Dist. 31, Dubia
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-dubia
----------------------------------------
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which the Master asks in the text, there: *Here it is wont to be asked, whether the cause of original sin in the flesh is fault or punishment.* For he does not seem to answer the question proposed, because in resolving it he neither determines that it is *fault*, nor determines that it is *punishment*; and it seems that it is *neither.* That it is not *fault* is established. That it is not *punishment* seems to be the case, because *punishment* is born to be only in that nature in which misery too is born to be; and misery only in that in which beatitude also is born to be; but this is the rational creature alone: therefore before the coming of the soul there can be neither *punishment* nor *fault.* — Likewise, by every punishment someone is punished; but by that corruption which is in the seed before the coming of the soul, no one is punished: therefore it does not seem to be a *punishment.* — But on the contrary it stands, that since it is a *corruption* consequent upon *fault*, and every such corruption is a *punishment*; such a corruption seems to be a *punishment.* Likewise, since every curse is of punishment or of fault, and *the seed was cursed*, according to what is said in the twelfth chapter of Wisdom, and Augustine expounds in the book *Hypognosticon*: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said to this briefly, that the Master answers this question very cautiously and reasonably. For he neither maintains that it is a *punishment*, nor maintains that it is a *fault*, nor yet does he deny it. For that corruption or foulness is not *actually* a *punishment* or a *fault*, since *punishment* under the formal character of punishment, and *fault* under the formal character of fault, are about a rational subject. Nor yet does he deny that it is a *punishment* or a *fault*, because it bears a relation to each order, and is in a certain manner the cause of each. For the soul, from its conjunction to the flesh, by reason of that foulness contracts punishment and fault, although it contracts the fault first by nature than the deserving of punishment. Therefore the Master, in order to comprehend both, calls it *viciousness* or *the foulness of the flesh*; and by this the answer to each part becomes plain, because in a certain manner of speaking it is a *punishment*, in a certain manner *not*.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *The foulness seems to be greater in the flesh concupiscentially handed down than in that from which it is handed down.* For if this is true, since the original [sin] is contracted from that foulness, it seems that the original [sin] is greater in one than in another. Likewise, no property is more intense in the effect than in the cause, when it is in each univocally: therefore if the foulness in the flesh handed down is caused by that from which it is handed down, the Master does not seem to say what is true, when he says that it is greater here than there.

**I respond:** It must be said that, when the Master says that the foulness is greater in the flesh which is handed down than in the flesh from which it is handed down, he intends this with regard to the flesh which is in the *other* members and serves members other than the members of the *generative* [power]. But he says this because in that power there is a certain *welling-up infection*, on account of which the seed, begotten there and descending by that way, is infected with a greater infection than the other humors; which the itching and heat of intercourse make manifest, as he himself says in the text. Hence he does not wish to say that the seed from which the offspring is generated is more infected than the seed from which the father was generated. Nor yet does it follow that the original [sin] is greater in the offspring than it was in the father. And thus the answer to that becomes plain. But this will be explained more plainly when treatment is made below concerning the quantity of the original [sin].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Not because we were conceived of the flesh drawn from Adam did we draw sin*; and the question is, whether if some man were made from the corrupted flesh of Adam apart from the law of generation, whether he would contract the original [sin]. And that he would not, the Master seems to say in the text, and this very thing Augustine seems to say against the Pelagians, where he says: «*Such as is the earthly one, such also are the earthly; this in what way, except by the scattering of seed?*» And after: «*The seed therefore was corrupted, as it is written: The seed was cursed from the beginning.*» And after, more clearly: «*The defect cannot be contracted from the first-formed one without the effusion of seed.*» If therefore one were formed otherwise than by that way, it does not seem that he would contract the original [sin]. — But the contrary of this seems to be the case, because, if the whole flesh of Adam was corrupted and made foul by the merit of the fault, it seems by parity of reasoning that sin would be contracted, if one were made from another part, just as *is done* from the seed. Furthermore, the whole body of the offspring is fashioned from the seed; and it is established that that foulness is not purged on account of the diversity of organization: therefore if the soul contracted the original [sin] which was joined to that first body; by parity of reasoning it seems that that soul would contract it which were joined to a body formed from that flesh, unless in that formation there were a purification.

**I respond:** Some hold that he would contract the original [sin] on account of the fact that there is corruption and defilement not only in a *part*, but in the *whole flesh.* But others hold the opposite, saying that although there is in all the members a corruption of *penalty*, yet the corruption of *foulness*, which is the principle of the original [sin], resides in the generative part. — Whichever of these is said, no great weight is to be put upon it, because there is no one who is not generated according to the law of propagation from infected seed except Christ alone, of whom it is certain that he did not have original sin. Nevertheless it is safer to adhere to the words of the Master on account of this, that they are more consonant with the words of Augustine. Hence if a man were made from another part, or even if the woman had been made from the rib of the man after he sinned, she would have had some penalty, yet not original sin. — Nor does that which he objects concerning corruption avail. For although in all the members there is a corruption of *penalty*, yet the corruption of *foulness* is in the seed alone by reason of the principal infection, which is in the generative power. But why that power is more infected than another, has been determined above.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Behold, in iniquities I was conceived* etc. For from this word it seems to be gathered that the matrimonial act can never be done without sin; and this very thing seems [to follow] from the authority of Augustine, in the fourteenth book *On the City of God*: «*Lust has so subjected the generative parts of the body to its own right, that they cannot be moved if it is lacking.*» And to Valerius: «*The honorableness of intercourse is not without the ardor of lust.*» — But the contrary of this is the case, because every commandment of God can be fulfilled without sin: therefore a man can also procreate offspring without sin for the worship of God.

**I respond:** To this it must be said briefly, that the matrimonial act can be done without any sin, especially when it is done for the cause of generating offspring, or of rendering the debt; and that word of the Psalm is understood of original sin in the *offspring*, not of *actual sin* in the parent; and likewise the word of Augustine is understood of lust, insofar as it is the *itching of the flesh*, not insofar as it is the *wickedness of the will*; and in this manner it is more *punishment* than *fault.* And concerning this it is determined more plainly in the fourth book, in the treatise on matrimony.

---