Dist. 32, Art. 1, 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/2/d/32/q/bon-sent-II-d32-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### ARTICLE I.
### *On the deletion of original guilt.*

### QUESTION I.
### *Whether baptism deletes original [sin] as to guilt.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and it is asked, whether baptism deletes original [sin] as to guilt. And that it does, it seems:

1. John, third [chapter]: *Unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven*; but this is not on account of actual guilt in little children: therefore if this is so, it will be on account of original guilt. But after baptism the little child is not deprived

of the kingdom of heaven: therefore it is necessary that in baptism that be removed which rendered the human unworthy of the vision of God: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, to the Romans, sixth [chapter]: *Whoever of us are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death.* And after: *For he who is dead to sin is justified from sin*; the Gloss: « Thus by baptism we are dead to sin, just as Christ once died to punishment ».

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by reason. For baptism is a sacrament of truth and also of the new Law: therefore just as in baptism the human is washed exteriorly, so he is truly washed interiorly: if therefore in baptism the child is washed exteriorly, it seems that he is cleansed interiorly from original sin.

4. Likewise, in baptism the human is made a member of Christ and is regenerated by a spiritual generation: if therefore no one can be a member of Christ as long as he remains in mortal sin, it seems that by baptism original sin is deleted as to guilt.

**On the contrary:**

*To the opposite.*

1. It is impossible that the stain of sin be deleted or the deformity removed, as long as there remains the privation of the good which ought to be present; but in a human after baptism there remains the lack of that original justice which was in Adam in the state of innocence: therefore by it the stain of original guilt is not deleted. The major is manifest by the very definition of sin. The minor is manifest by experience itself, because we manifestly see that after baptism the flesh is not subjected to the spirit as it was subjected in Adam.

2. Likewise, it is impossible that the stain of sin be deleted as long as the act of sin remains, as is manifest — for the sin of fornication is never remitted to anyone as long as he is in the act of fornicating — but after baptism original [sin] remains as to its act, as the Master says: therefore it is impossible that in baptism it be deleted as to stain and liability.

3. Likewise, to concupisce after baptism is guilt; but as the acts are, so are the habits: therefore the concupiscence which remains after baptism is guilt. But it is not actual guilt: therefore it is original guilt: therefore by baptism original guilt is not deleted as to stain.

4. Likewise, guilt is the merit of punishment: therefore if guilt wholly ceases, punishment ought wholly to be removed. If therefore after baptism there remains punishment due to original [sin], such as death and like punishments, it does not seem that by baptism there is made a deletion of original [sin] as to stain. But if you say that, the stain of sin having been deleted, there can still remain some liability in the soul and an obligation to punishment for guilt previously committed; it seems then that original [sin] remains as to liability. Wrongly therefore does the Master say, when he asserts that original [sin] passes away as to liability and remains as to act.

### Conclusion.

> Original sin is remitted in baptism as to guilt, both because the vice of concupiscence is weakened, and because its liability is loosed.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master says in the text and takes from the words of Augustine, original [sin] is said to be remitted in baptism for a twofold reason: because by the grace of baptism the vice of concupiscence is weakened and attenuated, so that it no longer reigns; and because its liability is loosed.

But for the understanding of this saying it is to be noted that this saying can be understood in two ways, and in each way well enough and probably. In one way thus. As Augustine says in the book *On the Baptism of Little Children*, « original [sin] is concupiscence or the vice of concupiscence », and the Master says this same thing in the text. But this concupiscence, insofar as it is said to be original sin, names the intense and inordinate appetite of a changeable good. And the reason for this is this, that original sin is not only guilt, but also mortal guilt. Insofar as it is guilt, it states the privation of due order; insofar as it is mortal, it states not only the privation of the due good, but also states the subversion of order and justice. To this end, therefore, that concupiscence in someone may state original guilt, it is necessary that it state the necessity of concupiscing or the immoderation of appetite together with the obligation of not concupiscing and with

dominion, such that the carnal appetite presides over the spirit. And because both of these are in the human before baptism — for he has the obligation of not concupiscing, since to this the whole human nature in Adam had been obligated, nor had that obligation been relaxed for anyone; he has also the tinder [of sin], because, destitute of grace, he is conquered by the law of the members — hence it is that he has in himself original sin. But when the human is baptized, then grace is infused, and by the merit of the passion of Christ, of whom he is made a member, he is absolved by baptism from that obligation. And grace raises up the soul and gives it the power not to be conquered by concupiscence, and through this takes away its dominion. And hence it is that, because in baptism the dominion of concupiscence is removed, and the obligation of not concupiscing is loosed, the character of guilt is wholly taken away from concupiscence itself, although it remains in some manner. — And hence it is that the Master says that original [sin] in baptism « passes away as to liability and remains as to act », because, even if concupiscence remains, yet it does not remain insofar as it is guilt and binding to punishment. Hence it is also that the Master says that for a twofold reason sin is deleted in baptism: both because the vice of concupiscence is attenuated, and because the liability is loosed.

In another way also that saying can be understood, so that we understand, as was said above, that in original guilt there is found a certain conformity to actual guilt. For just as we see that in actual guilt there is both a turning-toward and a turning-away in the very act of sinning; and in the very habit of sin there is the privation of the habit of good and a certain aptitude toward the act of sin; so in the original [sin] we understand there to be the lack of due justice and concupiscence. And just as in the actual [sin] the privation of the good aptitude is the sin itself, formally speaking; but the aptitude itself or proneness toward the act of sin is not sin, except materially speaking, for the reason that it is not guilt except as long as the privation remains there: so it is to be understood in the case at hand. And just as in the deletion of actual sin, when grace is infused, the guilt is at once removed, insofar as it was deformity and privation; nevertheless together with this there remains a certain proneness toward the act, though remitted, especially in those who have sinned by a sin of habit: so, when baptismal grace is infused into the soul, original sin is at once removed, insofar as it was the lack of due justice; at once also, when grace is in the soul, together with it there is also justice; but concupiscence is not wholly taken away, but is diminished, for the reason that proneness toward guilt can stand together with grace, because, as was said, it was not the sin itself, speaking formally, but materially. Whence when the lack of due justice is excluded by baptismal grace, concupiscence remains by reason of punishment. And hence it is that he says that it « passes away as to liability and remains as to act », because it is now not guilt, by which the human is worthy of punishment, but the punishment is left over from preceding guilt. For this reason also he says that original sin is said to be remitted in baptism for a twofold reason: both because concupiscence is attenuated, and because the obligation is loosed. For the obligation is loosed, when by the justice of grace the justice of original innocence is recompensed. But concupiscence is remitted, when power is given to the spirit by grace to rule and conquer the flesh. — The reasons therefore are to be granted which show that original sin is deleted in baptism as to guilt.

1. To that therefore which is first objected to the contrary, that the privation of original justice remains; it is replied that the obligation is loosed by the merit of the passion of Christ, and the recompense is made by the grace of the Holy Spirit, which God gives to the soul, and which he even accepts more than the justice of innocence.

2. To that which is objected, that when the act remains the guilt cannot be deleted; it must be said that it is true of the act in which the full character of guilt consists, just as in the act of fornication consists the consummation of that sin. But the act of original sin is here called concupiscence or the necessity of concupiscing; but this does not remain insofar as in it there is the consummation of that sin. For as was said, it neither remains as to dominion, nor remains as to the obligation of not concupiscing. Whence just as in some chaste person, after the deletion and dismissal of the sin of lust, there can remain some proneness of carnal concupiscence, and even sometimes go out into the act of concupiscing, while chastity is nevertheless preserved: so also in the case at hand it is to be understood to be.

3. To that which is objected, that to concupisce after baptism is sin; it must be said that it is true; but from this it does not follow that that concupiscence which provokes to concupiscing is sin, but it suffices that it be a punishment, or [something] left over from sin. When therefore it is said that as the acts are, so are the habits; this is understood of habits generated from frequented acts, as of habits of custom. But that concupiscence which remains after baptism is not engendered from frequent concupiscing, but from the corruption of the flesh; and therefore it does not have the character of guilt, but of punishment. But because it inclines toward evil, it ought rather to be called viciousness than penalty.

4. To that which is objected, that guilt having been removed, punishment ought consequently to be removed; it must be said that that is true of eternal punishment and its liability; but of other temporal punishments this is not necessary; as is manifest in the Sacrament of penance, in which, even if the guilt is deleted in contrition, nevertheless the human is obligated to satisfaction; for although God remits the offense, he still requires amends. And if you object that in baptism there is full remission, whence actual [sins] are there deleted as to punishment and guilt, and so much more strongly is original [sin]; to this it is plain enough to respond. But the determination of this question does not pertain to this place, but to the fourth book, in that part in which baptism is treated as to its effect; and there it will be found determined why a human in baptism is absolved from certain punishments, but from certain ones not at all. And because superfluity is to be avoided, and individual matters are to be treated in their own places both for the sake of order and for the sake of brevity, it must for the present be omitted.