights). This becomes clearer from what the holy Doctor then adds in the same place of the controverted text; for after having said there: Quod amplius delectat secundum id operemur, necesse est (It is necessary that we act according to what delights us more), he says: Manifestum est certe secundum id nos vivere, quod sectati fuerimus; sectabimur autem quod (note) dilexerimus. Itaque si ex adverso exsistant duo, praeceptum justitiae, et consuetudo carnalis et utrumque diligitur, ibi sectabimur quod amplius dilexerimus (It is certainly evident that we live according to what we have pursued; but we shall pursue what — note — we have loved. Therefore, if two things stand in opposition, the precept of justice and carnal habit, and both are loved, there we shall pursue what we have loved more). So that when the Saint says it is necessary that we act according to what delights us more, he means nothing else than that the will must necessarily act according to what it loves more. Nor does it avail to say with Jansenius that what delights more is loved more, for this is not always true, and in this St. Augustine himself contradicts him, speaking of himself in his Confessions: Non faciebam quod et incomparabili affectu magis placebat et mox ut vellem, possem (I did not do what both pleased me more with incomparable affection, and what I could have done as soon as I willed it). By which he gives us to understand that he was already moved by God to good with an incomparable undeliberate affection, whereby virtue was already coming to please him more than vice, and he could well have practiced it, had he willed; but he, resisting grace, rejected virtue and abandoned himself
to vice.

Moreover, if St. Augustine had believed it necessary to act according to the greater delight, he could not have said: Titillat delectatio illicita concupiscientiae, pugna, resiste, noli consentire, et impletur hic: Post concupiscentias tuas non eas (When the unlawful delight of concupiscence tickles, fight, resist, do not consent, and here is fulfilled: Go not after your lusts). Moreover he says elsewhere that of two persons who have the same impure temptation, it sometimes happens that one consents to it and the other resists; and why? he answers that the one wills to observe chastity, the other does not: Si eadem tentatione (note, the same) ambo tententur, et unus ei cedat atque consentiat, alter perseveret; quid aliud apparet, nisi unum voluisse, alterum noluisse a castitate deficere? (If both are tempted by the same temptation — note, the same — and one yields to it and consents, while the other perseveres, what else appears but that the one willed and the other did not will to fall away from chastity?). Moreover, since the Saint has said it is necessary that we act according to what more delights us, the doubt may now arise whether he means to speak of deliberate or of undeliberate delight. Now we say this: if the Saint meant it of undeliberate delight, he would consequently come to deny that, for the will to be truly free, it must be free not only from violence but also from necessity; but we read that the Saint in a thousand places teaches the opposite, saying that man, in good as in evil, acts without necessity: therefore, in speaking of the predominant and victorious delight, he must necessarily be understood to speak of the deliberate and consequent delight. And what are these places? Here they are, they are a thousand: Voluntas nostra nec voluntas esset, nisi esset in nostra potestate; non enim est nobis liberum, quod in potestate non habemus (Our will would not even be a will, unless it were in our power; for that is not free for us which we do not have in our power). In another place, making mention of the Gospel of St. Matthew in chapter 7, where it speaks of the good fruits that grow from the good tree and of the evil ones that grow from the evil tree, he says thus: Hoc ergo Dominus dicens, facite hoc, aut facite illud, ostendit esse in potestate (hominum) quid facerent... Qui enim servare legem non vult, in potestate ejus est, si velit (Therefore, the Lord in saying, Do this or do that, shows that what they did was in the power (of men)... For he who does not will to keep the law, it is in his power, if he wills). To this Calvin replies that St. Augustine was speaking here of innocent man; but Bellarmine wisely corrects him, saying that the Saint was there treating of that Gospel where the Lord was speaking against the Jews and saying: A fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos (By their fruits you shall know them). Hence it can
never be said that St. Augustine intended to speak there of Adam. And this same thing which the Saint said writing against the Manicheans, he repeats writing against the Pelagians, saying: Ubi dicitur noli hoc, et noli illud, et ibi ad aliquid faciendum vel non faciendum in Divinis monitis opus voluntatis exigitur, satis liberum demonstratur arbitrium (Where it is said, Do not this and do not that, and where in the divine admonitions the work of the will is required to do or not to do something, free will is sufficiently demonstrated). Here Jansenius objects (the great partisan of Calvin) that St. Augustine speaks of necessity through violence, not of simple necessity. But Jansenius errs likewise, because the Saint did not dissent in this from the Pelagians, indeed conceding to them that the will was free both from coercive and from simple necessity; hence, writing against Julian, he did not hesitate to say: Liberum in hominibus esse arbitrium utrique dicimus. Liberum autem esse quenquam ad agendum bonum sine adjutorio Dei etc. vos dicitis; hinc estis Pelagiani (We both say that free will exists in men. But that anyone is free to do good without the help of God, etc., you say; hence you are Pelagians). Therefore, in saying, We both say, St. Augustine admitted the same liberty to do and not to do which the Pelagians maintained, who certainly required it to be exempt from all necessity; so that there is no doubt that the Saint held that the will was free not only from violence, but from all necessity; only in this did he contradict the Pelagians, that they wanted the will to be free to do good even without grace.

Moreover St. Augustine, speaking of the liberty of the will and of the efficacy of grace, says it is a difficult thing to reconcile the one with the other: Ista quaestio, ubi de arbitrio voluntatis, et de Dei Gratia disputatur ita est ad discernendum difficilis, ut quando defenditur liberum arbitrium negari Dei Gratia videatur, quando autem asseritur Dei Gratia, liberum arbitrium putetur auferri (This question, where free will and the grace of God are discussed, is so difficult to discern that when free will is defended, the grace of God seems to be denied; but when the grace of God is asserted, free will is thought to be taken away). If St. Augustine had supposed that the will was not free from simple necessity, but only from violence, it would not have been difficult, but very easy, to understand how grace operated; therefore, inasmuch as he said it was difficult to understand it, it was because he held that efficacious grace certainly obtained its effect in good acts, and, on the other hand, that the will, in doing them freely, acted without any necessity that determined it to be able to do or will only those acts to which grace moved it. For the rest, the holy Doctor held it for certain that in the observance of the precepts man, with the help of sufficient grace, was free either to fulfill them, or at least to obtain by prayer the greater help to fulfill them: otherwise (as he said) God would not have imposed such precepts upon him: Neque enim imperaret hoc Deus ut faceremus, si impossibile judicaret, ut hoc ab homine fieret (For God would not command us to do this, if He judged it impossible for it to be done by man).

Let us note other texts of St. Augustine, in which he confirms the same view, that the human will is free from all necessity: Non enim peccatum esset, quod non fieret voluntate; ac per hoc et poena injusta esset, si homo voluntatem non haberet liberam, hoc est si necessario tam bene quam male operaretur (For that would not be a sin which was not done by the will; and hence punishment also would be unjust, if man did not have a free will, that is, if he acted of necessity in good as well as in evil). Elsewhere he says: Quis enim non clamet stultum esse, praecepta dare ei, cui liberum non est quod praecipitur facere, et iniquum esse eum damnare, cui non fuit potestas jussa complere (For who would not cry out that it is folly to give precepts to one who is not free to do what is commanded, and iniquity to condemn one who had not the power to fulfill what was ordered?). Elsewhere: Motum quo voluntas ab incommutabili bono deflectit, si natura, vel necessitate existit, culpabilem esse nullo pacto posse (The movement by which the will turns away from the unchangeable good, if it exists by nature or by necessity, can in no wise be blameworthy). And after saying that prevenient grace is necessary to do good, he adds: Consentire autem vocationi Dei, vel ab ea dissentire, propriae voluntatis est (But to consent to the call of God, or to dissent from it, belongs to one's own will). By which he clearly teaches that the will can freely obey grace and resist it. Nor is it of any avail to say with Jansenius that St. Augustine by this means nothing else than that consenting and dissenting is the proper office of the will; for it can never be believed that the holy Doctor would have uselessly undertaken to prove that consent and dissent belong to the will and not to the intellect, a thing which even the unlettered know how to distinguish. All the more since the Saint in that place first said: Neminem habere in potestate, quid ei veniat in mentem (No one has it in his power what comes into his mind), and then wrote the aforesaid words, Consentire autem
etc. Hence it is seen that he speaks without doubt of the free power which the will has to dissent from, or to consent to, that which comes into the mind. In another place he says: Nemo nisi Deus facere arborem potest (meaning the good trees that yield good fruits, and the bad that yield bad fruits), sed habet unusquisque in voluntate aut eligere quae bona sunt, aut quae mala etc. Hoc ergo Dominus dicens, aut facite hoc, aut facite illud, ostendit esse in potestate quid facerent (No one but God can make a tree; but each one has it in his will either to choose the things that are good or those that are evil. Therefore the Lord, in saying, "Either do this, or do that," showed that it was in their power what they should do). In another place, explaining the sine quo help, he says: Sine quo voluntas velle non possit; sic tamen ut velle et nolle, uti vel non uti, in ejus libero arbitrio relinquatur (Without which the will could not will; yet in such wise that to will and to refuse, to use or not to use, is left to its free will). From all this it is seen all too clearly how far St. Augustine was from the view of Jansenius — that the human will is not free from necessity in acting, and still less that it is necessitated to follow the superior delectation which by its impulse invincibly moves and determines it.

But to conclude according to our purpose — that of proving that the Lord gives to everyone the grace, whether proximate or remote, of prayer for observing the precepts, since otherwise the transgression of them could not be imputed to him as a fault — it suffices to see what the contradictory propositions of the two aforementioned Propositions of Jansenius are. The first said: Aliqua Dei praecepta hominibus justis volentibus et conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires, sunt impossibilia, deest quoque illis gratia, qua possibilia fiant (Some precepts of God are impossible to just men who will and strive according to the powers they presently have; the grace by which they may become possible is also wanting to them). The Catholic proposition contradictory to the error, then, is this: None of God's precepts is impossible, at least to the just who will to observe them and strive to do so; nor do they lack, even according to the strength they have at present, the grace (whether proximate or at least remote) by which they can at least mediately obtain by prayer the greater help to fulfill them. And here let it be noted again that, to avoid the condemned error, it is not enough to concede the absolute possibility of observing the precept, for even the Jansenists admit such a possibility; but one must further admit the possibility relative also to the present carnal delectation, which exceeds that of grace, of satisfying the precept when it urges, or at least of obtaining by prayer the necessary grace to observe it: for precisely in this does the error of Jansenius consist — in denying the possibility, not the absolute but the relative.

The third Proposition of Jansenius then said: Ad merendum et demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas a necessitate, sed sufficit libertas a coactione (For meriting and demeriting in the state of fallen nature, freedom from necessity is not required in man, but freedom from compulsion suffices). The Catholic contradictory, therefore, is this: To merit and demerit, even in the state of fallen nature, both for the just and for sinners, freedom is required not only from violence but also from simple necessity; for according to Catholic doctrine, the voluntary, whenever it is necessary, is not free with that freedom which suffices in the present life to merit or demerit; but to merit or demerit, the will must be free from every necessity of having to consent determinately to one of the two sides.

In short, Fr. Fortunatus of Brescia (a man commonly celebrated by modern scholars, and especially by Muratori), in his work newly brought to light under the title Cornelii Jansenii Systema confutatum, says that if the system of Jansenius were true, the divine law would be either vain or unjust; for according to that system, if the heavenly delectation preponderates, then the will, even though there were no law, is necessitated to follow determinately the impulse of the delectation; and thus the law would be vain. If, on the other hand, the earthly delectation preponderates, then the law would be unjust, since God would impose a precept physically impossible for man to observe, inasmuch as the will must then necessarily yield to the temptation. And in this way all the threats and admonitions of the divine Scriptures would be useless; and there would no longer be any human action that would merit reward or punishment, since everything would be done by men out of necessity. Hence, to one who exhorted us to live well we could answer what Eusebius wrote against the Fatalists: Non sunt potestates hae meae, o Doctor; faciam enim, si fata volunt (These powers are not mine, O Doctor; for I shall act if the fates so will — that is, if the carnal delectation does not preponderate); aderit necessario quod fatatum est (what is fated will necessarily come to pass); I must necessarily follow the delectation that prevails. He says, moreover, that in admitting such a system one must also admit Manichaeism, which established two principles, a good and an evil one, and held that, since all actions proceed either from the one or the other principle, man must necessarily follow the one that prevailed. Nor does it avail to say that such necessity in the system of the victorious delectation does not derive from a good or evil principle, as the Manicheans held, but depends on the sin of Adam, which was its cause; for here the question is not by what principle the will then acts necessarily when it is moved, but whether the will after the sin of Adam remained free from the necessity of acting — and this is what is denied by the Jansenists, who hold that the will merits and demerits even though it is necessitated to will that to which the superior delectation determines it. But as the aforesaid Father of Brescia well observes, the books of Arnauld, of Irenaeus, of Ventrochio, and of other Jansenists were condemned for the very reason that in them the principle of Jansenius was established — that of the two invincible delectations according to the superiority of degrees. And for this reason we know that the Theology of Juenin was also prohibited, who, although he did not expressly hold the aforesaid system, nevertheless on this point imprudently spoke too obscurely, saying: Natura physica gratiae efficacis non in alio posita est, quam in
victrici delectatione, qua mens circa bonum afficitur (The physical nature of efficacious grace is placed in nothing other than in the victorious delectation by which the mind is drawn to the good). He did not, to be sure, say relative victrici (relatively victorious), but he then proves his proposition with the oft-mentioned doctrine of St. Augustine: Quod amplius nos delectat, secundum id operemur necesse est (What delights us more, according to that we must necessarily act). And for this reason his work was prohibited for so long; and yet it has lately been permitted, inasmuch as a Compendium was added to it, entitled The True Doctrine of the Church, drawn from the Theology of the learned Honoré Tournely, who extensively and excellently refuted the aforesaid system. Finally, the Father of Brescia concludes, saying thus: Manifestum relinquitur et Jansenianum Systema illis (that is, to Luther, Calvin, and Jansenius) plane favere; indeque a viro Catholico sine crimine violatae Fidei propugnari nullatenus posse (It remains manifest that the Jansenian system plainly favors them — that is, Luther, Calvin, and Jansenius — and hence that it can in no wise be upheld by a Catholic without the crime of violated Faith). Non enim tuta Fide, salvaque Religione defendi potest systema, cujus fundamentalibus admissis
principiis, damnata dogmata necessum est approbare (For a system cannot be defended with the Faith unharmed and Religion safe, when, its fundamental principles once admitted, it is necessary to approve condemned dogmas). And Tournely meant the same, writing: Cum Ecclesia quinque Propositiones damnaverit in sensu Jansenii, necesse est illas damnatas fuisse in ipso Jansenii Systemate, delectationis scilicet superioris ac relative victricis, quae totius Systematis fundamentum est (Since the Church has condemned the five Propositions in the sense of Jansenius, it is necessary that they were condemned in the very system of Jansenius — namely, in that of the superior and relatively victorious delectation, which is the foundation of the whole system).

Nor does it avail to say that the System of Jansenius is one thing — which supposes the relatively victorious delectation to be undeliberated, that is, which comes into us without any consent of the will — while the System of the delectation that is likewise relatively victorious by the superiority of degrees, but deliberated, is another; since this latter does not conquer alone and by its own forces, as the Advocates of that System say, but conquers by being strengthened by the forces of the consenting will. And therefore they say that the preponderant delectation, although it certainly and infallibly conquers, does not however conquer necessarily, as Jansenius held. It does not avail, since Tournely well replies that that Grace (or delectation) which is infallibly efficacious, and invincibly determines the will by the preponderance of its forces, cannot fail to be necessitating as to the consent of the will. And he proves it thus: Ea Gratia est necessitas, quae supponit voluntatem destitutam vera potentia resistendi; atqui talis est Gratia infallibiliter efficax ex virium graduali superioritate. Nam huiusmodi Gratia supponit voluntatem non habere ad resistendum nisi vires inferiores. Repugnat autem, ut vires superiores, quae agunt ut superiores, vincantur ab inferioribus, alias necesse esset, ut inferiores operarentur ultra suae activitatis gradus. (That Grace is necessitating which supposes the will deprived of a true power of resisting; but such is the Grace which is infallibly efficacious from the gradual superiority of its forces. For Grace of this kind supposes the will to have only inferior forces wherewith to resist. But it is repugnant that superior forces, acting as superior, should be overcome by inferior ones; otherwise it would be necessary that the inferior ones should operate beyond the degree of their own activity.) Nor does it avail to reply that the forces of the relatively victorious Grace are indeed superior
when compared with concupiscence taken by itself alone, but not when compared with the forces of concupiscence joined with those of the will; because (the same Tournely replies) such forces of the will could be admitted only in regard to the evil that man can do of himself, overcoming at least one vice by another vice, or barely in regard to good of the natural order, but not in regard to supernatural good, that is, to the overcoming of a strong concupiscence, which cannot be done without Divine Grace. For this reason the Fathers of Diospolis required of the Pelagians that, among the other articles, each one should confess this: Ut fateatur, quando contra tentationes concupiscentiasque illicitas dimicamus, non ex propria voluntate, sed ex Dei adjutorio provenire victoriam. (That he confess that, when we struggle against temptations and illicit concupiscences, the victory comes not from our own will, but from the help of God.) And the reason is, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, that no active principle can produce an effect exceeding its own activity; hence a natural principle, or cause, cannot produce a supernatural effect: Nullus actus (these are the words of St. Thomas Aquinas) excedit proportionem principii activi. Et ideo videmus in rebus naturalibus, quod nulla res potest perficere effectum per suam operationem, qui excedat virtutem activam, sed solum potest producere per operationem suam effectum suae virtuti proportionatum. (No act exceeds the proportion of the active principle; and therefore we see in natural things that nothing can accomplish by its operation an effect which exceeds its active power, but can only produce by its operation an effect proportionate to its own power.) So that the natural forces of the human will, although united to the forces of Grace, which are inferior to the forces of concupiscence, cannot contribute to produce an effect
supernatural, such as is the overcoming of a violent concupiscence preponderant over Grace. And in fact the Jansenists say: Let it be granted to us that the delectation most certainly conquers by reason of its superior forces, and this is enough for us. Here is how one of them speaks, the Abbé de Bourzeis: Nobis enim sufficit, quod haec sola nobis veritas concedatur, nimirum quoties Gratiae Dei consentimus, id oriri semper ex eo quod rectus amor, quem Deus nobis inspirat, viribus superior est perverso amori, et quia viribus superior est, idcirco eum certissime superare. (For it suffices us that this truth alone be granted to us, namely, that whenever we consent to the Grace of God, it always arises from this, that the right love which God inspires in us is superior in force to perverse love, and because it is superior in force, it most certainly overcomes it.) Therefore Tournely, speaking of the two Systems, namely the one of the absolutely victorious delectation and the other of the relatively victorious delectation, concludes thus: Novimus quidem orthodoxos Theologos, qui vim Gratiae efficacem colligunt ex ipsius delectatione absolute ac simpliciter victrice; quique in gratia sufficiente pares vires agnoscunt ad appositam actualem cupiditatem superandam. Verum qui gratiam velint esse victricem relative ex superioritate graduum quippe non aliam sufficientem admittunt gratiam quam viribus inferiorem oppositae superiori concupiscentiae, non alios quam Janseniani Systematis Defensores novimus. (We indeed know orthodox Theologians who derive the efficacious power of Grace from the absolutely and simply victorious delectation itself, and who in sufficient grace acknowledge forces equal to overcoming the opposed actual concupiscence; but those who would have grace be victorious relatively by the superiority of degrees — inasmuch as they admit no other sufficient grace than one inferior in force to the opposed superior concupiscence — we know to be none other than Defenders of the Jansenian System.)

So that, to conclude, we do not here intend to reprove the opinion which says that the will, even when it follows the greater delectation, nevertheless always operates freely, that is, without necessity, and with a true power (not a power in name only, or hypothetical) to act to the contrary; but we only reject the opinion of those who hold that, when one of the delectations, heavenly or carnal, is victorious because it surpasses the other in degree, then there remains no power in man to resist it and overcome it, by reason that the greater force infallibly conquers the lesser.

Nevertheless, on this point I cannot omit to state the difficulty that I find in this System of the relatively victorious delectation.

The Defenders of this System say, as Fr. Gian Lorenzo Berti also says, that the efficacy of Grace, in the way in which they establish it, does not differ in substance from the efficacy taught by the Thomists, although on different principles; since the Thomists make the efficacy of Grace consist in physical predetermination, while they make it consist in the preponderant delectation. What predetermination does (they say) in the second act, in applying the liberty of free will to consent, the same does the delectation. For the rest, the one opinion as well as the other teaches that man retains the power in the first act to act in opposition, so that the will always operates freely and without necessity.

But I reflect that, as the principles of these two opinions are different and their reasons different, so also are their consequences different. The reason of the efficacy according to the Thomists is that the created will is in passive potency, being in potency to receive the motion of Grace; hence, in order to come to the act of the work, it is necessary that it be moved by God, as the first Agent and first free cause, Who applies and determines the potency to the act by predetermination. This is as regards the act; but as regards the potency, the Thomists say that man has the grace of a power wholly complete and proximately ready to be able to do good. So Fr. Gonet: Gratia quae dat posse, dat totum complementum, et totam virtutem, seu sufficientiam quae requiritur ex parte actus primi. (The grace which gives the power to act gives the whole complement and the whole virtue, or sufficiency, which is required on the part of the first act.) So also Cardinal Gotti: Gratia sufficiens dat posse proximum et expeditum in ratione potentiae. (Sufficient grace gives a proximate and ready power in the order of potency.) And so all the other Thomists commonly; and if any one of them seems to speak otherwise, he is speaking of the second act, not of the first.

The reason, on the other hand, of the principle of those who maintain the opinion of the delectation superior in degree is that (as they say) whereas before, in the state of innocent Nature, sufficient grace alone sufficed for man to do good — since free will was sound and stood in perfect equilibrium, it could well operate with sufficient grace alone, without need of efficacious grace — but at present, after the fall of Adam, the will having remained wounded and inclined to evil, it has need of efficacious grace to apply it, by means of the victorious delectation, to put good into act. But according to this reasoning of that System, granted that (I say) the will of man has remained so infirm that, in order to operate in the present state, it has need of efficacious grace, it cannot be said that man has any longer, in virtue of sufficient grace — not even in the first act, and neither in the composed nor in the divided sense — the complete and proximately ready power to observe the precepts, or to be able to perform any good act whatever, not even a mediate one, by which he may dispose himself afterwards to obtain the greater help to fulfill the law.

I am well aware that the Advocates of this opinion do not refuse to concede this, saying that at present sufficient grace does not give a complete and ready power: Gratia sufficiens (writes Fr. Macedo, one of these Advocates) non dat potentiam proxime completam, et expeditam. (Sufficient grace does not give a power proximately complete and ready.) And in another place speaking of the grace of innocent Adam and of fallen Adam, he says: Prima supponebat (potentiam) expeditam et liberam, secunda impeditam et servam. (The former supposed a power ready and free; the latter, one hindered and enslaved.)

Nay, granted that the grace inferior to concupiscence does not give the complete and unimpeded power to observe the precepts, in truth it can no longer be called sufficient. As in fact the aforementioned Fr. Berti, who defends such a system of relatively victorious delectation, finds no difficulty in conceding further that such inferior grace should properly be called inefficacious grace, and not sufficient. So that, according to this system, those who do not receive from God efficacious grace by means of relatively victorious delectation do not even have sufficient grace to be able to fulfill the precepts. Here is what Fr. Berti writes in the Defense he makes of his opinion; first he sets forth there the three objections that his adversaries raise against him, which are the following: Tria sunt, quae Jansenianum redolent dogma, et quinque damnatarum propositionum sunt fons et origo, a quibus novi Janseniani, quos inter eminent duo haud dubie spurii Augustinenses (that is, Fr. Bellelli and Fr. Berti, against whom the Archbishop of Vienna is writing), minime abhorrent. Horum primum est, quod non tantum in delectatione victrici reponunt gratiam efficientem, sed in delectatione victrici relativa, etc. Alterum, quod negant in delectatione inferioris gradus potentiam proxime expeditam, ad hanc requirentes ex parte potentiae et actus primi robustiorem delectationem; ideoque gratia inefficax (sive adjutorium sine quo ab ipsis depraedicatum) non est vera gratia sufficiens, neque
Molinistico sensu, neque Thomistico, cum gratia sufficiens communi sensu Catholicorum conferat ipsam potentiam proxime expeditam. Tertium, quod hinc consequitur, veram gratiam sufficientem e medio tollunt, a cujus etiam nomine fraudulenter abhorrent; illam potius inefficacem, quam sufficientem appellantes (There are three things that smack of the Jansenist dogma and are the fount and origin of the five condemned Propositions, from which the new Jansenists — among whom two undoubtedly spurious Augustinians stand out — by no means shrink. The first of these is that they place efficacious grace not only in victorious delectation, but in relatively victorious delectation, etc. The second, that they deny that in the delectation of an inferior degree there is a power proximately unimpeded, requiring for it, on the part of the power and of the first act, a stronger delectation; and therefore inefficacious grace (or the "help without which" proclaimed by them) is not true sufficient grace, neither in the Molinist sense nor in the Thomist, since sufficient grace, in the common understanding of Catholics, confers the very power proximately unimpeded. The third, which follows from this, is that they do away with true sufficient grace altogether, shrinking fraudulently even from its name, calling it rather inefficacious than sufficient). This is what his opponents object to him; here is how he answers them: Ego vero firmissime et absque ulla haesitatione pronuntio, tria doctrinae capita nuperrime commemorata nequaquam erronea esse, nec damnatarum propositionum principia; sed aliquos Jansenii quidem refutandi zelo permotos, sed propriae sententiae praejudicio abreptos, quid Catholicum sit, quid erroneum ac damnatum minime distinxisse, atque ex horum lucubrationibus causam arripuisse sciolum Anonymum (that is, the Archbishop

of Vienna mentioned above); et si qui alii sunt, curtae eruditionis, et pinguis minervae homines, inconcussa Augustini dogmata (quae, velint nolint, sunt eadem ac nostra) tanquam portenta haeresum calumniandi (But I most firmly and without any hesitation pronounce that the three heads of doctrine just mentioned are in no wise erroneous, nor the sources of the condemned propositions; but that certain men — moved indeed by zeal to refute Jansenius, yet carried away by prejudice in favor of their own opinion — have not at all distinguished what is Catholic from what is erroneous and condemned; and that the pedant Anonymous, and if there are any others, men of scant learning and gross wit, have seized from their lucubrations an occasion to calumniate the unshaken dogmas of Augustine (which, whether they will it or not, are the same as ours) as portents of heresies).

Now precisely one of these men of scant learning and gross mind, I confess myself also to be, since I do not understand how the Propositions of Fr. Berti agree with one another, for their consequences clearly appear the one repugnant to the other. If he said that to observe the Divine precepts efficacious grace is needed, but that sufficient grace, which is given to all, gives the proximate power to pray, and that by prayer the greater help necessary to actually observe the precepts is then obtained, we would be in agreement; for this is precisely our opinion, which we shall set forth and prove in the following chapter. But no; for, speaking of prayer, he does indeed say that each of the faithful, through sufficient grace, if he places no obstacle, can pray, and by praying obtain the immediate help to actually observe the precepts: Cuilibet fideli (these are his words) nisi libere ponat obicem, adest gratia orationis, qua possit impetrare auxilium immediate sufficiens ad implenda mandata (To each of the faithful, unless he freely places an obstacle, the grace of prayer is present, by which he can obtain the help immediately sufficient for fulfilling the commandments). And he says more elsewhere, that the aforesaid sufficient grace, already common to every one of the faithful, although it is remotely sufficient for the observance of the precepts, is nevertheless proximately sufficient for prayer, through which efficacious grace is then obtained; writing thus: In eo qui habet voluntatem parvam (which is that will administered to all by sufficient grace) est potentia proxime sufficiens ad orandum, et sufficiens remote ad observantiam praeceptorum, quae poterit proxime implere; dum per orationem obtinuerit robustam voluntatem which robust will is administered by efficacious grace (In him who has a weak will there is a power proximately sufficient for praying and remotely sufficient for the observance of the precepts, which he will be able to fulfill proximately when through prayer he has obtained a robust will). He says then, and wisely says, that as regards the observance of the precepts it cannot be said that sufficient grace gives all the proximate power to actually observe them; because (as he well observes in the passage cited a little above at IV) the proximate power to observe the precepts is that which needs no other means to pass into act; hence he writes in the same

IV, near the beginning, that complete and unimpeded power can be had only from efficacious grace: Gratia efficax sola dat potentiam completam, et expeditam (Efficacious grace alone gives complete and unimpeded power). Therefore he adds that in order for sufficient grace to be called proximately sufficient to operate in act, requiritur ut alio medio non egeat, ut exeat in actum (it is required that it need no other means to pass into act). So that, according to the reasoning of Fr. Berti, sufficient grace does not in fact administer to each of the faithful the proximate power to observe the precepts, but it does administer to all the power proximately sufficient to pray. Therefore each of the faithful, with sufficient grace alone, can actually pray without need of another means, that is, of efficacious grace.

But then I do not know how this agrees with what he says elsewhere: Nullus absque gratia per se efficaci habet potentiam orandi conjunctam cum actu (No one, without grace efficacious in itself, has the power of praying conjoined with act). Therefore, according to this other Proposition, sufficient grace does not in truth, but only in name, give the power proximately sufficient to pray; it gives the power only remotely sufficient, since efficacious grace is needed for the power of praying to pass into act. Either, then, efficacious grace is required to actually pray, and in that case sufficient grace cannot be said to give the proximately sufficient power; or sufficient grace gives the power proximately sufficient to actually pray, and in that case there is no need of the efficacious grace of preponderant delectation, as he requires. But St. Augustine too, says Fr. Berti, requires victorious delectation to actually pray, saying: Augustinus docet necessariam esse ad orandum certam scientiam et victricem delectationem (Augustine teaches that certain knowledge and victorious delectation are necessary for praying). I have wished to examine the text of the holy Doctor, which reads thus: Intelligamus, si possumus, Dominum Deum bonum ideo etiam Sanctis suis alicujus operis justi aliquando non tribuere, vel certam scientiam, vel victricem delectationem, ut cognoscant non a seipsis, sed ab Illo sibi esse lucem, qua illuminentur tenebrae eorum, et suavitatem qua det fructum suum terra eorum (Let us understand, if we can, that the good Lord God for this reason sometimes does not grant even to His Saints, in some just work, either certain knowledge or victorious delectation: that they may know that the light by which their darkness is illumined, and the sweetness by which their land yields its fruit, is theirs not from themselves but from Him). St. Augustine does not in fact say that the victorious
delectation is necessary for praying; here he says only that God sometimes does not give even to His Saints either the certain knowledge or the victorious delectation of some just work: so that they may know that from Him, and not from themselves, they have the light that enlightens them and the sweetness that makes them bear fruit.

Therefore the Saint here, in the first place, is not speaking of sufficient grace, with which man can act but does not always act, nor does he say that man with sufficient grace alone and without efficacious grace cannot actually pray; but he is speaking only of efficacious grace, which by means of victorious delectation infallibly makes him act well. Secondly, he is not speaking here of prayer, but of the just work, which properly means the observance of the precepts or of the counsels; for prayer, although it is a good work, by its nature is not the work, but is the means for obtaining the help to perform the good work.

We too hold, as has been said above, that efficacious grace is necessary for the observance of the precepts; but we say that to pray actually, and by prayer to obtain the efficacious grace, the sufficient grace that God grants to every believer is enough. And thus it is well secured that the divine precepts are impossible to no one, since every man with sufficient grace alone can do the easy things, such as praying, and by means of prayer will obtain the aid of efficacious grace — gratuitous, and necessary for actually doing the difficult things, which is the observance of the precepts. So speaks precisely Cardinal de Noris, whose words I shall report in the following chapter; and so before him did St. Augustine teach, saying: Eo ipso quod firmissime creditur Deum impossibilia non praecipere, hinc admonemur et in facilibus quid agamus, et in difficilibus quid petamus (By the very fact that it is most firmly believed that God does not command impossibilities, we are admonished both what we are to do in easy things and what we are to ask in difficult ones). Otherwise, if sufficient grace were not enough to pray actually, but efficacious grace were always needed, and this were denied to anyone — as in fact efficacious grace is denied to many — I do not see how the divine precepts could be called possible for such a man, or how God could require of him (while denying him also the efficacious grace of actually praying) the observance of His law, and then justly condemn him to hell if he does not observe it. This is precisely what led Jansenius to say that some precepts are impossible even for the just, because he
erroneously held that some lack the grace by which the precepts are rendered possible for them. But no; for God gives to all (we here leave aside the infidels and the obstinate) the proximate grace of actually praying, as we shall prove in the following chapter; and so the excuse that the observance of the precepts was impossible for him can avail no one, if he does not observe them; because although he may not have had efficacious grace to observe them in act, he nevertheless had the proximate grace sufficient for actually praying, by means of which — according to His promise to hear whoever prays — he would have obtained from God the efficacious grace with which he would certainly have observed the precepts. And this is precisely what the Council of Trent declared against Luther, who asserted that the observance of the divine law was impossible even for believers, saying: Deus impossibilia non jubet, sed jubendo monet et facere quod possis, et petere quod non possis, et adjuvat ut possis (God does not command impossibilities; but by commanding He admonishes you both to do what you can, and to ask for what you cannot, and He helps you so that you may be able).

d Graves. Class. I. Ep. I. pag. 9.

aa Bajan. et Jans. rediv. Appen. pag. 6.

ab P. Serry Praelect.....

ac S. Thom. de Malo qu. 6. art. unic.

ad S. Aug. lib. de duab. Anim. c. 18.

ae Petav. lib. 3. de Opere Sex. dier. c. 2. n. 7.

af Petav. loco mox cit. num. 3.

ag S. Aug. Ep. ad Gal. n. 49.

ah Calvin. lib. 3. de lib. arb. adv. Pighium.

ai S. Aug. de Mus. lib. 6. num. 29. tom. I.

al Idem Confess. lib. 13. cap. 10.

am Idem ib. 6. de Music. num. 29. tom. I.

an Vide ibid.

ao Idem in Jo. tract. 26. num. 14. tom. 3.

ap Vide ibid.

aq Ibid.

ar Idem Ep. ad Gal. num. 54.

as S. Aug. Vide Conf.

at Idem. Serm. 155. alias 6 de Verb. Ap. cap. 9.

au Idem lib. 12. de Civ. Dei cap. 6.

av S. Aug. lib. 3. de lib. arb. n. 8. alias c. 3.

az Idem lib. 2. de Act. cum Fel. Manich. c. 3. ec.

ax Bellarm. lib. 5. de lib. arb. c. 28.

ay S. Aug. de Grat. et lib. arb. n. 4. alias c. 2.

ba Idem lib. 2. de Nuptiis etc. n. 8. alias c. 3.

bb S. Aug. de Grat. Cri. n. 52. alias Cap. 48.

bc S. Aug. Enarr. in Ps. 56. n. 1.

bd S. Aug. de lib. arb. cap. I.

be Idem lib. de Fide contra Manich. cap. 9 et 10.

bf Idem lib. de Spirit. et litt. cap. 34.

bg S. Aug. l. 2. de Act. cum Fel. Manich. c. 4.

bh Idem lib. 2. de Grat. cap. 4.

bi Juenin. Inst. theol. t. 5. p. 6. Diss. I art. 3.

bl Corn. Jans. Syst. confut. p. II. num. 45 et 46. alias pag. 346. n. 259.

bm Tournely Praelect. theol. tom. 3. qu. 3. in Prop. V. Jans. qu. 2. infra n. 4.

bn Idem Theol. ad usum Semin. To. 5. p. 2. qu. 5. a. I. Concl. 5.

bo S. Thom. I. 2. q. 109. a. 5.

bp Abbas de Bourzeis Collat. 4. cap. 30.

bq Tour. Prael. Theol. tom. 3. p. 2. q. 9. n. 2. Obijic. 6.

br August. Syst. vindic. Diss. 5. cap. 3. n. 4.

bs Gonet Man. to. 4. tract. 7. cap. 10.

bt Gotti to. 2. de Grat. Dub. 6. § 2.

bu P. Franc. Macedo Scrin. pag. 88. et 89.

bv Idem Cortina pag. 203.

bz Berti Tom. II. lib. 18. cap. VIII. prop. IV.

bx Tom. VII. Diss. IV. Vindic. ec. Cap. I. § 9. num. 5. vers. Verum.

by Berti Tom. II. lib. 18. cap. VIII. Prop. V.

ca August. lib. 2. de Peccat. meritis Cap. 19.

cb S. Aug. de Nat. et gratia Cap. 69. n. 83.

### CHAPTER IV - GOD GIVES TO ALL THE GRACE TO PRAY IF THEY WILL, THE SUFFICIENT GRACE ALONE, WHICH IS COMMON TO ALL, SUFFICING FOR PRAYER

Since, then, God wills all to be saved, and on His part gives to all the graces necessary to attain salvation, we say that to all is given the grace of being able actually to pray (without need of any other new grace), and by praying then to obtain all the other aids for observing the precepts and being saved. But let it be noted that in saying "without need of any other new grace" it is not meant that sufficient grace gives the act of praying without the aid of adjuvant grace; for to perform any act of piety, besides exciting grace, adjuvant — or cooperating — grace is also undoubtedly required. What is meant is that sufficient grace gives everyone the power to pray actually, without a new prevenient grace that physically or morally determines man's will to put prayer into act. Therefore we shall here first register the many distinguished theologians who teach this opinion as certain, and then we shall prove it by authorities and by arguments. So hold Isambert, Cardinal du-Perron, Alphonsus le Moyne, and others who will be cited below, and at greater length and expressly Honoré Tournely; all these authors prove that each one with sufficient grace alone can actually pray, without need of any other aid, and by prayer obtain all the other graces for observing the more difficult things.

So also holds the most eminent Cardinal de Noris, who expressly proves that man, when the precept urges, prays, if he wills, with sufficient grace alone, without any other aid; and he proves it thus: Manifestum est potentiam ad orandum debere esse proximam in Justo sive Fideli; nam si Fidelis sit in potentia remota ad simpliciter orandum (non enim hic loquor de fervida oratione) non habebit aliam potentiam proximam pro impetranda oratione, alias procederetur in infinitum (It is evident that the power to pray must be proximate in the just man or the believer; for if the believer were in only remote power to pray simply — for I am not here speaking of fervent prayer — he would have no other proximate power for obtaining prayer; otherwise one would proceed to infinity). Since, in order to observe the precepts and be saved, it is necessary that we pray — as we proved at the beginning when speaking of the necessity of prayer — this learned author wisely says that everyone has the proximate power to pray, so as thereby to obtain by prayer the proximate power to do good; and therefore all can pray with sufficient grace alone, without any other aid. Otherwise, if in order to have the proximate power for the act of praying another power were needed, for this in turn another grace of power would be needed, and so the process would go on to infinity, and it would no longer be in man's hands to cooperate in his own salvation.

The same author in another place confirms the aforesaid doctrine more distinctly, saying: Etiam in statu naturae lapsae datur adjutorium sine quo (that is, the sufficient grace common to all), secus ac Jansenius contendit; quod quidem adjutorium efficit in nobis actus debiles, nempe orationes minus fervidas pro adimplendis mandatis; in ordine ad quorum executionem, adjutorium sine quo est tantum auxilium remotum, impetratorium tamen auxilii quo, sive gratiae efficacis, qua mandata implentur (Even in the state of fallen nature the adjutorium sine quo is given — that is, the sufficient grace common to all — otherwise than as Jansenius contends; and this aid indeed produces in us weak acts, namely, less fervent prayers for the fulfillment of the commandments; in order to whose execution the adjutorium sine quo is only a remote aid, yet one that obtains the auxilium quo, that is, the efficacious grace by which the commandments are fulfilled). So that the most eminent Noris holds it as certain that in the present state everyone has the aid sine quo — that is, sufficient grace, which without need of any other aid produces the prayer by which the efficacious grace for observing the precepts is then obtained. And thus is well understood the axiom universally received in the Schools: Facienti quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam (To him who does what is in himself, God does not deny grace); that is, to the man who prays, making good use of the sufficient grace by which he can already do the easy things, such as praying, God does not then deny the efficacious grace to perform the difficult things.

So also holds Louis Thomassin. This author first marvels at those who would have it that the sufficient aids do not in fact suffice to perform any good work, nor to avoid any sin: «Si enim (he says) haec auxilia vere auxilia sunt, et proximam dant potestatem, qui fit ut ex innumerabili hominum, qui ita juvantur, multitudine praeceptum observat nemo? Aut quomodo vere sufficientia sunt, si praeterea gratia efficax est necessaria? Non habet potestatem sufficientem, cui deest auxilium necessarium, quod in ejus potestate non est.» "For if (he says) these helps are truly helps, and give proximate power, how does it happen that, of the innumerable multitude of men who are thus helped, not one keeps the precept? Or how are they truly sufficient, if efficacious grace is necessary besides? He does not have sufficient power who lacks a necessary help that is not in his power." He means that sufficient grace, in order to be truly called sufficient, must give man the proximate and ready power to carry out the good act; but when another grace, the efficacious one, is required to perform the act, if man does not have the efficacious grace (at least mediately) that is already necessary for salvation, how can it be said that the sufficient grace gives him this proximate and ready power?

Since, as St. Thomas Aquinas says: «Deus non deficit ab agendo, quod est necessarium ad salutem.» "God does not neglect to do what is necessary for salvation." It is true, on the one hand, that God is not bound to give us His graces, because graces are not owed; but, on the other hand, supposing that He gives us the commandments, He is bound to give us the help necessary to observe them; and as the Lord obliges us actually to observe every precept at the time it applies, so must He likewise actually supply us with the help (at least mediate and remote) necessary to observe the precept, without the need of another grace not common to all.

Hence Thomassin concludes that, in order to reconcile the assertion that sufficient grace suffices for man to save himself with the assertion that, on the other hand, efficacious grace is necessary to observe the whole law, it is necessary to say that sufficient grace suffices for praying and for performing similar easy acts, and that by means of these the efficacious grace is then obtained to fulfill the difficult ones. And this is without doubt in conformity with the doctrine of St. Augustine, who teaches: «Eo ipso quo firmissime creditur Deum impossibilia non praecipere hinc admonemur et in facilibus quid agamus, et in difficilibus quid petamus.» "By the very fact that it is most firmly believed that God does not command impossible things, we are admonished both what to do in easy things and what to ask for in difficult things." On this text the aforesaid Cardinal Noris, after quoting it, likewise concludes, saying: «Igitur opera facilia, seu minus perfecta facere possumus, absque eo quod majus auxilium a Deo postulemus; quod tamen in difficilioribus petendum est.» "Therefore we can perform easy, or less perfect, works without asking a greater help from God; which, however, must be asked for in more difficult works." Thomassin also adduces the authorities of St. Bonaventure, Scotus, and others on this subject, and says: «Omnibus ea placuere sufficientia auxilia vere sufficientia, quibus assentitur quandoque voluntas, quandoque non.» "All approved of these sufficient helps as truly sufficient, to which the will sometimes assents and sometimes does not." And he demonstrates this in four parts of his Work, adducing the authorities of the Schools over a long series of years, beginning from the year 1100.

Habert, Bishop of Vabres and Doctor of the Sorbonne, who was the first to write against Jansenius, says thus: «Censemus primo, quod immediate cum ipso effectu consensus completi (gratia) sufficiens non habet habitudinem, nisi contingenter, vel mediate... Arbitramur proinde gratiam sufficientem esse gratiam dispositionis ad efficacem, utpote ex cujus bono usu Deus postea gratiam completi affectus effectivam creatae voluntati concedat.» "We hold, first, that (sufficient grace) has no immediate connection with the very effect of complete consent, except contingently or mediately... We therefore judge that sufficient grace is a grace disposing to the efficacious, inasmuch as from the good use of it God afterwards grants to the created will the grace effective of complete affection."

And he says this after having previously stated: «Catholici D D. omnes, dari gratiam aliquam vere intrinsecam, quae possit consensum voluntatis ad bonum elicere, nec tamen propter liberam voluntatis resistentiam eundem aliquando eliciat, omnibus in Scholis professi sunt, et profitentur.» "All Catholic Doctors have professed, and do profess, in all the Schools, that there is given a truly inward grace which can elicit the consent of the will to good, and yet sometimes does not elicit it, on account of the resistance of the free will." And for this doctrine he cites Gamaches, Duval, Isambert, Perez, Le Moyne, and others. He then continues: «Auxilia igitur gratiae sufficientis sunt dispositiva ad efficacem, et efficacia secundum quid, effectus videlicet incompleti, impetrantis primo remote, propius, ac tandem proxime, qualis est actus Fidei, Spei, Timoris, atque inter haec omnia Orationis. Unde celeberrimus Alphonsus Lemoinus gratiam illam sufficientem docuit esse gratiam petendi, seu Orationis, de qua toties B. Augustinus.» "The helps, therefore, of sufficient grace are dispositive to the efficacious, and efficacious in a certain respect, namely of an incomplete effect, obtaining first remotely, then more nearly, and finally proximately, as is the act of faith, hope, fear, and among all these, of prayer. Hence the most celebrated Alphonsus Le Moyne taught that this sufficient grace is the grace of asking, or of prayer, of which St. Augustine speaks so often." So that, according to Habert, efficacious grace differs from sufficient grace in this: that the former is united with the completed effect; but the latter obtains its effect either contingently, that is, because sometimes it obtains it and sometimes not, or mediately, that is, by means of prayer. Moreover he says that sufficient grace, according to the good use made of it, disposes us to obtain the efficacious; hence he calls sufficient grace efficacious «secundum quid», "in a certain respect," that is, in respect of the effect begun but not completed. Lastly he says that sufficient grace is the grace of praying, of which it is for us to avail ourselves, according to St. Augustine. So that man has no excuse if he does not do that for the performance of which he already has sufficient grace, with which, without any other help, he either acts or at least obtains the greater help to act; and Habert asserts that this doctrine was already the common doctrine of the Sorbonne.

Charles du Plessis d'Argentré, likewise a theologian of the Sorbonne, cites over a thousand theologians who expressly teach that with sufficient grace easy works are indeed performed, and that man, acting with sufficient grace, then obtains the more abundant help for his perfect conversion. And it is precisely in this sense, as we have already said above, that he says the celebrated axiom accepted by the Schools must be understood: «facientibus quod in se est» (always understood as with sufficient grace) «Deus non denegat gratiam», "to those who do what is in them, God does not deny grace" — that is, the more abundant and efficacious grace.

The most learned Dionysius Petavius proves at length that man acts well with sufficient grace alone; and he goes so far as to assert that to say the contrary «monstruosum esset», "would be monstrous"; and that this doctrine is not only that of the theologians, but of the Church. Hence he says that the grace of observing the precepts follows upon prayer, and that God gives this gift of prayer at the same time that He imposes the precepts: «Donum istud quo Deus dat ut jussa faciamus, effectum Orationis subsequitur; et talis effectus legi comes datur.» "That gift by which God grants that we do what is commanded follows upon the effect of prayer; and such an effect is given as the companion of the law." So that, just as the law is imposed upon all, so is the gift of prayer given to all.

The author of the Theology for the use of the Seminary of Périgueux says that with sufficient grace alone: «Aliquis potest bene agere, et aliquando bene agit.» "one can act well, and sometimes does act well." So that, he adds: «Nihil vetat, ut ex duobus, aequali auxilio praeventis, faciliores actus (plenam conversionem praecedentes) saepissime unus faciat, alius non.» "nothing prevents that, of two persons forestalled by an equal help, one should very often perform the easier acts (which precede full conversion) and the other not." And this, he says, is in conformity with the doctrine of St. Augustine, and of St. Thomas Aquinas and his earliest disciples, especially Fr. Bartolomé de Medina,[^phe-r] who wrote: *Cum sola gratia sufficienti aliquando homo convertitur* — “With sufficient grace alone, man is sometimes converted.” And I have found that Fr. Luis de Granada also asserted the same as the common doctrine of the theologians.[^phe-s] He said: *Duo auxiliorum genera Theologi statuunt, alterum sufficiens, alterum superabundans; et quidem priori auxilio homines aliquando convertuntur, aliquando converti renuunt* — “Theologians distinguish two kinds of help, one sufficient and the other superabundant; and indeed, with the former help, men are sometimes converted, and sometimes refuse to be converted.” And afterwards he adds: *Et quidem prius illud auxilium ad homines quam latissime patet, Theologi definiunt* — “And theologians declare that this former help extends to men most widely.” Hence Petrocorensis says: *Sic quosdam pietatis actus, nempe humiliter Deum deprecari, cum solo auxilio sufficienti (homo) facere potest, et aliquando facit, quibus se ad ulteriores gratias praeparat* — “Thus, with sufficient help alone, man can perform certain acts of piety, namely, humbly imploring God, and sometimes does perform them, by which he prepares himself for further graces.” He says that this is the order of divine Providence concerning graces: *ut priorum bono usui posteriores succedant* — “that later graces should follow the good use of earlier ones.” And he concludes that full conversion and final perseverance *infallibiliter (homines) promerentur Oratione, pro qua sufficiens gratia, quae nulli non praesto est, plenissime sufficit* — “men infallibly obtain through prayer, for which sufficient grace, which is present to everyone, suffices most fully.”

The same is held by Cardinal d'Aguirre, a follower in all things of St. Augustine. Father Antonio Boucat, of the Order of St. Francis of Paola, maintains that everyone can, already by prayer, without new help, obtain the grace of conversion; and besides Gamaches, Duval, Habert, and Le Moyne, he cites in favor of this opinion Peter of Tarantasia, Bishop of Tulle,

Godert de Fonte and Henry of Ghent, Doctors of the Sorbonne, together with M. Lygné, Regius Professor, who in his treatise «de Gratia», "On Grace," demonstrates that sufficient grace not only gives the power of praying, as Le Moyne and Professor Elias have said, but also gives the power to perform some less difficult works. Gaudenzio Bontempi wrote the same, demonstrating that by sufficient grace the efficacious is obtained by means of prayer, which is given to all who wish to avail themselves of it. Cardinal Robert Pullo posits two graces: one always victorious, and another with which man sometimes acts and sometimes does not: «Alia (these are his words) qua adjutus Homo utrumlibet aut gratiae cooperans agit, aut ea spreta malum agere non desistit.» "Another (these are his words) by which man, being helped, does whichever of these two things he chooses: either he cooperates with grace and acts, or, despising it, he does not cease to do evil." Of the same opinion is also the learned Father Fortunato da Brescia, holding that all have the mediate grace of prayer for observing the precepts; and he holds it for certain that St. Augustine held the same.

28 Richard of St. Victor likewise teaches that there is a sufficient grace to which man sometimes consents and at other times resists. Dominic Soto asks why, of two persons whom God is most ready and desirous to convert, the one is drawn by grace and the other is not? And he answers: «Alia ratio reddi non potest, nisi quod alter praebet consensum, et cooperatur, alter vero non cooperatur.» "No other reason can be given, except that the one gives his consent and cooperates, while the other does not cooperate." Matthias Felicio, who wrote against Calvin, defines ordinary, that is, sufficient, grace thus: «Est motio Divina, sive instinctum quo movetur Homo ad bonum, nec alicui denegatur. Homines diversimode se habent ad illud instinctum, alii namque illi acquiescunt, sicque ad gratiam habitualem de congruo disponuntur, quia facientibus quod in se est non defore Deus creditur; alii repugnant.» "It is a divine motion, or instinct, by which man is moved to good, nor is it denied to anyone. Men behave differently toward this instinct: some acquiesce in it, and so are fittingly disposed to habitual grace, because it is believed that God will not be wanting to those who do what is in them; others resist it." Andreas Vega likewise says: «Haec autem auxilia quae omnibus dantur, a plerisque inefficacia vocantur, quia non semper habent suum effectum, sed aliquando a peccatoribus frustrantur.» "But these helps, which are given to all, are called by most inefficacious, because they do not always have their effect, but are sometimes frustrated by sinners." Therefore sufficient graces sometimes have their effect, and sometimes not.

Cardinal Gotti, in a passage of his Theology, seems not to dissent from us; for when the objection is raised there — how man can persevere if he wills, when it is not in his power to have the special aid that is required in order to persevere — he answers that although that special aid is not in man's power, in potestate tamen Hominis (these are his words) dicitur esse, quod ipse per Dei gratiam potest ab Eo petere, ac obtinere; et hoc modo in Hominis potestate dici potest esse, ut habeat auxilium ad perseverandum necessarium, illud impetrando orationibus (nevertheless it is said to be in the power of man, because he himself, through God's grace, can ask it of Him and obtain it; and in this way it can be said to be in the power of man to have the aid necessary for persevering, by obtaining it through prayer). Hence, for it to be verified that persevering is in man's power, just as it is necessary that he be able by prayer to obtain the aid to persevere actually, without need of another grace, so it is also necessary that with sufficient grace alone, common to all, without need of another special grace, he be able actually to pray, and by prayer then obtain perseverance; otherwise it cannot be said that everyone has the grace necessary to persevere, at least remote and mediate, by means of prayer. And if the most eminent Gotti does not understand it in this way, St. Francis de Sales certainly understands it so, saying that the grace of praying in act is given to everyone who wills to avail himself of it, and from this he concludes that it is in everyone's power to persevere. The Saint says this clearly in his Theotimus, where, after having shown that it is necessary
to pray continually, in order to obtain from God the gift of perseverance, he adds: Now, since the gift of prayer is freely promised to all who will to consent to the heavenly inspirations, it is consequently in our power to persevere. And Cardinal Bellarmine teaches the same, saying: Auxilium sufficiens ad salutem pro loco et tempore, mediate vel immediate omnibus datur... Dicimus mediate vel immediate, quoniam iis qui usu rationis utuntur, immitti credimus a Deo sanctas inspirationes, ac per hoc immediate illos habere gratiam excitantem, cui si acquiescere velint, possint ad justificationem disponi, et ad salutem aliquando pertingere (A sufficient aid unto salvation is given to all, mediately or immediately, according to place and time... We say mediately or immediately, because we believe that holy inspirations are sent by God into those who have the use of reason, and that they thereby have immediately an exciting grace, to which, if they are willing to acquiesce, they can be disposed unto justification and at length attain unto salvation).

But let us now come to see the proofs of this opinion. It is proved first by the authority of St. Paul, who assures us that God is faithful, and will never permit us to be tempted beyond our strength, while He always gives us the aid (either immediate or mediated by means of prayer) to resist the assaults of the enemies: Fidelis Deus, qui non patietur vos tentari supra id quod potestis, sed faciet cum tentatione proventum, ut possitis sustinere (God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able, but will with the temptation also make the issue, that you may be able to bear it) (1 Cor. 10:13). Jansenius says that this text is to be understood of the Predestined alone; but this commentary of his has no foundation, since St. Paul writes to all the faithful of Corinth, whom he certainly did not suppose to be all predestined. Hence St. Thomas Aquinas rightly understands it generally of all, and says that God would not be faithful if He did not grant us (as far as it pertains to Him) those graces by means of which we can attain salvation: Non autem videretur esse fidelis, si nobis denegaret, in quantum in Ipso est, ea per quae pervenire ad Eum possemus (For He would not seem to be faithful if He denied us, insofar as it is in Him, those things by which we could come to Him). It is proved moreover by all those Scriptures with which the Lord exhorts us to be converted, and to have recourse to Him in order to ask Him for the graces necessary to salvation, with the promise of hearing us if we have recourse: Sapientia foris praedicat... dicens: Usque quo parvuli diligitis infantiam, et stulti ea quae sibi sunt noxia, cupient; etc. Convertimini ad correptionem meam. En proferam vobis spiritum meum;
quia vocavi, et renuistis etc. Ego quoque in interitu vestro ridebo, et subsannabo vos (Wisdom preaches abroad... saying: How long, little ones, will you love childishness, and fools covet the things that are hurtful to them? etc. Be converted at My reproof; behold, I will pour forth My spirit to you; because I called, and you refused; etc. I also will laugh at your destruction, and will mock you) (Prov. 1:20ff.). This exhortation, Convertimini (Be converted), says Bellarmine, would be altogether ridiculous if God did not grant sinners the aid, at least mediated through prayer, to be converted. Moreover, in the same text quoted, interior grace is already expressed (En proferam vobis spiritum meum — Behold, I will pour forth My spirit to you), with which God calls sinners and gives them the actual aid to be converted if they will. Venite ad me omnes qui laboratis, et onerati estis, et ego reficiam vos (Come to Me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you) (Matt. 11:28). Venite, et arguite me, dicit Dominus, si fuerint peccata vestra ut coccinum, quasi nix dealbabuntur (Come, and accuse Me, says the Lord: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made white as snow) (Isa. 1:18). Petite, et dabitur vobis (Ask, and it shall be given you) (Matt. 7:7). And the Lord tells us the same in a thousand other places cited above. Now if God did not give everyone the grace of actually having recourse to Him, and of actually praying to Him, all these invitations and exhortations would be vain, in saying: Come, all of you, and I will satisfy you. Seek, and it shall be given you.

It is proved secondly, and clearly, by the text of the Council of Trent in Session 6, Chapter 11. I beg the reader to read attentively this proof from the Council of Trent, which (if I am not mistaken) seems evident. The Innovators said that, since man had been deprived of free will by the sin of Adam, man's will now does nothing in good acts, but is passively led to receive them from God, without itself producing them; and hence they inferred that the observance of the precepts is impossible for those who are not efficaciously moved and predetermined by grace to avoid evil and to do good. Against this error the Council pronounced the sentence taken from St. Augustine: Deus impossibilia non jubet, sed jubendo monet et facere quod possis, et petere quod non possis, et adjuvat ut possis (God does not command impossibilities; but by commanding He admonishes you both to do what you can, and to ask for what you cannot, and He helps you so that you may be able).

The Council, then, in order to prove against the heretics that the divine precepts are impossible to no one, declared that all men have the aid to do good, or at least the grace of prayer by which they then obtain the greater aid to do it. By which is meant that everyone with sufficient grace can do the easy things (such as praying) without need of any other extraordinary grace, and by praying obtain the strength to do the difficult things, according to the doctrine of St. Augustine already cited above: Eo ipso quod firmissime creditur, Deum justum et bonum impossibilia non potuisse praecipere, hinc admonemur, et in facilibus quid agamus, et in difficilibus quid petamus (By the very fact that it is most firmly believed that God, being just and good, could not have commanded impossible things, we are hence admonished both what we are to do in easy things and what we are to ask in difficult ones). So that according to the Council the divine precepts are possible to all, at least by means of prayer, by which the greater aid to observe them is then obtained. If, then, God has imposed

His precepts on all, and has made their observance possible to all, at least mediately by means of prayer, it must necessarily be concluded that all have the grace of praying; otherwise, for one who lacked this grace, the precepts would not be possible. And since the Lord by means of prayer gives the actual grace to do good, and thereby renders all His precepts possible, so also He gives to all the actual grace of praying: otherwise, for one who did not have the actual grace of praying, the precepts would be rendered impossible, since he could not, at least by means of prayer, obtain the aid to observe them.

This being granted, it avails nothing to say that those words, Monet (Deus) facere quod possis, et petere quod non possis (He admonishes you to do what you can, and to ask for what you cannot), are to be understood of the mere power to pray, and not of actually praying; because (we answer) if the common and ordinary grace gave nothing but the power to pray, and not actually praying, the Council would not have said, Monet facere quod possis, et petere quod non possis (He admonishes you to do what you can, and to ask for what you cannot), but would have said: Monet posse facere et posse petere (He admonishes you to be able to do and to be able to ask). Moreover, if the Council had wished to declare here nothing else than that everyone can observe the precepts, or can pray to obtain the grace to observe them, and had not meant to speak of actual grace, it would not have said Monet facere quod possis (He admonishes you to do what you can); since this monet properly refers to actual operation, and signifies not the instructing of the mind, but the moving of the will to do that good which it actually can already do. Having said, therefore, Monet facere quod possis, et petere quod non possis (He admonishes you to do what you can, and to ask for what you cannot), it has expressed too clearly not only the power to act and the power to pray, but also actually acting and actually praying; seeing that if man, in order to act and to pray in act, needed another extraordinary grace which he has not, to what purpose would the Lord admonish him to do or to ask what he cannot actually do or ask without efficacious grace? Speaking judiciously on this point, Fr. Fortunatus of Brescia says thus: If
all were not given the actual grace of praying, but in order to pray efficacious grace were needed, which is not common to all, praying would be impossible for many who lack this efficacious grace; hence it would ill be said that God monet petere quod non possis (admonishes you to ask for what you cannot), because He would be admonishing to do a thing for the accomplishment of which the actual aid is lacking, without which it cannot be accomplished. So that the divine admonition to act and to pray must be understood of acting and of praying in act, without need of other extraordinary grace. And this is precisely what St. Augustine meant to convey to us when he said: Hinc admonemur et in facilibus quid agamus, et in difficilibus quid petamus [Hence we are admonished both what to do in easy things and what to ask for in difficult things]; for he supposes that if not all have the grace to do difficult things, at least all have the grace to pray, prayer being already easy for all — as he likewise supposes in having already said beforehand what the Council of Trent later taught: Monet Deus facere quod possis, et petere quod non possis [God admonishes you to do what you can, and to ask for what you cannot]. Let us narrow the argument. The Council says that God does not impose impossible precepts, because He either gives the help to observe them, or gives the grace to pray in order to obtain this help, which He already grants to the one who prays. Now if it were ever true that the Lord does not give to all the grace, at least through the mediation of prayer, to actually observe all His precepts, then what Jansenius said would be true: that for some precepts even the just man lacks the grace to observe them in act.

I do not know how the above-cited text of the Council of Trent could otherwise be understood or explained, unless sufficient grace gave everyone the power to actually pray, without efficacious grace, which our opponents suppose necessary to put every pious work into act. And supposing (as they maintain) such a need of a new grace to actually pray, I do not know how that other teaching of the same Council could stand: Deus sua gratia semel justificatos non deserit, nisi prius ab eis deseratur [God does not abandon those once justified by His grace, unless He is first abandoned by them]. Sess. 6. cap. 11. If even to actually pray (I say) ordinary sufficient grace were not enough, but efficacious grace — not common to all — were needed, it would follow that when the just man is tempted to commit the first mortal sin, and God does not give him the efficacious grace, at least to pray in order to obtain the strength to resist, then, since he does not resist the temptation, it would have to be said rather that the just man is abandoned by God before he abandons God, because he lacks the efficacious grace necessary to resist.

Our adversaries oppose us with a certain passage of St. Augustine, where the Saint seems to declare that the grace of prayer is not given to all: Nonne aliquando ipsa oratio nostra sic tepida est, vel potius frigida, et pene nulla, et ita nulla ut neque hoc in nobis cum dolore advertamus, quia si hoc nolemus, jam oramus [Is not our very prayer at times so tepid, or rather cold, and almost nothing — so nothing that we do not even notice it in ourselves with sorrow; for if we were displeased by it, we would already be praying?]. But to this Cardinal

Sfondrati wisely replies, saying: Aliud est peccatores non orare, aliud non habere qua orare possint [It is one thing for sinners not to pray, another for them not to have the means by which they can pray]. St. Augustine does not say that some lack the grace to pray as they ought; he says only that at times our prayer is so cold that it is almost nothing — not for lack of the Divine help to pray better, but through our own fault, which renders prayer null. Tournely replies in the same way, speaking of the first condemned proposition of Jansenius, and says: Justi non orant semper, ut oportet. Eorum culpa est, quod ita non orent, cum habeant ex gratia vires ad orandum. S. Augustinus ait quidem orationem nostram aliquando frigidam, ac paene nullam esse; at non ait deesse gratiam, per quam oratio ardentior fieri posset [The just do not always pray as they ought; it is their fault that they do not so pray, since they have from grace the strength to pray. St. Augustine indeed says that our prayer is sometimes cold and almost nothing; but he does not say that grace is lacking by which prayer could become more ardent]. Moreover, on this same passage of St. Augustine, Cardinal de Noris writes that with tepid prayer one at least obtains more fervent prayer, and with this one then obtains the efficacious grace to observe the precepts: Colligo ipsammet tepidam Orationem fieri a nobis cum adjutorio sine quo non, ac ordinario concursu Dei, cum sint actus debiles etc. et tamen tepida Oratione impetramus spiritum ferventioris Orationis, qui nobis adjutorio quo donatur [I gather that even tepid prayer is made by us with the help without which we cannot act, and with the ordinary concurrence of God, since they are weak acts etc.; and yet by tepid prayer we obtain the spirit of more fervent prayer, which is given to us as a help]. And he confirms this with the authority of the same holy Doctor, who on Psalm 17 wrote thus: Ego libera et valida intentione preces ad Te direxi, quoniam ut hanc habere possem, exaudisti me infirmius orantem [I directed my prayers to You with a free and strong intention, for, that I might have it, You heard me praying more weakly].

Nor does that stand in the way either which the same St. Augustine says on the words of St. Paul, Spiritus postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus [the Spirit intercedes for us with unutterable groanings] — namely, that the Holy Spirit is the one who interpellare nos facit, nobisque interpellandi affectum [makes us intercede and gives us the desire to intercede]. For by this the Saint means nothing else, against the Pelagians, than that no one can pray without grace. And he himself explains it thus, commenting on Psalm 52, where he writes: Quod dono Illius tu facis, Ille facere dicitur: quia sine Illo tu non faceres [What you do by His gift, He is said to do, because without Him you would not do it].

Thirdly, our opinion is proved by what the holy Fathers say of it. St. Basil says: Ubi tamen quis permissus est in tentationem incidere, eventum, ut sufferre possit, et voluntatem Dei per Orationem petere [But when anyone is permitted to fall into temptation, let him ask through prayer for the outcome — that he may be able to endure — and for the will of God]. The Saint therefore says that when God permits a man to be tempted, He does so in order that the man may resist, asking for the Divine Will — that is, the grace to obtain the victory. The Saint thus supposes that where man does not have sufficient help to conquer the temptation, he at least has the actual and common help of prayer, to obtain the greater grace that is needed. St. John Chrysostom says in one place: Legem dedit, quae vulnera patefaceret, ut Medicum optarent [He gave the Law, which would lay bare the wounds, so that they would long for the Physician]. And in another: Nec quisquam poterit excusari, qui hostem vincere noluit, dum orare cessavit [Nor can anyone be excused who refused to conquer the enemy, in that he ceased to pray]. If someone did not have the grace necessary to actually pray, and through prayer to obtain the help to resist, he could excuse himself if he remained conquered. St. Bernard says the same: Qui sumus nos? aut quae fortitudo nostra? hoc quaerebat Deus, ut videntes defectum nostrum, et quod non esset auxilium aliud, ad ejus Misericordiam tota humilitate curramus [Who are we? Or what strength is ours? This God sought: that seeing our weakness, and that there was no other help, we should run to His Mercy in all humility]. The Lord has therefore imposed on us a law impossible according to our strength, so that by having recourse to Him and praying we may obtain the strength to observe it; but if the grace to actually pray were denied to someone, the law would become entirely impossible for him. Multi (says the same St. Bernard) queruntur deesse sibi Gratiam, sed multo justius Gratia quereretur deesse sibi multos [Many complain that grace is lacking to them; but much more justly might grace complain that many are lacking to it]. The Lord has far more reason to complain of us, because we fail the grace with which He assists us, than we have to complain that grace fails us.

But no Father says it more clearly than St. Augustine, in very many places. In one place he says: Magnum aliquid Pelagiani se scire putant, quando dicunt: non juberet Deus quod sciret non posse ab homine fieri. Quis hoc nesciat? Sed ideo jubet aliqua quae non possumus, ut noverimus quid ab Illo petere debeamus [The Pelagians think they know something great when they say: God would not command what He knew could not be done by man. Who does not know this? But He commands certain things that we cannot do precisely so that we may know what we ought to ask of Him]. In another place he says: Non tibi deputatur ad culpam quod invitus ignoras, sed quod negligis quaerere quod ignoras; neque illud quod vulnerata membra non colligis, sed quod volentem sanare contemnis. Ista tua propria peccata sunt: nulli enim homini ablatum est scire utiliter quaerere [It is not imputed to you as a fault that you are ignorant against your will, but that you neglect to seek what you do not know; nor that you do not bind up your wounded limbs, but that you despise the One who wills to heal you. These are your own sins: for no man has been deprived of knowing how to seek profitably]. Thus, says the Saint, the grace to pray — and through prayer to obtain the help to be converted — is denied to no one; otherwise, were this grace lacking, it could not be imputed to him as a fault if he is not converted. In another place: Quid ergo aliud ostenditur nobis, nisi quia et petere, et quaerere, et pulsare Ille concedit, qui ut haec faciamus jubet? [What else, then, is shown to us, but that He who commands us to do these things also grants us to ask, to seek, and to knock?]. In another place: Semel accipe, et intellige: nondum traheris? Ora ut traharis [Receive it once for all, and understand: are you not yet drawn? Pray that you may be drawn]. In another place he says: Quod ergo ignorat (anima) quid sibi agendum sit, ex eo quod nondum accepit; sed hoc quoque accipiet, si hoc quod accipit bene usa fuerit; accepit autem, ut pie et diligenter quaerat, si volet [That the soul does not know what it must do comes from its not yet having received; but it will receive this too, if it has made good use of what it has received; and it has received — if it wills — the grace to seek piously and diligently]. Note: Accepit autem, ut pie et diligenter quaerat [It has received, so that it may seek piously and diligently]; therefore everyone has the grace necessary to pray, and if he makes good use of it, he will receive the grace to do what before he could
not immediately do. In another place: Homo qui voluerit, et non potuerit, oret ut habeat tantam (voluntatem), quanta sufficit ad implenda mandata; sic quippe adjuvatur, ut faciat quod jubetur [The man who wills and is not able should pray to have as great a will as suffices to fulfil the commandments; for so he is helped to do what is commanded]. In another: Praecepto admonitum est liberum arbitrium, ut quaereret Dei donum; at quidem sine suo fructu admoneretur, nisi prius acciperet aliquid dilectionis, ut addi sibi quaereret, unde quod jubebatur impleret [Free will was admonished by the precept to seek the gift of God; but it would be admonished without its fruit unless it first received something of love, so that it might seek to have added to it that whereby it might fulfil what was commanded]. Note,

Aliquid dilectionis [Something of love]: behold the sufficient grace, by which man can then, by praying, obtain the actual grace to fulfil the precept — ut addi sibi quaereret, unde quod jubebatur impleret [that he might seek to have added to him that whereby he might fulfil what was commanded]. In another place he says: Jubet ideo, ut facere justa conati, et nostra infirmitate faticati, adjutorium Gratiae poscere noverimus [He commands for this reason: that striving to do what is just, and wearied by our infirmity, we may know to ask for the help of grace]. By this the Saint already supposes that with sufficient grace we cannot yet do difficult things, but can through prayer obtain the help necessary to accomplish them. And hence he continues: Lex subintravit, ut abundaret delictum, cum homines adjutorium gratiae non implorant; cum autem vocatione Divina intelligunt cui sit ingemiscendum, et invocant Eum, fiet quod sequitur: Ubi abundavit delictum, superabundavit et gratia [The Law entered in so that the offence might abound, when men do not implore the help of grace; but when through the Divine Calling they understand to whom they must cry out, and invoke Him, then will follow what comes next: Where the offence abounded, grace superabounded]. Here one sees expressed, as Petavius says, the absence of abundant grace and, on the other hand, the assistance of ordinary and common grace, by which one prays, and which the Saint here calls the Divine Calling.

Elsewhere he says: Hoc restat in ista mortali vita (that is, free will), non ut impleat homo justitiam, cum voluerit, sed ut se supplici pietate convertat ad Eum cujus dono eam possit implere (This remains in this mortal life — namely, free will — not that man may fulfill justice when he wills, but that he may turn with suppliant devotion to Him, by whose gift he can fulfill it). In saying, then, that man is powerless to observe the whole law, and that nothing else remains to him for obtaining the aid to satisfy it but the means of prayer, St. Augustine certainly supposes that the Lord gives to each one the grace of actually praying, without need of another extraordinary aid not common to all; otherwise, if this other special aid were lacking, nihil restaret arbitrio (nothing would remain to free will) to observe actually all the divine precepts, at least the more difficult ones. And in speaking thus, the Saint certainly cannot mean that sufficient grace gives only the power, but not the act, of praying; for as regards the power, it is certain that by sufficient grace it is given for every difficult work; therefore the holy Doctor certainly means (as he already teaches in another place) that easy things, such as praying, can well be actually performed by each one with sufficient grace, and the difficult things then with the aid that is obtained by means of prayer.

Above all, two texts of St. Augustine are to the purpose. The first is this: Certum est nos mandata servare, si volumus; sed quia praeparatur voluntas a Domino, ab Illo petendum est, ut tantum velimus quantum sufficit, ut volendo faciamus (It is certain that we keep the commandments if we will; but because the will is prepared by the Lord, we must ask of Him that we will as much as suffices, so that by willing we may act). The Saint says, then, that it is certain that we shall observe the precepts if we will; on the other hand, he says that in order to will to observe them, and to observe them in effect, we must pray. Therefore to all of us is given the grace of praying, and by praying of obtaining the abundant grace that makes us observe the precepts; otherwise, if for praying actually there were needed efficacious grace, which is not common to all, those to whom it were not given could neither observe the precepts nor have the will to observe them.

The second text is this, where the holy Doctor answers the monks of Adrumetum, who spoke thus: If grace is necessary, and without it I can do nothing, why correct me, who cannot act and have not the grace to do so? Pray rather to the Lord for me, that He may give me this grace — ora potius pro me (pray rather for me). And the Saint answers them: You must be corrected, not because you do not act for want of strength, but because you do not pray to obtain this strength: Qui corripi non vult (these are the Saint's words), et dicit, ora potius pro me; ideo est, ut faciat etiam ipse pro se, cioè ut oret etiam ipse pro se (He who does not wish to be corrected, and says, "Pray rather for me," is corrected for this reason: that he may also do it for himself — that is, that he may also pray for himself).

Now if the Saint had not believed that each one has the grace by which he prays, if he wills, without need of another aid, he could not have said that the man should be corrected because he did not pray, since the man could have replied: But if I am not to be corrected for not acting, since I have not the special grace to act, neither can I be corrected if I do not pray, when I have not the special grace of praying actually. St. Augustine writes the same in another place, saying: Non se fallant qui dicunt, ut quid nobis praecipitur, ut declinemus a malo, et faciamus bonum, si id velle, et operari Deus operatur in nobis? (Let them not deceive themselves who say, "Why is it commanded us to turn away from evil and to do good, if it is God who works in us both to will and to accomplish?") And the Saint answers that men, when they do good, must give thanks for it to God, who gives them the strength to do it; but when they do not do it, they must pray in order to receive this strength which they have not:

Quando autem non agunt (these are his words), orent ut quod nondum habent accipiant (But when they do not act, let them pray that they may receive what they do not yet have). Now if these men did not even have the grace to pray actually, they could answer: Ut quid nobis praecipitur ut oremus, si orare Deus operatur in nobis? (Why is it commanded us to pray, if God Himself works prayer in us?) How are we to pray, if we do not receive the aid necessary to pray actually?

St. Thomas Aquinas does not speak expressly of prayer, but he supposes as certain what we assert, when he says: Hoc ad Divinam Providentiam pertinet, ut cuilibet provideat de necessariis ad salutem, dummodo ex parte ejus non impediatur (This belongs to Divine Providence: that He provide each one with the things necessary for salvation, so long as He is not hindered on man's part). If, then, it is held on the one hand that God gives to all the graces necessary for salvation, and on the other, that for praying the grace is necessary which supplies us with the power to pray actually, and by prayer the obtaining of the greater aid to do what we cannot do with the ordinary aid, we must necessarily say that God gives to all the sufficient grace of praying actually, if they will, without need of efficacious grace. Let us add here what Bellarmine says in answer to the heretics, who from the Savior's words, Nemo potest venire ad me, nisi Pater meus traxerit eum (No one can come to Me unless My Father draw him), inferred that no one could go to God who was not properly drawn by Him: Respondemus (writes Bellarmine), eo solum concludi non habere omnes auxilium efficax, quo re ipsa credant; non tamen concludi non habere omnes saltem auxilium quo possint credere, vel certe quo possint auxilium petere (We answer that from this it only follows that not all have the efficacious aid whereby they actually believe; it does not, however, follow that not all have at least the aid whereby they can believe, or at least whereby they can ask for the aid).

Let us come now, thirdly and lastly, to see the reasons for this opinion. The most learned Petavius, with Duval and other theologians, asks thus: Why does God impose on us things that we cannot observe with the common and ordinary grace? Because (he answers) the Lord wills that we have recourse to Him by prayer, as the holy Fathers commonly say, as we have seen above. Hence he deduces that we must hold for certain that each one has the grace of praying actually, and by prayer of obtaining the greater aid to do what we cannot with the common grace; otherwise God would have imposed on us an impossible law. The reason is very strong. To it may be added that other reason: that if God commands all the actual observance of the precepts, it must necessarily be supposed that He also gives to all in common the grace necessary for their actual observance, at least mediately by means of prayer. In order, therefore, that the law be reasonable and the reproof just for him who does not observe it, each one must have the sufficient power — at least mediate, by means of prayer — to fulfill the precepts actually, and at times to pray, without need of another aid not common to all; otherwise, if this mediate — or remote — power of actually praying were lacking, it could not be said that each one has from God the sufficient grace to observe the law actually.

Thomassin and Tournely amass and assign many other reasons for this opinion; but all these I pass over, and I take hold of one reason that seems to me evident. This reason is founded on the precept of hope, by which we are all bound to hope with certainty for eternal life from God; and I say that if we were not certain that God gives to all the grace of being able to pray actually, without need of another particular grace not common to all, no one without a special revelation could hope for salvation as he ought. Permit me, therefore, first to set forth the foundations of this reason.

The virtue of hope is so dear to God that He has declared that He finds His delight in those who trust in Him: Beneplacitum est Domino... in eis, qui sperant in misericordia ejus (Ps. 146:11: The Lord is well pleased... with those who hope in His mercy). And

He promises victory over enemies, perseverance in His grace, and eternal glory to him who hopes, and because he hopes: Quoniam in me speravit, liberabo eum, protegam eum... eripiam eum, et glorificabo eum (Ps. 90:14: Because he has hoped in Me, I will deliver him; I will protect him... I will rescue him and glorify him). Salvabit eos, quia speraverunt (Ps. 36:40: He will save them, because they have hoped). Conserva me, quoniam speravi in te (Ps. 15:1: Preserve me, for I have hoped in You). Nullus speravit in Domino, et confusus est (Sir. 2:11: No one has hoped in the Lord, and been confounded). And we are certain that heaven and earth will fail, but the words and the promises of God cannot fail: Caelum et terra transibunt, verba autem mea non pertransibunt (Matt. 24:35: Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away). St. Bernard says, then, that all our merit consists in placing all our confidence in God: Hoc totum hominis meritum, si totam spem suam ponat in eo (This is the whole merit of man: if he places all his hope in Him). The reason is that he who hopes in God greatly honors Him: Invoca me in die tribulationis, eruam te, et honorificabis me (Ps. 49:15: Call upon Me in the day of tribulation; I will deliver you, and you shall honor Me). He honors the power, the mercy, and the fidelity of God, believing that God can and wills to save him, and cannot fail His promise to save whoever trusts in Him.

And the Prophet assures us that the greater our confidence, the more abundantly will the Divine Mercy pour itself out upon us: Fiat Misericordia tua super nos, quemadmodum speravimus in te (Ps. 32:22: Let Your mercy be upon us, even as we have hoped in You).

Now this virtue of hope, because it is so pleasing to the Lord, He has willed to impose upon us by a grave precept, as the theologians commonly say, and as appears from many passages of Scripture: Sperate in eum omnis congregatio populi (Ps. 61:9: Hope in Him, all you congregation of the people). Qui timetis Dominum, sperate in Illum (Sir. 2:9: You who fear the Lord, hope in Him). Spera in Deo tuo (Hos. 12:6: Hope in your God). Sperate in eam, quae vobis offertur gratiam (1 Pet. 1:13: Hope in that grace which is offered to you). This hope of eternal life, moreover, must be in us firm and certain, as St. Thomas Aquinas already defines it: Spes est certa exspectatio Beatitudinis (Hope is the certain expectation of beatitude). And the holy Council of Trent has also expressly declared it, saying: In Dei auxilio firmissimam spem collocare et reponere omnes debent; Deus enim nisi ipsi illius Gratiae defuerint, sicut coepit opus bonum ita perficiet, operans velle et perficere (All must place and repose a most firm hope in the aid of God; for God, unless they themselves fail His grace, as He has begun the good work, so will He perfect it, working in them both to will and to accomplish). And before this St. Paul declared it, speaking of himself: Scio cui credidi, et certus sum, quia potens est depositum meum servare (2 Tim. 1:12: I know whom I have believed, and I am certain that He is able to keep my deposit). And herein Christian hope differs from worldly hope; for worldly hope, in order to be hope, it is enough that it be an uncertain expectation; nor can it be otherwise, because it can always be doubted whether the man who has promised the gift has at present, or will afterwards change, the will to give it. But the Christian hope of eternal salvation is certain on God's part, since He can and wills to save us, and has promised salvation to whoever observes His law, promising also to this end the graces necessary for observing this law to whoever asks Him for them.

It is true that hope is still accompanied by fear, as St. Thomas Aquinas says; but this fear does not arise on God's part, but on ours, because we can always fail (by not corresponding as we ought) and put an obstacle to grace by our sins. Hence the Council of Trent rightly condemned the Innovators, who, because they altogether deprive man of free will, hold that every believer must have an infallible certainty of perseverance and of salvation. This is an error already condemned by the Council of Trent (Sess. 6, ch. 13, and Can. 15 and 16); because, as we have said, our correspondence is also necessary to obtain salvation, and this correspondence of ours is uncertain and fallible. Hence the Lord wills, on the one hand, that we should always fear ourselves, lest we fall into presumption by trusting in our own strength; but on the other hand He wills that we be certain of His good will and of His aid to save us, provided we ask Him for it, so that we may have a sure confidence in His goodness. St. Thomas Aquinas says that we must certainly expect eternal beatitude from God, trusting in His power and mercy, believing that God can and wills to save us: De potentia Dei, et misericordia Ejus certus est quicunque fidem habet (Whoever has faith is certain of the power and mercy of God).

Since, then, our hope of salvation in God must be certain (according to St. Thomas Aquinas, Certa exspectatio Beatitudinis — a certain expectation of beatitude), the motive for hoping must consequently be certain; otherwise, if the foundation of this hope were not certain but doubtful, we could not hope and certainly expect from God salvation and the means necessary for it. But St. Paul wills that we be altogether steadfast and immovable in hope if we would be saved: Si tamen permanetis in fide fundati, et stabiles et immobiles a spe Evangelii quod audistis (Col. 1:23: If yet you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast and immovable from the hope of the Gospel which you have heard). And in another place he confirms it, saying that our hope must be immovable like a sure and firm anchor, since it is founded on the promises of God, who cannot lie: Cupimus autem unumquemque vestrum tandem ostentare solicitudinem ad expletionem spei usque in finem... ut per duas res immobiles, quibus impossibile est mentiri Deum, fortissimum solatium habeamus, qui confugimus ad tenendam propositam spem; quam sicut anchoram habemus animae tutam ac firmam (Heb. 6:11, 19: But we desire that every one of you show forth the same carefulness unto the fullness of hope even to the end... that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort — we who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us; which we have as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm). Hence St. Bernard says that our hope cannot be uncertain, since it rests upon the divine promises: Neque enim vana nobis haec exspectatio, aut dubia spes videtur, innixi nimirum aeternae promissionibus Veritatis (For this expectation of ours does not seem vain, nor our hope doubtful, resting as we surely do upon the eternal promises of the Truth). And speaking of himself: in three things (he says in another place) does my hope consist — in the love with which God has adopted us as children, in the truth of His promise, and in His power to fulfill it: Tria considero, in quibus spes mea consistit: caritatem adoptionis, veritatem promissionis, potestatem redditionis (I consider three things in which my hope consists: the charity of the adoption, the truth of the promise, the power of its fulfillment).

And therefore the Apostle St. James wills that whoever desires the divine graces must ask God for them, not with hesitation but with a sure trust of obtaining them: Postulet autem in fide nihil haesitans (Jas. 1:6: But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering). Otherwise, he says, if he asks tossed about by hesitation, he will obtain nothing: Qui enim haesitat, similis est fluctui maris, qui a vento movetur, et circumfertur; non ergo aestimet homo ille, quod accipiet aliquid a Domino (Jas. 1:6, 8: For he who wavers is like a wave of the sea, which is moved and carried about by the wind; therefore let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord). And St. Paul in this praises Abraham, because he in no way doubted the divine promise, knowing that when God promises He cannot fail: In repromissione etiam Dei non haesitavit diffidentia, sed confirmatus est fide, dans gloriam Deo; plenissime sciens, quia quaecumque promisit, potens est et facere (Rom. 4:20: In the promise also of God he staggered not through distrust, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God; most fully knowing that whatsoever He has promised, He is able also to perform). For this reason Jesus Christ also admonished us that we shall then receive all the graces we desire when we ask for them with a sure belief that we shall receive them: Propterea dico vobis, omnia quaecumque orantes petitis, credite quia accipietis, et evenient vobis (Mark 11:24: Therefore I say to you, all things whatsoever you ask when you pray, believe that you shall receive, and they shall come to you). In short, God does not will to hear us unless we believe with certainty that we shall be heard.

Now let us come to our point. Our hope of salvation, and of the means necessary for it, must therefore be certain in God on His part. The motives that ground this certainty, as we have seen, are the power, the mercy, and the fidelity of God; but among these motives the strongest and most certain is the infallible fidelity of God in the promise He has made us, through the merits of Jesus Christ, to save us and to give us the graces necessary to obtain salvation; for although we believe that God is of infinite power and mercy, nevertheless (as Juenin well observes) we could not hope with sure confidence for salvation from the Lord if He had not certainly promised it to us. But this promise is conditional — if we correspond by our works and if we pray — as appears from the divine Scriptures: Petite et accipietis (Ask, and you shall receive). Si quid petieritis Patrem in nomine meo, dabit vobis (If you ask the Father anything in My name, He will give it to you). Dabit bona petentibus se (He will give good things to those who ask Him). Oportet semper orare (We must always pray). Non habetis propter quod non postulatis (You have not, because you ask not). Si quis indiget sapientia, postulet a Deo (If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God). And from many other similar texts which we have cited above. For this reason the holy Fathers and the theologians commonly say — as we proved in Chapter I of Part One — that prayer is a necessary means of salvation.

Now if we were not certain that God gives to all the grace of being able to pray actually, without need of another special grace not common to everyone, we could not have a certain and stable foundation in God for certainly hoping for salvation, but only an uncertain and conditional one. When I am certain that by praying I shall obtain eternal life and all the graces necessary to obtain it, and I know that God will not refuse me (since He grants it to all) the grace of actually praying if I will, then I have a certain foundation for hoping for salvation from God, if I do not fail on my part.

But when I doubt whether God will give me or not the particular grace, which He does not give to all and which is necessary for actually praying, then I have no certain foundation in God for hoping for salvation, but only a doubtful and uncertain one, it being uncertain to me whether God will give me this special grace which I need in order to pray, since He denies it to many. And this uncertainty would then be not only on my part but also on God's part, and behold, Christian hope is then destroyed — the hope which, according to St. Paul, must be immovable, firm, and sure. I speak the truth: I do not know how the Christian could fulfill the precept of hope, hoping as he ought with sure confidence in God for salvation and the graces necessary for it, without holding it for certain that God commonly gives to everyone the grace of actually praying, if he wills, without need of another special aid.

So then, to conclude: with our system, or rather opinion (already held by so many theologians and by our little Congregation), there well agrees, on the one hand, intrinsically efficacious grace, by which we infallibly (though freely) do good; for it cannot be denied that God can indeed, by His omnipotence, incline and move human hearts to will freely what He wills, according to the Scriptures: Cor Regis in manu Dei est, et quocunque voluerit, inclinabit illud (Prov. 21:1: The heart of the king is in the hand of God, and whithersoever He wills, He shall incline it).

Spiritum meum ponam in medio vestri, et faciam ut in praeceptis meis ambuletis (Ezek. 36:28: I will put My spirit in the midst of you, and I will cause you to walk in My precepts). Consilium meum stabit, et omnis voluntas mea fiet (Isa. 46:10: My counsel shall stand, and all My will shall be done). Qui immutat cor Principum populi terrae (Job 12:24: Who changes the heart of the princes of the people of the earth). Deus pacis... aptet vos in omni bono, ut faciatis ejus voluntatem; faciens in vobis quod placeat coram se per Jesum Christum (Heb. 13:21: The God of peace... fit you in every good thing, that you may do His will; working in you what is pleasing before Him through Jesus Christ). And it cannot be denied that St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught the opinion of the efficacy of grace of itself and by its nature. This appears from many of their texts, and especially from these which I here add. St. Augustine says: Qui tamen (scil. Deus) hoc non fecit, nisi per ipsorum hominum voluntates, sine dubio habens humanorum cordium inclinandorum omnipotentissimam potestatem (Yet He — namely God — did this only through the wills of those very men, doubtless possessing a most omnipotent power to incline human hearts). In another place: Agit onnipotens Deus in corde hominum, ut per eos agat, quod eos agere voluerit (The omnipotent God works in the heart of men, so as to work through them what He has willed them to do). In another: Etsi faciunt omnes bona, quae pertinent ad colendum Deum, Ipse facit, ut illi faciant quae praecipit (Even if all do the good things that pertain to the worship of God, it is He Himself who causes them to do what He commands). In another: Certum est nos facere, cum facimus, sed Ille facit ut faciamus, praebendo vires efficacissimas voluntati, qui dixit: Faciam, ut in justificationibus meis ambuletis (It is certain that we act when we act; but He causes us to act, supplying most efficacious strength to the will — He who said: I will cause you to walk in My statutes). In another, on the text of the Apostle: Deus est enim, qui operatur in nobis velle, et perficere pro bona voluntate (Phil. 2:13: For it is God who works in us both to will and to accomplish, according to His good will), he says:

Nos ergo volumus, sed Deus in nobis operatur velle et perficere (We therefore will, but God works in us both to will and to accomplish). In another: Quia praeparatur voluntas a Domino, ab Illo petendum est, ut tantum velimus; quantum sufficit, ut volendo faciamus (Because the will is prepared by the Lord, we must ask of Him that we will as much as suffices, so that by willing we may act). In another: Novit (Deus) in cordibus ipsis operari, non ut homines nolentes credant, quod fieri non potest, sed ut volentes ex nolentibus fiant (He — God — knows how to work in hearts themselves, not that men should believe unwillingly, which cannot happen, but that from unwilling they should become willing). In another: Operatur in cordibus hominum non solum veras revelationes, sed bonas etiam voluntates (He works in the hearts of men not only true revelations, but also good wills). In another: Tantum voluntates nostrae valent, quantum Deus eas valere voluit (Our wills avail as much as God has willed them to avail). In another: Voluntates, quae conservant saeculi creaturam, ita esse in Dei potestate, ut eas quo voluerit, quando voluerit, faciat inclinari (The wills, which preserve the creature of the world, are so in the power of God that He makes them incline whither He wills, when He wills). St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, then says in one place: Deus movet immutabiliter voluntatem propter efficaciam virtutis moventis, quae deficere non potest (God moves the will immutably, on account of the efficacy of the moving power, which cannot fail). In another place: Caritas impeccabilitatem habet ex virtute Spiritus Sancti, qui infallibiliter operatur quodcunque voluerit; unde impossibile est haec duo simul esse vera, quod Spiritus Sanctus velit aliquem movere ad actum Caritatis, et quod ipse Caritatem amittat peccando (Charity has its sinlessness from the power of the Holy Spirit, who infallibly works whatsoever He wills; whence it is impossible that these two things should be true at once: that the Holy Spirit wills to move someone to an act of charity, and that he should lose charity by sinning). In another: Si Deus movet voluntatem ad aliquid impossibile est poni, quod voluntas ad illud non moveatur (If God moves the will to something, it is impossible that the will should not be moved to it).

On the other hand, true sufficient grace, which is common to all, accords well with our opinion — grace to which and by which, if man corresponds, he will have efficacious grace; but on the contrary, if he does not correspond and resists, this efficacious grace will justly be denied him. And thus every excuse is taken away from those sinners who say that they have not the strength to overcome temptations; for if they prayed, according to the ordinary grace which is already given to everyone, they would obtain this strength, and would be saved. Otherwise, if this ordinary grace be not admitted, by which everyone can at least pray (without need of another special grace not common to all), and by praying obtain the greater aid to observe the law, I do not know how so many passages of the Sacred Scriptures can be understood, where souls are exhorted to return to God, to overcome temptations, and to correspond to the Divine calls: Praevaricatores redite ad cor (Isa. 46:8: Return, you transgressors, to the heart). Revertimini, et vivite (Ezek. 18:32: Return, and live). Convertimini, et agite poenitentiam (Ezek. 18:30: Be converted, and do penance). Solve vincula colli tui (Isa. 52:2: Loose the bonds of your neck). Venite ad me omnes qui laboratis, et onerati estis (Matt. 11:28: Come to Me, all you who labor and are burdened). Resistite fortes in fide (1 Pet. 5:9: Resist, strong in faith). Ambulate dum lucem habetis (John 12:35: Walk while you have the light). I do not know (I say), if it were ever true that the grace of praying was not given to all, and by prayer of obtaining the greater aid to attain salvation, how the aforesaid Scriptures could be understood, and how the sacred Orators can exhort with such force all universally to be converted, to resist the enemies, to walk in the way of the virtues, and, to achieve all this, to pray with confidence and perseverance — when the grace of acting well, or at least of praying, were not granted to everyone, but only to those to whom efficacious grace is given. And I do not know how the reproof could be just, which
is made also universally to all sinners who resist grace and despise the Divine Voice: Vos semper Spiritui Sancto resistitis (Acts 7:51: You always resist the Holy Spirit). Quia vocavi, et renuistis; extendi manum meam, et non fuit qui aspiceret; despexistis omne consilium meum, et increpationes meas neglexistis (Prov. 1:24: Because I called, and you refused; I stretched out My hand, and there was none that regarded; you despised all My counsel, and neglected My reproofs). If even the remote but efficacious grace of prayer had been wanting to them — which our opponents already suppose necessary to pray actually — I do not know (I say) how all this could be reproached to them.

I conclude. Someone perhaps, as I think, would have wished me to have treated more at length, and examined distinctly in this work, the great and so controverted point of wherein the efficacy of grace consists, according to the many different systems taught today by theologians: of physical premotion, of congruous grace, of concomitant grace, of relatively victorious delectation by superiority of degrees. But to do this a little book would not have sufficed, which I have deliberately tried to make small, so that it might be more easily read. To set myself to traverse so vast a sea, several volumes would have been needed; but this labor has already been sufficiently done by others; and besides, this was not my intent. I wished, moreover, to establish the point proposed in this second part, for the honor of the Divine Providence and Goodness, in order to help sinners, so that they may not abandon themselves to despair, believing themselves destitute of grace; and also in order to take away from them every excuse, if they say that they have not the strength to resist the assaults of sense and of hell; having shown them that none of those who are damned is damned on account of the original sin of Adam, but only through his own fault, since God denies to no one the grace of prayer, by which is obtained from God the aid to conquer every concupiscence and every temptation.

For the rest, my principal intent has been to recommend to all the use of this most powerful and necessary means of prayer, so that each one may apply himself to it with greater diligence and greater courage, if he desires to be saved; while for this reason so many poor souls lose the Divine Grace and continue to live in sin, and in the end are lost, because they do not pray and do not have recourse to God for help. The worst is (I cannot help repeating it) that few preachers and few confessors purposely strive to instill in their hearers and penitents the use of prayer, without which it is impossible to observe the divine precepts and to obtain perseverance in the divine grace.

Having observed the absolute necessity of praying which all the divine Scriptures impose — Scriptures with which the Old as well as the New Testament are filled — I have procured that there be introduced into the Missions of our Congregation, as has been practiced for many years, that the Sermon on Prayer always be preached; and I say, and repeat, and shall always repeat as long as I live, that our whole salvation lies in praying, and that therefore all writers in their books, all sacred Orators in their sermons, all confessors in administering the Sacrament of Penance should inculcate nothing more than this: to pray always — always admonishing, exclaiming, and continually repeating: Pray, pray, and never cease to pray; for if you pray, your salvation will be certain, but if you cease to pray, your damnation will be certain. Thus should all preachers and directors do, since according to the opinion of every Catholic school — no school places this truth in doubt — he who prays obtains graces and is saved; but too few are those who practice it, and for this reason so few are saved.

c Le Moyne Disp. de Dono or. an. 1650. contra Arnald.

u Baucat. Theol. Patr. Diss. 3. Sect. 4. pag. 141. ad 146.

aa Sotus de Nat. et Grat. lib. I. cap. 15.

ab Felicius Dist. 24. cap. 29.

ac Vega lib. 13. cap. 13.

ad Gotti Tom. 2. tract. 6. de Grat. quaest. I. § 3. num. 19. pag. 332.

ae S. Franc. Sal. tom. 2. lib. 3. cap. 4.

af Bellarm. t. 4. Contr. 3. de Grat. lib. 2. c. 5.

ag S. Th. lect. I. in c. I. Ep. I. ad Cor.

ah Bell. de Grat. l. 2. c. 5.

ai S. Aug. de Nat. et Grat. cap. 44. n. 50.

al S. Aug. de Nat. et Grat. cap. 69.

am S. Aug. lib. de Div. quaest. ad Sempl. qu. 2. n. 21.

an Card. Sfondrat. Notus Praed. P. 1. § 2. n. 31. pag. 105.

ao Card. de Noris Jans. err. cal. subl. vide c. 2. § 1. pag. 129.

ap S. Aug. Ep. ad sist. 194. alias 105.

aq S. Bas. lib. Mor. summar. Sum. 62. cap. 3.

ar S. Chrysost. in cap. 3. ad Gal. vers. 22.

as Idem Hom. de Moyse.

at S. Bern. Serm. 5 de Quadrag.

au S. August....

av Idem lib. 3 de lib. arb. cap. 19. n. 53.

az Idem lib. I ad Simlic. qu. 2.

ax Idem tract. 26. in Joan. num. 2.

ay Idem eod. tit. cap. 22. n. 65.

ba S. Aug. de Grat. et lib. arb. cap. 10. n. 31. in fin.

bb Idem de Grat. et lib. arb. cap. 18.

bc Idem in Epist. 89.

bd S. Aug. in Ep. 89. c. 43. et lib. de Div. Quaest. ad Simpl. q. 1. n. 14.

be S. Aug. de Grat. et lib. arb. cap. 16.

bf Idem lib. de Corrept. et Grat. cap. 5.

bg S. Aug. eod. tit. cap. 2. n. 4.

bh S. Thom. de Verit. q. 14. art. 11. ad I.

bi Bellarm. lib. 2. de Grat. cap. 8.

bl S. Bern. Serm. 15. in psal. 90.

bm S. Th. 2. 2. q. 18. art. 4.

bn S. Th. 2. 2. q. 18. a. 4.

bo S. Th. 2. 2. q. 18. a. 4. ad 2.

bp S. Bern. Serm. 8. in Ps. 90. num. 1.

bq Idem Serm. 3. Dom. 6. Post. Pent. n. 6.

br S. Aug. de Corrept. et Grat. cap. 14. n. 43.

bs Idem de Grat. et lib. arb. cap. 10.

bt Idem de Praedest. Ss. cap. 10.

bu Idem de Grat. et lib. arb. cap. 16.

bv Idem de Dono Persev. cap. 13.

bz S. Aug. de Grat. et lib. arb. cap. 16.

bx Idem lib. 1. ad Bonif. cap. 19. n. 38.

by Idem de Grat. Christi cap. 24. n. 25.

ca Idem de Civit. Dei cap. 9.

cb Idem de Grat. et lib. arb. cap. 20.

cc S. Thom. de malo quaest. 6.

cd Idem 2. 2. quaest. 24. a. 11.

ce Idem 1. 2. quaest. 10. a. 4. ad 3.

### PRAYER TO OBTAIN FINAL PERSEVERANCE

Eternal Father, I humbly adore You, and I thank You for having created me and redeemed me through Jesus Christ. I thank You for having made me a Christian, by giving me the true faith and by adopting me as Your son through holy Baptism. I thank You for having waited for me to do penance after so many of my sins, and for having forgiven me (as I hope) all the offenses I have committed against You, of which I repent anew for having displeased You, infinite Goodness. I thank You also for having preserved me from the many relapses into which I would have fallen, had You not preserved me from them by Your hand. But my enemies do not cease, and will not cease, to fight me until death, to see me once more made their slave; if You do not guard me and succor me always with Your aid, I shall miserably lose Your grace again. I therefore beg You, for the love of Jesus Christ, to grant me holy perseverance until death. Jesus Your Son has promised us that whatever we ask of You in His name, You will grant us. Through the merits, then, of Jesus Christ, I ask You, for myself and for all who are in Your grace, the grace never again to separate ourselves from Your love, but to love You forever in this life and in the next. Mary, Mother of God, pray to Jesus for me.

### PRAYER TO JESUS CHRIST TO OBTAIN HIS HOLY LOVE

My crucified Jesus, I believe in You and confess You as the true Son of God and my Savior. I adore You from the abyss of my nothingness, and I thank You for the death You suffered for me, in order to obtain for me the life of divine grace. My beloved Redeemer, to You I owe all my salvation. Through You I have thus far been delivered from hell. Through You I have received the pardon of my sins. But I, ungrateful, instead of loving You, have returned to offend You. I should deserve to be condemned never to be able to love You again; but no, my Jesus, give me every other punishment, and not this. If in the past I have not loved You, now I love You, and I desire nothing but to love You with all my heart. But without Your help I can do nothing. Since, then, You command me to love You, give me the strength to fulfill this Your so sweet and lovable precept. You have promised to give whatever is asked of You: Quodcumque volueritis, petetis, et fiet vobis (Whatever you will, ask, and it shall be done for you).

(John 15:8). Trusting, then, in this promise, my dear Jesus, first of all I ask You for the pardon of all my sins, of which I repent above every other evil, for having offended You, infinite Goodness. I ask You for holy perseverance in Your grace until death. But above all I ask You for the gift of Your holy love. Ah, my Jesus, my hope, my love, and my all, inflame me with that fire of love which You came to kindle on earth: Tui amoris in me ignem accende (Kindle in me the fire of Your love). And therefore make me live always conformed to Your holy will. Enlighten me to know ever more the merit You have of being loved, and the immense love You have borne me, especially in giving Your life for me. Make me, then, love You with all my heart, and love You forever, and in this life always ask You for the grace to love You; so that, living always and ending my life in Your love, I may come one day to love You with all my strength in heaven, never to cease loving You for all eternity.

O Mother of beautiful love, my advocate and refuge, Mary, You who are the creature most lovely, most loved, and most loving of God, and who desire nothing but to see Him loved by all — ah, for the love You bear Jesus Christ, pray for me, and obtain for me the grace to love Him always and with all my heart: from You I ask it, and from You I hope for it. Amen.

### PRAYER TO OBTAIN CONFIDENCE IN THE MERITS OF JESUS CHRIST, AND IN THE INTERCESSION OF MARY

Eternal Father, I thank You, as much as I can, on my own part and on that of all men, for the great mercy You have shown us in sending Your Son to become man and to die, to obtain salvation for us; I thank You for it, and in thanksgiving I would wish to render You as much love as so great a benefit deserves. Through His merits You forgive our sins, since those merits have satisfied Your justice for the punishments we deserved; through them You receive into Your grace us miserable sinners, who deserve nothing but hatred and chastisements; through them You admit men to reign in paradise; through them, in short, You are bound to grant every gift and grace to whoever asks it of You in the name of Jesus Christ.

I thank You also, O infinite Goodness, that to aid our confidence, besides Jesus Christ whom You have given us as Redeemer, You have given us also as advocate Your beloved Daughter Mary, so that with that heart full of mercy which You have given her she may never cease to succor with her intercession every sinner who has recourse to her; and this intercession of hers You have made so powerful with You that You cannot deny her whatever grace she asks of You.

Hence You will that we should have a great confidence in the merits of Jesus and in the intercession of Mary. But this confidence is Your gift, and a great gift, which You bestow only on those whom You will to be saved. This confidence, then, in the blood of Jesus Christ and in the patronage of Mary I ask of You, and I ask it of You through the merits of Jesus and of Mary. To You also I turn, my dear Redeemer; for this end You sacrificed Your life on the cross, to obtain for me, worthy only of chastisements, this confidence in Your merits; fulfill, then, the end for which You died: make me hope for all things, trusting in Your Passion. And You, O Mary, my Mother and my hope after Jesus Christ, obtain for me a firm confidence, first in the merits of Jesus Your Son, and then in the intercession of Your Prayers — omnipotent Prayers, which obtain from the Lord whatever they ask. O my beloved Jesus, O my sweet Mary, to You I entrust, to You I consign my soul; You who have loved it so much, have pity on it, and save it.

### PRAYER TO OBTAIN THE GRACE OF ALWAYS PRAYING

O God of my soul, I hope in Your Goodness that I am in Your grace, and that You have already forgiven me all the offenses I have committed against You. I thank You for it with all my heart, and I hope to thank You for it for all eternity: Misericordias Domini in aeternum cantabo (Ps. 88:2: I will sing the mercies of the Lord forever). I now see that the cause of my falls has been my failure to have recourse to You, when I was tempted, to ask You for holy perseverance. For the future I firmly resolve to commend myself always to You, and especially when I shall see myself in danger of offending You again. I resolve to have recourse always to Your mercy, invoking always the most holy Names of Jesus and of Mary, certain that if I pray, You will not then fail to give me the strength I do not have to resist my enemies. So I resolve, and promise to do. But of what use, O my God, will all these resolutions and promises of mine be, if You do not assist me with Your grace to carry out what I have resolved — that is, to have recourse always to You in my dangers? Ah, help me, O Eternal Father, for the love of Jesus Christ, and do not permit me to cease commending myself to You whenever I am tempted. I am certain that You will always help me when I have recourse to You; but this is my fear: I fear that I may then neglect to commend myself to You, and that this negligence of mine may afterwards become the cause of my ruin — that is, of losing Your grace, which is the greatest ruin that can befall me. Ah, by the merits of Jesus Christ, give me the grace of prayer — but an abundant grace, that may make me always pray, and pray as I ought. O Mary, my Mother, whenever I have had recourse to You, You have obtained for me the help not to fall. Now I have recourse to You, that You may obtain for me a still greater grace — namely, to commend myself in all my needs, and always, to Your Son and to You. My Queen, You obtain from God whatever You ask; obtain for me now, by the love You bear Jesus Christ, this grace that I ask of You: to pray, and never to cease praying until death. Amen.

### PRAYER TO BE SAID EVERY DAY TO OBTAIN THE GRACES NECESSARY FOR SALVATION

Eternal Father, Your Son has promised us that You will grant us all the graces that we ask of You in His name. In the name, then, and by the merits of Jesus Christ, I ask for myself and for all men the following graces. And first, I beg You to give me a lively faith in all that the holy Roman Church teaches me. Grant me also Your light, that it may make me know the vanity of the goods of this earth and the greatness of the infinite Good that You are; may it also make me know the deformity of the sins I have committed, that I may humble myself and detest them as I ought, and the merit of Your goodness, that I may love You with all my heart. Make me know, moreover, the love You have borne me, so that from this day forward I may strive to be grateful for such goodness. Second, give me a firm confidence in Your mercy, that through the merits of Jesus Christ and the intercession of Mary I may receive the forgiveness of my sins, holy perseverance, and finally the glory of Paradise. Third, give me a great love for You, that may detach me from all affections for the earth and for myself, so that I may love nothing but You, occupy myself with nothing, and desire nothing but Your glory. Fourth, I beg You to give me a perfect resignation to Your will, accepting in peace sorrows, infirmities, contempt, persecutions, spiritual aridity, losses of property, of reputation, or of relatives, and every other cross that shall come to me from Your hands. I offer myself wholly to You, that You may do with me and with all that is mine whatever pleases You; but do You give me light and strength to carry out all Your holy will; and especially at death give me the help to sacrifice my life to You with all my affection, in union with the great sacrifice that Jesus Your Son made to You of His life on Calvary, on the cross. Fifth, I ask You for a great sorrow for my sins, that may make me live ever sorrowful, weeping until death over the offenses I have given You, the supreme Good, who are worthy of infinite love and have loved me so much. Sixth, I beg You to give me the spirit of true humility and meekness, that may make me embrace with peace, and even with pleasure, all the contempt, ingratitude, and ill treatment that I shall receive from men. And together with this I beg You to give me a perfect charity, that may make me wish well to those who have done me evil, and strive to benefit, as far as I can — at least by praying — all those who shall have done me some offense. Seventh, I beg You to give me a love for the virtue of holy mortification, that may make me chastise my rebellious senses and contradict my self-love; and with this I beg You to grant me holy purity of body, giving me the help to resist all unchaste temptations by then having recourse always to You and to
Your most holy Mother. Give me the grace to obey punctually the orders of my spiritual father and of all my superiors. Give me a right intention, so that all that I do and desire may be entirely for Your glory and to give You pleasure. Give me a great confidence in the Passion of Jesus Christ and in the intercession of Mary Immaculate. Give me a great affection for the Most Blessed Sacrament of the altar, and a tender devotion and love toward Your holy Mother. Above all, I beg You, give me holy perseverance, and the grace to ask it of You always, especially in time of temptation and at my death.

Then I commend to You the holy souls in Purgatory, my relatives and benefactors, and in a special manner I commend to You all those who hate me or have done me some offense; I beg You to repay them with good for the evil they have done me or wish me. Finally, I commend to You the infidels, the heretics, and all poor sinners; give them light and strength to come out of sin. O most loving God, make Yourself known, and make Yourself loved by all, but especially by me, who have been more ungrateful to You than others, so that by Your goodness I may one day come to sing Your mercies for ever in Paradise, as I hope through the merits of Your blood and the patronage of Mary. O Mary, Mother of God, pray to Jesus for me. So I hope; so may it be.

### DEVOUT THOUGHTS AND EJACULATIONS

O God, who knows what lot shall be mine? Either I shall be for ever happy, or for ever unhappy. What good is the whole world without God? Let all be lost, and let not God be lost. I love You, my Jesus, who died for me. Oh, would that I had died before offending You. Rather death than to lose God. Jesus and Mary, You are my hope. My God, help me for the love of Jesus Christ. My Jesus, You alone are enough for me. Do not permit me to separate myself from You. Give me Your love, and make of me what You will.

And whom shall I love, if I do not love You, my God? Eternal Father, help me for the love of Jesus. In You I believe, in You I hope, and I love You. Here I am, Lord; do with me what pleases You. When shall I see myself all Yours, my God?

When will it be that I can say to You: my God, I can lose You no more? Mary, my hope, have pity on me. Mother of God, pray to Jesus for me. Lord, and who am I that You, my God, should wish to be loved? You alone do I want, and nothing more.

In all things I want only what You will. Oh, that I could consume myself wholly for You, who have consumed Yourself wholly for me. With others I have been grateful; only with You, my God, have I been ungrateful.

I have offended You enough; I wish to offend You no more. Had I died then, I could not love You any more. Let me die before I offend You. You have waited for me so that I might love You; yes, I will love You. I consecrate to You the life that remains to me.

O my Jesus, draw me all to You. You will not leave me; I will not leave You. I hope that we shall always love each other, O God of my soul. My Jesus, make me all Yours before I die.

Grant that I may see You appeased when You shall have to judge me. You have bound me too much to love You; I love You, I love You. Accept a sinner, who has so much offended You, to love You. You have given Yourself all to me; I give myself all to You. I wish to love You greatly in this life, that I may love You greatly in the other. Make me know the great Good that You are, so that I may love You greatly. You love those who love You; I love You — do You also love me. Give me that love which You seek from me. I rejoice that You are infinitely happy. Oh, that I had always loved You, and had died before offending You. Grant that I may overcome all to give You pleasure. I give You my whole will; dispose of me as You please. My contentment is to content You, O infinite Goodness. I hope to love You for ever, O eternal God. You are almighty; make me a saint. You sought me when I was fleeing You; You will not cast me away now that I seek You. I thank You that You give me time to love You. I thank You for it, and I love You. Let today be the day on which I give myself all to You. Give me every chastisement, but do not deprive me of being able to love You. I wish to love You, my God, without reserve. I accept all pains, all contempt, provided I love You. I would wish to die for You, who died for me. I would wish that all loved You as You deserve. I wish to do all that I shall understand to be pleasing to You. I love Your pleasure more than all the pleasures of the world. O will of God, You are my love. O Mary, draw me all to God. O Mary, my Mother,
grant that I may always have recourse to You. You have to make me a saint; so I hope.

Live Jesus, our love, and Mary, our hope!

[^ph7-a]: S. Aug. de Corrept. et Grat. cap. 2.
[^ph7-b]: S. Aug. in Psal. 70.
[^ph7-c]: Ap. Blos. in Concl. cap. 3.
[^ph8-a]: S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 83. a. 2.
[^ph8-b]: S. Bernard. Serm. 3. de Annunc.
[^ph8-c]: S. Aug. ap. S. Thom. lib. 2. Erud. ad Princip. cap. 5.
[^ph8-d]: S. Bern. Serm. 3. de Annunc.
[^ph8-e]: S. Bas. Const. Mon. 38. cap. 2.
[^ph8-f]: S. Aug. de Verb. Dom. Serm. 5.
[^ph8-g]: S. Aug. Serm. 216. de Temp.
[^ph8-h]: S. Aug. in Ps. 65.
[^ph8-i]: S. Tho. 2. 2. q. 83. art. 16. ad. I.
[^ph8-l]: Auct. Op. imperf. Homil. 18.
[^ph8-m]: S. Jo. Chrys. Hom. 56.
[^ph8-n]: Idem ibid.
[^ph8-o]: S. Bas. Const. Monast. cap. I.
[^ph8-p]: S. Greg. in Ps. 6 poenitent.
[^ph8-q]: S. Hieron Epist ad Damas. de Filio Prod.
[^ph8-r]: S. Aug. tract. 24. in Joan.
[^ph8-s]: S. Th. 2. 2. q. 83. a. 16.
[^ph8-t]: S. Th. 2. 2. q. 83. a. 16. ad 2.
[^ph8-u]: S. Jo. Chrys. Homil. de Moise.
[^ph8-v]: Idem Hom. 23. in Matth.
[^ph8-z]: Glossa ex Aug. ad 2. Cor. 13.
[^ph9-a]: S. Aug. de Dono persev. cap. 6.
[^ph9-b]: S. Thom. 3. p. q. 39. a. 5.
[^ph9-c]: S. Nilo de Orat. cap. 32.
[^ph9-d]: S. Gregor. Hom. I. in Evang.
[^ph9-e]: S. Hieron. in Luc. II.
[^ph9-f]: S. Aug. Serm. 61. alias 5. de Verb. Dom.
[^ph9-g]: S. Jo. Chris. Hom. 30. in Gen.
[^ph9-h]: Idem in Psalm. 4.
[^ph9-i]: Idem Hom. 24. in Matth. 7.
[^ph9-l]: Beda Serm. 18. de Sanctis.
[^phe-r]: S. Thom. in 1. 2. quaest. 109. art. 10. circa fin.
[^phe-s]: P. Lud. Gran. Conc. in Fest. S. Matthaei Conc. I. num. 1.
[^editorial-bellarmine-help]: Editorial restoration: the IntraText witness omits the contrasting clause in this Bellarmine quotation. The words in square brackets have been supplied from Robert Bellarmine, *De gratia et libero arbitrio*, book II, chapter 7, in *Opera omnia*, ed. Justinus Fèvre, vol. V (Paris: Louis Vivès, 1873), p. 547, right column ([scan, PDF page 546](https://canadienfrancais.org/wp-content/uploads/editions/pdf/SanctiRobertiBellarminiOperaOmnia-T05-canadienfrancais.org.pdf#page=546)). The English addition translates that restored clause. It distinguishes lacking sufficient immediate help from possessing help to obtain further aid through prayer; the rest of Alphonsus’s abridged quotation is retained.