Augustinianism and Justification

Introduction

We are at 31% of our $3,000 monthly pledge goal in our end of year fundraiser!

If you pledge $50 or more, I will give you a LIFETIME substack subscription. Make a pledge here.

INTRODUCTION

As many know, it is quite common for Protestants to claim St. Augustine for their own doctrine, especially in the area of justification, original sin, and other related soteriological issues. Yet the Protestant claim does not stop here. Not only is it common for such authors to claim St. Augustine, it is also common to claim another group of authors from the late medieval period called the “Augustinians.”

These Augustinians were scholastic theologians in the monastic Order of St. Augustine. The most illustrious exponents of the Augustinian system are Aegidius Romanus (a student of St. Thomas), Gregory of Rimini (the famous Tortor Infantum), and Thomas de Argentina. While Gregory of Rimini and Thomas de Argentina were, in some sense and at some times, considered “official” theologians of the Augustinian Order (along with St. Thomas, of course), the title of “official theologian” par excellence must be given to Aegidius. For even during his lifetime, it was declared that the Augustinian studia were to follow his doctrine and opinions, “ut opiniones et positiones venerabilis fratris nostri Egidii ubique teneant, et secundum eius scripta omnino legant.”

The doctrine of these theologians would receive its classical synthesis by Johannes Laurentius Berti, whose Opus de Theologicis Disciplinis became the official textbook of the Augustinian Order, supported by a decision from one of the most learned pontiffs who ever sat on the throne of St. Peter, Pope Benedict XIV, who declared that it was not in opposition to any decision of the Church.

Beyond these, there were many, many other Augustinian scholastics, in each of the three great periods of scholasticism, defending and expounding the doctrine of this venerable theological school (which, below the Dominican tradition, I have the greatest admiration for). One of these theologians in the late medieval period was Augustinus Favaroni (1360–1443), also known as Augustine of Rome, who served as the prior general of the order from 1419 to 1431. While his work was extensive and popular among scholars within the Order, it was little circulated outside of it.

In contemporary scholarship, Favaroni is usually only noted for the Christological controversies he was embroiled in near the end of his life. Yet his name was also invoked for another cause, i.e., the Lutheran cause. In the twentieth century, various Lutheran theologians claimed him for themselves, arguing that Luther’s soteriology was almost certainly directly influenced by Favaroni. In response to these claims, Nicolaus Toner (1907–1985) wrote a monograph titled The Doctrine of Justification and Original Sin According to Augustine of Rome, which serves as a compendium of Favaroni’s doctrine against Lutheran claims. In this, we get a rare look at the doctrine of justification of someone who is an Augustinian on the eve of the Reformation, which I hope will be helpful to the reader.

I have translated all the footnotes into English for ease of use, keeping technical terms in Latin insofar as I found it useful to the reader.

PREFACE

During the past few decades the person of Augustine of Rome has attracted the attention of scholars but with different results. By A. V. Müller he has been vigorously indicted of pre-lutheran tendencies in his doctrine of justification [1] and, perhaps through lack of challenge, this position has been gaining ground amongst catholic theologians, as for example, may be seen in Paquier [2] who accepts almost wholeheartedly the empty assertions of Müller and even by Stakemeier [3] who agrees that a tendency in the line of Protestantism can be perceived in Favaroni. The work of Ciolini [4] and Friemel [5] represent the opposite tendency, but neither of these touch the question of justification.

The main intent of the present work is admittedly polemical - an objective examination of Müller’s accusations. But it is a tempered polemic, viz. seeking also to be expositional. We choose those fundamental points of doctrine which in themselves or in their logical deduction should either confirm or deny the alleged departures from catholic doctrine. The material provided in the development of these points has been scrupulously collected first hand from the mss. quoted; and in this regard the reader will appreciate the insertion of frequent and sometimes long quotations. It is a question of objectively establishing fundamental orthodoxy, and consequently we could allow ourselves no liberties.

Linked with this purpose is another matter to which we would respectfully call the reader’s attention: it is the regrettably incomplete exposition of Favaroni’s philosophico-theological explanations. This we deemed necessary to clarity while on the other hand it will be readily apparent that our theologian’s method is to descend from theology to philosophy and not counterwise, so that such expositions could not have primary importance. In point of fact he seldom undertakes ex professo philosophical expositions of any very real depth of thought, but when he does, these seem to have scotist rather then thomistic sympathies. Such a work would furnish valuable historical information, and would from an apt complement to the present study.

One question in particular we would like to have examined is the influence of the theory of Divine Acceptation on the question of inherent grace. The main reason for its omission is that we have come across no pointed, even incidentally, treatment of the question among the sources consulted. However an adequate answer can be framed from his categorical rejection of the theory as complementing the efficacy of good works in meriting eternal life, a resume of which will suffice to make the point.

The first five conclusions forming the second part of the tract De Merito Christi et Condigna Satisfactione pro Electis deal with the meritorious value of good works: for the present purpose we need interest ourselves only in the second and third. The background to these is provided by the fourth conclusion viz. that works performed in charity merit eternal life de condigno. [6]

To substantiate the second conclusion [7] one of the arguments brought forward is the text of Augustine that whatever is true virtue must merit eternal life. [8] The argument of Augustine, reasons Favaroni, is based on the justice of God [9] by which Augustine excludes in the strongest possible terms any mere title of gratuitous acceptation, i. e. arbitrary acceptation, as some think. [10] In the Commentary to the Apocalypse he tells us that sanctifying grace already makes the work gratum et acceptum ad vitam aeternam. [11]

Our assigning sanctifying grace as the effective factor in the meritorious character of good works, and the reason why any further acceptation is, to say the least, unnecessary, is expressly enunciated by him the his explanation of the third conclusion. [12] Eternal life has both the ratio gratuitae donationis and the ratio debitae retributionis for different reasons. It is a gift because the works whereby it is merited are free gifts of God, but presupposing these gifts it then becomes debitum. [13] And once again he takes occasion to denounce the theory of acceptation as against the data of Scripture and Tradition. [14]

There is no reason therefore, to suspect any enfeebling of the intrinsic nature of justification under this heading.

Finally, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the late Rev. Father F. Pelster S. J. for his thoughtful and kind encouragment, to the Directors of the Vatican and Angelica libraries for the use of the manuscripts, and to the staff of Augustiniana, especially Rev. Father N. Teeuwen OESA, and its printers for their kind co-operation.

ENDNOTES