Dist. 35, 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/35/q/bon-sent-II-d35-divisio
----------------------------------------
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXV.

### *On actual sin according to its quiddity and definition.*

*After these matters it must be seen what sin is* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the causality and origin of sin; here he treats of the quiddity and definition of sin. Now this part is divided into three parts. In the first of these the Master inquires what sin is, namely whether it is an act, or pure privation. In the second, granted that in some way it is an act, and in some way a privation, he inquires whether sin is the penalty of sin, below in the thirty-sixth distinction: *It must nevertheless be known that certain things are sins in this way.* In the third he inquires whether the underlying action is from God as from a cause, below in the thirty-seventh distinction: *There are nevertheless also others* etc.

The first part, which contains the present distinction, is divided into three parts. In the first the Master sets forth the notifications of sin. In the second he draws out, by inquiring from those very notifications, what sin is according to the thing itself. In the third he resolves the reasons or objections which seem contrary to the truth already determined. The first he does there: *After these matters it must be seen what sin is* etc. The second there: *Wherefore, of the diversity of these words* etc. The third there: *To which it is objected: if all the things that are* etc.

The first part could be divided into three parts according to the three notifications of sin, but by reason of its brevity it remains undivided.

But the second principal part is divided into three parts. In the first part he narrates the opinions of various persons. In the second he opens up the truth and explains it according to the opinion of certain persons, there: *It can soundly and freely be said* etc. In the third he confirms it by the authorities of the Saints, there: *But that every will and action* etc.

Likewise the third principal part has three parts according to the three doubts which he raises, of which the first is taken from this, that that position said that all things which are, are good; the second from this, that sin is the corruption of good; the third is taken from this, that the corruption of good is a penalty. The first he sets forth there: *To which it is objected: if all the things that are* etc. The second there: *It can also be asked of the same persons* etc. The third there: *But it is wont to be asked, whether* etc. And in each of these parts he first objects and secondly resolves.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Now for the understanding of this part, in which it is inquired what sin is, since sin is a privation rather than a position, there is here a question concerning the corruption of good, which has to come about through sin. And concerning this, two things are asked.

First it is asked whether good has to be corrupted through sin.

Secondly it is asked concerning the mode of corrupting.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked whether from sin there is a corruption of good.

Secondly it is asked whether sin is the corruption-passion itself.

Thirdly it is asked whether sin, insofar as it corrupts, is contrary to the uncreated good.

---