Dist. 32, 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/32/q/bon-sent-II-d32-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION II.
### *Whether original sin is deleted by baptism as to its cause.*

Secondly it is asked, whether original sin has to be deleted by baptism as to its cause. And that it does, it seems:

1. By the word of Damascene, who says that *To the opposite.* there are two things in baptism corresponding to the two which are in the human. For he says thus: « Since the human is twofold, of soul and of body, he gave a twofold purgation, by water and by the Spirit; the Spirit renewing that which is according to the image and likeness, the water also through the grace of the Spirit purging the body from sin and freeing it from corruption ». If therefore this corruption is the cause of original sin's being transfused, it seems that original sin is deleted not only as to guilt, but also as to its cause.

2. Likewise, Christ is more powerful in making satisfaction than Adam was in corrupting, as it is said to the Romans, fifth [chapter]: *Not as the offense, so also the gift*; from which he intimates that the gift was much greater than the offense. Therefore if Adam's offense was able to infect the human not only in himself, but insofar as he is the principle of another; it seems that the Sacrament of baptism should cure the human not only *in himself*, but also insofar as he is the *principle of another.*

3. Likewise, the effect is not removed while the cause persists: therefore if baptism removes *original* sin itself from the human, it is necessary that it also exclude the cause of original sin from him; and if so, it seems then that the baptized [person] does not transfuse original sin into another.

4. Likewise, he does not sufficiently cure the disease who leaves the root of the disease: therefore either Christ is not a perfect physician, or, if he is a perfect physician, then by the medicine of the Sacrament of baptism original [sin] is expiated not only as to guilt, but also as to its cause; and if so, then the baptized [person] etc.

5. Likewise, as is the tree, such are the fruits; and as is the root, such are the branches. Whence also the Lord, in Matthew, seventh [chapter]: *A good tree cannot bear bad fruits*; and the Apostle to the Romans, eleventh: *If the root is holy, so also the branches*: therefore if original [sin] is deleted in the parent, and the parent is purified; it seems likewise that the offspring is purified. And if so, either original [sin] is not deleted by baptism, or, if it is deleted as to guilt, it is likewise deleted as to its cause. If you say that baptism does not purify the human from original [sin] insofar as it is a *natural* corruption, but insofar as it is a *personal* corruption; on the contrary: « if the opposite is the cause of the opposite, the [thing] proposed is also the cause of the proposed », but a corrupted person corrupts the nature: therefore by parity of reasoning, when the person is healed, the nature too is healed.

6. Likewise, if someone cure another of leprosy, since leprosy is a hereditary disease, by this very fact that he cures him of leprosy, he gives him the power to generate a healthy son: therefore by parity of reasoning, if original [sin] is a hereditary disease; it seems that it is not deleted unless that corruption be taken away by which original [sin] is transfused into another.

**On the contrary:**

*Fundamenta.*

1. The baptized [person], even after baptism, feels in himself the motions of concupiscence; but concupiscence has its origin from the *foulness of the flesh*, and that is the *cause* of original sin in the offspring: therefore baptism does not cure the disease of original sin as to its root.

2. Likewise, the *cause* of original sin resides in the flesh; but the grace of the Holy Spirit properly regards the mind itself: therefore if the *cause* of original sin is not opposed to grace itself, it seems that it is not removed by baptismal grace.

3. Likewise, if baptism cured original [sin] not only insofar as it is a *personal* disease, but also insofar as it is a *natural* disease; therefore, the parent being baptized, the offspring would not need to be baptized. If therefore it is necessary that each one be baptized in his own person, it seems that in baptism there is made no deletion of original [sin] as to the cause and root of the disease.

4. Likewise, on account of original sin we have ignorance in the mind and concupiscence in the flesh; but baptism does not take away from the human the ignorance which holds on the part of the mind; therefore much less [does it take away] that corruption which holds on the part of the flesh; but that is the cause of original [sin]: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> By baptism original sin is deleted as to guilt, yet there is not removed the cause of transfusing original [sin] into another person.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a twofold way of speaking about the cause of original [sin]: either according to the consideration of one human in himself, or by comparison of him to another to be propagated from him. — *(Original [sin]'s cause is to be spoken of in two ways.)* If we speak in the first way, then always, when original sin is deleted, the cause of original sin is also deleted as to this, that thereafter it cannot cause original sin in the soul of the baptized [person]. *(Conclusion 1.)* For the foulness of the flesh is in some manner remitted, and consequently the wickedness of its tyranny, by reason of which it had [the power] to reduce the spirit into the servitude of sin; which indeed it cannot do after baptism on account of the help of grace, which is there given to the spirit, by which it presides over the flesh: and thus the effect of that grace in some manner redounds upon the flesh.

But if we speak of the cause of original [sin] *with respect to another to be propagated*, then by baptism original [sin] is not deleted as to its *cause* or root. *(Conclusion 2.)* — And the chief reason of this, as I believe, is that the corruption which is the *cause* of original sin's being propagated is a corruption of the *nature*, or one consisting in the generative power, which is rooted in the flesh. *(Reason.)* Whence original [sin], insofar as it is a vice of the *person*, regards the will; but insofar as it is a vice of the *nature*, it regards the generative power and the flesh. But sacramental grace properly regards the corruption of the *person*; whereas against the corruption of the *nature* it is not ordained directly. And hence it is that when baptismal grace is infused, original guilt is deleted, insofar as it was the sin *of the soul itself*; yet there remains some languor in the *flesh*, which is the cause of original [sin] *in the offspring.*

But if it be asked *why* the remedy of sacramental grace is ordained directly against original [sin] as it corrupts the *person*, and not as it corrupts the *nature*; it must be said that the supreme Physician instituted this, fitting reason demanding it, both on the part of the Physician, on the part of the patient, and on the part of the medicine. *(An incidental question solved. — A threefold reason.)* — *(Reason 1.)* On the part, I say, of the Physician, because the Lord ought thus to cure us, so that each one might

immediately acknowledge his salvation from him, and therefore he willed each one to be cured in his own baptism immediately and in himself. And therefore baptism deletes original [sin] in the human according as he is an *individual*, not according as he is the *principle of another*, so that from this each one may render to God the obedience due and may the more acknowledge the benefit of his salvation.

*(Reason 2.)* On the part of the patient too there was a fittingness. For God wills to save no one except *with the liberty* of his free will *preserved*; and therefore he gave such efficacy to the medicine that *liberty* and the merit of free will should be preserved. For this reason also, that *faith* may have place, the Lord conceals the effect of his Sacrament. And therefore the disease of the nature is not cured.

*(Reason 3.)* On the part of the *medicine* too there is a reason, because the regenerative power in the Sacrament is *faith* itself, whence from the faith of the passion the Sacraments are said to have efficacy. Since therefore this *regenerative power* principally regards the will and the mind, but the *generative power* [regards] the severance of flesh from flesh; hence it is that baptism heals or cures original [sin] according as it is a disease of the *person*, while in it grace is given by which the personal will is rectified, the corruption nevertheless remaining in the flesh and in the generative power, which is the *cause* of transfusing original guilt.

And thus it is clear that by baptism original sin is deleted as to *guilt*; yet the *cause* of transfusing original [sin] into another person is not removed, as the reasons show which are adduced for the second part, and therefore they are to be granted.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].*

1. To that therefore which is first objected concerning Damascene, that the flesh and the spirit are purged in baptism; it must be said that Damascene understands the flesh to be purged because the foulness of the flesh is in some manner remitted, not because it is wholly taken away. And that remission or diminution of the foulness he calls a *purgation* on account of this, that it is no longer the *cause of guilt* in him in whom it is; yet by baptism the *foulness* is not wholly deleted, since the itching of coition is not only in pagans, but also in Christians. It is probable nevertheless that in some manner that *foulness* is remitted by baptism; for it is commonly said that baptized little children do not smell to others as do the unbaptized.

2. To that which is objected, that Christ was more sufficient for making satisfaction than Adam for corrupting; it must be said that it is true; but nevertheless, since he did not give to the Sacrament all the power which he could give, but [that] which it was fitting to give; therefore, even if he were more sufficient, yet he did not give to the Sacrament the power of curing every corruption, but only the corruption of the person. For thus it was fitting, as was shown before.

3. To that which is objected, that the effect is not removed while the cause remains; it must be said that this is true of a cause that is efficient and conserving, not of one that is efficient only. *(To be noted.)* It is also true of the existence of the cause in that disposition in which it produces the effect. But in neither of these ways does the cause of original [sin] remain, either because the foulness itself is not the conserving cause of original [sin], since original [sin] is in the separated soul; or because it does not remain in that disposition and intensity according to which the soul contracts original [sin] from it.

4. To that which is objected, that he does not sufficiently cure the disease who leaves the root; it must be said that this is true when the root of the disease is left which can cause a wound in him who is cured. But the root of original sin is not left in such a way that it could repeat that disease in him who is baptized. — *(Another solution.)* Yet it could also be said otherwise, that it is useful to leave the root of some sickness, because one sickness frequently cures another. But corruption of this kind, which remains in the flesh, is an occasion of avoiding many evils, and consequently of doing many goods, as is shown in the fourth [book], in the treatise on the effect of baptism.

5. To that which is objected, that if the root is holy, so also the branches; it must be said that this is understood as spoken per se, so that if the root be holy, according as it is a *root*; but baptism, even though it sanctify the human, does not nevertheless sanctify him according as he is the *principle of another*, because that remedy cures the disease of the *person*, not of the *nature*, as has been shown.

6. To that which is objected, that, the leper being cured, there is given to him the power of generating a healthy [child]; it must be said that it is not similar. For leprosy is a hereditary disease in such a way that it is not a different disease as it corrupts the *person* and as it corrupts the *nature*, because it infects the whole human on the part of the flesh, not only as to the nutritive [power], but also as to the generative; and therefore a leper generates a leper, because the generative humor is corrupted in him just as the nutritive; and when a human is cured of leprosy, both humors are healed together in him. But in original sin there is a corruption of the person and of the nature, in such a way that these corruptions are diverse. For the corruption of the person regards the free will; but the corruption of the nature, according as it is caused by it, regards the generative power. « For nature is a power implanted in things, procreating like things from like »: and therefore, although one of these corruptions be cured by baptism, it does not follow that the other be cured; and hence it is that one cleansed by baptism generates an unclean [child]. For the quality of the offspring generated is conformed more

to the disposition of the generative power than to the disposition of the free will. And therefore Augustine gives the example that, just as the circumcised generates the uncircumcised, and from clean grain is generated grain with chaff, and this because all those things were in the propagative power and seminal principle according to which these things are propagated: in like manner it is to be understood in the case of humans, that, because the corruption remains in the generative power, although the *will* is cured by grace, the human generates according to that in which he is made like Adam, not according as he is made like Christ; and therefore he produces a son more like Adam the prevaricator than his Redeemer.