Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/13/q/bon-sent-III-d13-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether the grace of the singular person in Christ was full and perfect grace.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the grace of the singular person in Christ was full and perfect grace. And that it was so, seems to be the case.

1. Isaiah eleven: *He shall fill him with the spirit of the fear of the Lord* — this is said of Christ; it is established that it is according to his human nature — but the other gifts of grace are equal: therefore by parity of reasoning he filled him with the spirit of love, of grace, and so of the rest. But such gifts pertain to the grace of the singular person: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, John one: *We saw his glory, the glory as it were of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth*; but Christ according to his divine nature is not capable of receiving grace, but rather is its effective principle: therefore this is said according to his human nature, that he had in himself full grace.

3. Likewise, a capacity lacking fullness lacks also perfection; therefore where one is to posit perfection one is to posit fullness; but in Christ, insofar as he is a singular person, one is to posit every kind of perfection of virtue and of grace: therefore also fullness of grace.

4. Likewise, no one can perfectly communicate and pour out grace to others without defect and diminution, unless he first has in himself the perfect fullness of grace; but of Christ's fullness we have all received, and all, if there were more, could receive, nor does any defect intervene: therefore it seems that Christ had in himself the fullness of grace.

**On the contrary:** 1. The fullness of grace consists in all the habits of the virtues; but Christ did not have faith and hope: therefore Christ did not have the fullness of all grace.

2. Likewise, the state of the wayfarer is ordered to making progress; but Christ was in the state of the wayfarer: therefore he could make progress. But one who can make progress in grace is not yet full of grace: therefore it seems that Christ in this life did not have the fullness of grace.

3. Likewise, the Son of God assumed human nature for this reason, that he might give us an example of arriving at the fatherland; but the way of arriving at glory is through ascent from virtue to virtue; but one who ascends from virtue to virtue makes progress little by little and does not have the fullness of grace: therefore etc. If you say that Christ seemed to make progress outwardly, as Gregory and the Master say, and therefore was giving an example; *on the contrary:* then either he was truly making progress inwardly, or not. If so: then he was not full of grace. If not: then he showed otherwise than the matter stood: therefore he was a liar. But it is unfitting to posit lying with regard to Truth itself: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, Christ did many good works, then either the gift of grace was truly growing in him, or not. If not: then since the goodness of works is ordered to the advancement of the spirit, he was working in vain. If he was making progress: then he was falling short of fullness.

5. Likewise, just as the soul of Christ was united to the Godhead, so also the body; and just as for the perfection of the union there is required perfection of grace, so for the perfection of the nature there is required perfection of age; but Christ according to his body grew truly and was filled daily, nor did he have from the beginning the fullness of his nature or of age: therefore neither the fullness of grace.

6. Likewise, no capacity can be filled by anything from whose coming the capacity is not diminished but increased; but grace as it comes does not diminish but increases the capacity of the soul: therefore it seems that it could never fill it: therefore neither in Christ nor in another is the fullness of grace to be found.

### Conclusion.

> The grace of Christ from the instant of his conception was perfect and consummate according to the fullness of superabundance.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt in Christ according to his human nature, from the very beginning of his conception, there was the perfect and consummate fullness of grace. For it was not fitting that the uncreated Word be united to a soul by a most perfect union, such as is the union into the unity of person, without the soul being deiform, according as that was possible. And therefore he had not only deiformity of grace and of glory, but even above all grace and glory. Nor only was there in him the fullness of *sufficiency*, as in the Saints, of which fullness it is said in Acts six: *Stephen full of grace and fortitude*; nor only the fullness of *prerogative*, as in the Virgin Mary, of which fullness it is said in Luke one: *Hail Mary, full of grace* etc.; nor only the fullness of *number and abundance*, as is in the whole Church, of which fullness it is said to the Ephesians four: *He ascended above the heavens, that he might fill all things* etc.; but also the fullness of *superabundance*, of which John one: *We saw his glory, the glory as it were of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth*; full, I say, with the fullness of superabundance, on account of which he adds to prove this: *And of his fullness we have all received.* — Therefore the reasons showing this are to be granted, that Christ from the instant of his conception was full of grace and had in himself the fullness of grace.

1. To that, then, which is first objected, that he did not have faith and hope; it must be said that faith and hope have joined to them an imperfection, and yet they have also something of perfection; and by reason of that which they have of imperfection, they stand more opposed to fullness than they make for fullness — whence they are emptied out in glory — but by reason of that which is of perfection in them, if anything is to be found there, they have being in Christ. And therefore the absence of those virtues attests more to fullness than to diminution.

2. To that which is objected, that Christ was in the state of the wayfarer; it must be said that Christ was at once in the state of the wayfarer and of the comprehensor, but in the state of the comprehensor according to the higher part, in the state of the wayfarer according to the lower part and according to the flesh. And since grace according to its essence and completion regards the higher part and the mind; hence it is that Christ had grace perfect rather than diminished, because grace regarded rather the perfect state.

3. To that, then, which is objected concerning the example of Christ, it must be said that Christ gave us an example in outward works and in works of perfect virtue; but those works in Christ were indicative of perfection, whereas in us they are leading toward perfection. And although the outward works displayed his advancement, nevertheless he was not a liar, because they indicated no perfection which was not in him. But if through his works he did not indicate his highest perfection, this was not to display falsehood, but to conceal the truth; which indeed is permitted and is expedient on account of our benefit.

4. To that which is objected, that he did many good works; it must be said that on account of those he was not growing in grace; nor yet was he working in vain, because he did those things not on account of his own increase, but on account of ours; whence we too reap the greatest benefit.

5. To that which is objected, that the body had a defect of fullness in age; it must be said that it is not alike, because the defect of age in the body made for humiliation and for the showing forth of the true nature, and thus for the confirmation of faith; but a defect of grace in the soul would profit us in nothing nor would it befit God; and therefore it is not alike. Furthermore, there is another reason; because the disposition to the union holds itself on the part of the soul, not on the part of the flesh, as was shown before; therefore the soul had to be more perfect than the flesh.

6. To that which is objected, that grace enlarges the capacity; it must be said that the capacity is enlarged in two ways: either by reason of greater possibility in receiving, or by reason of power in cooperating. For it is the same potency which receives grace and cooperates with the grace received. If we speak of the enlargement of capacity as regards the *power of cooperating*, then it is true that grace as it comes increases free choice, that is, the good aptitude and capacity of the will. But if we speak of the *possibility in receiving*, then it holds falsehood, since grace is like an act and a completion, and the more of actuality is given to anything, the more it recedes from possibility: whence we too say that those things which have much of the species, to which it belongs to act, have little of matter, to which it belongs to be acted upon and to receive. And since in Christ the very aptitude for good is brought to its completion through perfect grace; hence it is that his capacity is filled; just as we say of the form of heaven, that it fulfills the appetite of matter, because its matter does not desire to be under a further form, so completely does the form establish it in completed actuality. So in the grace of Christ it must be understood in its own way; whence here a bad imagining deceives, because the soul is not filled with the gift of grace as an empty place is filled with a body, but rather as the possibility of matter is completed by the actuality of form.

---