Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 5
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-q5
----------------------------------------
### Question V. *Whether unformed faith becomes formed when grace comes.*

Fifthly and lastly it is asked concerning the *forming* of unformed faith itself, and the question is whether, when grace comes, unformed faith becomes formed. And that it does seems to be the case.

1. Before anyone sins, he has only formed faith, but when he sins, then he begins to have unformed faith: if therefore in sinning no new faith is infused into him, it is necessary that through sin formed faith becomes unformed. If therefore unformed faith was previously formed, it seems that, if someone is restored to his former condition through the advent of grace, unformed faith becomes formed.

2. Likewise, advening grace informs nature: if therefore unformed faith more nearly approaches grace than does nature itself, it seems, by an argument *from the lesser*, that unformed faith would be informed by grace.

3. Likewise, an infused habit is more in agreement with grace, which is infused, than are acquired habits; but acquired habits are informed by the advent of grace — which is clear, because in their exercise and use a man merits — therefore much more strongly is the habit of unformed faith formed by the supervening grace itself.

4. Likewise, mortified works are vivified by the advent of grace, according to what is commonly said, therefore by parity of reasoning a dead habit also is: if therefore unformed faith is of this kind, it seems that it would be informed by the advent of grace.

5. Likewise, to say that a habit is *living* is nothing other than to say that through it eternal life can be merited; but the believing of unformed faith, which is to assent to the First Truth for its own sake and above all things, when charity supervenes, has everything that is necessary for merit: therefore it seems that, if its act is meritorious, the habit is vivified. And that it has everything necessary for merit is plain, since the work itself is in itself good and right and is commanded by charity.

6. Likewise, everything which is said to be dead from the mere lack of something, when that something supervenes, is vivified; but unformed faith is said to be dead from the lack of grace and of fruitful operation: therefore when these supervene, it revives. But when it revives, it is formed: therefore unformed faith can become formed. And this is what is found in the Gloss on that text of James, chapter two: *Faith without works is dead*; Gloss: « Faith revives from works »; but if faith revives from works: therefore from the advent of works it has life and form.

**On the contrary:**
1. No sin can become formed, therefore no virtue can become unformed, therefore formed faith cannot become unformed: by parity of reasoning neither can the unformed become formed.

2. Likewise, no dead work can become living — for works which have been done in sin are never revivified through grace, so as to be worthy of the reward of eternal life — therefore if unformed faith is dead, it seems that it cannot be vivified through grace, therefore neither informed.

3. Likewise, no accident can be altered, according to what Boethius holds; but unformed faith is an accident: therefore it cannot be altered. But everything which from unformed becomes formed is altered: therefore it is impossible for unformed faith to become formed.

4. Likewise, from things which are diverse in genus, there cannot be made one thing essentially; but formed faith bespeaks one habit essentially: therefore it is impossible for it to consist of sanctifying grace (*gratia gratum faciens*) and gratuitously given grace (*gratia gratis data*). If therefore unformed faith is a gift of gratuitously given grace, it seems that it is impossible for it to become formed when grace supervenes.

5. Likewise, unformed faith is not transmuted by the advent of grace except accidentally: therefore if by the advent of grace it is made a formed virtue, that it is formed is accidental to faith: if therefore no genus is accidental to a species, faith is not a species of virtue properly speaking. And if this is false: then so too is that from which it follows, namely that the habit of unformed faith is formed by the advent of grace.

6. Likewise, as the soul stands to its powers, so grace stands to the virtues; but whenever the soul is infused, it carries its powers with it: therefore whenever grace is infused, it carries its virtues with it: therefore when grace is infused, formed faith is infused at the same time: therefore formed faith is not the same as that which was previously in the soul. And if this is so, it remains that unformed faith is not formed by the advent of grace.

> **Conclusion.** Unformed faith is formed by the advent of grace itself, in such a way that from the two there comes to be one thing by a certain ordination and relation.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that, besides those positions which said that unformed faith is excluded at the advent of grace, according to those who say that the habit of unformed faith itself remains with the supervening grace, there are still three ways of speaking. — For some have said that the habit of unformed faith is not formed by the supervening grace, nor by anything which is *from grace* or *with grace*. — Others, however, have said that although it is not formed *from grace*, it is nevertheless formed by something which is infused at the same time *with grace*. — Still others have said that the habit of unformed faith itself is formed *by grace itself*.

Now the reason for this diversity of position is the diverse way of understanding the infusion of grace and of the virtues. For some wished to say that, just as the *soul* is a *potential whole* with respect to its powers, and when the soul is infused, it carries its powers with it at the same time, and when it departs, it draws them along at the same time; so too they wished to say of *grace* that grace carries the virtues themselves with it at the same time, by which the powers are informed, and likewise draws them along with it. Hence no formed virtue becomes unformed, nor does any unformed one become formed; for each virtue is infused fully and completely with grace itself, in such a way that nothing extrinsic enters into its essence, neither as to the *material* nor as to the *formal*. — But since by experience we see that some virtue, as to that which is *material* in it, is by no means infused — as one may see in a baptized infant, who after the infusion of grace still needs to be instructed in the articles of faith in order that he may proceed to the act of faith — this way of understanding the infusion of grace and of the virtues does not seem to be altogether fitting, namely that with *grace itself* the virtues are infused as to their *totality* and integrity, that is, as to that which is *material* and *formal* in them.

And therefore there is another way of understanding the infusion of grace, namely that *with grace itself* there is infused the *formal* element of all the virtues in the genus of the gratuitous, which indeed *essentially differs* from grace itself, just as a power of the soul essentially differs from its substance. And that *formal* element of each virtue, infused with grace, is able to lead its own *material* element from potency into act, if it is not yet led into act; but if it is already led into act, it can make it gratuitous and living. And these men say and hold that the habit of unformed faith is formed through the *virtue of faith* itself, which is infused at the same time with grace, and likewise becomes unformed when that which was *formal* in faith withdraws and is expelled at the same time as grace. And according to this position, grace, by which a *virtue* is called gratuitous, differs from that by which the *soul* is called pleasing to God.

But since in one soul there is one sole sanctifying grace, according to what was shown in the second book, by which the soul and its power are made acceptable to God; therefore there is still a third way of speaking, more probable, of understanding the infusion of grace and of the virtues, which seems to be more probable and easier than the foregoing, namely that sanctifying grace itself is compared to the underlying habits of the virtues just as light is compared to colors. There is, however, this difference, that this corporeal light cannot *so efficaciously* lead colors from potency into act with respect to the *being* which a color has in the genus of *color*, as grace existing in the soul itself can make the habits of the virtues sprout forth. For *grace* itself, advening into a soul lacking the habits of the virtues, stands as it were as an originating principle of them with respect to their *first being*. Hence just as rain infused into earth which has within it a seedbed makes it sprout, until it comes to the completed fruit; so it must be understood of grace with respect to the habits of the virtues themselves as to their *first being*. But superinfused light cannot do so from without with respect to colors. — But if we compare colors to light and the habits of the virtues to sanctifying grace as to *second being*, that is, as to the being of colors in the genus of the *luminous*, and of habits in the genus of the *gratuitous*; then the likeness is exact: so that, just as many *colors* existing in one dark house are made *luminous* by one super-

vening luminosity and are informed and adorned and beautified by it; so the unformed habits of the virtues, existing in the soul, are beautified and adorned by one supervening grace. — And according to this way of understanding the infusion of grace and of the virtues it is easy to understand how the habit of unformed faith is formed by the advent of grace itself: for it is said to be formed, just as a darkened color is formed at the entrance of light. And just as from a color and superinfused light there does not come to be *one thing essentially*, but *one thing by a certain ordination*; so neither from sanctifying grace and unformed faith is there understood to come to be one thing except according to a certain *ordination and relation*, because unformed faith by the advent of grace begins to be completely ordered toward the end and to tend toward God and to be pleasing to Him. — The arguments showing that unformed faith becomes formed by the advent of grace are therefore to be granted.

*To 1.* To that which is first objected on the contrary, that no sin becomes formed, therefore etc.; it must be said that it is not similar. For it is easier for something to be *deformed* than to be *informed*, because more is required for good than for evil; therefore it does not follow, if the underlying habit of a virtue can be *bent crooked*, that sin and vice can be *rectified*. And from the same cause it does not follow, if sin cannot become formed, that a virtue cannot become unformed. — It can also be said otherwise, that *sin* can be taken in two ways, namely *abstractly* and *concretely*. If it is taken abstractly, it is impossible for sin to be able to be formed, since it is pure malice; but if it is taken *concretely*, so that sin is called a certain disposition of the soul in which there is the deformity of malice — as when someone abstains for the sake of vainglory, the abstinence itself becomes a fault to him — in this way, by reason of such an underlying habit which is deformed by fault, it can be informed by grace. And in this way we say that a formed virtue is made unformed, namely by reason of the underlying habit, which is indifferent to the state of fault and of grace.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that a dead work cannot become living; it must be said that it is not similar. For a *work* passes and does not remain except in its root; therefore it is impossible for any work to be vivified which has not taken its origin from a living root. And to this extent we say that works done in charity can revive, but those which have been done outside charity cannot be vivified; for that grace could not reach them, since they have simply passed into the past. But it is not so with the *habits of the unformed virtues*, which remain in the soul after the advent of grace itself and can be beautified and adorned and ordered toward the end through grace itself.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that no accident can be altered; it must be said that this is true with respect to *proper* change; but nothing prevents us from understanding that alteration occurs in an accident by reason of an alteration made in the *subject*; just as *whiteness* is now bright, now dim, by reason of an alteration made in its *proper subject*; and *color* is now dark, now luminous, by reason of a transmutation made in the *transparent medium conjoined to it*. So faith is now unformed, now formed, by reason of an alteration made in the *soul*, which now has grace, now is deprived of it through fault.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that from things which are of diverse genera there does not come to be one thing essentially; the answer is now plain; since, as was said before, the *informing* of the unformed habit of a virtue by grace is not by an *essential union*, but rather according to a certain *ordination* and direction toward the end. For properly speaking, accidents do not have matter and form; but that the unformed habit is said to be the *matter* of faith, and that which is superinduced to be its *form*, this is according to a certain comparison, just as was said before of light and color. Hence just as, when I say *an illuminated color*, I say two things, yet after the manner of one, because they are ordered to one act, namely to moving sight; so, when I say *formed faith*, I say two things, namely *faith and grace*, yet after the manner of one, because they are ordered to one meritorious work, namely to believing in God.

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that unformed faith is not transmuted except accidentally; it must be said that a transmutation that is *accidental* in the genus of *nature* can be *essential* in the genus of *morals*; just as is clear of some act which, through the *privation* of some accidental circumstance, is in the genus of vice, and through *position* is in the genus of virtue. In this way it must be understood in the matter proposed. For although it is accidental to that habit to be with grace or without grace; nevertheless it is *essential* to it to be with grace, insofar as it is the principle of *merit*. Moreover, the habit of unformed faith itself, even with grace set aside, retains the character of a *virtue*; therefore

from this it cannot be concluded that faith is not under the genus of *virtue* as under its proper genus.

*To 6.* To that which is objected, that as the soul stands to its powers, so grace stands to the virtues; it must be said that this is not an *altogether-complete likeness*, for the reason that there is not so great a diversity of grace from the virtues with respect to their formal principle as there is of the soul from its powers, as was shown in the second book, where this question was treated. For the *virtues* are not said to be the virtues of grace itself, through which *grace operates*, as the soul operates through its powers. — Nor is it to be understood that grace and virtue are in *diverse subjects*. For these lead to a false imagining, namely to this, that grace comes *entirely* into the soul and its powers just as the soul comes into the body and its organs. For then it would necessarily be required that, when grace departs through sin, all the habits of the virtues which it carries with it would be expelled; which from experience itself is plainly false. And therefore that argument does not conclude, because it takes as similar what is very dissimilar.

But a *likeness* can be taken of the *infusion* of grace and of the virtues in rain and sown earth; just as of the *informing* of the virtues by grace a likeness is taken in light and color. For if one rain comes upon earth in which diverse seeds have been planted which have not sprouted, it makes it sprout and produce diverse plants according to the diversity of the seeds. But if it has already sprouted otherwise, yet because of the lack of water the plants are already dried up; then the rain coming again makes those plants grow green again. So grace, advening into a soul in which there are the seedbeds of the habits of the virtues, makes it sprout, in such a way that, when grace is had, the virtues too are had as a consequence, and it continually makes those sprouts grow, until it leads them to perfection. And if it happens that, by the merit of sin, the moisture of grace is taken away, those habits of the virtues become as it were dry; and afterward, if the rain and moisture of grace are restored, it is not necessary that the soul sprout anew from the beginning; but those which sprouted revive again through the advening moisture of grace. — Thus it can be clearly enough understood how *grace* is infused *together* with the *virtues* into the soul, and why it is sometimes said to be infused *together* with the *underlying habits*, but sometimes *not*, although grace, as far as it is in itself, is always infused uniformly.

But that the seedbeds of the virtues, as to the *underlying habits*, are planted in the nature of the rational mind, can be expressly had from Augustine in many places, and from Bernard in the tenth chapter of *On the Love of God*, and in the book *On the Conferences of the Holy Fathers*, and in many other places. Whatever, however, may be the case about this — since that question has its place elsewhere — for the present let it suffice to have said this much concerning the question proposed: that, according to the judgment and opinion of the Master, that position seems to be the truer which says that unformed faith becomes formed through advening grace, whether it be formed by grace itself *mediately* or *immediately*.

---