← Back to Distinction 32

Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 32

Textus Latinus
p. 759

ARTICULUS I.

De deletione originalis culpae.

QUAESTIO I.

Utrum baptismus deleat originale quantum ad culpam.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum baptismus deleat originale quantum ad culpam. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Ioannis tertio: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum caelorum1; hoc autem non est propter culpam actualem in parvulis: ergo si hoc est, erit propter culpam originalem. Sed post baptismum non privatur

p. 760

parvulus regno caelorum: ergo necesse est, quod in baptismo tollatur illud quod reddebat hominem indignum visione Dei: ergo etc.

2. Item, ad Romanos sexto2: Quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus. Et post: Qui enim mortuus est peccato, iustificatus est a peccato; Glossa: « Ita per baptismum mortui sumus peccato, sicut Christus semel mortuus est poenae ».

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione. Baptismus enim est sacramentum veritatis et etiam novae Legis3: ergo sicut in baptismate homo lavatur exterius, ita vere lavatur interius: si ergo in baptismo puer exterius lavatur, videtur, quod interius a peccato originali mundetur.

4. Item, in baptismo efficitur homo membrum Christi et regeneratur generatione4 spirituali: si ergo membrum Christi quis esse non potest, quamdiu manet in peccato mortali, videtur, quod per baptismum originale peccatum deleatur quantum ad culpam.

Sed contra:

Ad oppositum.

1. Impossibile est, deleri maculam peccati sive deformitatem amoveri, quamdiu manet privatio boni, quae deberet inesse; sed in homine post baptismum manet carentia illius originalis iustitiae, quae fuit in Adam in statu innocentiae: ergo per ipsum non deletur macula originalis culpae. Maior manifesta est per ipsam peccati definitionem5. Minor manifesta est per ipsam experientiam, quia manifeste videmus, quod post baptismum caro spiritui non ita subiicitur, sicut in Adam subiiciebatur.

2. Item, impossibile est, maculam peccati deleri, quamdiu manet actus peccati, sicut est manifestum — nunquam enim alicui remittitur peccatum fornicationis, quamdiu est in actu fornicandi — sed post baptismum manet originale quantum ad actum, sicut dicit Magister6: ergo impossibile est, quod in baptismo deleatur quantum ad maculam et reatum.

3. Item, concupiscere post baptismum culpa est; sed quales sunt actus, tales sunt habitus7: ergo concupiscentia, quae remanet post baptismum, est culpa. Sed non est culpa actualis: ergo est culpa originalis: igitur per baptismum originalis culpa non deletur quantum ad maculam.

4. Item, culpa est meritum poenae8: ergo si omnino cessat culpa, omnino debet removeri poena. Si igitur post baptismum remanet poena debita originali, utpote mors et consimiles poenae, non videtur, quod per baptismum fiat deletio originalis culpae quantum ad maculam. Quodsi tu dicas, quod, macula peccati deleta, adhuc potest remanere aliquis reatus in anima et obligatio ad poenam pro culpa prius facta; videtur tunc, quod originale remanet quantum ad reatum. Male igitur dicit Magister9, cum ait, quod originale transit reatu et remanet actu.

Conclusio.

Originale peccatum in baptismo remittitur quoad culpam, tum quia vitium concupiscentiae debilitatur, tum quia reatus ipsius solvitur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut Magister dicit in littera10 et accipit ex verbis Augustini, duplici ratione dicitur originale remitti in baptismo: quia per gratiam baptismi vitium concupiscentiae debilitatur atque extenuatur, ut iam non regnet; et quia reatus ipsius solvitur.

Ad huius autem verbi intelligentiam notandum, quod istud verbum dupliciter potest intelligi, et utroque modo satis bene et probabiliter. Uno modo sic. Sicut dicit Augustinus in libro de Baptismo parvulorum11, « originale est concupiscentia sive vitium concupiscentiae », et hoc ipsum dicit Magister in littera. Haec autem concupiscentia, prout dicitur esse originale peccatum, nominat appetitum boni commutabilis intensum et inordinatum. Et ratio huius est ista, quoniam originale peccatum non tantum est culpa, sed etiam culpa mortalis. In quantum culpa est, dicit privationem ordinis debiti; in quantum mortalis est, non tantum dicit boni debiti privationem, sed etiam dicit ordinis et iustitiae subversionem. Ad hoc igitur, quod concupiscentia in aliquo dicat culpam originalem, necesse est, quod dicat necessitatem concupiscendi sive appetitus immoderantiam cum debito non concupiscendi et cum

p. 761

dominio, ita quod carnalis appetitus praesit spiritui. Et quia utrumque horum est in homine ante baptismum — habet enim debitum non concupiscendi, quia ad hoc tota humana natura in Adam fuerat obligata, nec illa obligatio alicui fuerat relaxata; habet etiam fomitem12, quia gratia destitutus vincitur lege membrorum — hinc est, quod habet in se originale peccatum. Cum autem homo baptizatur, tunc gratia infunditur, et merito passionis Christi, cuius efficitur membrum, per baptismum ab illo debito absolvitur. Gratia vero erigit animam et dat ei potentiam, ut non vincatur a concupiscentia, et per hoc aufert ei dominium. Et hinc est, quod quia in baptismate tollitur concupiscentiae dominium, et solvitur non concupiscendi debitum, quod omnino aufertur ratio culpae ab ipsa concupiscentia, licet aliquo modo remaneat. — Et hinc est, quod Magister dicit, quod originale in baptismo « transit reatu et remanet actu », quia, etsi remaneat concupiscentia, non tamen remanet, prout est culpa et obligatoria ad poenam. Hinc est etiam, quod Magister dicit, duplici ratione in baptismate peccatum originale deleri: et quia vitium concupiscentiae extenuatur, et quia reatus solvitur.

Aliter etiam potest intelligi verbum illud, ut intelligamus, sicut superius13 dictum fuit, in originali culpa reperiri conformitatem quandam ad culpam actualem. Sicut enim videmus, quod in culpa actuali et est conversio et est aversio14 in ipso actu peccandi; et in ipso habitu peccati est privatio habitus boni et quaedam habilitatio ad actum peccati; sic in originali intelligimus esse debitae iustitiae carentiam et concupiscentiam. Et quemadmodum in actuali privatio habilitatis bonae est ipsum peccatum, formaliter loquendo; ipsa vero habilitatio sive pronitas ad actum peccati non est peccatum, nisi materialiter loquendo, pro eo quod non est culpa, nisi quamdiu manet ibi privatio: sic intelligendum est in proposito. Et quemadmodum in actualis peccati deletione, cum gratia infunditur, statim removetur culpa, in quantum erat deformitas et privatio; nihilominus tamen simul cum hoc manet quaedam pronitas ad actum, licet remissa, in his potissime, qui peccaverunt peccato consuetudinis: sic, quando gratia baptismalis infunditur animae, statim removetur originale peccatum, eatenus qua erat carentia debitae iustitiae; statim etiam, cum gratia est in anima, simul cum ea est et iustitia; concupiscentia vero non omnino tollitur, sed minuitur, pro eo quod pronitas ad culpam simul potest stare cum gratia, quia, sicut dictum est15, non erat ipsum peccatum, loquendo formaliter, sed materialiter. Unde cum excluditur carentia debitae iustitiae per gratiam baptismalem, remanet concupiscentia ratione poenae. Et hinc est, quod dicit Magister, quod « transit reatu et remanet actu », quia iam non est culpa, per quam homo sit dignus poena, sed poena est ex praecedenti culpa relicta. Pro tanto etiam dicit, quod originale peccatum duplici ratione dicitur remitti in baptismo: et quia concupiscentia extenuatur, et quia debitum solvitur. Solvitur namque debitum, dum per iustitiam gratiae recompensatur iustitia originalis innocentiae. Concupiscentia vero remittitur, dum potestas datur spiritui per gratiam regendi et vincendi carnem. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ostendentes, peccatum originale quantum ad culpam deleri in baptismo.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod manet privatio originalis iustitiae; respondetur, quod debitum solvitur merito passionis Christi, et recompensatio fit gratia Spiritus sancti, quam Deus dat animae, et quam etiam plus acceptat quam iustitiam innocentiae16.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod manente actu non potest deleri culpa; dicendum, quod verum est de actu, in quo consistit plena ratio culpae, sicut in actu fornicationis consistit consummatio illius peccati. Actus autem originalis peccati vocatur hic concupiscentia sive necessitas concupiscendi; sed haec non manet, prout in ipsa est illius peccati consummatio. Sicut enim dictum est, nec manet quantum ad dominium, nec manet quantum ad non concupiscendi debitum. Unde sicut in aliquo casto post deletionem et dimissionem peccati luxuriae manere potest aliqua pronitas carnalis concupiscentiae, et etiam aliquando in actum concupiscendi exire, salva nihilominus castitate: sic et in proposito intelligendum est esse.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod concupiscere post baptismum est peccatum; dicendum, quod verum est; sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod illa concupiscentia, quae provocat ad concupiscendum, sit peccatum, sed sufficit, quod sit peccatum17, vel ex peccato relicta. Quando ergo dicitur, quod quales sunt actus, tales sunt habitus; hoc intelligitur de habitibus generatis ex actibus frequentatis, sicut de habitibus consuetudinalibus. Concupiscentia vero illa, quae post baptismum remanet, non est aggenerata ex frequenti concupiscere, sed ex carnis corruptione; et ideo non habet rationem culpae, sed poenae. Quia vero ad malum inclinat, potius vitiositas quam poenalitas appellari debet18.

p. 762

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod remota culpa, debet per consequens removeri poena; dicendum, quod illud verum est de poena aeterna et eius reatu; de aliis vero poenis temporalibus hoc non oportet; sicut manifestum est in Sacramento poenitentiae, in quo, etsi deleatur culpa in contritione, nihilominus tamen obligatur homo ad satisfactionem; quamvis enim Deus remittat offensam, adhuc quaerit emendam19. Et si tu obiicias, quod in baptismo est plena remissio, unde delentur ibi actualia quantum ad poenam et culpam, et ita multo fortius originale; ad hoc satis planum est respondere. Sed huius quaestionis determinatio non spectat ad locum istum, sed ad quartum librum20, in ea parte, in qua agitur de baptismo quantum ad effectum; et ibi determinatum invenietur, quare homo in baptismo a quibusdam poenis absolvitur, a quibusdam vero minime. Et quia superfluitas vitanda est, et singula suis locis tractanda sunt tum propter ordinem tum propter brevitatem, ad praesens omittendum est.

Scholion

I. Manere in baptizatis concupiscentiam vel fomitem, confitentur et peccatores et iusti. Sed attendendum est, quod anathemate Concilii Trid. (Sess. V. can. 5.) plectitur, « si quis per Iesu Christi, Domini nostri, gratiam reatum originalis peccati remitti negat; aut etiam asserit, non tolli totum id quod veram et propriam peccati rationem habet, sed illud dicit tantum radi, aut non imputari ». Ibid. docetur, quod « in renatis nihil odit Deus... qui vere consepulti sunt cum Christo per baptismum in mortem ». Concupiscentia autem, « cum ad agonem relicta sit, nocere non consentientibus, sed viriliter per Christi Iesu gratiam repugnantibus, non valet ». Ad rem faciunt etiam plures propositiones Baii, a s. Sede reprobatae (cfr. supra d. 30. a. 2. q. 1, schol.). — Perfecte concordat S. Bonav. (hic in corp.) dicens: « Omnino aufertur ratio culpae ab ipsa concupiscentia, licet aliquo modo remaneat ». — Communiter autem antiqui docent, quod in baptismo tum culpa (et per consequens reatus poenae) tollitur, tum prava dispositio (vitium, dominium) concupiscentiae minuitur (S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1.). Hoc autem S. Bonav. duplici via, secundum duplicem definitionem peccati originalis, explicat, quam utramque vocat probabilem. S. Thom. sequitur secundam viam, quae fundatur in distinctione formalis et materialis elementi, quod est in peccato originali, et in hoc principio, quod gratia baptismi opponitur originali iniustitiae, quatenus est corruptio personae, non naturae (cfr. seq. quaest.).

II. Hac quaestione elucidatur, quid S. Doctor intelligat per verba concupiscentia intensa et remissa (supra d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. in corp. et ad 2. 3.). Non enim in solo gradu intenso ponit consistere concupiscentiam, quatenus spectat ad culpam originalem (aliter in baptizatis peccatoribus, qui culpa propria habent intensissimam concupiscentiam, revivisceret peccatum originale), sed quatenus illud dominium concupiscentiae simul ortum habet ex peccato Adae. Hoc explicite docetur hic dub. 3. (cfr. et dub. 2.). Hinc S. Bonav. non discordat a S. Thoma (hic q. 1. a. 1. ad 4.), qui dicit: « Intensio et remissio fomitis super diversam naturam fundantur. Dicitur enim intensus, secundum quod ad suum formale coniungitur, quod est defectus iustitiae, et remissus, secundum quod a tali defectu separatur ». In hoc tamen aliquatenus hi duo Doctores dissentire videntur, quod S. Thom. (loco cit.) dicit: « Intensio et remissio nunquam speciei diversitatem causant, sed quandoque ex speciei diversitate consequuntur ». Sed S. Bonav. (supra d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3.) distinguit istam propositionem dicens: « Istud locum habet in naturalibus, non tamen habet veritatem in moralibus ».

III. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 106. m. 6. — Scot., in utroque Scripto, hic q. unica. — S. Thom., loc. cit. — B. Albert., hic a. 1; de hac et seq. q. S. p. II. tr. 17. q. 3. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Biel, hic q. unica.

---

English Translation

ARTICLE I.

On the deletion of original guilt.

QUESTION I.

Whether baptism deletes original [sin] as to guilt.

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and it is asked, whether baptism deletes original [sin] as to guilt. And that it does, it seems:

1. John, third [chapter]: Unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven1; but this is not on account of actual guilt in little children: therefore if this is so, it will be on account of original guilt. But after baptism the little child is not deprived

p. 760

of the kingdom of heaven: therefore it is necessary that in baptism that be removed which rendered the human unworthy of the vision of God: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, to the Romans, sixth [chapter]2: Whoever of us are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death. And after: For he who is dead to sin is justified from sin; the Gloss: « Thus by baptism we are dead to sin, just as Christ once died to punishment ».

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by reason. For baptism is a sacrament of truth and also of the new Law3: therefore just as in baptism the human is washed exteriorly, so he is truly washed interiorly: if therefore in baptism the child is washed exteriorly, it seems that he is cleansed interiorly from original sin.

4. Likewise, in baptism the human is made a member of Christ and is regenerated by a spiritual generation4: if therefore no one can be a member of Christ as long as he remains in mortal sin, it seems that by baptism original sin is deleted as to guilt.

On the contrary:

To the opposite.

1. It is impossible that the stain of sin be deleted or the deformity removed, as long as there remains the privation of the good which ought to be present; but in a human after baptism there remains the lack of that original justice which was in Adam in the state of innocence: therefore by it the stain of original guilt is not deleted. The major is manifest by the very definition of sin5. The minor is manifest by experience itself, because we manifestly see that after baptism the flesh is not subjected to the spirit as it was subjected in Adam.

2. Likewise, it is impossible that the stain of sin be deleted as long as the act of sin remains, as is manifest — for the sin of fornication is never remitted to anyone as long as he is in the act of fornicating — but after baptism original [sin] remains as to its act, as the Master says6: therefore it is impossible that in baptism it be deleted as to stain and liability.

3. Likewise, to concupisce after baptism is guilt; but as the acts are, so are the habits7: therefore the concupiscence which remains after baptism is guilt. But it is not actual guilt: therefore it is original guilt: therefore by baptism original guilt is not deleted as to stain.

4. Likewise, guilt is the merit of punishment8: therefore if guilt wholly ceases, punishment ought wholly to be removed. If therefore after baptism there remains punishment due to original [sin], such as death and like punishments, it does not seem that by baptism there is made a deletion of original [sin] as to stain. But if you say that, the stain of sin having been deleted, there can still remain some liability in the soul and an obligation to punishment for guilt previously committed; it seems then that original [sin] remains as to liability. Wrongly therefore does the Master say9, when he asserts that original [sin] passes away as to liability and remains as to act.

Conclusion.

Original sin is remitted in baptism as to guilt, both because the vice of concupiscence is weakened, and because its liability is loosed.

I respond: It must be said that, as the Master says in the text10 and takes from the words of Augustine, original [sin] is said to be remitted in baptism for a twofold reason: because by the grace of baptism the vice of concupiscence is weakened and attenuated, so that it no longer reigns; and because its liability is loosed.

But for the understanding of this saying it is to be noted that this saying can be understood in two ways, and in each way well enough and probably. In one way thus. As Augustine says in the book On the Baptism of Little Children11, « original [sin] is concupiscence or the vice of concupiscence », and the Master says this same thing in the text. But this concupiscence, insofar as it is said to be original sin, names the intense and inordinate appetite of a changeable good. And the reason for this is this, that original sin is not only guilt, but also mortal guilt. Insofar as it is guilt, it states the privation of due order; insofar as it is mortal, it states not only the privation of the due good, but also states the subversion of order and justice. To this end, therefore, that concupiscence in someone may state original guilt, it is necessary that it state the necessity of concupiscing or the immoderation of appetite together with the obligation of not concupiscing and with

p. 761

dominion, such that the carnal appetite presides over the spirit. And because both of these are in the human before baptism — for he has the obligation of not concupiscing, since to this the whole human nature in Adam had been obligated, nor had that obligation been relaxed for anyone; he has also the tinder [of sin]12, because, destitute of grace, he is conquered by the law of the members — hence it is that he has in himself original sin. But when the human is baptized, then grace is infused, and by the merit of the passion of Christ, of whom he is made a member, he is absolved by baptism from that obligation. And grace raises up the soul and gives it the power not to be conquered by concupiscence, and through this takes away its dominion. And hence it is that, because in baptism the dominion of concupiscence is removed, and the obligation of not concupiscing is loosed, the character of guilt is wholly taken away from concupiscence itself, although it remains in some manner. — And hence it is that the Master says that original [sin] in baptism « passes away as to liability and remains as to act », because, even if concupiscence remains, yet it does not remain insofar as it is guilt and binding to punishment. Hence it is also that the Master says that for a twofold reason sin is deleted in baptism: both because the vice of concupiscence is attenuated, and because the liability is loosed.

In another way also that saying can be understood, so that we understand, as was said above13, that in original guilt there is found a certain conformity to actual guilt. For just as we see that in actual guilt there is both a turning-toward and a turning-away14 in the very act of sinning; and in the very habit of sin there is the privation of the habit of good and a certain aptitude toward the act of sin; so in the original [sin] we understand there to be the lack of due justice and concupiscence. And just as in the actual [sin] the privation of the good aptitude is the sin itself, formally speaking; but the aptitude itself or proneness toward the act of sin is not sin, except materially speaking, for the reason that it is not guilt except as long as the privation remains there: so it is to be understood in the case at hand. And just as in the deletion of actual sin, when grace is infused, the guilt is at once removed, insofar as it was deformity and privation; nevertheless together with this there remains a certain proneness toward the act, though remitted, especially in those who have sinned by a sin of habit: so, when baptismal grace is infused into the soul, original sin is at once removed, insofar as it was the lack of due justice; at once also, when grace is in the soul, together with it there is also justice; but concupiscence is not wholly taken away, but is diminished, for the reason that proneness toward guilt can stand together with grace, because, as was said15, it was not the sin itself, speaking formally, but materially. Whence when the lack of due justice is excluded by baptismal grace, concupiscence remains by reason of punishment. And hence it is that he says that it « passes away as to liability and remains as to act », because it is now not guilt, by which the human is worthy of punishment, but the punishment is left over from preceding guilt. For this reason also he says that original sin is said to be remitted in baptism for a twofold reason: both because concupiscence is attenuated, and because the obligation is loosed. For the obligation is loosed, when by the justice of grace the justice of original innocence is recompensed. But concupiscence is remitted, when power is given to the spirit by grace to rule and conquer the flesh. — The reasons therefore are to be granted which show that original sin is deleted in baptism as to guilt.

1. To that therefore which is first objected to the contrary, that the privation of original justice remains; it is replied that the obligation is loosed by the merit of the passion of Christ, and the recompense is made by the grace of the Holy Spirit, which God gives to the soul, and which he even accepts more than the justice of innocence16.

2. To that which is objected, that when the act remains the guilt cannot be deleted; it must be said that it is true of the act in which the full character of guilt consists, just as in the act of fornication consists the consummation of that sin. But the act of original sin is here called concupiscence or the necessity of concupiscing; but this does not remain insofar as in it there is the consummation of that sin. For as was said, it neither remains as to dominion, nor remains as to the obligation of not concupiscing. Whence just as in some chaste person, after the deletion and dismissal of the sin of lust, there can remain some proneness of carnal concupiscence, and even sometimes go out into the act of concupiscing, while chastity is nevertheless preserved: so also in the case at hand it is to be understood to be.

3. To that which is objected, that to concupisce after baptism is sin; it must be said that it is true; but from this it does not follow that that concupiscence which provokes to concupiscing is sin, but it suffices that it be a punishment17, or [something] left over from sin. When therefore it is said that as the acts are, so are the habits; this is understood of habits generated from frequented acts, as of habits of custom. But that concupiscence which remains after baptism is not engendered from frequent concupiscing, but from the corruption of the flesh; and therefore it does not have the character of guilt, but of punishment. But because it inclines toward evil, it ought rather to be called viciousness than penalty18.

p. 762

4. To that which is objected, that guilt having been removed, punishment ought consequently to be removed; it must be said that that is true of eternal punishment and its liability; but of other temporal punishments this is not necessary; as is manifest in the Sacrament of penance, in which, even if the guilt is deleted in contrition, nevertheless the human is obligated to satisfaction; for although God remits the offense, he still requires amends19. And if you object that in baptism there is full remission, whence actual [sins] are there deleted as to punishment and guilt, and so much more strongly is original [sin]; to this it is plain enough to respond. But the determination of this question does not pertain to this place, but to the fourth book20, in that part in which baptism is treated as to its effect; and there it will be found determined why a human in baptism is absolved from certain punishments, but from certain ones not at all. And because superfluity is to be avoided, and individual matters are to be treated in their own places both for the sake of order and for the sake of brevity, it must for the present be omitted.

Scholion

I. That concupiscence or the tinder [of sin] remains in the baptized, both sinners and the just confess. But it is to be attended to that by the anathema of the Council of Trent (Session V. canon 5.) one is struck, « if anyone denies that the liability of original sin is remitted by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ; or also asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper character of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only scraped off, or not imputed ». In the same place it is taught that « in the reborn God hates nothing... who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death ». But concupiscence, « since it is left for the contest, cannot harm those who do not consent, but who manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ ». To the point there contribute also several propositions of Baius, reprobated by the Holy See (cfr. above d. 30. a. 2. q. 1, schol.). — S. Bonaventure perfectly agrees (here in the body) saying: « The character of guilt is wholly taken away from concupiscence itself, although it remains in some manner ». — But the ancients commonly teach that in baptism both the guilt (and consequently the liability of punishment) is taken away, and the depraved disposition (the vice, the dominion) of concupiscence is diminished (St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1.). But this S. Bonaventure explains by a twofold way, according to the twofold definition of original sin, each of which he calls probable. St. Thomas follows the second way, which is founded on the distinction of the formal and material element which is in original sin, and on this principle, that the grace of baptism is opposed to original injustice insofar as it is a corruption of the person, not of the nature (cfr. the following question).

II. By this question it is elucidated what the holy Doctor understands by the words intense and remitted concupiscence (above d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. in the body and ad 2. 3.). For he does not place concupiscence, insofar as it pertains to original guilt, to consist in the intense degree alone (otherwise in baptized sinners, who by their own guilt have the most intense concupiscence, original sin would revive), but insofar as that dominion of concupiscence has its origin together [with it] from the sin of Adam. This is explicitly taught here in dub. 3. (cfr. also dub. 2.). Hence S. Bonaventure does not disagree with St. Thomas (here q. 1. a. 1. ad 4.), who says: « The intensity and remission of the tinder are founded upon a diverse nature. For it is called intense insofar as it is joined to its formal [element], which is the defect of justice, and remitted insofar as it is separated from such a defect ». Yet in this the two Doctors seem somewhat to dissent, that St. Thomas (in the cited place) says: « Intensity and remission never cause a diversity of species, but sometimes follow from a diversity of species ». But S. Bonaventure (above d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3.) distinguishes this proposition, saying: « That holds in natural [things], yet does not hold true in moral [things] ».

III. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II. q. 106. m. 6. — Scotus, in each Scriptum, here q. unica. — St. Thomas, in the cited place. — B. Albert, here a. 1; on this and the following question Summa p. II. tr. 17. q. 3. m. 2. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 1. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1. a. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 1. — Biel, here q. unica.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 5, ubi pro non intrabit in regnum caelorum Vulgata legit non potest introire in regnum Dei.
    Verse 5, where for will not enter into the kingdom of heaven the Vulgate reads cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
  2. Vers. 3. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 7, ubi Vulgata post mortuus est omittit peccato. Glossa adducta, quae interlinearis est, apud Lyranum sic sonat: « Si ita mortui sumus peccato, sicut Christus semel mortuus est poenae ». Fere idem dicit Glossa ordinaria super v. 10. eiusd. cap., quae Glossa sumta est ex August., I. Contra Maximinum, c. 2.
    Verse 3. — The following text is ibid. v. 7, where the Vulgate after is dead omits to sin. The Gloss adduced, which is interlinear, in Lyranus runs thus: « If we are so dead to sin, as Christ once died to punishment ». The ordinary Gloss on v. 10 of the same chapter says nearly the same, which Gloss is taken from Augustine, I. Against Maximinus, c. 2.
  3. Ioan. 1, 17: « Quia lex per Moysen data est, gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est ». Verba Doctoris non quidem directe, sed indirecte significant differentiam inter Sacramenta veteris et novi Testamenti, quae in eo consistit, quod Sacramenta novae Legis gratiam, quam significant, re vera etiam continent et conferunt, dum Sacramenta veteris Legis gratiam tantummodo significabant. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 1. p. I. q. 3. seqq. — Vat. et edd. 3, 4 vocem veritatis male transformarunt in veteris.
    John 1, 17: « Because the law was given through Moses, grace and truth were made through Jesus Christ ». The words of the Doctor signify not directly indeed, but indirectly, the difference between the Sacraments of the old and the new Testament, which consists in this, that the Sacraments of the new Law truly also contain and confer the grace which they signify, whereas the Sacraments of the old Law only signified grace. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 1. p. I. q. 3. seqq. — The Vatican [edition] and edd. 3, 4 wrongly transformed the word veritatis ("of truth") into veteris ("of the old").
  4. Codd. H Y cc ee et alii cum ed. 1 regeneratione.
    Codd. H Y cc ee and others, with ed. 1, [read] regeneratione.
  5. Cfr. infra d. 35. dub. 6.
    Cfr. below d. 35. dub. 6.
  6. Hic c. 1. in fine.
    Here c. 1, at the end.
  7. Vide Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 1, ex quo cap. iam supra pag. 653, nota 6. nonnulla attulimus. August., Serm. 292. (alias 23. de Sanctis) c. 1. n. 7. ait sic: Qualis homo est, tales actus habet. Si bonus homo est, bonos actus habet; si malus homo est, malos actus habet; non potest bonus homo malos actus habere, nec malus homo bonos actus habere. Quid evidentius?
    See Aristotle, II. Ethics c. 1, from which chapter we have already adduced some things above p. 653, note 6. Augustine, Sermon 292 (otherwise 23, On the Saints) c. 1. n. 7. says thus: Such as a man is, such acts he has. If he is a good man, he has good acts; if he is a bad man, he has bad acts; a good man cannot have bad acts, nor a bad man good acts. What is more evident?
  8. Id est: meretur poenam.
    That is: it merits punishment.
  9. Hic c. 1, ubi sequitur Augustinum.
    Here c. 1, where he follows Augustine.
  10. Iterum hic c. 1.
    Again here c. 1.
  11. Libr. I. c. 9. n. 10. seq., quod testimonium Magister supra adduxit d. XXX. c. 10. Cfr. etiam d. XXXI. c. 3. et hic c. 1, ubi Magister peccatum originale docet esse vitium concupiscentiae. Ibid. etiam explicatio insinuatur eorum quae hic sequuntur.
    Book I. c. 9. n. 10. seq., which testimony the Master adduced above d. XXX. c. 10. Cfr. also d. XXXI. c. 3. and here c. 1, where the Master teaches original sin to be the vice of concupiscence. In the same place also an explanation is insinuated of those things which here follow.
  12. Simul audi: concupiscentiae i. e. concupiscentiam praedominantem. — Paulo inferius pro et merito edd., excepta 1, ex merito; deinde post membrum Vat. interiicit et.
    Hear at the same time: concupiscentiae, that is, the predominating concupiscence. — A little below, for et merito the editions, except 1, [read] ex merito; then after membrum the Vatican [edition] inserts et.
  13. Dist. 30. a. 2. q. 1.
    Dist. 30. a. 2. q. 1.
  14. Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 4 perperam addit et, perpaucis tantum suffragantibus codd.
    The Vatican [edition] with edd. 2, 3, 4 wrongly adds et, with very few codices favoring [it].
  15. Vat. addit talis pronitas.
    The Vatican [edition] adds talis pronitas ("such proneness").
  16. Cfr. supra d. 29. a. 1. q. 1.
    Cfr. above d. 29. a. 1. q. 1.
  17. Pro peccatum vel in cod. T a secunda manu substitutum est poena.
    For peccatum vel in cod. T, by a second hand, poena has been substituted.
  18. Cfr. supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in corp. (opinio 3.).
    Cfr. above d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in the body (opinion 3.).
  19. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 15. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. seqq. — Vat. adhuc tamen quaerit emendationem.
    Cfr. IV Sent. d. 15. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. seqq. — The Vatican edition reads adhuc tamen quaerit emendationem (it still requires amends).
  20. Dist. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.
    Dist. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.
← Dist. 32, Divisio TextusDist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 2→