Dist. 31, 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/31/q/bon-sent-III-d31-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Article I. *On the duration of charity in comparison with the sin opposed to it.*
### Question III. *Whether a man can rise again in a lesser charity.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether a man can rise again in a lesser charity. And that he can seems true:

1. Because the quantity of charity in a man himself is reckoned according to the liberality of God; but God's liberality is not constricted, with regard to the sinner himself, to giving *just so much*, neither more nor less: therefore just as he can rise again in a greater charity, so also in a lesser.

2. Likewise, God gives a man grace according as he prepares and disposes himself; but it is possible that the sinner, when he rises again, should prepare himself for grace less than he had prepared himself before: therefore it is possible that he should rise again in a lesser charity and grace.

3. Likewise, preceding charity merits nothing with respect to subsequent charity, and likewise sin, so far as it is of itself, can be expelled by however little grace: therefore neither preceding charity nor subsequent sin requires that a man rise again in an equal charity or grace: therefore it is possible that he rise again in a lesser one.

4. Likewise, if a man could not rise again in a lesser charity, then one falling from a perfect charity could not rise again except in a perfect charity; but charity, when it rises again, is beginning: therefore it is at the same time beginning and perfect; which is manifestly false, since "no one becomes the highest all at once," and before the state of perfection there necessarily runs ahead the state that is imperfect and of beginning.

**On the contrary:** 1. Ezekiel 18: *If the wicked man does penance, I will not remember all his iniquities that he has wrought*; it is plain that this is not understood of forgetfulness as to the act of thinking, but as to the act of punishing; but a man is punished not only by the infliction of evil, but also by the subtraction of good: if therefore the Lord does not remember those sins unto eternal punishment; since a diminution of charity makes for a diminution of the substantial reward and so for eternal loss, it seems that it is necessary for a man to rise again in an equal charity, or in a greater.

2. Likewise, to the Romans 8: *We know that to those who love God all things work together unto good*; the Gloss: "even the very fall into mortal sin"; but the fall into mortal sin would not work together unto good unless the man rose again in an equal, or in a greater charity: it seems therefore that it is necessary for a man to rise again in an equal charity, or a greater.

3. Likewise, on that text of Genesis 1: *And there was evening and morning, one day*; the Gloss: "The evening light is that from which one fell; the morning, that in which he rises again": if therefore the morning light is always greater than the evening, it seems that the charity in which one rises again is greater than the charity from which he fell.

4. Likewise, of greater power is that which drives out than that which is driven out: but the charity in which one rises again drives out that which expelled the charity from which he fell: therefore it is necessary that the subsequent charity be greater and stronger than that which expelled the charity, and consequently than the very charity from which one fell.

### Conclusion.

> It is possible that a man, having lost charity, should rise again both in a greater and in a lesser and in an equal charity.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that some at one time held the opinion that it was necessary for a man to rise again in an equal, or a greater charity. And to maintaining this they were moved both from a consideration of the divine disposition or predestination, and from a consideration of the divine retribution, and from a consideration of our preparation. For from the consideration of the divine predestination they were moved: because they said that to those who love God all things work together unto good, to those who according to purpose are called Saints; therefore the immutability of the divine predestination would in no way allow a man to fall from charity, unless from that fall it foresaw a subsequent benefit; nor would the governance of the divine providence permit a son of the kingdom to fall, unless from this it also at the same time foresaw that a greater good would be drawn out from the fall itself. — And on the part of retribution they reason

that God rewards works according to the quantity of the charity out of which they were done. If therefore the charity in which one rises again vivifies the works formerly dead and makes them worthy of reward; since the reward is made equal to the quantity of the charity out of which the works were done, and cannot exceed the quantity of the charity in which one rises again: they reason from this that it is impossible for there to be a lesser charity in the one rising again than there was before in the one falling. — On the part of our preparation they reason thus: because, the more a man is unfit for grace, the greater is the preparation he needs in order to receive it; but the greater the grace from which he fell, the more he sinned and the more unfit for grace he was. It remains therefore, as they assert, that the quantity of the preparation ought to be proportioned to the quantity of the charity from which one fell; and the quantity of the subsequent charity is measured according to the quantity of the preparation: on account of which it seems to follow that the subsequent charity is made equal to the preceding, or exceeds it. And this they confirm by that text of Baruch 4: *As it was your mind to go astray from God, so when you return ten times as much you shall seek him*; and Isaiah 31: *Be converted, O children of Israel, as you had deeply revolted*.

But this manner of speaking is against *reason*, and sensible experience, nor does it have a stable *foundation*. For it is against *reason* to say that a perfect man, if he fall from charity, cannot rise again except in the state and completion of his perfection; and it *appears* in many cases that those who fall do not rise again to that perfection from which they fell. Neither does it have a stable *foundation*, because the *disposition* of the divine predestination does not require that a man always advance in good, but that he be finally good. God's *retribution* too does not weigh, as to the efficacy of merit, the initial charity, but the final charity. Our *preparation* for grace too can be greater in him who sinned less, and lesser in him who sinned more. And those *prophetic words* are not understood of any preparation whatever, but of *perfect* preparation and consummated penance, which restores all that was taken away, as is explained in the fourth book, distinction fourteen; but they do not hold true of any penance and conversion or preparation whatever. — Hence, since a man can prepare himself for a greater and for a lesser and for an equal charity, the common opinion holds that a man can rise again both in a greater and in a lesser and in an equal charity. And the reasons which are for this side are to be granted.

1. To that therefore which is objected first to the contrary, that the Lord does not remember sins after the penance of the sinner; it must be said that this is understood as to eternal punishment. And that a lesser grace be given to a man than had been the preceding, this is not on account of the punishment of the preceding sins, but it is on account of his negligent and lukewarm preparation.

2. To that which is objected, that to those who love God all things work together unto good; it must be said that this is not understood as though they always work together unto good as to the increase of the substantial reward; but this can be as to a certain humiliation and a more diligent preservation of good and a more cautious avoidance of evil, which help a man toward this, that he persevere unto the end. And it is more useful for a man to have a small charity persevering unto the end than a great one failing in mid-course.

3. To that which is objected, that the morning light is greater than the evening; it must be said that the charity rising again is not compared to the morning light on account of magnitude, but on account of newness and order toward advancing; and therefore in that argument there is a fallacy of the consequent, because the case is not altogether alike on the one side and the other.

4. To that which is objected, that what drives out is stronger than what is driven out; it must be said that this is true of those things which are driven out by mutual action and passion; but it is not so with sin and grace, as was explained above: and therefore that argument in no way compels.

---