Dist. 32
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-littera
----------------------------------------
### DISTINCTION XXXII.

#### Chapter I.

#### *How original sin is remitted in baptism.*

Since it has been said above that original sin is the defect of concupiscence, and it has been assigned how it is drawn from the parents and is called "original," it remains to investigate how it is remitted in baptism, since even after baptism the concupiscence which was there before remains. Whence it seems that either original sin is not concupiscence, or it is not remitted in baptism. "For there remains, as Augustine says, in the body of this death the carnal concupiscence, whose vicious desires we are commanded not to obey; which concupiscence, nevertheless, is daily diminished in those who advance and are continent." But although concupiscence remains after baptism, yet it does not dominate and reign as before; rather, through the grace of baptism it is mitigated and diminished, so that afterward it cannot dominate, unless one restores its strength to the enemy by going after concupiscences. Nor after baptism does it remain unto guilt, because it is not imputed as sin, but is only the penalty of sin, whereas before baptism it is both penalty and fault.

#### Chapter II.

For a twofold reason, therefore, original sin is said to be remitted in baptism: because through the grace of baptism the defect of concupiscence is weakened and attenuated, so that it no longer reigns unless its strength be restored to it by consent; and because its guilt is loosed. Hence Augustine in the book On the Baptism of Little Children: "By grace it is brought about through baptism that the old man is crucified, and the body of sin is destroyed, not in such a way that in the living flesh itself the concupiscence diffused and inborn is suddenly consumed and ceases to be, but that it may not harm the dead man, which inhered in the one born. For if he lives after baptism, he has concupiscence in his flesh, with which he must fight; and let him, with God's help, overcome it, provided he has not received His grace in vain. This, therefore, is not granted in baptism, except perhaps by the ineffable miracle of the Creator, that the law of sin which is in the members should be wholly extinguished and cease to be, but rather that whatever of evil has been done, said, and thought by a man should be entirely abolished and held as though it had not been done, while concupiscence itself, the bond of guilt being loosed — by which the devil held the soul through it and separated it from its Creator — should remain in the contest." — Behold, here he plainly shows that for this reason it is remitted in baptism, not because it does not remain after baptism, but because its guilt is abolished in baptism. Then he himself shows that it is also remitted in this way, because by the grace of baptism the concupiscence itself is mitigated and diminished, in the same book thus saying: "The law of the flesh, which the Apostle calls sin, when he says: Let not sin reign in your mortal body, does not so remain in the members of those who are reborn of water and the Spirit, as though its remission had not been made, where the remission of sins is made altogether complete; but it remains in the oldness of the flesh as something overcome and slain, unless by unlawful consent it in some way revives and is recalled into its own kingdom and dominion." — Here it is plainly intimated that in baptism concupiscence is weakened, and from this it is also said to be remitted, not only because guilt is loosed there. And Scripture teaches this manner of remission also by many other testimonies. For Augustine says against Julian: "The law which is in the members is the defect of the flesh, which comes from the penalty of sin and from the traduction of death. But this law, which is in the members, is remitted by spiritual regeneration and remains in the mortal flesh. It is remitted, because the guilt is loosed by the Sacrament, by which the faithful are reborn. But it remains, because yet it does not dominate and reign as before; rather, through the grace of baptism it is mitigated and diminished, so that afterward it cannot dominate, unless one restores its strength to the enemy by going after concupiscences." The same, in a certain sermon on the concupiscence of the flesh: "Through the grace of baptism and the laver of regeneration even the guilt of concupiscence itself, with which you were born, has been loosed, and whatever you previously consented to of evil concupiscence, whether by thought, or by speech, or by deed." The same, in the book On Marriage and Concupiscence: "The concupiscence of the flesh, although in the regenerate it is no longer reckoned as sin, yet whatever offspring is born is bound by original sin." Likewise: "The concupiscence of the flesh is remitted in baptism, not so that it is not, but so that it is not imputed as sin." "For this is to not have sin, to not be guilty of sin." "Just as, therefore, other sins pass away in act and remain in guilt, as homicide and the like; so conversely it can happen that concupiscence passes away in guilt and remains in act." — From the foregoing it is evidently shown how original sin is remitted in baptism.

#### Chapter II.

#### *Whether the foulness which it draws from lust is washed away in baptism.*

But here it is usually asked whether the flesh itself also is cleansed in baptism from that foulness which it contracted in conception from lustful concupiscence. — To some it seems that, just as the soul is purified from guilt, so also the flesh is purged from that pollution, so that, just as the mystery of baptism is completed by two things, namely water and spirit, so there two things are purged, namely the soul from guilt, and the flesh from that contagion; which indeed is probable. — But others think that only the soul is there cleansed, while the flesh is not purged from that foulness. — But if that foulness remains until the procreation of children, which takes place in the concupiscence of the flesh, the nature of the flesh seems to be more and more corrupted, and the flesh of the offspring seems more corrupted than that of the parent, because it is drawn polluted from the flesh which retains the pollution that it had from conception, and is conceived in concupiscence, whence it too is polluted; and thus from a twofold cause it is contaminated. Hence the pollution of the flesh seems greater in the offspring than it was in the parent. — To which those men say that, although the flesh of the offspring is sown foul from foul flesh and is conceived in concupiscence, yet it does not draw a greater foulness than the flesh from which it is sown had. And although the flesh of the offspring be fouler and more unclean, and therefore more corrupted than the flesh of the parent, yet, as they say, no prejudice is done to the truth; for they say it is not absurd if the nature of the flesh be drawn more corrupted in those that come later, nor that from the more corrupted flesh the soul is more infected.

#### Chapter III.

#### *Whether God is the author of that concupiscence.*

Moreover it is usually asked whether the concupiscence which remains after baptism and is only a penalty, but before baptism was both penalty and fault, has God as its author, or another. — To which, answering briefly, we say that, insofar as it is penalty, it has God as author; but insofar as it is fault, it has the devil or man as author.

#### Chapter IV.

#### *Why that sin is imputed to the soul.*

It is also usually asked by what justice the soul, innocent and created by God, is held bound by that sin, since it is not in its power to avoid it. For it is not committed by free will, since the soul does not exist before it is liable to that sin. — To this some say that the soul is therefore guilty of that sin, although it was created clean by God, because, when it is infused into the body, it delights together with the flesh; from which it contracts sin. — But if this were so, it would now be called not original, but actual. Rather, therefore, that sin can rightly be said to be imputed to the soul which it inevitably draws from the corruption of the body, because, as Augustine says in the book On the City of God, "the corruption of the body, which weighs down the soul, was not the cause of the first sin, but the penalty; nor did corruptible flesh make the soul a sinner, but the sinful soul made the flesh corruptible."

#### Chapter V.

#### *Whether that sin is necessary, or voluntary.*

It can also not undeservedly be asked whether original sin ought to be called voluntary or necessary. — And it can be called necessary, because it cannot be avoided; whence the Prophet too says: From my necessities deliver me; and it is not incongruously called voluntary, because it proceeded from the will of the first man, as Augustine in the first book of the Retractations shows, saying: "That which in little children is called original sin, although they do not yet make use of the free choice of the will, is not absurdly called voluntary, because, contracted from the first man's evil will, it has become in some way hereditary."

#### Chapter VI.

#### *Why God joins the soul to the body, knowing that thereby it is stained.*

But if it is asked: why God, who made the soul itself without stain and knows that it contracts the stain of sin from the conjunction of the body, and is sometimes separated from the body itself before baptism, and so is damned, joins it to the body? we answer that this comes from the height of the judgments of God, and that this is not done unjustly by God. For He not incongruously continually preserves, without alteration, the mode of the human condition which He instituted from the beginning, although the sins of men have intervened, fashioning bodies from matter made from the beginning without defect, creating souls from nothing, and perfecting man by their conjunction. Since, therefore, each nature of man was instituted by God without defect, although it was vitiated by sin from itself, the immutable God did not on that account have to change the primary law of the human condition, or to desist from the multiplication of men.

#### Chapter VII.

#### *Whether the soul is such as it is created by God.*

Here it is usually asked by some whether the soul is, before baptism, such as it is created by God. — And that it is not, they try to prove in this way: the soul is created in the body, in whose conjunction it is stained with sin; therefore as soon as it is, it has sin, nor did it exist before it had sin: it is not therefore such as it is created by God. For it is created by God innocent and without defect; and it is never such. — To which it can be said that it is not altogether such as God made it. For God made it good and endowed it with goodness without corruption. And that goodness is called natural which it received in creation from its Author, which goodness it did not utterly lose through sin, but had vitiated, which God nevertheless made without defect. For if the soul were not a good thing, there could be no evil in it, since there cannot be evil except in a good, as will be said hereafter. Not, therefore, is the soul altogether such as it is created by God. Just as one who has polluted hands did not receive such an apple as I gave with clean hands; for I gave a clean one.

#### Chapter VIII.

#### *Whether souls from creation are equal in their natural gifts.*

It is also not incongruously usually asked whether all souls are equal from creation, or some more excellent than others. — To many it seems not irrationally that from creation itself some excel others in natural gifts, so that one is in essence subtler than others and more apt for understanding and remembering, as being endowed with sharper wit and more perspicacious intellect. Which is not improbably said, since it is established that it was so among the Angels. And although some excel others in natural gifts, yet, departing from the body before baptism, they obtain an equal penalty, and after baptism at once an equal crown, because sharpness of wit or slowness does not place reward or penalty in the life to come.

---