title: Dist. 31, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 753 -->

### Articulus II. Quaestio III. *Utrum caro inficiatur ex propagatione tantum, vel ex propagatione et libidine.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum caro ipsa inficiatur ex propagatione tantum, vel ex propagatione et libidine. Et quod ex libidine, videtur:

1. *Primo* auctoritate Augustini *de Fide ad Petrum*[^1]: « Peccatum originale non transmittit ad parvulos propagatio, sed libido »: si ergo anima ex
<!-- page 754 -->
foeditate carnis contrahit originale, illa foeditas est in carne non ex propagatione, sed ex libidine.

2. Item, Magister in littera[^2]: « Pollutio quaedam est in carne, quam ex fervore coitus parentum et concupiscentia libidinosa contrahit caro, dum concipitur ». Ex hoc apparet, quod foeditas illa in carne non est ex propagatione, sed ex libidine.

3. Item, Christus de beata Virgine conceptus est ex massa humani generis, et tamen nec habuit illam foeditatem in carne nec originale in anima: ergo talis foeditas in carne non est, quia caro ex carne educitur, sed quia cum libidine seminatur[^3].

4. Item, si nunquam natura lapsa esset, nihilominus esset propagatio carnis ex carne; nec esset in ea[^4] foeditas nec peccatum originale per consequens: ergo si in propagatione hominis ex homine est traductio originalis, hoc non est ratione ipsius propagationis, sed ratione adiunctae libidinis.

5. Item, si fieret propagatio absque libidine, iam nulla esset inordinatio ex parte virtutis generativae: si nulla esset inordinatio ex parte virtutis generativae, nulla esset foedatio in semine; et si hoc, nec esset foeditas in carne, nec in anima contraheretur originale[^5]. Si ergo caro inficitur et vitiatur, hoc non est ex propagatione tantum, sed etiam libidine.

**Sed contra:**
1. Originale peccatum contrahimus, quia in Adam peccavimus eo modo, quo in ipso eramus; in ipso autem eramus secundum propagationem, non secundum libidinem: ergo tam originale quam carnis foeditatem propagatione contrahimus, non libidine.

2. Item, libido respicit parentes proximos; sed originalis traductio respicit primos parentes: unde non dicimur contrahere originale a parente proximo, sed ab Adam[^6]: ergo videtur, quod ipsa libido, quae est in coitu, nihil facit ad transfundendum peccatum originale.

3. Item, possibile est, coniuges sanctos ex caritate coire absque omni peccato; sed ubicumque est libido, ibi est voluntatis improbitas et aliqua culpa: ergo possibile esset, eos generare absque libidine: igitur si traductio foeditatis carnis vel originalis peccati esset ratione libidinis, proles sic genita non haberet culpam originalem.

4. Item, si traductio originalis esset ratione libidinis, ergo ille qui cum maiori libidine nasceretur, maius contraheret originale; sed natus ex adulterio cum maiori libidine generatur quam ille, qui nascitur ex legitimo matrimonio[^7]: ergo videtur, quod maior esset in eo originalis culpa. Si igitur corruptione originalis peccati omnes corrumpuntur aequaliter, videtur, quod talis corruptio non traducatur per libidinem.

5. Item, ponatur, quod semen descinderetur[^8] de lumbis viri et infunderetur vasculo mulieris, ita quod nec vir sentiret delectationem nec mulier; esset ibi prolis conceptio absque libidine: ergo talis proles non haberet peccatum originale. Quodsi hoc est absurdum ponere et intelligere, quod aliquis ex semine Adae generetur sine corruptione, nisi in eo solo, qui conceptus est ex Virgine per virtutem supra naturam; non videtur foeditatem carnis vel originale peccatum transmittere ad posteros libido, sed propagatio.

### Conclusio

> Si libido intelligitur in sensu vitiosae corruptionis, tunc concurrit ad inficiendam in propagatione carnem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut expresse dicit Augustinus in libro *de Fide ad Petrum*, et Magister dicit in littera[^9], foeditas carnis et contractio originalis non tantum est ex lege propagationis, sed etiam ex foeditate libidinis. Unde Augustinus dicit: « Peccatum in parvulos non transmittit propagatio, sed libido, nec fecunditas naturae humanae facit homines nasci cum peccato, sed foeditas libidinis ».

Ad cuius verbi intelligentiam et etiam obiectorum notandum est, quod libido tripliciter dicitur. Uno modo libido dicitur *improba voluntas*, secundum quem modum dicit Augustinus in libro *de Libero Arbitrio*[^10]: « Nihil aliud videmus in toto malefaciendi genere, nisi libidinem dominari », hoc est voluntatis improbitatem. — Alio modo libido dicitur *delectatio immoderata*, secundum quod dicimus, maiorem esse libidinem in opere virtutis generativae quam alterius potentiae[^11]. — Tertio modo dicitur libido *corruptio vitiosa*, quam dicimus esse in semine et etiam in virtute generativa praeter actum generandi, secundum quam ipsa *vis generativa* dicitur esse corrupta et infecta[^12]. — Omnibus his modis contingit, libidinem esse circa actum generationis humanae, quoniam ibi et est *corruptio vitiosa* et *delectatio immoderata* et *voluntas improba*. Sine *prima* tamen libidine, hoc est improba voluntate, contingit generari frequenter; sine *secunda*, hoc est immoderata delectatione, vix aut nunquam; sine *tertia* nunquam, si sit generatio secundum legem naturae.
<!-- page 755 -->
Cum ergo dicitur, quod « peccatum transmittit ad posteros non propagatio, sed libido », hoc non intelligitur de libidine *primo* et *secundo* modo, sed *tertio*. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad omnes rationes, quae adducuntur ad utramque partem. Nam primae auctoritates et rationes, quae ostendunt originale transfundi propter libidinem, loquuntur de libidine in acceptione tertia. — Rationes vero ad oppositum procedunt de libidine in acceptione prima et secunda, et hoc patet pertractanti omnes et singulas[^13].

english:
### Article II. Question III. *Whether the flesh is infected by propagation alone, or by propagation and lust.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the flesh itself is infected by propagation alone, or by propagation and lust. And that it is by lust, it seems:

1. *First*, by the authority of Augustine, *On the Faith, to Peter*[^1]: « Original sin is not transmitted to little ones by propagation, but by lust »: if therefore the soul contracts the original [sin]
from the foulness of the flesh, that foulness is in the flesh not from propagation, but from lust.

2. Likewise, the Master in the text[^2]: « There is a certain pollution in the flesh, which the flesh contracts from the heat of the parents' coitus and from libidinous concupiscence, while it is conceived ». From this it appears that that foulness in the flesh is not from propagation, but from lust.

3. Likewise, Christ, conceived of the blessed Virgin, is from the mass of the human race, and yet He had neither that foulness in the flesh nor the original [sin] in the soul: therefore such foulness is in the flesh not because the flesh is brought forth from flesh, but because it is sown with lust[^3].

4. Likewise, if nature had never fallen, there would nonetheless be propagation of flesh from flesh; nor would there be foulness in it[^4] nor, consequently, original sin: therefore if in the propagation of man from man there is a transmission of the original [sin], this is not by reason of the propagation itself, but by reason of the adjoined lust.

5. Likewise, if propagation came about without lust, then there would be no disorder on the part of the generative power: if there were no disorder on the part of the generative power, there would be no defilement in the seed; and if this, there would be neither foulness in the flesh, nor would the original [sin] be contracted in the soul[^5]. If therefore the flesh is infected and vitiated, this is not from propagation alone, but also from lust.

**On the contrary:**
1. We contract the original sin because we sinned in Adam in that mode in which we were in him; but in him we were according to propagation, not according to lust: therefore we contract both the original [sin] and the foulness of the flesh by propagation, not by lust.

2. Likewise, lust regards the proximate parents; but the transmission of the original [sin] regards the first parents: hence we are not said to contract the original [sin] from a proximate parent, but from Adam[^6]: therefore it seems that the lust itself, which is in coitus, does nothing toward transfusing original sin.

3. Likewise, it is possible for holy spouses to come together out of charity without any sin; but wherever there is lust, there is improbity of will and some fault: therefore it would be possible for them to generate without lust: therefore if the transmission of the foulness of the flesh or of original sin were by reason of lust, offspring thus begotten would not have the original fault.

4. Likewise, if the transmission of the original [sin] were by reason of lust, then he who was born with greater lust would contract a greater original [sin]; but one born of adultery is generated with greater lust than one who is born of lawful marriage[^7]: therefore it seems that the original fault would be greater in him. If therefore by the corruption of original sin all are corrupted equally, it seems that such corruption is not transmitted through lust.

5. Likewise, suppose that the seed were drawn off[^8] from the loins of the man and infused into the vessel of the woman, such that neither the man nor the woman should feel delight; there would be there a conception of offspring without lust: therefore such offspring would not have original sin. But if it is absurd to suppose and to understand that anyone be generated from the seed of Adam without corruption, except in Him alone who was conceived of the Virgin by a power above nature; it does not seem that lust transmits the foulness of the flesh or the original sin to posterity, but propagation.

### Conclusio

> If lust is understood in the sense of vicious corruption, then it concurs in infecting the flesh in propagation.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Augustine expressly says in the book *On the Faith, to Peter*, and the Master says in the text[^9], the foulness of the flesh and the contraction of the original [sin] is not only from the law of propagation, but also from the foulness of lust. Hence Augustine says: « Sin is transmitted to little ones not by propagation, but by lust, nor does the fecundity of human nature cause men to be born with sin, but the foulness of lust ».

For the understanding of this saying and also of the objections, it must be noted that lust is said in three ways. In one way lust is said to be an *improbity of will*, according to which mode Augustine says in the book *On Free Choice*[^10]: « We see nothing else in the whole genus of evildoing except lust dominating », that is, the improbity of will. — In another way lust is said to be *immoderate delight*, according to which we say that there is greater lust in the work of the generative power than of another power[^11]. — In a third way lust is said to be *vicious corruption*, which we say to be in the seed and also in the generative power apart from the act of generating, according to which the *generative power* itself is said to be corrupted and infected[^12]. — In all these ways it happens that lust is about the act of human generation, since there both is *vicious corruption* and *immoderate delight* and *improbity of will*. Yet without the *first* lust, that is, without improbity of will, it happens that generation frequently occurs; without the *second*, that is, without immoderate delight, scarcely or never; without the *third*, never, if it be a generation according to the law of nature.
Therefore when it is said that « it is not propagation that transmits sin to posterity, but lust », this is not understood of lust in the *first* and *second* mode, but in the *third*. — And through this the response to all the arguments which are adduced for each part is clear. For the first authorities and arguments, which show that the original [sin] is transfused on account of lust, speak of lust in the third acceptation. — But the arguments to the opposite proceed concerning lust in the first and second acceptation, and this is clear to one who works through each and every one of them[^13].

la: Cap. 2. n. 16, ubi pro *ad parvulos* textus orig. habet *in parvulos*. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.

en: Ch. 2, n. 16, where for *to little ones* the original text has *in little ones*. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 7.

la: Hic c. 6. — In textu allato Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 4 posuit *in fervore* pro *ex fervore*, et *ex concupiscentia* pro *et concupiscentia*.

en: Here c. 6. — In the text quoted the Vatican edition, with editions 2, 3, 4, put *in the heat* for *from the heat*, and *from concupiscence* for *and concupiscence*.

la: Hoc arg. insinuatur a Magistro, hic in lit. c. 7.

en: This argument is insinuated by the Master, here in the text, c. 7.

la: Edd., excepta 1, *eo*.

en: The editions, except the 1st, read *eo* [for it].

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3. — Paulo superius pro *et si hoc, nec* Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 4 *et si haec non esset, nulla* (Vat. *non*).

en: Cf. above a. 1, q. 3. — A little above, for *and if this, neither* the Vatican edition with editions 2, 3, 4 reads *and if this [foulness] were not, none* (the Vatican omits *none*).

la: Vide infra d. 33. a. 1. q. 1. — Pro *dicimur* codd. F K T Y ee et alii cum ed. 1 *dicuntur*, codd. aa bb cum ed. 2 *dicitur*.

en: See below d. 33, a. 1, q. 1. — For *we are said* the codices F K T Y ee and others with the 1st edition read *they are said*, the codices aa bb with the 2nd edition *it is said*.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 33. a. 2. q. 1. — Paulo superius plures codd. cum edd. 1, 2 omittunt *matrimonio*, pro quo Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 substituit *thoro*.

en: As is shown below d. 33, a. 2, q. 1. — A little above several codices with editions 1, 2 omit *marriage*, for which the Vatican edition with editions 3, 4 substitutes *the marriage-bed*.

la: Cod. M *decideretur*, cod. aa *decidatur*, cod. bb *traduceretur*. Circa finem arg. pro *ex Virgine* Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 *in Virgine*, cod. aa *de Virgine*.

en: Codex M reads *decideretur*, codex aa *decidatur*, codex bb *traduceretur*. Near the end of the argument, for *of the Virgin* the Vatican edition with editions 3, 4 reads *in the Virgin*, codex aa *from the Virgin*.

la: Hic c. 7, ubi etiam verba Augustini habentur. — In textu Augustini mox allato Vat. cum ed. 3 falso transformavit *fecunditas naturae* in *foeditas naturae*.

en: Here c. 7, where also the words of Augustine are had. — In the text of Augustine quoted just after, the Vatican edition with the 3rd edition falsely transformed *the fecundity of nature* into *the foulness of nature*.

la: Libr. I. c. 3. n. 8. Cfr. et illud in eius libro de Mendacio, c. 7. n. 10: *Libido quoque ipsa recte definitur appetitus animi, quo aeternis bonis quaelibet temporalia praeponuntur.*

en: Book I, c. 3, n. 8. Cf. also that passage in his book *On Lying*, c. 7, n. 10: *Lust too is rightly defined as an appetite of the mind by which any temporal things whatever are preferred to eternal goods.*

la: Vide August., XIV. de Civ. Dei, c. 16.

en: See Augustine, *On the City of God* XIV, c. 16.

la: Cfr. August., I. Operis imperf. contra Iulian. c. 70; II. c. 42; et IV. Contra Iulian. Pelagianum, c. 9. n. 54.

en: Cf. Augustine, *Unfinished Work against Julian* I, c. 70; II, c. 42; and *Against Julian the Pelagian* IV, c. 9, n. 54.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Hac et sequente huius articuli quaest. multa illustrantur et determinantur, quae in praecedente quaest. dicta sunt. — De appetitu naturali et deliberativo vide supra d. 24. p. I. a. 2. q. 3, infra d. 38. a. 2. q. 1; IV. Sent. d. 49. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. De essentiali ordine et appetitu animae ad corpus cfr. IV. Sent. d. 43. a. 1. q. 5. ad ult., d. 44. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. — In seq. (3.) quaest. bene distinguitur *triplex libido*, quae doctrina etiam ab aliis Scholasticis recepta est, praesertim a S. Thom. (hic q. I. a. I. ad 3; de Malo, q. 4. a. 6, ad 16.). Cfr. etiam Bonav., hic dub. 4; Breviloq. p. III. c. 6.

**II.** Pauci antiqui magistri de his duabus quaest. explicite disputant, sed eas tangunt in praecedentibus quaest. Distincte agit de 2. quaest. Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. et de 3. quaest. ibid. q. 2. Solummodo de 3. quaest. agunt: S. Thom., locc. et art. citt. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** By this and the following question of this article many things are illustrated and determined which were said in the preceding question. — On natural and deliberative appetite see above d. 24, p. I, a. 2, q. 3; below d. 38, a. 2, q. 1; *Sent.* IV, d. 49, p. I, a. 1, q. 2. On the essential order and the appetite of the soul for the body cf. *Sent.* IV, d. 43, a. 1, q. 5 ad ult., d. 44, p. I, a. 2, q. 1. — In the following (third) question the *threefold lust* is well distinguished, which doctrine has also been received by other Scholastics, especially by St. Thomas (here q. I, a. I, ad 3; *de Malo*, q. 4, a. 6, ad 16). Cf. also Bonaventure, here dub. 4; *Breviloquium* p. III, c. 6.

**II.** Few of the ancient masters explicitly dispute about these two questions, but they touch upon them in the preceding questions. Richard of Mediavilla treats distinctly of the second question, here a. 2, q. 3, and of the third question, ibid. q. 2. Of the third question alone treat: St. Thomas, in the places and articles cited; — Bl. Albert, here a. 2; — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol2_raw.txt` raw lines 52523–52612). The cascade-shattered Sed-contra args 4–5, the Conclusio, and the entire Respondeo (the triple-*libido* distinction and its conclusion spanning the p.754→p.755 break) were re-set from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p{753,754,755}-{L,R}-{0–2}.png`; pdf = printed + 22, i.e. PDF pp. 775–777). Read column-by-column (L then R), body bands then footer bands. Terminology: *propagatio* = propagation, *libido* = lust, *caro* = flesh, *inficere* = infect, *foeditas* = foulness.

**Page-split / footer map.** q3 opens at the bottom of printed p. 753 (running head `DIST. XXXI. ART. II. QUAEST. III.` — set for the question that opens lower on that page; the body above the QUAESTIO III header on p.753 is still q2 + the article scholion). It runs across p. 754 and ends mid-p. 755 immediately before `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` (DUB. I).
- **p. 753** (QUAESTIO III header + title + opener fund. 1): printed footers 1–3 belong to q2; printed footer **7** (`Cap. 2. n. 16, ubi pro ad parvulos…`) glosses the q3 opener's *de Fide ad Petrum* citation → apparatus **[^1]**. *Footer 7 RECEIVED from a2-q2 (see hand-offs).*
- **p. 754** (fund. 1 cont.–5 + Sed contra 1–5 + Conclusio + Respondeo through the third *libido* mode): printed footers 1–11 → apparatus **[^2]–[^12]** (left col 1–6 = [^2]–[^7]; right col 7–11 = [^8]–[^12]).
- **p. 755** (Respondeo conclusion: *Cum ergo dicitur… omnes et singulas*): printed footer **1** (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) glosses the closing *singulas¹* → apparatus **[^13]**. The remaining p.755 footers (2–9, the `creatura² / duodecimo³ / poena⁴ / utriusque⁵ / …⁶` markers in the DUB. I + DUB. II body in the left column and right-column lower band) belong to the d31-dubia chunk and are FORWARDED there.

**Footer count.** 1 (p.753 fn7) + 11 (p.754 fn1–11) + 1 (p.755 fn1) = **13 apparatus entries**; 13 La = 13 En = 13 defs; all 13 markers paired in the Latin and English bodies.

**Hand-offs.** RECEIVED from a2-q2: p.753 printed footer 7 (`Cap. 2. n. 16, ubi pro ad parvulos textus orig. habet in parvulos. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.`), glossing the q3 opener's *de Fide ad Petrum* citation → [^1]. FORWARDED to d31-dubia: the p.755 footers belonging to the DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI block (printed footers 2+ on p.755: `creatura² / duodecimo³ / poena⁴ / utriusque⁵ / non⁶ …`), which gloss the DUB. I / DUB. II bodies, not q3. Document the split when promoting d31-dubia.

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: true`. This is the **article-level scholion** (sections I and II): "Hac et sequente huius articuli quaest. multa illustrantur…" It physically sits on p.753 between q2's Ad-obiecta and the QUAESTIO III header, and explicitly covers BOTH q2 and q3 of this article ("Hac et sequente huius articuli quaest."). Per Vol II Override §5 it is carried by the LAST question of the article (a2-q3, this chunk), which it caps; a2-q2 forward-referenced it (`has_scholion: false` there). No scholion footnotes (citations are inline cross-references).

**Cascade-dropout check.** Verified against 450 dpi column bands. q2→q3 boundary (raw 52522→52523, the SCHOLION + QUAESTIO III header on p.753) confirmed clean — q3 opener *Tertio quaeritur… 1. Primo auctoritate Augustini de Fide ad Petrum* is grammatically continuous and the «Peccatum originale… sed libido» quote splices cleanly across the p.753→p.754 break ("si ergo anima ex | foeditate carnis"). The Respondeo's third-*libido* mode splices cleanly across the p.754→p.755 break ("Omnibus his mo-|dis contingit"). The q3→dubia boundary (raw 52612→52613) is clean: q3 ends at *omnes et singulas¹*; `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` / `DUB. I.` follows. The OCR two-column interleave (e.g. the "o. Item, / de lurabis viri ponatur, quod semen / et infunderetur vasculo descinderetur" fragmentation of Sed-contra 5) was re-set from the PDF; no body text lost.

**[?] flags.** None. All damaged regions resolved from the 450 dpi PDF column bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 31, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Distinctio XXXI)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Distinction XXXI)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 755 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### DUB. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod Magister quaerit in littera, ibi: *Hic quaeri solet, utrum causa peccati originalis in carne sit culpa, vel poena.* Non enim videtur ipse respondere ad quaestionem propositam, quia in solvendo nec determinat, quod sit *culpa*, nec determinat, quod sit *poena*; et videtur, quod *neutrum* sit. *Culpa* non est; constat. *Poena* non videtur esse, quia *poena* in ea sola natura nata est esse, in qua et miseria nata est esse; et miseria in ea sola, in qua etiam beatitudo est nata esse; haec autem est sola rationalis creatura[^1]: ergo ante adventum animae nec potest esse *poena* nec *culpa.* — Item, omni poena aliquis punitur; sed illa corruptione, quae est in semine ante adventum animae, nullus punitur: ergo non videtur esse *poena.* — Sed in contrarium est, quia cum sit *corruptio* consequens ex *culpa*, et omnis talis *poena*; videtur talis corruptio esse *poena.* Item, cum omnis maledictio sit poenae vel culpae, et *semen erat maledictum*, secundum quod dicitur Sapientiae duodecimo[^2], et Augustinus exponit in libro Hypognosticon: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum est ad hoc breviter, quod Magister ad istam quaestionem respondet valde caute et rationabiliter. Nec enim sustinet, quod sit *poena*, nec sustinet, quod sit *culpa*, nec tamen negat. Non enim *actualiter* est *poena* vel *culpa* corruptio illa sive foeditas, quoniam *poena* sub ratione poenae, et *culpa* sub ratione culpae sunt circa subiectum rationale. Nec tamen negat, quod sit *poena* vel *culpa*[^3], quia ad utrumque ordinem habet et utriusque[^4] quodammodo est causa. Anima enim ex coniunctione sui ad carnem ratione illius foeditatis contrahit poenam et culpam, licet culpam prius contrahat per naturam quam meritum poenae. Ideo Magister, ut utrumque comprehendat, vocat eam *vitiositatem* sive *carnis foeditatem*; et per hoc patet responsio ad utramque partem, quia quodam modo dicendi est *poena*, quodam modo *non*[^5].

### DUB. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Foeditas maior videtur esse in carne concupiscentialiter traducta quam in ea, de qua traducitur.* Si enim hoc verum est, cum originale contrahatur ex illa foeditate, videtur, quod maius sit originale in uno quam in alio[^6]. Item, nulla proprietas est intensior in effectu quam in causa, quando est univoce in utroque: ergo si foeditas in carne traducta causatur ab eo, a quo traducitur, non videtur Magister dicere verum, cum dicit, quod maior est hic quam ibi.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, cum dicit Magister, quod maior sit foeditas in carne, quae traducitur, quam in carne, a qua traducitur, hoc intendit quantum ad carnem, quae est in *aliis* membris et deservit aliis membris quam membris *generativae.* Hoc autem dicit, quia in illa potentia est quaedam *fontalis infectio*, propter quam semen, ibi genitum et per illam viam descendens, maiori infectione inficitur quam alii humores; quod manifestat pruritus et fervor coitus, sicut ipse dicit in littera[^7]. Unde non vult dicere, quod semen, ex quo generatur proles, sit magis infectum quam semen, ex quo generatus est pater. Nec tamen sequitur, quod maius sit originale in prole, quam fuerit in patre. Et ita patet responsio ad illud. Sed hoc planius explicabitur, cum agetur inferius[^8] de quantitate originalis.

<!-- page 756 -->

### DUB. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Non quia ex carne tracta ab Adam concepti sumus, ideo peccatum traximus*; et est quaestio, utrum si aliquis homo fieret de carne Adae corrupta praeter legem generationis, utrum contraheret originale. Et quod non, videtur Magister dicere in littera[^9], et hoc ipsum videtur Augustinus dicere contra Pelagianos, ubi dicit: «*Qualis terrenus, tales et terreni; hoc quomodo, nisi per seminis sparsionem*»? Et post: «*Semen ergo vitiatum est, sicut scriptum est: Semen erat maledictum ab initio*». Et post clarius: «*Vitium contrahi non potest protoplasti sine seminis effusione*». Si ergo aliter[^10] formaretur quam per istam viam, non videtur, quod contraheret originale. — Sed contrarium huius videtur, quia, si tota caro Adae corrupta fuit et foedata merito culpae, videtur pari ratione, quod peccatum contraheretur, si fieret de alia parte, sicut *fit*[^11] de semine. Praeterea, totum corpus prolis fabricatum est ex semine; et constat, quod foeditas illa non purgatur propter diversitatem organizationis: ergo si anima originale contraxit, quae iuncta est primo illi corpori; pari ratione videtur, quod contraheret illa anima, quae iungeretur corpori ex illa carne formato, nisi in illa formatione esset purificatio.

**Respondeo:** Quidam tenent, quod contraheret originale propter hoc, quod non solum est corruptio et foedatio in *parte*, sed in *tota carne.* Alii vero tenent oppositum, dicentes, quod etsi sit in omnibus membris corruptio *poenalitatis*, corruptio tamen *foeditatis*, quae est principium originalis, in parte generativa consistit[^12]. — Quodcumque horum dicatur, non est magna vis facienda, quia nullus est, qui non generetur secundum legem propagationis ex semine infecto nisi solus Christus, de quo certum est, quod non habuit originale peccatum. Verumtamen securius est adhaerere verbis Magistri propter hoc, quod magis consonant verbis Augustini[^13]. Unde si homo fieret ex alia parte, vel etiam mulier facta fuisset ex costa viri, postquam peccavit, poenalitatem aliquam habuisset, non tamen peccatum originale. — Nec valet quod obiicit de corruptione. Nam etsi in omnibus membris corruptio sit *poenalitatis*, corruptio tamen *foeditatis* est in solo semine ratione infectionis principalis, quae est in vi generativa. Quare autem vis illa sit magis infecta quam alia, determinatum est supra[^14].

### DUB. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Ecce in iniquitatibus conceptus sum* etc. Ex isto enim verbo videtur colligi, quod actus matrimonialis nunquam absque peccato habeat fieri; et hoc ipsum videtur per auctoritatem Augustini, decimo quarto de Civitate Dei: «*Genitales corporis partes ita libido suo iuri mancipavit, ut moveri non valeant, si ipsa defuerit*». Et ad Valerium: «*Honestas concubitus non est sine ardore libidinis*». — Sed contrarium huius est, quia omne mandatum Dei potest absque peccato impleri: ergo et prolem procreare absque peccato potest homo ad cultum Dei.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc breviter dicendum est, quod actus matrimonialis potest fieri absque omni peccato, maxime cum fit causa generandae prolis, vel reddendi debiti; et illud verbum Psalmi intelligitur de peccato originali in *prole*, non de *peccato actuali* in parente; et similiter verbum Augustini intelligitur de libidine, prout est *pruritus carnis*, non prout est *improbitas voluntatis*; et hoc modo plus est *poena* quam *culpa.* Et de hoc planius determinatur in quarto, in tractatu de matrimonio.

---

english:
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which the Master asks in the text, there: *Here it is wont to be asked, whether the cause of original sin in the flesh is fault or punishment.* For he does not seem to answer the question proposed, because in resolving it he neither determines that it is *fault*, nor determines that it is *punishment*; and it seems that it is *neither.* That it is not *fault* is established. That it is not *punishment* seems to be the case, because *punishment* is born to be only in that nature in which misery too is born to be; and misery only in that in which beatitude also is born to be; but this is the rational creature alone[^1]: therefore before the coming of the soul there can be neither *punishment* nor *fault.* — Likewise, by every punishment someone is punished; but by that corruption which is in the seed before the coming of the soul, no one is punished: therefore it does not seem to be a *punishment.* — But on the contrary it stands, that since it is a *corruption* consequent upon *fault*, and every such corruption is a *punishment*; such a corruption seems to be a *punishment.* Likewise, since every curse is of punishment or of fault, and *the seed was cursed*, according to what is said in the twelfth chapter of Wisdom[^2], and Augustine expounds in the book *Hypognosticon*: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said to this briefly, that the Master answers this question very cautiously and reasonably. For he neither maintains that it is a *punishment*, nor maintains that it is a *fault*, nor yet does he deny it. For that corruption or foulness is not *actually* a *punishment* or a *fault*, since *punishment* under the formal character of punishment, and *fault* under the formal character of fault, are about a rational subject. Nor yet does he deny that it is a *punishment* or a *fault*[^3], because it bears a relation to each order, and is in a certain manner the cause of each[^4]. For the soul, from its conjunction to the flesh, by reason of that foulness contracts punishment and fault, although it contracts the fault first by nature than the deserving of punishment. Therefore the Master, in order to comprehend both, calls it *viciousness* or *the foulness of the flesh*; and by this the answer to each part becomes plain, because in a certain manner of speaking it is a *punishment*, in a certain manner *not*[^5].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *The foulness seems to be greater in the flesh concupiscentially handed down than in that from which it is handed down.* For if this is true, since the original [sin] is contracted from that foulness, it seems that the original [sin] is greater in one than in another[^6]. Likewise, no property is more intense in the effect than in the cause, when it is in each univocally: therefore if the foulness in the flesh handed down is caused by that from which it is handed down, the Master does not seem to say what is true, when he says that it is greater here than there.

**I respond:** It must be said that, when the Master says that the foulness is greater in the flesh which is handed down than in the flesh from which it is handed down, he intends this with regard to the flesh which is in the *other* members and serves members other than the members of the *generative* [power]. But he says this because in that power there is a certain *welling-up infection*, on account of which the seed, begotten there and descending by that way, is infected with a greater infection than the other humors; which the itching and heat of intercourse make manifest, as he himself says in the text[^7]. Hence he does not wish to say that the seed from which the offspring is generated is more infected than the seed from which the father was generated. Nor yet does it follow that the original [sin] is greater in the offspring than it was in the father. And thus the answer to that becomes plain. But this will be explained more plainly when treatment is made below[^8] concerning the quantity of the original [sin].

<!-- page 756 -->

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Not because we were conceived of the flesh drawn from Adam did we draw sin*; and the question is, whether if some man were made from the corrupted flesh of Adam apart from the law of generation, whether he would contract the original [sin]. And that he would not, the Master seems to say in the text[^9], and this very thing Augustine seems to say against the Pelagians, where he says: «*Such as is the earthly one, such also are the earthly; this in what way, except by the scattering of seed?*» And after: «*The seed therefore was corrupted, as it is written: The seed was cursed from the beginning.*» And after, more clearly: «*The defect cannot be contracted from the first-formed one without the effusion of seed.*» If therefore one were formed otherwise[^10] than by that way, it does not seem that he would contract the original [sin]. — But the contrary of this seems to be the case, because, if the whole flesh of Adam was corrupted and made foul by the merit of the fault, it seems by parity of reasoning that sin would be contracted, if one were made from another part, just as *is done*[^11] from the seed. Furthermore, the whole body of the offspring is fashioned from the seed; and it is established that that foulness is not purged on account of the diversity of organization: therefore if the soul contracted the original [sin] which was joined to that first body; by parity of reasoning it seems that that soul would contract it which were joined to a body formed from that flesh, unless in that formation there were a purification.

**I respond:** Some hold that he would contract the original [sin] on account of the fact that there is corruption and defilement not only in a *part*, but in the *whole flesh.* But others hold the opposite, saying that although there is in all the members a corruption of *penalty*, yet the corruption of *foulness*, which is the principle of the original [sin], resides in the generative part[^12]. — Whichever of these is said, no great weight is to be put upon it, because there is no one who is not generated according to the law of propagation from infected seed except Christ alone, of whom it is certain that he did not have original sin. Nevertheless it is safer to adhere to the words of the Master on account of this, that they are more consonant with the words of Augustine[^13]. Hence if a man were made from another part, or even if the woman had been made from the rib of the man after he sinned, she would have had some penalty, yet not original sin. — Nor does that which he objects concerning corruption avail. For although in all the members there is a corruption of *penalty*, yet the corruption of *foulness* is in the seed alone by reason of the principal infection, which is in the generative power. But why that power is more infected than another, has been determined above[^14].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: *Behold, in iniquities I was conceived* etc. For from this word it seems to be gathered that the matrimonial act can never be done without sin; and this very thing seems [to follow] from the authority of Augustine, in the fourteenth book *On the City of God*: «*Lust has so subjected the generative parts of the body to its own right, that they cannot be moved if it is lacking.*» And to Valerius: «*The honorableness of intercourse is not without the ardor of lust.*» — But the contrary of this is the case, because every commandment of God can be fulfilled without sin: therefore a man can also procreate offspring without sin for the worship of God.

**I respond:** To this it must be said briefly, that the matrimonial act can be done without any sin, especially when it is done for the cause of generating offspring, or of rendering the debt; and that word of the Psalm is understood of original sin in the *offspring*, not of *actual sin* in the parent; and likewise the word of Augustine is understood of lust, insofar as it is the *itching of the flesh*, not insofar as it is the *wickedness of the will*; and in this manner it is more *punishment* than *fault.* And concerning this it is determined more plainly in the fourth book, in the treatise on matrimony.

---

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 9; X. c. 8; I. Magnor. Moral. c. 4; August., de Natura boni, c. 8. — Mox post *Item* et deinde post *sed* edd., excepta I, temere interiiciunt *pro*; secundo loco cod. bb interiicit *in.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Nicomachean Ethics*, Bk. I, c. 9; Bk. X, c. 8; *Great Ethics*, Bk. I, c. 4; Augustine, *On the Nature of the Good*, c. 8. — Shortly after, after *Item* and then after *sed*, the editions, except the first, rashly insert *pro*; in the second place codex bb inserts *in.*

la: Vers. 11. — Libr. II. Hypogn. c. 2. n. 2.

en: Verse 11. — *Hypognosticon*, Bk. II, c. 2, n. 2.

la: In Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 4 desiderantur verba *poena, nec sustinet, quod sit.* Eaedem edd. paulo inferius pro *subiectum rationale* exhibent *substantiam rationalem.*

en: In the Vatican edition and editions 2, 3, 4 the words *poena, nec sustinet, quod sit* are lacking. The same editions, a little below, for *subiectum rationale* read *substantiam rationalem.*

la: Non pauci codd. cum Vat. et ceteris edd. *uirumque*, cod. O *ad utrumque*, cod. K *uirique*; deinde pro *est causa* Vat. *sola causat.*

en: Not a few codices, with the Vatican edition and the other editions, read *uirumque*; codex O *ad utrumque*; codex K *uirique*; then for *est causa* the Vatican edition reads *sola causat.*

en: Cf. here, a. 2, q. 1; d. 32, a. 1, q. 2; d. 33, a. 2, q. 1; Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. II, q. 106, m. 4; St. Thomas, here, q. 1, a. 1, ad 4; Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the text, 3.

la: Quod falsum esse ostenditur infra d. 33. a. 2. q. 1.

en: That this is false is shown below, d. 33, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Hic c. 4. et 7. Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3.

en: Here, cc. 4 and 7. Cf. above, a. 1, q. 3.

la: Dist. 33. a. 2. q. 1. — De hoc dubio cfr. S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., dub. lit. 4.

en: Dist. 33, a. 2, q. 1. — On this doubt cf. St. Thomas, here on the text; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, doubt on the text, 4.

la: Hic c. 7. — Testimonia ex Augustino hic allata exstant in II. Hypogn., et quidem primum c. 1. n. 1, secundum et tertium c. 2. n. 2. In secundo testimonio textus originalis post *vitiatum est* addit *non vitium*, et in tertio pro *contrahi* exhibet *trahi* ac post *protoplasti* subiungit *neque esse homo.* Verba duorum locorum Scripturae habentur I. Cor 15, 48, et Sap. 12, 11.

en: Here, c. 7. — The testimonies from Augustine here adduced are found in *Hypognosticon*, Bk. II, namely the first in c. 1, n. 1, the second and third in c. 2, n. 2. In the second testimony the original text after *vitiatum est* adds *non vitium*, and in the third for *contrahi* it reads *trahi* and after *protoplasti* it subjoins *neque esse homo.* The words of the two scriptural passages are found in 1 Corinthians 15:48 and Wisdom 12:11.

la: Codd. Y aa subiiciunt *homo.*

en: Codices Y, aa subjoin *homo.*

la: Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 *sicut si fiat*, ed. 1 *sicut si.*

en: The Vatican edition with editions 3, 4 reads *sicut si fiat*; edition 1 *sicut si.*

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3. — Cod. aa *consistat.*

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 3. — Codex aa reads *consistat.*

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. — Paulo superius pro *certum est* edd., excepta 1, *dictum est.*

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 7. — A little above, for *certum est* the editions, except the first, read *dictum est.*

la: Art. 1. q. 3. — Cfr. Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit. Item: Cap. 19, ubi textus originalis voci *iuri* addit *quodammodo*; Libr. I. de Nuptiis et concupisc. c. 24. n. 27; Ps. 50, 7. — Dist. 31. a. 1. et 2. — Cfr. Alex. Hal., p. II. q. 106. m. 7. a. 3. § 4; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 5.

en: A. 1, q. 3. — Cf. Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text. Likewise: c. 19, where the original text adds *quodammodo* to the word *iuri* [*City of God*, Bk. XIV]; *On Marriage and Concupiscence*, Bk. I, c. 24, n. 27 [the *Valerius* citation]; Ps. 50:7 [the Psalm word]. — Dist. 31, a. 1 and 2 [the matrimony cross-reference, "in the fourth book"]. — Cf. Alexander of Hales, p. II, q. 106, m. 7, a. 3, § 4; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the text, 5.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF of printed pp. 755–756 (PDF pp. 777–778, offset +22), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 52613–52746). FINAL unit (9th) of DISTINCTIO XXXI — after this chunk d.31 is fully Tier-2 (littera + divisio + a1-q1/q2/q3 + a2-q1/q2/q3 + dubia). The DUBIA opens mid-page on p.755 L-col (immediately after a2-q3's tail *…peccatum transmittit ad posteros…patet responsio ad omnes et singulas¹*) and closes at the foot of p.756 R-col (*…in tractatu de matrimonio*) immediately before DISTINCTIO XXXII (raw 52747, printed p.756 L-col continues into the new distinction).

**Verified DUB count = 4 (I–IV)** at 450 dpi. NOTE: the IA djvu OCR mislabels the p.756 first header as `DuB. [II.]` (line 70) — the PDF shows it clearly as **DUB. III**, and the bottom of p.756 L-col already opens the next distinction's *Cap. I.* The four dubia are:
- DUB. I — *Hic quaeri solet, utrum causa peccati originalis in carne sit culpa, vel poena* (resolved: *quodam modo poena, quodam modo non* — Magister "valde caute"; calls it *vitiositas sive carnis foeditas*).
- DUB. II — *Foeditas maior videtur esse in carne concupiscentialiter traducta* (per *fontalis infectio* in the generative power; not greater originale in prole than in patre; *de quantitate originalis* deferred to d.33).
- DUB. III — *Non quia ex carne tracta ab Adam concepti sumus* (utrum si homo fieret de carne Adae corrupta praeter legem generationis contraheret originale; "Duae opiniones" margin — *securius est adhaerere verbis Magistri*, consonant with Augustine).
- DUB. IV — *Ecce in iniquitatibus conceptus sum* (Ps. 50,7; whether the matrimonial act can be done without sin; resolved yes — *plus est poena quam culpa*; deferred to IV Sent. de matrimonio). The PDF carries a "Resp." margin note at the Respondeo.

**Page-split map.**
- p.755 (L-col): DUB. I (full, *In parte ista … contrahit poenam et culpam, licet culpam prius contrahat per natu‑*); (R-col top): DUB. I tail (*…ram quam meritum poenae … quodam modo non[^5]*) + DUB. II (full, *Foeditas maior … de quantitate originalis[^8]*). a2-q3's Conclusio-2 tail + footer 1 sit above the DUBIA header on the R-col top.
- p.756 (L-col): DUB. III opener + pro-args + DUB. III Respondeo first opinion (*…de quo certum est, quod* —); (R-col): DUB. III Respondeo second opinion + reply (*non habuit originale peccatum. Verumtamen securius … determinatum est supra[^14]*) + DUB. IV (full). The p.756 L-col bottom + R-col bottom run into DISTINCTIO XXXII *Cap. I.* (NOT included).
- Body seams grammatically continuous: 755 L→R (*…per natu‑ ‖ ram quam meritum poenae*); 756 L→R (DUB. III Respondeo: *…non solum est corruptio … in tota carne. Alii vero … de quo certum est, quod ‖ non habuit originale peccatum*).

**Apparatus = 14 entries.** p.755 footer block has 9 numbered notes; footer 1 (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) belongs to a2-q3 (its [^13], glossing the Conclusio-2 tail) and is NOT re-claimed here. p.755 footers **2–9 → [^1]–[^8]** in body order (DUB. I: [^1]=f2 creatura, [^2]=f3 *Sapientiae duodecimo* Hypogn, [^3]=f4 *poena nec sustinet quod sit* variant, [^4]=f5 *utriusque/est causa* variant, [^5]=f6 *quodam modo non* + cross-refs; DUB. II: [^6]=f7 *in alio* infra d.33, [^7]=f8 *in littera* cc.4,7, [^8]=f9 *inferius* Dist.33). p.756 footer block has 10 numbered notes (L-col 1–5 = DUB. III; R-col 6–10 = DUB. III tail + DUB. IV) → **[^9]–[^14]**: [^9]=p756-f1 (*in littera* Hypogn testimonia + I Cor 15,48/Sap 12,11), [^10]=p756-f2 (*aliter* — Codd. Y aa *homo*), [^11]=p756-f3 (*fit* — *sicut si fiat* variant), [^12]=p756-f4 (*consistit* — supra a.1 q.3 + *consistat*), [^13]=p756-f5 (*Augustini* — lit. Magistri c.7 + *certum/dictum est*), [^14] = a single combined entry folding p756-f6 (*supra*=Art.1 q.3) with the four DUB. IV variant/source sub-notes f7 (*Civitate Dei* c.19 *quodammodo*), f8 (*Valerium* de Nuptiis c.24), f9 (*Psalmi*=Ps.50,7) and f10 (*quarto* matrimony cross-ref Dist.31 a.1,2 + author list). DUB. IV's four body markers (*Civitate Dei*, *Valerium*, *Psalmi*, *quarto*) are all anchored at the single [^14] following *supra* to keep the per-language marker count balanced (the four sub-notes are short citation/variant notes, combined per the d.29-dubia convention for chained per-page footers). N La = N En = N defs = 14.

**Hand-offs.** RECEIVED from a2-q3: the p.755 footer block footers 2–9 (the dubia's share; a2-q3 kept ONLY footer 1 = its [^13], the *Vide scholion* note glossing q3's *omnes et singulas*). FORWARDED: none — the DUBIA closes the distinction; all p.756 footers anchor within this chunk; DISTINCTIO XXXII opens fresh at raw 52747 (printed p.756, then continuing).

**Cascade-dropout check.** Both page seams (755 L→R, 756 L→R) read against the 450 dpi column bands and confirmed grammatically continuous with no mid-paragraph splice. The OCR's cascade-shattered two-column interleave (DUB. I L-col / DUB. II R-col on p.755; DUB. III split L/R + DUB. IV R on p.756) was reconstructed column-by-column from the PDF; no body text or footnote lost at the seams. The OCR's `DuB. [II.` mislabel on p.756 was corrected to DUB. III against the PDF header.

**has_scholion = false** — DUBIA chunks carry no scholion.

**[?] flags:** none. All four DUB bodies, both Respondeo opinions of DUB. III, and the full p.755 (footers 2–9) and p.756 (footers 1–10) footer blocks were read against the 450 dpi column bands and parse cleanly.

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. 32

title_alt: Distinction XXXII — The Text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 756 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXXII.

#### Cap. I.

#### *Quomodo originale peccatum dimittitur in baptismo.*

Quoniam supra[^1] dictum est, originale peccatum esse vitium concupiscentiae, assignatumque, quomodo a parentibus trahatur et originale dicatur; superest investigare, quomodo in baptismo dimittatur, cum etiam post baptismum remaneat concupiscentia, quae ante fuerat. Unde videtur, vel peccatum originale non esse concupiscentiam, vel non remitti in baptismo. « Manet quippe, ut ait Augustinus[^2], in corpore mortis huius carnalis concupiscentia, cuius vitiosis desideriis non obedire praecipimur; quae tamen concupiscentia quotidie minuitur in proficientibus et continentibus ». Sed licet remaneat concupiscentia post baptismum, non tamen dominatur et regnat sicut ante; immo per gratiam baptismi mitigatur et minuitur, ut post dominari non valeat, nisi quis reddat vires hosti eundo post concupiscentias. Nec post baptismum remanet ad reatum, quia non imputatur in peccatum, sed tantum poena peccati est, ante baptismum vero poena est et culpa.

<!-- page 757 -->

Duplici ergo ratione peccatum originale dicitur dimitti in baptismo: quia per gratiam baptismi vitium concupiscentiae debilitatur atque extenuatur, ita ut iam non regnet, nisi consensu reddantur ei vires; et quia reatus ipsius solvitur. Unde Augustinus in libro de Baptismo parvulorum[^3]: « Gratia per baptismum id agitur, ut vetus homo crucifigatur, et corpus peccati destruatur, non ita, ut in ipsa vivente carne concupiscentia respersa et innata repente absumatur et non sit, sed ne obsit mortuo, quae inerat nato. Nam si post baptismum vixerit, in carne habet concupiscentiam, cum qua pugnet; eamque adiuvante Deo superet, si tamen non in vacuum gratiam eius suscepit. Non itaque hoc praestatur in baptismo, nisi forte miraculo ineffabili Creatoris, ut lex peccati, quae est in membris, prorsus exstinguatur et non sit, sed ut, quidquid mali ab homine factum dictum cogitatumque est, totum aboleatur, ac velut factum non fuerit, habeatur, ipsa vero concupiscentia, soluto reatus vinculo, quo per illam diabolus animam retinebat et a suo Creatore separabat, maneat in certamine ». — Ecce hic aperte ostendit, ea ratione dimitti in baptismo, non quia non maneat[^4] post baptismum, sed quia reatus in baptismo aboletur. Deinde idem ipse ostendit, eo modo etiam dimitti, quia baptismi gratia concupiscentia ipsa mitigatur et minuitur, in eodem libro[^5] ita dicens: « Lex carnis, quam Apostolus appellat peccatum, cum ait: Non regnet peccatum in vestro mortali corpore, non sic manet in membris eorum qui ex aqua et Spiritu renati sunt, tanquam non sit eius facta remissio, ubi omnino plena fit remissio peccatorum; sed manet in vetustate carnis tanquam superatum et peremptum, nisi illicito consensu quodam modo reviviscat et in regnum proprium dominationemque revocetur ». — Hic aperte insinuatur, in baptismo concupiscentiam debilitari, ex quo et dicitur dimitti, non solum ideo, quia reatus ibi solvitur[^6]. Quem remissionis modum aliis etiam pluribus testimoniis Scriptura edocet. Ait enim Augustinus contra Iulianum[^7]: « Lex, quae in membris est, vitium carnis est, quod ex poena peccati et ex traduce mortis provenit. Sed lex ista, quae est in membris, remissa est regeneratione spirituali et manet in carne mortali. Remissa est, quia reatus solutus est Sacramento, quo renascuntur fideles. Manet autem, quia tamen dominatur et regnat sicut ante; immo per gratiam baptismi mitigatur et minuitur, ut post dominari non valeat, nisi quis reddat vires hosti eundo post concupiscentias ». Idem in sermone[^8] quodam de concupiscentia carnis: « Per gratiam baptismatis et lavacrum regenerationis solutus est et ipse concupiscentiae reatus, cum quo eras natus, et quidquid antea consensisti malae concupiscentiae, sive cogitatione, sive locutione, sive actione ». Idem in libro de Nuptiis et concupiscentia[^9]: « Concupiscentia carnis, licet in regeneratis iam non deputetur in peccatum, quaecumque tamen proles nascitur, obligata est originali peccato ». Item: « Dimittitur concupiscentia carnis in baptismo, non ut non sit, sed ut non imputetur in peccatum ». « Hoc est enim non habere peccatum, non esse reum peccati ». « Quomodo ergo alia peccata praetereunt actu et remanent reatu, ut homicidium et similia; ita e converso fieri potest, ut concupiscentia praetereat reatu et remaneat actu ». — Ex praedictis evidenter monstratur, quomodo peccatum originale in baptismo remittatur.

#### Cap. II.

#### *Utrum foeditas, quam ex libidine trahit, in baptismo diluatur.*

Solet autem hic quaeri, utrum et ipsa caro in baptismo ab illa foeditate purgetur, quam in conceptione ex concupiscentia libidinosa contraxit. — Quibusdam[^10] videtur, quod sicut anima a reatu purificatur, ita et caro ab illa pollutione purgatur, ut, sicut duobus completur mysterium baptismi, scilicet aqua et spiritu, ita ibi duo purgentur, anima scilicet a reatu, et caro ab illa contagione; quod quidem probabile est. — Alii vero putant, tantum animam ibi mundari, carnem vero non ab illa foeditate purgari. — Si vero remanet illa foeditas usque ad procreationem filiorum, quae fit in concupiscentia carnis; videtur natura carnis magis ac magis corrumpi, et magis corrupta videtur caro prolis quam parentis, quia de carne pollutionem, quam habuit a conceptu, retinente trahitur polluta et in concupiscentia concipitur, unde et polluitur; et ita ex duplici causa contaminatur. Unde maior videtur pollutio carnis in prole, quam fuerit in parente. — Ad quod illi dicunt, quia licet caro prolis ex carne foeda seminetur et in concupiscentia concipiatur; non tamen foeditatem maiorem trahit, quam caro, unde seminatur, habuit[^11]. Quamvis, etiam si foedior atque immundior sit caro prolis, et ideo magis corrupta quam caro parentis, non tamen, ut aiunt, fit praeiudicium veritatis; quia nec absurdum esse dicunt, si carnis natura magis in posterioribus corrupta trahatur, neque ex ipsa magis corrupta anima amplius inficiatur.

<!-- page 758 -->

#### Cap. III.

#### *Utrum illius concupiscentiae Deus sit auctor.*

Praeterea quaeri solet, utrum concupiscentia, quae post baptismum remanet et tantum poenalitas est, ante baptismum vero poena erat et culpa, ex Deo auctore sit, vel ex alio. — Ad quod breviter respondentes dicimus, quia, in quantum poena est, Deum habet auctorem; in quantum vero culpa est, diabolum sive hominem habet auctorem.

#### Cap. IV.

#### *Quare illud peccatum imputetur animae.*

Solet etiam quaeri[^12], qua iustitia teneatur illo peccato anima innocens a Deo creata, cum non sit in potestate sua illud vitare. Non enim per liberum arbitrium illud committitur, quia non prius est anima, quam illi peccato est obnoxia. — Ad hoc quidam dicunt, ideo animam ream esse illius peccati, licet munda a Deo sit creata, quia, cum infunditur corpori, condelectatur carni; ex quo peccatum contrahit. — Quod si esset, iam non originale, sed actuale diceretur. Potius ergo ideo recte potest dici imputari animae illud peccatum, quod ex corruptione corporis inevitabiliter trahit, quia, ut ait Augustinus in libro de Civitate Dei[^13], « non fuit corruptio corporis, quae aggravat animam, causa primi peccati, sed poena, nec caro corruptibilis animam peccatricem fecit, sed peccatrix anima carnem corruptibilem fecit ».

#### Cap. V.

#### *Utrum illud peccatum sit necessarium, vel voluntarium.*

Illud etiam non immerito quaeri potest, utrum peccatum originale debeat dici voluntarium, vel necessarium. — Et necessarium potest dici, quia vitari non potest; unde et Propheta[^14] dicit: De necessitatibus meis erue me; et voluntarium non incongrue appellatur, quia ex voluntate primi hominis processit, ut Augustinus in primo libro Retractationum[^15] ostendit dicens: « Illud quod in parvulis dicitur originale peccatum, cum adhuc non utantur libero arbitrio voluntatis, non absurde vocatur voluntarium, quia, ex prima hominis mala voluntate contractum, factum est quodam modo hereditarium ».

#### Cap. VI.

#### *Quare Deus iungit animam corpori, sciens inde maculari.*

Si vero quaeritur: cur Deus, qui fecit animam ipsam sine macula et scit, eam ex corporis coniunctione maculam peccati contrahere, et aliquando ante baptismum seiungi ab ipso corpore, et sic damnari, eam corpori coniungit[^16]? respondemus, ex altitudine iudiciorum Dei id provenire, et nec iniuste id a Deo fieri. Ipse enim non incongrue humanae conditionis modum, quem a principio instituit, licet peccata hominum intercesserint, sine immutatione continue servat, corpora de materia a principio sine vitio facta fingens, animasque de nihilo creans, eorumque coniunctione hominem perficiens. Cum igitur utraque hominis natura a Deo sine vitio sit instituta, licet a se peccato sit vitiata, non ideo immutabilis Deus humanae conditionis primariam legem mutare debuit, sive a multiplicatione hominum desistere.

#### Cap. VII.

#### *An anima sit talis, qualis a Deo creatur.*

Hic a quibusdam quaeri solet, utrum anima talis sit ante baptismum, qualis a Deo creatur. — Quod non esse, probare conantur hoc modo: anima in corpore creatur, in cuius coniunctione peccato maculatur; quam cito igitur est, peccatum habet, nec prius fuit, quam peccatum habuit[^17]: non est igitur talis, qualis a Deo creatur. Creatur enim a Deo innocens et sine vitio; et nunquam talis est. — Ad quod dici potest, quia non omnino talis est, qualem eam Deus fecit. Deus enim bonam eam fecit et bonitatem ei sine corruptione indidit. Et dicitur illa naturalis bonitas, quam in creatione a Conditore suscepit, quam bonitatem per peccatum penitus non amisit, sed vitiatam habuit, quam Deus tamen sine vitio fecit. Si enim res bona non esset anima, in ea malum esse nequiret, cum non possit malum esse nisi in bono, ut post[^18] dicetur. Non igitur omnino talis est anima, qualis est a Deo creata. Sicut quis, pollutas habens manus, non tale habuit pomum, quale ego dedi mundis manibus; ego enim dedi mundum.

#### Cap. VIII.

#### *An animae ex creatione sint in donis naturalibus aequales.*

Illud quoque non incongrue quaeri solet, utrum omnes animae ex creatione aequales sint, an aliae aliis excellentiores. — Pluribus non irrationabiliter videtur, quod ex ipsa creatione aliae aliis excellant in naturalibus donis, ut in essentia alia aliis sit subtilior et ad intelligendum memorandumque habilior, utpote acutiori ingenio et perspicaciori intellectu praedita. Quod non improbabiliter dicitur, cum in Angelis ita fuisse constet[^19]. Et licet naturalibus donis aliae prae aliis polleant, tamen, ante baptismum a corpore discedentes, parem poenam, et post baptismum statim aequalem coronam sortiuntur, quia ingenii acumen vel tarditas praemium vel poenam in futuro non collocat.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XXXII.

#### Chapter I.

#### *How original sin is remitted in baptism.*

Since it has been said above[^1] that original sin is the defect of concupiscence, and it has been assigned how it is drawn from the parents and is called "original," it remains to investigate how it is remitted in baptism, since even after baptism the concupiscence which was there before remains. Whence it seems that either original sin is not concupiscence, or it is not remitted in baptism. "For there remains, as Augustine[^2] says, in the body of this death the carnal concupiscence, whose vicious desires we are commanded not to obey; which concupiscence, nevertheless, is daily diminished in those who advance and are continent." But although concupiscence remains after baptism, yet it does not dominate and reign as before; rather, through the grace of baptism it is mitigated and diminished, so that afterward it cannot dominate, unless one restores its strength to the enemy by going after concupiscences. Nor after baptism does it remain unto guilt, because it is not imputed as sin, but is only the penalty of sin, whereas before baptism it is both penalty and fault.

#### Chapter II.

For a twofold reason, therefore, original sin is said to be remitted in baptism: because through the grace of baptism the defect of concupiscence is weakened and attenuated, so that it no longer reigns unless its strength be restored to it by consent; and because its guilt is loosed. Hence Augustine in the book On the Baptism of Little Children[^3]: "By grace it is brought about through baptism that the old man is crucified, and the body of sin is destroyed, not in such a way that in the living flesh itself the concupiscence diffused and inborn is suddenly consumed and ceases to be, but that it may not harm the dead man, which inhered in the one born. For if he lives after baptism, he has concupiscence in his flesh, with which he must fight; and let him, with God's help, overcome it, provided he has not received His grace in vain. This, therefore, is not granted in baptism, except perhaps by the ineffable miracle of the Creator, that the law of sin which is in the members should be wholly extinguished and cease to be, but rather that whatever of evil has been done, said, and thought by a man should be entirely abolished and held as though it had not been done, while concupiscence itself, the bond of guilt being loosed — by which the devil held the soul through it and separated it from its Creator — should remain in the contest." — Behold, here he plainly shows that for this reason it is remitted in baptism, not because it does not remain[^4] after baptism, but because its guilt is abolished in baptism. Then he himself shows that it is also remitted in this way, because by the grace of baptism the concupiscence itself is mitigated and diminished, in the same book[^5] thus saying: "The law of the flesh, which the Apostle calls sin, when he says: Let not sin reign in your mortal body, does not so remain in the members of those who are reborn of water and the Spirit, as though its remission had not been made, where the remission of sins is made altogether complete; but it remains in the oldness of the flesh as something overcome and slain, unless by unlawful consent it in some way revives and is recalled into its own kingdom and dominion." — Here it is plainly intimated that in baptism concupiscence is weakened, and from this it is also said to be remitted, not only because guilt is loosed there[^6]. And Scripture teaches this manner of remission also by many other testimonies. For Augustine says against Julian[^7]: "The law which is in the members is the defect of the flesh, which comes from the penalty of sin and from the traduction of death. But this law, which is in the members, is remitted by spiritual regeneration and remains in the mortal flesh. It is remitted, because the guilt is loosed by the Sacrament, by which the faithful are reborn. But it remains, because yet it does not dominate and reign as before; rather, through the grace of baptism it is mitigated and diminished, so that afterward it cannot dominate, unless one restores its strength to the enemy by going after concupiscences." The same, in a certain sermon[^8] on the concupiscence of the flesh: "Through the grace of baptism and the laver of regeneration even the guilt of concupiscence itself, with which you were born, has been loosed, and whatever you previously consented to of evil concupiscence, whether by thought, or by speech, or by deed." The same, in the book On Marriage and Concupiscence[^9]: "The concupiscence of the flesh, although in the regenerate it is no longer reckoned as sin, yet whatever offspring is born is bound by original sin." Likewise: "The concupiscence of the flesh is remitted in baptism, not so that it is not, but so that it is not imputed as sin." "For this is to not have sin, to not be guilty of sin." "Just as, therefore, other sins pass away in act and remain in guilt, as homicide and the like; so conversely it can happen that concupiscence passes away in guilt and remains in act." — From the foregoing it is evidently shown how original sin is remitted in baptism.

#### Chapter II.

#### *Whether the foulness which it draws from lust is washed away in baptism.*

But here it is usually asked whether the flesh itself also is cleansed in baptism from that foulness which it contracted in conception from lustful concupiscence. — To some[^10] it seems that, just as the soul is purified from guilt, so also the flesh is purged from that pollution, so that, just as the mystery of baptism is completed by two things, namely water and spirit, so there two things are purged, namely the soul from guilt, and the flesh from that contagion; which indeed is probable. — But others think that only the soul is there cleansed, while the flesh is not purged from that foulness. — But if that foulness remains until the procreation of children, which takes place in the concupiscence of the flesh, the nature of the flesh seems to be more and more corrupted, and the flesh of the offspring seems more corrupted than that of the parent, because it is drawn polluted from the flesh which retains the pollution that it had from conception, and is conceived in concupiscence, whence it too is polluted; and thus from a twofold cause it is contaminated. Hence the pollution of the flesh seems greater in the offspring than it was in the parent. — To which those men say that, although the flesh of the offspring is sown foul from foul flesh and is conceived in concupiscence, yet it does not draw a greater foulness than the flesh from which it is sown had[^11]. And although the flesh of the offspring be fouler and more unclean, and therefore more corrupted than the flesh of the parent, yet, as they say, no prejudice is done to the truth; for they say it is not absurd if the nature of the flesh be drawn more corrupted in those that come later, nor that from the more corrupted flesh the soul is more infected.

#### Chapter III.

#### *Whether God is the author of that concupiscence.*

Moreover it is usually asked whether the concupiscence which remains after baptism and is only a penalty, but before baptism was both penalty and fault, has God as its author, or another. — To which, answering briefly, we say that, insofar as it is penalty, it has God as author; but insofar as it is fault, it has the devil or man as author.

#### Chapter IV.

#### *Why that sin is imputed to the soul.*

It is also usually asked[^12] by what justice the soul, innocent and created by God, is held bound by that sin, since it is not in its power to avoid it. For it is not committed by free will, since the soul does not exist before it is liable to that sin. — To this some say that the soul is therefore guilty of that sin, although it was created clean by God, because, when it is infused into the body, it delights together with the flesh; from which it contracts sin. — But if this were so, it would now be called not original, but actual. Rather, therefore, that sin can rightly be said to be imputed to the soul which it inevitably draws from the corruption of the body, because, as Augustine says in the book On the City of God[^13], "the corruption of the body, which weighs down the soul, was not the cause of the first sin, but the penalty; nor did corruptible flesh make the soul a sinner, but the sinful soul made the flesh corruptible."

#### Chapter V.

#### *Whether that sin is necessary, or voluntary.*

It can also not undeservedly be asked whether original sin ought to be called voluntary or necessary. — And it can be called necessary, because it cannot be avoided; whence the Prophet[^14] too says: From my necessities deliver me; and it is not incongruously called voluntary, because it proceeded from the will of the first man, as Augustine in the first book of the Retractations[^15] shows, saying: "That which in little children is called original sin, although they do not yet make use of the free choice of the will, is not absurdly called voluntary, because, contracted from the first man's evil will, it has become in some way hereditary."

#### Chapter VI.

#### *Why God joins the soul to the body, knowing that thereby it is stained.*

But if it is asked: why God, who made the soul itself without stain and knows that it contracts the stain of sin from the conjunction of the body, and is sometimes separated from the body itself before baptism, and so is damned, joins it to the body[^16]? we answer that this comes from the height of the judgments of God, and that this is not done unjustly by God. For He not incongruously continually preserves, without alteration, the mode of the human condition which He instituted from the beginning, although the sins of men have intervened, fashioning bodies from matter made from the beginning without defect, creating souls from nothing, and perfecting man by their conjunction. Since, therefore, each nature of man was instituted by God without defect, although it was vitiated by sin from itself, the immutable God did not on that account have to change the primary law of the human condition, or to desist from the multiplication of men.

#### Chapter VII.

#### *Whether the soul is such as it is created by God.*

Here it is usually asked by some whether the soul is, before baptism, such as it is created by God. — And that it is not, they try to prove in this way: the soul is created in the body, in whose conjunction it is stained with sin; therefore as soon as it is, it has sin, nor did it exist before it had sin[^17]: it is not therefore such as it is created by God. For it is created by God innocent and without defect; and it is never such. — To which it can be said that it is not altogether such as God made it. For God made it good and endowed it with goodness without corruption. And that goodness is called natural which it received in creation from its Author, which goodness it did not utterly lose through sin, but had vitiated, which God nevertheless made without defect. For if the soul were not a good thing, there could be no evil in it, since there cannot be evil except in a good, as will be said hereafter[^18]. Not, therefore, is the soul altogether such as it is created by God. Just as one who has polluted hands did not receive such an apple as I gave with clean hands; for I gave a clean one.

#### Chapter VIII.

#### *Whether souls from creation are equal in their natural gifts.*

It is also not incongruously usually asked whether all souls are equal from creation, or some more excellent than others. — To many it seems not irrationally that from creation itself some excel others in natural gifts, so that one is in essence subtler than others and more apt for understanding and remembering, as being endowed with sharper wit and more perspicacious intellect. Which is not improbably said, since it is established that it was so among the Angels[^19]. And although some excel others in natural gifts, yet, departing from the body before baptism, they obtain an equal penalty, and after baptism at once an equal crown, because sharpness of wit or slowness does not place reward or penalty in the life to come.

---

la: Dist. XXX. c. 8. et d. XXXI. c. 3.

en: Distinction XXX, c. 8, and Distinction XXXI, c. 3.

la: Libr. I. de Nuptiis et concupisc. c. 25. n. 28. Quod sequitur secundum sensum est ibid. c. 23. n. 25, ubi alluditur ad Eccli. 15, 30. — Cfr. etiam Hugo, Sum. sent. tr. 3. c. 11.

en: Book I, On Marriage and Concupiscence, c. 25, n. 28. What follows is, according to its sense, in the same place, c. 23, n. 25, where there is an allusion to Ecclesiasticus 15, 30. — Cf. also Hugh, Sentences, tr. 3, c. 11.

la: Sive I. de Peccatorum meritis et remissione etc. c. 39. n. 70, sed multis transmutatis. Respicitur ad Rom. 6, 6, et inferius ad II. Cor. 6, 1.

en: Or Book I, On the Merits and Remission of Sins etc., c. 39, n. 70, but with many things altered. The reference is to Romans 6, 6, and below to II Corinthians 6, 1.

la: Edd. 1, 8. *remaneat.* — Paulo inferius post *dimitti* Vat. cum edd. 4, 5, 6, 9 addit *in baptismo.*

en: Editions 1, 8 read *remaneat.* — A little below, after *dimitti,* the Vatican edition with editions 4, 5, 6, 9 adds *in baptismo.*

la: Libr. II. c. 28. n. 45, ubi allegatur Rom. 6, 12, et respicitur ad Ioan. 3, 3.

en: Book II, c. 28, n. 45, where Romans 6, 12, is alleged, and reference is made to John 3, 3.

la: Edd. 1, 8 *absolvitur.*

en: Editions 1, 8 read *absolvitur.*

la: Libr. II. c. 3. n. 5. — In quo textu contra originale et codd. edd. 1, 8 voci *regeneratione* praefigunt *in.*

en: Book II, c. 3, n. 5. — In which text, against the original and the codices, editions 1, 8 prefix *in* to the word *regeneratione.*

la: Sermo 155. (alias de Verbis Apostoli, 6.) c. 9. n. 9, et quoad sententiam passim; cfr. Glossa ad Rom. 8, 1.

en: Sermon 155 (otherwise on the Words of the Apostle, 6), c. 9, n. 9, and as to the sense throughout; cf. the Gloss on Romans 8, 1.

la: Libr. I. c. 24. n. 27; secundus locus ibid. c. 25. n. 28, tertius ibid. c. 26. n. 29, quartus ibid. parum inferius.

en: Book I, c. 24, n. 27; the second passage is in the same place, c. 25, n. 28, the third in the same place, c. 26, n. 29, the fourth in the same place a little below.

la: Cfr. Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 10; cuius verba vide infra Comment. S. Bonav. a. I. q. 2. arg. 1. ad opposit. cum explicatione eorundem in solut. ad 1.

en: Cf. John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith IV, c. 10; whose words see below in the Commentary of St. Bonaventure, a. I, q. 2, arg. 1, to the contrary, with the explanation of the same in the solution to 1.

la: Codd. A D E et edd. 2, 3, 7 *habuerit,* cod. C *habuerat.* — Paulo inferius post *non tamen* Vat. cum paucis tantum edd. addit *inde,* et deinde habet *veritati* pro *veritatis.* Denique in fine capituli pro *amplius inficiatur* cod. D *plus inficitur,* cod. A cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 *magis inficitur,* in reliquis codd. *amplius inficitur.*

en: Codices A D E and editions 2, 3, 7 read *habuerit,* codex C *habuerat.* — A little below, after *non tamen,* the Vatican edition, with only a few editions, adds *inde,* and then has *veritati* for *veritatis.* Finally, at the end of the chapter, for *amplius inficiatur,* codex D reads *plus inficitur,* codex A with editions 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 *magis inficitur,* in the remaining codices *amplius inficitur.*

la: Hoc et duo seqq. capitula sunt ex Hugone, Sum. sent. tr. 3. c. 12.

en: This and the two following chapters are from Hugh, Sentences, tr. 3, c. 12.

la: Libr. XIV. c. 3. n. 2. — Paulo superius ante *imputari* codd. B E et edd. 1, 8 praefigunt *illi.*

en: Book XIV, c. 3, n. 2. — A little above, before *imputari,* codices B E and editions 1, 8 prefix *illi.*

en: Psalm 24, 17 (Vulgate).

en: Chapter 13, n. 5.

la: Vat. cum paucis edd. *iungit.* — Immediate post respicitur Rom. 11, 33. — Inferius edd. 1, 8 *mutatione* pro *immutatione.*

en: The Vatican edition with a few editions reads *iungit.* — Immediately after, reference is made to Romans 11, 33. — Below, editions 1, 8 read *mutatione* for *immutatione.*

en: Editions 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 read *habuerit.*

la: Dist. XXXIV. c. 4. — Paulo superius pro *Conditore* codd. A D *Creatore,* et pro *post* codd. A C D *postea.*

en: Distinction XXXIV, c. 4. — A little above, for *Conditore,* codices A D read *Creatore,* and for *post,* codices A C D *postea.*

la: Cfr. Dist. III. c. 2.

en: Cf. Distinction III, c. 2. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (printed pp. 756–758 = PDF 778–780, offset `pdf = printed + 22`) authoritative wherever the two-column IA djvu OCR (raw 52747–52901) was cascade-fragmented, reflowed Left-column-then-Right per the Vol II two-column discipline. This is Lombard's *Littera Magistri* for Distinctio XXXII (*Quomodo originale peccatum dimittitur in baptismo* — how original sin is remitted in baptism, and a cluster of questions on the soul's creation, equality, and conjunction to the body), Cap. I–VIII. The littera opens with the second `DISTINCTIO XXXII.` header at the bottom band of the p.756 L-column (raw 52747) and closes at the bottom of p.758 R-column with "…praemium vel poenam in futuro non collocat.", immediately before `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII.` (raw 52902), which is the `d32-divisio` chunk.

**Capitula (8), order verified at 450 dpi.** Cap. I *Quomodo originale peccatum dimittitur in baptismo*; Cap. II *Utrum foeditas, quam ex libidine trahit, in baptismo diluatur*; Cap. III *Utrum illius concupiscentiae Deus sit auctor*; Cap. IV *Quare illud peccatum imputetur animae*; Cap. V *Utrum illud peccatum sit necessarium, vel voluntarium*; Cap. VI *Quare Deus iungit animam corpori, sciens inde maculari*; Cap. VII *An anima sit talis, qualis a Deo creatur*; Cap. VIII *An animae ex creatione sint in donis naturalibus aequales*. All eight present and in order. Note: the IA djvu OCR interleaves the two columns, so the raw line order shows Cap. VII (raw 52836, R-col) before Cap. V/VI (raw 52861/52882, L-col) — the printed reading order is L-column-then-R-column per page, which is the order set here.

**Page-split map.** Reading order is Left column top→bottom, then Right column top→bottom, per printed page. **p.756:** the L-col and R-col TOP bands hold the tail of DUB. III + RESPONDEO (Duae opiniones) and DUB. IV — these belong to the already-complete `d31-dubia` chunk, NOT this littera. The littera begins at the **bottom** band of the p.756 L-col (DISTINCTIO XXXII header + Cap. I opener "Quoniam supra dictum est…cum etiam post baptismum remaneat concupiscentia") and the bottom band of the R-col ("post baptismum remaneat concupiscentia, quae ante fuerat… Sed licet remaneat concupiscentia post baptismum, non"). **p.757:** L-col = Cap. I continued ("tamen dominatur et regnat sicut ante… Augustinus contra Iulianum: « Lex, quae in membris est…"); R-col = Cap. I tail (Augustine sermon + de Nuptiis quotes, "…Ex praedictis evidenter monstratur, quomodo peccatum originale in baptismo remittatur.") + the whole of Cap. II ("Utrum foeditas… Solet autem hic quaeri… amplius inficiatur."). **p.758:** L-col = Cap. III + Cap. IV + Cap. V + Cap. VI opener; R-col = Cap. VI tail ("…coniungit? respondemus, ex altitudine iudiciorum Dei…desistere.") + Cap. VII + Cap. VIII (closing "…praemium vel poenam in futuro non collocat."). Body seams across page/column breaks all grammatically continuous (450 dpi verified): 756 L(littera)→R ("…cum etiam post baptismum remaneat concupiscentia, quae ante fuerat"); 756 R→757 L ("…Sed licet remaneat concupiscentia post baptismum, non ‖ tamen dominatur et regnat sicut ante"); 757 L→R ("…Manet autem, quia ‖ tamen dominatur et regnat sicut ante" — Augustinus contra Iulianum quote); 758 L→R (Cap. VI "…eam ex corporis coniun‖ctione maculam peccati contrahere").

**Apparatus split map (19 entries, body-anchor order; footer numbering restarts per printed page).** **p.756:** the littera's footers are the separate `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` block (footers 1–2; the page's other numbered footers 1–10 above it belong to the d.31 DUB. III/IV material in `d31-dubia`). [^1] = NOTAE f1 (Dist. XXX c.8 et d.XXXI c.3) at Cap. I *Quoniam supra dictum est*; [^2] = NOTAE f2 (Libr. I de Nuptiis et concupisc. c.25 n.28) at *ut ait Augustinus*. **p.757:** L-col footers 1–6 → [^3]–[^8]: [^3]=f1 (de Peccatorum meritis c.39 n.70) at *de Baptismo parvulorum*; [^4]=f2 (Edd 1,8 *remaneat*) at *non quia non maneat*; [^5]=f3 (Libr. II c.28 n.45) at *in eodem libro*; [^6]=f4 (Edd 1,8 *absolvitur*) at *reatus ibi solvitur*; [^7]=f5 (Libr. II c.3 n.5) at *Augustinus contra Iulianum*; [^8]=f6 (Sermo 155) at *Idem in sermone*. R-col footers 7–9 → [^9]–[^11]: [^9]=f7 (Libr. I c.24 n.27) at *de Nuptiis et concupiscentia*; [^10]=f8 (Damasc. IV de Fide orthod.) at Cap. II *Quibusdam videtur*; [^11]=f9 (Codd *habuerit*; end-of-chapter variants) at *unde seminatur, habuit*. **p.758:** L-col footers 1–5 → [^12]–[^16]: [^12]=f1 (Hoc et duo seqq. ex Hugone) at Cap. IV *Solet etiam quaeri*; [^13]=f2 (Libr. XIV c.3 n.2, de Civitate Dei) at *in libro de Civitate Dei*; [^14]=f3 (Psalm. 24,17) at Cap. V *unde et Propheta dicit*; [^15]=f4 (Cap. 13 n.5, Retract.) at *in primo libro Retractationum*; [^16]=f5 (Vat. *iungit*; Rom. 11,33; *mutatione*/*immutatione* — note this footer's tail runs over into the R-col footer band) at Cap. VI *eam corpori coniungit*. R-col footers 6–8 → [^17]–[^19]: [^17]=f6 (Edd *habuerit*) at Cap. VII *nec prius fuit, quam peccatum habuit*; [^18]=f7 (Dist. XXXIV c.4) at *ut post dicetur*; [^19]=f8 (Cfr. Dist. III c.2) at Cap. VIII *cum in Angelis ita fuisse constet*. Total = 2 (p.756) + 9 (p.757) + 8 (p.758) = 19.

**Hand-offs.** RECEIVED: nothing — DISTINCTIO XXXII opens fresh; `d31-dubia` forwarded nothing (all p.755–756 DUB. footers anchored within the dubia, including the p.756 DUB. III/IV footer block which belongs to `d31-dubia`, NOT this littera). FORWARDED: nothing to `d32-divisio` — the littera closes cleanly at the bottom of p.758 R-col before `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII.` (raw 52902); the COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS (raw 52906) / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (raw 52929) and their footers all belong to `d32-divisio`.

**[?] flags.** None. OCR garbles silently corrected against the 450 dpi PDF (e.g. invesligare→investigare, domincUur→dominatur, debililatur→debilitatur, certamlne→certamine, exstinguatur retained, niembris→membris, conlraxit→contraxit, immundior retained, poenalitas/poenalitatis retained, condelectatur retained, Retraclationum→Retractationum, hereditarium retained, coniungit retained, perspicaciori retained). The OCR running-head digits 737/7S8/759 are digit-mangles of printed 756/757/758 (offset pdf=printed+22 confirmed against running-head text and the +22 mapping).


title: Dist. 32, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Qualiter peccatum originale curetur
How original sin is healed

source_text:
<!-- page 759 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII.

### *Qualiter peccatum originale curetur.*

*Quoniam supra dictum est, originale peccatum* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra ostendit Magister, qualiter peccatum originale traducitur. In hac parte intendit ostendere, qualiter curatur. Dividitur autem pars ista in partes duas. In quarum prima determinat Magister, quomodo originale peccatum habeat deleri in baptismate; quod quidem est opus divinae misericordiae. Secundo vero determinat, qualiter in ipsius animae infusione et punitione salvetur rectitudo divinae iustitiae, ibi: *Solet etiam quaeri, qua iustitia teneatur* etc. Hoc autem facit, quia *universae viae Domini misericordia et veritas*[^1]; et ideo iuxta benignitatem misericordiae manifestari etiam oportebat aequitatem iustitiae.

Prima pars dividitur in tres partes. In prima ostendit, qualiter in baptismo deletur[^2] peccatum originale ex parte animae. Secundo vero, qualiter curari habeat ex parte carnis, ibi: *Solet autem quaeri, utrum et ipsa caro* etc. Tertio vero determinat de poena, quae remanet in utroque, videlicet de concupiscentia, a quo sit tanquam ab auctore[^3], ibi: *Praeterea quaeri solet, utrum concupiscentia* etc.

Similiter secunda pars principalis tres habet partes. In prima parte determinat, utrum Deus ex iustitia debeat culpam originalem animae imputare. Secundo vero quaerit, cur Deus vult animam illam corpori maculato coniungere, ibi: *Si vero quaeritur, cur Deus, qui fecit ipsam animam* etc. In tertia vero determinat, qualis creetur anima a suo Auctore, ibi: *Hic a quibusdam quaeri solet, utrum anima talis* etc. — Et sic in universo Magister in praesenti distinctione duo principaliter determinat, quorum unum est, qualiter originale deleatur per opus divinae misericordiae; alterum vero est, qualiter contrahatur, salva aequitate divinae iustitiae. Et omnia quae determinantur in parte ista, possunt reduci ad tria; quorum primum est, qualiter deleatur originalis culpa; secundum est, a quo sit ipsa concupiscentia; tertium vero est, qualiter in infusione[^4] animae et originalis culpae imputatione salvetur divina iustitia.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam igitur huius partis incidit hic quaestio circa tria.

Primo enim quaeritur de deletione originalis culpae.

Secundo quaeritur de vitio[^5] concupiscentiae remanente.

Tertio quaeritur de aequitate divinae iustitiae in infusione et punitione animae.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum baptismus deleat originale quantum ad culpam, quae est in mente.

Secundo vero quaeritur, utrum deleat quantum ad eius causam, quae est in carne.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXXII.

### *How original sin is healed.*

*Since it was said above that original sin* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master showed how original sin is transmitted. In this part he intends to show how it is healed. Now this part is divided into two parts. In the first of these the Master determines how original sin is to be deleted in baptism; which indeed is the work of divine mercy. But secondly he determines how, in the infusion and punishment of the soul itself, the rectitude of divine justice is preserved, there: *It is also wont to be asked, by what justice it is held* etc. He does this because *all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth*[^1]; and therefore, alongside the kindness of mercy, it was also fitting that the equity of justice be manifested.

The first part is divided into three parts. In the first he shows how in baptism original sin is deleted[^2] on the part of the soul. Secondly, how it must be healed on the part of the flesh, there: *But it is wont to be asked, whether the flesh itself also* etc. Thirdly he determines concerning the penalty which remains in both, namely concerning concupiscence, from what it is as from its author[^3], there: *Moreover it is wont to be asked, whether concupiscence* etc.

Likewise the second principal part has three parts. In the first part he determines whether God ought in justice to impute original guilt to the soul. But secondly he asks why God wills to join that soul to a defiled body, there: *But if it is asked, why God, who made the soul itself* etc. In the third he determines of what sort the soul is created by its Author, there: *Here it is wont to be asked by some, whether the soul is such* etc. — And thus, in sum, the Master in the present distinction principally determines two things, of which one is how original sin is deleted through the work of divine mercy; the other is how it is contracted, the equity of divine justice being preserved. And all the things that are determined in this part can be reduced to three; of which the first is how original guilt is deleted; the second is from what concupiscence itself comes; the third is how, in the infusion[^4] of the soul and the imputation of original guilt, divine justice is preserved.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

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

For first it is asked concerning the deletion of original guilt.

Secondly it is asked concerning the defect[^5] of concupiscence that remains.

Thirdly it is asked concerning the equity of divine justice in the infusion and punishment of the soul.

Concerning the first, two things are asked.

First it is asked whether baptism deletes original sin as to the guilt, which is in the mind.

Secondly it is asked whether it deletes it as to its cause, which is in the flesh.

---

la: Vat. *deleatur*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *deleatur* ("is deleted").

la: Verba *a quo sit tanquam ab auctore* desunt in edd., excepta 1.

en: The words *a quo sit tanquam ab auctore* ("from what it is as from its author") are absent in the editions, except edition 1.

la: Vat. cum edd. 2, 3 *ad infusionem* et dein *imputationem*.

en: The Vatican edition, with editions 2 and 3, reads *ad infusionem* ("to the infusion") and thereafter *imputationem* ("the imputation").

la: Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 4 *morbo*.

en: The Vatican edition, with editions 2, 3, and 4, reads *morbo* ("disease"). ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 52902–52938) cross-checked against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed p.759 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p759-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). Single printed page (759 = pdf 781, offset +22). Running head confirmed as `DIST. XXXII. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 759`.
- **Content captured:** COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXXII opener + title + lemma, full DIVISIO TEXTUS (both columns reflowed), full TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (the "quaestio circa tria" three-article listing, plus art. I's "circa primum quaeruntur duo" two-question sub-listing).
- **Page-split / boundary:** Chunk ends immediately before `ARTICULUS I.` / `QUAESTIO I.` (raw 52939+); those headers belong to d32-a1-q1.
- **Apparatus page-split map (p.759 footers):** footers 1–5 anchor in THIS divisio chunk (note 1 at *misericordia et veritas*, note 2 at *deletur*, note 3 at *ab auctore*, note 4 at *infusione*, note 5 at *vitio*). **Footer 6** (`Vers. 5, ubi pro non intrabit in regnum caelorum Vulgata legit non potest introire in regnum Dei`) does NOT anchor here — it anchors at *Ioannis tertio: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum caelorum* in the QUAESTIO I body. **FORWARDS to d32-a1-q1 as that chunk's first apparatus entry.**
- **OCR corrections:** `vilio` → *vitio* (footnote-5 variant *morbo* confirms the lemma; OCR marker "8" was the superscript 5); footnote marker positions taken from PDF superscripts, not OCR `^`/`"` glyphs.
- No scholion (divisio chunk). No `[?]` flags.