Dist. 36, Divisio Textus
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 36
## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXVI.
Utrum peccatum sit poena peccati.
Sciendum est tamen, quaedam sic esse peccata etc.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Supra determinavit Magister, quid sit peccatum secundum rem et definitionem. In hac parte inquirit, utrum peccatum sit poena peccati. Dividitur autem pars ista in partes duas. In quarum prima Magister movet quaestionem illam et determinat secundum opinionem aliorum. In secunda vero secundum opinionem propriam, ibi: In nullo tamen praeiudicium fieri veritati etc.
Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima adducit Magister auctoritates, in quibus ostendit, quod unum peccatum sit alterius peccati poena. In secunda vero movet quaestionem1 et determinat iuxta aliorum opinionem, ibi: Et ideo merito quaeri potest. In tertia vero subiungit illius opinionis maiorem explanationem, ibi: Et licet ex hoc sensu omne peccatum mortale possit dici etc.
Similiter secunda pars principalis, in qua istam quaestionem determinat secundum propriam opinionem, dividitur in partes tres. In quarum prima determinat propositam quaestionem secundum propriam opinionem, confirmans eam auctoritate Sanctorum. In secunda vero determinat quoddam dubium, in praedictis auctoritatibus propositum, ibi: Illud autem diligenter est notandum, quod supra positis etc. In tertia vero breviter epilogat ea quae praedicta sunt, ibi: Satis diligenter eorum posuimus etc. — Et sic in hac totali parte agitur principaliter de comparatione culpae ad poenam, utrum videlicet culpa sit poena causaliter tantum, an causaliter simul et essentialiter. Et quamvis secundum aliquorum opinionem peccatum sit poena tantum causaliter, secundum tamen opinionem Magistri, quam in littera innuit, non tantum causaliter, sed etiam essentialiter poena est.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam igitur huius partis circa tria incidit hic quaestio.
Primo quaeritur de comparatione culpae ad poenam secundum identitatem.
Secundo vero quaeritur de comparatione culpae ad poenam secundum inseparabilitatem.
Tertio quaeritur de comparatione poenae ad divinae iustitiae aequitatem.
Circa primum quaeruntur duo.
Primo quaeritur, utrum unum peccatum sit alterius peccati poena.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum passiones animae sint poenae tantum, an poenae simul et peccata.
---
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXVI.
Whether sin is the penalty of sin.
It must nevertheless be known that certain things are sins in this way etc.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
Above, the Master determined what sin is according to the thing itself and according to its definition. In this part he inquires whether sin is the penalty of sin. Now this part is divided into two parts. In the first of these the Master raises that question and determines it according to the opinion of others. In the second according to his own opinion, there: Yet without prejudice being done in any way to the truth etc.
The first part has three parts. In the first the Master brings forward authorities in which he shows that one sin is the penalty of another sin. In the second he raises the question1 and determines it according to the opinion of others, there: And therefore it can rightly be asked. In the third he subjoins a fuller explanation of that opinion, there: And although from this sense every mortal sin can be called etc.
Likewise the second principal part, in which he determines this question according to his own opinion, is divided into three parts. In the first of these he determines the proposed question according to his own opinion, confirming it by the authority of the Saints. In the second he determines a certain doubt, raised in the aforesaid authorities, there: But this must be diligently noted, that with respect to the things set forth above etc. In the third he briefly epilogizes the things that have been said, there: We have set forth their views diligently enough etc. — And thus in this whole part the principal matter treated is the comparison of fault to penalty, namely whether fault is a penalty causally only, or causally and at the same time essentially. And although according to the opinion of some sin is a penalty causally only, nevertheless according to the opinion of the Master, which he intimates in the text, it is a penalty not only causally, but also essentially.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
Now for the understanding of this part, a question falls here concerning three matters.
First it is asked concerning the comparison of fault to penalty according to identity.
Secondly it is asked concerning the comparison of fault to penalty according to inseparability.
Thirdly it is asked concerning the comparison of penalty to the equity of divine justice.
Concerning the first, two things are asked.
First it is asked whether one sin is the penalty of another sin.
Secondly it is asked whether the passions of the soul are penalties only, or penalties and at the same time sins.
---
- Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 et nonnulli codd. addunt: utrum peccatum secundum idem sit culpa et poena, an secundum diversa.The Vatican edition, together with editions 3 and 4 and several codices, adds: utrum peccatum secundum idem sit culpa et poena, an secundum diversa ("whether sin in respect of the same thing is fault and penalty, or in respect of diverse things"). ---