Article 7 — Whether the habit of formless faith is the same as that of formed faith

Seventh, it is asked whether the habit of formless faith is the same as that of formed faith? (Parallel texts: ST II-II.4.4; In III Sent., d. 23, q. 3, a. 1, qa. 3; a. 4, qa. 1–3; Commentary on Romans, ch. 1, lect. 6.)

Obj. 1: It seems that it is not, for when grace comes, it has as much influence on one who believes as on one who does not believe. But, when the unbeliever is converted, the habit of faith is infused in him together with grace. Therefore, there is a similar infusion in the believer [that is, when he is reinstated in grace]; hence, the habit of formed faith is different from the habit of formless faith.

Obj. 2: Formless faith is the principle of servile fear. (Cf. Guill. Altiss, Summa aurea, bk. 3, tr. 8, ch. 3, q. 1 (f.183rb et vb).) But formed faith is the principle of holy or initial fear. But, when holy or filial fear arrives, (Cf. Peter Lombard, Sentences, bk. 3, d. 34, ch. 4.) servile fear is driven out. Therefore, also, when formed faith comes, formless faith is driven out. So, it is not the same habit for both.

Obj. 3: As Boethius says, (Boethius, Commentary on Aristotle's Categories, bk. 1, ch. "De substantia" (PL 64:199A).) accidents can cease to exist, but they can in no wise undergo alteration. But the habit of formless faith is an accident. Therefore, it cannot undergo alteration so that it becomes itself the formed habit.

Obj. 4: When life comes, what is dead leaves. But formless faith, which is without works is dead, as is said in James 2:26. Therefore, when charity, which is the principle of life, comes, formless faith is removed, and, so, does not become formed.

Obj. 5: One thing does not result from two accidents. But formless faith is an accident. Therefore, it cannot unite with charity to make one thing, as would seem to be necessary if formless faith itself became formed.

Obj. 6: Any things which differ generically also differ specifically and numerically. But formless faith and formed faith differ generically, since one is a virtue and the other is not. Therefore, they also differ specifically and numerically.

Obj. 7: Habits are distinguished according to their acts. (Aristotle, On the Soul 2.6, 415a18.) But formless faith and formed faith have different acts: to tend toward God by faith, to believe on God’s word, or in God. (Cf. Peter Lombard, Sentences, bk. 3, d. 23, ch. 4.) Therefore, they are different habits.

Obj. 8: Different habits are lost by different vices, since each is lost because of its opposite, and each thing has only one opposite. But formed faith is lost through the sin of fornication, but formless faith is not, for it is lost only through the sin of unbelief. Therefore, formed and formless faith are different habits.

On the contrary (1), James (2:20, 26) says: faith without works is dead and the Gloss adds: by which [works] it lives once more. (Glossa interlinearis, ibid.) Therefore, the very formless faith which was dead is formed and comes to life again.

Furthermore (2), things are not differentiated except by those things which are outside of their essences. But charity is outside of the essence of faith. Therefore, the habit of faith is not differentiated because it has or does not have charity.

I answer that there are different opinions on this matter, for some say (Guill. Altiss., Summa aurea, bk. 3, tr. 3, q. 15 (f.209ra).) that a habit which was formless never becomes formed, but that a new habit, formed faith, is infused with grace. When it arrives, the habit of formless faith leaves. But this cannot be, for a thing is expelled only by its opposite. If, therefore, the habit of formed faith drove out the habit of formless faith, since it is not contrary to it except by reason of its formlessness, it would be necessary that the very formlessness belong to the essence of formless faith. Thus, it would be essentially an evil habit and could not be a gift of God. Furthermore, when someone sins mortally, grace and formed faith are taken away. Still, we see that faith remains. Nor can it be shown that, as they say, (Cf. Bonaventure, In III Sent., d. 23, a. 2, q. 4.) the gift of formless faith is given them again, because then, from the very fact that someone had sinned, he would be made fit to receive a gift from God. Others (Eandem opinionem iam allegant Philippus Cancellarius, Summa de bono (ms. Vat. lat. 7669, f.82va); et Summa fratris Alexandri, part 3, n. 656, p. 1041.) therefore say that the habit is not taken away, but just the act of formless faith is removed with the coming of charity. But neither can this stand, for thus the habit would remain idle. Furthermore, since the act of formless faith has no essential contrariety to the act of formed faith, it cannot be hindered by it. Nor, again, can it be said that both acts and habits are there together, for formed faith can perform every act which formless faith performs. Thus, the same act would come from the two powers, which is not reasonable.

Hence, we must say with the others (E.g. Bonaventure, In III Sent., d. 23, a. 2, q. 5.) that formless faith stays when charity comes, and is itself formed. In this way only the formlessness is removed. This can be seen from what follows. For in powers or habits we can see two sources of differentiation: objects and different ways of acting. Diversity of objects differentiates habits essentially, in the manner sight differs from hearing, and chastity from bravery. But, with reference to their manner of acting, powers or habits are not differentiated according to their essence, but according to completeness and incompleteness. For the fact that one sees more or less clearly, or performs chaste actions more or less readily, does not differentiate the power of sight or the habit of chastity, but does show that the power and habit are more perfect and less perfect. Now, formed faith and formless faith do not have different objects, but only different ways of acting. For formed faith, assents to first truth with a perfect will, whereas formless faith does the same with an imperfect will. So, formed faith and formless faith are not distinguished as two different habits, but as a perfect habit and an imperfect habit. Consequently, since the same habit, which formerly was imperfect, becomes perfect, the very habit of formless faith later becomes formed.

Reply Obj. 1: Grace does not have less effectiveness when infused into one who has faith than when infused into one who has not faith. But the fact that it does not cause another habit of faith in one who already has faith is due to an extrinsic reason, namely, because it finds the habit already there. This is like the case in which one who is ignorant is taught by the instruction of the teacher, while one who knows does not acquire a new habit but is strengthened in the knowledge he had before.

Reply Obj. 2: The arrival of charity does not expel servile fear in its substance as a gift, but only with reference to its servility. Similarly, it is only with reference to its formlessness that faith is formed when grace arrives.

Reply Obj. 3: Although an accident cannot undergo alteration, the subject of the accident can be altered with reference to some accident. That accident is said to be altered in this way, as whiteness increases or decreases when the subject is altered with reference to whiteness.

Reply Obj. 4: When life comes, it is not necessary for that which is dead to leave, but for death to leave. Hence, not formless faith but only the formlessness is removed through charity.

Reply Obj. 5: Although one thing cannot arise from two accidents, one accident can be perfected through another, as color through light. In this way faith is perfected through charity.

Reply Obj. 6: Formless and formed faith are not said to differ according to genus, as though they were things existing in different genera. Rather, they are as the perfect, which attains to the character of the genus, and the imperfect, which has not yet attained to it. Thus, it is not necessary that they differ numerically, just as the embryo and the animal do not have to differ numerically.

Reply Obj. 7: To believe in God’s word, to believe in God, and to tend toward God by faith do not indicate different acts, but different circumstances of the same act of virtue. For in faith something derives from knowledge, inasmuch as faith is evidence. In this way, the act of faith is said to believe in God’s word when there is question of the principle of this evidence. For one who believes something is moved to assent because it was said by God. But, when there is question of the conclusion to which he assents, he is said to believe in God. For first truth is the proper object of faith. With reference to what derives from the will, the believer in his act of faith is said to tend toward God by faith. Moreover, it is not completely an act of virtue unless it has all three of these circumstances.

Reply Obj. 8: By fornication and other sins except unbelief formed faith is lost, not with reference to the substance of the habit, but only with reference to its form.