Dist. 17, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 1
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/4/d/17/q/bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On the order of the things that concur unto justification.*

Consequently, having considered the things that concur unto the justification of the sinner in itself, with respect to the second article inquiry is made about the order of these things to one another. And concerning this four things are asked.

First it is asked, whether the infusion of grace necessarily precedes the expulsion of sin.

Second it is asked, whether the expulsion of sin necessarily precedes contrition.

Third, whether before contrition it is necessary that attrition precede.

Fourth, whether confession necessarily follows justification.

### Question I. *Whether the infusion of grace necessarily precedes the expulsion of sin.*

Concerning the first: that the infusion of grace necessarily precedes the expulsion of sin, it seems so.

1. Ambrose says: « Just as the discipline of wisdom, entering the soul, takes away imprudence, so perfect virtue takes away iniquity »: if therefore iniquity is not taken away except by perfect virtue entering in, and this is grace: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, for grace to be infused is nothing other than for it to be created; but the creation of grace precedes the expulsion of sin, because sin is not expelled except through grace: therefore so too is the infusion of grace.

3. Likewise, if sin is naturally expelled first, before grace is infused; since sin cannot be expelled except through the indwelling of God in the soul, then God would dwell in the soul before He would infuse grace; and this is impossible.

4. Likewise, when fire expels cold, it first naturally sends its power into the matter, before it expels the cold: if therefore God expels sin by sending in grace, then the sending-in of grace is prior by nature to the expulsion of sin.

**On the contrary:**

1. In any change the terminus *from which* is naturally prior to the terminus *to which*, whether according to nature or according to time; but justification begins from evil and terminates at good: therefore if the evil from which it begins is sin, and the good to which it tends is grace; it seems that the expulsion of sin is by nature prior to the infusion of grace.

2. Likewise, « that is prior in nature from which the consequence is not converted according to necessity »; but to being clean there necessarily follows being in grace, and not conversely, as is clear in the first man and the Angel, in whom there was the state of innocence before that of grace: therefore by nature being clean is prior to being in grace. But being clean is through the expulsion of sin, being in grace through the infusion of grace: therefore the expulsion of sin is prior.

3. Likewise, the mean is [a mean] according to nature and according to actual existence, and although between sin and grace there is no mean according to actual existence, there is nevertheless a mean according to nature, namely innocence; but a mean according to nature in a change naturally precedes the extremes: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, sin is expelled either when it is, or when it is not. Not when it is not, because then it would always be being expelled. If when it is; but when sin is in the soul, grace is not infused, because then two opposites would be at once in the same thing: therefore sin is expelled before grace is infused.

5. Likewise, if God were to operate successively, He would first expel sin before He would infuse grace, first, I say, in time; but a sudden operation, even if it removes the order of time, nevertheless does not remove the order of nature: therefore since He justifies suddenly, He first naturally expels sin before He gives grace.

6. Likewise, it does not seem that there is any order, since to deprive a privation is nothing other than to restore the habit; but sin is a privation, grace is a habit: therefore it is altogether the same for grace to be infused and for sin to be expelled: therefore it seems that they are simultaneous in time and nature, since of the same thing in relation to itself there is no order.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** The infusion of grace, as proceeding from its principle, in justification naturally precedes the expulsion of sin.

**I respond:** To this some have wished to say that God expels sin by Himself; for He says of Himself in Isaiah forty-three: *I am He who blots out your iniquities for My own sake.* Hence according to these, God first cleanses the soul and afterward gives grace, [the two] simultaneous in time, yet posterior in nature.

But because the true [view] is more commonly held, and I believe that God expels sin through grace, as the sun [expels] darkness through its rays, as is said in Acts fifteen: *Purifying by faith* etc., and this was shown above; therefore, since the cause precedes the effect, the infusion of grace is naturally prior to the expulsion of sin, just as light goes before the driving-away of darkness.

For the understanding of this it must be noted that some quality which acts upon another thing has a threefold relation, namely to the *principle* from which it issues, and to the contrary or *opposite* which it expels, and to the *subject* which it perfects. And these relations are ordered. For first it is related to the principle from which it is produced; second to the opposite which is expelled; third to the subject which is perfected. For a subject informed by some quality, or deformed by a vice, cannot be understood to be informed by some good quality or perfection, unless first the expulsion of the contrary is understood. And it is impossible that anything be understood as expelled from something, unless first that thing be understood to issue from its principle. Since therefore the infusion of grace does not signify the perfection of the subject except by concomitance, but rather the production of grace itself by the agent; therefore it is plain that it is prior to the expulsion, just as a cause is prior to its effect.

**To that, then, which is objected on the contrary:**

*To 1.* To what is objected first, that the terminus *from which* is prior; it must be said that the terminus *to which* is not the infusion of grace, but rather the subject's being in grace and cleansed and informed by grace. Hence I readily grant that grace by nature has the character of an agent before that of an informing [form]; and insofar as it has the character of an agent, thus it is the principle of justification; insofar as it has the character of an informing [form], thus it is the terminus.

*To 2.* To what is objected, that being clean is prior to being in grace; it must be said that although cleansing is by nature prior to gracing, nevertheless it is not prior to the one cleansing itself; and because grace is not only that which graces, but also that which cleanses; therefore it precedes. Hence that argument would be good, if cleansing were not from grace as from an immediate and created principle; but as it is, that argument has only this force, that by nature it belongs to grace to expel sin before it informs the subject; and this is true. For a form which is introduced into some matter is first there as a potency or as an agent, before it is there as perfecting or as an act. Whether therefore the expulsion of sin be the same as cleansing, or not; it follows the infusion of grace; for grace cleanses, and this by nature it has to do before it denominates the subject.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that cleanness or innocence is a mean between grace and sin; it must be said that this is true; but not on account of this is the cleansing of the soul prior to the infusion of grace. For grace, created in the soul, informs it; and because it cannot inform so long as an obstacle is there, namely so long as the subject is informed by the opposite habit; it expels sin. Hence the expulsion of sin is naturally prior to the informing of the soul. And before these two, the creation of grace is prior to any of them; but the infusion of grace is nothing other than its creation. Hence when he says that the infusion of grace is the enabling of the subject itself, this is said by concomitance.

*To 4.* To that which is asked: when is sin expelled? either when it is, or when it is not; it must be said that, because expulsion is a sudden change, and in a sudden change the *coming-to-be* and the *having-come-to-be* are simultaneous; therefore the expulsion and the having-been-expelled are simultaneous; hence it is expelled when first it is not. It is therefore said to be expelled inasmuch as it was before and would still be, were the contrary not to oppose it; and it is not always said to be expelled, but only in the first instant and in the [instant] in which its being ceases, and then indeed it is not.

Some, however, wish to say otherwise, that because sin has temporal being, therefore it is not in its terminus, but grace is in the terminus and in the beginning; and therefore they say that when grace is infused, it both begins and is then; but sin, when it ceases to be, is not. — But whatever may be the case as to the word "ceasing", yet I believe that sin too has being in an instant, just as grace does, and is in its terminus, in the terminus, I say, within; but the expulsion is the terminus without, because it is simultaneous with the having-been-expelled. — And if you object that two instants are immediate; then it must be answered, just as was answered above concerning the transition of bread into the body of Christ, where five answers were set down, which need not be repeated for the sake of brevity; and in the last one I believe one must stand.

*To 5.* To that which is objected, if God were to operate successively etc.; it must be said that something other than grace would cleanse the soul, and then there would be another order of nature; but as it is, since He cleanses through grace, it is necessary that, in the order of nature, it precede the expulsion of sin. But this being granted, that He cleanses through grace, it is impossible to understand that [it be] successive, because then grace would be simultaneous with sin; but grace is such a property that it can in no way be mingled with sin.

*To 6.* To what is objected lastly, that it is the same to remove a privation and to give a habit; it must be said that this is true where there is a pure privation; it is true also where a habit is given that precisely removes that privation. But as it is, it is not so, but sin, even though it bespeaks a deformity, nevertheless concerns some matter according to certain ones. Yet whatever may be the case about this, grace not only repairs the habit opposed to sin, which is innocence, but superadds [something], as was seen above; and therefore it is not altogether the same to expel sin and to give grace. — And this the common opinion holds, which distinguishes those four things that concur unto the justification of the sinner, among which the first is the infusion of grace, while the expulsion of sin is placed last.