Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 4
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/23/q/bon-sent-III-d23-a2-q4
----------------------------------------
### Question IV. *Whether unformed faith is expelled by the coming of grace.*

Fourthly, inquiry is made concerning the duration of unformed faith itself, and the question is whether unformed faith is wholly expelled by the coming of grace. And that it is, seems [to be the case].

1. There is a greater agreement of formed faith with glory than there is of formed faith with unformed faith, because glory is nothing other than consummated grace; but supervening glory empties out the habit of formed faith, as the Apostle holds: therefore, when formed faith supervenes, unformed faith is taken away and emptied out.

2. Likewise, a greater light absorbs a lesser light: therefore, if the light of sanctifying grace incomparably surpasses the light of grace freely given, it seems therefore that unformed faith must be expelled by supervening grace.

3. Likewise, unformed faith is never except in a sinner, for in every just person there is formed faith; but sanctifying grace can never be together with sin: therefore it can never be together with unformed faith: therefore it necessarily expels it at its coming.

4. Likewise, all the virtues are infused together, therefore when charity is infused, formed faith is infused; but it is impossible for two accidents of the same species to be in the same subject: therefore it is impossible for two faiths to be in the same soul: therefore it is necessary that unformed faith be expelled at the coming of grace.

5. Likewise, either the light of sanctifying grace suffices for believing, or it does not; if not: then sanctifying grace does not suffice for meriting salvation; if it does suffice, then it is superfluous to do through more what can be done through fewer: therefore it seems that, when sanctifying grace supervenes, it is superfluous to have unformed faith.

**On the contrary:**
1. Grace expels nothing but fault, or what follows upon fault; but unformed faith is neither a fault nor a consequence of fault: therefore unformed faith is not expelled by supervening grace.

2. Likewise, as act stands to act, so habit stands to habit; but sanctifying grace makes one *believe in God* (credere in Deum), whereas grace freely given makes one *believe God* (Deo credere): if therefore *believing in God* does not expel *believing God*, but rather presupposes it; it seems that sanctifying grace does not expel unformed faith.

3. Likewise, infused gifts agree more with infused gifts than infused with acquired; but sanctifying grace, when it is infused, does not expel acquired habits: therefore much more does it not expel the habit of unformed faith, which is infused.

4. Likewise, as fault stands to formed faith, so grace stands to unformed faith; but fault, when it is superinduced, although it expels the form of faith, nevertheless does not expel faith itself, since [otherwise] it would already make the man an unbeliever: therefore by parity of reasoning sanctifying grace, when it is superinduced, although it takes away the unformedness of faith, nevertheless does not take away the substance of the habit.

5. Likewise, if the habit of unformed faith is taken away in the justification of the ungodly, then when someone relapses into sin, either he is made an unbeliever, or a new habit of faith is given to him; but he is not made an unbeliever, as is evident, nor is a new habit given, since it is not fitting that to one sinning in the very act of sin a gift freely given should be infused: therefore it does not seem that the habit of unformed faith must be expelled by supervening grace.

> **Conclusion.** Unformed faith is not expelled by the coming of grace with respect to its habit and use, but only with respect to its defect.

**I respond:** For an understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that, when I say *unformed faith*, I name in faith three things, namely the habit, and the use of that habit, and the defect annexed to it; and with respect to these three things it can be understood in three ways that unformed faith is expelled or emptied out by supervening grace. And according to this threefold manner of understanding there have been three opinions on this point.

For some have wished to say that by supervening grace unformed faith is expelled not only with respect to the defect of unformedness, but also with respect to its use and with respect to its habit. And this indeed they said because supervening grace brings with itself all the virtues; and because it is neither fitting nor possible that there be two faiths in one and the same [subject]; since formed faith is superinduced together with grace both as to the completion of form and as to use and as to habit: therefore at its entrance unformed faith is wholly expelled. And so they hold that it is expelled on account of incompossibility and uselessness. And if you object against them that then through fault a man is made an unbeliever; they answer briefly that God, by His gratuitous goodness, because He does not permit man to fall totally, infuses into him the habit of unformed faith, lest the foundation of the spiritual edifice perish utterly in him; whence, just as from evils goods are drawn out, so it happens that in the transgression of fault the unformed habit is infused into someone.

But because this does not seem very reasonable—that God should infuse the gifts of grace into the sinner himself, and into one turning away from Him, in the very turning-away; therefore there is another way of speaking: that just as through sin the habit of unformed faith is not introduced, but rather a defect and another mode of believing is introduced; so also through grace the habit of unformed faith itself is not excluded, but only its use and defect. And if you object that a habit without use will be in vain; they answer that it is not in vain, because it yields toward a disposition with respect to formed faith; and besides, it remains so that the man may have the benefit of it at the opportune time. — But since the act and use of unformed faith is to believe and to assent to the First Truth in all the articles, and this use most belongs to the use of grace; since nothing is taken away except by its opposite, it does not seem reasonable to say in every respect that by the coming of grace the use of unformed faith is taken away, since rather it would seem to be perfected and completed in it.

And therefore there is a third way of speaking, which seems more probable than the foregoing: that unformed faith is excluded by the coming of grace only with respect to the defect, the habit and use being preserved; and this indeed seems sufficiently reasonable, since grace is opposed to that infused habit only by reason of unformedness, just as a habit is opposed to a privation. — Therefore the arguments showing that the habit of unformed faith is not expelled by supervening grace are to be granted.

**To the arguments:**
*To 1.* To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that there is a greater agreement of formed faith with glory than of unformed [faith] with grace; it must be said that greater agreement can be considered in two ways: either according to a comparison of certain things in the genus of the gratuitous, or according to the ordering of the habit to

the act. If in the first way; thus there is a greater agreement of formed faith with glory than with unformed faith, because each belongs to sanctifying grace. If in the second way; thus there is a greater agreement of formed faith with unformed [faith] than of formed faith with glory, because the act of unformed faith does not have opposition with the act of formed faith, but the act of formed faith, which indeed is to believe things not apparent and to see *through a mirror and in an enigma*, has a great repugnance with the state of glory; therefore it does not so empty out, as it is emptied out. But this will be better manifested below, when the emptying-out of faith is treated.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that a greater light absorbs a lesser light; it must be said that this is not understood of lights which are ordered to one another, but of those which have a certain opposition and repugnance, unless it be understood to absorb with respect to appearance. And since the light of unformed faith has ordering to the light of grace, not opposition; hence it is that it is not absorbed by it, but rather is preserved in being.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that unformed faith is only in sinners and with sin; it must be said that this is true by the reason whereby unformed faith names a defect of form, not according as it names a habit. And therefore from this it cannot be concluded that by the coming of grace the habit of unformed faith is taken away, but only that the defect of unformedness is taken away.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that all the virtues are infused together; it must be said that this is true with respect to that which is formal in them; but with respect to the material, or to the underlying habit, it does not hold true, except when it does not find a habit in the subject which it may inform; and therefore when supervening grace finds the habit of unformed faith, it is not necessary that a new faith be superinduced. — Moreover, that argument fails in another respect, because sanctifying grace is not of the same species as grace freely given; and so it proceeds from a false supposition.

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that the light of sanctifying grace ought to suffice for believing; it must be said that sanctifying grace suffices, yet with the presupposition of grace freely given. For the gifts of sanctifying grace do not exclude the gifts of grace freely given, but rather complete and perfect them at their coming, and in a certain way are invigorated and perfected by them. Therefore it does not follow that, when sanctifying grace supervenes, the habit of unformed faith is superfluous; nor, the unformed habit remaining, is the light of sanctifying grace on this account insufficient. For each gift of God is sufficient according to that to which it has ordering.