Dist. 30
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 30
DISTINCTIO XXX.
Cap. I.
Quod per Adam peccatum et poena transit in posteros.
In superioribus1 insinuatum est — licet ex parte, non enim perfecte sufficimus exponere — qualiter primus homo deliquerit, et quam pro peccato poenam subierit; quibus adiiciendum est, peccatum simul ac poenam per eum transisse in posteros, sicut Apostolus ostendit inquiens: Sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit.
Cap. II.
Utrum illud peccatum, quod transit, fuerit originale, vel actuale.
Hic primo videndum est, quod fuerit illud peccatum, originale scilicet, an actuale; et si de originali intelligatur, consequenter, quid sit originale peccatum, et quare dicatur originale, et quomodo pertransierit vel pertranseat in omnes, diligenter investigandum est.
Cap. III.
Quidam putant fuisse actuale.
Quibusdam placuit de peccato actuali Adae illud accipere, asserentibus, hoc Apostolum2 sensisse, cum inferius ait: Sicut per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi, ita etc. Evidenter, inquiunt, etiam ipso nomine exprimit Apostolus peccatum, quod per unum hominem intravit in mundum, scilicet inobedientiam. Inobedientia vero peccatum actuale est.
Cap. IV.
Quomodo assignant, illud intrasse in mundum.
Hoc autem dicunt intrasse in mundum non traductione originis, sed similitudine praevaricationis; omnesque in illo uno3 peccasse dicunt, quia omnibus ille unus peccandi exemplum exstitit. — Hoc male senserunt quidam haeretici, qui dicti sunt Pelagiani, de quibus Augustinus in libro de Baptismo parvulorum4 commemorat dicens: « Sciendum est, haereticos quosdam, qui nominati sunt Pelagiani, dixisse, peccatum primae transgressionis in alios homines non propagatione, sed imitatione transisse. Unde etiam in parvulis nolunt credere per baptismum solvi originale peccatum, quod in nascentibus nullum esse omnino contendunt. Sed eis dicitur, quia, si Apostolus peccatum imitationis, non propagationis intelligi voluisset, eius principem non Adam, sed diabolum diceret. De quo in libro Sapientiae5 dicitur: Invidia diaboli mors intravit in orbem terrarum. Et quia non vult intelligi, hoc esse factum propagatione, sed imitatione, continuo subiunxit Scriptura: Imitantur autem eum qui sunt ex parte ipsius. Imitantur quidem Adam quotquot per inobedientiam transgrediuntur mandatum Dei; sed aliud est quod exemplum est voluntate peccantibus, aliud quod origo est cum peccato nascentibus ». Non est igitur accipiendum, peccatum Adae transisse in omnes imitationis tantum exemplo, sed propagationis et originis vitio.
Cap. V.
Quod originale peccatum vere fuit, quod transit in posteros.
Et est illud peccatum originale, ut aperte Augustinus6 testatur, quod per Adam transivit in omnes per eius carnem vitiatam concupiscentialiter generatos.
Cap. VI.
Quid sit originale peccatum.
Quod diligenter investigandum est, quid sit. De hoc enim sancti doctores subobscure7 locuti sunt, atque scholastici doctores varie senserunt. — Quidam enim putant, originale peccatum esse reatum poenae pro peccato primi hominis, id est debitum vel obnoxietatem, qua obnoxii et addicti sumus poenae temporali et aeternae pro primi hominis actuali peccato: quia pro illo, ut aiunt, omnibus debetur poena aeterna, nisi per gratiam liberentur. — Iuxta horum sententiam oportet dici, originale peccatum nec culpam esse, nec poenam. Culpam non esse ipsi fatentur; poena quoque secundum eos esse non potest, quia, si debitum poenae originale peccatum est, cum debitum poenae non sit poena, nec originale peccatum est poena. Quod etiam quidam eorum admittunt dicentes, in Scriptura originale peccatum saepe nominari reatum, et reatum ibi intelligunt, ut dictum est, obnoxietatem poenae; et ea ratione asserunt peccatum originale dici esse in parvulis, quia parvuli pro illo primo peccato rei sunt poenae; sicut pro peccato iniqui parentis aliquando exulant filii secundum iustitiam fori.
Cap. VII.
Quod originale peccatum est culpa.
Sed quod originale peccatum culpa sit, pluribus Sanctorum testimoniis edocetur. Super Exodo8, ubi dicitur: Primogenitum asini mutabis ove, Gregorius ait: « Omnes in peccatis nati sumus, et ex carnis delectatione concepti, culpam originalem nobis contraximus, unde et voluntate nostra peccatis implicamur ». — Ecce! culpam originalem dicit nos trahere; unde constat, originale peccatum culpam esse. Augustinus quoque in libro de Natura et gratia9 de hoc eodem sic ait: « Omnes, ut ait Apostolus, peccaverunt, utique vel in se ipsis, vel in Adam, quia sine peccato non sunt, vel quod originaliter attraxerunt, vel quod malis moribus addiderunt ». « Peccatum enim primi hominis non solum ipsum, sed omne nocuit genus humanum, quia ex eo damnationem simul et culpam suscepimus ». Idem super Psalmo quinquagesimo10: « Quod de corpore mortuo seminatur cum vinculo peccati originalis nascitur et mortis ». « Ideo igitur se in iniquitatibus conceptum dicit David, quia in omnibus trahitur iniquitas ex Adam et vinculum mortis; nemo enim nascitur nisi trahens poenam et meritum poenae. Meritum autem poenae peccatum est. Omnis ergo, qui nascitur per carnis concupiscentiam, peccatum trahit. Peccatum itaque originale culpa est, quam omnes concupiscentialiter concepti trahunt ». Unde in Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus11 scriptum est: « Firmissime tene et nullatenus dubites, omnem hominem, qui per concubitum viri et mulieris concipitur, cum originali peccato nasci, impietati subditum mortique subiectum, et ob hoc natura irae nasci filium, a qua nullus liberatur, nisi per fidem Mediatoris Dei et hominum ». — His aliisque auctoritatibus evidenter ostenditur, peccatum originale culpam esse et in omnibus concupiscentialiter genitis trahi a parentibus.
Cap. VIII.
Quod originale peccatum dicitur fomes peccati, id est concupiscentia.
Nunc superest videre, quid sit ipsum originale peccatum, quod cum non sit actuale, non est actus sive motus animae vel corporis. Si enim actus est animae vel corporis, actuale utique peccatum est; sed actuale non est: non est igitur actus vel motus. Quid igitur originale peccatum dicitur? Fomes peccati, scilicet concupiscentia vel concupiscibilitas, quae dicitur lex membrorum, sive languor naturae, sive tyrannus, qui est in membris nostris, sive lex carnis. Unde Augustinus in libro de Baptismo parvulorum12: « Est in nobis concupiscentia, quae non est permittenda regnare. Sunt et eius desideria, quae sunt actuales concupiscentiae, quae sunt arma diaboli, quae veniunt ex languore naturae ». « Languor autem iste tyrannus est, qui movet mala desideria. Si ergo vis esse victor tyranni atque inermem inimicum invenire, non obedias concupiscentiae malae ». — His verbis satis ostenditur, fomitem peccati esse concupiscentiam.
Cap. IX.
Quid nomine concupiscentiae intelligitur, quae fomes est peccati.
Nomine autem concupiscentiae non actum concupiscendi, sed vitium primum significavit, cum eam dixit legem carnis. Unde idem in tractatu de Verbis Apostoli13 ait: « Semper pugna est in corpore mortis huius, quia ipsa concupiscentia, cum qua nati sumus, finiri non potest, quamdiu vivimus; quotidie minui potest, finiri non potest ». Quae autem est concupiscentia, cum qua nati sumus? Vitium utique est, quod parvulum habilem concupiscere facit, adultum etiam concupiscentem reddit. « Sicut enim in oculo caeci in nocte vitium caecitatis est, sed non apparet, nec discernitur inter videntem et caecum, nisi luce veniente; sic in puero vitium esse non apparet, donec aetatis provectior tempus occurrat ».
Cap. X.
Quod per Adam originale peccatum intravit in omnes, id est concupiscentia.
Ex his datur intelligi, quid sit originale peccatum, scilicet vitium concupiscentiae, quod in omnes concupiscentialiter natos per Adam intravit eosque vitiavit. Unde Augustinus in libro de Baptismo parvulorum14: « Adam praeter imitationis exemplum occulta etiam tabe carnalis concupiscentiae suae tabificavit in se omnes de sua stirpe venturos. Unde Apostolus recte ait: In quo omnes peccaverunt. Circumspecte et sine ambiguitate dicit hoc Apostolus; sive enim intelligatur, in quo homine, sive in quo peccato, sanum est ». « In Adam enim omnes peccaverunt ut in materia, non solum eius exemplo, ut dicunt Pelagiani. Omnes enim ille unus homo fuerant, id est, in eo materialiter erant ». « Manifestum est itaque, omnes in Adam peccasse
quasi in massa. Ipse enim per peccatum corruptus quos genuit, omnes nati sunt sub peccato; ex eo igitur15 cuncti constituti sunt peccatores ». Ita et in illo uno peccato, quod intravit in mundum, recte omnes dicuntur peccasse; quia, sicut ab illo uno homine, sic ab eodem uno peccato immunes esse non possunt, nisi ab eius reatu per Christi baptismum absolvantur. « Alia ergo sunt propria peccata, in quibus tantum peccant quorum peccata sunt; aliud hoc unum, in quo omnes peccaverunt, id est, ex quo omnes peccatores constituti sunt ».
Cap. XI.
An sit peccatum originale, in quo omnes peccaverunt.
Hoc est originale peccatum, quo peccatores nascuntur omnes concupiscentialiter geniti, quod ex Adam sive ex eius inobedientia emanavit et in posteros demigravit. Unde Apostolus16 consequenter per inobedientiam unius hominis multos dicit constitutos esse peccatores, quae est actuale peccatum. Cum autem dixerit, per unum hominem peccatum intrasse in mundum, et in eo omnes peccasse, quod de originali dictum est oportere accipi.
Cap. XII.
Ex quo sensu dictum est, per inobedientiam unius multos constitui peccatores.
Quod ergo ait: Per inobedientiam unius multi constituti sunt peccatores, eo sensu dictum esse intelligendum est, quia ex inobedientia Adae, scilicet ex peccato actuali Adae, processit originale peccatum, quo omnes peccatores nascuntur, ut et in illo esset et in omnes transiret.
Cap. XIII.
Quod peccatum originale in Adam fuit et in nobis est.
Unde Augustinus17 Iuliano haeretico, nullum peccatum in parvulis esse contendenti, respondens, aperte asserit, peccatum originale ex voluntate Adae processisse ac per eius inobedientiam in mundum intrasse. Quaerit enim Iulianus: Per quid peccatum invenitur in parvulo, ita inquiens: « Non peccat iste qui nascitur, non peccat ille qui genuit, non peccat ille qui condidit. Per quas igitur rimas, inter tot praesidia innocentiae, peccatum fingis ingressum? Et respondet sancta Pagina: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum; per unius inobedientiam, ait Apostolus. Quid quaerit amplius, quid quaerit apertius? Item inquit Iulianus: Si per hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, peccatum vel ex voluntate, vel ex natura est. Si ex voluntate est, mala est voluntas, quae peccatum facit; si autem ex natura est, mala est natura. Cui respondeo: Ex voluntate peccatum est. Quaerit forte, utrum originale peccatum ex voluntate sit. Respondeo, prorsus et originale peccatum ex voluntate esse, quia hoc ex voluntate primi hominis seminatum est, ut in illo esset et in omnes transiret ».
« Ad hoc autem, quod diximus, in Adam fuisse omnes homines, quidam verborum sectatores sic obiiciunt dicentes: Non omnis caro, quae ab Adam traducta est, in eo simul existere potuit; quia multo maioris quantitatis est, quam fuerit corpus Adae, in quo nec tot etiam atomi fuerunt, quot ab eo homines descenderunt. Quocirca verum non esse asserunt, substantiam uniuscuiusque in primo fuisse parente18 ».
Cap. XIV.
Quomodo omnes dicuntur in Adam fuisse, quando peccavit, et ex eo descendisse.
Quibus responderi potest, quod materialiter atque causaliter, non formaliter, dicitur fuisse in primo homine omne quod in humanis corporibus naturaliter est, descenditque a primo parente lege propagationis et in se auctum et multiplicatum est, nulla exteriori substantia in id transeunte, et ipsum in futuro resurget. Fomentum quidem habet a cibis, sed non convertuntur cibi in humanam substantiam, quae scilicet per19 propagationem descendit ab Adam. Transmisit enim Adam modicum quid de substantia sua in corpora filiorum, quando eos procreavit, id est, aliquid modicum de massa substantiae eius divisum est, et inde formatum corpus filii suique multiplicatione sine rei extrinsecae adiectione auctum est; et de illo ita augmentato aliquid inde20 separatur, unde formantur posterorum corpora; et ita progreditur procreationis ordo lege propagationis usque ad finem humani generis. Itaque diligenter ac perspicue intelligentibus patet, omnes secundum corpora in Adam fuisse per seminalem rationem et ex eo descendisse propagationis lege.
Cap. XV.
Quod nihil extrinsecum convertatur in humanam substantiam, quae est ex Adam.
Quod vero nihil extrinsecum in humani corporis naturam transeat, Veritas in Evangelio21 significat dicens: Omne quod intrat in os, in ventrem vadit et in secessum emittitur. « Quod etiam ratione ostendi potest
hoc modo: puer, qui statim post ortum moritur, in illa statura resurget, quam habiturus erat, si viveret usque ad aetatem triginta annorum, nullo vitio corporis impeditus. Unde ergo illa substantia, quae adeo parva fuit mortua22, in resurrectione tam magna erit, nisi sui in se multiplicatione? Unde apparet, quod etiam si viveret, non aliunde, sed in se augmentaretur illa substantia; sicut costa, de qua facta est mulier, et sicut panes evangelici. Non infitiamur tamen, quin cibi et humores in carnem et sanguinem transeant, sed non in veritatem humanae naturae, quae a primis descendit parentibus, quae sola in resurrectione erit; reliqua vero caro, in quam cibi transeunt, tanquam superflua in resurrectione deponetur23 »; quae tamen ciborum aliarumque rerum fomentis coalescit.
---
DISTINCTION XXX.
Cap. I.
That through Adam sin and punishment pass into posterity.
In what precedes1 it has been intimated — though in part, for we are not perfectly sufficient to expound it — in what way the first man sinned, and what punishment he underwent for the sin; to which must be added that sin together with punishment passed through him into posterity, as the Apostle shows, saying: As by one man sin entered into this world, so death passed upon all men.
Cap. II.
Whether that sin which passes was original or actual.
Here first it must be seen what that sin was, namely original or actual; and if it is understood of original sin, then consequently it must be diligently investigated what original sin is, and why it is called original, and how it has passed or passes into all.
Cap. III.
Some think it was actual.
To some it seemed good to take this of the actual sin of Adam, asserting that the Apostle2 meant this when he says below: As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, and so forth. Evidently, they say, the Apostle expresses even by the very name the sin which entered into the world through one man, namely disobedience. But disobedience is an actual sin.
Cap. IV.
How they assign that it entered into the world.
But they say it entered into the world not by the traduction of origin, but by the likeness of transgression; and that all sinned in that one3 man, because to all that one man stood forth as an example of sinning. — Certain heretics judged ill of this, who were called Pelagians, concerning whom Augustine in the book on the Baptism of Little Children4 records, saying: « It must be known that certain heretics, who were named Pelagians, said that the sin of the first transgression passed into other men not by propagation, but by imitation. Hence also in little children they refuse to believe that original sin is loosed through baptism, which they contend is in those being born nothing at all. But it is said to them that, if the Apostle had wished sin to be understood of imitation, not of propagation, he would have called its prince not Adam, but the devil. Concerning whom in the book of Wisdom5 it is said: By the envy of the devil death entered into the world. And because he does not wish it to be understood that this came about by propagation, but by imitation, Scripture immediately added: But they that are on his side imitate him. They indeed imitate Adam, as many as by disobedience transgress the commandment of God; but one thing is that which is an example to those sinning by will, another that which is an origin to those being born with sin ». It is therefore not to be taken that Adam's sin passed into all by the example of imitation alone, but by the vice of propagation and origin.
Cap. V.
That there truly was an original sin, which passes into posterity.
And that sin is original, as Augustine6 openly testifies, which through Adam passed into all who were begotten concupiscibly through his vitiated flesh.
Cap. VI.
What original sin is.
Which must be diligently investigated, what it is. For concerning this the holy doctors have spoken somewhat obscurely7, and the scholastic doctors have held various opinions. — For some think that original sin is the guilt of punishment (reatus poenae) for the sin of the first man, that is, a debt or liability whereby we are liable and bound to temporal and eternal punishment for the actual sin of the first man: because for that sin, as they say, eternal punishment is owed to all, unless they are freed through grace. — According to their opinion it must be said that original sin is neither fault (culpa) nor punishment. That it is not fault they themselves confess; and punishment, according to them, it cannot be, because, if original sin is a debt of punishment, since a debt of punishment is not a punishment, neither is original sin a punishment. Which some of them also admit, saying that in Scripture original sin is often named guilt (reatus), and there they understand guilt, as has been said, to be the liability to punishment; and for that reason they assert that original sin is said to be in little children, because little children for that first sin are liable to punishment; just as for the sin of a wicked parent the children are sometimes banished according to the justice of the court.
Cap. VII.
That original sin is fault (culpa).
But that original sin is fault is taught by many testimonies of the Saints. On Exodus8, where it is said: The firstborn of an ass thou shalt change for a sheep, Gregory says: « We are all born in sins, and conceived of the delight of the flesh, we have contracted original guilt, whence also by our own will we are entangled in sins ». — Behold! he says that we draw original guilt; whence it is clear that original sin is fault. Augustine also in the book on Nature and Grace9 says of this same matter thus: « All, as the Apostle says, have sinned, either indeed in themselves, or in Adam, because they are not without sin, either because they drew it originally, or because they added it by evil habits ». « For the sin of the first man harmed not only himself, but the whole human race, because from him we received at once both damnation and fault ». The same on the fiftieth Psalm10: « That which is sown from the dead body is born with the bond of original sin and of death ». « Therefore David says that he was conceived in iniquities for this reason, because in all men iniquity is drawn from Adam, and the bond of death; for no one is born except drawing punishment and the desert of punishment. But the desert of punishment is sin. Everyone therefore who is born through the concupiscence of the flesh draws sin. And so original sin is fault, which all who are conceived concupiscibly draw ». Whence in the Ecclesiastical Dogmas11 it is written: « Most firmly hold and in no way doubt that every man who is conceived by the intercourse of man and woman is born with original sin, subject to impiety and subject to death, and on this account is born a child of wrath, from which no one is freed except through faith in the Mediator of God and men ». — By these and other authorities it is evidently shown that original sin is fault and is drawn from their parents by all who are begotten concupiscibly.
Cap. VIII.
That original sin is called the fomes of sin, that is, concupiscence.
Now it remains to see what original sin itself is, which, since it is not actual, is not an act or motion of the soul or of the body. For if it is an act of the soul or of the body, it is indeed actual sin; but it is not actual: therefore it is not an act or motion. What then is original sin called? The fomes of sin, namely concupiscence or concupiscibility, which is called the law of the members, or the languor of nature, or the tyrant which is in our members, or the law of the flesh. Whence Augustine in the book on the Baptism of Little Children12: « There is in us a concupiscence which is not to be permitted to reign. And there are its desires, which are the actual concupiscences, which are the arms of the devil, which come from the languor of nature ». « But that languor is a tyrant, who stirs up evil desires. If therefore you wish to be a victor over the tyrant and to find the enemy unarmed, do not obey the evil concupiscence ». — By these words it is sufficiently shown that the fomes of sin is concupiscence.
Cap. IX.
What is understood by the name of concupiscence, which is the fomes of sin.
But by the name of concupiscence he signified not the act of coveting, but the first vice, when he called it the law of the flesh. Whence the same in the treatise on the Words of the Apostle13 says: « Always there is a battle in the body of this death, because that very concupiscence, with which we are born, cannot be finished while we live; it can daily be diminished, it cannot be finished ». But what is the concupiscence with which we are born? It is indeed a vice, which makes the little child fit to covet, and makes the adult also coveting. « For just as in the eye of one blind in the night there is the vice of blindness, but it does not appear, nor is it discerned between the seeing and the blind, except when the light comes; so in the child the vice does not appear to be there, until a more advanced time of age comes ».
Cap. X.
That through Adam original sin entered into all, that is, concupiscence.
From these things it is given to understand what original sin is, namely the vice of concupiscence, which through Adam entered into all who are born concupiscibly and vitiated them. Whence Augustine in the book on the Baptism of Little Children14: « Adam, besides the example of imitation, by the hidden infection also of his carnal concupiscence corrupted in himself all who were to come from his stock. Whence the Apostle rightly says: In whom all have sinned. Circumspectly and without ambiguity the Apostle says this; for whether it be understood in whom (in what man), or in what sin, it is sound ». « For in Adam all sinned as in matter, not only by his example, as the Pelagians say. For all were that one man, that is, in him they were materially ». « It is manifest therefore that all sinned in Adam
as it were in the mass. For he himself, corrupted through sin, those whom he begot, all were born under sin; from him therefore15 all were constituted sinners ». So too in that one sin, which entered into the world, all are rightly said to have sinned; because, just as from that one man, so from the same one sin they cannot be immune, unless they are absolved from its guilt through the baptism of Christ. « There are therefore proper sins, in which those alone sin whose sins they are; and there is this one, in which all have sinned, that is, from which all were constituted sinners ».
Cap. XI.
Whether there is an original sin, in which all have sinned.
This is original sin, with which all who are begotten concupiscibly are born sinners, which emanated from Adam, or from his disobedience, and migrated into posterity. Whence the Apostle16 consequently says that by the disobedience of one man many were constituted sinners, which is an actual sin. But since he said that by one man sin entered into the world, and that in him all sinned, this is what must be taken of original sin.
Cap. XII.
In what sense it was said that by the disobedience of one many were constituted sinners.
What therefore he says: By the disobedience of one many were constituted sinners, is to be understood as said in this sense, that from the disobedience of Adam, namely from the actual sin of Adam, proceeded original sin, with which all are born sinners, so that it might be both in him and pass into all.
Cap. XIII.
That original sin was in Adam and is in us.
Whence Augustine17, answering Julian the heretic, who contended that there is no sin in little children, openly asserts that original sin proceeded from the will of Adam and entered into the world through his disobedience. For Julian asks: By what is sin found in the little child, saying thus: « He who is born does not sin, he who begot does not sin, he who created does not sin. By what crevices then, among so many safeguards of innocence, do you imagine sin to have entered? And the sacred Page answers: By one man sin entered into the world; by the disobedience of one, says the Apostle. What does he ask further, what does he ask more plainly? Likewise Julian says: If through man sin entered into the world, sin is either of the will or of nature. If it is of the will, the will which makes the sin is evil; but if it is of nature, nature is evil. To whom I respond: Sin is of the will. He asks perhaps whether original sin is of the will. I respond that original sin too is wholly of the will, because it was sown from the will of the first man, so that it might be in him and pass into all ».
« But to this which we have said, that all men were in Adam, certain followers of words object, saying: Not all the flesh which was traduced from Adam could exist in him at the same time; because it is of much greater quantity than was the body of Adam, in which there were not even so many atoms as men descended from him. Wherefore they assert that it is not true that the substance of each one was in the first parent18 ».
Cap. XIV.
How all are said to have been in Adam when he sinned, and to have descended from him.
To whom it can be answered that materially and causally, not formally, everything which is naturally in human bodies is said to have been in the first man, and descended from the first parent by the law of propagation, and was increased and multiplied in itself, with no exterior substance passing into it, and it itself shall rise again in the future. It indeed has nourishment (fomentum) from foods, but foods are not converted into the human substance, which namely descends through19 propagation from Adam. For Adam transmitted a little something of his substance into the bodies of his children, when he begot them, that is, some little something was divided from the mass of his substance, and from it was formed the body of the child, and was increased by its own multiplication without the addition of any extrinsic thing; and from that thing so increased something is thence20 separated, whence the bodies of posterity are formed; and so the order of procreation proceeds by the law of propagation up to the end of the human race. And so to those understanding diligently and clearly it is plain that all, according to their bodies, were in Adam by seminal reason and descended from him by the law of propagation.
Cap. XV.
That nothing extrinsic is converted into the human substance, which is from Adam.
But that nothing extrinsic passes into the nature of the human body, Truth in the Gospel21 signifies, saying: Everything that enters into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the privy. « Which also can be shown by reason
in this way: a child who dies immediately after birth will rise again in that stature which he would have had if he had lived up to the age of thirty years, hindered by no defect of body. Whence then will that substance, which was so small when it died22, be so great in the resurrection, except by its multiplication in itself? Whence it appears that even if he had lived, that substance would be increased not from elsewhere, but in itself; just as the rib, from which the woman was made, and just as the evangelical loaves. Yet we do not deny that foods and humors pass into flesh and blood, but not into the truth of human nature, which descends from the first parents, which alone will be in the resurrection; but the remaining flesh, into which foods pass, will be laid aside in the resurrection as superfluous23 »; which nevertheless coalesces by the nourishments of foods and other things.
---
- Dist. XXI. et XXV. p. II. — Paulo inferius post sufficimus omittitur exponere a codd. B C D E et ed. 1. — Locus Scripturae est Rom. 5, 12.Distinctions XXI and XXV, pars II. — A little below, after sufficimus, the word exponere is omitted by codices B C D E and edition 1. — The scriptural passage is Romans 5, 12.
- Loc. cit. v. 19.In the place cited, v. 19.
- Edd. 1, 8 addunt peccato.Editions 1 and 8 add peccato [in sin].
- Libr. I. c. 9. n. 9, et Serm. 294. c. 14. 15. n. 15.Book I, c. 9, n. 9, and Sermon 294, c. 14. 15, n. 15.
- Cap. 2, 24; seq. textus ibid. v. 25.Chapter 2, 24; the following text is in the same place, v. 25.
- Libr. XIII. de Trin. c. 16. n. 21.Book XIII on the Trinity, c. 16, n. 21.
- Ita nostri codd.; edd. sub obscuritate. Plura in hoc capitulo sumta sunt ex Hugone, Sum. Sent. tr. 3. c. 11.So our codices read; the editions read sub obscuritate [under obscurity]. Several things in this chapter are taken from Hugh, Summa Sententiarum, tr. 3, c. 11.
- Cap. 13, 13; Greg. XXVII. Moral. c. 18. n. 39, et in Glossa apud Lyranum. In quo textu pro nobis contraximus Vat. cum codd. A B C et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 non bene nobiscum traximus, et deinde eadem cum pluribus edd. dixit pro dicit.Chapter 13, 13; Gregory, Moralia XXVII, c. 18, n. 39, and in the Gloss in Lyranus. In which text, for nobis contraximus [we have contracted for ourselves], the Vatican edition with codices A B C and editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 reads, not well, nobiscum traximus [we have drawn with ourselves], and then the same with several editions read dixit for dicit.
- Cap. 4. n. 4. Seq. locus est II. Hypognostic. c. 4. n. 4. In primo textu Vat. cum pluribus edd. et cod. A contraxerunt pro attraxerunt. In secundo loco pro nocuit, quod habent August., codd. et edd. 1, 8, Vat. cum aliis edd. necavit. — De nocere cum accusativo personali cfr. Forcellini Lexicon etc.Chapter 4, n. 4. The following passage is in the Hypognosticon II, c. 4, n. 4. In the first text the Vatican edition with several editions and codex A reads contraxerunt for attraxerunt. In the second place, for nocuit, which Augustine, the codices, and editions 1, 8 have, the Vatican edition with other editions reads necavit. — On nocere with a personal accusative, cf. Forcellini's Lexicon, etc.
- Enarrat. in hunc Ps. n. 10; apud Lyranum v. 7. Pro ultimo verbo mortis, originale habet moritur. — Quae sequuntur inveniuntur ibid., secundum sensum.Enarration on this Psalm, n. 10; in Lyranus, v. 7. For the last word mortis, the original has moritur. — What follows is found in the same place, according to the sense.
- Revera est de Fide ad Petrum, c. 26. n. 69. Respicitur ibi Eph. 2, 3, et in fine I. Tim. 2, 5.It is really from On the Faith, to Peter, c. 26, n. 69. There reference is made to Ephesians 2, 3, and at the end to 1 Timothy 2, 5.
- Potius de Continentia, c. 3. n. 8. — Seq. locus Serm. 30. c. 3. n. 6.Rather from On Continence, c. 3, n. 8. — The following passage is Sermon 30, c. 3, n. 6.
- Serm. 151. c. 3. n. 11. — Exemplum in fine capituli est ex Hugone, Sum. Sent. tr. 3. c. 11.Sermon 151, c. 3, n. 11. — The example at the end of the chapter is from Hugh, Summa Sententiarum, tr. 3, c. 11.
- Libr. I. de Peccator. meritis... et bapt. parvul. c. 9. n. 10. et c. 10. n. 11. — Pro vitiavit cod. C et edd. 1, 8 commaculavit, codd. B E maculavit. Paulo inferius locus Apostoli est Rom. 3, 12.Book I on the Merits of Sins... and on the Baptism of Little Children, c. 9, n. 10, and c. 10, n. 11. — For vitiavit, codex C and editions 1, 8 read commaculavit, codices B E maculavit. A little below, the passage of the Apostle is Romans 3, 12.
- Est in Glossa ad Rom. 5, 12, sicut etiam seq. locus. Haec et quae sequuntur secundum sententiam inveniuntur apud August., loc. cit. c. 11. et 12. — Post verba per peccatum corruptus cod. A et edd. 1, 8 addunt est.It is in the Gloss on Romans 5, 12, as is also the following passage. These and what follow are found, according to the sense, in Augustine, in the place cited, c. 11 and 12. — After the words per peccatum corruptus, codex A and editions 1, 8 add est.
- Vat. et edd., excepta I, sed contra codd., addunt sicut.The Vatican edition and the editions, except I, but against the codices, add sicut.
- August., I. de Peccator. meritis et remiss. c. 10. n. 11.Augustine, Book I on the Merits and Remission of Sins, c. 10, n. 11.
- Epist. ad Rom. 5, 19. — In fine capituli contra codd. et edd. 1, 2, 8, Vat. cum ceteris edd. non bene peccasse, de originali dictum esse, oportet accipi.Epistle to the Romans 5, 19. — At the end of the chapter, against the codices and editions 1, 2, 8, the Vatican edition with the other editions reads, not well, peccasse, de originali dictum esse, oportet accipi.
- Libr. II. de Nuptiis et concupiscentia, c. 28. n. 47. 48.Book II on Marriage and Concupiscence, c. 28, n. 47. 48.
- Haec et multa, quae sequuntur, sunt ex Hugone, Sum. Sent. tr. 3. c. 10. — Supra locutio verborum sectatores alludere videtur ad Prov. 19, 7: Qui tantum verba sectatur nihil habebit.These and many things which follow are from Hugh, Summa Sententiarum, tr. 3, c. 10. — Above, the expression verborum sectatores [followers of words] seems to allude to Proverbs 19, 7: He that followeth only words shall have nothing.
- Edd. 1, 8 secundum. — De hac sententia Magistri et Hugonis, quae communiter non tenetur, cfr. Bonav., hic a. 3. q. 1. 2.Editions 1, 8 read secundum. — On this opinion of the Master and of Hugh, which is not commonly held, cf. Bonaventure, here, art. 3, q. 1 and 2.
- Codd. A B et ed. 1 non male itidem. Paulo superius Vat. in augmento pro ita augmentato, edd. 1, 8 ita augmentando.Codices A B and edition 1 read, not badly, itidem. A little above, the Vatican edition reads in augmento for ita augmentato, editions 1, 8 ita augmentando.
- Matth. 15, 17. Deinde prosequitur Hugo, loc. cit., qui multa sumsit ex August., XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 14. 19. — In textu pro parva fuit mortua edd. 1, 5, 8 parva fuit in ortu.Matthew 15, 17. Then Hugh continues, in the place cited, who took many things from Augustine, City of God XXII, c. 14. 19. — In the text, for parva fuit mortua [was small when it died], editions 1, 5, 8 read parva fuit in ortu [was small at birth]. ---