title: Dist. 33, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 790 -->

### QUAESTIO II.
### *Utrum ponendum sit peccatum originale unum, vel plura.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum sit ponere unum originale, vel plura. Et quod unum solum, videtur[^1]:

1. Primo auctoritate Magistri in littera, capitulo *Alioquin*[^2], ubi sic ait: « Uno peccato, non pluribus parvuli obligati sunt ».

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione sumta a *causa*, quia peccatum originale contrahitur propter Adae inobedientiam: ergo si una tantum culpa fuit eius inobedientia, videtur, quod in quocumque reperiatur, sit unicum et nullo modo plura.

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione sumta a *poena*. Originali enim debetur solum carentia visionis Dei, et haec est una poena; sed multis culpis multae debent respondere poenae: ergo etc.

4. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *in comparatione ad sequelam*. Originale enim non solummodo est ab origine, sed etiam *origo* est et principium omnium malorum. Si ergo « quod per superabundantiam dicitur uni soli convenit[^3] », et status est per reductionem ad unum; videtur, quod originale peccatum non sit nisi unum solum.

5. Item, hoc ipsum videtur *in comparatione ad subiectum*. Originale enim est in anima ratione coniunctionis suae ad carnem: si ergo una est caro, cui anima coniungitur, et unica unione unitur, et unitas est in anima, secundum quod carni ut perfectibili unitur; videtur ergo, quod necessario peccatum originale sit unum.

6. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *per comparationem ad oppositum*. Originale enim peccatum est carentia debitae iustitiae; sed debita iustitia, cuius originale est privatio in homine, non erat nisi una, quia in uno innocente una est innocentia: ergo etc.

**Sed contra** hoc arguitur: *Ad oppositum.* 1. Primo *auctoritate*. Super illud Psalmi[^4]: *Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum*; Glossa: *Iniquitates* sunt « originalia peccata »; et multae auctoritates sunt ad hoc in littera.

<!-- page 791 -->

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur *rationibus* sumtis per eandem viam, per quam sumebantur ad oppositum. Et primo ratione sumta *a causa*. Originale enim peccatum est in nobis propter peccatum primorum parentum; sed Adam et Eva plura commiserunt peccata: ergo videtur, quod plura sint in nobis originalia, quia, qua ratione redundat in nobis peccatum viri, eadem ratione peccatum mulieris.

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione sumta *a poena*, quia uni culpae unica debet respondere poena; sed multa genera poenalitatum ad originale peccatum consequuntur, ut fames, sitis, mors, infirmitas etc.; et « quatuor, dicit Beda, nobis per peccatum originale esse inflicta, scilicet infirmitatem, ignorantiam, concupiscentiam et malitiam »: videtur igitur, quod secundum diversa genera poenalitatum sit diversitas originalium.

4. Item, hoc ipsum videtur *per comparationem ad capitalia subsequentia*. Habitus enim diversificantur per actus, et actus per obiecta: si ergo originale peccatum reddit hominem proclivem ad septem peccata capitalia, quae sunt diversorum generum; videtur, quod in quolibet homine sit multitudo originalium.

5. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *per comparationem ad subiectum*, quia omnes vires animae inficiuntur per originale peccatum; sed multiplicatis corruptibilibus, multiplicantur corruptiones, et in diversis potentiis diversi sunt habitus: ergo in unoquoque homine necesse est ponere multiplex originale.

6. Item, hoc ipsum videtur *per comparationem ad oppositum*, quia per originale peccatum est privatio omnium virtutum, cum per ipsum fiat incurvatio animae ad vitia, omnibus virtutibus opposita: ergo si plures contingit in nobis reperire virtutes, plures in nobis contingit reperire culpas originales.

### Conclusio.

> Originale peccatum est unum secundum *speciem*, et in uno homine unum etiam secundum *numerum*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut vult magister Hugo[^5], originale peccatum dupliciter dicitur. *(Originale dicitur dupliciter.)* Uno modo dicitur originale peccatum, quod est *origo* omnium peccatorum, et sic peccatum Adae dicitur peccatum originale; et hoc modo peccatum originale *(Conclusio 1.)* non tantum est unum *specie*, verum etiam unum *numero*. Alio modo dicitur originale peccatum, quod est in nobis *ab origine*[^6], et a quo etiam cetera vitia sumunt in nobis originem; et hoc modo quaerimus hic de unitate originalis peccati[^7].

Ad huius igitur quaestionis dilucidationem intelligendum est, quod cum quaerimus de unitate alicuius, aut quaerimus de unitate secundum *speciem* et formam communem, aut quaerimus de unitate secundum *numerum* et *suppositum*[^8]. *(Duplex unitas.)* — Si primo modo loquamur de originali peccato, sic unitatem habet secundum *speciem*, eo modo, secundum quod peccatum dicitur habere speciem[^9]. *(Conclusio 2.)* Unitas autem ista in originali peccato venit principaliter ex parte boni, quod privat, et ex parte peccati Adae, per quod introductum est, hoc est ex parte *oppositi* et ex parte *principii*. Una enim est secundum speciem originalis iustitia et innocentia, cuius privatio est originale peccatum. Una etiam fuit inobedientia, ratione cuius totum genus humanum est corruptum; et ideo secundum speciem originale peccatum est unum in nobis.

Si autem loquamur de unitate originalis quantum ad *numerum*; sic dicendum, quod in uno homine est unicum. *(Duplex numeratio.)* Et ratio huius est, quia peccatum dupliciter numeratur: aut ratione *subiecti*, in quo[^11], sicut in diversis hominibus diversa sunt peccata; aut ratione *actus*, per quem homo culpabilis efficitur, sicut qui pluries luxuriatus est plura habet peccata. Neutro istorum modorum originale peccatum multiplicatur, sed remanet indivisum; nam in uno homine una est anima, quae per originale peccatum inficitur. Item, unius hominis una est generatio, in qua et per quam originale peccatum transfunditur; et ideo originale peccatum in uno homine est unum solum quantum ad unitatem secundum *speciem* et quantum ad unitatem secundum *numerum*. *(Conclusio 3.)* — Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

*Solutio oppositorum.*

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de Glossa, quae iniquitates dicit peccata originalia; dicendum, quod sicut dicit Magister, quod frequenter in Scriptura accipitur plurale pro singulari et e converso, sicut Magister exemplificat in littera[^10]. Ratio autem, quare Scriptura originale, cum sit unum, pluraliter nominat, est propter multiplicitatem inclinationum ad malum, quae ex originali peccato nascuntur.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod originale peccatum ortum habet a peccato primorum parentum; dicendum est, quod quemadmodum in generatione prolis pater et mater sunt quasi unum principium completum, ita quod neuter eorum per se sufficit, quamvis sint diversae personae et distinctae; sic et *(Notandum.)*

<!-- page 792 -->

in originalis peccati transfusione intelligendum est. Etsi peccatum Adae et peccatum Evae fuerunt diversa, prout tamen in originali peccato inficiebatur in utroque vis generativa, unum peccatum originale in prole causabant, ita quod, sicut principaliter virtus generativa residet penes virum, ita etiam transfusio originalis principaliter attribuitur viro: nihilominus tamen utrique attribuitur suo modo. — *(De incidente quaestione frivola.)* Unde frivola est illa quaestio, qua quaeritur, utrum transfunderetur originale, si tantum vir vel tantum mulier peccasset; quia, cum ad generationem duo concurrant tanquam unum principium, non pateretur Deus, quod vir incorruptus mulieri corruptae commisceretur, vel e converso. Debet enim, sive in statu naturae institutae sive in statu naturae corruptae, servari proportio et conformitas viri agentis ad mulierem suscipientem, cum in actu illo efficiantur una caro[^12].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de multiplicitate poenarum, dicendum, quod uni culpae respondet una poena *principalis*; plures autem possunt esse *non principales*. *(Poena principalis et non principalis.)* Principalem autem dico poenam aeternam, non principalem autem poenam temporalem, quae quodam modo est ad bonum ordinativa. — *(Aliter.)* Vel principalem voco illam, quae primo pro culpa infligitur; non principalem vero, quae ad istam consequitur. Originale autem una poena aeterna punitur, videlicet carentia visionis Dei; unica etiam poena temporali principaliter, videlicet mortalitate carnis; sed ad mortalitatem multae consequuntur poenalitates.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de multiplicitate inclinationum, dicendum, quod sicut, una chorda rupta, qua multa colligantur, sequitur laxatio multorum, et tamen una est ibi prima corruptio et laxatio; sic intelligendum est et in proposito, quod iustitia innocentiae per originale peccatum privata, omnes vires animae relaxantur; una tamen est corruptio, loquendo *essentialiter*, plures autem intelligendo *causaliter*.

5. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod est corruptio diversarum virium; dicendum, quod verum est; sed sicut gratia ponitur esse in viribus animae, prout tamen continuantur ad unitatem substantiae animae, et ideo una est gratia in omnibus viribus[^13]; sic et originale peccatum est corruptio plurium virium, prout tamen illae vires in unitate substantiae uni carni habent uniri. — *(Quomodo originale sit in essentia animae.)* Et sic intelligendum est illud verbum, quod ab aliquibus consuevit dici, scilicet quod originale inest animae secundum suam *essentiam*. Hoc enim non est intelligendum, quod ipsam substantiam animae originale prius respiciat quam potentias. Nam contrarium huius dicit Anselmus in libro de Conceptu virginali[^14], quod tam iustitia quam iniustitia primo est in voluntate, et loquitur ibi expresse de peccato originali. Et sic, intelligendo, quod originale peccatum, ut *culpa* est, sit primo in voluntate, ut *vitium*, sit in pluribus potentiis ad unam substantiam continuatis, intelligitur habere unicum subiectum, sicut sanitas una ponitur esse in omnibus membris eiusdem corporis, sicut vult Augustinus[^15]. Non sic autem est de peccato *actuali*. Nam peccata actualia diversas potentias respiciunt, secundum quod ad diversos actus comparantur, unde et per diversos actus introducuntur in esse, et propterea secundum diversitatem potentiarum habent differre. Non sic est de originali peccato, quod contrahitur ex unione animae ad carnem[^16].

6. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de comparatione ad oppositum, iam patet responsio. Nam originale peccatum primo et principaliter virtutibus non opponitur, sed opponitur iustitiae originali, de qua saepe dictum est[^17]; et illam privando, per consequens inclinat ad diversa vitia, et sic inclinando cum omnibus virtutibus habet repugnantiam. Unde ratio illa non cogit, quia non arguit per illud quod opponitur directe, sed solum per id quod opponitur ex consequenti[^18].

---

english:
### QUESTION II.
### *Whether one original sin is to be posited, or several.*

Secondly it is asked, whether one original [sin] is to be posited, or several. And that there is one only, it seems[^1]:

1. First, by the authority of the Master in the text, in the chapter *Alioquin*[^2], where he says thus: « By one sin, not by several, are little children bound ».

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown by a reason taken from the *cause*, because original sin is contracted on account of Adam's disobedience: therefore if his disobedience was only one fault, it seems that, in whomever it is found, it is single and in no way several.

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown by a reason taken from the *punishment*. For to original [sin] there is owed only the lack of the vision of God, and this is one punishment; but to many faults many punishments ought to correspond: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, this same thing is shown *in comparison with the consequence*. For original [sin] is not only from origin, but is also itself the *origin* and principle of all evils. If therefore « that which is said by superabundance belongs to one alone[^3] », and a stopping-point is reached by reduction to one; it seems that original sin is but one only.

5. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] *in comparison with the subject*. For original [sin] is in the soul by reason of its conjunction with the flesh: if therefore there is one flesh to which the soul is conjoined, and it is united by a single union, and there is unity in the soul, according as it is united to the flesh as to a perfectible [thing]; it seems therefore that original sin is necessarily one.

6. Likewise, this same thing is shown *by comparison with the opposite*. For original sin is a lack of the due justice; but the due justice, of which original [sin] is the privation in the human, was but one, because in one innocent [person] there is one innocence: therefore etc.

**On the contrary** it is argued: *To the opposite.* 1. First, *by authority*. Upon that [text] of the Psalm[^4]: *For behold, I was conceived in iniquities*; the Gloss: *Iniquities* are « original sins »; and there are many authorities to this effect in the text.

2. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] *by reasons* taken along the same path by which they were taken to the opposite [conclusion]. And first, by a reason taken *from the cause*. For original sin is in us on account of the sin of the first parents; but Adam and Eve committed several sins: therefore it seems that there are several original [sins] in us, because by the reason whereby the sin of the man redounds upon us, by the same reason [redounds] the sin of the woman.

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by a reason taken *from the punishment*, because to one fault one punishment ought to correspond; but many kinds of penalties follow upon original sin, such as hunger, thirst, death, infirmity, etc.; and « four [things], says Bede, were inflicted upon us by original sin, namely infirmity, ignorance, concupiscence, and malice »: it seems therefore that according to the diverse kinds of penalties there is a diversity of original [sins].

4. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] *by comparison with the capital [sins] that follow*. For habits are differentiated by acts, and acts by objects: if therefore original sin renders the human prone to the seven capital sins, which are of diverse kinds; it seems that in any human there is a multitude of original [sins].

5. Likewise, this same thing is shown *by comparison with the subject*, because all the powers of the soul are infected by original sin; but when the corruptibles are multiplied, the corruptions are multiplied, and in diverse potencies there are diverse habits: therefore in each human it is necessary to posit a manifold original [sin].

6. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] *by comparison with the opposite*, because through original sin there is a privation of all the virtues, since through it there comes about a bending of the soul toward vices, opposed to all the virtues: therefore if it happens that several virtues are found in us, it happens that several original faults are found in us.

### Conclusion.

> Original sin is one according to *species*, and in one human it is one also according to *number*.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as master Hugh[^5] holds, original sin is spoken of in two ways. *(Original [sin] is spoken of in two ways.)* In one way original sin is called that which is the *origin* of all sins, and thus Adam's sin is called original sin; and in this way original sin *(Conclusion 1.)* is not only one in *species*, but also one in *number*. In another way original sin is called that which is in us *from origin*[^6], and from which also the other vices take their origin in us; and in this way we here inquire about the unity of original sin[^7].

For the elucidation therefore of this question it must be understood that, when we inquire about the unity of something, either we inquire about unity according to *species* and common form, or we inquire about unity according to *number* and *supposit*[^8]. *(A twofold unity.)* — If in the first way we speak of original sin, then it has unity according to *species*, in that manner in which sin is said to have a species[^9]. *(Conclusion 2.)* But this unity in original sin comes principally on the part of the good which it deprives, and on the part of Adam's sin through which it was introduced, that is, on the part of the *opposite* and on the part of the *principle*. For original justice and innocence, of which the privation is original sin, is one according to species. The disobedience also was one, by reason of which the whole human race is corrupted; and therefore according to species original sin is one in us.

But if we speak of the unity of original [sin] as to *number*; then it must be said that in one human it is single. *(A twofold numbering.)* And the reason of this is that sin is numbered in two ways: either by reason of the *subject* in which [it is][^11], as in diverse humans the sins are diverse; or by reason of the *act* by which the human is made culpable, as he who has committed lust many times has several sins. In neither of these ways is original sin multiplied, but it remains undivided; for in one human there is one soul, which is infected by original sin. Likewise, of one human there is one generation, in which and through which original sin is transfused; and therefore in one human original sin is one only as to unity according to *species* and as to unity according to *number*. *(Conclusion 3.)* — And the reasons which show this are to be granted.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].*

1. To that therefore which is first objected to the contrary concerning the Gloss, which calls iniquities original sins; it must be said that, as the Master says, frequently in Scripture the plural is taken for the singular and conversely, as the Master gives example in the text[^10]. But the reason why Scripture, although original [sin] be one, names it in the plural, is on account of the multiplicity of inclinations to evil which are born from original sin.

2. To that which is objected, that original sin has its rise from the sin of the first parents; it must be said that, just as in the generation of offspring the father and mother are as one complete principle, in such a way that neither of them suffices by himself, although they be diverse and distinct persons; so also *(To be noted.)*

<!-- page 792 -->

it is to be understood in the transfusion of original sin. Even though the sin of Adam and the sin of Eve were diverse, yet, insofar as in original sin the generative power was infected in each, they caused one original sin in the offspring, in such a way that, just as the generative power principally resides in the man, so also the transfusion of original [sin] is principally attributed to the man: yet nonetheless it is attributed to each in his own manner. — *(On the frivolous incidental question.)* Whence frivolous is that question by which it is asked whether original [sin] would be transfused if only the man or only the woman had sinned; because, since to generation two concur as one principle, God would not permit that an uncorrupted man be mingled with a corrupted woman, or conversely. For there ought, whether in the state of nature instituted or in the state of nature corrupted, to be preserved a proportion and conformity of the man acting to the woman receiving, since in that act they are made one flesh[^12].

3. To that which is objected concerning the multiplicity of punishments, it must be said that to one fault there corresponds one *principal* punishment; but there can be several *non-principal* ones. *(Principal and non-principal punishment.)* And I call the eternal punishment principal, but the temporal punishment, which in some manner is ordinative toward the good, non-principal. — *(Otherwise.)* Or I call that one principal which is first inflicted for the fault; but that non-principal which follows upon this. But original [sin] is punished by one eternal punishment, namely the lack of the vision of God; and by one temporal punishment principally, namely the mortality of the flesh; but upon the mortality many penalties follow.

4. To that which is objected concerning the multiplicity of inclinations, it must be said that, just as, when one cord by which many things are bound together is broken, there follows the loosening of many [things], and yet there is there one first corruption and loosening; so it must be understood also in the matter at hand, that, the justice of innocence being deprived by original sin, all the powers of the soul are loosened; yet there is one corruption, speaking *essentially*, but several [corruptions] understanding [it] *causally*.

5. To that indeed which is objected, that it is a corruption of diverse powers; it must be said that it is true; but just as grace is posited to be in the powers of the soul, yet insofar as they are continued toward the unity of the substance of the soul, and therefore there is one grace in all the powers[^13]; so also original sin is a corruption of several powers, yet insofar as those powers, in the unity of the substance, are to be united to one flesh. — *(How original [sin] is in the essence of the soul.)* And thus is to be understood that saying which by some is wont to be uttered, namely that original [sin] is in the soul according to its *essence*. For this is not to be understood as though original [sin] regards the substance of the soul itself prior to the potencies. For the contrary of this Anselm says in the book *On the Virginal Conception*[^14], that both justice and injustice are first in the will, and he speaks there expressly of original sin. And thus, understanding that original sin, as it is a *fault*, is first in the will, [and] as it is a *vice*, is in several potencies continued to one substance, it is understood to have a single subject, just as one health is posited to be in all the members of the same body, as Augustine holds[^15]. But it is not so concerning *actual* sin. For actual sins regard diverse potencies, according as they are referred to diverse acts, whence also they are brought into being through diverse acts, and therefore they must differ according to the diversity of the potencies. It is not so concerning original sin, which is contracted from the union of the soul with the flesh[^16].

6. To that which is lastly objected concerning the comparison with the opposite, the response is now clear. For original sin is not first and principally opposed to the virtues, but is opposed to original justice, of which it has often been spoken[^17]; and by depriving [the human] of that, it consequently inclines [him] to diverse vices, and thus by inclining [him] it has repugnance with all the virtues. Whence that reason does not compel, because it does not argue through that which is opposed directly, but only through that which is opposed by consequence[^18].

---

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

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

la: Hic c. 2. — Quantum ad reliqua argg., quae sequuntur, cfr. fundam. 2-4. quaest. praeced.

en: Here c. 2. — As to the remaining arguments which follow, cfr. fundamenta 2–4 of the preceding question.

la: Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3. (c. 5.). De eo, quod status sit per reductionem ad unum, cfr. supra pag. 99, nota 3. — In principio huius arg. codd. T bb ee et alii omittunt *in* ante *comparatione*, codd. cc et ed. 1 legunt *per comparationem.*

en: Aristotle, V. *Topics* c. 3. (c. 5.). On the [point] that a stopping-point is reached by reduction to one, cfr. above p. 99, note 3. — At the beginning of this argument codd. T bb ee and others omit *in* before *comparatione*, codd. cc and ed. 1 read *per comparationem.*

la: Psalm. 50, 7. — Glossa est interlinearis et habetur apud Lyranum. — Auctoritates, quae hic memorantur, intellige testimonia Augustini, quae hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. seqq. adducuntur. Idem S. Doctor etiam in libro de Corrept. et grat. c. 6. n. 9. ait: *Peccata quidem ista originalia ideo dicuntur aliena, quod ea singuli de parentibus trahunt, sed non sine causa dicuntur et nostra, quia in illo uno omnes, sicut dicit Apostolus* (Rom. 5, 12.), *peccaverunt.*

en: Psalm 50, 7. — The Gloss is interlinear and is found in Lyra. — The authorities here mentioned: understand the testimonies of Augustine which are adduced here in the text of the Master, c. 1. seqq. The same holy Doctor also in the book *On Rebuke and Grace* c. 6. n. 9. says: *These original sins are indeed called another's, because individuals draw them from their parents, but not without cause are they called ours also, because in that one [man] all, as the Apostle says* (Rom. 5, 12.), *have sinned.*

la: Vide supra pag. 528, nota 2.

en: See above p. 528, note 2.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et supra d. 22. a. 1. q. 1. seq.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 2. and above d. 22. a. 1. q. 1. seq.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 26.

en: Book I. *On the Sacraments* p. VII. c. 26.

la: Secundum Aristotelem, ut colligitur ex testimoniis, quae supra notavimus pag. 561, nota 3; pag. 635, nota 5; pag. 653, nota 6. — De septem peccatis capitalibus vide infra d. 42. dub. 3.

en: According to Aristotle, as is gathered from the testimonies which we noted above p. 561, note 3; p. 635, note 5; p. 653, note 6. — On the seven capital sins see below d. 42. dub. 3.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. Topic. c. 6. (c. 5.); III. Metaph. text. 14. et V. text. 12. (II. c. 4. et IV. c. 6.). — Mox pro *secundum quod* ed. 1 *secundum quem*, Vat. *quo.*

en: Cfr. Aristotle, I. *Topics* c. 6. (c. 5.); III. *Metaphysics* text. 14. and V. text. 12. (II. c. 4. and IV. c. 6.). — Soon, for *secundum quod* ed. 1 [reads] *secundum quem*, the Vatican [edition] *quo.*

la: Hic c. 2. — Paulo superius pro *iniquitates dicit*, ut habetur in codd. et primis edd., Vat. *iniquitates esse*; restituimus autem relativum *quae* ex cod. aa, quod excidit in aliis codd. et edd.

en: Here c. 2. — A little above, for *iniquitates dicit*, as is found in the codices and the first editions, the Vatican [edition] [reads] *iniquitates esse*; but we restored the relative *quae* from cod. aa, which dropped out in the other codices and editions.

la: Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 *in quo: sic in diversis* etc., et paulo inferius *efficitur: sic qui plures* etc. Deinde post *Neutro* cod. A interserit *autem.*

en: The Vatican [edition] with edd. 3, 4 [reads] *in quo: sic in diversis* etc., and a little below *efficitur: sic qui plures* etc. Then after *Neutro* cod. A interpolates *autem.*

la: Respicitur Gen. 2, 24.

en: Reference is made to Gen. 2, 24.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 26. q. 5. et d. 27. a. q. 1. seq.

en: As was shown above d. 26. q. 5. and d. 27. a. q. 1. seq.

la: Cap. 3. seq., ex quo iam supra pag. 722, nota 3. quaedam allegata sunt.

en: Cap. 3. seq., from which already above p. 722, note 3. certain [things] were adduced.

la: Epist. 187, (alias 37.) seu Libr. ad Dardanum de praesentia Dei, c. 4. n. 13.

en: Epistle 187, (otherwise 37.) or the Book *to Dardanus on the presence of God*, c. 4. n. 13.

la: Quoad totam hanc solutionem et diversam sententiam S. Thomae cfr. supra d. 31. a. 1. q. 2.

en: As to this whole solution and the differing opinion of St. Thomas cfr. above d. 31. a. 1. q. 2.

la: Quaest. praeced. ad 6, a. 1. q. 2. fundam. 2. et ad 3, d. 5. a. 3. q. 1. in corp., d. 29. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2.

en: The preceding question, ad 6; a. 1. q. 2. fundamentum 2 and ad 3; d. 5. a. 3. q. 1. in the body; d. 29. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw 55064–55220), with the cascade-fragmented two-column Respondeo (Duplex unitas / Duplex numeratio), Solutio oppositorum (Ad obiecta 1–6, the *De incidente quaestione frivola* digression, the *Poena principalis/non principalis* + *Aliter* distinction, the *Quomodo originale sit in essentia animae* discussion) and all page-footers verified against 450 dpi PDF column bands (printed pp. 790–792, offset pdf = printed + 22 → pdf pp. 812–814). Read Left column top→bottom then Right column for each page; body bands then footer bands. The IA OCR badly interleaved both columns and scrambled the marginal labels (`unicum. Et ratio huius est…`, `Drigmaie di-citer`, `coDcinsio`) — all re-set from the PDF.

**Boundary (alignment CONFIRMED).** This chunk = ARTICULUS II, QUAESTIO II only. Opener `Secundo quaeritur, utrum sit ponere unum originale, vel plura. Et quod unum solum, videtur:` matches the dispatch + the ART II TRACTATIO item 2 — alignment held. The QUAESTIO II header (raw 55064) sits on p.790 R column (full title *Utrum ponendum sit peccatum originale unum, vel plura*); the q2 body opens p.790 R, with its left-column fundamenta 1–4 reflowed from the p.790 L band. The chunk ENDS at raw ~55220, immediately before the full-width `ARTICULUS III. / De poena peccati originalis.` opener (`Consequenter quaeritur quantum ad tertium articulum de poena originalis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo…`, p.792 L bottom + R) — everything from ARTICULUS III onward is d33-a3-q1.

**Page-split / footer map.** Spans printed pp. 790–792 (running heads: p.790 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.` [verso, top — q1's Ad-6 + scholion occupy its top, q2 opens lower R col]; p.791 `DIST. XXXIII. ART. II. QUAEST. II.`; p.792 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.` [verso]).
- p.790 (q2 opener + fundamenta 1–6 + Sed contra arg 1): q2's footer share = left-block notes 1, 3, 4 + right-block note 6 → continuous [^1]–[^4]. [^1] = note 1 (`Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 sunt`, arg 1 *unum solum, videtur*), [^2] = note 3 (`Hic c. 2…`, arg 1 *Alioquin*), [^3] = note 4 (`Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3…in ante comparatione`, arg 4 *convenit*), [^4] = note 6 (`Psalm. 50, 7. — Glossa interlinearis…`, Sed contra 1 *Psalmi*). p.790 notes 2 (the *et*-variant) + 5 (Vide supra d.31 a.2 q.1) were claimed by a2-q1 (its [^28], [^27]).
- p.791 (Sed contra args 2–6 + Conclusio + Respondeo Duplex-unitas/numeratio + Solutio 1–2 opener): 7 footers (L-block 1–5, R-block 6–7) → [^5]–[^11]. [^5] = L-note 2 `Vide supra pag. 528, nota 2` (Respondeo *magister Hugo*); [^6] = L-note 1 `Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2…d. 22` (*ab origine*); [^7] = L-note 4 `Libr. I. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 26` (closing *quaerimus hic de unitate*); [^8] = L-note 3 `Secundum Aristotelem…septem peccatis capitalibus d. 42 dub. 3` (*suppositum*); [^9] = L-note 5 `Cfr. Aristot. I. Topic…secundum quod ed. 1 secundum quem` (*in quo*); [^10] = R-note 7 `Hic c. 2. — Paulo superius pro iniquitates…quae ex cod. aa` (Solutio 1 *exemplificat in littera*); [^11] = R-note 6 `Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 in quo: sic in diversis…post Neutro cod. A autem` (numeratio *in quo / Neutro*). (Footers placed by semantic match, NOT raw line order — the IA OCR interleaves the two footer blocks.)
- p.792 (Solutio 2 tail [Notandum + frivola digression] + Solutio 3–6 + ART III opener): q2's footers 1–7 (L-block 1–4, R-block 5–7) → [^12]–[^18]. [^12] = `Respicitur Gen. 2, 24` (frivola tail *una caro*); [^13] = `Ut ostensum est supra d. 26. q. 5…` (Sol 5 *gratia in omnibus viribus*); [^14] = `Cap. 3. seq…pag. 722` (Sol 5 *Conceptu virginali*, Anselm); [^15] = `Epist. 187…ad Dardanum…c. 4. n. 13` (Sol 5 *Augustinus*); [^16] = `Quoad totam hanc solutionem…S. Thomae…d. 31. a. 1. q. 2` (Sol 5 tail *ad carnem*); [^17] = `Quaest. praeced. ad 6…d. 29. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2` (Sol 6 *saepe dictum est*); [^18] = `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` (Sol 6 end *ex consequenti*). p.792 footer 8 (`Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 adiicit Dei`) glosses the ART III opener (*carentia visionis Dei*) → forwarded to d33-a3-q1.

**Hand-off received.** From d33-a2-q1 (shared printed p.790): the QUAESTIO II footer share = p.790 left-block notes 1, 3, 4 + right-block note 6 → [^1]–[^4] here. a2-q1 held only p.790 note 5 (`Vide supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. et d. 32. a. 2. q. 1.` = its [^27]) and the *et*-variant note 2 (`Codd. aa ee omittunt et, pro quo cod. A substituit etiam, Vat. et etiam` = its [^28]).

**Hand-off forwarded to d33-a3-q1.** ARTICULUS III (`De poena peccati originalis`, body `Consequenter quaeritur quantum ad tertium articulum de poena originalis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum decedentes in solo originali puniantur poena ignis materialis…`) begins on p.792 L bottom + R, immediately after q2's Solutio 6. The p.792 footer 8 (`Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 adiicit Dei`, glossing ART III *carentia visionis Dei*) and the entire p.793 footer block (`Respicitur Gen. 2, 24` [ART III opener]; `Ut ostensum est supra d. 26. q. 5…`; `Cap. 3. seq…pag. 722`; `Epist. 187…ad Dardanum…`; plus the a3-q1-proper footers) are forwarded to d33-a3-q1. a3-q1 opens on p.793 (`DIST. XXXIII. ART. III. QUAEST. I.`, raw ≈55243).

**CAUTION resolved (the p.790 *et*-variant note).** The dispatch flagged that q2 arg-4's `et status est per reductionem ad unum` might need an *et*-variant note distinct from a2-q1's [^28]. Verified against the 450 dpi PDF p.790 footer: there is exactly ONE *et*-variant note on p.790 (`Codd. aa ee omittunt et…` = q1's [^28]); arg-4's `et status` carries NO separate footnote marker (its only marker is `convenit` → note 4 → [^3] here). NO double-count; q2 has no *et*-variant note.

**Scholion disposition.** ABSENT in q2 (`has_scholion: false`). The ARTICULUS II scholion is article-level and held by a2-q1 (its item I: `Secundum principia in praecedentibus tractata solutio utriusque quaestionis huius articuli non habet difficultatem` — explicitly covers BOTH article questions; item II adds the commentator roll for this 2nd question). Per Override §5, a quaestio legitimately lacks its own scholion when the sibling's scholion says it covers both — confirmed here.

**Cascade-dropout check.** PASSED. Both column bands of each of pp. 790–792 read top→bottom. Seams: p.790/791 (inside Sed contra — q2's fundamenta `...non sit nisi unum solum` [p.790 L tail] → `Sed contra hoc arguitur` is fully on p.790 R; the body that crosses to p.791 is `2. Item…per eandem viam, per quam sumebantur ad oppo-‖situm` — grammatically continuous); p.791/792 (inside Solutio 2 — `sic et ‖ in originalis peccati transfusione intelligendum est` — grammatically continuous, the *Notandum.* marginal label straddles the seam). No mid-paragraph splice signature found. The shared p.790 footer block splits cleanly between a2-q1 (notes 2, 5) and q2 (notes 1, 3, 4, 6); the p.792 footer block splits cleanly between q2 (footers 1–7) and a3-q1 (footer 8 + p.793 forwarded).

**[?] flags.** None.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 33, Art. 3, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 792 -->

### ARTICULUS III.
### *De poena peccati originalis.*

Consequenter quaeritur quantum ad tertium articulum de poena originalis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum decedentes in solo originali puniantur poena ignis materialis. Secundo quaeritur, utrum puniantur poena interioris doloris, an solum carentia visionis[^1].

<!-- page 793 -->

### QUAESTIO I.
### *Utrum parvuli decedentes in solo originali puniantur poena ignis materialis.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum parvuli decedentes in solo originali puniantur poena ignis materialis. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Augustinus *de Fide ad Petrum*[^2]: « Firmissime tene, parvulos, qui sine Sacramento baptismatis de hoc saeculo transeunt, aeterni ignis supplicio sempiterno puniendos ».

2. Item, Augustinus[^3]: « Quisquis ita vivere incipit, ut ante finiat vitam, quam ab eius, scilicet originalis, obligatione solvatur, si unius diei vel unius horae spatio anima vixit in corpore, necesse est, eum cum eodem corpore interminabilia gehennae supplicia sustinere ». Ex hoc expresse colligitur, quod originali non tantum debetur carentia visionis Dei, sed etiam poena ignis.

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur *ratione*. Parvuli in hac vita multas sustinent afflictiones et poenalitates; aut ergo *iuste*, aut *iniuste*. Non *iniuste*; hoc constat, quia omnis poena iusta est. Si *iuste*; ergo meretur hoc originalis culpa. Si ergo culpa non debet remanere impunita, et originale meretur poenam sensus; videtur, quod parvuli poena sensibili crucientur.

4. Item, illud est magis dignum puniri, in quo magis residet causa peccati; *per quae enim quis peccat, per illa debet torqueri*[^4]; sed traductio et causa originalis peccati maxime residet penes carnem: ergo videtur, quod illa potissime debet puniri. Si ergo anima merito illius culpae digna est Dei visione privari, multo fortius caro digna est aeternis suppliciis cruciari.

5. Item, parvulis non restituentur corpora dotata[^5], habebunt igitur corpora passibilia; sed omne passibile necesse est aliquando pati vel ab extrinseco, vel ab intrinseco, maxime cum approximatur agenti activo: ergo videtur, quod parvulorum corpora aliquando patientur et affligentur.

**Sed contra:**
1. Augustinus in *Enchiridio*[^6]: « Mitissima sane eorum erit poena, qui praeter peccatum, quod originaliter traxerunt, nullum insuper addiderunt »; sed si parvuli carerent visione Dei et punirentur igne materiali, non haberent mitissimam poenam. Si igitur nemo dubitat, eos visione Dei privandos, videtur nullo modo esse ponendum, ipsos corporali supplicio puniendos.

2. Item, Magister in littera, capitulo *Alioquin*[^7]: « Pro originali peccato, quod a parentibus parvuli traxerunt, nullam aliam materialis ignis, vel conscientiae vermis poenam sensuri sunt, nisi quod Dei visione carebunt in perpetuum ».

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione. Iniustum est plus exigere in poena, quam commissum est in culpa: si ergo parvulus nullo actu suo divinum contempsit imperium, videtur, quod nullum debetur sibi aeternale tormentum.

4. Item, acerbitas poenae respondet quantitati delectationis, iuxta illud Apocalypsis[^8]: *Quantum glorificavit se et in deliciis* etc.; sed anima, quae coniuncta fuit corpori parvuli infirmanti et debili, nullam delectationem inordinatam in corpore sensit: ergo non videtur, quod sibi debeatur acerbitas poenae sensibilis.

5. Item, horribilius est continue et aeternaliter in tormentis esse quam omnino non esse: si ergo Deus animam, quam creavit sine perpetratione alicuius peccati, aeternis suppliciis deputaret; nullum videretur sibi beneficium praestare, nec misericordia simul cum iustitia curreret. Quodsi hoc est inconveniens dicere apud Patrem misericordiarum[^9], videtur etc.

### Conclusio.

> Parvuli decedentes in peccato originali non sentiunt poenae ignis acerbitatem, privantur tamen Dei visione et ponuntur in loco vili.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod hic duplex est opinio.

Quidam enim, attendentes rigorem divinae iustitiae ac sententiae, qua Deus hominem pro uno modico mortali, in quo momentanea et quasi nulla fuit delectatio, cruciat aeternaliter; dicunt, quod parvuli cremabuntur igne materiali, longe tamen minus quam illi qui peccaverunt peccato actuali. Et hoc dicunt sensisse Augustinum, cum dixit in Enchiridio « poenam parvulorum esse mitissimam », et in libro de Fide ad Petrum: « Parvuli cruciabuntur aeterno supplicio ». *Mitissimam* enim illam vocat poenam non absolute, sed respectu aliorum. Nec in

<!-- page 794 -->

hoc derogatur, ut dicunt, divinae misericordiae, quamvis plus[^10] manifestetur iustitiae quam misericordiae, pro eo quod minus malum est in tali poena esse quam omnino non esse, cum non sit ibi tanta boni privatio, sicut manifestat Augustinus in libro de Libero Arbitrio[^11]. Et hoc dicunt esse conveniens, ut, sicut in originali peccato erat carentia debitae iustitiae et concupiscentia, sic etiam in poena esset carentia visionis Dei et afflictio ignis aeterni.

Sed cum valde durum illud dicere videatur, quod Deus tam dure et tam aspere agat cum parvulis sic decedentibus, qui omnino non potuerunt vitare nec mortem culpae nec mortem naturae, praesertim cum videamus, Deum cum impiissimis et sceleratissimis peccatoribus in multis misericorditer agere: ideo est alia positio mitior, quae magis concordat pietati fidei et iudicio rationis, quod quia parvuli decedentes cum originali carent iustitia et Spiritus sancti gratia, quae est *pignus hereditatis aeternae*[^12], privantur in aeternum visione Dei; quia vero in carne fuit foeditas, ideo ponuntur in loco vili, utpote infernali; sed quia non habuerunt in se actualem delectationem peccati, nec in spiritu nec in carne, ideo non sentiunt poenae ignis acerbitatem. — Hunc modum dicendi magis approbant magistri communiter; et ideo ipsum sustinendo secundum opinionem Magistri, sicut patet in littera[^13], rationes, quae ad hanc partem inducuntur, concedo.

1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de verbis Augustini, dicendum, quod Augustinus in verbis illis non intendit dicere, quod parvuli sensibiliter crucientur; sed intendit eorum poenam manifestare quantum ad carentiam visionis Dei et quantum etiam ad vilitatem loci. Et hoc valde abundanter exprimit, plus dicens et minus volens intelligi. Nec sine causa loquitur sic. Hoc enim facit ad exstirpandam illam haeresim, quae dicebat, parvulos nulla poena puniri. Unde sicut in moribus documentum est, quod qui vult ab uno extremorum pervenire ad medium, quasi debet declinare ad aliud extremum, sicut docet Philosophus[^14]; sic etiam beatus Augustinus, ut illam haeresim exstirparet, quae dicebat parvulos ab omni poena immunes, et ad medium reduceret, videlicet ad poenam carentiae visionis Dei, simpliciter asseruit, eos cum aliis peccatoribus aeternaliter damnari. Istum autem suum intellectum explanavit in Enchiridio, ubi dixit, poenam eorum esse mitissimam, sicut dicit Magister in littera[^15].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod parvuli multas poenalitates sustinent in hac vita; dicendum, quod etsi *temporaliter* puniri pro peccato originali sit iustum, non tamen sequitur, quod *aeternaliter*. Et ratio huius est, quia poenae temporales non tantum sunt punitivae, sed etiam promotivae; unde Deus non tantum affligit inimicos suos, verum etiam amicos, sicut patet in Tobia et Iob; et ideo in afflictione temporali severitati iustitiae coniuncta est benignitas misericordiae; quae duo eleganter reperiri debent in omni Dei punitione et remuneratione[^16]. Sic autem non contingeret in poena aeterna reperire; hoc enim pure esset de rigore iustitiae, si animas parvulorum ignis gehennalis supplicio cruciaret.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in carne maxime residet causa peccati; dicendum, quod etsi *causa* peccati quoquo modo resideat in carne, hoc est per modum cuiusdam *habitus*, non per modum *actus*. Unde caro non facit animam parvuli *concupiscentem*, sed *concupiscibilem*[^17]; et propter hoc nec ipsa nec anima in ipsa debet actuali combustione ignis torqueri; sed sicut *anima* privatur visione Dei, sic etiam *caro* privatur stola sua et in loco vili et tenebroso ponitur, cum collocanda esset in caelo empyreo, si a talis foeditatis corruptione fuisset sanata per baptismi efficaciam.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod parvuli non habent corpora dotata, sed potius passibilia; dicendum, quod aliquid non pati ab aliquo dupliciter contingit: aut ex *virtute*, quam habet in se, aut ex *ordine divinae iustitiae*. Dico igitur, quia, quod corpora parvulorum sint passione carentia, hoc non est propter *virtutem* quam habeant resistendi in se, sed potius propter *ordinem divinae iustitiae*, secundum cuius regulam ignis infernalis agere habet, cum sit instrumentum divinae iustitiae. Unde sicut idem ignis magis cruciat maiorem peccatorem quam minorem, sic in eodem igne patiuntur corpora eorum qui peccaverunt peccato actuali[^18]. Parvulorum vero

<!-- page 795 -->

corpora, etiam si in ipsis ignibus infernalibus volutentur, passionem non sentiunt, et tamen non habent impassibilitatis[^19] dotem, quia non superant vim ignis per hoc quod habent a propria virtute. Et *si tu obiicias* mihi, quod debent pati, passione veniente ab intrinseco, utpote fame et siti, cum non habeant corpora impassibilia et immortalia; dicendum, quod sicut damnatorum corpora, cum sint passibilia et defectibilia, tamen divina virtute sustentante perpetuantur in vita, ut ab ignibus non consumantur; sic et parvulorum corpora eadem virtute divina in vita continuantur, ut non indigeant cibo nec potu; nec tamen habent illam firmitatem et soliditatem, quam habebunt corpora gloriosa.

english:
### ARTICLE III.
### *On the punishment of original sin.*

Consequently it is asked, as to the third article, concerning the punishment of original [sin]. And concerning this two [questions] are asked. First it is asked, whether those dying in original [sin] alone are punished with the punishment of material fire. Second it is asked, whether they are punished with the punishment of interior sorrow, or only [with] the lack of the vision[^1].

<!-- page 793 -->

### QUESTION I.
### *Whether little children dying in original [sin] alone are punished with the punishment of material fire.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and it is asked, whether little children dying in original [sin] alone are punished with the punishment of material fire. And that they are, it seems.

1. Augustine, *On Faith, to Peter*[^2]: « Hold most firmly that little children who pass from this world without the Sacrament of baptism are to be punished with the everlasting torment of eternal fire ».

2. Likewise, Augustine[^3]: « Whoever begins to live in such a way that he ends life before he is loosed from the obligation of it, namely of original [sin], if for the space of one day or one hour the soul has lived in the body, it is necessary that he, together with the same body, sustain the interminable torments of Gehenna ». From this it is expressly gathered that to original [sin] is due not only the lack of the vision of God, but also the punishment of fire.

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by *reason*. Little children in this life sustain many afflictions and penalties; either therefore *justly*, or *unjustly*. Not *unjustly*; this is established, because every punishment is just. If *justly*; therefore original guilt merits this. If therefore guilt ought not to remain unpunished, and original [sin] merits the punishment of sense; it seems that little children are tormented with sensible punishment.

4. Likewise, that is more worthy to be punished in which the cause of sin more resides; *for through the things by which someone sins, through those he ought to be tormented*[^4]; but the transmission and cause of original sin most resides in the flesh: therefore it seems that it especially ought to be punished. If therefore the soul by the merit of that guilt is worthy to be deprived of the vision of God, much more strongly is the flesh worthy to be tormented with eternal torments.

5. Likewise, to little children bodies endowed [with gifts] will not be restored[^5], they will therefore have passible bodies; but everything passible must at some time suffer either from without, or from within, especially when it is brought near to an active agent: therefore it seems that the bodies of little children will at some time suffer and be afflicted.

**On the contrary:**
1. Augustine in the *Enchiridion*[^6]: « Their punishment indeed will be the mildest, who, besides the sin which they drew originally, added nothing further »; but if little children were to lack the vision of God and be punished with material fire, they would not have the mildest punishment. If therefore no one doubts that they are to be deprived of the vision of God, it seems in no way to be held that they are to be punished with bodily torment.

2. Likewise, the Master in the text, in the chapter *Alioquin*[^7]: « For the original sin which little children drew from their parents, they will feel no other punishment of material fire, or of the worm of conscience, except that they will lack the vision of God forever ».

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by reason. It is unjust to exact more in punishment than was committed in guilt: if therefore the little child by no act of his own contemned the divine command, it seems that no eternal torment is due to him.

4. Likewise, the bitterness of the punishment corresponds to the quantity of the delight, according to that [passage] of the Apocalypse[^8]: *As much as he glorified himself and was in delights* etc.; but the soul which was joined to the body of an infirm and weak little child sensed no inordinate delight in the body: therefore it does not seem that the bitterness of sensible punishment is due to it.

5. Likewise, it is more horrible to be continually and eternally in torments than not to be at all: if therefore God were to assign to eternal torments a soul which he created without the perpetration of any sin; he would seem to bestow no benefit on it, nor would mercy run together with justice. But if it is unfitting to say this of the Father of mercies[^9], it seems etc.

### Conclusion.

> Little children dying in original sin do not feel the bitterness of the punishment of fire, yet they are deprived of the vision of God and placed in a base place.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it is to be noted that here there is a twofold opinion.

For some, attending to the rigor of divine justice and of the sentence by which God torments eternally a human for one slight mortal [sin], in which there was a momentary and as it were nothing of delight; say that little children will be burned with material fire, yet far less than those who sinned by actual sin. And they say that Augustine held this, when he said in the *Enchiridion* that « the punishment of little children is the mildest », and in the book *On Faith, to Peter*: « Little children will be tormented with eternal torment ». For he calls that punishment *the mildest* not absolutely, but in respect of others. Nor in

<!-- page 794 -->

this, as they say, is anything derogated from divine mercy, although *more*[^10] is manifested of justice than of mercy, for the reason that it is a lesser evil to be in such a punishment than not to be at all, since there is not there so great a privation of good, as Augustine manifests in the book *On Free Choice*[^11]. And they say this to be fitting, that, just as in original sin there was the lack of due justice and concupiscence, so also in the punishment there should be the lack of the vision of God and the affliction of eternal fire.

But since it seems very hard to say that God acts so harshly and so severely with little children dying thus, who altogether could not avoid either the death of guilt or the death of nature, especially since we see that God acts mercifully in many things with the most impious and most wicked sinners: therefore there is another, milder position, which more agrees with the piety of faith and the judgment of reason, [namely] that, because little children dying with original [sin] lack justice and the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is the *pledge of the eternal inheritance*[^12], they are deprived forever of the vision of God; but because in the flesh there was foulness, therefore they are placed in a base place, namely an infernal one; but because they did not have in themselves actual delight of sin, neither in spirit nor in flesh, therefore they do not feel the bitterness of the punishment of fire. — This way of speaking the masters more commonly approve; and therefore, sustaining it according to the opinion of the Master, as appears in the text[^13], I grant the reasons which are adduced toward this part.

1. 2. To that therefore which is first objected to the contrary concerning the words of Augustine, it must be said that Augustine in those words does not intend to say that little children are tormented sensibly; but he intends to manifest their punishment as to the lack of the vision of God and also as to the baseness of the place. And this he expresses very abundantly, saying more and wishing less to be understood. Nor without cause does he speak thus. For he does this in order to root out that heresy which said that little children are punished with no punishment. Whence just as in moral matters it is a teaching that he who wishes to arrive at the mean from one of the extremes must as it were incline toward the other extreme, as the Philosopher teaches[^14]; so also blessed Augustine, in order to root out that heresy which said that little children are immune from all punishment, and to lead [them] back to the mean, namely to the punishment of the lack of the vision of God, simply asserted that they are eternally damned together with other sinners. But this his meaning he explained in the *Enchiridion*, where he said that their punishment is the mildest, as the Master says in the text[^15].

3. To that which is objected, that little children sustain many penalties in this life; it must be said that although to be punished *temporally* for original sin is just, yet it does not follow that [they are punished] *eternally*. And the reason for this is that temporal punishments are not only punitive, but also promotive; whence God afflicts not only his enemies, but also his friends, as appears in Tobias and Job; and therefore in temporal affliction the benignity of mercy is joined to the severity of justice; which two ought elegantly to be found in every punishment and reward of God[^16]. But thus it would not happen to be found in eternal punishment; for this would be purely of the rigor of justice, if it tormented the souls of little children with the torment of the fire of Gehenna.

4. To that which is objected, that in the flesh the cause of sin most resides; it must be said that although the *cause* of sin in some manner resides in the flesh, this is by way of a certain *habit*, not by way of an *act*. Whence the flesh does not make the soul of the little child *concupiscing*, but *concupiscible*[^17]; and on account of this neither it nor the soul in it ought to be tormented by the actual burning of fire; but just as the *soul* is deprived of the vision of God, so also the *flesh* is deprived of its robe and is placed in a base and dark place, when it ought to be placed in the empyrean heaven, if it had been healed from the corruption of such foulness by the efficacy of baptism.

5. To that which is objected, that little children do not have endowed bodies, but rather passible ones; it must be said that for something not to suffer from something happens in two ways: either from the *power* which it has in itself, or from the *order of divine justice*. I say therefore that, that the bodies of little children are lacking passion, this is not on account of the *power* which they have of resisting in themselves, but rather on account of the *order of divine justice*, according to whose rule the infernal fire has to act, since it is the instrument of divine justice. Whence just as the same fire torments the greater sinner more than the lesser, so in the same fire the bodies of those who sinned by actual sin suffer[^18]. But the bodies of little children,

<!-- page 795 -->

even if they are rolled about in the very infernal fires, do not feel passion, and yet they do not have the gift of impassibility[^19], because they do not overcome the force of the fire by that which they have from their own power. And *if you object* to me that they ought to suffer, by a passion coming from within, such as hunger and thirst, since they do not have impassible and immortal bodies; it must be said that, just as the bodies of the damned, since they are passible and defectible, yet by the sustaining divine power are perpetuated in life, so that they are not consumed by the fires; so also the bodies of little children are continued in life by the same divine power, so that they need neither food nor drink; nor yet do they have that firmness and solidity which the glorious bodies will have.

la: Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 adiicit *Dei*.

en: The Vatican [edition] with edd. 3, 4 adds *Dei* ("of God").

la: Cap. 27. n. 70. Textus originalis tum post *tene* tum post *parvulos* plura addit.

en: Chapter 27. n. 70. The original text adds more both after *tene* ("hold") and after *parvulos* ("little children").

la: De Fide ad Petrum, c. 3. n. 36, ubi textus originalis omittit *scilicet originalis*, dein post *anima* subiicit *illa* et post pauca cum Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 4 pro *eum* substituit *eam*.

en: *On Faith, to Peter*, c. 3. n. 36, where the original text omits *scilicet originalis* ("namely of original"), then after *anima* ("soul") subjoins *illa*, and a little after, with the Vatican [edition] and edd. 2, 3, 4, substitutes *eam* for *eum*.

la: Sap. 11, 17. — De *minori* vide supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.

en: Wisdom 11, 17. — On the *minor* see above d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.

la: Sive ornata dotibus impassibilitatis, claritatis, subtilitatis et agilitatis, quae conveniunt corporibus *gloriosis*.

en: That is, adorned with the gifts of impassibility, clarity, subtlety, and agility, which belong to *glorious* bodies.

la: Cap. 93. n. 23. ubi textus originalis pro *originaliter* habet *originale*. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Pro *poena, qui* Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 *poena, quae*. Eaedem edd. circa finem arg. omittunt *ponendum*.

en: Chapter 93. n. 23. where the original text for *originaliter* has *originale*. Cfr. here the text of the Master, c. 2. — For *poena, qui* the Vatican [edition] with edd. 3, 4 [reads] *poena, quae*. The same editions, toward the end of the argument, omit *ponendum*.

la: Hic c. 2.

en: Here c. 2.

la: Cap. 18, 7: *Quantum glorificavit se et in deliciis fuit, tantum date illi tormentum et luctum.*

en: Chapter 18, 7: *As much as he glorified himself and was in delights, so much give to him torment and grief.*

la: Respicitur illud II. Cor. 1, 3: *Pater misericordiarum et Deus totius consolationis.*

en: Reference is made to that [passage] of 2 Cor. 1, 3: *The Father of mercies and the God of all consolation.*

la: Vocula *plus* (i. e. maior mensura) referenda est ad *iustitiae*. Vel post *manifestetur* cum cod. O adde *opus*, vel cum Vat. *via*, vel pro *iustitiae quam misericordiae* cum codd. aa bb et aliis substitue *iustitia quam misericordia*. Paulo superius pro *sed respectu aliorum* (Vat. et edd. 3, 4 *aliarum*) cod. E *sed in comparatione ad alios*.

en: The little word *plus* ("more"; i. e. greater measure) is to be referred to *iustitiae* ("of justice"). Or after *manifestetur* with cod. O add *opus*, or with the Vatican [edition] *via*, or for *iustitiae quam misericordiae* with codd. aa bb and others substitute *iustitia quam misericordia*. A little above, for *sed respectu aliorum* (Vat. and edd. 3, 4 *aliarum*) cod. E [reads] *sed in comparatione ad alios*.

la: Libr. III. c. 5. n. 12. et c. 23. n. 66. seqq. Ibid. c. 6. n. 18. seqq. ostenditur, *non-esse* a nemine eligi, ne a miserrimo quidem. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 50. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2, ubi quaeritur, utrum voluntate deliberativa damnati malint non esse quam sic esse. In fine seq. propositionis edd., excepta 1, cum pluribus codd. *aeterna* pro *aeterni*.

en: Book III. c. 5. n. 12. and c. 23. n. 66. seqq. In the same place, c. 6. n. 18. seqq., it is shown that *not-being* is chosen by no one, not even by the most wretched. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 50. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2, where it is asked whether by deliberative will the damned would prefer not to be rather than to be thus. At the end of the following proposition the editions, except 1, with several codices [read] *aeterna* for *aeterni*.

la: Respicitur Eph. 1, 14, ubi de Spiritu sancto dicitur: *qui est pignus hereditatis nostrae*. Paulo inferius edd. cum pluribus codd. *ponentur* pro *ponuntur*.

en: Reference is made to Eph. 1, 14, where it is said of the Holy Spirit: *who is the pledge of our inheritance*. A little below, the editions with several codices [read] *ponentur* for *ponuntur*.

la: Libr. II. Ethic. c. ult., ubi ad propositum illustrandum in exemplum adducit eos « qui ligna distorta dirigunt », qui scil. ea dum dirigere volunt, in partem oppositam torquent, quo facto ligna ad medium reducuntur.

en: Book II. of the *Ethics*, last chapter, where, to illustrate the matter, he adduces as an example those « who straighten distorted [pieces of] wood », who namely, while they wish to straighten them, bend them in the opposite direction, which done, the wood is reduced to the mean.

la: Cfr. August., III. de Lib. Arb. c. 23. n. 68. seqq., et Epist. 166. (alias 28.) ad Hieronym. c. 6. n. 16, nec non IV. Sent. d. 46. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Mox pro *pure* Vat. et edd. 3, 4 perperam *parum*. Dein pro *supplicio* plures codd., ut F T aa etc., substituunt *suppliciis*, alii, ut 1 bb ee, cum edd. 1, 2 *supplicii*.

en: Cfr. Augustine, III. *On Free Choice* c. 23. n. 68. seqq., and Epist. 166. (otherwise 28.) to Jerome c. 6. n. 16, and also IV. Sent. d. 46. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Presently, for *pure* the Vatican [edition] and edd. 3, 4 wrongly [read] *parum*. Then for *supplicio* several codices, as F T aa etc., substitute *suppliciis*, others, as 1 bb ee, with edd. 1, 2 [read] *supplicii*.

la: Ut dicitur supra d. XXX. lit. Magistri, c. 9. — De *stola* carnis sive corporis vide supra pag. 786, nota 7. — Pro *Unde* Vat. et edd. 3, 4 *tamen*.

en: As is said above d. XXX. in the text of the Master, c. 9. — On the *robe* of the flesh or of the body see above p. 786, note 7. — For *Unde* the Vatican [edition] and edd. 3, 4 [read] *tamen*.

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 44. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. seq.

la: Codd. F1KLO (T a prima manu) W ee et alii cum ed. 1 *impassibilitatem*.

en: Codd. F1KLO (T by a first hand) W ee and others, with ed. 1, [read] *impassibilitatem*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Duae huius articuli quaestiones intime inter se cohaerent. Quod parvuli sine baptismo decedentes non alia poena afficiantur nisi poena damni, seu carentia visionis beatificae, minime autem poena sensus, scil. ignis, omnes antiqui Scholastici docent, si excipias Gregorium Ariminensem (et paucissimos alios obscuros magistros), qui propter quaedam verba S. Augustini haesitat, an illi parvuli non etiam poena sensus plectantur. Dicit enim (hic q. 3.) in fine: « Non vidi partem aliquam expresse determinatam ab Ecclesia; et tremendum mihi videtur negare auctoritates Sanctorum; econtra etiam non est tutum contraire communi opinioni et consensioni magistrorum nostrorum; idcirco neutri parti alteram praeferens, diiudicationem earum lectori relinquo ». — Item communissime ab iisdem Scholasticis docetur, istos parvulos nec habere ex carentia supernaturalis beatitudinis afflictionem spiritualem. Dissensus autem opinionum est in assignanda ratione, quare ex praedicto damno non sentiant afflictionem, utrum ideo, quia omnino non habent cognitionem (quod pluribus non videtur verisimile); an saltem nullam cognitionem huius carentiae; an quia sciant, se ad istam beatitudinem non esse proportionatos; an quia speciali divina providentia talis dolor ab eis removetur, ut putat Richard. a Med. (hic a. 3. q. 2.). — Denique, nostro Doctori, et ut videtur, etiam Alexandro, B. Alberto et Aegidio placet, quod dicti parvuli generatim nec tristitiam sentiant nec laetitiam. Attamen non pauci antiqui magistri cum S. Thoma (hic q. 2. a. 2; de Malo. q. 5. a. 3.) consentiunt Petro de Tar. (hic q. 3. a. 2.), qui dicit, quod « potius gaudebunt de hoc, quod participabunt multum de bonitate divina et perfectionibus naturalibus ». Unde « contenti sunt bono, quod habent, ex eo quod se sciunt perpetuo esse, vivere et intelligere, multo magis quam aliquis in vita ista aerumnosa, in qua tamen multi sunt, qui nollent eam unquam finire, ut pervenirent ad beatitudinem ». Idem repetit Richard. a Med.; nec dissentit Scot. (hic q. unica n. 3.) docens: « Videtur probabile concedere, quod omnium naturaliter cognoscibilium possunt naturaliter cognitionem habere excellentius, quam aliqui habuerunt pro statu isto; et ita aliqualem beatitudinem naturalem de Deo cognito in universali poterunt attingere ». Idem sentiunt Durand. (hic q. 3.) nec non Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 2.), qui tamen addit, nihil hic asserendum esse incaute, nisi quantum ex Scripturis et doctrina Ecclesiae innotescat. — Notum autem est, plures et insignes posteriores theologos severius quoad afflictionem spiritualem, vel saltem quoad gaudium naturale iudicium ferre, quam laudati antiqui. Hinc patet, S. Bonaventuram mediam viam pro suo more tenere. — Quoad sententiam S. Augustini notabile est iudicium S. Bonaventurae (q. I. ad 1.), quod hic « valde abundanter exprimit, plus dicens et minus volens intelligi ». Loci autem, in 1. et 2. ad opposit. citati, sunt Fulgentii, non Augustini.

**II.** De utraque quaest. praeter locos laudatos: Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 106. m. 10. § I. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2; de Malo, q. 5. a. 1-3. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 1. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The two questions of this article cohere intimately among themselves. That little children dying without baptism are afflicted with no other punishment than the punishment of loss, that is, the lack of the beatific vision, but by no means with the punishment of sense, namely of fire, all the ancient Scholastics teach, if you except Gregory of Rimini (and very few other obscure masters), who, on account of certain words of St. Augustine, hesitates whether those little children are not also struck with the punishment of sense. For he says (here q. 3.) at the end: « I have not seen any part expressly determined by the Church; and it seems fearful to me to deny the authorities of the Saints; on the contrary also it is not safe to go against the common opinion and consensus of our masters; therefore, preferring neither part to the other, I leave the adjudication of them to the reader ». — Likewise it is most commonly taught by the same Scholastics that those little children do not have spiritual affliction from the lack of supernatural beatitude. But the dissent of opinions is in assigning the reason why from the aforesaid loss they do not feel affliction, whether therefore because they altogether have no cognition (which to many does not seem likely); or at least no cognition of this lack; or because they know that they are not proportioned to that beatitude; or because by special divine providence such sorrow is removed from them, as Richard of Middleton thinks (here a. 3. q. 2.). — Finally, it pleases our Doctor, and as it seems, also Alexander, B. Albert, and Aegidius, that the said little children generally feel neither sadness nor joy. Yet not a few ancient masters with St. Thomas (here q. 2. a. 2; *On Evil* q. 5. a. 3.) agree with Petrus a Tarantasia (here q. 3. a. 2.), who says that « they will rather rejoice in this, that they will participate much in the divine goodness and in natural perfections ». Whence « they are content with the good which they have, from the fact that they know themselves to exist, live, and understand perpetually, much more than someone in this wretched life, in which nevertheless there are many who would not wish it ever to end, that they might attain to beatitude ». Richard of Middleton repeats the same; nor does Scotus dissent (here q. unica n. 3.), teaching: « It seems probable to grant that of all naturally knowable things they can naturally have a knowledge more excellently than some had for this state; and so they will be able to attain some natural beatitude concerning God known in the universal ». The same think Durandus (here q. 3.) and also Dionysius the Carthusian (here q. 2.), who however adds that nothing here is to be asserted incautiously, except insofar as it becomes known from the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Church. — But it is known that many and distinguished later theologians judge more severely as to spiritual affliction, or at least as to natural joy, than the praised ancients. Hence it appears that S. Bonaventure holds the middle way after his manner. — As to the opinion of St. Augustine, notable is the judgment of S. Bonaventure (q. I. ad 1.), that here he « expresses very abundantly, saying more and wishing less to be understood ». But the passages cited in the 1st and 2nd [replies] to the opposite are of Fulgentius, not of Augustine.

**II.** On each question, besides the passages praised: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II. q. 106. m. 10. § I. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1. 2; *On Evil*, q. 5. a. 1-3. — Petrus a Tarantasia, in the cited place a. 1. 2. — Richard of Middleton, in the cited place q. 1. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 2. a. 1. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw 55221–55414), with the cascade-fragmented Respondeo (two-opinion structure), Ad-obiecta replies, SCHOLION, and all page-footers verified against 450 dpi PDF column bands (printed pp. 792–795, offset pdf = printed + 22 → pdf pp. 814–817). Read Left column top→bottom then Right column for each page; body bands then footer bands.

**ART III opener folded in (Override §5).** The short ARTICULUS III opener (`Consequenter quaeritur quantum ad tertium articulum de poena originalis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo… Secundo…`, raw 55221–55228, p.792 L-bottom + R) is folded into this q1 as the article header + TRACTATIO — no standalone divisio chunk. Its single marker (`carentia visionis Dei`) is [^1].

**Boundary (alignment CONFIRMED).** This chunk = ARTICULUS III, QUAESTIO I only. The q1 opener `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum parvuli decedentes in solo originali puniantur poena ignis materialis. Et quod sic, videtur.` matches the dispatch + ART III TRACTATIO item 1 — alignment held. The chunk ENDS at raw ~55414, immediately before the `QUAESTIO II.` header (raw ≈55418, *Utrum parvuli decedentes in solo originali puniantur aliquo dolore interiore*, body `Secundo quaeritur, utrum parvuli decedentes in solo originali puniantur aliquo dolore interiori`) — everything from there to the DUBIA opener (raw 55586) is d33-a3-q2.

**Page-split / footer map.** Spans printed pp. 792–795 (running heads: p.792 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.` [verso]; p.793 `DIST. XXXIII. ART. III. QUAEST. I.`; p.794 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.` [verso]; p.795 `DIST. XXXIII. ART. III. QUAEST. II.` — note the p.795 running head reads QUAEST. II because q2 opens lower on that page, but the page top + scholion belong to q1).
- p.792 (ART III opener at page bottom, L-col + R-col): the opener's lone marker at *carentia visionis Dei* = p.792 footer 8 (`Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 adiicit Dei`) → [^1], received from a2-q2. (p.792 footers 1–7 were taken by a2-q2 for its Solutio body — see "Hand-off received".)
- p.793 (QUAESTIO I title + fundamenta 1–5 + Sed contra 1–5 + Conclusio + Respondeo opener/opinio 1): footers 1–8 → [^2]–[^9]. Markers reflowed L-col then R-col: [^2] *de Fide ad Petrum* (arg 1), [^3] *Augustinus* (arg 2), [^4] *torqueri* / Sap 11,17 (arg 4), [^5] *dotata* (arg 5), [^6] *Enchiridio* (Sed contra 1); then R-col [^7] *Alioquin* (Sed contra 2), [^8] *Apocalypsis* (Sed contra 4), [^9] *misericordiarum* (Sed contra 5).
- p.794 (Respondeo: opinio 2/improbatio + opinio 3/conclusio + Ad obiecta 1.2, 3, 4, 5-start): footers 1–9 → [^10]–[^18]. [^10] *plus* (opinio 2), [^11] *de Libero Arbitrio*, [^12] *pignus hereditatis aeternae* (opinio 3), [^13] *littera* (Magister), [^14] *Philosophus* (ad 1.2), [^15] *littera* (ad 1.2 end), [^16] *remuneratione* (ad 3), [^17] *concupiscibilem* (ad 4), [^18] *actuali* (ad 5).
- p.795 (top: ad 5 tail + SCHOLION I–II): only footer 1 belongs to q1 → [^19] *impassibilitatis* (`Codd. F1KLO… impassibilitatem`). The SCHOLION carries only parenthetical/reference content (commentator roll, Conc. refs) — NO numbered footers. p.795 footers 2+ (Adhort. I. ad Theodor.; etc.) anchor in QUAESTIO II's body and are forwarded to d33-a3-q2.

**Hand-off received.** From d33-a2-q2: p.792 footer 8 (`Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 adiicit Dei`), glossing the ART III opener *carentia visionis Dei* → [^1]. NOTE: the dispatch brief listed p.792 footers 1–4 (`Respicitur Gen. 2, 24`; `Ut ostensum est supra d. 26…`; `Cap. 3. seq…pag. 722`; `Epist. 187…ad Dardanum…`) as also forwarded, but a2-q2's actual `## Notes` shows it claimed those as its own [^12]–[^15] (anchored in its Solutio 5 body — *una caro*, *gratia in omnibus viribus*, Anselm, Augustinus), so they do NOT belong here; verified against a2-q2's footer map. Only footer 8 was genuinely forwarded.

**Hand-off forwarded to d33-a3-q2.** QUAESTIO II (`Utrum parvuli decedentes in solo originali puniantur aliquo dolore interiore`, body `Secundo quaeritur, utrum parvuli decedentes in solo originali puniantur aliquo dolore interiori. Et quod sic, videtur:`) begins on p.795 R-col lower, raw ≈55418. The p.795 footer block below footer 1 (footer 2 `Adhort. I. ad Theodor. lapsum, n. 9: A tantis autem excidisse bonis…`, and the rest of p.795's footers) anchors in q2's body and is forwarded to d33-a3-q2. This q1 claims only p.795 footer 1.

**Scholion disposition.** PRESENT here at q1 (p.795, raw 55389–55414), items I and II. `has_scholion: true`. Item I treats the cohesion of the two questions of the article, the poena damni vs poena sensus debate (Greg. Ariminensis dissent), and the spiritual-affliction question — covering BOTH questions of the article, so q2 may legitimately lack its own scholion per Override §5. Item II is the commentator roll for both questions.

**Cascade-dropout check.** PASSED. Both column bands of each of pp. 792–795 read top→bottom. Seams: p.792/793 (ART III opener → QUAESTIO I title — clean section break, no mid-sentence splice); p.793/794 (inside Respondeo opinio 1 — `Nec in ‖ hoc derogatur… divinae misericordiae` — grammatically continuous); p.794/795 (inside Ad obiectum 5 — `sic in eodem igne patiuntur corpora eorum… Parvulorum vero ‖ corpora, etiam si in ipsis ignibus… volutentur` — grammatically continuous). No mid-paragraph splice signature found. The shared p.792 footer block splits cleanly between a2-q2 (footers 1–7) and this q1 (footer 8); the shared p.795 footer block splits between this q1 (footer 1) and a3-q2 (footers 2+).

**[?] flags.** None.

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