Hence congruous merit and condign merit are not species of the same genus, but merely analogous terms. Because of the ambiguity of the word “equity” Dominicus Soto, Becanus, and a few other Scholastics rejected the use of the term meritum de congruo in theology. But this was a mistake. The Fathers engaged in the Semipelagian controversy, notably St. Augustine,[1346] did not assert that the justifying faith of the sinner is entirely without merit. The requisites of congruous merit are identical with those of condign merit[1347] in all respects except one,—the meritum de congruo does not require the state of grace.
a) According to the common opinion, from which but few theologians dissent,[1348] a Christian in the state of mortal sin can, from the moment he [pg 431] begins to coöperate with supernatural grace, merit de congruo by good works, and obtain by prayer the dispositions necessary for justification, and ultimately justification itself.
“Prayer relies on mercy,” says St. Thomas, “condign merit on justice. And therefore man obtains from the divine mercy many things by prayer which he does not merit in strict justice.”[1349] This teaching is based partly on Holy Scripture and partly on the writings of St. Augustine, and is confirmed by certain utterances of the Council of Trent. By conscientiously preparing himself with the aid of actual grace, the sinner probably merits an additional claim (in equity) to justification. Cfr. Ps. L, 19: “A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”[1350] Dan. IV, 24: “Redeem thou thy sins with alms, and thy iniquities with works of mercy to the poor: perhaps he [God] will forgive thy offences.”[1351] St. Augustine says: “The remission of sins itself is not without some merit, if faith asks for it. Nor is that faith entirely unmeritorious by which the publican was moved to say: ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner,’ and then went away justified through the merit of faithful humility.”[1352]
b) By good works the just may merit for themselves, not in strict justice (de condigno), but as a matter of equity (de congruo), final perseverance, conversion from mortal sin, spiritual favors for others, and also such temporal blessings as may be conducive to eternal salvation.
α) It is a theologically certain conclusion, accepted by all theologians without exception, that the grace of final perseverance (donum perseverantiae) cannot be merited in the strict sense (de condigno). Most authors hold, however, that it can be merited de congruo. This meritum is technically called meritum de congruo fallibili. Those who deny that it can be merited at all, admit that it can be infallibly obtained by fervent and unremitting prayer.[1353]
β) It is impossible to answer with anything like certainty the question whether the just man is able to merit for himself in advance the grace of conversion against the eventuality of a future lapse into mortal sin. Following the lead of Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas takes a negative view,[1354] on the ground that mortal sin interrupts the state of grace and annihilates all former merits. In another passage of his writings, however, the Angelic Doctor says: “There are two kinds of merit, one based on justice, and this is called condign; and another based solely upon mercy, and this is called congruous. Of the latter St. Paul says that it is just, i.e. congruous, that a man who has performed many good works should merit.... And in this wise God does not forget our work and [pg 433] love.”[1355] Scotus,[1356] Bonaventure,[1357] and Suarez[1358] regard this as “a pious and probable opinion,” well supported by Holy Scripture. The prophet Jehu said to Josaphat, King of Juda: “Thou helpest the ungodly, and thou art joined in friendship with them that hate the Lord, and therefore thou didst deserve indeed the wrath of the Lord; but good works are found in thee.”[1359] To this argument add the following consideration: If previous mortal sin does not prevent those acts whereby man is disposed for justification from being at least to a limited extent meritorious, there is no reason to assume that merits cancelled by subsequent mortal sin will not be imputed to the sinner, with due regard, of course, to a certain proportion between past merits and future sins.[1360] To pray for the grace of conversion against the eventuality of future mortal sin, is always good and useful,[1361] because it cannot but please God to know that we sincerely desire to be restored to His friendship if we should ever have the misfortune of losing it.[1362]
γ) The just man may congruously merit for others [pg 434] whatever he is able to merit for himself, e.g. the grace of conversion, final perseverance, and also the first prevenient grace (gratia prima praeveniens), which no man in the state of original sin is able to merit for himself.[1363] The reason for this, according to St. Thomas, is the intimate relation of friendship which sanctifying grace establishes between the just man and God.[1364] However, as Sylvius rightly observes, it is not in the power of the just to obtain by this friendship favors which would involve the abrogation of the divinely established order of salvation. Such a favor would be, for example, the justification of a sinner without the medium of grace, or of a child without the agency of Baptism. An unreasonable petition deserves no consideration, even if made by a friend. What may be obtained by the merit of good works may be even more effectively obtained by prayer for others. The Apostle St. James teaches: “Pray for one another that you may be saved; for the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.”[1365] This consoling truth is confirmed by the dogma of the Communion of Saints, by many illustrious examples from the Bible[1366] and ecclesiastical history,[1367] and by the traditional practice of the Church in praying God to give strength and perseverance to the faithful and the grace of conversion to the heathen and the sinner.[1368]
δ) A final question remains to be answered: Can the just congruously merit such temporal blessings as good health, a comfortable living, and success in business? They can, but only in so far as these favors are conducive to eternal salvation; for otherwise they would not be graces. St. Thomas seems to go even further than this by describing temporal favors as objects of condign merit when they are conducive to salvation, and of congruous merit when they bear no relation to that end.[1369] We have no space left to enter into an argument on this point, but in conclusion wish to call attention to two important facts: first, that prayer is more effective than good works in obtaining temporal as well as spiritual favors; and secondly, that we should not strive with too much anxiety for earthly goods, but direct our thoughts, desires, prayers, and actions to God, the Infinite Good, who has promised to be our “exceeding great reward.”[1370]
Readings:—St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 1a 2ae, qu. 114, art. 1 sqq.—Billuart, De Gratia, diss. 8, art. 1-5.—*Bellarmine, De Iustificatione, V, 1-22.—*Suarez, Opusc. de Divina Iustitia.—Idem, De Gratia, l. XII, cap. 1 sqq.—Oswald, Lehre von der Heiligung, d. i. Gnade, Rechtfertigung, Gnodenwahl, § 7, 3rd ed., Paderborn 1885.—Tepe, Institutiones Theologicae, Vol. III, pp. 223 sqq., Paris 1896.—*Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. VIII, § 473 sqq., Mainz 1897.—Chr. Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. V, 3rd ed., pp. 215 sqq., Freiburg 1908.—*S. [pg 436] Schiffini, De Gratia Divina, pp. 594 sqq., Freiburg 1901.—Kneib, Die Lohnsucht der christlichen Moral, Vienna 1904.—I. J. Remler, C. M., Supernatural Merit, St. Louis 1914.—A. Devine, C. P., The Sacraments Explained, 3rd ed., London 1905, pp. 74-89.—L. Labauche, S. S., God and Man, pp. 254-270, N. Y. 1916. (On merit in general see M. Cronin, The Science of Ethics, Vol. I, Dublin 1909, pp. 544 sqq.)—B. J. Otten, S. J., A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. II, St. Louis 1918, pp. 249 sqq.
On the Protestant idea of the fruits of justification see Möhler, Symbolik, § 21 sqq. (English edition, pp. 157 sqq.).