Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 32
QUAESTIO II.
Utrum originale peccatum per baptismum deleatur quantum ad causam.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum originale peccatum per baptismum deleri habeat quantum ad causam. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Per verbum Damasceni1, qui dicit, quod Ad oppositum. duo sunt in baptismo correspondentia duobus, quae sunt in homine. Ait enim sic: « Quoniam duplex est homo ex anima et corpore, duplicem dedit purgationem, per aquam et Spiritum; Spiritu quod secundum imaginem et similitudinem est renovante, aqua etiam per Spiritus gratiam corpus a peccato purgante et a corruptione liberante ». Si igitur haec corruptio est causa originalis peccati transfundendi, videtur, quod originale peccatum non solum deleatur quantum ad culpam, sed etiam quantum ad causam.
2. Item, potentior est Christus in satisfaciendo, quam fuerit Adam in corrumpendo, sicut dicitur ad Romanos quinto2: Non sicut delictum, ita et donum; ex quo innuit, quod multo maius fuit donum quam delictum. Ergo si delictum Adae non tantum potuit inficere hominem in se, sed prout est principium alterius; videtur, quod baptismi Sacramentum non tantum curet hominem in se, sed etiam prout est alterius principium.
3. Item, non removetur effectus, persistente causa3: ergo si baptismus removet ipsum originale peccatum ab homine, necesse est, quod et causam originalis peccati excludat ab ipso; et si hoc, videtur tunc, quod baptizatus non transfundat in alterum originale peccatum.
4. Item, non sufficienter curat morbum qui relinquit radicem morbi: ergo aut Christus non est perfectus medicus, aut si perfectus medicus est, per medicinam Sacramenti baptismi non solum expiatur originale quantum ad culpam, sed etiam quantum ad causam; et si hoc, ergo baptizatus etc.
5. Item, tales sunt fructus, qualis est arbor; et tales sunt rami, qualis et radix. Unde et Dominus in Matthaei septimo4: Non potest arbor bona fructus malos facere; et Apostolus ad Romanos undecimo: Si radix sancta, et rami sancti: ergo si originale deletum est in parente, et parens est purificatus; videtur similiter, quod purificetur et proles. Et si hoc, aut originale non deletur per baptismum, aut si deletur quantum ad culpam, deletur similiter quantum ad causam. Si tu dicas, quod baptismus non purificat hominem ab originali, in quantum est corruptio naturalis, sed in quantum est corruptio personalis; contra: « si oppositum est causa oppositi, et propositum est causa propositi5 », sed persona corrupta corrumpit naturam: ergo pari ratione, persona sanata, sanatur et natura.
6. Item, si aliquis curet aliquem a lepra, quia lepra est morbus hereditarius6, hoc ipso quod a lepra curat, dat ei potentiam generandi filium sanum: ergo pari ratione, si originale morbus est hereditarius; videtur, quod non deleatur, quin auferatur illa corruptio, per quam originale in alterum transfunditur.
Sed contra:
Fundamenta.
1. Baptizatus etiam post baptismum sentit in se motus concupiscentiae; sed concupiscentia ortum habet ex carnis foeditate7, et illa est causa originalis peccati in prole: ergo baptismus non curat morbum originalis peccati quantum ad radicem.
2. Item, causa originalis peccati residet penes carnem; sed gratia Spiritus sancti respicit proprie ipsam mentem: ergo si causa originalis peccati non opponitur ipsi gratiae, videtur, quod per gratiam baptismalem non habeat removeri.
3. Item, si baptismus curaret originale non tantum, in quantum est morbus personalis, sed etiam, in quantum est morbus naturalis; igitur parente baptizato, non oporteret prolem baptizari. Si igitur unumquemque in propria persona necesse est baptizari, videtur, quod in baptismate non fiat deletio originalis quantum ad causam et radicem morbi.
4. Item, propter peccatum originale habemus ignorantiam in mente et concupiscentiam in carne8; sed baptismus non tollit homini ignorantiam, quae se tenet ex parte mentis; ergo multo minus nec illam corruptionem, quae se tenet ex parte carnis; sed illa est causa originalis: ergo etc.
Conclusio.
Per baptismum originale peccatum deletur quantum ad culpam, non tamen removetur causa transfundendi originale in personam alteram.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de causa originalis: aut secundum considerationem unius hominis in se, aut per comparationem ipsius ad alterum ex ipso propagandum. — (Dupliciter loquendum de originalis causa.) Si primo modo loquamur, sic semper, cum deletur originale peccatum, deletur etiam causa originalis peccati quantum ad hoc, ut non possit deinceps peccatum originale causare9 in anima baptizati. (Conclusio 1.) Remittitur enim quodam modo foeditas carnis, et per consequens improbitas suae tyrannidis, ratione cuius habebat spiritum in servitutem peccati redigere; quod quidem non potest facere post baptismum propter auxilium gratiae, quod ibi datur spiritui, per quod praesidet carni: et ita effectus illius gratiae quodam modo redundat in carnem.
Si autem loquamur de causa originalis respectu alterius propagandi, sic per baptismum non deletur originale quantum ad causam sive radicem. (Conclusio 2.) — Et ratio huius potissima, ut credo, est, quia corruptio, quae est causa originalis peccati propagandi, est corruptio naturae sive consistens penes vim generativam10, quae habet radicari in carne. (Ratio.) Unde originale, prout est vitium personae, respicit voluntatem; prout autem est vitium naturae, respicit generativam virtutem et carnem. Gratia autem sacramentalis proprie respicit corruptionem personae; contra vero corruptionem naturae non habet ordinari directe. Et hinc est, quod cum infunditur gratia baptismalis, deletur originalis culpa, secundum quod erat peccatum ipsius animae; remanet tamen aliquis languor in carne, qui11 est causa originalis in prole.
Si autem quaeratur, quare remedium gratiae sacramentalis ordinatur directe contra originale, ut corrumpit personam, et non prout corrumpit naturam; dicendum, quod summus Medicus hoc instituit, ratione congrua exigente, tum ex parte Medici, tum ex parte aegroti, tum ex parte medicamenti. (Quaestio incidens soluta. — Triplex ratio.) — (Ratio 1.) Ex parte, inquam, Medici, quia sic Dominus debuit nos curare, ut salutem nostram unusquisque ab ipso
immediate recognosceret, et ideo unumquemque voluit curari in suo baptismate immediate et in se. Et propterea baptismus delet originale in homine, secundum quod est individuum, non secundum quod est alterius principium, ut ex hoc unusquisque reddat obsequium Deo debitum et magis recognoscat salvationis suae beneficium12.
(Ratio 2.) Ex parte etiam aegroti congruentia erat. Deus enim neminem vult salvare nisi salva arbitrii sui libertate; et ideo talem efficaciam medicamento dedit, ut salva esset libertas et meritum liberi arbitrii. Ideo etiam, ut fides habeat locum, occultat Dominus Sacramenti sui effectum13. Et ideo non curatur naturae morbus.
(Ratio 3.) Ex parte etiam medicamenti ratio est, quia virtus regenerativa in Sacramento est ipsa fides, unde a fide passionis dicuntur Sacramenta habere efficaciam. Quoniam igitur haec virtus regenerativa principaliter respicit voluntatem et mentem, virtus autem generativa decisionem carnis a carne; hinc est, quod baptismus sanat sive curat originale, secundum quod est morbus personae, dum in eo datur gratia, per quam rectificatur personalis voluntas, remanente nihilominus corruptione in carne et in vi generativa, quae causa est transfundendi originalem culpam.
Et sic patet, quod per baptismum deletur originale peccatum quantum ad culpam; non tamen removetur causa transfundendi originale in personam alteram, sicut rationes ostendunt, quae ad secundam partem inducuntur, et ideo concedendae sunt.
Solutio oppositorum.
1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur de Damasceno, quod caro et spiritus purgantur in baptismo; dicendum, quod Damascenus intelligit carnem purgari, quia foeditas carnis aliquo modo remittitur, non quia omnino tollatur. Et illam remissionem sive diminutionem foeditatis purgationem vocat propter hoc, quod non est amplius causa culpae in eo, in quo est; non tamen per baptismum omnino foeditas deletur, cum non tantum pruritus coitus sit in paganis, verum etiam in Christianis. Probabile tamen est, quod aliquo modo illa foeditas per baptismum remittatur; vulgo enim dicitur, quod parvuli baptizati non ita foetent aliis, sicut non baptizati14.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Christus magis fuit sufficiens ad satisfaciendum, quam Adam ad corrumpendum; dicendum, quod verum est; verumtamen, quia non dedit omnem virtutem Sacramento, quam dare poterat, sed quam dare congruebat; ideo, etsi sufficientior esset, non tamen dedit virtutem Sacramento curandi omnem corruptionem, sed solum corruptionem personae. Sic enim congruebat, ut prius ostensum est.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non removetur effectus, permanente causa; dicendum, quod verum est de causa efficiente et conservante, non de efficiente tantum. (Notandum.) Verum est etiam de existentia causae in ea dispositione, in qua producit effectum. Neutro autem istorum modorum remanet causa originalis, sive quia foeditas ipsa non est causa conservativa originalis, cum originale sit in anima separata; sive quia non remanet in ea dispositione et intensione, secundum quam anima ex ipsa contrahit originale.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non sufficienter curat morbum qui relinquit radicem; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, quando radix morbi relinquitur, quae potest causare vulnus in eo qui curatur. Non sic autem relinquitur radix originalis peccati, quae quidem possit iterare morbum illum circa eum qui baptizatur. — (Alia solutio.) Posset tamen et aliter dici, quod utile est relinquere radicem alicuius aegritudinis, quia una aegritudo frequenter curat alteram. Huiusmodi autem corruptio, quae remanet in carne, occasio est vitandi multa mala, et per consequens faciendi multa bona, sicut ostenditur in quarto15, in tractatu de effectu baptismi.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si radix est sancta, et rami; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur per se loquendo, ut si radix sancta sit, secundum quod radix; baptismus autem, etsi sanctificet hominem, non tamen sanctificat eum, secundum quod est principium alterius, quia remedium illud curat morbum personae, non naturae, sicut ostensum est.
6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod curato leproso, datur ei virtus generandi sanum; dicendum, quod non est simile. Lepra enim sic est morbus hereditarius, quod non est alius morbus, ut corrumpit personam et ut corrumpit naturam, eo quod totum hominem inficit ex parte carnis, non solum quantum ad nutritivam, sed etiam quantum ad generativam; et ideo leprosus generat leprosum, quia ita corruptus est in eo humor generativus, sicut16 nutritivus; et quando homo a lepra curatur, uterque humor simul in ipso sanatur. Sed in originali peccato est corruptio personae et naturae, ita quod istae corruptiones sunt diversae. Corruptio enim personae respicit liberam voluntatem; corruptio vero naturae, secundum quod ab illa causatur, respicit generativam virtutem. « Est enim natura vis insita rebus, ex similibus similia procreans »: et ideo, quamvis una istarum corruptionum per baptismum curetur, non oportet, quod curetur alia; et hinc est, quod mundificatus per baptismum generat immundum. Qualitas enim prolis genitae plus conformatur
dispositioni virtutis generativae quam dispositioni voluntatis liberae. Et ideo exemplificat Augustinus, quod sicut circumcisus generat praeputiatum, et ex grano mundo generatur granum cum paleis, et hoc, quia omnia ista erant in vi propagativa et ratione seminali, secundum quam haec propagantur: similiter intelligendum est in hominibus, quod quia corruptio remanet in vi generativa, quamvis voluntas curetur per gratiam, homo generat secundum id, in quo assimilatur Adae, non secundum quod assimilatur Christo; et ideo producit filium similem Adae praevaricatori magis quam suo Redemptori.
I. Locutio causa peccati originalis sumta est ex Petro Lombardo, d. XXXI. c. 4. 5. 6, et intelligitur non de causa principali eiusdem, sed de instrumentali, quae est in carne, ut supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in scholio est dictum (cfr. etiam ibid. dub. 1.). Hinc eandem quaestionem Petr. a Tar. tractat sub titulo: « Utrum foeditas carnis in baptismo tollatur »; S. Thomas vero generalius: « Utrum poena originalem culpam consequens post baptismum remaneat ». — Solutio S. Bonaventurae communiter approbatur, quae eruitur ex hoc principio: peccatum originale inficit naturam et per consequens personam; gratia vero in hoc tempore sanat proprie personam, non naturam, sive personam in se absolute, non ut est principium alterius personae.
Haec et praecedens quaestio non parum servit ad intelligendam nostri Doctoris doctrinam de peccato originali, sicut et infra d. 33. a. 2. q. 1, ubi tria in peccato originali distinguuntur, scilicet formale, materiale et causale.
II. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 106. m. 7. a. 7. § 1. 2. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.
---
QUESTION II.
Whether original sin is deleted by baptism as to its cause.
Secondly it is asked, whether original sin has to be deleted by baptism as to its cause. And that it does, it seems:
1. By the word of Damascene1, who says that To the opposite. there are two things in baptism corresponding to the two which are in the human. For he says thus: « Since the human is twofold, of soul and of body, he gave a twofold purgation, by water and by the Spirit; the Spirit renewing that which is according to the image and likeness, the water also through the grace of the Spirit purging the body from sin and freeing it from corruption ». If therefore this corruption is the cause of original sin's being transfused, it seems that original sin is deleted not only as to guilt, but also as to its cause.
2. Likewise, Christ is more powerful in making satisfaction than Adam was in corrupting, as it is said to the Romans, fifth [chapter]2: Not as the offense, so also the gift; from which he intimates that the gift was much greater than the offense. Therefore if Adam's offense was able to infect the human not only in himself, but insofar as he is the principle of another; it seems that the Sacrament of baptism should cure the human not only in himself, but also insofar as he is the principle of another.
3. Likewise, the effect is not removed while the cause persists3: therefore if baptism removes original sin itself from the human, it is necessary that it also exclude the cause of original sin from him; and if so, it seems then that the baptized [person] does not transfuse original sin into another.
4. Likewise, he does not sufficiently cure the disease who leaves the root of the disease: therefore either Christ is not a perfect physician, or, if he is a perfect physician, then by the medicine of the Sacrament of baptism original [sin] is expiated not only as to guilt, but also as to its cause; and if so, then the baptized [person] etc.
5. Likewise, as is the tree, such are the fruits; and as is the root, such are the branches. Whence also the Lord, in Matthew, seventh [chapter]4: A good tree cannot bear bad fruits; and the Apostle to the Romans, eleventh: If the root is holy, so also the branches: therefore if original [sin] is deleted in the parent, and the parent is purified; it seems likewise that the offspring is purified. And if so, either original [sin] is not deleted by baptism, or, if it is deleted as to guilt, it is likewise deleted as to its cause. If you say that baptism does not purify the human from original [sin] insofar as it is a natural corruption, but insofar as it is a personal corruption; on the contrary: « if the opposite is the cause of the opposite, the [thing] proposed is also the cause of the proposed5 », but a corrupted person corrupts the nature: therefore by parity of reasoning, when the person is healed, the nature too is healed.
6. Likewise, if someone cure another of leprosy, since leprosy is a hereditary disease6, by this very fact that he cures him of leprosy, he gives him the power to generate a healthy son: therefore by parity of reasoning, if original [sin] is a hereditary disease; it seems that it is not deleted unless that corruption be taken away by which original [sin] is transfused into another.
On the contrary:
Fundamenta.
1. The baptized [person], even after baptism, feels in himself the motions of concupiscence; but concupiscence has its origin from the foulness of the flesh7, and that is the cause of original sin in the offspring: therefore baptism does not cure the disease of original sin as to its root.
2. Likewise, the cause of original sin resides in the flesh; but the grace of the Holy Spirit properly regards the mind itself: therefore if the cause of original sin is not opposed to grace itself, it seems that it is not removed by baptismal grace.
3. Likewise, if baptism cured original [sin] not only insofar as it is a personal disease, but also insofar as it is a natural disease; therefore, the parent being baptized, the offspring would not need to be baptized. If therefore it is necessary that each one be baptized in his own person, it seems that in baptism there is made no deletion of original [sin] as to the cause and root of the disease.
4. Likewise, on account of original sin we have ignorance in the mind and concupiscence in the flesh8; but baptism does not take away from the human the ignorance which holds on the part of the mind; therefore much less [does it take away] that corruption which holds on the part of the flesh; but that is the cause of original [sin]: therefore etc.
Conclusion.
By baptism original sin is deleted as to guilt, yet there is not removed the cause of transfusing original [sin] into another person.
I respond: It must be said that there is a twofold way of speaking about the cause of original [sin]: either according to the consideration of one human in himself, or by comparison of him to another to be propagated from him. — (Original [sin]'s cause is to be spoken of in two ways.) If we speak in the first way, then always, when original sin is deleted, the cause of original sin is also deleted as to this, that thereafter it cannot cause9 original sin in the soul of the baptized [person]. (Conclusion 1.) For the foulness of the flesh is in some manner remitted, and consequently the wickedness of its tyranny, by reason of which it had [the power] to reduce the spirit into the servitude of sin; which indeed it cannot do after baptism on account of the help of grace, which is there given to the spirit, by which it presides over the flesh: and thus the effect of that grace in some manner redounds upon the flesh.
But if we speak of the cause of original [sin] with respect to another to be propagated, then by baptism original [sin] is not deleted as to its cause or root. (Conclusion 2.) — And the chief reason of this, as I believe, is that the corruption which is the cause of original sin's being propagated is a corruption of the nature, or one consisting in the generative power10, which is rooted in the flesh. (Reason.) Whence original [sin], insofar as it is a vice of the person, regards the will; but insofar as it is a vice of the nature, it regards the generative power and the flesh. But sacramental grace properly regards the corruption of the person; whereas against the corruption of the nature it is not ordained directly. And hence it is that when baptismal grace is infused, original guilt is deleted, insofar as it was the sin of the soul itself; yet there remains some languor in the flesh, which11 is the cause of original [sin] in the offspring.
But if it be asked why the remedy of sacramental grace is ordained directly against original [sin] as it corrupts the person, and not as it corrupts the nature; it must be said that the supreme Physician instituted this, fitting reason demanding it, both on the part of the Physician, on the part of the patient, and on the part of the medicine. (An incidental question solved. — A threefold reason.) — (Reason 1.) On the part, I say, of the Physician, because the Lord ought thus to cure us, so that each one might
immediately acknowledge his salvation from him, and therefore he willed each one to be cured in his own baptism immediately and in himself. And therefore baptism deletes original [sin] in the human according as he is an individual, not according as he is the principle of another, so that from this each one may render to God the obedience due and may the more acknowledge the benefit of his salvation12.
(Reason 2.) On the part of the patient too there was a fittingness. For God wills to save no one except with the liberty of his free will preserved; and therefore he gave such efficacy to the medicine that liberty and the merit of free will should be preserved. For this reason also, that faith may have place, the Lord conceals the effect of his Sacrament13. And therefore the disease of the nature is not cured.
(Reason 3.) On the part of the medicine too there is a reason, because the regenerative power in the Sacrament is faith itself, whence from the faith of the passion the Sacraments are said to have efficacy. Since therefore this regenerative power principally regards the will and the mind, but the generative power [regards] the severance of flesh from flesh; hence it is that baptism heals or cures original [sin] according as it is a disease of the person, while in it grace is given by which the personal will is rectified, the corruption nevertheless remaining in the flesh and in the generative power, which is the cause of transfusing original guilt.
And thus it is clear that by baptism original sin is deleted as to guilt; yet the cause of transfusing original [sin] into another person is not removed, as the reasons show which are adduced for the second part, and therefore they are to be granted.
Solution of the opposing [arguments].
1. To that therefore which is first objected concerning Damascene, that the flesh and the spirit are purged in baptism; it must be said that Damascene understands the flesh to be purged because the foulness of the flesh is in some manner remitted, not because it is wholly taken away. And that remission or diminution of the foulness he calls a purgation on account of this, that it is no longer the cause of guilt in him in whom it is; yet by baptism the foulness is not wholly deleted, since the itching of coition is not only in pagans, but also in Christians. It is probable nevertheless that in some manner that foulness is remitted by baptism; for it is commonly said that baptized little children do not smell to others as do the unbaptized14.
2. To that which is objected, that Christ was more sufficient for making satisfaction than Adam for corrupting; it must be said that it is true; but nevertheless, since he did not give to the Sacrament all the power which he could give, but [that] which it was fitting to give; therefore, even if he were more sufficient, yet he did not give to the Sacrament the power of curing every corruption, but only the corruption of the person. For thus it was fitting, as was shown before.
3. To that which is objected, that the effect is not removed while the cause remains; it must be said that this is true of a cause that is efficient and conserving, not of one that is efficient only. (To be noted.) It is also true of the existence of the cause in that disposition in which it produces the effect. But in neither of these ways does the cause of original [sin] remain, either because the foulness itself is not the conserving cause of original [sin], since original [sin] is in the separated soul; or because it does not remain in that disposition and intensity according to which the soul contracts original [sin] from it.
4. To that which is objected, that he does not sufficiently cure the disease who leaves the root; it must be said that this is true when the root of the disease is left which can cause a wound in him who is cured. But the root of original sin is not left in such a way that it could repeat that disease in him who is baptized. — (Another solution.) Yet it could also be said otherwise, that it is useful to leave the root of some sickness, because one sickness frequently cures another. But corruption of this kind, which remains in the flesh, is an occasion of avoiding many evils, and consequently of doing many goods, as is shown in the fourth [book]15, in the treatise on the effect of baptism.
5. To that which is objected, that if the root is holy, so also the branches; it must be said that this is understood as spoken per se, so that if the root be holy, according as it is a root; but baptism, even though it sanctify the human, does not nevertheless sanctify him according as he is the principle of another, because that remedy cures the disease of the person, not of the nature, as has been shown.
6. To that which is objected, that, the leper being cured, there is given to him the power of generating a healthy [child]; it must be said that it is not similar. For leprosy is a hereditary disease in such a way that it is not a different disease as it corrupts the person and as it corrupts the nature, because it infects the whole human on the part of the flesh, not only as to the nutritive [power], but also as to the generative; and therefore a leper generates a leper, because the generative humor is corrupted in him just as16 the nutritive; and when a human is cured of leprosy, both humors are healed together in him. But in original sin there is a corruption of the person and of the nature, in such a way that these corruptions are diverse. For the corruption of the person regards the free will; but the corruption of the nature, according as it is caused by it, regards the generative power. « For nature is a power implanted in things, procreating like things from like »: and therefore, although one of these corruptions be cured by baptism, it does not follow that the other be cured; and hence it is that one cleansed by baptism generates an unclean [child]. For the quality of the offspring generated is conformed more
to the disposition of the generative power than to the disposition of the free will. And therefore Augustine gives the example that, just as the circumcised generates the uncircumcised, and from clean grain is generated grain with chaff, and this because all those things were in the propagative power and seminal principle according to which these things are propagated: in like manner it is to be understood in the case of humans, that, because the corruption remains in the generative power, although the will is cured by grace, the human generates according to that in which he is made like Adam, not according as he is made like Christ; and therefore he produces a son more like Adam the prevaricator than his Redeemer.
I. The expression cause of original sin is taken from Peter Lombard, d. XXXI. c. 4. 5. 6, and is understood not of its principal cause, but of the instrumental, which is in the flesh, as was said above at d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in the scholion (cfr. also there dub. 1.). Hence Petrus a Tarantasia treats the same question under the title: « Whether the foulness of the flesh is taken away in baptism »; but St. Thomas more generally: « Whether the punishment consequent upon original guilt remains after baptism ». — The solution of S. Bonaventure is commonly approved, which is drawn from this principle: original sin infects the nature and consequently the person; but grace in this time properly heals the person, not the nature, that is, the person in himself absolutely, not as he is the principle of another person.
This and the preceding question serve not a little toward understanding our Doctor's doctrine on original sin, as also below d. 33. a. 2. q. 1, where three things are distinguished in original sin, namely the formal, the material, and the causal.
II. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II. q. 106. m. 7. a. 7. § 1. 2. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 2. — B. Albert, here a. 3. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 1. a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1. a. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.
---
- Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 9. In sententia allata textus originalis voci duplicem subiungit nobis et dein post dedit adiungit etiam. Respicitur in hoc textu Ioan. 3, 5: Nisi quis renatus fueris ex aqua et Spiritu S. etc.Book IV. On the Orthodox Faith c. 9. In the sentence adduced the original text adds nobis to the word duplicem and then after dedit also adds etiam. In this text there is regarded John 3, 5: Unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit etc.
- Vers. 15.Verse 15.
- Aristot., II. Poster. c. 17. (c. 14.): Cum causa sit, necesse est, rem (effectum) omnem esse.Aristotle, II. Posterior [Analytics] c. 17 (c. 14): When there is a cause, it is necessary that the whole thing (the effect) be.
- Vers. 18. — Seq. textus est loc. cit. v. 16.Verse 18. — The following text is in the place cited, v. 16.
- Aristot., IV. Topic. c. 4: Si oppositum in opposito, et propositum in proposito erit.Aristotle, IV. Topics c. 4: If the opposite be in the opposite, the proposed will also be in the proposed.
- Avicenna, I. Canon. Fen 2. Doctr. 1. c. 8: Et sunt aegritudinum quaedam, quae in semine hereditantur, sicut... phthisis et lepra. — Pro quia lepra est codd. L O quae est.Avicenna, I. Canon Fen 2. Doctr. 1. c. 8: And there are certain sicknesses which are inherited in the seed, such as... phthisis and leprosy. — For quia lepra est codd. L O [read] quae est.
- Cfr. supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.Cfr. above d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in the body.
- Vide supra d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. seq. et infra a. 2. q. 1.See above d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. seq. and below a. 2. q. 1.
- Codd. O aa regnare, cod. ee iterare, Vat. cum edd. 1, 3, 4 et paucis codd. causari.Codd. O aa [read] regnare, cod. ee iterare, the Vatican [edition] with edd. 1, 3, 4 and a few codices causari.
- Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 omittit sive et subinde generativam.The Vatican [edition] with edd. 3, 4 omits sive and thereupon generativam.
- Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 quae.The Vatican [edition] with edd. 3, 4 [reads] quae.
- Cfr. Anselm., l. Cur Deus homo, c. 5, ubi ex eodem principio vult probare, quod redemptio hominis non potuit fieri per alium quam per Dei personam.Cfr. Anselm, Why God [Became] Man, c. 5, where from the same principle he wishes to prove that the redemption of the human could not be effected by another than by the person of God.
- Cfr. August., l. de Peccat. merit. et remiss. etc. c. 31. n. 50. nec non Anselm., de Concord. praesc. Dei cum lib. arb. q. 3. c. 9.Cfr. Augustine, book On the Merit and Remission of Sins etc. c. 31. n. 50, and also Anselm, On the Concord of God's Foreknowledge with Free Will q. 3. c. 9.
- In edd. legitur ita foetent, sicut alii non baptizati.In the editions it reads ita foetent, sicut alii non baptizati ("smell as do others, the unbaptized").
- Dist. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.Dist. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.
- Cod. cc et ed. 1 adiiciunt et. — Cfr. August., loc. cit. c. 27. n. 43. seqq. — Augustini exemplificatio infra adducta de circumciso et grano legitur Lib. III. de Peccat. merit. et remiss. etc. c. 8. n. 16. et VI. Contra Iulian. Pelagian. c. 6. n. 15. seqq. — « Est enim natura vis insita rebus » cfr. tom. I. pag. 134, nota 10.Cod. cc and ed. 1 add et. — Cfr. Augustine, in the place cited, c. 27. n. 43. seqq. — Augustine's example adduced below concerning the circumcised and the grain is read in Book III. On the Merit and Remission of Sins etc. c. 8. n. 16, and VI. Against Julian the Pelagian c. 6. n. 15. seqq. — « For nature is a power implanted in things » cfr. tom. I. p. 134, note 10.