title: Dist. 33

title_alt: Distinction XXXIII — The Text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 778 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXXIII.

#### Cap. I.

#### *An peccata omnium praecedentium patrum parvuli originaliter trahant, ut peccatum Adae.*

Praedictis adiiciendum videtur, an peccata praecedentium patrum ad parvulos transeant, sicut illud primi hominis delictum in omnes carnaliter genitos diximus redundasse. Et si peccata parentum transeunt in parvulos, utrum omnium, qui fuerunt ab Adam usque ad ipsos, an aliquorum et non omnium. De hoc Augustinus in Enchiridio[^1] ambigue disserit. Videtur enim approbare, peccata parentum praecedentium imputari parvulis, non omnium tamen, qui fuerunt ab Adam, ne importabili et nimia sarcina in poena aeterna gravarentur parvuli, sed tantum eorum parentum, qui eos a quarta generatione praecesserunt. Quod confirmat illis verbis, quibus in Exodo Dominus ait: *Ego sum Deus visitans iniquitates patrum usque in tertiam et quartam generationem;* quasi peccata parentum proximorum tantum parvulis imputentur, et non alia; quod est per moderationem divinae miserationis. Et quod non illud solum primi hominis delictum parvulos teneat, sed etiam alia, illi quibus ita videtur, ex eo confirmant, quod etiam parvuli, non modo maiores, dicuntur baptizari *in remissionem peccatorum,* per pluralem numerum, non per singularem *in remissionem peccati.* Et David[^2], de legitimo matrimonio procreatus, dicit: *In iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis concepit me mater mea;* non dicit: *in iniquitate vel peccato.* Unde putant, non tantum illud unum peccatum originale, sed etiam plura, quae in peccato Adae reperiri possunt, et alia parentum peccata parvulis imputari.

#### Cap. II.

#### *Quomodo in illo uno peccato primo plura reperiuntur.*

Quod vero in *actuali* peccato Adae plura notari valeant peccata, Augustinus in Enchiridio[^3] insinuat: « Possunt, inquit, intelligi plura peccata in una transgressione Adae, si in sua quasi membra dividatur.

<!-- page 779 -->

Nam et *superbia* est illic, quia homo in sua potius esse quam Dei potestate dilexit; et *sacrilegium,* quia Deo non credidit; et *homicidium,* quia se in mortem praecipitavit; et *fornicatio spiritualis,* quia integritas mentis humanae serpentina suasione corrupta est; et *furtum,* quia cibus prohibitus usurpatus est; et *avaritia,* quia plus, quam sufficere illi debuit, appetivit; et si quid aliud in hoc uno peccato inveniri potest ». — Deinde de parentum praecedentium peccatis, utrum parvulis imputentur, magis opinando quam asserendo disceptat, ita inquiens: « Parentum peccatis parvulos obligari, non solum primorum hominum, sed etiam suorum, de quibus ipsi nati sunt; non improbabiliter dicitur. Illa quippe divina sententia[^4]: *Reddam peccata patrum in filios,* tenet eos ante regenerationem usque adeo, ut etiam de legitimo matrimonio procreatus dicat: *In iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis concepit me mater mea.* Non dixit: *in iniquitate vel in peccato,* cum et hoc recte dici posset, sed *iniquitates et peccata* dicere maluit, quia et in illo uno, quod in omnes homines pertransiit atque tam magnum est, ut eo mutaretur[^5] humana natura, reperiuntur, sicut supra disserui, plura peccata; et alia parentum, quae non ita possunt mutare naturam, reatu obligant filios, nisi gratia Dei subveniat ». « Sed de peccatis aliorum parentum, quibus ab ipso Adam usque ad patrem suum pro generationibus[^6] suis quisque succedit, non immerito disceptari potest, utrum omnium malis actibus et multiplicatis delictis originalibus qui nascitur implicetur, ut tanto peius, quanto posterius quisque nascatur; an propterea Deus in *tertiam et quartam generationem* de peccatis parentum posteris eorum comminetur, quia iram suam quantum ad progeneratorum culpas non extendit ulterius, moderatione miserationis suae, ne illi quibus regenerationis gratia non confertur, nimia sarcina in ipsa aeterna damnatione premerentur, si cogerentur ab ipso initio generis humani omnium praecedentium parentum suorum originaliter peccata contrahere et poenas pro eis debitas pendere. An aliquid aliud de re tanta, Scripturis sanctis diligentius perscrutatis ac tractatis, valeat, vel non valeat reperiri, temere affirmare non audeo ». — Ecce perspicuum fit lectori, Augustinum superiora dixisse non asserendo, sed diversorum opiniones referendo.

Alioquin sibi ipsi contradicere videretur[^7], qui in eodem libro omnium mitissimam dicit esse poenam parvulorum, qui originali tantum tenentur peccato, his verbis: « Mitissima sane poena eorum erit, qui praeter peccatum, quod originale contraxerunt, nullum insuper addiderunt; et in ceteris, qui addiderunt, tanto quisque ibi tolerabiliorem habebit damnationem, quanto hic minorem habuerit iniquitatem ». — Ecce hic aperte dicit, parvulorum poenam omnium aliarum poenarum esse levissimam. Quod si est, non igitur peccatis parentum praecedentium obligantur nisi Adae. Si enim pro peccatis actualibus parentum aeternaliter punirentur et pro suo originali, non iam minus, sed forte magis quam ipsorum parentes punirentur. Non igitur pro peccatis parentum actualibus, nec etiam pro actualibus primi parentis, sed pro *originali,* quod a parentibus trahitur, parvuli damnabuntur, pro eo nullam aliam ignis materialis, vel conscientiae vermis poenam sensuri, nisi quod Dei visione carebunt in perpetuum. Uno igitur, et non pluribus peccatis, parvuli obligati sunt. Unde etiam ea quibus illa opinio muniri videtur, scilicet quod *peccata et iniquitates* in parvulis aliquando Scriptura esse significat, utens plurali numero, ita determinat Augustinus in eodem libro[^8]: « Quia in Scriptura per singularem numerum pluralis numerus saepe significari solet, ut ibi: *Ora ergo ad Deum, ut auferat a nobis serpentem* — non ait: *serpentes,* quos patiebatur populus — et e converso per *pluralem* significatur singularis numerus, ut in Evangelio: *Mortui sunt enim qui quaerebant animam pueri* — non ait: *mortuus est,* cum loqueretur de Herode — et in Exodo: *Fecerunt Deos aureos,* cum unum fecerint vitulum, de quo dixerunt: *Isti sunt dii tui, Israel* »: ita et illud originale unum plurali numero significatur, cum dicimus, parvulos in *peccatorum* remissionem baptizari et in *peccatis vel iniquitatibus* concipi.

#### Cap. III.

#### *An peccatum Adae sit gravius ceteris.*

Hic quaeri solet, utrum peccatum transgressionis Adae, ex quo processit originale, et in quo plura superius notata sunt peccata, gravius fuerit ceteris peccatis. — Quibusdam ita esse videtur, quia illud peccatum totam humanam naturam mutavit, sicut Augustinus in Enchiridio[^9]: « Illud unum peccatum in loco et habitu tantae felicitatis admissum, tam magnum est, ut in uno homine *originaliter,* et ut ita dixerim, *radicaliter* totum genus humanum damnaretur ». Idem in libro de Civitate Dei[^10]: « Tanto maiori iniustitia violatum est illud mandatum, quanto faciliori poterat observantia custodiri ». « Nondum enim ipsi voluntati cupiditas resistebat, quod de poena transgressionis postea secutum est ». — His aliisque nituntur *auctoritatibus,* qui illud peccatum ceteris aliorum hominum peccatis gravius esse dicunt. Quod etiam *ratione* ostendere laborant hoc modo: magis nocuit illud peccatum quam aliquod aliorum, quia totum humanum genus vitiavit ac morti utrique subdidit, quod nullo alio peccato factum est; maiorem ergo effectum mali habuit illud peccatum quam aliquod aliud.

<!-- page 780 -->

Ad quod dici potest, quia, licet illud peccatum humanam naturam mutaverit in necessitatem mortis et in totum genus humanum reatum diffuderit; non est tamen putandum, gravius fuisse peccato in Spiritum sanctum, quod *neque hic neque in futuro,* ut Veritas ait, *dimittitur*[^11]. Quod vero totam humanam naturam corrupit, non ideo est, quia gravius fuerit cunctis aliis peccatis, sed quia ab homine commissum est, quando in *uno* homine *tota* humana natura consistebat, et ideo tota in eo corrupta est; maioremque effectum mali intulit quantum ad *multiplices defectus,* qui ex eo manaverunt, sed non quantum ad *poenam aeternam,* quam graviorem non meruit, quam plures postea meruerunt per alia peccata; immo alios graviorem promeruisse credimus iram, quam Adam meruerit[^12].

#### Cap. IV.

#### *An illud peccatum sit primis parentibus dimissum.*

Si vero quaeritur, an illud peccatum primis parentibus fuerit dimissum; dicimus, eos per poenitentiam veniam consecutos. Unde Augustinus in libro de Baptismo parvulorum[^13] ait: « Sicut illi primi parentes postea iuste vivendo creduntur per Domini sanguinem ab extremo liberati supplicio, non tamen in illa vita meruerunt ad paradisum revocari; sic et caro peccati, etiam remissis peccatis, si homo in ea iuste vixerit, non continuo meretur eam mortem non perpeti, quam traxit de propagine peccati ».

#### Cap. V.

#### *Quomodo peccata parentum visitentur in filios, et non visitentur.*

Et licet peccatis parentum nisi Adae parvuli non obligentur, non est tamen diffitendum, peccata parentum in filios redundare, sicut Dominus in Exodo[^14] ad Moysen ait: *Ego sum Deus fortis, zelotes, visitans iniquitates patrum in filios usque in tertiam et quartam generationem, his qui oderunt me.* — His verbis aperte insinuatur, quod Deus reddit peccata patrum super filios tertios et quartos. Huic autem videtur adversari quod Dominus ait in Ezechiele: *Quid est, quod inter vos parabolam vertitis in proverbium istud, dicentes: Patres comederunt uvam acerbam, et dentes filiorum obstupescunt? Vivo ego, dicit Dominus, si erit vobis ultra parabola haec in proverbium in Israel. Ecce! omnes animae meae sunt, ut anima patris, ita et anima filii mea est. Et anima, quae peccaverit, ipsa morietur. Filius non portabit iniquitatem patris, et pater non portabit iniquitatem filii. Iustitia iusti super eum erit, et impietas impii erit super eum.* — His verbis videtur Deus corrigere per Prophetam, quod male dixerit in Lege. « Si enim peccata patrum reddit in tertiam et quartam generationem, iniustitia videtur esse Dei, ut alius peccet, et alius puniatur. Quomodo enim iustum est, alium peccare, et alium peccata luere »[^15]? Sed, ut ait Hieronymus[^16], « *ne Lex et Prophetae,* id est *Exodus et Ezechiel,* immo ipse Deus, qui et hic et ibi locutus est, in sententiis discrepare videantur »; attendamus finem illius auctoritatis Exodi. Dicto enim: *Reddo iniquitates patrum in filios,* addit: *His qui oderunt me;* per quod evidenter ostendit, « non ideo puniri filios, quia peccaverunt patres, sed quia eis similes quodam hereditario malo Deum oderunt ». Illud ergo, quod in Exodo Dominus dicit, sicut Hieronymus tradit, non id sonat, quod multi existimant, nec est simile huic proverbio: *Patres comederunt uvam acerbam* etc. Illud enim Exodi Hieronymus super Ezechielem, et Augustinus super illud Psalmi[^17]: *Deus laudem meam ne tacueris,* de filiis peccata patrum *imitantibus* accipiendum censent; super quos dicitur Deus *reddere peccata patrum,* quia punit eos, eo quod imitantur peccata patrum, non quia patres peccaverunt. Non itaque corrigit Deus in Propheta quod ante dixerat in Lege, sed quomodo intelligendum sit, aperit. Unde et illos qui prave intelligebant, arguit, qui dicebant: *Patres comederunt* etc.

Verumtamen, si de imitatoribus malorum illud accipitur, quare *tertiam et quartam generationem* tantum commemoravit, cum in qualibet generatione rei teneantur, qui peccata patrum imitantur? Et quare *patres* commemoravit, cum et illi omnes mali sint, qui quorumlibet malorum peccata imitantur? — Sed ideo *patres* specialiter nominavit, quia maxime patres filii imitari solent, quos praecipue diligunt. Et *tertiam et quartam generationem* ideo commemoravit, quia solent parentes interdum tamdiu vivere, donec filios tertios et quartos habeant, qui patrum iniquitates videntes, eorum impietatis heredes per imitationem efficiuntur. Secundum hunc modum recte intelligitur ad litteram quod in Exodo dicitur.

Quod etiam mystice intelligendum esse ostenditur, ex eo quod *parabola* dicitur. « Si enim parabola est, ut ait Hieronymus[^18], aliud verbis sonat, aliud sensu continet. Unde aliqui ita edisserunt: *Patrem* in nobis esse dicunt levem punctum sensuum », scilicet primum motum *suggestionis,* vel cogitationis; « *filium* vero, si cogitatio conceperit peccatum », in quo notatur consensus et delectatio *mulieris;* « *nepotem,* si quod cogitaveris atque conceperis opere compleveris », vel complere decreveris, in quo notatur consensus viri, sive patratio peccati; « *pronepotem* autem, si non solum feceris, sed in eo glorieris, et haec est quarta generatio »; non quia tres praecesserint, sed quarta dicitur, quia quarto loco a primo motu, qui est quasi pater, enumeratur. Deus igitur « primos et secundos stimulos cogitationum, quos Graeci *propathias* vocant, sine quibus nullus hominum esse potest, non puniet aeternaliter, sed si cogitata quis facere decreverit, et quae fecit corrigere noluerit », quae sunt mortalia peccata et tertia et quarta generatio.

<!-- page 781 -->

« Ad probandum vero, ut ait Hieronymus[^19], quod primus pulsus cogitationis non puniatur aeternaliter a Deo, illud de Genesi afferendum est: *Cham enim peccavit, irridens nuditatem patris,* et sententiam non ipse, sed filius eius Chanaan accepit: *Maledictus Chanaan, servus erit fratrum suorum.* Quae enim iustitia est, ut pater peccaverit, et filius punitus sit »? Sed in mysterio illud dictum est.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XXXIII.

#### Chapter I.

#### *Whether little children draw the sins of all their preceding fathers originally, as the sin of Adam.*

To the foregoing it seems that this must be added: whether the sins of the preceding fathers pass to little children, as we have said that the offense of the first man redounded onto all who are carnally begotten. And if the sins of the parents pass into little children, whether of all who were from Adam down to themselves, or of some and not of all. On this, Augustine, in the Enchiridion[^1], discourses ambiguously. For he seems to approve that the sins of the preceding parents are imputed to little children, not however of all who were from Adam, lest by an unbearable and excessive burden the little children be weighed down in eternal punishment, but only of those parents who preceded them by a fourth generation. This he confirms by those words by which the Lord says in Exodus: *I am God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers unto the third and fourth generation;* as if the sins of the nearer parents only are imputed to little children, and not the others; which is by the moderation of the divine mercy. And that not only the offense of the first man holds little children, but also others, those to whom it so seems confirm from this, that little children too, not only adults, are said to be baptized *unto the remission of sins,* by the plural number, not by the singular *unto the remission of sin.* And David[^2], begotten of lawful marriage, says: *In iniquities was I conceived, and in sins did my mother conceive me;* he does not say: *in iniquity or sin.* Whence they think that not only that one original sin, but also the many that can be found in the sin of Adam, and other sins of the parents, are imputed to little children.

#### Chapter II.

#### *How in that one first sin many are found.*

That indeed in the *actual* sin of Adam many sins can be noted, Augustine intimates in the Enchiridion[^3]: "There can," he says, "be understood many sins in the one transgression of Adam, if it be divided into its parts as it were.

For there is *pride* there, because man loved to be in his own power rather than God's; and *sacrilege,* because he did not believe God; and *homicide,* because he cast himself into death; and *spiritual fornication,* because the integrity of the human mind was corrupted by the serpent's persuasion; and *theft,* because the forbidden food was usurped; and *avarice,* because he desired more than should have sufficed him; and whatever else can be found in this one sin." — Then concerning the sins of the preceding parents, whether they are imputed to little children, he debates rather by opining than by asserting, thus saying: "That little children are bound by the sins of their parents — not only of the first men, but also of their own, of whom they were born — is not improbably said. For that divine sentence[^4]: *I will render the sins of the fathers upon the sons,* holds them before regeneration to such a degree that even one begotten of lawful marriage says: *In iniquities was I conceived, and in sins did my mother conceive me.* He did not say: *in iniquity or in sin,* although this too could rightly be said, but he chose to say *iniquities and sins,* because even in that one which passed into all men and is so great that by it[^5] human nature was changed, there are found, as I have said above, many sins; and others, of the parents, which cannot thus change nature, bind the sons by guilt, unless the grace of God come to aid." "But concerning the sins of the other parents, by whom each one succeeds in his generations[^6] from Adam himself down to his own father, it can not undeservedly be debated whether he who is born is implicated by all the evil acts and multiplied original offenses, so that the later each one is born, the worse off he is; or whether on this account God threatens posterity unto the *third and fourth generation* with the sins of the parents, because He does not extend His wrath further as regards the faults of forebears, by the moderation of His mercy, lest those to whom the grace of regeneration is not conferred should be pressed down by an excessive burden in eternal damnation itself, if they were compelled, from the very beginning of the human race, originally to contract the sins of all their preceding parents and to pay the penalties due for them. Whether anything else about so great a matter, when the holy Scriptures have been more diligently searched and treated, can or cannot be found, I do not dare rashly to affirm." — Behold, it becomes plain to the reader that Augustine said the foregoing not by asserting, but by reporting the opinions of various men.

Otherwise he would seem to contradict himself[^7], who in the same book says that the punishment of little children, who are held only by original sin, is the mildest of all, in these words: "Mildest indeed will be the punishment of those who, besides the sin which they contracted as original, added nothing further; and among the rest, who did add, each will there have the more tolerable damnation, the lesser iniquity he had here." — Behold, here he plainly says that the punishment of little children is the lightest of all other punishments. And if this is so, then they are not bound by the sins of the preceding parents except Adam. For if they were punished eternally for the actual sins of the parents and for their own original sin, they would now be punished not less, but perhaps more than their own parents. Therefore not for the actual sins of the parents, nor even for the actual sins of the first parent, but for *original* sin, which is drawn from the parents, will the little children be damned, destined to feel for it no other punishment of material fire, or of the worm of conscience, except that they will lack the vision of God forever. By one sin, therefore, and not by many, are the little children bound. Whence also those things by which that opinion seems to be supported, namely that Scripture sometimes signifies *sins and iniquities* in little children, using the plural number, Augustine thus determines in the same book[^8]: "Since in Scripture the plural number is often wont to be signified by the singular number, as there: *Pray therefore to God, that He take away from us the serpent* — he does not say: *serpents,* which the people were suffering — and conversely the singular number is signified by the *plural,* as in the Gospel: *They are dead who sought the life of the child* — he does not say: *he is dead,* though he was speaking of Herod — and in Exodus: *They made golden gods,* though they made one calf, of which they said: *These are thy gods, O Israel* ": so too that original sin, being one, is signified by the plural number, when we say that little children are baptized unto the *remission of sins* and conceived in *sins or iniquities.*

#### Chapter III.

#### *Whether the sin of Adam is graver than the rest.*

Here it is usually asked whether the sin of Adam's transgression, from which original sin proceeded, and in which many sins were noted above, was graver than the rest of the sins. — To some it seems to be so, because that sin changed the whole of human nature, as Augustine in the Enchiridion[^9]: "That one sin, committed in a place and state of so great felicity, is so great that in the one man *originally,* and, so to speak, *radically,* the whole human race was damned." The same, in the book On the City of God[^10]: "By so much greater injustice was that commandment violated, by how much more easily it could have been kept by observance." "For not yet did desire resist the will, which followed afterward from the penalty of the transgression." — By these and other *authorities* are those supported who say that that sin was graver than the other sins of other men. This too they labor to show by *reason,* in this way: that sin did more harm than any of the others, because it vitiated the whole human race and subjected it to both deaths, which was done by no other sin; therefore that sin had a greater effect of evil than any other.

To which it can be said that, although that sin changed human nature into the necessity of death and diffused guilt into the whole human race, yet it must not be thought that it was graver than the sin against the Holy Spirit, which, as the Truth says, *is forgiven neither here nor in the future*[^11]. But that it corrupted the whole of human nature is not on that account because it was graver than all the other sins, but because it was committed by man at a time when in *one* man the *whole* of human nature was consisting, and therefore the whole was corrupted in him; and it brought forth a greater effect of evil as regards the *manifold defects* which flowed from it, but not as regards *eternal punishment,* which it did not merit as graver than that which many afterward merited by other sins; rather, we believe that others have merited a graver wrath than Adam merited[^12].

#### Chapter IV.

#### *Whether that sin was forgiven to the first parents.*

But if it is asked whether that sin was forgiven to the first parents; we say that they obtained pardon through penance. Whence Augustine in the book On the Baptism of Little Children[^13] says: "Just as those first parents, by living righteously afterward, are believed to have been freed through the Lord's blood from the extreme punishment, yet did not in that life merit to be recalled to paradise; so too the flesh of sin, even when sins are remitted, if a man lives righteously in it, does not at once merit not to undergo that death which it drew from the propagation of sin."

#### Chapter V.

#### *How the sins of the parents are visited upon the sons, and are not visited.*

And although little children are bound by no sins of the parents except Adam's, yet it must not be denied that the sins of the parents redound upon the sons, as the Lord in Exodus[^14] said to Moses: *I am the strong God, jealous, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the sons unto the third and fourth generation, upon them that hate me.* — By these words it is plainly intimated that God renders the sins of the fathers upon the third and fourth sons. But to this there seems to be opposed what the Lord says in Ezekiel: *What is it, that you turn this parable into a proverb among yourselves, saying: The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the teeth of the sons are set on edge? As I live, says the Lord, this parable shall be no more for you a proverb in Israel. Behold! all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine. And the soul that has sinned, the same shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son. The justice of the just shall be upon him, and the impiety of the impious shall be upon him.* — By these words God seems to correct, through the Prophet, what He had wrongly said in the Law. "For if He renders the sins of the fathers unto the third and fourth generation, it seems to be an injustice of God, that one should sin, and another be punished. For how is it just that one should sin, and another atone for the sins"[^15]? But, as Jerome says[^16], "lest *the Law and the Prophets,* that is, *Exodus and Ezekiel,* nay, God Himself, who spoke both here and there, should seem to disagree in their sentences"; let us attend to the end of that authority of Exodus. For when He has said: *I render the iniquities of the fathers upon the sons,* He adds: *upon them that hate me;* by which He evidently shows that "the sons are not punished because the fathers sinned, but because, like them by a certain hereditary evil, they hate God." That, therefore, which the Lord says in Exodus, as Jerome hands down, does not mean what many suppose, nor is it like this proverb: *The fathers have eaten a sour grape,* etc. For that passage of Exodus, Jerome upon Ezekiel, and Augustine upon that Psalm[^17]: *O God, be not silent in my praise,* judge is to be understood of the sons *imitating* the sins of the fathers; over whom God is said to *render the sins of the fathers,* because He punishes them, in that they imitate the sins of the fathers, not because the fathers sinned. Not therefore does God correct in the Prophet what He had before said in the Law, but He opens up how it is to be understood. Whence also He reproves those who understood it perversely, who were saying: *The fathers have eaten,* etc.

Yet, if it is taken of imitators of evils, why did He commemorate only the *third and fourth generation,* since in every generation those are held guilty who imitate the sins of the fathers? And why did He commemorate the *fathers,* since all those too are evil who imitate the sins of any whomsoever? — But for this reason He named the *fathers* specially, because sons are most wont to imitate fathers, whom they especially love. And He commemorated the *third and fourth generation* for this reason, because parents are sometimes wont to live so long that they have third and fourth sons, who, seeing the iniquities of the fathers, become the heirs of their impiety through imitation. According to this mode, what is said in Exodus is rightly understood literally.

That it is also to be understood mystically is shown from the fact that it is called a *parable.* "For if it is a parable, as Jerome says[^18], it sounds one thing in words, and contains another in sense. Whence some thus expound it: *the father* in us they say to be the light prick of the senses," namely the first motion of *suggestion,* or of thought; "*the son,* if thought has conceived sin," in which is noted the consent and delight of the *woman;* "*the grandson,* if what you have thought and conceived you have completed by deed," or have resolved to complete, in which is noted the consent of the man, or the perpetration of the sin; "*the great-grandson,* however, if you have not only done it, but glory in it, and this is the fourth generation"; not because three preceded, but it is called the fourth, because it is enumerated in the fourth place from the first motion, which is as it were the father. God therefore "will not eternally punish the first and second stirrings of thought, which the Greeks call *propathias,* without which no one of men can be; but if anyone has resolved to do the things he thought, and has been unwilling to correct what he did," these are mortal sins and the third and fourth generation.

"But to prove, as Jerome says[^19], that the first impulse of thought is not eternally punished by God, that passage from Genesis is to be brought forward: *Cham sinned,* mocking the nakedness of his father, *and the sentence* not he himself, but his son Chanaan received: *Cursed be Chanaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.* For what justice is it, that the father should sin, and the son be punished"? But this was said in a mystery.

---

la: Cap. 47. n. 13. Locus Exodi est 20, 5, nonnullis omissis. — Quae praecedunt sumta sunt ex Hugone, I. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 38. — Paulo superius pro *transeunt* Vat. *transeant,* refragantibus codd. et edd. 2, 3, 5, 7.

en: Chapter 47, n. 13. The passage of Exodus is 20, 5, with some words omitted. — What precedes is taken from Hugh, On the Sacraments I, p. VII, c. 38. — A little above, for *transeunt* the Vatican edition reads *transeant,* against the codices and editions 2, 3, 5, 7.

la: Psalm. 50, 7. — Quae praecedunt quoad sensum sunt in August., loc. cit. c. 44. 46. n. 13. — Paulo superius post *singularem* codd. ABCE repetunt *numerum.*

en: Psalm 50, 7 (Vulgate). — What precedes is, as to the sense, in Augustine, in the place cited, c. 44, 46, n. 13. — A little above, after *singularem,* codices ABCE repeat *numerum.*

la: Cap. 45. n. 13; in quo textu pro *serpentina suasione* solummodo edd. 1, 8 *serpentina persuasione;* in fine pro *uno peccato* originale habet *uno admisso,* ed. 1 solummodo *uno.* — Seq. locus est ibid. c. 46. n. 13.

en: Chapter 45, n. 13; in which text, for *serpentina suasione,* only editions 1, 8 read *serpentina persuasione;* at the end, for *uno peccato,* the original has *uno admisso,* edition 1 only *uno.* — The following passage is in the same place, c. 46, n. 13.

la: Deut. 5, 9. Vulgata: *Reddens iniquitatem patrum super filios in tertiam et quartam generationem.*

en: Deuteronomy 5, 9. The Vulgate: *Rendering the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons unto the third and fourth generation.*

la: Originale Augustini prosequitur: *et converteretur in necessitatem mortis.* Vat. et edd. 6, 8 tantum addunt *in necessitatem mortis.*

en: The original of Augustine continues: *and were turned into the necessity of death.* The Vatican edition and editions 6, 8 add only *in necessitatem mortis.*

la: In originali legitur *progeneratoribus.* Etiam hic locus est Augustini, ibid. c. 47. n. 13.

en: In the original it reads *progeneratoribus.* This passage too is Augustine's, in the same place, c. 47, n. 13.

la: Ceterae edd. praeter Vat. *ostenderetur.* — Seq. locus ibid. c. 93. n. 23, in quo editio originalis cum ed. 1 habet *originale traxerunt* pro *originale contraxerunt.*

en: The other editions, besides the Vatican, read *ostenderetur.* — The following passage is in the same place, c. 93, n. 23, in which the original edition with edition 1 has *originale traxerunt* for *originale contraxerunt.*

la: Cap. 44. n. 13, sed multis a Magistro omissis. Scripturae locus primus est Num. 21, 7, ubi Vulgata: *Ora, ut tollat a nobis serpentes.* Seq. locus est Matth. 2, 20: tertius Exod. 32, 4.

en: Chapter 44, n. 13, but with many things omitted by the Master. The first Scriptural passage is Numbers 21, 7, where the Vulgate has: *Pray that He take away from us the serpents.* The following passage is Matthew 2, 20; the third, Exodus 32, 4.

la: Cap. 48. n. 14. — De hoc et seq. capitulo cfr. Hugo, Sum. sent. tr. 3. c. 10.

en: Chapter 48, n. 14. — On this and the following chapter, cf. Hugh, Sentences, tr. 3, c. 10.

la: Libr. XIV. c. 12, et seq. locus ibid. immediate praecedit. — Inferius pro *nituntur auctoritatibus* Vat. *utuntur auctoritatibus,* refragantibus codd. A B D E cum ed. 1. — Denique pro *morti utrique* Vat. *morti utique* contra codd. et edd. 1, 6, 8.

en: Book XIV, c. 12, and the following passage immediately precedes it in the same place. — Below, for *nituntur auctoritatibus,* the Vatican edition reads *utuntur auctoritatibus,* against codices A B D E with edition 1. — Finally, for *morti utrique,* the Vatican edition reads *morti utique,* against the codices and editions 1, 6, 8.

en: Matthew 12, 32.

la: De hac quaestione vide sententiam S. Bonaventurae supra d. 21. a. 3. q. 3.

en: On this question, see the opinion of St. Bonaventure above, Distinction 21, a. 3, q. 3.

la: Libr. II. de Peccatorum meritis et remiss. etc. c. 34. n. 55; cfr. Epist. 164. (ad Evodium) c. 3. n. 6; Anselm., II. Cur Deus homo, c. 16. — In fine pro *de propagine,* quod habent originale et plurimae edd., codd. et edd. 1, 8 *a propagine.*

en: Book II, On the Merits and Remission of Sins etc., c. 34, n. 55; cf. Letter 164 (to Evodius), c. 3, n. 6; Anselm, Why God Became Man II, c. 16. — At the end, for *de propagine,* which the original and most editions have, the codices and editions 1, 8 read *a propagine.*

la: Cap. 20, 5. (ut supra), et deinde Ezech. 18, 2. seq. et a verbis: *Filius non portabit* v. 20. In principio huius loci post *proverbium istud* Vulgata addit *in terra Israel,* et post *mea* est omittit *Et.* — Multa in hoc cap. sumta sunt ex Hugone, Sum. sent. tr. 3. c. 13.

en: Chapter 20, 5 (as above), and then Ezekiel 18, 2 and following, and from the words *The son shall not bear,* v. 20. At the beginning of this passage, after *proverbium istud* the Vulgate adds *in terra Israel,* and after *mea est* omits *Et.* — Much in this chapter is taken from Hugh, Sentences, tr. 3, c. 13.

la: Codd. ABCE et edd. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 *lugere.* — Verba sunt S. Hieronymi, loco mox citato.

en: Codices ABCE and editions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 read *lugere.* — The words are St. Jerome's, in the place cited just below.

la: Super Ezech. 18, 2. (cfr. Ier. 31, 29.), et deinde v. 3.

en: Upon Ezekiel 18, 2 (cf. Jeremiah 31, 29), and then v. 3.

en: Enarration on Psalm 108, 14, n. 13.

la: Loc. cit. vers. 1. et 2, cum verbis a Magistro interpositis. Pro *levem punctum* ed. 8 *levem puncturam.*

en: In the place cited, verses 1 and 2, with words interposed by the Master. For *levem punctum,* edition 8 reads *levem puncturam.*

en: In the place cited, a little below. The Scriptural passage is Genesis 9, 25. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (printed pp. 778–781 = PDF 800–803, offset `pdf = printed + 22`) authoritative wherever the two-column IA djvu OCR (raw 54235–54444) was cascade-fragmented, reflowed Left-column-then-Right per the Vol II two-column discipline. This is Lombard's *Littera Magistri* for Distinctio XXXIII (*An peccata omnium praecedentium patrum parvuli originaliter trahant* — whether little children draw the sins of all their preceding fathers; the multiplicity of sins in Adam's one sin; whether Adam's sin is graver than others; whether it was forgiven the first parents; and how the sins of the parents are and are not visited upon the sons), Cap. I–V. The littera opens at the bottom band of the p.778 L-column (DISTINCTIO XXXIII header + Cap. I opener "Praedictis adiiciendum videtur…") and closes at the top of the p.781 R-column with "…Sed in mysterio illud dictum est.", immediately before `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIII.` (raw 54448), which is the `d33-divisio` chunk.

**Capitula (5), order verified at 450 dpi.** Cap. I *An peccata omnium praecedentium patrum parvuli originaliter trahant, ut peccatum Adae*; Cap. II *Quomodo in illo uno peccato primo plura reperiuntur*; Cap. III *An peccatum Adae sit gravius ceteris*; Cap. IV *An illud peccatum sit primis parentibus dimissum*; Cap. V *Quomodo peccata parentum visitentur in filios, et non visitentur*. All five present and in printed reading order (L-column-then-R-column per page). The IA djvu OCR interleaves the two columns, so raw line order is unreliable for chapter sequence — confirmed against the PDF that Cap. III opens on p.779 R-col, Cap. IV/V on p.780 L-col.

**Page-split map.** Reading order is Left column top→bottom, then Right column top→bottom, per printed page. **p.778:** the L-col and R-col TOP bands hold the tail of the d.32 *Resp. physici* / dona naturalia material (with its own footnotes 1–2: Vers. 10 / de Partib. animal.) — these belong to the already-complete `d32-divisio` chunk, NOT this littera. The littera begins at the **bottom** of the p.778 L-col (DISTINCTIO XXXIII header + Cap. I "Praedictis adiiciendum videtur…De hoc Augustinus in Enchiridio ambigue disserit") and continues in the R-col ("Et quod non illud solum…parvulis imputari"), then Cap. II opener + the start of the Enchiridion quote ("…si in sua quasi membra dividatur."). **p.779:** L-col = Cap. II continued (the seven "members" of the sin + the Reddam peccata / Mitissima poena quotes); R-col = Cap. II tail (Quod si est…peccatis vel iniquitatibus concipi) + the whole of Cap. III ("An peccatum Adae sit gravius ceteris…quam aliquod aliud."). **p.780:** L-col = Cap. III response opener ("Ad quod dici potest…Adam meruerit") + Cap. IV + Cap. V opener through the Ezekiel quote; R-col = Cap. V continued (Quomodo enim iustum est…parabola/propathias). **p.781:** L-col TOP band = Cap. V tail (propathias quote "…non puniet aeternaliter…tertia et quarta generatio. « Ad probandum vero, ut ait Hieronymus, quod primus pulsus cogitationis non puniatur aeternaliter a"); R-col TOP band = littera conclusion ("Deo, illud de Genesi afferendum est: Cham enim peccavit…Sed in mysterio illud dictum est."). Everything below the littera on p.781 (COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIII. / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM) is `d33-divisio`. Body seams across page/column breaks all grammatically continuous (450 dpi verified): 778 L(littera)→R ("…quod est per moderationem divinae miserationis. ‖ Et quod non illud solum primi hominis delictum"); 778 R→779 L ("…si in sua quasi membra dividatur. ‖ Nam et superbia est illic"); 779 L→R ("…parvulorum poenam omnium aliarum poenarum ‖ esse levissimam"); 779 R→780 L (Cap. III "…maiorem ergo effectum mali habuit illud peccatum quam aliquod aliud." closes the R-col; 780 L opens "Ad quod dici potest"); 780 L→R (Cap. V "…et alium peccata luere »" — the Ezekiel objection's tail "…in tertiam et quar‖tam generationem, iniustitia videtur esse Dei"); 780 R→781 L ("…quos Graeci propathias vocant, sine qui‖bus nullus hominum esse potest"); 781 L→R ("…non puniatur aeternaliter a ‖ Deo, illud de Genesi afferendum est").

**Apparatus split map (19 entries, body-anchor order; footer numbering restarts per printed page).** **p.778:** the littera's footers are the separate `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` block (NOTAE footers 1–3; the L-col's other numbered footers 1–2 above it — Vers. 10 / de Partib. animal. — belong to the d.32 material in `d32-divisio`). [^1] = NOTAE f1 (Cap. 47 n. 13; Exod. 20, 5; ex Hugone) at Cap. I *in Enchiridio*; [^2] = NOTAE f2 (Psalm. 50, 7) at *Et David*; [^3] = NOTAE f3 (Cap. 45 n. 13; serpentina suasione variants) at Cap. II *Augustinus in Enchiridio*. **p.779:** L-col footers 1–4 → [^4]–[^7]: [^4]=f1 (Deut. 5, 9) at *divina sententia: Reddam peccata*; [^5]=f2 (et converteretur in necessitatem mortis) at *ut eo mutaretur*; [^6]=f3 (progeneratoribus; ibid. c. 47 n. 13) at *pro generationibus*; [^7]=f4 (ostenderetur; ibid. c. 93 n. 23) at *contradicere videretur*. R-col footers 5–7 → [^8]–[^10]: [^8]=f5 (Cap. 44 n. 13; Num. 21, 7; Matth. 2, 20; Exod. 32, 4) at *in eodem libro*; [^9]=f6 (Cap. 48 n. 14; Hugo) at Cap. III *Augustinus in Enchiridio*; [^10]=f7 (Libr. XIV c. 12; nituntur/utuntur auctoritatibus; morti utrique/utique) at *de Civitate Dei*. **p.780:** L-col footers 1–4 → [^11]–[^14]: [^11]=f1 (Matth. 12, 32) at *neque hic neque in futuro…dimittitur*; [^12]=f2 (vide S. Bonav. supra d. 21 a. 3 q. 3) at *Adam meruerit*; [^13]=f3 (Libr. II de Peccatorum meritis c. 34 n. 55; de propagine/a propagine) at *de Baptismo parvulorum*; [^14]=f4 (Cap. 20, 5; Ezech. 18, 2 seq.; in terra Israel; ex Hugone — this footer's tail runs over into the R-col footer band) at *in Exodo ad Moysen*. R-col footers 5–8 → [^15]–[^18]: [^15]=f5 (Codd. ABCE…lugere; Verba sunt S. Hieronymi) at *et alium peccata luere*; [^16]=f6 (Super Ezech. 18, 2; cfr. Ier. 31, 29) at *ut ait Hieronymus* (first); [^17]=f7 (Enarrat. in Ps. 108, 14, n. 13) at *Augustinus super illud Psalmi*; [^18]=f8 (Loc. cit. vers. 1 et 2; levem punctum/puncturam) at *ut ait Hieronymus* (parabola). **p.781:** L-col footer = the single littera footnote → [^19]=f1 (Loc. cit. parum inferius; Gen. 9, 25) at the closing *ut ait Hieronymus*. Below it on the same band the page's footers switch to the `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.` block (Vat. *contrarietatem* …), which belongs to `d33-divisio`. Total = 3 (p.778) + 7 (p.779) + 8 (p.780) + 1 (p.781) = 19.

**Hand-offs.** RECEIVED: nothing — DISTINCTIO XXXIII opens fresh; `d32-dubia`/`d32-divisio` forwarded nothing (the d.32 tail material at the top of p.778 L/R, with its footers 1–2, belongs to `d32-divisio`, NOT this littera). FORWARDED to `d33-divisio`: the p.781 footers below the littera's single `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` note (`Loc. cit. parum inferius. Locus Scripturae est Gen. 9, 25.` = [^19]) — i.e. the entire `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.` block beginning `¹ Vat. contrarietatem, cui lectioni favet textus determina…` and the COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS (raw 54456) / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (raw 54485) body all belong to `d33-divisio`. The littera owns ONLY the `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` footer ([^19]) on p.781; the `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` footer numbering restarts at its own 1 for the divisio.

**[?] flags.** None. OCR garbles silently corrected against the 450 dpi PDF (e.g. adiieieiidiun→adiiciendum, painiin→patrum, Encbiridio→Enchiridio, disscril→disserit, niinia→nimia, danmabunliir→damnabuntur, levissimam retained, propathias retained, edissernnt→edisserunt, nepotem/pronepotem retained, afferendum→afferendum, Maledictus retained, Chanaan retained). The OCR running-head digits 779/780/781 are confirmed against running-head text (`DISTINCTIO XXXIII.`, `SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.`, `DIST. XXXIII. DIVISIO TEXTUS.`) and the +22 PDF offset.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 33, Divisio Textus

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 781 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIII.

### *Utrum originale peccatum per peccata proximorum parentum multiplicetur et intendatur.*

*Praedictis adiiciendum videtur* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra ostendit Magister, qualiter peccatum originale per baptismum deleatur. In hac parte intendit inquirere, utrum originale peccatum per peccata proximorum parentum multiplicetur et intendatur. — Dividitur autem pars ista in partes tres. In quarum prima Magister movet quaestionem et determinat secundum aliorum opinionem. In secunda determinat secundum veritatem, ibi: *Alioquin sibi ipsi contradicere ostenderetur*; vel parum ante: *Ecce perspicuum fit lectori.* In tertia vero parte dissolvit quandam apparentem Scripturae auctoritatem[^1], ibi: *Et licet peccatis parentum* etc.

Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima Magister movet quaestionem. In secunda determinat secundum aliorum opinionem, ibi: *De hoc Augustinus in Enchiridio ambigue disserit* etc. In tertia vero, quia illa opinio videbatur super verba Augustini esse fundata, subiungit modum, per quem Augustinus illam quaestionem dissolvit, ibi: *Quod vero in actuali peccato Adae plura* etc., ubi apparet, quod Augustinus illam quaestionem pertractat ambigue et quasi insolutam illam dimittit.

Similiter secunda pars principalis habet tres partes. In prima ostendit Magister, quod peccatum originale nec multiplicatur nec intenditur propter peccata proximorum parentum, et hoc ratione sumta ex parte poenae. Secundo vero, quia originale peccatum ortum habet a peccato primi parentis, determinat de gravitate peccati[^2] Adae, ibi: *Hic quaeri solet, utrum peccatum Adae* etc. In tertia autem determinat de illius peccati remissione, ibi: *Si vero quaeritur, an illud peccatum* etc.

Similiter tertia pars principalis habet tres partes. In prima parte Magister movet dubitationem, quae consurgit ex apparenti contrarietate. In secunda parte determinat illam apparentem contrarietatem, exponendo auctoritates quantum ad intellectum litteralem, ibi: *Sed, ut ait Hieronymus, ne Lex et Prophetae* etc. In tertia vero explanando quantum ad intellectum mysticum sive moralem, ibi: *Quod etiam mystice intelligendum esse ostenditur.* — Et sic tria praecipue Magister determinat in littera, videlicet qualiter peccata parentum habeant imputari posteris; et iterum, cuius quantitatis et intensionis sit culpa originalis; et postremo simul cum hoc determinat, qualiter habeat puniri.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam igitur huius partis circa tria incidit hic quaestio.

Et primo quaeritur de originali quantum ad causam praecedentem.

Secundo quantum ad quantitatem concomitantem.

Tertio vero quantum ad poenam consequentem.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum parentes proximi possint transmittere ad prolem peccata sua actualia, an a solo primo parente transfundatur originalis culpa.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum primus parens potuerit in prolem transmittere satisfactionis iustitiam, sicut transmisit praevaricationis culpam.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXIII.

### *Whether original sin is multiplied and intensified through the sins of the nearer parents.*

*To the foregoing it seems that there must be added* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master showed how original sin is deleted through baptism. In this part he intends to inquire whether original sin is multiplied and intensified through the sins of the nearer parents. — Now this part is divided into three parts. In the first of these the Master raises the question and determines it according to the opinion of others. In the second he determines it according to the truth, there: *Otherwise he would be shown to contradict himself*; or a little before: *Behold, it becomes clear to the reader.* In the third part he dissolves a certain apparent authority of Scripture[^1], there: *And although for the sins of the parents* etc.

The first part has three parts. In the first the Master raises the question. In the second he determines it according to the opinion of others, there: *Concerning this Augustine in the Enchiridion discourses ambiguously* etc. In the third, since that opinion seemed to be founded upon the words of Augustine, he adds the manner in which Augustine dissolves that question, there: *But as to the fact that in the actual sin of Adam several things* etc., where it appears that Augustine treats that question ambiguously and leaves it, as it were, unresolved.

Likewise the second principal part has three parts. In the first the Master shows that original sin is neither multiplied nor intensified on account of the sins of the nearer parents, and this by a reason taken on the part of the penalty. But secondly, since original sin takes its origin from the sin of the first parent, he determines concerning the gravity of Adam's sin[^2], there: *Here it is wont to be asked, whether the sin of Adam* etc. But in the third he determines concerning the remission of that sin, there: *But if it is asked, whether that sin* etc.

Likewise the third principal part has three parts. In the first part the Master raises a doubt which arises from an apparent contrariety. In the second part he determines that apparent contrariety, expounding the authorities as to the literal sense, there: *But, as Jerome says, lest the Law and the Prophets* etc. But in the third, by explaining as to the mystical or moral sense, there: *That it must also be understood mystically is shown.* — And thus the Master determines chiefly three things in the text, namely how the sins of the parents are to be imputed to their descendants; and again, of what quantity and intensity original guilt is; and lastly, together with this, he determines how it is to be punished.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, then, there here arises a question concerning three things.

And first it is asked concerning original sin as to its preceding cause.

Secondly as to its concomitant quantity.

Thirdly as to its consequent penalty.

Concerning the first, two things are asked.

First it is asked whether the nearer parents can transmit to their offspring their own actual sins, or whether it is from the first parent alone that original guilt is poured down.

Secondly it is asked whether the first parent could have transmitted to his offspring the justice of satisfaction, just as he transmitted the guilt of transgression.

---

la: Vat. *contrarietatem*, cui lectioni favet textus determinationis huius partis, quae paulo inferius habetur. Paulo superius pro *cet parum ante* Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 4 *et parum ante*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *contrarietatem* ("contrariety"), which reading is favored by the text of the determination of this part, which is had a little further below. A little above, in place of *cet parum ante* the Vatican edition, with editions 2, 3, and 4, reads *et parum ante* ("and a little before").

la: Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 *actualis peccati*.

en: The Vatican edition, with editions 3 and 4, reads *actualis peccati* ("of actual sin"). ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed p.781 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p781-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative for the two-column reflow, cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 54448–54508). Single printed page (781 = pdf 803, offset `pdf = printed + 22`). Running head confirmed as `DIST. XXXIII. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 781`.
- **Content captured:** COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXIII opener + title (*Utrum originale peccatum per peccata proximorum parentum multiplicetur et intendatur*) + lemma (*Praedictis adiiciendum videtur* etc.); full DIVISIO TEXTUS (both columns reflowed L→R — the three-part division of the part, with the first and second principal parts each subdivided into three, and the third part's literal/mystical exposition); full TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (the "circa tria" three-fold listing — preceding cause, concomitant quantity, consequent penalty — plus art. I's "circa primum quaeruntur duo" two-question sub-listing).
- **Page-split / boundary:** Reading order Left column top→bottom, then Right. The littera (`d33-littera`) closes at the TOP of the p.781 R-col with "…Sed in mysterio illud dictum est."; the COMMENTARIUS opens fresh below the littera on the same page (spanning both columns). Chunk ends immediately before `ARTICULUS I.` / `QUAESTIO I.` (raw 54508+; printed p.782); those headers + the art. I "De originali quoad causam praecedentem" opener belong to `d33-a1-q1`.
- **Apparatus page-split map (p.781 footers):** the p.781 footer band holds, in printed order: (1) the littera's single `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` footer (`Loc. cit. parum inferius. Locus Scripturae est Gen. 9, 25.` = littera [^19]) — RECEIVED in the hand-off and confirmed as already owned/retired by `d33-littera`, NOT re-rendered here; (2) the `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.` header, under which footnote numbering restarts at 1. The COMMENTARIUM block has exactly **2** notes, both anchored in THIS divisio body: footer 1 → [^1] at *Scripturae auctoritatem* (the Vat. *contrarietatem* variant + *cet parum ante* / *et parum ante* variant); footer 2 → [^2] at *gravitate peccati* (the *actualis peccati* variant).
- **Hand-offs.** RECEIVED from `d33-littera`: the p.781 `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.` footer block (its numbering restarts at 1) + the COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM body — all captured here. The littera kept ONLY its own `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` note ([^19]); that note is retired and not duplicated here. FORWARDED to `d33-a1-q1`: nothing from the footer band — both p.781 NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM footers anchor in this divisio. The `ARTICULUS I.` header + body begin on p.782 with their own footer sequence.
- **OCR corrections:** silently corrected against the 450 dpi PDF — `Magisler`→Magister, `baplismiim`→baptismum, `miiltiplicetur`→multiplicetur, `p:irtes`/`isla`→partes/ista, `mnvet`→movet, `oslenderelur`→ostenderetur, `paruin`→parum, `pe?-spicuum fi.t`→perspicuum fit, `auctoritatem '`→auctoritatem (footnote 1 marker), `priiua`→prima, `ilii`→ibi, `opmio`→opinio, `il-lara`→illam, `plwra`→plura, `diraittit`→dimittit, `orlnra`→ortum, `gravilate peccati ^`→gravitate peccati (footnote 2 marker), `reraissione`→remissione, `Sivero`→Si vero, `principahs`→principalis, `secnnda`→secunda, `niysticuni sive raoralem`→mysticum sive moralem, `intelligentiara`→intelligentiam, `qnaeritur`→quaeritur, `concoinitantera`→concomitantem, `consequentera`→consequentem, `Priino quaeritnr utriiin`→Primo quaeritur utrum, `proxiini`→proximi, `transfundalur`→transfundatur, `Secimdo`→Secundo, `transraittere`/`transraisit`→transmittere/transmisit, `culpain`→culpam. Footnote marker positions taken from the PDF superscripts (`¹` after *auctoritatem*, `²` after *gravitate peccati*), not OCR `^`/`'` glyphs.
- No scholion (divisio chunk). No `[?]` flags.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 33, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 782 -->

### ARTICULUS I.
### *De originali quoad causam praecedentem.*

### QUAESTIO I.
### *Utrum peccata proximorum parentum filiis imputentur vel ad eos transmittantur.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum peccata parentum proximorum filiis imputentur vel ad eos transmittantur. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Primo *auctoritate*, Exodi vigesimo[^1]: *Ego sum Deus zelotes, vindicans peccata patrum in filios* etc.: si ergo Deus non vindicat nisi pro culpa, et vindicta Dei transit a patre in filium, pari ratione videtur, quod culpa.

2. Item, hoc videtur *exemplo*, tertii Regum decimo quarto[^2]: *Ego inducam malum super Ieroboam et super universam domum eius*; et ibi habetur, quomodo tota posteritas propter peccatum patris fuit consumta: ergo videtur, quod peccata proximorum parentum filiis imputentur.

3. Item, hoc videtur *ratione*. « In habentibus symbolum facilior est transitus[^3] »; sed maius est symbolum et convenientia parentis proximi ad prolem quam parentis remoti: si igitur parens remotus potuit culpam transmittere in posteros, multo fortius videtur de parentibus propinquis.

4. Item, parens proximus transmittit peccatum in filium, quod *aliunde* suscepit; sed magis unusquisque potest communicare quod *habet a se*, quam quod *habet ab alio*: ergo videtur, quod multo fortius ad prolem possit transmittere peccatum, quod *commisit*, si transmittere potest peccatum, quod *aliunde contraxit*.

5. Item, ideo peccatum Adae transit ad posteros, quia in Adam fuimus, cum ipse peccavit[^4]: ergo pari ratione, si parens proximus peccavit, quando proles eius erat in lumbis eius; videtur similiter, quod peccatum parentis proximi in prolem transfundatur.

6. Item, ratio, quare peccatum originale transfunditur, est, quia est infectio virtutis generativae circa actum generandi[^5]: ergo si aliquod peccatum consistit circa actum generationis, videtur, quod tale debeat in prolem transfundi. Sed tale est peccatum adulterii: ergo videtur, quod saltem illud peccati genus debeat in posterum redundare, ac per hoc peccatum originale intendere et multiplicare.

**Sed contra:**

*Ad oppositum.*

1. Ezechielis decimo octavo[^6]: *Filius non portabit iniquitatem patris*: ergo si hoc non est verum de parente remoto, ut de Adam, saltem veritatem habet circa propinquos.

2. Item, ad Galatas sexto[^7]: *Unusquisque onus suum portabit*; sed si peccata parentum redundarent in prolem, non portaret unusquisque onus suum, immo etiam onus alterius: ergo etc. Et iterum alibi: *Unusquisque pro se rationem reddet Deo.*

3. Item, Anselmus de Conceptu virginali, capitulo vigesimo quarto: « Parentum proximorum peccata ad originale peccatum non aestimo pertinere »; sed si transfunderentur a parente in prolem, pertinerent ad originale peccatum: ergo etc.

4. Item, non est maior ratio, quare transfundit iniustitiam quam iustitiam; sed pater sanctus non generat filium sanctum, et baptizatus non generat baptizatum, sicut ostensum fuit supra[^8]: ergo pari ratione parens proximus peccatum suum non transmittit ad prolem.

5. Item, nullum peccatum transmittitur a parente in prolem, nisi mediante carne[^9]; sed peccata actualia, quae committuntur, carnem non immutant nec nova infectione inficiunt: ergo videtur, quod ad prolem transmitti non possint.

6. Item, si peccata actualia transmitterentur a parente in prolem: ergo filius semper esset peior patre et dignus maiori punitione. Si ergo est magnae crudelitatis et impietatis dicere, quod parvulus natus peior sit iniquo parente; patet etc.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Peccata actualia proximorum parentum ad originale non pertinent nec cum originali transfunduntur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod peccatum parentum transire ad prolem potest intelligi tripliciter: aut punitione, aut imitatione, aut transfusione. — Si punitione, ut proles puniatur pro peccato paren-

<!-- page 783 -->

tis, sic attendendum est, quod duplex est punitio: una *aeterna* et alia *temporalis*. Quantum ad punitionem *aeternam* nullo modo transit, videlicet quod aliquis damnetur pro solo peccato parentis. Unde Anselmus de Conceptu virginali[^10] dicit, quod parvuli non damnantur pro culpa Adae tantum, sed pro culpa propria, quam habent, licet non habeant eam agendo, sed contrahendo. Si autem loquamur de *temporali* punitione, sic, quia pater punitur in filio, sicut ad litteram videmus, et Scriptura[^11] ostendit, bene transit peccatum parentis in prolem, sive prole volente sive nolente, et hoc est de severitate divinae iustitiae. — Alio modo dicitur peccatum transire a parente in prolem per *imitationem*. Et sic peccatum diaboli quodam modo transivit in genus humanum, et peccatum Adae in posteros, et peccata proximorum parentum in filios frequenter pertranseunt, iuxta illud Sapientiae secundo[^12]: *Invidia diaboli mors introivit* etc.; non tamen transit in omnes, sed in eos qui imitari volunt. — Tertio modo dicitur peccatum transire a parente in prolem, et hoc *transfusione*, sicut infectio nova[^13] causari habet ab alia infectione; et hoc modo peccatum transfundi habet in prolem a solo primo parente.

Ratio autem huius est, quia duo sunt in peccato, videlicet *privatio debiti* et *conversio indebita*; et secundum hoc duo ponuntur in peccato: *deformitas* et *macula*. *Macula* namque ponitur ex conversione, sed *deformitas* ex debiti privatione, manente obligatione. Ad hoc igitur, quod aliquis possit peccatum ex patre contrahere, necesse est, quod in illo possit ad aliquid *obligari*, et possit eo bono, ad quod obligatur, in ipso *privari*, et quod possit etiam *maculari*; hoc autem solum fuit in primo parente. Ad aliquid enim tota humana natura, et omnes eius posteri in illo *obligati* fuerunt, videlicet ad habendam rectitudinem iustitiae sive non concupiscendum; et in illo per eius aversionem illa rectitudine *privati* sumus. Et quia illa obligatio[^14] carnem suam infecit infectione foeditatis et passione mortalitatis; et caro nostra habet propagari ex illa: hinc est, quod in illo habemus *infici*, et ab ipso traducimus singulariter peccatum secundum plenam rationem. In nullo autem posterorum nova obligatione *obligantur* filii in parente, nec etiam caro transfundenda inficitur nova infectione ex alicuius culpae actualis perpetratione. Et hinc est, quod nullus parens proximus potest in prolem suam culpam actualem transfundere.

Et hoc est quod dicit Anselmus in libro de Conceptu virginali, capitulo vigesimo quarto. « Parentum proximorum peccata ad originale peccatum non aestimo pertinere. Quippe si Adam nequisset ad eos quos generaturus erat, iustitiam suam traducere[^15], nequaquam posset iniustitiam suam eis transmittere ». — Hoc autem intelligit, quantum est de transfusione culpae, ad quam consequitur aeterna damnatio; sed de transitu quantum ad punitionem temporalis poenae subiungit in fine capituli: « Non nego, propter merita bona parentum filiis multa et magna beneficia corporis et animae impendi, et propter peccata parentum filios et nepotes usque in tertiam et quartam generationem, et forsitan ultra, diversis in hac vita tribulationibus flagellari et ea perdere bona in corpore et in anima[^16], quae forsitan consequerentur, si iusti fuissent; quorum exemplum longum est hic inserere ».

Ex his igitur patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam. Concedendum est enim, quod peccata actualia proximorum parentum ad originale non pertinent nec cum originali transfunduntur, sicut rationes ad secundam partem inductae ostendunt.

1. 2. Nihilominus tamen aliquo modo transeunt quantum ad vindictam et punitionem temporalem, sicut primo probatur auctoritate Exodi et deinde exemplo.

3. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur per rationem, quod facilior est transitus in habentibus symbolum: dicendum, quod illud verum est, quando utrobique aequaliter salvatur ratio *principii agentis*. Peccans autem actualiter non habet potestatem vitiandi prolem, nisi ille solus, in quo habuimus *obligari*, et in quo tota massa generis humani potuit *vitiari*, sicut ostensum est; et ideo illud non cogit.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur[^17]: transmittit quod aliunde suscepit; dicendum, quod ex hoc non sequitur, quod transmittat illud quod est *a se*. Peccatum enim, quod aliunde suscepit, est peccatum naturale; sed peccatum, quod ipse facit, est peccatum personale; communicatio autem alicuius proprietatis per

<!-- page 784 -->

viam generationis plus respicit virtutem *naturae*[^18] quam actum *personae*, sicut supra ostensum est.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ideo peccavimus in Adam, quia fuimus in ipso, dum peccavit; dicendum, quod ista non est *tota causa*, sed simul cum hoc exigitur, quod in primo parente omnes posteri possent *obligari*, et caro omnium posterorum posset *infici* et *foedari*; hoc autem in alio quam in Adam non habet reperiri: ideo patet etc.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod peccatum adulterii attenditur circa actum generativae; dicendum, quod etsi circa actum generativae attendatur, non tamen dicit corruptionem, quae sit in ipsa *virtute generativa* secundum se, sed quae consistit circa voluntatem rationalem, et ita circa personam; et propter hoc culpa adulterii, secundum quod culpa[^19], in prolem transfundi non habet. Nihilominus tamen, quia circa actum generativae consistit, plus imputatur proli quam alia peccata parentum; unde vilis et abiectus reputatur ille qui natus est de adulterio, et etiam secundum leges humanas hereditate paterna reputatur indignus. Unde illud peccatum plus redundat in prolem quam alia actualia, non tamen sic redundat, ut primi parentis culpa, quae posteritatem suam non tantum obligavit ad ignorantiam et poenam, sed etiam foedavit peccati originalis macula, ob quam quilibet, cum nascitur, dignus est ira et indignus visione Dei.

english:
### ARTICLE I.
### *On the original [sin] as to its preceding cause.*

### QUESTION I.
### *Whether the sins of proximate parents are imputed to children or transmitted to them.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and it is asked, whether the sins of proximate parents are imputed to children or transmitted to them. And that they are, it seems:

1. First, *by authority*, Exodus, twentieth [chapter][^1]: *I am a jealous God, avenging the sins of the fathers upon the sons* etc.: if therefore God does not avenge except for guilt, and God's vengeance passes from the father into the son, by parity of reasoning it seems that the guilt [does so too].

2. Likewise, this seems [to follow] *by example*, third [book] of Kings, fourteenth [chapter][^2]: *I will bring evil upon Jeroboam and upon his whole house*; and there it is recorded how the whole posterity was consumed on account of the father's sin: therefore it seems that the sins of proximate parents are imputed to children.

3. Likewise, this seems [to follow] *by reason*. « Among things having a common bond the passing-over is easier[^3] »; but greater is the common bond and the affinity of the proximate parent to the offspring than of the remote parent: if therefore the remote parent was able to transmit guilt into his descendants, much more strongly does it seem [so] concerning near parents.

4. Likewise, the proximate parent transmits into the son a sin which he received *from elsewhere*; but each one can the more communicate what *he has of himself* than what *he has from another*: therefore it seems that much more strongly can he transmit to the offspring the sin which *he committed*, if he can transmit the sin which *he contracted from elsewhere*.

5. Likewise, the sin of Adam passes to his descendants for the reason that we were in Adam when he sinned[^4]: therefore by parity of reasoning, if the proximate parent sinned when his offspring was in his loins; it seems likewise that the sin of the proximate parent is transfused into the offspring.

6. Likewise, the reason why original sin is transfused is that it is an infection of the generative power as regards the act of generating[^5]: therefore if any sin consists as regards the act of generation, it seems that such a sin ought to be transfused into the offspring. But such is the sin of adultery: therefore it seems that at least that kind of sin ought to redound into the descendant, and thereby intensify and multiply original sin.

**On the contrary:**

*To the opposite.*

1. Ezekiel, eighteenth [chapter][^6]: *The son will not bear the iniquity of the father*: therefore if this is not true of the remote parent, as of Adam, at least it holds true concerning near parents.

2. Likewise, to the Galatians, sixth [chapter][^7]: *Each one will bear his own burden*; but if the sins of parents redounded into the offspring, each one would not bear his own burden, but rather even the burden of another: therefore etc. And again elsewhere: *Each one will render an account for himself to God.*

3. Likewise, Anselm, *On the Virginal Conception*, chapter twenty-fourth: « The sins of proximate parents I do not judge to pertain to original sin »; but if they were transfused from the parent into the offspring, they would pertain to original sin: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, there is no greater reason why he transfuses injustice than justice; but a holy father does not beget a holy son, and a baptized [father] does not beget a baptized [son], as was shown above[^8]: therefore by parity of reasoning the proximate parent does not transmit his own sin to the offspring.

5. Likewise, no sin is transmitted from the parent into the offspring except by the mediation of the flesh[^9]; but actual sins, which are committed, do not change the flesh nor infect it with a new infection: therefore it seems that they cannot be transmitted to the offspring.

6. Likewise, if actual sins were transmitted from the parent into the offspring: therefore the son would always be worse than the father and deserving of greater punishment. If therefore it is of great cruelty and impiety to say that a newborn child is worse than the wicked parent; it is evident etc.

### Conclusion.

> The actual sins of proximate parents do not pertain to original [sin] nor are transfused along with the original [sin].

**I respond:** It must be said that the sin of parents passing to the offspring can be understood in three ways: either by punishment, or by imitation, or by transfusion. — If by punishment, so that the offspring is punished for the sin of the par-

<!-- page 783 -->

ent, then it is to be attended to that punishment is twofold: one *eternal* and the other *temporal*. As to *eternal* punishment it in no way passes over, namely that anyone be damned for the sin of the parent alone. Whence Anselm, *On the Virginal Conception*[^10], says that little children are not damned for the guilt of Adam only, but for the proper guilt which they have, although they do not have it by acting, but by contracting. But if we speak of *temporal* punishment, then, because the father is punished in the son, as we see to the letter, and as Scripture[^11] shows, the sin of the parent does indeed pass into the offspring, whether the offspring is willing or unwilling, and this is from the severity of divine justice. — In another way sin is said to pass from the parent into the offspring by *imitation*. And thus the sin of the devil in a certain manner passed into the human race, and the sin of Adam into his descendants, and the sins of proximate parents frequently pass through into the children, according to that [text] of Wisdom, second [chapter][^12]: *By the envy of the devil death entered* etc.; yet it does not pass into all, but into those who are willing to imitate. — In a third way sin is said to pass from the parent into the offspring, and this by *transfusion*, just as a new infection[^13] is caused by another infection; and in this way sin is to be transfused into the offspring from the first parent alone.

But the reason for this is that there are two things in sin, namely the *privation of what is due* and the *undue turning-toward*; and according to this two things are posited in sin: *deformity* and *stain*. For the *stain* is posited from the turning-toward, but the *deformity* from the privation of what is due, the obligation remaining. To this end, therefore, that anyone may be able to contract sin from a father, it is necessary that in him it be possible to be *obligated* to something, and that he be able in the good to which he is obligated to be *deprived* in himself, and that he be able also to be *stained*; but this was only in the first parent. For to something the whole human nature, and all his descendants in him, were *obligated*, namely to having the rectitude of justice or to not concupiscing; and in him by his turning-away we were *deprived* of that rectitude. And because that obligation[^14] infected his flesh with the infection of foulness and the suffering of mortality; and our flesh is to be propagated from that: hence it is that in him we have [the capacity] to be *infected*, and from him we draw down in a singular way the sin according to its full character. But in none of the descendants are the children *obligated* by a new obligation in a parent, nor even is the flesh to be transmitted infected with a new infection from the perpetration of anyone's actual guilt. And hence it is that no proximate parent can transfuse his actual guilt into his offspring.

And this is what Anselm says in the book *On the Virginal Conception*, chapter twenty-fourth. « The sins of proximate parents I do not judge to pertain to original sin. For indeed, if Adam had not been able to transmit his justice[^15] to those whom he was going to beget, he could in no way transmit his injustice to them ». — But this he understands as far as concerns the transfusion of guilt, upon which eternal damnation follows; but concerning the passing-over as to the punishment of temporal penalty he adds at the end of the chapter: « I do not deny that, on account of the good merits of parents, many and great benefits of body and soul are bestowed upon children, and that on account of the sins of parents, children and grandchildren even to the third and fourth generation, and perhaps beyond, are scourged in this life with diverse tribulations and lose those goods of body and soul[^16] which perhaps they would have obtained, had they been just; an example of which it is too long to insert here ».

From these things, therefore, the response to the question proposed is evident. For it must be conceded that the actual sins of proximate parents do not pertain to original [sin] nor are transfused along with the original [sin], as the reasons adduced for the second part show.

1. 2. Nevertheless they do in some manner pass over as to vengeance and temporal punishment, as is first proved by the authority of Exodus and then by the example.

3. To that, however, which is objected by reason, that the passing-over is easier among things having a common bond: it must be said that that is true when on both sides the character of the *acting principle* is equally preserved. But the one who sins actually does not have the power of vitiating the offspring, except he alone in whom we had [the capacity] to be *obligated*, and in whom the whole mass of the human race could be *vitiated*, as was shown; and therefore that [argument] does not compel.

4. To that which is objected[^17]: he transmits what he received from elsewhere; it must be said that from this it does not follow that he transmits that which is *of himself*. For the sin which he received from elsewhere is a natural sin; but the sin which he himself does is a personal sin; but the communication of any property by

<!-- page 784 -->

the way of generation regards the power of *nature*[^18] more than the act of the *person*, as was shown above.

5. To that which is objected, that we sinned in Adam for the reason that we were in him when he sinned; it must be said that this is not the *whole cause*, but together with it there is required that in the first parent all the descendants could be *obligated*, and the flesh of all the descendants could be *infected* and *defiled*; but this is not to be found in any other than Adam: therefore it is evident etc.

6. To that which is objected, that the sin of adultery is considered as regards the generative act; it must be said that although it is considered as regards the generative act, yet it does not state a corruption which is in the *generative power* itself in itself, but one which consists as regards the rational will, and so as regards the person; and on account of this the guilt of adultery, insofar as it is guilt[^19], is not to be transfused into the offspring. Nevertheless, because it consists as regards the generative act, it is imputed to the offspring more than the other sins of parents; whence vile and abject is reckoned he who is born of adultery, and even according to human laws he is reckoned unworthy of paternal inheritance. Whence that sin redounds into the offspring more than other actual [sins], yet it does not so redound as the guilt of the first parent, which not only obligated his posterity to ignorance and punishment, but also defiled [it] with the stain of original sin, on account of which everyone, when he is born, is worthy of wrath and unworthy of the vision of God.

la: Vers. 5. — Paulo superius pro *vel ad eos* edd. *et ad eos.*

en: Verse 5. — A little above, for *vel ad eos* ("or to them") the editions [read] *et ad eos* ("and to them").

la: Vers. 10: *Idcirco ecce ego inducam mala super domum Ieroboam et percutiam de Ieroboam* etc.

en: Verse 10: *Therefore behold, I will bring evils upon the house of Jeroboam and will strike down [the males] of Jeroboam* etc.

la: Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 25. (c. 4.). *Symbolum* (σύμβολα) dicit cognationem, convenientiam, sive, ut S. Bonav., IV. Sent. d. 20. p. I. q. 4. ad 1. exponit, *similitudinem.* Aristoteles loc. cit. voce symboli significat convenientiam, quam elementa habent inter se respectu primarum qualitatum (calidum, frigidum, siccum et humidum) et ratione cuius unum elementum facilius convertitur in aliud, ut ex. gr. ignis facilius convertitur in aerem quam in aquam.

en: Aristotle, II. *On Generation and Corruption* text 25. (c. 4.). *Symbolum* (σύμβολα) signifies kinship, affinity, or, as S. Bonaventure expounds in IV. Sent. d. 20. p. I. q. 4. ad 1., *likeness.* Aristotle in the cited place by the word *symbol* signifies the affinity which the elements have among themselves in respect of the primary qualities (hot, cold, dry, and moist) and by reason of which one element is more easily converted into another, as for example fire is more easily converted into air than into water.

la: Ut supra ostensum est d. 30. a. 1. q. 2.

en: As was shown above d. 30. a. 1. q. 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 31. a. 1. q. 3. — Paulo inferius pro *in posterum* Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 *in posteros.*

en: Cfr. above d. 31. a. 1. q. 3. — A little below, for *in posterum* the Vatican [edition] with edd. 3, 4 [reads] *in posteros.*

la: Vers. 20.

en: Verse 20.

la: Vers. 5. — Seq. textus est Rom. 14, 12, ubi Vulgata post *Unusquisque* addit *nostrum.*

en: Verse 5. — The following text is Rom. 14, 12, where the Vulgate after *Unusquisque* ("each one") adds *nostrum* ("of us").

la: Vide supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1.

en: See above d. 31. a. 2. q. 1.

la: Cap. 26, ubi obiicienti, quod parvuli eadem ratione, qua damnantur propter peccatum Adae, damnari deberent etiam propter peccata parentum, respondet: *Consideret diligenter, quia non portant infantes peccatum Adae, sed suum. Nam aliud fuit peccatum Adae, aliud est peccatum infantum, quia differunt, ut dictum est: illud enim fuit causa, istud est effectus. Adam caruit debita iustitia, non quia alius, sed quia ipse deseruit. Infantes carent ea, non quoniam ipsi, sed quoniam alius dereliquit. Non est ergo idem peccatum Adae et infantum... Quapropter, cum damnatur infans pro peccato originali, damnatur non pro peccato Adae, sed pro suo. Nam si ipse non haberet suum peccatum, non damnaretur... Haec autem causa, quae fuit in Adam, ut infantes in peccato nascantur, non est in aliis parentibus* etc.

en: Chapter 26, where, to one objecting that little children, by the same reasoning by which they are damned on account of Adam's sin, ought also to be damned on account of the sins of their parents, he replies: *Let him consider diligently that infants do not bear the sin of Adam, but their own. For the sin of Adam was one thing, the sin of the infants is another, since they differ, as has been said: for the former was a cause, the latter is an effect. Adam lacked due justice, not because another, but because he himself deserted [it]. The infants lack it, not because they themselves, but because another abandoned [it]. It is therefore not the same sin, Adam's and the infants'... Wherefore, when an infant is damned for original sin, he is damned not for Adam's sin, but for his own. For if he himself did not have his own sin, he would not be damned... But this cause, which was in Adam, that infants are born in sin, is not in the other parents* etc.

la: Vers. 24.

en: Verse 24.

la: Vat. cum paucis codd. *ima.*

en: The Vatican [edition] with a few codices [reads] *ima.*

la: Vat. cum textu originali *perducere.*

en: The Vatican [edition] with the original text [reads] *perducere* ("to lead through").

la: Ita codd. et edd., sed omnino videtur legendum *obligatio* vel *privatio*, cum sermo sit de effectu peccati in ipso Adam.

en: Thus the codices and editions, but it seems altogether that one should read *obligatio* or *privatio*, since the discourse is about the effect of sin in Adam himself.

la: Cod. bb *producere*, quod verbum in seq. quaest. arg. 1. ad opposit. omnes codd. nec non edd. 1, 2 exhibent, quodque secundum Maurinos etiam in multis codd. et edd. oper. S. Anselmi hoc loco exstat; Vat. cum textu originali *perducere.*

en: Cod. bb [reads] *producere*, which word in the following question, arg. 1. *to the opposite*, all the codices and also edd. 1, 2 exhibit, and which according to the Maurists also stands in this place in many codices and editions of the works of S. Anselm; the Vatican [edition] with the original text [reads] *perducere.*

la: Textus originalis, omissis verbis *in corpore*, post *perdere bona* sic prosequitur: *etiam in anima, quae forsitan per illos consequerentur, si iusti essent; quorum exempla nimis longum est hic inserere.*

en: The original text, the words *in the body* omitted, after *lose [those] goods* continues thus: *even in the soul, which perhaps through them they would obtain, had they been just; examples of which it is far too long to insert here.*

la: Vide arg. 1. et 2. ad opposit.

en: See arg. 1. and 2. *to the opposite.*

la: Dist. 30. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 31. a. 1. q. 3. — Pro *virtutem naturae* edd. *veritatem naturae.*

en: Dist. 30. a. 1. q. 2. and d. 31. a. 1. q. 3. — For *virtutem naturae* ("the power of nature") the editions [read] *veritatem naturae* ("the truth of nature").

la: Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 *qui.*

en: The Vatican [edition] with edd. 3, 4 [reads] *qui.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** Hac quaestione bene illustratur differentia, quae est inter *peccatum originans* (scilicet primum peccatum protoparentum) et *peccatum actuale* parentum posterorum. S. Bonav. de transmissione peccati parentum agit simul quoad *culpam* et quoad *poenam*, dum de his non pauci magistri distinctis quaestionibus disputant. In doctrina omnes satis conveniunt. — Notandum autem est, quod S. Bonav. in alio sensu accipit vocem *maculam* ac S. Thomas. Ab illo enim *macula* accipitur esse illa deordinatio virium, quae consequitur *conversionem* inordinatam ad creaturas; *deformitas* autem intelligitur esse spoliatio vel privatio debitae iustitiae, quae respondet *aversioni* (hic in corp., infra d. 42. dub. 1; IV. Sent. d. 18. p. I. dub. 1.). Sed S. Thomae *macula* potius est defectus seu privatio *gratiae* (II. Sent. d. 32. q. 1. a. 1. in corp.; S. I. II. q. 109. a. 7. in corp.). Tamen uterque voci *macula* interdum etiam largiorem sensum tribuere videtur, ita ut comprehendat utrumque v. g. S. Bonav., IV. Sent. d. 20. p. I. dub. 6, S. Thom., loc. cit. q. 86. a. 1. 2.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 106. m. 5. a. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2; S. I. II. q. 81. a. 2. — B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 18. q. 107. m. 1. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** By this question the difference is well illustrated which is between *originating sin* (namely the first sin of the protoparents) and the *actual sin* of later parents. S. Bonaventure treats of the transmission of the parents' sin at once as to *guilt* and as to *punishment*, whereas not a few masters dispute about these things in distinct questions. In doctrine all agree well enough. — But it is to be noted that S. Bonaventure takes the word *stain* in a different sense than St. Thomas. For by him *stain* is taken to be that disordering of the powers which follows the inordinate *turning-toward* creatures; but *deformity* is understood to be the despoiling or privation of due justice, which corresponds to the *turning-away* (here in the body, below d. 42. dub. 1; IV. Sent. d. 18. p. I. dub. 1.). But for St. Thomas the *stain* is rather a defect or privation of *grace* (II. Sent. d. 32. q. 1. a. 1. in the body; S. I. II. q. 109. a. 7. in the body). Yet each seems sometimes to attribute also a broader sense to the word *stain*, so that it comprehends both, e.g. S. Bonaventure, IV. Sent. d. 20. p. I. dub. 6, St. Thomas, in the cited place q. 86. a. 1. 2.

**II.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II. q. 106. m. 5. a. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. 2; S. I. II. q. 81. a. 2. — B. Albert, *Summa* p. II. tr. 18. q. 107. m. 1. a. 1. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 1. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following questions, here q. unica.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw 54508–54669), with the cascade-fragmented Respondeo, Ad-obiecta replies, SCHOLION, and all page-footers verified against 450 dpi PDF column bands (printed pp. 782–784, offset pdf = printed + 22 → pdf pp. 804–806). Read Left column top→bottom then Right column for each page; body bands then footer bands.

**Boundary (coordinator-verified, held).** This chunk = ARTICULUS I, QUAESTIO I only. The ARTICULUS I opener (`ARTICULUS I. / De originali quoad causam praecedentem.`, raw 54504–54506, p. 782) is folded in as headings per Override §5 — there is no standalone divisio chunk for this short article opener (q1 carries the article opener directly). The chunk ENDS at the close of the SCHOLION (`Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.`, raw 54669, p. 784), immediately before the `QUAESTIO II.` header at raw 54671 (*Utrum primus parens potuerit satisfacere pro posteris, sicut potuit eos ex culpa sua vitiare*, body "Secundo quaeritur…") — everything from 54671 onward is d33-a1-q2.

**Alignment check.** PASSED. Skeleton opener `quaeritur, utrum peccata parentum proximorum filiis imputentur vel ad eos transmittantur` matches q1's topic (imputation/transmission of proximate parents' actual sins). q2 (`Secundo quaeritur, utrum primus parens pro posteris suis potuerit satisfacere…`) is the distinct second question. No q-swap.

**Page-split / footer map.** Spans printed pp. 782–784.
- p. 782 (`DISTINCTIO XXXIII. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` opener at top): ARTICULUS/QUAESTIO openers + fundamenta 1–6 (L col) + Sed contra 1–6 (R col) + Conclusio + Respondeo opener (first mode, *punitione*). Footers 1–9 → continuous [^1]–[^9]. L-col fundamenta: [^1] Exod 20 (fund.1), [^2] 3 Reg 14 (fund.2), [^3] Aristot. symbolum (fund.3), [^4] d.30 a.1 q.2 (fund.5 "peccavit"), [^5] d.31 a.1 q.3 (fund.6 "generandi"); R-col contra: [^6] Ezech 18 v.20 (contra 1), [^7] Galat 6 v.5 (contra 2), [^8] Dist.32 (contra 4 "ostensum supra"), [^9] d.31 a.2 q.1 (contra 5 "mediante carne").
- p. 783 (`DIST. XXXIII. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 783`): Respondeo (temporal punishment, imitatio, transfusio; Ratio) + Ad obiecta 1.2, 3, 4. Footers 1–8 → continuous [^10]–[^17]. [^10] Anselm c.26 (long quote), [^11] Vers.24 (Scriptura), [^12] Sap. *ima* variant, [^13] *perducere* variant (infectio nova), [^14] *obligatio/privatio* conjecture, [^15] Anselm *producere/traducere* (long), [^16] original text variant (Anselm tail), [^17] Vide arg.1 et 2 (reply 4).
- p. 784 (`784 SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.`): tail of reply 4 + replies 5, 6 + SCHOLION (items I, II). Footers 1–2 → [^18]–[^19]: [^18] d.30/d.31 + *virtutem/veritatem naturae* variant (reply 5 "supra"), [^19] *qui/quae* variant (reply 6 "quae"). The SCHOLION carries no numbered footers. p.784 footers 3 (*perducere/producere*), 4 (*Qui locus a simili*), 5 (*Huius axiomatis*) and the right-column notes all anchor in QUAESTIO II's body and are forwarded to d33-a1-q2.

**Hand-off received.** NONE — the ARTICULUS I header + q1 body begin fresh on p.782 with their own footer sequence (restarts at 1).

**Hand-off forwarded to d33-a1-q2.** The `QUAESTIO II.` header (raw 54671, *Utrum primus parens potuerit satisfacere pro posteris…*) and everything below the SCHOLION belong to a1-q2. On the shared printed page 784, the footer block notes 3–5+ (3: `Vat. cum textu origin. et edd. 3, 4 hic … perducere pro producere. Cfr. de hoc supra pag. 783, nota 6`; 4: `Qui locus a simili secundum Boeth., III. de Differ. topic. … « De similibus idem est iudicium ». … Pro satisfecerunt cod. cc et ed. 1 satisfecerint`; 5 R-col: `Huius axiomatis verba … vide supra pag. 763, nota 2 …`; and the further R-col note `De hoc modo argumentandi cfr. tom. I. pag. 835, nota 5 … August., Serm. 18 …`) are forwarded to a1-q2 — this q1 claims only p.784 footers 1–2.

**Scholion disposition.** PRESENT here at q1 (p. 784, raw 54655–54669), items I and II (the Quaracchi numbering runs I = doctrinal note on *macula/deformitas*; II = commentator roll). `has_scholion: true`. q2 may legitimately lack its own scholion per Override §5.

**Cascade-dropout check.** PASSED. Both column bands of each of pp. 782–784 read top→bottom; the p.782/783 seam (inside the Respondeo, mid "pro peccato paren-|tis"), and p.783/784 seam (inside reply 4, mid "communicatio … per |viam generationis") are each grammatically continuous. No mid-paragraph splice signature found. The p.782 and p.783 footer blocks are wholly q1's (no cross-chunk sharing); the p.784 footer block is split by body anchor (1–2 here; 3+ forwarded to a1-q2).

**[?] flags.** None.