Dist. 33, Art. 2, 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/33/q/bon-sent-II-d33-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION II.
### *Whether one original sin is to be posited, or several.*

Secondly it is asked, whether one original [sin] is to be posited, or several. And that there is one only, it seems:

1. First, by the authority of the Master in the text, in the chapter *Alioquin*, where he says thus: « By one sin, not by several, are little children bound ».

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown by a reason taken from the *cause*, because original sin is contracted on account of Adam's disobedience: therefore if his disobedience was only one fault, it seems that, in whomever it is found, it is single and in no way several.

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown by a reason taken from the *punishment*. For to original [sin] there is owed only the lack of the vision of God, and this is one punishment; but to many faults many punishments ought to correspond: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, this same thing is shown *in comparison with the consequence*. For original [sin] is not only from origin, but is also itself the *origin* and principle of all evils. If therefore « that which is said by superabundance belongs to one alone », and a stopping-point is reached by reduction to one; it seems that original sin is but one only.

5. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] *in comparison with the subject*. For original [sin] is in the soul by reason of its conjunction with the flesh: if therefore there is one flesh to which the soul is conjoined, and it is united by a single union, and there is unity in the soul, according as it is united to the flesh as to a perfectible [thing]; it seems therefore that original sin is necessarily one.

6. Likewise, this same thing is shown *by comparison with the opposite*. For original sin is a lack of the due justice; but the due justice, of which original [sin] is the privation in the human, was but one, because in one innocent [person] there is one innocence: therefore etc.

**On the contrary** it is argued: *To the opposite.* 1. First, *by authority*. Upon that [text] of the Psalm: *For behold, I was conceived in iniquities*; the Gloss: *Iniquities* are « original sins »; and there are many authorities to this effect in the text.

2. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] *by reasons* taken along the same path by which they were taken to the opposite [conclusion]. And first, by a reason taken *from the cause*. For original sin is in us on account of the sin of the first parents; but Adam and Eve committed several sins: therefore it seems that there are several original [sins] in us, because by the reason whereby the sin of the man redounds upon us, by the same reason [redounds] the sin of the woman.

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by a reason taken *from the punishment*, because to one fault one punishment ought to correspond; but many kinds of penalties follow upon original sin, such as hunger, thirst, death, infirmity, etc.; and « four [things], says Bede, were inflicted upon us by original sin, namely infirmity, ignorance, concupiscence, and malice »: it seems therefore that according to the diverse kinds of penalties there is a diversity of original [sins].

4. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] *by comparison with the capital [sins] that follow*. For habits are differentiated by acts, and acts by objects: if therefore original sin renders the human prone to the seven capital sins, which are of diverse kinds; it seems that in any human there is a multitude of original [sins].

5. Likewise, this same thing is shown *by comparison with the subject*, because all the powers of the soul are infected by original sin; but when the corruptibles are multiplied, the corruptions are multiplied, and in diverse potencies there are diverse habits: therefore in each human it is necessary to posit a manifold original [sin].

6. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] *by comparison with the opposite*, because through original sin there is a privation of all the virtues, since through it there comes about a bending of the soul toward vices, opposed to all the virtues: therefore if it happens that several virtues are found in us, it happens that several original faults are found in us.

### Conclusion.

> Original sin is one according to *species*, and in one human it is one also according to *number*.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as master Hugh holds, original sin is spoken of in two ways. *(Original [sin] is spoken of in two ways.)* In one way original sin is called that which is the *origin* of all sins, and thus Adam's sin is called original sin; and in this way original sin *(Conclusion 1.)* is not only one in *species*, but also one in *number*. In another way original sin is called that which is in us *from origin*, and from which also the other vices take their origin in us; and in this way we here inquire about the unity of original sin.

For the elucidation therefore of this question it must be understood that, when we inquire about the unity of something, either we inquire about unity according to *species* and common form, or we inquire about unity according to *number* and *supposit*. *(A twofold unity.)* — If in the first way we speak of original sin, then it has unity according to *species*, in that manner in which sin is said to have a species. *(Conclusion 2.)* But this unity in original sin comes principally on the part of the good which it deprives, and on the part of Adam's sin through which it was introduced, that is, on the part of the *opposite* and on the part of the *principle*. For original justice and innocence, of which the privation is original sin, is one according to species. The disobedience also was one, by reason of which the whole human race is corrupted; and therefore according to species original sin is one in us.

But if we speak of the unity of original [sin] as to *number*; then it must be said that in one human it is single. *(A twofold numbering.)* And the reason of this is that sin is numbered in two ways: either by reason of the *subject* in which [it is], as in diverse humans the sins are diverse; or by reason of the *act* by which the human is made culpable, as he who has committed lust many times has several sins. In neither of these ways is original sin multiplied, but it remains undivided; for in one human there is one soul, which is infected by original sin. Likewise, of one human there is one generation, in which and through which original sin is transfused; and therefore in one human original sin is one only as to unity according to *species* and as to unity according to *number*. *(Conclusion 3.)* — And the reasons which show this are to be granted.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].*

1. To that therefore which is first objected to the contrary concerning the Gloss, which calls iniquities original sins; it must be said that, as the Master says, frequently in Scripture the plural is taken for the singular and conversely, as the Master gives example in the text. But the reason why Scripture, although original [sin] be one, names it in the plural, is on account of the multiplicity of inclinations to evil which are born from original sin.

2. To that which is objected, that original sin has its rise from the sin of the first parents; it must be said that, just as in the generation of offspring the father and mother are as one complete principle, in such a way that neither of them suffices by himself, although they be diverse and distinct persons; so also *(To be noted.)*

it is to be understood in the transfusion of original sin. Even though the sin of Adam and the sin of Eve were diverse, yet, insofar as in original sin the generative power was infected in each, they caused one original sin in the offspring, in such a way that, just as the generative power principally resides in the man, so also the transfusion of original [sin] is principally attributed to the man: yet nonetheless it is attributed to each in his own manner. — *(On the frivolous incidental question.)* Whence frivolous is that question by which it is asked whether original [sin] would be transfused if only the man or only the woman had sinned; because, since to generation two concur as one principle, God would not permit that an uncorrupted man be mingled with a corrupted woman, or conversely. For there ought, whether in the state of nature instituted or in the state of nature corrupted, to be preserved a proportion and conformity of the man acting to the woman receiving, since in that act they are made one flesh.

3. To that which is objected concerning the multiplicity of punishments, it must be said that to one fault there corresponds one *principal* punishment; but there can be several *non-principal* ones. *(Principal and non-principal punishment.)* And I call the eternal punishment principal, but the temporal punishment, which in some manner is ordinative toward the good, non-principal. — *(Otherwise.)* Or I call that one principal which is first inflicted for the fault; but that non-principal which follows upon this. But original [sin] is punished by one eternal punishment, namely the lack of the vision of God; and by one temporal punishment principally, namely the mortality of the flesh; but upon the mortality many penalties follow.

4. To that which is objected concerning the multiplicity of inclinations, it must be said that, just as, when one cord by which many things are bound together is broken, there follows the loosening of many [things], and yet there is there one first corruption and loosening; so it must be understood also in the matter at hand, that, the justice of innocence being deprived by original sin, all the powers of the soul are loosened; yet there is one corruption, speaking *essentially*, but several [corruptions] understanding [it] *causally*.

5. To that indeed which is objected, that it is a corruption of diverse powers; it must be said that it is true; but just as grace is posited to be in the powers of the soul, yet insofar as they are continued toward the unity of the substance of the soul, and therefore there is one grace in all the powers; so also original sin is a corruption of several powers, yet insofar as those powers, in the unity of the substance, are to be united to one flesh. — *(How original [sin] is in the essence of the soul.)* And thus is to be understood that saying which by some is wont to be uttered, namely that original [sin] is in the soul according to its *essence*. For this is not to be understood as though original [sin] regards the substance of the soul itself prior to the potencies. For the contrary of this Anselm says in the book *On the Virginal Conception*, that both justice and injustice are first in the will, and he speaks there expressly of original sin. And thus, understanding that original sin, as it is a *fault*, is first in the will, [and] as it is a *vice*, is in several potencies continued to one substance, it is understood to have a single subject, just as one health is posited to be in all the members of the same body, as Augustine holds. But it is not so concerning *actual* sin. For actual sins regard diverse potencies, according as they are referred to diverse acts, whence also they are brought into being through diverse acts, and therefore they must differ according to the diversity of the potencies. It is not so concerning original sin, which is contracted from the union of the soul with the flesh.

6. To that which is lastly objected concerning the comparison with the opposite, the response is now clear. For original sin is not first and principally opposed to the virtues, but is opposed to original justice, of which it has often been spoken; and by depriving [the human] of that, it consequently inclines [him] to diverse vices, and thus by inclining [him] it has repugnance with all the virtues. Whence that reason does not compel, because it does not argue through that which is opposed directly, but only through that which is opposed by consequence.

---