Dist. 31, Dubia
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 31
## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
DUB. I.
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod Magister quaerit in littera, ibi: Hic quaeri solet, utrum causa peccati originalis in carne sit culpa, vel poena. Non enim videtur ipse respondere ad quaestionem propositam, quia in solvendo nec determinat, quod sit culpa, nec determinat, quod sit poena; et videtur, quod neutrum sit. Culpa non est; constat. Poena non videtur esse, quia poena in ea sola natura nata est esse, in qua et miseria nata est esse; et miseria in ea sola, in qua etiam beatitudo est nata esse; haec autem est sola rationalis creatura1: ergo ante adventum animae nec potest esse poena nec culpa. — Item, omni poena aliquis punitur; sed illa corruptione, quae est in semine ante adventum animae, nullus punitur: ergo non videtur esse poena. — Sed in contrarium est, quia cum sit corruptio consequens ex culpa, et omnis talis poena; videtur talis corruptio esse poena. Item, cum omnis maledictio sit poenae vel culpae, et semen erat maledictum, secundum quod dicitur Sapientiae duodecimo2, et Augustinus exponit in libro Hypognosticon: ergo etc.
Respondeo: Dicendum est ad hoc breviter, quod Magister ad istam quaestionem respondet valde caute et rationabiliter. Nec enim sustinet, quod sit poena, nec sustinet, quod sit culpa, nec tamen negat. Non enim actualiter est poena vel culpa corruptio illa sive foeditas, quoniam poena sub ratione poenae, et culpa sub ratione culpae sunt circa subiectum rationale. Nec tamen negat, quod sit poena vel culpa3, quia ad utrumque ordinem habet et utriusque4 quodammodo est causa. Anima enim ex coniunctione sui ad carnem ratione illius foeditatis contrahit poenam et culpam, licet culpam prius contrahat per naturam quam meritum poenae. Ideo Magister, ut utrumque comprehendat, vocat eam vitiositatem sive carnis foeditatem; et per hoc patet responsio ad utramque partem, quia quodam modo dicendi est poena, quodam modo non5.
DUB. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Foeditas maior videtur esse in carne concupiscentialiter traducta quam in ea, de qua traducitur. Si enim hoc verum est, cum originale contrahatur ex illa foeditate, videtur, quod maius sit originale in uno quam in alio6. Item, nulla proprietas est intensior in effectu quam in causa, quando est univoce in utroque: ergo si foeditas in carne traducta causatur ab eo, a quo traducitur, non videtur Magister dicere verum, cum dicit, quod maior est hic quam ibi.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, cum dicit Magister, quod maior sit foeditas in carne, quae traducitur, quam in carne, a qua traducitur, hoc intendit quantum ad carnem, quae est in aliis membris et deservit aliis membris quam membris generativae. Hoc autem dicit, quia in illa potentia est quaedam fontalis infectio, propter quam semen, ibi genitum et per illam viam descendens, maiori infectione inficitur quam alii humores; quod manifestat pruritus et fervor coitus, sicut ipse dicit in littera7. Unde non vult dicere, quod semen, ex quo generatur proles, sit magis infectum quam semen, ex quo generatus est pater. Nec tamen sequitur, quod maius sit originale in prole, quam fuerit in patre. Et ita patet responsio ad illud. Sed hoc planius explicabitur, cum agetur inferius8 de quantitate originalis.
DUB. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Non quia ex carne tracta ab Adam concepti sumus, ideo peccatum traximus; et est quaestio, utrum si aliquis homo fieret de carne Adae corrupta praeter legem generationis, utrum contraheret originale. Et quod non, videtur Magister dicere in littera9, et hoc ipsum videtur Augustinus dicere contra Pelagianos, ubi dicit: «Qualis terrenus, tales et terreni; hoc quomodo, nisi per seminis sparsionem»? Et post: «Semen ergo vitiatum est, sicut scriptum est: Semen erat maledictum ab initio». Et post clarius: «Vitium contrahi non potest protoplasti sine seminis effusione». Si ergo aliter10 formaretur quam per istam viam, non videtur, quod contraheret originale. — Sed contrarium huius videtur, quia, si tota caro Adae corrupta fuit et foedata merito culpae, videtur pari ratione, quod peccatum contraheretur, si fieret de alia parte, sicut fit11 de semine. Praeterea, totum corpus prolis fabricatum est ex semine; et constat, quod foeditas illa non purgatur propter diversitatem organizationis: ergo si anima originale contraxit, quae iuncta est primo illi corpori; pari ratione videtur, quod contraheret illa anima, quae iungeretur corpori ex illa carne formato, nisi in illa formatione esset purificatio.
Respondeo: Quidam tenent, quod contraheret originale propter hoc, quod non solum est corruptio et foedatio in parte, sed in tota carne. Alii vero tenent oppositum, dicentes, quod etsi sit in omnibus membris corruptio poenalitatis, corruptio tamen foeditatis, quae est principium originalis, in parte generativa consistit12. — Quodcumque horum dicatur, non est magna vis facienda, quia nullus est, qui non generetur secundum legem propagationis ex semine infecto nisi solus Christus, de quo certum est, quod non habuit originale peccatum. Verumtamen securius est adhaerere verbis Magistri propter hoc, quod magis consonant verbis Augustini13. Unde si homo fieret ex alia parte, vel etiam mulier facta fuisset ex costa viri, postquam peccavit, poenalitatem aliquam habuisset, non tamen peccatum originale. — Nec valet quod obiicit de corruptione. Nam etsi in omnibus membris corruptio sit poenalitatis, corruptio tamen foeditatis est in solo semine ratione infectionis principalis, quae est in vi generativa. Quare autem vis illa sit magis infecta quam alia, determinatum est supra14.
DUB. IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Ecce in iniquitatibus conceptus sum etc. Ex isto enim verbo videtur colligi, quod actus matrimonialis nunquam absque peccato habeat fieri; et hoc ipsum videtur per auctoritatem Augustini, decimo quarto de Civitate Dei: «Genitales corporis partes ita libido suo iuri mancipavit, ut moveri non valeant, si ipsa defuerit». Et ad Valerium: «Honestas concubitus non est sine ardore libidinis». — Sed contrarium huius est, quia omne mandatum Dei potest absque peccato impleri: ergo et prolem procreare absque peccato potest homo ad cultum Dei.
Respondeo: Ad hoc breviter dicendum est, quod actus matrimonialis potest fieri absque omni peccato, maxime cum fit causa generandae prolis, vel reddendi debiti; et illud verbum Psalmi intelligitur de peccato originali in prole, non de peccato actuali in parente; et similiter verbum Augustini intelligitur de libidine, prout est pruritus carnis, non prout est improbitas voluntatis; et hoc modo plus est poena quam culpa. Et de hoc planius determinatur in quarto, in tractatu de matrimonio.
---
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.
Doubt I.
In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which the Master asks in the text, there: Here it is wont to be asked, whether the cause of original sin in the flesh is fault or punishment. For he does not seem to answer the question proposed, because in resolving it he neither determines that it is fault, nor determines that it is punishment; and it seems that it is neither. That it is not fault is established. That it is not punishment seems to be the case, because punishment is born to be only in that nature in which misery too is born to be; and misery only in that in which beatitude also is born to be; but this is the rational creature alone1: therefore before the coming of the soul there can be neither punishment nor fault. — Likewise, by every punishment someone is punished; but by that corruption which is in the seed before the coming of the soul, no one is punished: therefore it does not seem to be a punishment. — But on the contrary it stands, that since it is a corruption consequent upon fault, and every such corruption is a punishment; such a corruption seems to be a punishment. Likewise, since every curse is of punishment or of fault, and the seed was cursed, according to what is said in the twelfth chapter of Wisdom2, and Augustine expounds in the book Hypognosticon: therefore etc.
I respond: It must be said to this briefly, that the Master answers this question very cautiously and reasonably. For he neither maintains that it is a punishment, nor maintains that it is a fault, nor yet does he deny it. For that corruption or foulness is not actually a punishment or a fault, since punishment under the formal character of punishment, and fault under the formal character of fault, are about a rational subject. Nor yet does he deny that it is a punishment or a fault3, because it bears a relation to each order, and is in a certain manner the cause of each4. For the soul, from its conjunction to the flesh, by reason of that foulness contracts punishment and fault, although it contracts the fault first by nature than the deserving of punishment. Therefore the Master, in order to comprehend both, calls it viciousness or the foulness of the flesh; and by this the answer to each part becomes plain, because in a certain manner of speaking it is a punishment, in a certain manner not5.
Doubt II.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: The foulness seems to be greater in the flesh concupiscentially handed down than in that from which it is handed down. For if this is true, since the original [sin] is contracted from that foulness, it seems that the original [sin] is greater in one than in another6. Likewise, no property is more intense in the effect than in the cause, when it is in each univocally: therefore if the foulness in the flesh handed down is caused by that from which it is handed down, the Master does not seem to say what is true, when he says that it is greater here than there.
I respond: It must be said that, when the Master says that the foulness is greater in the flesh which is handed down than in the flesh from which it is handed down, he intends this with regard to the flesh which is in the other members and serves members other than the members of the generative [power]. But he says this because in that power there is a certain welling-up infection, on account of which the seed, begotten there and descending by that way, is infected with a greater infection than the other humors; which the itching and heat of intercourse make manifest, as he himself says in the text7. Hence he does not wish to say that the seed from which the offspring is generated is more infected than the seed from which the father was generated. Nor yet does it follow that the original [sin] is greater in the offspring than it was in the father. And thus the answer to that becomes plain. But this will be explained more plainly when treatment is made below8 concerning the quantity of the original [sin].
Doubt III.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: Not because we were conceived of the flesh drawn from Adam did we draw sin; and the question is, whether if some man were made from the corrupted flesh of Adam apart from the law of generation, whether he would contract the original [sin]. And that he would not, the Master seems to say in the text9, and this very thing Augustine seems to say against the Pelagians, where he says: «Such as is the earthly one, such also are the earthly; this in what way, except by the scattering of seed?» And after: «The seed therefore was corrupted, as it is written: The seed was cursed from the beginning.» And after, more clearly: «The defect cannot be contracted from the first-formed one without the effusion of seed.» If therefore one were formed otherwise10 than by that way, it does not seem that he would contract the original [sin]. — But the contrary of this seems to be the case, because, if the whole flesh of Adam was corrupted and made foul by the merit of the fault, it seems by parity of reasoning that sin would be contracted, if one were made from another part, just as is done11 from the seed. Furthermore, the whole body of the offspring is fashioned from the seed; and it is established that that foulness is not purged on account of the diversity of organization: therefore if the soul contracted the original [sin] which was joined to that first body; by parity of reasoning it seems that that soul would contract it which were joined to a body formed from that flesh, unless in that formation there were a purification.
I respond: Some hold that he would contract the original [sin] on account of the fact that there is corruption and defilement not only in a part, but in the whole flesh. But others hold the opposite, saying that although there is in all the members a corruption of penalty, yet the corruption of foulness, which is the principle of the original [sin], resides in the generative part12. — Whichever of these is said, no great weight is to be put upon it, because there is no one who is not generated according to the law of propagation from infected seed except Christ alone, of whom it is certain that he did not have original sin. Nevertheless it is safer to adhere to the words of the Master on account of this, that they are more consonant with the words of Augustine13. Hence if a man were made from another part, or even if the woman had been made from the rib of the man after he sinned, she would have had some penalty, yet not original sin. — Nor does that which he objects concerning corruption avail. For although in all the members there is a corruption of penalty, yet the corruption of foulness is in the seed alone by reason of the principal infection, which is in the generative power. But why that power is more infected than another, has been determined above14.
Doubt IV.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: Behold, in iniquities I was conceived etc. For from this word it seems to be gathered that the matrimonial act can never be done without sin; and this very thing seems [to follow] from the authority of Augustine, in the fourteenth book On the City of God: «Lust has so subjected the generative parts of the body to its own right, that they cannot be moved if it is lacking.» And to Valerius: «The honorableness of intercourse is not without the ardor of lust.» — But the contrary of this is the case, because every commandment of God can be fulfilled without sin: therefore a man can also procreate offspring without sin for the worship of God.
I respond: To this it must be said briefly, that the matrimonial act can be done without any sin, especially when it is done for the cause of generating offspring, or of rendering the debt; and that word of the Psalm is understood of original sin in the offspring, not of actual sin in the parent; and likewise the word of Augustine is understood of lust, insofar as it is the itching of the flesh, not insofar as it is the wickedness of the will; and in this manner it is more punishment than fault. And concerning this it is determined more plainly in the fourth book, in the treatise on matrimony.
---
- Cfr. Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 9; X. c. 8; I. Magnor. Moral. c. 4; August., de Natura boni, c. 8. — Mox post Item et deinde post sed edd., excepta I, temere interiiciunt pro; secundo loco cod. bb interiicit in.Cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. I, c. 9; Bk. X, c. 8; Great Ethics, Bk. I, c. 4; Augustine, On the Nature of the Good, c. 8. — Shortly after, after Item and then after sed, the editions, except the first, rashly insert pro; in the second place codex bb inserts in.
- Vers. 11. — Libr. II. Hypogn. c. 2. n. 2.Verse 11. — Hypognosticon, Bk. II, c. 2, n. 2.
- In Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 4 desiderantur verba poena, nec sustinet, quod sit. Eaedem edd. paulo inferius pro subiectum rationale exhibent substantiam rationalem.In the Vatican edition and editions 2, 3, 4 the words poena, nec sustinet, quod sit are lacking. The same editions, a little below, for subiectum rationale read substantiam rationalem.
- Non pauci codd. cum Vat. et ceteris edd. uirumque, cod. O ad utrumque, cod. K uirique; deinde pro est causa Vat. sola causat.Not a few codices, with the Vatican edition and the other editions, read uirumque; codex O ad utrumque; codex K uirique; then for est causa the Vatican edition reads sola causat.
- Cfr. hic a. 2. q. 1, d. 32. a. 1. q. 2, d. 33. a. 2. q. 1; Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 106. m. 4; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. ad 4; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 3.Cf. here, a. 2, q. 1; d. 32, a. 1, q. 2; d. 33, a. 2, q. 1; Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. II, q. 106, m. 4; St. Thomas, here, q. 1, a. 1, ad 4; Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the text, 3.
- Quod falsum esse ostenditur infra d. 33. a. 2. q. 1.That this is false is shown below, d. 33, a. 2, q. 1.
- Hic c. 4. et 7. Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3.Here, cc. 4 and 7. Cf. above, a. 1, q. 3.
- Dist. 33. a. 2. q. 1. — De hoc dubio cfr. S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., dub. lit. 4.Dist. 33, a. 2, q. 1. — On this doubt cf. St. Thomas, here on the text; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, doubt on the text, 4.
- Hic c. 7. — Testimonia ex Augustino hic allata exstant in II. Hypogn., et quidem primum c. 1. n. 1, secundum et tertium c. 2. n. 2. In secundo testimonio textus originalis post vitiatum est addit non vitium, et in tertio pro contrahi exhibet trahi ac post protoplasti subiungit neque esse homo. Verba duorum locorum Scripturae habentur I. Cor 15, 48, et Sap. 12, 11.Here, c. 7. — The testimonies from Augustine here adduced are found in Hypognosticon, Bk. II, namely the first in c. 1, n. 1, the second and third in c. 2, n. 2. In the second testimony the original text after vitiatum est adds non vitium, and in the third for contrahi it reads trahi and after protoplasti it subjoins neque esse homo. The words of the two scriptural passages are found in 1 Corinthians 15:48 and Wisdom 12:11.
- Codd. Y aa subiiciunt homo.Codices Y, aa subjoin homo.
- Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 sicut si fiat, ed. 1 sicut si.The Vatican edition with editions 3, 4 reads sicut si fiat; edition 1 sicut si.
- Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3. — Cod. aa consistat.Cf. above, a. 1, q. 3. — Codex aa reads consistat.
- Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. — Paulo superius pro certum est edd., excepta 1, dictum est.See here the text of the Master, c. 7. — A little above, for certum est the editions, except the first, read dictum est.
- Art. 1. q. 3. — Cfr. Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit. Item: Cap. 19, ubi textus originalis voci iuri addit quodammodo; Libr. I. de Nuptiis et concupisc. c. 24. n. 27; Ps. 50, 7. — Dist. 31. a. 1. et 2. — Cfr. Alex. Hal., p. II. q. 106. m. 7. a. 3. § 4; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 5.A. 1, q. 3. — Cf. Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text. Likewise: c. 19, where the original text adds quodammodo to the word iuri [City of God, Bk. XIV]; On Marriage and Concupiscence, Bk. I, c. 24, n. 27 [the Valerius citation]; Ps. 50:7 [the Psalm word]. — Dist. 31, a. 1 and 2 [the matrimony cross-reference, "in the fourth book"]. — Cf. Alexander of Hales, p. II, q. 106, m. 7, a. 3, § 4; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the text, 5.