Dist. 30, 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/2/d/30/q/bon-sent-II-d30-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether human nature, by the merit of the first transgression, was corrupted penally only, or also culpably.*

Secondly it is asked whether, by the merit of the first transgression, human nature was corrupted penally only, or also culpably. And that it was corrupted culpably, it seems.

**Arguments.**

1. To the Romans 5: *As by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, so also death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.* From this word it is gathered that all in Adam were infected and constituted sinners. If perhaps you say, as the Pelagians say, that
[sin] passed by imitation; on the contrary: to the Ephesians 2: *We were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest*; but no one is a child of wrath except by fault: if therefore by nature we were all children of wrath, by nature we all contract fault: therefore in the rest [of men] human nature is culpably infected.

2. Likewise, John 3: *Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit* etc.; but no one is excluded from the eternal reward except for sin: if therefore all the unbaptized are excluded, whether they be little ones or adults, then all, from the time they are born, have fault; but not a fault which they have committed, since they are subject to this sentence before the use of reason, as is clear in uncircumcised little ones, Genesis 17: therefore this is a fault which is found in each one through natural generation: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if the whole nature were in one person, that person being corrupted as to being, it is necessary that the whole nature be corrupted as to being: therefore by parity of reasoning, if it were corrupted as to well-being, the whole nature would be corrupted as to well-being. For just as it follows: if Adam dies, man dies; so it follows: if Adam sins, man sins. Since therefore the whole nature was in Adam when he sinned, it seems that the whole sinned in him, and through this the whole was culpably infected in all and each.

4. Likewise, the fountain being poisoned, consequently the streams proceeding from the fountain are also poisoned. If therefore all men proceeded from Adam, as branches from a root and streams from a fountain, and he was corrupted by the disease of concupiscence, which was in him a fault: it seems that he corrupted the others too by the same kind of corruption, and thus culpably.

5. Likewise, as the innocent stands in relation to the innocent to be generated, so the sinner to the sinner; but if Adam had stood in his innocence, he would have generated all his sons innocent: therefore the whole of human nature would be innocent and pure, as far as it would be from him. This is plain enough: therefore by parity of reasoning, when he sinned, he constituted the whole of human nature a sinner, in such a way that he would generate all his sons sinners.

6. Likewise, because Adam sinned, he was made mortal; and because he is mortal, it was necessary that he generate all his sons mortal; but as effect stands to effect, so cause stands to cause: if therefore the cause of mortality was fault, and the mortality of the person of Adam made the whole of human nature mortal and corrupted the whole penally; by parity of reasoning it seems that the fault of Adam infected the whole of human nature culpably and corrupted culpably all who go forth from him. — If therefore the fault that is in all by nature is original fault, it is gathered from all these reasons that one must posit an original fault.

**On the contrary:** 1. Ezekiel 18: *The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father* etc. If therefore this is a divine law, according to the divine law each one sins to himself and not to another, according to that [saying] of Proverbs 9: *If you be wise, you shall be so for yourself: but if you be a scorner, you alone shall bear the evil*: therefore it does not seem that from the sin of the father the son should be culpably infected.

2. Likewise, both in the New and in the Old Testament marriages were granted as good and licit; but to no good does evil necessarily follow; but to marriage evil would necessarily follow, if the offspring contracted fault from its origin: therefore either marriages are evil and illicit, which is against sacred Scripture and the Christian faith, or one must not posit original sin.

3. Likewise, a changeable and less noble thing being corrupted, that which is unchangeable and more noble is not on that account corrupted; but the person of man is changeable and less noble than the nature — for the whole nature of the species is perpetual and more noble than one singular person — therefore it was impossible that it be totally and through fault infected by the person of Adam.

4. Likewise, in evil things it is generally true that a bad *habit* precedes a bad *act*, although in good things it is the contrary: therefore the habitual corruption of nature arises from the actual fault of nature itself. But nature, as far as it is of itself, is always right and does not sin, since sin properly belongs to the will: therefore it does not seem that the whole nature was infected, or even could be infected.

5. Likewise, nothing natural is culpable, for the reason that « in natural things we are neither praised nor blamed »; but original corruption is natural, since it is the same in all: therefore it seems that these two are incompossible, that some corruption be culpable and that it be original: therefore it does not seem that the whole nature could be culpably infected by a person.

6. Likewise, nothing necessary is voluntary; but original corruption is necessary: therefore it is not voluntary. But every fault is a voluntary affection,
according to what Augustine says in the book *On Free Choice*: therefore it is impossible that original corruption be a fault: there returns therefore the same [conclusion] as before, that no fault is original, and that human nature in Adam was not culpably infected.

### Conclusion.

> Human nature in all men is corrupted, not only penally, but also culpably, and this indeed by the sin of Adam.

**I respond:** It must be said that, without doubt, the whole nature, that is, the nature in all men descending seminally from Adam, is corrupted, not only penally, but also culpably. For this the lack of the vision of God, the shame of reason, and the predominance of concupiscence manifest. — *The lack of the vision of God* manifests this, because no one ought to be deprived of the eternal good for which he was made, unless he have in himself something through which he is unworthy to be presented to the divine gaze; but such a thing is nothing other than fault. If therefore all, as many as there are, are deprived of the vision of God unless they be reborn by the baptism of the river [water] or of the breath [Spirit], it is plain that all, as many as there are, contract fault from their origin.

*The shame* of reason also manifests this. For no one is reasonably ashamed of those passions which he has from nature, unless they be in him through some fault; but every man is naturally ashamed at the motion of the genital members. From this, therefore, it is gathered and manifested that each one is corrupted in himself not only penally, but also blamably and culpably, as far as is from his natural origin.

*The predominance of concupiscence* manifests this most evidently. For it is certain that the soul of man is then ordered when the spirit is under God, and the flesh and the animal powers are under the spirit and follow its command. From the opposite [conditions], therefore, the soul of man is perverted when the flesh and the animal powers preside over the rational spirit. And this indeed is true plainly, not only according to faith, but also according to philosophy. But in man the force of concupiscence and the law of the members, which each one has from birth, captivates the spirit and predominates over it. From this, therefore, it is clear and manifest that the soul of each man is perverted and disordered from birth; but just as ordination and rectitude in man is justice, so perversity and disorder is fault. If therefore the soul of each man is perverted by the law of concupiscence from its origin, in each man it must undoubtedly be posited that there is original sin, as far as is from his first birth. — And of this no one doubts, except one who does not know how great is the force of concupiscence, and how the rational spirit ought to be subject to God. For it is certain that our spirit is not perfectly subject to God unless it love Him above all things and for His own sake. It is also plain that no one in the state of corrupted nature loves God above all things and for His own sake without the gift of grace, but rather is necessarily overcome by the force of concupiscence, so that he loves himself more, or some apparent good. It is plain, therefore, that the soul of each man is a sinner at his birth, since it is subverted and disordered, as has been shown. And therefore the Apostle says to the Romans 7, in the person of fallen man: *I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind and captivating me in the law of sin.* And he exclaims: *Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?* And he answers: *The grace of God by Jesus Christ.* If anyone, therefore, wishes to attend to this law and disorder toward God, he will in no way doubt that man is a sinner from his birth — rather, it is so certain that one cannot doubt of the original [sin], just as not even of the actual. — This, however, the philosophers, and also some heretics, did not know, because they did not know how to attend to that in which the rectitude of the soul and its justice is attended to, and in relation to what the soul ought to be said to be ordered toward God. It is certain, therefore, that the whole of human nature is corrupted, not only penally, but also culpably.

But by whom it was corrupted, this is plain from Scripture itself, namely, by Adam. And Adam was able to corrupt the whole nature and make it culpable by his sin, three conditions concurring. The first is that he was not only an *individual* of human nature,
but the principle of the whole of human nature. The second is that the commandment was given not to him only as to a singular person, but as to the stock of the whole of human nature; and the text well indicates this, since that commandment descended through the man to the woman. The third is that Adam had received innocence and immortality for himself and for his whole posterity: hence he, innocent and immortal, would have generated [offspring] immortal and innocent. Since, therefore, he was the principle of all; and transgressed the commandment which had been given to him, insofar as he was a principle; and lost that justice and innocence which he ought to have preserved for all his descendants: hence it is that through him we are deprived of original justice, and in his infection the rest are infected, not only penally, but also culpably: both on account of the debt of the ordination which ought to be in us; and on account of the lack of that innocence which we ought to have; and on account of the predominance of concupiscence, through which our souls are disordered and unjust; and if they are unjust and disordered, it is necessary that they displease supreme justice. — It is clear, therefore, that the whole of human nature is corrupted, not only penally, but also culpably. It is likewise clear by whom it was corrupted, namely, by the first parent. But how that fault is propagated will be determined below. The reasons, therefore, for the first part are to be conceded.

1. To that, then, which is first objected, that *the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father*; it must be said that this is understood of the sin by which the father sins as a singular person, as will be better manifested below; and therefore it has no place in the first transgression, since that was not entirely of a singular person, as was explained above.

2. To that which is objected, that to a good evil does not necessarily follow; it must be said that this is true, speaking per se. Hence to marriage the corruption of the offspring generated does not necessarily follow, insofar as there is there a natural conjunction of male and female, but insofar as to that conjunction is joined the vicious corruption of the seed on account of the sin of the first parent. And if you object, as the heretic objects, that in whatever way evil follows, that good ought to be omitted; it must be said that this is not true, except when the evil outweighs the good. But now it is not so, since in those who generate there is no fault; while in the one generated it is better so to be than not to be, especially since he is aided by baptismal grace.

3. To that which is objected, that, a less noble and changeable thing being corrupted, the more noble and perpetual is not corrupted; it must be said that this is true and holds when that which is more noble and perpetual does not depend on the less noble and changeable. But it is not so in the matter at hand, since the whole of human nature depended on the person of Adam as to existence. Hence if Adam had died, the whole human race would have been corrupted in him.

4. To that which is objected, that a bad habit precedes a bad act; it must be said that this is true; nevertheless from this it is not necessary that a bad habit of nature precede a bad act of nature, insofar as it is nature, but it suffices that a bad act of the person precede, for the reason that nature and person are undivided; and therefore a personal corruption can be made natural, as Anselm shows *On the Virginal Conception*. — Yet it could be said that, even if nature did not sin in itself, it nevertheless sinned insofar as it was in Adam; for Adam himself sinned, inasmuch as he was the principle of all men.

5. To that which is objected, that nothing natural is culpable; it must be said that, as Augustine says, it is one thing to speak of nature and [another] of corrupted nature. Something, therefore, can be natural which follows nature itself according to [its] institution, and something can be natural which follows nature itself according to [its] corruption. I say, therefore, that that which is natural in such a way that it follows nature according to institution is in no way culpable; but that which is natural in such a way that it follows nature according to corruption is culpable; and such is the original [corruption]. And thus that [objection] is clear.

6. To that which is objected, that nothing necessary is voluntary; it must be said that, although this can have truth with respect to the same thing, nevertheless with respect to diverse things it is not necessary that it have truth. For what is necessary to one can be voluntary to another; and so it is in the original [sin], which indeed, although it is necessary to us, was nevertheless voluntary to Adam; and by reason of that will it is imputed to us as sin, whence all are said to have sinned in him. But this will be better shown when it is manifested how original sin is propagated.