Doubt I: Whether martyrdom confers first grace

THE FIRST opinion is that Martyrdom, by privilege and the special promise of Christ, has the power of conferring first grace, and consequently, like a Sacrament, justifies ex opere operato. So Sotus in 4. dist. 4 quaest. 6. et dist. 14. quaest. 13. litt. V. §. sed nec debet requiri, whom the disciples follow, Faber disp. 11. de poenit. cap. 1. Mastrius 4. disp. 2. quaest. 7. art. 2., adducing Vega, Bellarmine, Suarez, Henriquez, Valentia, Tolerus, Coninck, Lessius, Amicus, Aversa, Bonacina, Becanus, Baldus, Turrianus, etc.

Of these, some do not speak so absolutely, as Tannerus disp. 4. quaest. 3. dubio 3. numero 114.

THE SECOND opinion holds that Martyrdom does not confer first grace ex opere operato, and does not help without it. Wherefore it judges contrition necessary for one existing in mortal sin. So D. Bonaventure 4. d. 4. part. 2. quaest. 2. Alexander of Hales 4 part. quaest. 8. m. 9. art. 4. D. Thomas 3. part. quaest. 66. art. 12. ad 2. Paludanus d. 4. quaest. 3. art. 1. and others of old. Vasquez defends this opinion as common among the ancients, and even among the Fathers, d. 153. cap. 3, and Cano relec. de paenit. part. 3, and Bassaeus V. Martyr. num. 7, adducing also Ban. 2. 2. quaest. 124. art. 5. d. 1. Less. lib. 3. cap. 1. d. 4. num. 43. Sylvius 3. part. quaest. 66. art. 11. quaestio 3.

I ASSERT with this opinion that Martyrdom has not the power of conferring first grace ex opere operato.

It is PROVED first by the argument of D. Bonaventure, quaest. cit.: For the removal of a mortal fault ex opere operato, Sacraments are necessary in reality or in vow, as the Council of Trent teaches, sess. 7. can. 4. and sess. 6. cap. 4, and this because justification of this kind depends on the institution of Christ. Now Christ instituted Baptism as simply necessary in reality or in vow. But baptism of blood precisely is not Baptism either in reality or in vow, and the notion of vow extends, at most, to baptism of the Spirit (flame).

The adversaries RESPOND that there is a promise even about Martyrdom, Matth. 10. Whoever shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father. Ioan. 12. Whoever loses his soul for my sake, shall find it. Mark 8. Whoever shall lose his soul for my sake and for the Gospel, shall save it. These words, according to Augustine 13. de civit. cap. 7, contain a special promise made to those who expose their life for Christ. But if Baptism, because it is a figurative representation of the death of Christ, as in Rom. 6, has that power; much more Martyrdom, since it is a real conformation to Christ dying. This argument was used by Clement lib. 5. Constit. Apost. cap. 7. Cyprian Ep. 37. Tertullian in Apolog. near the end, and other Fathers.

But truly all these things collapse by the reasoning of D. Bonaventure, loc. cit. For Christ promises remission precisely to Baptism of water alone, at least in vow with an act of penance, as the Seraphic Doctor shows, dist. 4. part. 2. quaest. 1. ad 1, and the Council of Trent cited above. And although Scripture, with the Fathers, shows in Martyrdom a certain accidental excellence toward a little crown of laurel, still no one will find therein any excellence without charity, as I shall say in the response to the arguments.

And if you say it is extended to little children, I say they are not formally averse to the acts proper to it by God. And behold the great difference, which neither Mastrius num. 182. nor Amicus disp. 12. sect. 3. acknowledged. Nor indeed does Christ promise glory through Martyrdom to those existing in mortal sin, but simply to those laying down their soul, as S. Bonaventure notes on Ioan. 12.

It is PROVED secondly by D. Bonaventure in 1. sent. dist. 17. part. 1. dub. 7. from 1 Cor. 13, where the Apostle, enumerating heroic works, all without charity, finally recounts Martyrdom: And if I deliver my body, so that I burn, but have not charity, it profits me nothing. And immediately he takes against himself that dying for another is an act of heroic charity, according to Ioan. 13. Greater charity no one has, than that a man lay down his soul for his friends.

Mastrius RESPONDS first that charity is required consequently, just as it is required for faith.

AGAINST this: because he requires it so that the work may be meritorious; therefore it ought already to be clothed in charity.

He RESPONDS secondly that this can be understood even of other works outside Martyrdom, as if someone torment himself for empty glory, or do other works.

AGAINST this: because the Apostle in the literal sense ascends by gradation to the heroic work of Martyrdom. So D. Bernard expounds it, serm. 27. in Cant., cited in D. Bonaventure lib. 2. Pharetra, cap. 25. The same D. Bernard, epist. 77, signifies that Martyrdom does not supply the place of Baptism except by the merit of the one receiving it.

But the Seraphic Doctor OBSERVES in the cited dub. 7 that through Martyrdom sins are remitted, that is, one is disposed to grace. Therefore he concludes: I believe nevertheless, that if someone who has no great obstacle should endure death for Christ, he would dispose himself to the reception of grace, so that charity would be given him.

In this sense, lib. 4. Pharetrae, cap. 49, he cites D. Augustine lib. 20. de civit. cap. 13. and Prosper in l. sent. 149. sententia: Those who, without receiving the laver of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ, it avails them as much for washing away sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of Baptism.

He OBSERVES also in the cited dub. with D. Augustine 13. de Civitate, cap. 7, that Martyrdom is an act of heroic love, according to Ioan. 13. Greater charity no one has, and therefore no one undertakes the work of Martyrdom who has not been anticipated by a great aid of charity, and consequently is not disposed to charity if he undertakes it sincerely; for S. Augustine says: When, without abundance of grace and Spirit, man could love Christ so much that he could not deny him in so great a peril of life with so great a hope of pardon.

Again, in the cited quaest. the Seraphic Doctor brings forward a congruence, on account of which the Martyr suffering from the abundance of actual grace is disposed more to perfect habitual charity than one receiving Baptism, namely, because the latter is figuratively made like to Christ dead for us; the former truly, that is, really.

D. Thomas brings this reasoning forward, quaest. 66. art. 11. and quaest. 87. art. 1. ad 2, and other Scholastics with D. Bonaventure, and it is taken from D. Clement P. lib. 1. Constit. Apostolic. cap. 7, where he says: He who has merited to obtain Martyrdom, let him rejoice in the Lord, that he has attained so great a crown, and although he may have been a Catechumen, let him depart glad; for the passion he sustains for Christ shall stand to him for a truer baptism, because he himself in very fact dies with Christ; the others in figure.

The Seraphic Doctor has ANOTHER proposition in the cited quaest., taken from D. Augustine, or Gennadius, de Eccl. dogmatib. cap. 74, where he says: All sins are forgiven in Baptism; but in Martyrdom they are extinguished. Ambrose also speaks in this way, lib. 1. de poenis. cap. 2, where he wishes to say that in Martyrdom sins are extinguished because they are washed away by justification, and by death the power of sinning is taken away. But this does not weaken our assertion.

SIMILARLY he says that Martyrdom is a Baptism and a crown, because he immediately transfers to it what is the utterance of S. Cyprian de singularitate cleric. cap. 20, which the Seraphic Doctor does not deny, but confirms in the body of the text.

OTHER things like these the Holy Fathers have who enumerate Martyrdom among the baptisms, as Nazianzen orat. 39. Ambrose Serm. 3. in Psal. 118. Tertullian lib. de laps. cap. 16.

They seem MORE to conflict, because, treating of Baptism of water, they except Martyrdom: Cyril of Jerusalem Cathec. 3. If anyone is not baptized, he has not salvation, except only the Martyrs: and Fulgentius, de fide ad Petrum, cap. 3. Without the Sacrament of Baptism, except those who in the Catholic Church pour out their blood for Christ without Baptism, no one can receive the kingdom of heaven, nor eternal life. Bernard makes the same exception, epist. 77. Yet these do not mean this of one who is in actual mortal sin, but of one existing in original sin and having a vow of it; for if he is in mortal sin, they require an act of contrition.

The adversaries bring forward MANY other passages from Innocent III in cap. Cum Martha, Augustine Serm. 5. de Martyribus, and Serm. 27. de verbis Apostoli, Tract. 84. in Ioan., Tertullian in Apol. at the end, and in Scorpiaco, cap. 6, Cyprian lib. de laudibus Mart., Clem. Alex. lib. IV. strom., Cypr. epist. 52, saying that all sins are remitted to the Martyr, and that he flies to heaven at once. All these are understood of venial sins, as the Seraphic Doctor notes in the body of the text.

They will also OPPOSE that word of John: Greater love than this no one has, than that a man lay down his soul for his friends.

The Seraphic Doctor RESPONDS dubio cit. that the sense of this text is there expounded, when it is said: for enemies.

Wherefore, as Vasquez urges excellently, this efficacy of Martyrdom depends on the Divine will; but neither from Scripture, nor from the definition of the Church, nor from any other revelation is this power had, but when a Martyr is spoken of, it is supposed that he was justified from supernatural love by contrition, if he were stained lethally; and by a vow of Baptism, if he is not yet baptized. For these are the necessary means from the clear definitions of the Church: for an adult is bound to have a vow of Baptism if he cannot be rebaptized, as the Council of Trent defines in the place cited above; and if he does not have it, he is not a Martyr, since he is not disposed; for he lacks the will of assuming the necessary means of salvation. Similarly perfect penance with a vow of the Sacrament of Penance for mortal sins is a necessary means, as the same Council of Trent defines sess. 14. cap. 4. Therefore one not contrite, voluntarily undergoing death in that way, will perish, as many even of the adversaries concede; for he is not by Martyrdom exempted from the observance of the law, as Scotus infers d. 4. quaest. 1. litt. V., inferring that, if he does not remember, Martyrdom does not supply it, which doctrine Mastrius follows disp. 2. quaest. 7. num. 188.

For I ARGUE ad hominem from the same Mastrius disp. 1. quaest. 10. num. 560. et in 3. disp. 6. quaest. 15.: What is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation is so necessary that without it salvation cannot be obtained, nor does ignorance or forgetfulness excuse; but Baptism for all, and Penance for adult sinners, is necessary by a necessity of means, as he himself asserts immediately after num. 365., with Scotus in several places; therefore.

The adversaries RESPOND that Martyrdom has a privilege, so that it suffices for original sin, and for mortal sins with attrition alone.

Yet this privilege is found nowhere, John 3 bearing against it: Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, etc. Nor that word: Unless you do penance, etc. Which the Council of Trent expounds of the pain of contrition sess. 14. cap. 4., where it defines that with sorrow outside the Sacrament it is necessary, which has always been necessary for salvation; but this is contrition, as the Council declares, and Mastrius cites it num. 198.

HENCE now the question is solved, what disposition is required in a Martyr existing in actual mortal sin.

For SOME have said attrition suffices; for this is necessary even in Baptism of water; however some add that, from inadvertence, when death has overtaken, the will of dying for Christ suffices. So Scotus 4. dist. 14. quaest. 1. Faber disp. 11. de Poenit. cap. 2. Aretinus 4. dist. 14. quaest 3. art. 4. Hiquaeus in the same place, and other Scotists, to whom Mastrius subscribes disp. 2. quaest. 7. num. 195., adducing also Suarez, Coninck, Amicus, Aversa, Bonacina, Becanus, Turrianus, and others among these. Caspensis thinks the same Tract. 17. disp. 4. sect. 3. num. 30. with Sanchez Tom. 1. Decal. lib. 2. cap. 35., because, he says, the love of God above all things is implicitly enclosed in this. So Suar. disp. 29. sect. 3. Henriquez cap. 34. Coninch. quaest. 6. dub. 2. Bonac. de Sacram. disp. 2. quaest. 1. puncto 1.

THE SECOND opinion requires contrition: So the Authors cited at the beginning of the question for the first opinion. And it is D. Thom. quaest. 66. art. 12. ad 2., where for this he expounds the passage of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 13: If I deliver my body, so that I burn, but have not charity, it profits me nothing. Whence he infers that Baptism of blood includes Baptism of the Spirit.

I assert therefore, secondly, that contrition is necessary.

It is PROVED most efficaciously by the reason brought forward above, because Penance from contrition with the Sacrament in vow, when it cannot be had, is necessary by a necessity of means; and just as, if the Martyr were to survive, he would be bound to Baptism of water, if he is not baptized, and to confession, if he has actually died in sin, so it is required that he now be contrite. And this, speaking per se, Suarez asserts to be necessary, because contrition with a vow of the Sacrament (he says) is by the Decree of the Council of Trent sess. 14. cap. 4. necessary where the Sacrament cannot be had.

NEITHER does he rightly infer in the second dicto that attrition could suffice from ignorance.

But I ARGUE against him ad hominem: A necessity of means differs from a necessity of precept, because the latter does not admit ignorance, as all confess; but according to you, perfect Penance here is necessary by a necessity of means; therefore. Wherefore Mastrius does not rightly say that we seek a principle by this argument; for we argue from the universal foundation of the Church. Wherefore at least in death we ought to embrace the safer opinion, and not to fight in uncertainty, as Bassaeus says solidly with D. Bonaventure.