Dist. 31, Art. 2, 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/2/d/31/q/bon-sent-II-d31-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Article II. Question III. *Whether the flesh is infected by propagation alone, or by propagation and lust.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the flesh itself is infected by propagation alone, or by propagation and lust. And that it is by lust, it seems:

1. *First*, by the authority of Augustine, *On the Faith, to Peter*: « Original sin is not transmitted to little ones by propagation, but by lust »: if therefore the soul contracts the original [sin]
from the foulness of the flesh, that foulness is in the flesh not from propagation, but from lust.

2. Likewise, the Master in the text: « There is a certain pollution in the flesh, which the flesh contracts from the heat of the parents' coitus and from libidinous concupiscence, while it is conceived ». From this it appears that that foulness in the flesh is not from propagation, but from lust.

3. Likewise, Christ, conceived of the blessed Virgin, is from the mass of the human race, and yet He had neither that foulness in the flesh nor the original [sin] in the soul: therefore such foulness is in the flesh not because the flesh is brought forth from flesh, but because it is sown with lust.

4. Likewise, if nature had never fallen, there would nonetheless be propagation of flesh from flesh; nor would there be foulness in it nor, consequently, original sin: therefore if in the propagation of man from man there is a transmission of the original [sin], this is not by reason of the propagation itself, but by reason of the adjoined lust.

5. Likewise, if propagation came about without lust, then there would be no disorder on the part of the generative power: if there were no disorder on the part of the generative power, there would be no defilement in the seed; and if this, there would be neither foulness in the flesh, nor would the original [sin] be contracted in the soul. If therefore the flesh is infected and vitiated, this is not from propagation alone, but also from lust.

**On the contrary:**
1. We contract the original sin because we sinned in Adam in that mode in which we were in him; but in him we were according to propagation, not according to lust: therefore we contract both the original [sin] and the foulness of the flesh by propagation, not by lust.

2. Likewise, lust regards the proximate parents; but the transmission of the original [sin] regards the first parents: hence we are not said to contract the original [sin] from a proximate parent, but from Adam: therefore it seems that the lust itself, which is in coitus, does nothing toward transfusing original sin.

3. Likewise, it is possible for holy spouses to come together out of charity without any sin; but wherever there is lust, there is improbity of will and some fault: therefore it would be possible for them to generate without lust: therefore if the transmission of the foulness of the flesh or of original sin were by reason of lust, offspring thus begotten would not have the original fault.

4. Likewise, if the transmission of the original [sin] were by reason of lust, then he who was born with greater lust would contract a greater original [sin]; but one born of adultery is generated with greater lust than one who is born of lawful marriage: therefore it seems that the original fault would be greater in him. If therefore by the corruption of original sin all are corrupted equally, it seems that such corruption is not transmitted through lust.

5. Likewise, suppose that the seed were drawn off from the loins of the man and infused into the vessel of the woman, such that neither the man nor the woman should feel delight; there would be there a conception of offspring without lust: therefore such offspring would not have original sin. But if it is absurd to suppose and to understand that anyone be generated from the seed of Adam without corruption, except in Him alone who was conceived of the Virgin by a power above nature; it does not seem that lust transmits the foulness of the flesh or the original sin to posterity, but propagation.

### Conclusio

> If lust is understood in the sense of vicious corruption, then it concurs in infecting the flesh in propagation.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Augustine expressly says in the book *On the Faith, to Peter*, and the Master says in the text, the foulness of the flesh and the contraction of the original [sin] is not only from the law of propagation, but also from the foulness of lust. Hence Augustine says: « Sin is transmitted to little ones not by propagation, but by lust, nor does the fecundity of human nature cause men to be born with sin, but the foulness of lust ».

For the understanding of this saying and also of the objections, it must be noted that lust is said in three ways. In one way lust is said to be an *improbity of will*, according to which mode Augustine says in the book *On Free Choice*: « We see nothing else in the whole genus of evildoing except lust dominating », that is, the improbity of will. — In another way lust is said to be *immoderate delight*, according to which we say that there is greater lust in the work of the generative power than of another power. — In a third way lust is said to be *vicious corruption*, which we say to be in the seed and also in the generative power apart from the act of generating, according to which the *generative power* itself is said to be corrupted and infected. — In all these ways it happens that lust is about the act of human generation, since there both is *vicious corruption* and *immoderate delight* and *improbity of will*. Yet without the *first* lust, that is, without improbity of will, it happens that generation frequently occurs; without the *second*, that is, without immoderate delight, scarcely or never; without the *third*, never, if it be a generation according to the law of nature.
Therefore when it is said that « it is not propagation that transmits sin to posterity, but lust », this is not understood of lust in the *first* and *second* mode, but in the *third*. — And through this the response to all the arguments which are adduced for each part is clear. For the first authorities and arguments, which show that the original [sin] is transfused on account of lust, speak of lust in the third acceptation. — But the arguments to the opposite proceed concerning lust in the first and second acceptation, and this is clear to one who works through each and every one of them.