Dist. 31, Art. 1, Q. 2
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/31/q/bon-sent-III-d31-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Article I. *On the duration of charity in comparison with the sin opposed to it.*
### Question II. *Whether one who has fallen from charity can rise again in an equal charity.*

Secondly it is asked, whether one who has fallen from charity can rise again in an equal one. And that he can seems true:

1. *First*, from the *Old Testament*. Malachi 3: *The sacrifice of Judah and Jerusalem shall please God, as in the days of old, and as in the ancient years*; the Gloss: "As they pleased in the beginning, so after sin, through penance, they began to please"; and this same thing is had expressly in the Gloss on that text of Leviticus 7: *This is the sacrifice for transgression*; the Gloss: "Equally pleasing to God is the virtue of the just and the worthy penance of sinners, which restores to the former rank": therefore a man can rise again in an equal charity.

2. Likewise, this same thing is proved from the *New Testament*. For it is written to the Romans 5: *Where transgression abounded, grace did more abound*; and Luke 15: *Quickly bring forth the first robe for him*; there the Gloss: "He restores the son to his former dignity"; but he is not restored to his former dignity unless he has an equal charity: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown by *example*: because David after the sin of murder rose again more devout, and Peter after his denial rose again stronger, according to what the authorities of the Saints say, and as Scripture suggests: therefore it seems that it can be likewise in others.

4. Likewise, this same thing is shown by *reason*, because, when grace is infused into a sinful man, the sin is blotted out in truth and according to God's reckoning: therefore it offers no impediment to the infusion of that grace; nor is there anything else to impede why so great a grace cannot be given to a man as before: therefore it seems that a man can rise again in an equal charity.

**To the contrary:**

**On the contrary:** 1. Amos 5: *He shall no more add, that the virgin of Israel may rise again*; the Gloss: "He does not deny that she can rise again, but that she cannot rise again *a virgin*; because, once having gone astray, even if she be carried back on the shoulders of the devout shepherd, she does not have so great a glory with him who never strayed."

2. Likewise, Ezekiel 44: *The Levites, who have gone far from me, shall not come near to me, to discharge the priestly office for me*: if therefore God does not receive sinners and penitents to the priestly dignity, it seems that those who rise again cannot have an equal charity.

3. Likewise, gratuitously given grace can never dispose so much for the reception of the divine influence and for the capacity of the divine goodness as grace that makes pleasing; but the just man, before he falls, has grace that makes pleasing; the sinner, before he rises again, has only gratuitously given grace: therefore a man is more disposed for the reception of divine grace before he falls than after he has fallen. If therefore God

communicates to a man grace and charity according as the man is disposed: it seems that a man has a greater charity when he stands than when he rises again: therefore it seems that he cannot rise again in an equal charity.

4. Likewise, since there is a threefold state of continence, namely virginal, widowed, and conjugal, one who falls from the first state can never rise again to the first state: therefore if baptismal innocence is like virginal continence, it seems that one who falls from that state can never rise again in an equal one: therefore a man cannot rise again in an equal charity.

### Conclusion.

> It is possible that a man, after the loss of charity, should rise again in an equal charity.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is possible for a man to rise again in an equal charity, as can be shown by authorities and examples and fitting reasons, according to what was touched on in the arguing of the case. — For whether we say that the quantity of grace is measured according to the divine bounty, or according to the fitness of the recipient, it is rightly understood that the charity in which one rises again can be equal to that charity from which he first fell. For on the part of the divine bounty it is plain. For it pertains to the commendation of God's bounty that he bestow on a man gifts not less generous than he bestowed before, according to what Augustine says, unless the unfitness of the recipient impedes it. — And on the part of the man disposing himself it is plain enough; for it is possible that a man after sin should detest evil and abhor sin more than before; just as many corrupt persons detest the sin of the flesh more than many who have never fallen. — And so it can and must reasonably be held that it happens that a man rises again in an equal charity; and the reasons which show this are to be granted.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected first, that the virgin never rises again nor has so great a glory with him who never sinned; it must be said that there is a certain accidental glory and the glory of the substantial reward. If we speak of *accidental* glory, then that Gloss holds true. For there is a certain glory in which one glories that he has never sinned, into which he who has at some time sinned cannot rise again. If we speak of the glory of the *substantial* reward, which consists in seeing and loving God, it does not hold true; and the quantity of charity is reckoned by this glory, not by the other. And therefore that reason does not compel.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that the Levites who departed from the Lord were unfit for the priestly dignity; it must be said that the priestly dignity regards not only rectitude of the will, but also a dignity of exterior comeliness, on account of which it happens that even a man who does not sin becomes irregular. But charity regards rectitude of the will properly and precisely. And therefore that reason is not valid, because the case is not alike on either side.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that a man is never disposed by gratuitously given grace as he is by grace that makes pleasing; it must be said that for one to dispose himself, two things concur, namely the help of grace and the cooperation of free choice. Speaking of the disposition, so far as it is on the part of grace itself, he who is in grace that makes pleasing is more disposed for the reception of every good than he who lacks it. But speaking of the cooperation of free choice, it does not always hold true, because in one falling from charity the free choice does not cooperate with charity and grace, but rather opposes them, and by opposing rather disposes toward the defection of charity than toward its reception; but in one rising again it is the contrary, as is evident. And therefore that reason is not valid.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning virginal continence, it must be said that the merit of that continence regards an accidental reward of itself, and together with this regards a certain disposition in the flesh, which once lost cannot be recovered; but charity regards the substantial reward and rectitude of the will, which, when it has been bent aside, can just as well as before be set right again with the help of God's grace. And so it is evident that the case is not alike. — And if one objects further, that baptismal innocence is like the state of virginal continence; it must be said that with regard to a certain accidental glory it is in some way like it; and concerning that it can be granted that a man does not rise again in so great a glory: yet from this it does not follow that the charity is not equal. — But concerning this same problem it is treated in the fourth book, distinction fourteen, where it is asked whether perfect penance restores a man to his former state.

---