Dist. 34, Divisio Textus
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/34/q/bon-sent-II-d34-divisio
----------------------------------------
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXIV.

### *On actual sin according to its causality.*

*After the foregoing concerning actual sin* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

This total part of the second book, in which the Master treats of the fall of man, was divided into three parts, according to the threefold way in which it is possible to consider the corruption of sin. The two parts now being finished, in which the Master treated of the sin by which the person corrupts the nature, and again of the sin by which the nature corrupts the person, namely of original sin, there follows here the third part, in which there is treated the sin in which the person corrupts itself, that is, actual sin; and this lasts until the end of the book. Now this part is divided into two. In the first he determines concerning sin or evil according to that which it is. But secondly, how it comes about that evil or sin is committed by the will, below in the thirty-eighth distinction: *After the foregoing concerning the will* etc. The first part has two. In the first he determines concerning sin or evil according to its causality. But secondly, according to its quiddity, below in the thirty-fifth distinction: *After these things it must be seen what sin is.*

The first part contains the present distinction and is divided into two. In the first the Master treats of evil as to its original cause. In the second, of evil as to its subject or efficient cause, there: *The origin of evil having been shown* etc. The first part has three parts. In the first he opens his intention in general. But in the second he shows that evil has its rise from a good cause, there: *The cause and origin* etc. But in the third, that it is from the free will, there: *But an evil will* etc.

Likewise the second principal part has three. In the first he shows that evil is in a good, confirming this by the authority of Augustine. But secondly he draws out a certain corollary, namely that in these contraries the rule of the dialecticians fails, there: *And therefore in these contraries* etc. But in the third and last he removes a certain doubt, there: *But to this, which has been said* etc. — And thus, evil being supposed to be, the Master manifests two things concerning evil, namely from what it is and in what it is.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, according to the two things which the Master determines in the text, there here arises a question principally concerning two things.

First it is asked, from what evil comes as from its original principle.

Secondly, in what it is as in its subject.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked, whether evil is from a good, or from an evil.

Secondly, whether it is from a good as from an efficient [cause], or from a deficient [one].

Thirdly, whether it is from intention, or beside intention.

---