← Back to Distinction 31

Dist. 31

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 31

Textus Latinus
p. 737

DISTINCTIO XXXI.

Cap. I.

Quomodo peccatum originale a patribus transeat in filios.

« Nunc superest investigare, qualiter illud peccatum a patribus traducatur in filios, scilicet an secundum solam animam, an secundum carnem, sive secundum utrumque ».

Cap. II.

An secundum animam, an secundum carnem.

« Putaverunt quidam, secundum animam trahi peccatum originale, non solum secundum carnem, quia non solum carnem, sed et animam ex traduce esse arbitrati sunt. Sicut enim in generatione prolis de carne paterna substantialiter trahitur caro, ita etiam de gignentis anima animam geniti essentialiter deduci ab his existimatur. Ideoque sicut de corrupta carne caro corrupta seminatur, ita etiam de anima peccatrice anima peccatrix, corruptione originali infecta, ab illis trahi dicitur1 ».

Cap. III.

Quod per carnem traducatur peccatum et quomodo, ostendit.

Hoc autem fides catholica respuit et tanquam veritati adversum damnat2; quae non animas, sed carnem solam, sicut superius3 diximus, ex traduce esse admittit. Non igitur secundum animam, sed secundum carnem solam peccatum originale trahitur a parentibus. Est enim peccatum originale, ut supra diximus, concupiscentia, non quidem actus, sed vitium. Unde Augustinus4: Ipsa concupiscentia est lex membrorum vel carnis, quae est morbidus quidam affectus, vel languor, qui commovet illicitum desiderium, id est carnalem concupiscentiam, quae lex peccati dicitur; quae dicitur manere in carne, non quin in anima[^5] sit, sed quia per corruptionem carnis in anima fit.

Cap. IV.

Causam corruptionis carnis ostendit, ex qua peccatum fit in anima.

Caro enim propter6 peccatum corrupta fuit in Adam, adeo ut, cum ante peccatum vir et mulier sine incentivo libidinis et concupiscentiae fervore possent convenire, essetque thorus immaculatus, iam post peccatum non valeat fieri carnalis copula absque libidinosa concupiscentia, quae semper vitium est, et etiam culpa, nisi excusetur per bona coniugii. In concupiscentia igitur et libidine concipitur caro formanda in corpus prolis. Unde caro ipsa, quae concipitur in vitiosa concupiscentia, polluitur et corrumpitur; ex cuius contactu anima, cum infunditur, maculam trahit, qua polluitur et fit rea, id est vitium concupiscentiae, quod est originale peccatum.

p. 738

Cap. V.

Quare dicitur peccatum esse in carne.

Ideoque ipsum peccatum dicitur manere in carne. Caro igitur, quae in concupiscentia libidinis seminatur, nec culpam habet nec actum culpae, sed causam. In eo igitur, quod seminatur, corruptio est; in eo autem, quod nascitur, concupiscentiae vitium est. Unde Ambrosius7, de verbis Apostoli, sic ait: « Quomodo habitat peccatum in carne, cum non sit substantia, sed privatio boni? Ecce primi hominis corpus corruptum est per peccatum, ipsaque corruptio per conditionem offensionis manet in corpore, robur tenens divinae sententiae datae in Adam, cuius consortio anima maculatur peccato. Per id ergo, quod facti causa manet, inhabitare dicitur peccatum in carne »; haec est lex carnis. Idem: « Non habitat peccatum in anima, sed in carne, quia peccati causa ex carne est, non ex anima; quia caro est ex origine carnis peccati, et per traducem omnis caro fit causa8 peccati »; anima vero non traducitur, et ideo in se causam peccati non habet. Augustinus quoque, ex carne peccatum animam contrahere, in sermone quodam de Verbis Apostoli9 ostendit dicens: « Vitium concupiscentiae est, quod anima non ex se, sed ex carne contraxit. Natura quippe humana non opere Dei cum vitio primitus est instituta, sed ex voluntatis arbitrio priorum hominum venienti vitio est sauciata, ita ut non sit in carne bonum, sed vitium, quo inficitur anima ».

Cap. VI.

Utrum causa originalis peccati, quae est in carne, sit culpa, vel poena.

Hic quaeri solet10, utrum causa peccati originalis, quae dicta est esse in carne, culpa sit, vel poena, sive aliquid aliud. Culpa esse non potest, quia culpa non est in re irrationali. Si enim culpa esset in carne ante infusionem animae, actualis esset, vel originalis. Sed actualis ibi non est, nec originalis culpa est, quia ipsa causa est originalis peccati. Si autem poena est, quae est illa? Passibilitas, vel mortalitas, vel alia corruptio? Hos enim defectus carni inesse constat. — Ad quod dici potest, quod multiplex defectus carnis, et praecipue pollutio quaedam, quam ex fervore coitus parentum et concupiscentia libidinosa contrahit caro, dum concipitur, causa est originalis peccati, quae recte vitium sive corruptio carnis appellari potest. Quae foeditas maior videtur esse in carne concupiscentialiter traducta, quam in ea unde traducitur. Et quod vitium vel corruptio sit in carne ante coniunctionem animae, effectu probatur, cum anima infunditur, quae ex corruptione carnis maculatur; sicut in vase dignoscitur vitium esse, cum vinum infusum acescit. — Ne autem miremur et intellectu turbemur audientes, peccatum originale filios traducere a parentibus, iam per baptismum ab illo peccato mundatis, diversarum similitudinum inductione id posse fieri insinuat Augustinus in libro de Baptismo parvulorum11, ita inquiens: « Quo modo praeputium per circumcisionem aufertur, manet tamen in eo quem genuerunt circumcisi; quo modo etiam palea, quae opere humano tanta diligentia separatur, manet tamen in fructu, qui de purgato nascitur tritico »: ita peccatum, quod in parentibus per baptismum mundatur, manet in eis quos genuerunt. Ex hoc enim gignunt, quod adhuc vetustum trahunt, non ex hoc, quod in novitate12 promovit eos inter filios Dei. Non enim generant parentes filios secundum illam generationem, qua denuo nati sunt, sed potius secundum eam, qua carnaliter et ipsi primum sunt generati.

Cap. VII.

Quare dicitur originale peccatum.

Iam ostensum est13, quid sit originale peccatum, et qualiter a parentibus in filios, et per carnem in animam transeat. Ex quibus etiam innotescit, quare dicatur originale peccatum, ideo scilicet, quia ex vitiosa lege originis nostrae, in qua concipimur, scilicet carnis libidinosa concupiscentia, traducitur, ut supra dictum est. Non enim, quia ex carne tracta ab Adam concepti sumus, ideo peccatum traximus, quia et Christi corpus ex eadem carne formatum est, quae ab Adam descendit, sed eius conceptus est celebratus non lege peccati, id est concupiscentia carnis, unde et caro eius peccatrix non fuit, immo operatione Spiritus sancti. Noster vero conceptus non fit sine libidine, et ideo non est sine peccato. Quod evidenter Augustinus ostendit in libro de Fide ad Petrum14, sic dicens: « Quia, dum sibi invicem vir mulierque miscentur, sine libidine non est parentum concubitus; ob hoc filiorum ex eorum carne nascentium non potest sine peccato esse conceptus, ubi peccatum in parvulos non transmittit propagatio, sed libido; nec fecunditas humanae naturae facit, homines cum peccato nasci, sed foeditas libidinis, quam homines habent ex illius iustissima condemnatione peccati. Ideo beatus David propter originale peccatum, quo naturaliter obstricti sunt filii irae, dicit: In iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis concepit me mater mea ». — Ex hoc itaque apparet, ex lege conceptionis traduci originale peccatum, quia nisi conceptio sic fieret in carne, anima ex carnis coniunctione concupiscentiae vitium non traheret.

Sed ad hoc opponitur hoc modo. In ipso conceptu, ubi dicitur transmitti peccatum, propagatur caro, nec tamen tunc infunditur anima secundum physicos, sed iam effigiato corpore; quod etiam Moyses in Exodo15 aperte significat, ubi ait de percussura mulieris praegnantis: Si quis, inquit, percusserit mulierem praegnantem et abortum fecerit, si adhuc informe fuerit puerperium, mulctabitur pecunia; si autem formatum fuerit, reddat animam pro anima. Formatum vero intelligitur propria anima animatum, et informe quod nondum habet animam. In ipso ergo conceptu, cum caro propagatur, nondum infunditur anima. Quomodo ergo ibi peccatum transmittitur, cum peccatum non possit esse ubi anima non est? — Ad quod dici potest, quia in illo conceptu dicitur peccatum transmitti, non quia peccatum originale ibi sit, sed quia caro ibi contrahit16 id, ex quo peccatum fit in anima, cum infunditur. Et utrumque vocatur conceptus, scilicet et cum caro propagatur formamque corporis humani recipit, et cum anima infunditur, quod aliquando etiam dicitur nativitas — unde, quod natum est in ea17 — proprie autem nativitas dicitur in lucem editio.

---

English Translation

DISTINCTION XXXI.

Chapter I.

How original sin is transmitted from parents into the offspring.

"Now it remains to investigate how that sin is transmitted from parents into the offspring, namely whether according to the soul alone, or according to the flesh, or according to both."

Chapter II.

Whether according to the soul, or according to the flesh.

"Some have thought that original sin is contracted according to the soul, not only according to the flesh, because they judged that not only the flesh but also the soul is from traduction. For just as in the generation of offspring the flesh is substantially drawn from the paternal flesh, so too the soul of the begotten is thought to be essentially derived from the soul of the begetter. And therefore, just as from corrupted flesh corrupted flesh is sown, so too from the sinful soul a sinful soul, infected by original corruption, is said to be drawn from them1."

Chapter III.

He shows that sin is transmitted through the flesh, and how.

But the Catholic faith rejects this and condemns it as contrary to the truth2; for it admits not souls, but the flesh alone, as we said above3, to be from traduction. Therefore original sin is drawn from the parents not according to the soul, but according to the flesh alone. For original sin, as we said above, is concupiscence, not indeed an act, but a defect. Hence Augustine4: Concupiscence itself is the law of the members or of the flesh, which is a certain diseased affection, or languor, that stirs up illicit desire, that is, carnal concupiscence, which is called the law of sin; and it is said to remain in the flesh, not as if it were not in the soul[^5], but because it comes to be in the soul through the corruption of the flesh.

Chapter IV.

He shows the cause of the corruption of the flesh, from which sin comes to be in the soul.

For the flesh was corrupted on account of6 sin in Adam, so much so that, whereas before sin man and woman could come together without the incentive of lust and the fervor of concupiscence, and the marriage-bed was undefiled, now after sin carnal union cannot take place without lustful concupiscence, which is always a defect, and even a fault, unless it be excused by the goods of marriage. In concupiscence, therefore, and in lust the flesh is conceived that is to be formed into the body of the offspring. Hence the flesh itself, which is conceived in vicious concupiscence, is polluted and corrupted; and from its contact the soul, when it is infused, contracts a stain, by which it is polluted and becomes guilty, that is, the defect of concupiscence, which is original sin.

Chapter V.

Why sin is said to be in the flesh.

And therefore sin itself is said to remain in the flesh. The flesh, then, which is sown in the concupiscence of lust, has neither fault nor the act of fault, but the cause. In that which is sown, therefore, there is corruption; but in that which is born, there is the defect of concupiscence. Hence Ambrose7, on the words of the Apostle, thus says: "How does sin dwell in the flesh, since it is not a substance, but a privation of good? Behold, the body of the first man was corrupted through sin, and that corruption, by the condition of the offense, remains in the body, keeping the force of the divine sentence given against Adam, by whose fellowship the soul is stained with sin. Through that, therefore, which remains as the cause of the deed, sin is said to inhabit the flesh"; this is the law of the flesh. The same: "Sin does not dwell in the soul, but in the flesh, because the cause of sin is from the flesh, not from the soul; because the flesh is from the origin of the flesh of sin, and through traduction all flesh becomes the cause8 of sin"; but the soul is not transmitted by traduction, and therefore does not have the cause of sin in itself. Augustine too shows that the soul contracts sin from the flesh, in a certain sermon on the Words of the Apostle9, saying: "The defect of concupiscence is something that the soul contracted not from itself, but from the flesh. For human nature was not at first established with a defect by the work of God, but was wounded by a defect coming from the choice of the will of the first men, so that there is in the flesh not good, but a defect, by which the soul is infected."

Chapter VI.

Whether the cause of original sin, which is in the flesh, is fault or punishment.

Here it is usually asked10 whether the cause of original sin, which has been said to be in the flesh, is fault or punishment, or something else. It cannot be fault, because fault is not in an irrational thing. For if fault were in the flesh before the infusion of the soul, it would be actual or original. But it is not actual there, nor is it original fault, because it itself is the cause of original sin. But if it is punishment, what is it? Passibility, or mortality, or some other corruption? For it is established that these defects are in the flesh. — To which it can be said that the manifold defect of the flesh, and especially a certain pollution, which the flesh contracts from the fervor of the intercourse of the parents and from lustful concupiscence while it is conceived, is the cause of original sin, and can rightly be called the defect or corruption of the flesh. This foulness seems to be greater in the flesh transmitted concupiscentially than in that from which it is transmitted. And that there is a defect or corruption in the flesh before the conjunction of the soul is proved by its effect, when the soul is infused, which is stained by the corruption of the flesh; just as in a vessel a defect is recognized when the wine poured in turns sour. — But lest we wonder and be disturbed in understanding when we hear that original sin is transmitted to the offspring from parents already cleansed of that sin by baptism, Augustine, in the book On the Baptism of Little Children11, suggests by the bringing forward of various likenesses that this can happen, thus saying: "Just as the foreskin is taken away by circumcision, yet it remains in him whom the circumcised have begotten; just as the chaff also, which is separated by human labor with such great diligence, yet remains in the fruit which is born from the cleansed wheat": so the sin which is cleansed in the parents by baptism remains in those whom they have begotten. For they beget by this, that they still draw the old, not by this, that He advanced them in newness12 among the sons of God. For parents do not beget children according to that generation by which they were born anew, but rather according to that by which they themselves also were first carnally generated.

Chapter VII.

Why it is called original sin.

It has now been shown13 what original sin is, and how it passes from the parents into the offspring, and through the flesh into the soul. From which it also becomes known why it is called original sin, namely for this reason, that it is transmitted from the vicious law of our origin, in which we are conceived, that is, the lustful concupiscence of the flesh, as was said above. For it is not because we have been conceived from the flesh drawn from Adam that we have drawn sin, since Christ's body too was formed from the same flesh which descended from Adam, but His conception was accomplished not by the law of sin, that is, the concupiscence of the flesh, whence His flesh too was not sinful, but rather by the working of the Holy Spirit. But our conception does not take place without lust, and therefore is not without sin. This Augustine clearly shows in the book On the Faith, to Peter14, thus saying: "Because, while man and woman mingle with each other, the intercourse of the parents is not without lust; for this reason the conception of the children born from their flesh cannot be without sin, where it is not propagation that transmits sin to the little ones, but lust; nor does the fecundity of human nature cause men to be born with sin, but the foulness of lust, which men have from that most just condemnation of sin. Therefore blessed David, on account of original sin, by which the children of wrath are naturally bound, says: In iniquities I was conceived, and in sins did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 50, 7, Vulgate). — From this, then, it appears that original sin is transmitted from the law of conception, because unless conception took place thus in the flesh, the soul would not draw the defect of concupiscence from the conjunction with the flesh.

But against this it is objected in this way. In the very conception, where sin is said to be transmitted, the flesh is propagated, yet the soul is not then infused, according to the natural philosophers, but only when the body has already been formed; which Moses too in Exodus15 plainly signifies, where he says concerning the striking of a pregnant woman: If anyone, he says, strikes a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage, if the offspring is still unformed, he shall be fined money; but if it is formed, he shall give a soul for a soul (Exodus 21, 22). Now "formed" is understood as animated by its own soul, and "unformed" as that which does not yet have a soul. In the very conception, therefore, when the flesh is propagated, the soul is not yet infused. How, then, is sin transmitted there, since sin cannot be where there is no soul? — To which it can be said that in that conception sin is said to be transmitted, not because original sin is there, but because the flesh there contracts16 that from which sin comes to be in the soul, when it is infused. And both are called "conception," namely both when the flesh is propagated and receives the form of the human body, and when the soul is infused — which is sometimes also called "nativity," whence, that which is born in her17 — but properly "nativity" is called the bringing forth into the light.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Dist. XLIV. p. I. a. 2. q. I. — Cod. aa et ed. I manifestabitur.
    Distinction XLIV, pars I, art. 2, q. I. — Codex aa and edition 1 read manifestabitur.
  2. Quae praecedunt sunt fere ad verbum ex Hugone, l. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 29.
    What precedes is taken almost word for word from Hugh, On the Sacraments, p. VII, c. 29.
  3. Dist. XVIII. c. 7. Deinde citatur d. XXX. c. 9.
    Distinction XVIII, c. 7. Then Distinction XXX, c. 9, is cited.
  4. Libr. I. de Nuptiis et concupisc. c. 23. n. 28, c. 30. n. 34, c. 31. n. 33, et in Glossa ad Rom. 7, 23.
    Book I, On Marriage and Concupiscence, c. 23, n. 28, c. 30, n. 34, c. 31, n. 33, and in the Gloss on Romans 7, 23.
  5. Ed. 8. quia in anima non sit, Vat. quia in carne sit. — Deinde in fine pro fit, quod habent edd. 1, 3, 8, in aliis edd. sit.
    Edition 8 reads quia in anima non sit [because it is not in the soul], the Vatican edition quia in carne sit [because it is in the flesh]. — Then at the end, for fit, which editions 1, 3, 8 have, the other editions read sit.
  6. Edd. 1, 8 per. — Deinde alluditur ad Hebr. 13, 4; cfr. d. XX. c. 2. — In fine capituli pro id est vitium ed. 1 per vitium.
    Editions 1, 8 read per. — Then there is an allusion to Hebrews 13, 4; cf. Distinction XX, c. 2. — At the end of the chapter, for id est vitium, edition 1 reads per vitium.
  7. Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. 7, 18. (inter opera S. Ambros.). Seq. locus est ibid. v. 22. — Quae praecedunt sunt ex Hugone, l. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 31. — Pro concupiscentiae vitium edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 vitium concupiscentia.
    Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 7, 18 (among the works of St. Ambrose). The following passage is in the same place, v. 22. — What precedes is from Hugh, On the Sacraments, p. VII, c. 31. — For concupiscentiae vitium, editions 1, 2, 3, 7 read vitium concupiscentia.
  8. Codd. A B E et edd. 1, 8 cum originali omittunt causa; tunc intellige: caro peccati.
    Codices A B E and editions 1, 8, with the original, omit causa; then understand: "flesh of sin."
  9. Serm. 30. (alias 12. de Verb. Apost.) c. 5. n. 6; cfr. Serm. 294. (alias 14.) c. 13. n. 14. seqq., et II. contra Iulian. c. 3.
    Sermon 30 (otherwise 12, on the Words of the Apostle), c. 5, n. 6; cf. Sermon 294 (otherwise 14), c. 13, n. 14 ff., and Against Julian II, c. 3.
  10. Hoc et seq. cap. est apud Hugonem, Sent. tr. 3. c. 12.
    This and the following chapter are found in Hugh, Sentences, tr. 3, c. 12.
  11. Libr. III. c. 8. n. 16. Etiam quod sequitur magna ex parte invenitur ibid. et deinde II. c. 9. n. 11.
    Book III, c. 8, n. 16. What follows is also found in great part in the same place, and then in Book II, c. 9, n. 11.
  12. Codd. A D lex in novitate promovit, cod. C vel ex novitate promovit, alii codd. et edd. in novitate promovit. Retinuimus tamen lectionem Vat., quae correspondet originali. Vocabula vetustum et novitas alludunt ad modum loquendi S. Paulo familiarem de novo et vetere homine vel de novitate vitae, Rom. 6, 4. 6; Ephes. 4, 22, 24. et alibi.
    Codices A D read lex in novitate promovit, codex C vel ex novitate promovit, the other codices and editions in novitate promovit. We have, however, retained the Vatican reading, which corresponds to the original. The words vetustum and novitas allude to the manner of speaking familiar to St. Paul concerning the new and the old man or concerning newness of life, Romans 6, 4. 6; Ephesians 4, 22, 24, and elsewhere.
  13. Dist. XXX. c. 5. — Seq. locus est hic c. 4. — Paulo inferius pro carne tracta ed. 1 carne traducta.
    Distinction XXX, c. 5. — The following passage is here, c. 4. — A little below, for carne tracta, edition 1 reads carne traducta.
  14. Cap. 2. n. 16. — Locus Scripturae est Ps. 50, 7. — Deinde pro nisi conceptio codd. B C E et ed. 1 non bene nisi corruptio.
    Chapter 2, n. 16. — The scriptural passage is Psalm 50, 7. — Then, for nisi conceptio, codices B C E and edition 1 read, not well, nisi corruptio.
  15. Cap. 21, 22 seqq., omissis multis.
    Chapter 21, 22 ff., with many things omitted.
  16. Codd. trahit. Paulo inferius Vat. cum pluribus edd. cum est pro et cum, refragantibus codd. et ed. 1.
    The codices read trahit. A little below, the Vatican edition with several editions reads cum est for et cum, against the codices and edition 1.
  17. Matth. 1, 20. Cod. Erf. et ed. 1 natum est in te. — Paulo superius Vat. cum paucis edd. post unde addit dicitur.
    Matthew 1, 20. Codex Erf. and edition 1 read natum est in te [that which is born in thee]. — A little above, the Vatican edition with a few editions adds dicitur after unde. ---
Dist. 31, Divisio Textus→