Dist. 33, 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/33/q/bon-sent-II-d33-dubia
----------------------------------------
### Doubts concerning the text of the Master.

**Doubt I.** In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which he says: *Several sins can be understood in the one transgression of Adam.* For if this is true, then by parity of reason in any one sin there is a multitude of sins, if one considers that manner of assigning diverse sins in one sin, which Augustine sets down in the text. For everyone, when he sins, slays his own soul, because sin is the death of the soul; everyone also transgresses the divine command: therefore there is there homicide and disobedience; and so of the others. — Likewise, if there was there a plurality of sins: then it seems that in every infant there is a multitude of original sins. But if you say that the original [sin] was not transmitted by reason of all [of these], but by reason of some one [of them]; it is then asked by reason of which it was principally transmitted, namely whether by reason of *gluttony*, or of *pride*, or of *disobedience.* And that it was by reason of *disobedience*, seems [true]: to the Romans, in the fifth chapter: *Through disobedience sin entered into the world.* — But that it was *gluttony*, seems [true] from the text itself: *On whatever day you shall eat, you shall die the death.* And the reasoning seems to agree, because original sin is transmitted by the mediation of the propagation of the flesh, therefore it is transmitted by reason of a carnal sin: therefore if there was there no carnal sin except gluttony, therefore etc. — But that it was *pride*, seems [true] by the authority of Hugh, in the seventh part of the first book *On the Sacraments*: «On account of elation the mind was darkened; for because it swelled through elation, smitten by ignorance, it lost the light of truth». And a little before this: «Because the spirit, swelling through pride against the Creator, did not keep obedience, therefore the Creator condemned the spirit with ignorance, but the flesh with concupiscence».

It is asked therefore by reason of which of these the original [sin] is principally transmitted, since Augustine says that all these were in the first sin.

**I respond:** It must be said that the sin of Adam, like other sins, is principally in one genus; nevertheless, by a certain adaptation according to diverse effects and circumstances, it is said to contain within itself diverse genera of sins, not because in it there is a multiplicity of faults, speaking *essentially*, but by a certain *adaptation* and a certain *metaphor.* Nevertheless, as was explained above, in the consummation and perpetration of one sin it happens that diverse sins are found, such as *pride* or *avarice* in the beginning, and *gluttony* in the progress, and *disobedience* in the consummation of the sin of the first parents, and especially of Eve.

To that therefore which is asked, whether by reason of all these, or by reason of some one of these specially the original sin is transmitted; I say that by reason of all, but differently; for *pride* regards that transmission of the original [sin] as it were *causally*, and *gluttony* as it were *materially*, and *disobedience* as it were *formally.* For the sin of Adam, formally speaking, was the sin of *disobedience*; but *materially*, because it was the eating of the tree, it was the sin of *gluttony*; but *causally*, because it was for the sake of acquiring excellence, it was the sin of *pride.* — And thus the answer to the objections becomes plain.

**Doubt II.** Likewise it is asked about that which he says concerning the sin of Adam: *It is not to be thought that the sin of Adam was graver than the sin against the Holy Spirit.* For this seems false, because a greater evil is that which corrupts the whole nature, than that which corrupts one single person; but the sin of Adam corrupted the whole nature, the sin against the Holy Spirit one single person: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that this question was determined above, when treatment was made concerning the sin of Adam; and therefore let it suffice to have said briefly that from diverse causes one sin is said to be greater than another. — On account of which it must be noted that in many ways one sin is said to be greater or graver than another. In the first way by *causality*; and thus the sin of the devil is said to be greater, *by whose envy death entered into the world*. In the second way by *generality*; and thus the sin of the first parent is said to have been greater, because it diffused itself into the whole human race. In the third way by *enormity*; and thus the sin of Judas is said to be the greatest, because he sold God. In the fourth way by *ingratitude*; and thus the sin of him is said to be greater, who received more gifts of graces. In the fifth way by *perilousness*; and thus the sin of ignorance is said to be the greatest, because it is perilous. In the sixth way by *inseparability*; and thus the sin of cupidity is said to be the greatest, because while the other vices grow old together with man, avarice alone grows young. In the seventh way by *importunity*; and thus pride is said to be the greatest, because it arises even from good works themselves. In the eighth way by *proneness*; and thus lust is said to be graver, to which men are more prone. In the ninth way by *the impugning of a greater grace*; and thus the sin against the Holy Spirit is said to be the greatest. In the tenth way by *reason of a greater offense*; and thus the sin of idolatry is said to be the greatest. In the eleventh way by *reason of the ease of resisting*; and thus the Master says that the sin of Adam was the gravest. In the twelfth way by *reason of greater wickedness and lust*; and thus a sin of any genus can become greater than another. — These twelve ways are wont to be assigned by the doctors. Perhaps other ways too will appear, but let these suffice as the more customary. — And by this the answer to that which is objected becomes plain.

**Doubt III.** Likewise it is asked about that which he says, that *the sin was committed by man, when the whole nature consisted in him; therefore the whole nature was corrupted in him.* For from this it seems that, if Adam had perpetrated another sin than that one, since the whole nature was in him, he would have corrupted the whole nature. *But on the contrary*: let it be posited that Adam had sinned by consent alone, then the body would not have communicated in the act of the sin of the soul: therefore the flesh would not have been infected: therefore neither would the original fault have been transmitted. — Likewise, penance restores in full those things which the mind lost, although it does not restore those things which are of the body: therefore if a man had sinned only mentally, he would altogether rise again through penance: it does not therefore seem that he would transmit the original fault.

On account of this there is a question, whether, if he had sinned by another genus of sin, he would have transmitted the original [sin].

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning this there was a twofold opinion. For some wished to say that, since every sin is «a transgression of the divine law and a disobedience to the heavenly commandments», and through every sin the soul is turned away from God and becomes rebellious to him; that by whatever genus of sin Adam had sinned, he would have incurred the rebellion of the flesh and the spirit. — Likewise, since every sin is injustice, by whatever genus of sin Adam had sinned, he would have been deprived of the justice which he had. — Likewise, since every mortal sin is the death of the soul, by any [such sin] he would have incurred the mortality of the flesh. Since therefore these things cause the original [sin] to be transmitted, they held that Adam would have transmitted the original [sin], by whatever genus of sin he had sinned; and this seems to be the import of the word of the Master. According to this position it is easily answered to that which is objected, because, as we see, that for spiritual sins the flesh is tormented in hell, and this, because it is nothing else for the flesh to be tormented than for the will to be tormented in the flesh; so also in the matter at hand they wished to say that it could be, that for a sin which he had committed spiritually, he would be punished corporally.

Another manner of speaking is, that if Adam had sinned mortally, and had not transgressed that command, he would not transmit the original [sin]. And the reason of this is, that for the sole transgression of that command the Lord threatened him with death, as is plain in the second [chapter] of Genesis. And according to this position the word of the Master, which is said in the text, is understood, the transgression of that command being presupposed, to which the punishment of mortality was joined. — Yet the first manner of speaking seems to be the more probable. For although Scripture threatens death only for that disobedience, yet not absurdly is that threat understood to extend to every mortal fault. But which of these is truer, is doubtful; nor is there great force to be made there, because the utility is slight and there is no necessity of knowing it.

**Doubt IV.** Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *If a man has lived justly in the flesh, he does not forthwith merit not to suffer that death which he drew from the propagation of sin.* For this seems unfittingly said. For if no punishment is owed to a man except by the merit of fault, and a man can live so justly in the flesh that he is worthy to fly away at once; it seems that in him there is not the merit of any punishment, neither of death nor of another. — Likewise, if death is owed to every just man for sin, it seems therefore that there was no grace in the Martyrs, who died for Christ, just as neither in the thieves, who are hanged for theft.

In connection with this it is asked: if death is owed to a man for original sin, and there is only one original sin in a man, what justice was in Lazarus, who died twice?

**I respond:** It must be said that no justice ever absolved a man from the debt of death, on account of the fact that all justice which is in us regards the *will* and is *personal*; but death is a *natural* punishment; and therefore by no justice is a man worthy to be absolved from death; nor did God by his benignity free anyone from death, both on account of the firmness of that sentence, by which it was said in the third [chapter] of Genesis: *Dust you are, and into dust* etc.; and also that faith might have place.

To that which is asked concerning the Martyrs, it must be said that that which in one way is a debt, if it be done out of charity, can become *acceptable*; but the Martyrs, because they voluntarily endured death, which they could have escaped, nay rather offered themselves to death for Christ before their time, the death which otherwise would be a punishment was for them greatly meritorious, because God reckons it greatly precious, from this twofold cause which has been touched upon.

To that concerning Lazarus it must be said, that the first death was for the manifesting of the glory of God; and that suffering was recompensed by a consequent benefit, because by this very thing, that he was raised up, a span for meriting was enlarged for him; and it was better for him thus to die twice, than if he had died once. Therefore when this is granted to anyone, that he be raised up, let him rather reckon that a benefit is bestowed upon him, than that a suffering is inflicted.

---