title: Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 759 -->

### ARTICULUS I.
### *De deletione originalis culpae.*

### QUAESTIO I.
### *Utrum baptismus deleat originale quantum ad culpam.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum baptismus deleat originale quantum ad culpam. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Ioannis tertio: *Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum caelorum*[^1]; hoc autem non est propter culpam actualem in parvulis: ergo si hoc est, erit propter culpam originalem. Sed post baptismum non privatur

<!-- page 760 -->

parvulus regno caelorum: ergo necesse est, quod in baptismo tollatur illud quod reddebat hominem indignum visione Dei: ergo etc.

2. Item, ad Romanos sexto[^2]: *Quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus.* Et post: *Qui enim mortuus est peccato, iustificatus est a peccato*; Glossa: « Ita per baptismum mortui sumus peccato, sicut Christus semel mortuus est poenae ».

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione. Baptismus enim est sacramentum veritatis et etiam novae Legis[^3]: ergo sicut in baptismate homo lavatur exterius, ita vere lavatur interius: si ergo in baptismo puer exterius lavatur, videtur, quod interius a peccato originali mundetur.

4. Item, in baptismo efficitur homo membrum Christi et regeneratur generatione[^4] spirituali: si ergo membrum Christi quis esse non potest, quamdiu manet in peccato mortali, videtur, quod per baptismum originale peccatum deleatur quantum ad culpam.

**Sed contra:**

*Ad oppositum.*

1. Impossibile est, deleri maculam peccati sive deformitatem amoveri, quamdiu manet privatio boni, quae deberet inesse; sed in homine post baptismum manet carentia illius originalis iustitiae, quae fuit in Adam in statu innocentiae: ergo per ipsum non deletur macula originalis culpae. Maior manifesta est per ipsam peccati definitionem[^5]. Minor manifesta est per ipsam experientiam, quia manifeste videmus, quod post baptismum caro spiritui non ita subiicitur, sicut in Adam subiiciebatur.

2. Item, impossibile est, maculam peccati deleri, quamdiu manet actus peccati, sicut est manifestum — nunquam enim alicui remittitur peccatum fornicationis, quamdiu est in actu fornicandi — sed post baptismum manet originale quantum ad actum, sicut dicit Magister[^6]: ergo impossibile est, quod in baptismo deleatur quantum ad maculam et reatum.

3. Item, concupiscere post baptismum culpa est; sed quales sunt actus, tales sunt habitus[^7]: ergo concupiscentia, quae remanet post baptismum, est culpa. Sed non est culpa actualis: ergo est culpa originalis: igitur per baptismum originalis culpa non deletur quantum ad maculam.

4. Item, culpa est meritum poenae[^8]: ergo si omnino cessat culpa, omnino debet removeri poena. Si igitur post baptismum remanet poena debita originali, utpote mors et consimiles poenae, non videtur, quod per baptismum fiat deletio originalis culpae quantum ad maculam. Quodsi tu dicas, quod, macula peccati deleta, adhuc potest remanere aliquis reatus in anima et obligatio ad poenam pro culpa prius facta; videtur tunc, quod originale remanet quantum ad reatum. Male igitur dicit Magister[^9], cum ait, quod originale transit reatu et remanet actu.

### Conclusio.

> Originale peccatum in baptismo remittitur quoad culpam, tum quia vitium concupiscentiae debilitatur, tum quia reatus ipsius solvitur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut Magister dicit in littera[^10] et accipit ex verbis Augustini, duplici ratione dicitur originale remitti in baptismo: quia per gratiam baptismi vitium concupiscentiae debilitatur atque extenuatur, ut iam non regnet; et quia reatus ipsius solvitur.

Ad huius autem verbi intelligentiam notandum, quod istud verbum dupliciter potest intelligi, et utroque modo satis bene et probabiliter. Uno modo sic. Sicut dicit Augustinus in libro de Baptismo parvulorum[^11], « originale est concupiscentia sive vitium concupiscentiae », et hoc ipsum dicit Magister in littera. Haec autem concupiscentia, prout dicitur esse originale peccatum, nominat appetitum boni commutabilis intensum et inordinatum. Et ratio huius est ista, quoniam originale peccatum non tantum est culpa, sed etiam culpa mortalis. In quantum culpa est, dicit privationem ordinis debiti; in quantum mortalis est, non tantum dicit boni debiti privationem, sed etiam dicit ordinis et iustitiae subversionem. Ad hoc igitur, quod concupiscentia in aliquo dicat culpam originalem, necesse est, quod dicat necessitatem concupiscendi sive appetitus immoderantiam cum debito non concupiscendi et cum

<!-- page 761 -->

dominio, ita quod carnalis appetitus praesit spiritui. Et quia utrumque horum est in homine ante baptismum — habet enim debitum non concupiscendi, quia ad hoc tota humana natura in Adam fuerat obligata, nec illa obligatio alicui fuerat relaxata; habet etiam fomitem[^12], quia gratia destitutus vincitur lege membrorum — hinc est, quod habet in se originale peccatum. Cum autem homo baptizatur, tunc gratia infunditur, et merito passionis Christi, cuius efficitur membrum, per baptismum ab illo debito absolvitur. Gratia vero erigit animam et dat ei potentiam, ut non vincatur a concupiscentia, et per hoc aufert ei dominium. Et hinc est, quod quia in baptismate tollitur concupiscentiae dominium, et solvitur non concupiscendi debitum, quod omnino aufertur ratio culpae ab ipsa concupiscentia, licet aliquo modo remaneat. — Et hinc est, quod Magister dicit, quod originale in baptismo « transit reatu et remanet actu », quia, etsi remaneat concupiscentia, non tamen remanet, prout est culpa et obligatoria ad poenam. Hinc est etiam, quod Magister dicit, duplici ratione in baptismate peccatum originale deleri: et quia vitium concupiscentiae extenuatur, et quia reatus solvitur.

Aliter etiam potest intelligi verbum illud, ut intelligamus, sicut superius[^13] dictum fuit, in originali culpa reperiri conformitatem quandam ad culpam actualem. Sicut enim videmus, quod in culpa actuali et est conversio et est aversio[^14] in ipso actu peccandi; et in ipso habitu peccati est privatio habitus boni et quaedam habilitatio ad actum peccati; sic in originali intelligimus esse debitae iustitiae carentiam et concupiscentiam. Et quemadmodum in actuali privatio habilitatis bonae est ipsum peccatum, formaliter loquendo; ipsa vero habilitatio sive pronitas ad actum peccati non est peccatum, nisi materialiter loquendo, pro eo quod non est culpa, nisi quamdiu manet ibi privatio: sic intelligendum est in proposito. Et quemadmodum in actualis peccati deletione, cum gratia infunditur, statim removetur culpa, in quantum erat deformitas et privatio; nihilominus tamen simul cum hoc manet quaedam pronitas ad actum, licet remissa, in his potissime, qui peccaverunt peccato consuetudinis: sic, quando gratia baptismalis infunditur animae, statim removetur originale peccatum, eatenus qua erat carentia debitae iustitiae; statim etiam, cum gratia est in anima, simul cum ea est et iustitia; concupiscentia vero non omnino tollitur, sed minuitur, pro eo quod pronitas ad culpam simul potest stare cum gratia, quia, sicut dictum est[^15], non erat ipsum peccatum, loquendo formaliter, sed materialiter. Unde cum excluditur carentia debitae iustitiae per gratiam baptismalem, remanet concupiscentia ratione poenae. Et hinc est, quod dicit Magister, quod « transit reatu et remanet actu », quia iam non est culpa, per quam homo sit dignus poena, sed poena est ex praecedenti culpa relicta. Pro tanto etiam dicit, quod originale peccatum duplici ratione dicitur remitti in baptismo: et quia concupiscentia extenuatur, et quia debitum solvitur. Solvitur namque debitum, dum per iustitiam gratiae recompensatur iustitia originalis innocentiae. Concupiscentia vero remittitur, dum potestas datur spiritui per gratiam regendi et vincendi carnem. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ostendentes, peccatum originale quantum ad culpam deleri in baptismo.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod manet privatio originalis iustitiae; respondetur, quod debitum solvitur merito passionis Christi, et recompensatio fit gratia Spiritus sancti, quam Deus dat animae, et quam etiam plus acceptat quam iustitiam innocentiae[^16].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod manente actu non potest deleri culpa; dicendum, quod verum est de actu, in quo consistit plena ratio culpae, sicut in actu fornicationis consistit consummatio illius peccati. Actus autem originalis peccati vocatur hic concupiscentia sive necessitas concupiscendi; sed haec non manet, prout in ipsa est illius peccati consummatio. Sicut enim dictum est, nec manet quantum ad dominium, nec manet quantum ad non concupiscendi debitum. Unde sicut in aliquo casto post deletionem et dimissionem peccati luxuriae manere potest aliqua pronitas carnalis concupiscentiae, et etiam aliquando in actum concupiscendi exire, salva nihilominus castitate: sic et in proposito intelligendum est esse.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod concupiscere post baptismum est peccatum; dicendum, quod verum est; sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod illa concupiscentia, quae provocat ad concupiscendum, sit peccatum, sed sufficit, quod sit peccatum[^17], vel ex peccato relicta. Quando ergo dicitur, quod quales sunt actus, tales sunt habitus; hoc intelligitur de habitibus generatis ex actibus frequentatis, sicut de habitibus consuetudinalibus. Concupiscentia vero illa, quae post baptismum remanet, non est aggenerata ex frequenti concupiscere, sed ex carnis corruptione; et ideo non habet rationem culpae, sed poenae. Quia vero ad malum inclinat, potius vitiositas quam poenalitas appellari debet[^18].

<!-- page 762 -->

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod remota culpa, debet per consequens removeri poena; dicendum, quod illud verum est de poena aeterna et eius reatu; de aliis vero poenis temporalibus hoc non oportet; sicut manifestum est in Sacramento poenitentiae, in quo, etsi deleatur culpa in contritione, nihilominus tamen obligatur homo ad satisfactionem; quamvis enim Deus remittat offensam, adhuc quaerit emendam[^19]. Et si tu obiicias, quod in baptismo est plena remissio, unde delentur ibi actualia quantum ad poenam et culpam, et ita multo fortius originale; ad hoc satis planum est respondere. Sed huius quaestionis determinatio non spectat ad locum istum, sed ad quartum librum[^20], in ea parte, in qua agitur de baptismo quantum ad effectum; et ibi determinatum invenietur, quare homo in baptismo a quibusdam poenis absolvitur, a quibusdam vero minime. Et quia superfluitas vitanda est, et singula suis locis tractanda sunt tum propter ordinem tum propter brevitatem, ad praesens omittendum est.

english:
### ARTICLE I.
### *On the deletion of original guilt.*

### QUESTION I.
### *Whether baptism deletes original [sin] as to guilt.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and it is asked, whether baptism deletes original [sin] as to guilt. And that it does, it seems:

1. John, third [chapter]: *Unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven*[^1]; but this is not on account of actual guilt in little children: therefore if this is so, it will be on account of original guilt. But after baptism the little child is not deprived

<!-- page 760 -->

of the kingdom of heaven: therefore it is necessary that in baptism that be removed which rendered the human unworthy of the vision of God: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, to the Romans, sixth [chapter][^2]: *Whoever of us are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death.* And after: *For he who is dead to sin is justified from sin*; the Gloss: « Thus by baptism we are dead to sin, just as Christ once died to punishment ».

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by reason. For baptism is a sacrament of truth and also of the new Law[^3]: therefore just as in baptism the human is washed exteriorly, so he is truly washed interiorly: if therefore in baptism the child is washed exteriorly, it seems that he is cleansed interiorly from original sin.

4. Likewise, in baptism the human is made a member of Christ and is regenerated by a spiritual generation[^4]: if therefore no one can be a member of Christ as long as he remains in mortal sin, it seems that by baptism original sin is deleted as to guilt.

**On the contrary:**

*To the opposite.*

1. It is impossible that the stain of sin be deleted or the deformity removed, as long as there remains the privation of the good which ought to be present; but in a human after baptism there remains the lack of that original justice which was in Adam in the state of innocence: therefore by it the stain of original guilt is not deleted. The major is manifest by the very definition of sin[^5]. The minor is manifest by experience itself, because we manifestly see that after baptism the flesh is not subjected to the spirit as it was subjected in Adam.

2. Likewise, it is impossible that the stain of sin be deleted as long as the act of sin remains, as is manifest — for the sin of fornication is never remitted to anyone as long as he is in the act of fornicating — but after baptism original [sin] remains as to its act, as the Master says[^6]: therefore it is impossible that in baptism it be deleted as to stain and liability.

3. Likewise, to concupisce after baptism is guilt; but as the acts are, so are the habits[^7]: therefore the concupiscence which remains after baptism is guilt. But it is not actual guilt: therefore it is original guilt: therefore by baptism original guilt is not deleted as to stain.

4. Likewise, guilt is the merit of punishment[^8]: therefore if guilt wholly ceases, punishment ought wholly to be removed. If therefore after baptism there remains punishment due to original [sin], such as death and like punishments, it does not seem that by baptism there is made a deletion of original [sin] as to stain. But if you say that, the stain of sin having been deleted, there can still remain some liability in the soul and an obligation to punishment for guilt previously committed; it seems then that original [sin] remains as to liability. Wrongly therefore does the Master say[^9], when he asserts that original [sin] passes away as to liability and remains as to act.

### Conclusion.

> Original sin is remitted in baptism as to guilt, both because the vice of concupiscence is weakened, and because its liability is loosed.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master says in the text[^10] and takes from the words of Augustine, original [sin] is said to be remitted in baptism for a twofold reason: because by the grace of baptism the vice of concupiscence is weakened and attenuated, so that it no longer reigns; and because its liability is loosed.

But for the understanding of this saying it is to be noted that this saying can be understood in two ways, and in each way well enough and probably. In one way thus. As Augustine says in the book *On the Baptism of Little Children*[^11], « original [sin] is concupiscence or the vice of concupiscence », and the Master says this same thing in the text. But this concupiscence, insofar as it is said to be original sin, names the intense and inordinate appetite of a changeable good. And the reason for this is this, that original sin is not only guilt, but also mortal guilt. Insofar as it is guilt, it states the privation of due order; insofar as it is mortal, it states not only the privation of the due good, but also states the subversion of order and justice. To this end, therefore, that concupiscence in someone may state original guilt, it is necessary that it state the necessity of concupiscing or the immoderation of appetite together with the obligation of not concupiscing and with

<!-- page 761 -->

dominion, such that the carnal appetite presides over the spirit. And because both of these are in the human before baptism — for he has the obligation of not concupiscing, since to this the whole human nature in Adam had been obligated, nor had that obligation been relaxed for anyone; he has also the tinder [of sin][^12], because, destitute of grace, he is conquered by the law of the members — hence it is that he has in himself original sin. But when the human is baptized, then grace is infused, and by the merit of the passion of Christ, of whom he is made a member, he is absolved by baptism from that obligation. And grace raises up the soul and gives it the power not to be conquered by concupiscence, and through this takes away its dominion. And hence it is that, because in baptism the dominion of concupiscence is removed, and the obligation of not concupiscing is loosed, the character of guilt is wholly taken away from concupiscence itself, although it remains in some manner. — And hence it is that the Master says that original [sin] in baptism « passes away as to liability and remains as to act », because, even if concupiscence remains, yet it does not remain insofar as it is guilt and binding to punishment. Hence it is also that the Master says that for a twofold reason sin is deleted in baptism: both because the vice of concupiscence is attenuated, and because the liability is loosed.

In another way also that saying can be understood, so that we understand, as was said above[^13], that in original guilt there is found a certain conformity to actual guilt. For just as we see that in actual guilt there is both a turning-toward and a turning-away[^14] in the very act of sinning; and in the very habit of sin there is the privation of the habit of good and a certain aptitude toward the act of sin; so in the original [sin] we understand there to be the lack of due justice and concupiscence. And just as in the actual [sin] the privation of the good aptitude is the sin itself, formally speaking; but the aptitude itself or proneness toward the act of sin is not sin, except materially speaking, for the reason that it is not guilt except as long as the privation remains there: so it is to be understood in the case at hand. And just as in the deletion of actual sin, when grace is infused, the guilt is at once removed, insofar as it was deformity and privation; nevertheless together with this there remains a certain proneness toward the act, though remitted, especially in those who have sinned by a sin of habit: so, when baptismal grace is infused into the soul, original sin is at once removed, insofar as it was the lack of due justice; at once also, when grace is in the soul, together with it there is also justice; but concupiscence is not wholly taken away, but is diminished, for the reason that proneness toward guilt can stand together with grace, because, as was said[^15], it was not the sin itself, speaking formally, but materially. Whence when the lack of due justice is excluded by baptismal grace, concupiscence remains by reason of punishment. And hence it is that he says that it « passes away as to liability and remains as to act », because it is now not guilt, by which the human is worthy of punishment, but the punishment is left over from preceding guilt. For this reason also he says that original sin is said to be remitted in baptism for a twofold reason: both because concupiscence is attenuated, and because the obligation is loosed. For the obligation is loosed, when by the justice of grace the justice of original innocence is recompensed. But concupiscence is remitted, when power is given to the spirit by grace to rule and conquer the flesh. — The reasons therefore are to be granted which show that original sin is deleted in baptism as to guilt.

1. To that therefore which is first objected to the contrary, that the privation of original justice remains; it is replied that the obligation is loosed by the merit of the passion of Christ, and the recompense is made by the grace of the Holy Spirit, which God gives to the soul, and which he even accepts more than the justice of innocence[^16].

2. To that which is objected, that when the act remains the guilt cannot be deleted; it must be said that it is true of the act in which the full character of guilt consists, just as in the act of fornication consists the consummation of that sin. But the act of original sin is here called concupiscence or the necessity of concupiscing; but this does not remain insofar as in it there is the consummation of that sin. For as was said, it neither remains as to dominion, nor remains as to the obligation of not concupiscing. Whence just as in some chaste person, after the deletion and dismissal of the sin of lust, there can remain some proneness of carnal concupiscence, and even sometimes go out into the act of concupiscing, while chastity is nevertheless preserved: so also in the case at hand it is to be understood to be.

3. To that which is objected, that to concupisce after baptism is sin; it must be said that it is true; but from this it does not follow that that concupiscence which provokes to concupiscing is sin, but it suffices that it be a punishment[^17], or [something] left over from sin. When therefore it is said that as the acts are, so are the habits; this is understood of habits generated from frequented acts, as of habits of custom. But that concupiscence which remains after baptism is not engendered from frequent concupiscing, but from the corruption of the flesh; and therefore it does not have the character of guilt, but of punishment. But because it inclines toward evil, it ought rather to be called viciousness than penalty[^18].

<!-- page 762 -->

4. To that which is objected, that guilt having been removed, punishment ought consequently to be removed; it must be said that that is true of eternal punishment and its liability; but of other temporal punishments this is not necessary; as is manifest in the Sacrament of penance, in which, even if the guilt is deleted in contrition, nevertheless the human is obligated to satisfaction; for although God remits the offense, he still requires amends[^19]. And if you object that in baptism there is full remission, whence actual [sins] are there deleted as to punishment and guilt, and so much more strongly is original [sin]; to this it is plain enough to respond. But the determination of this question does not pertain to this place, but to the fourth book[^20], in that part in which baptism is treated as to its effect; and there it will be found determined why a human in baptism is absolved from certain punishments, but from certain ones not at all. And because superfluity is to be avoided, and individual matters are to be treated in their own places both for the sake of order and for the sake of brevity, it must for the present be omitted.

la: Vers. 5, ubi pro *non intrabit in regnum caelorum* Vulgata legit *non potest introire in regnum Dei*.

en: Verse 5, where for *will not enter into the kingdom of heaven* the Vulgate reads *cannot enter into the kingdom of God*.

la: Vers. 3. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 7, ubi Vulgata post *mortuus est* omittit *peccato*. Glossa adducta, quae interlinearis est, apud Lyranum sic sonat: « Si ita mortui sumus peccato, sicut Christus semel mortuus est poenae ». Fere idem dicit Glossa ordinaria super v. 10. eiusd. cap., quae Glossa sumta est ex August., I. Contra Maximinum, c. 2.

en: Verse 3. — The following text is ibid. v. 7, where the Vulgate after *is dead* omits *to sin*. The Gloss adduced, which is interlinear, in Lyranus runs thus: « If we are so dead to sin, as Christ once died to punishment ». The ordinary Gloss on v. 10 of the same chapter says nearly the same, which Gloss is taken from Augustine, I. *Against Maximinus*, c. 2.

la: Ioan. 1, 17: « Quia lex per Moysen data est, gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est ». Verba Doctoris non quidem directe, sed indirecte significant differentiam inter Sacramenta veteris et novi Testamenti, quae in eo consistit, quod Sacramenta novae Legis gratiam, quam significant, re vera etiam continent et conferunt, dum Sacramenta veteris Legis gratiam tantummodo significabant. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 1. p. I. q. 3. seqq. — Vat. et edd. 3, 4 vocem *veritatis* male transformarunt in *veteris*.

en: John 1, 17: « Because the law was given through Moses, grace and truth were made through Jesus Christ ». The words of the Doctor signify not directly indeed, but indirectly, the difference between the Sacraments of the old and the new Testament, which consists in this, that the Sacraments of the new Law truly also contain and confer the grace which they signify, whereas the Sacraments of the old Law only signified grace. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 1. p. I. q. 3. seqq. — The Vatican [edition] and edd. 3, 4 wrongly transformed the word *veritatis* ("of truth") into *veteris* ("of the old").

la: Codd. H Y cc ee et alii cum ed. 1 *regeneratione*.

en: Codd. H Y cc ee and others, with ed. 1, [read] *regeneratione*.

la: Cfr. infra d. 35. dub. 6.

en: Cfr. below d. 35. dub. 6.

la: Hic c. 1. in fine.

en: Here c. 1, at the end.

la: Vide Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 1, ex quo cap. iam supra pag. 653, nota 6. nonnulla attulimus. August., Serm. 292. (alias 23. de Sanctis) c. 1. n. 7. ait sic: *Qualis homo est, tales actus habet. Si bonus homo est, bonos actus habet; si malus homo est, malos actus habet; non potest bonus homo malos actus habere, nec malus homo bonos actus habere. Quid evidentius?*

en: See Aristotle, II. *Ethics* c. 1, from which chapter we have already adduced some things above p. 653, note 6. Augustine, *Sermon* 292 (otherwise 23, *On the Saints*) c. 1. n. 7. says thus: *Such as a man is, such acts he has. If he is a good man, he has good acts; if he is a bad man, he has bad acts; a good man cannot have bad acts, nor a bad man good acts. What is more evident?*

la: Id est: meretur poenam.

en: That is: it merits punishment.

la: Hic c. 1, ubi sequitur Augustinum.

en: Here c. 1, where he follows Augustine.

la: Iterum hic c. 1.

en: Again here c. 1.

la: Libr. I. c. 9. n. 10. seq., quod testimonium Magister supra adduxit d. XXX. c. 10. Cfr. etiam d. XXXI. c. 3. et hic c. 1, ubi Magister peccatum originale docet esse vitium concupiscentiae. Ibid. etiam explicatio insinuatur eorum quae hic sequuntur.

en: Book I. c. 9. n. 10. seq., which testimony the Master adduced above d. XXX. c. 10. Cfr. also d. XXXI. c. 3. and here c. 1, where the Master teaches original sin to be the vice of concupiscence. In the same place also an explanation is insinuated of those things which here follow.

la: Simul audi: *concupiscentiae* i. e. *concupiscentiam praedominantem.* — Paulo inferius pro *et merito* edd., excepta 1, *ex merito*; deinde post *membrum* Vat. interiicit *et*.

en: Hear at the same time: *concupiscentiae*, that is, *the predominating concupiscence.* — A little below, for *et merito* the editions, except 1, [read] *ex merito*; then after *membrum* the Vatican [edition] inserts *et*.

la: Vat. cum edd. 2, 3, 4 perperam addit *et*, perpaucis tantum suffragantibus codd.

en: The Vatican [edition] with edd. 2, 3, 4 wrongly adds *et*, with very few codices favoring [it].

la: Vat. addit *talis pronitas.*

en: The Vatican [edition] adds *talis pronitas* ("such proneness").

la: Cfr. supra d. 29. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Cfr. above d. 29. a. 1. q. 1.

la: Pro *peccatum vel* in cod. T a secunda manu substitutum est *poena.*

en: For *peccatum vel* in cod. T, by a second hand, *poena* has been substituted.

la: Cfr. supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in corp. (opinio 3.).

en: Cfr. above d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in the body (opinion 3.).

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 15. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. seqq. — Vat. *adhuc tamen quaerit emendationem.*

en: Cfr. IV Sent. d. 15. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. seqq. — The Vatican edition reads *adhuc tamen quaerit emendationem* (it still requires amends).

latin_scholion:
**I.** Manere in baptizatis concupiscentiam vel fomitem, confitentur et peccatores et iusti. Sed attendendum est, quod anathemate Concilii Trid. (Sess. V. can. 5.) plectitur, « si quis per Iesu Christi, Domini nostri, gratiam reatum originalis peccati remitti negat; aut etiam asserit, non tolli totum id quod veram et propriam peccati rationem habet, sed illud dicit tantum radi, aut non imputari ». Ibid. docetur, quod « in renatis nihil odit Deus... qui vere consepulti sunt cum Christo per baptismum in mortem ». Concupiscentia autem, « cum ad agonem relicta sit, nocere non consentientibus, sed viriliter per Christi Iesu gratiam repugnantibus, non valet ». Ad rem faciunt etiam plures propositiones Baii, a s. Sede reprobatae (cfr. supra d. 30. a. 2. q. 1, schol.). — Perfecte concordat S. Bonav. (hic in corp.) dicens: « Omnino aufertur ratio culpae ab ipsa concupiscentia, licet aliquo modo remaneat ». — Communiter autem antiqui docent, quod in baptismo tum culpa (et per consequens reatus poenae) tollitur, tum prava dispositio (vitium, dominium) concupiscentiae minuitur (S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1.). Hoc autem S. Bonav. duplici via, secundum duplicem definitionem peccati originalis, explicat, quam utramque vocat probabilem. S. Thom. sequitur secundam viam, quae fundatur in distinctione formalis et materialis elementi, quod est in peccato originali, et in hoc principio, quod gratia baptismi opponitur originali iniustitiae, quatenus est corruptio personae, non naturae (cfr. seq. quaest.).

**II.** Hac quaestione elucidatur, quid S. Doctor intelligat per verba *concupiscentia intensa et remissa* (supra d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. in corp. et ad 2. 3.). Non enim in solo gradu intenso ponit consistere concupiscentiam, quatenus spectat ad culpam originalem (aliter in baptizatis peccatoribus, qui culpa propria habent intensissimam concupiscentiam, revivisceret peccatum originale), sed quatenus illud dominium concupiscentiae simul ortum habet ex peccato Adae. Hoc explicite docetur hic dub. 3. (cfr. et dub. 2.). Hinc S. Bonav. non discordat a S. Thoma (hic q. 1. a. 1. ad 4.), qui dicit: « Intensio et remissio fomitis super diversam naturam fundantur. Dicitur enim intensus, secundum quod ad suum formale coniungitur, quod est defectus iustitiae, et remissus, secundum quod a tali defectu separatur ». In hoc tamen aliquatenus hi duo Doctores dissentire videntur, quod S. Thom. (loco cit.) dicit: « Intensio et remissio nunquam speciei diversitatem causant, sed quandoque ex speciei diversitate consequuntur ». Sed S. Bonav. (supra d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3.) distinguit istam propositionem dicens: « Istud locum habet in naturalibus, non tamen habet veritatem in moralibus ».

**III.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 106. m. 6. — Scot., in utroque Scripto, hic q. unica. — S. Thom., loc. cit. — B. Albert., hic a. 1; de hac et seq. q. S. p. II. tr. 17. q. 3. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Biel, hic q. unica.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That concupiscence or the tinder [of sin] remains in the baptized, both sinners and the just confess. But it is to be attended to that by the anathema of the Council of Trent (Session V. canon 5.) one is struck, « if anyone denies that the liability of original sin is remitted by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ; or also asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper character of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only scraped off, or not imputed ». In the same place it is taught that « in the reborn God hates nothing... who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death ». But concupiscence, « since it is left for the contest, cannot harm those who do not consent, but who manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ ». To the point there contribute also several propositions of Baius, reprobated by the Holy See (cfr. above d. 30. a. 2. q. 1, schol.). — S. Bonaventure perfectly agrees (here in the body) saying: « The character of guilt is wholly taken away from concupiscence itself, although it remains in some manner ». — But the ancients commonly teach that in baptism both the guilt (and consequently the liability of punishment) is taken away, and the depraved disposition (the vice, the dominion) of concupiscence is diminished (St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1.). But this S. Bonaventure explains by a twofold way, according to the twofold definition of original sin, each of which he calls probable. St. Thomas follows the second way, which is founded on the distinction of the formal and material element which is in original sin, and on this principle, that the grace of baptism is opposed to original injustice insofar as it is a corruption of the person, not of the nature (cfr. the following question).

**II.** By this question it is elucidated what the holy Doctor understands by the words *intense and remitted concupiscence* (above d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. in the body and ad 2. 3.). For he does not place concupiscence, insofar as it pertains to original guilt, to consist in the intense degree alone (otherwise in baptized sinners, who by their own guilt have the most intense concupiscence, original sin would revive), but insofar as that dominion of concupiscence has its origin together [with it] from the sin of Adam. This is explicitly taught here in dub. 3. (cfr. also dub. 2.). Hence S. Bonaventure does not disagree with St. Thomas (here q. 1. a. 1. ad 4.), who says: « The intensity and remission of the tinder are founded upon a diverse nature. For it is called intense insofar as it is joined to its formal [element], which is the defect of justice, and remitted insofar as it is separated from such a defect ». Yet in this the two Doctors seem somewhat to dissent, that St. Thomas (in the cited place) says: « Intensity and remission never cause a diversity of species, but sometimes follow from a diversity of species ». But S. Bonaventure (above d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3.) distinguishes this proposition, saying: « That holds in natural [things], yet does not hold true in moral [things] ».

**III.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II. q. 106. m. 6. — Scotus, in each *Scriptum*, here q. unica. — St. Thomas, in the cited place. — B. Albert, here a. 1; on this and the following question *Summa* p. II. tr. 17. q. 3. m. 2. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 1. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1. a. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 1. — Biel, here q. unica.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw 52943–53131), with the cascade-fragmented Respondeo, Ad-obiecta replies, SCHOLION, and all page-footers verified against 450 dpi PDF column bands (printed pp. 759–762, offset pdf = printed + 22 → pdf pp. 781–784). Read Left column top→bottom then Right column for each page; body bands then footer bands.

**Boundary (coordinator-verified, held).** This chunk = ARTICULUS I, QUAESTIO I only. The ARTICULUS I opener (`ARTICULUS I. / De deletione originalis culpae.`, raw 52939–52941, p. 759) is folded in as headings per Override §5 — the article-level `Circa primum quaeruntur duo` opener (TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, raw 52929–52936) belongs to d32-divisio. The chunk ENDS at raw 53131, immediately before the OCR-garbled `QU.\ESTIO U.` header at raw 53134 (*Utrum originale peccatum per baptismum deleatur quantum ad causam*, body "Secundo quaeritur…") — everything from 53134 onward is d32-a1-q2.

**Page-split / footer map.** Spans printed pp. 759–762.
- p. 759 (running head `DIST. XXXII. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 759` at top, which sits over the divisio): the QUAESTIO I opener + fundamentum 1 begin here. Footers 1–5 anchor in the divisio chunk; footer 6 (John 3,5 Vulgate variant) anchors at *Ioannis tertio* in this q1's fundamentum 1 → [^1] (received from divisio).
- p. 760: fundamenta 2–4 + Sed contra 1–4 + Conclusio + Respondeo (first mode); footers 1–10 → continuous [^2]–[^11]. Markers reflowed L-column then R-column: [^2] ad Romanos, [^3] novae Legis, [^4] regeneratione, [^5] peccati definitionem; [^6] Magister (actus, c.1 in fine), [^7] habitus (Aristot. Ethic.), [^8] meritum poenae, [^9] Magister (transit reatu, c.1 sequitur Augustinum), [^10] Magister in littera (Respondeo opener), [^11] de Baptismo parvulorum.
- p. 761: Respondeo (second mode) + Ad obiecta 1–3; footers 1–7 → continuous [^12]–[^18]. By Quaracchi numbering (not strict page-position): [^12] fomitem, [^13] superius (d.30), [^14] aversio, [^15] dictum est (talis pronitas), [^16] innocentiae (d.29), [^17] peccatum (cod. T poena), [^18] debet (d.31 a.2 q.1).
- p. 762 (top, above QU.\ESTIO U.): tail of Ad obiectum 4 + SCHOLION (items I, II, III). The SCHOLION carries only parenthetical/reference content (Conc. Trid., commentator roll) — NO numbered footers. **CORRECTION (Pass 3, 2026-05-31):** p. 762 footers 1–2 (`Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 15. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. seqq. — Vat. adhuc tamen quaerit emendationem`; `Dist. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.`) anchor in THIS q1's Ad-obiectum-4 reply ("…adhuc quaerit emendam¹… ad quartum librum²…"), not in q2 — restored here as [^19] and [^20]. Only p. 762 footers 3–5 (Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 9…; Vers. 15; Aristot. II. Poster.) anchor in QUAESTIO II's body and belong to d32-a1-q2.

**Hand-off received.** From d32-divisio: p.759 footer 6 (John 3,5 Vulgate variant *non potest introire in regnum Dei*), anchored at *Ioannis tertio* in fundamentum 1 → rendered as [^1].

**Hand-off forwarded to d32-a1-q2.** The QU.\ESTIO U. header (raw 53134, *Utrum originale peccatum per baptismum deleatur quantum ad causam*) and everything below the SCHOLION on p. 762 belong to a1-q2. **CORRECTION (Pass 3, 2026-05-31):** p. 762 footers 3–5 (`Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 9. …`; `Vers. 15`; `Aristot., II. Poster. c. 17. (c. 14.)`) are forwarded to a1-q2; but p. 762 footers 1–2 (`Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 15. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. seqq. — Vat. adhuc tamen quaerit emendationem`; `Dist. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.`) belong to THIS q1's Ad-obiectum-4 reply and are restored here as [^19]/[^20]. The original forwarding of all five had dropped footers 1–2 entirely (q2 has no body for the *emendam*/*quartum librum* anchors).

**Scholion disposition.** PRESENT here at q1 (p. 762, raw 53106–53131), items I, II, III. `has_scholion: true`. Item I treats the manere concupiscentiam / Conc. Trid. Sess. V can. 5 / Baius — confirming it is q1's scholion as briefed. Item II elucidates *concupiscentia intensa et remissa* (d.30 cross-ref). Item III is the commentator roll. q2 may legitimately lack its own scholion per Override §5.

**Cascade-dropout check.** PASSED. Both column bands of each of pp. 759–762 read top→bottom; the p.759/760 seam (inside fundamentum 1), p.760/761 seam (inside the Respondeo first/second mode), and p.761/762 seam (inside Ad obiectum 4) are each grammatically continuous. No mid-paragraph splice signature found. The shared p.759 footer block is fully accounted across divisio (1–5) + this q1 (6); the shared p.762 footer block splits as footers 1–2 → this q1 ([^19]/[^20], restored Pass 3) + footers 3–5 → a1-q2. (Body text itself was complete and continuous; only footers 1–2 had been dropped at the seam — restored in the Pass 3 boundary sweep, 2026-05-31.)

**[?] flags.** None.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 762 -->

### QUAESTIO II.
### *Utrum originale peccatum per baptismum deleatur quantum ad causam.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum originale peccatum per baptismum deleri habeat quantum ad causam. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per verbum Damasceni[^1], qui dicit, quod *Ad oppositum.* duo sunt in baptismo correspondentia duobus, quae sunt in homine. Ait enim sic: « Quoniam duplex est homo ex anima et corpore, duplicem dedit purgationem, per aquam et Spiritum; Spiritu quod secundum imaginem et similitudinem est renovante, aqua etiam per Spiritus gratiam corpus a peccato purgante et a corruptione liberante ». Si igitur haec corruptio est causa originalis peccati transfundendi, videtur, quod originale peccatum non solum deleatur quantum ad culpam, sed etiam quantum ad causam.

2. Item, potentior est Christus in satisfaciendo, quam fuerit Adam in corrumpendo, sicut dicitur ad Romanos quinto[^2]: *Non sicut delictum, ita et donum*; ex quo innuit, quod multo maius fuit donum quam delictum. Ergo si delictum Adae non tantum potuit inficere hominem in se, sed prout est principium alterius; videtur, quod baptismi Sacramentum non tantum curet hominem *in se*, sed etiam prout est *alterius principium.*

3. Item, non removetur effectus, persistente causa[^3]: ergo si baptismus removet ipsum *originale* peccatum ab homine, necesse est, quod et causam originalis peccati excludat ab ipso; et si hoc, videtur tunc, quod baptizatus non transfundat in alterum originale peccatum.

<!-- page 763 -->

4. Item, non sufficienter curat morbum qui relinquit radicem morbi: ergo aut Christus non est perfectus medicus, aut si perfectus medicus est, per medicinam Sacramenti baptismi non solum expiatur originale quantum ad culpam, sed etiam quantum ad causam; et si hoc, ergo baptizatus etc.

5. Item, tales sunt fructus, qualis est arbor; et tales sunt rami, qualis et radix. Unde et Dominus in Matthaei septimo[^4]: *Non potest arbor bona fructus malos facere*; et Apostolus ad Romanos undecimo: *Si radix sancta, et rami sancti*: ergo si originale deletum est in parente, et parens est purificatus; videtur similiter, quod purificetur et proles. Et si hoc, aut originale non deletur per baptismum, aut si deletur quantum ad culpam, deletur similiter quantum ad causam. Si tu dicas, quod baptismus non purificat hominem ab originali, in quantum est corruptio *naturalis*, sed in quantum est corruptio *personalis*; contra: « si oppositum est causa oppositi, et propositum est causa propositi[^5] », sed persona corrupta corrumpit naturam: ergo pari ratione, persona sanata, sanatur et natura.

6. Item, si aliquis curet aliquem a lepra, quia lepra est morbus hereditarius[^6], hoc ipso quod a lepra curat, dat ei potentiam generandi filium sanum: ergo pari ratione, si originale morbus est hereditarius; videtur, quod non deleatur, quin auferatur illa corruptio, per quam originale in alterum transfunditur.

**Sed contra:**

*Fundamenta.*

1. Baptizatus etiam post baptismum sentit in se motus concupiscentiae; sed concupiscentia ortum habet ex *carnis foeditate*[^7], et illa est *causa* originalis peccati in prole: ergo baptismus non curat morbum originalis peccati quantum ad radicem.

2. Item, *causa* originalis peccati residet penes carnem; sed gratia Spiritus sancti respicit proprie ipsam mentem: ergo si *causa* originalis peccati non opponitur ipsi gratiae, videtur, quod per gratiam baptismalem non habeat removeri.

3. Item, si baptismus curaret originale non tantum, in quantum est morbus *personalis*, sed etiam, in quantum est morbus *naturalis*; igitur parente baptizato, non oporteret prolem baptizari. Si igitur unumquemque in propria persona necesse est baptizari, videtur, quod in baptismate non fiat deletio originalis quantum ad causam et radicem morbi.

4. Item, propter peccatum originale habemus ignorantiam in mente et concupiscentiam in carne[^8]; sed baptismus non tollit homini ignorantiam, quae se tenet ex parte mentis; ergo multo minus nec illam corruptionem, quae se tenet ex parte carnis; sed illa est causa originalis: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> Per baptismum originale peccatum deletur quantum ad culpam, non tamen removetur causa transfundendi originale in personam alteram.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de causa originalis: aut secundum considerationem unius hominis in se, aut per comparationem ipsius ad alterum ex ipso propagandum. — *(Dupliciter loquendum de originalis causa.)* Si primo modo loquamur, sic semper, cum deletur originale peccatum, deletur etiam causa originalis peccati quantum ad hoc, ut non possit deinceps peccatum originale causare[^9] in anima baptizati. *(Conclusio 1.)* Remittitur enim quodam modo foeditas carnis, et per consequens improbitas suae tyrannidis, ratione cuius habebat spiritum in servitutem peccati redigere; quod quidem non potest facere post baptismum propter auxilium gratiae, quod ibi datur spiritui, per quod praesidet carni: et ita effectus illius gratiae quodam modo redundat in carnem.

Si autem loquamur de causa originalis *respectu alterius propagandi*, sic per baptismum non deletur originale quantum ad *causam* sive radicem. *(Conclusio 2.)* — Et ratio huius potissima, ut credo, est, quia corruptio, quae est *causa* originalis peccati propagandi, est corruptio *naturae* sive consistens penes vim generativam[^10], quae habet radicari in carne. *(Ratio.)* Unde originale, prout est vitium *personae*, respicit voluntatem; prout autem est vitium *naturae*, respicit generativam virtutem et carnem. Gratia autem sacramentalis proprie respicit corruptionem *personae*; contra vero corruptionem *naturae* non habet ordinari directe. Et hinc est, quod cum infunditur gratia baptismalis, deletur originalis culpa, secundum quod erat peccatum *ipsius animae*; remanet tamen aliquis languor in *carne*, qui[^11] est causa originalis *in prole.*

Si autem quaeratur, *quare* remedium gratiae sacramentalis ordinatur directe contra originale, ut corrumpit *personam*, et non prout corrumpit *naturam*; dicendum, quod summus Medicus hoc instituit, ratione congrua exigente, tum ex parte Medici, tum ex parte aegroti, tum ex parte medicamenti. *(Quaestio incidens soluta. — Triplex ratio.)* — *(Ratio 1.)* Ex parte, inquam, Medici, quia sic Dominus debuit nos curare, ut salutem nostram unusquisque ab ipso

<!-- page 764 -->

immediate recognosceret, et ideo unumquemque voluit curari in suo baptismate immediate et in se. Et propterea baptismus delet originale in homine, secundum quod est *individuum*, non secundum quod est *alterius principium*, ut ex hoc unusquisque reddat obsequium Deo debitum et magis recognoscat salvationis suae beneficium[^12].

*(Ratio 2.)* Ex parte etiam aegroti congruentia erat. Deus enim neminem vult salvare nisi *salva* arbitrii sui *libertate*; et ideo talem efficaciam medicamento dedit, ut salva esset *libertas* et meritum liberi arbitrii. Ideo etiam, ut *fides* habeat locum, occultat Dominus Sacramenti sui effectum[^13]. Et ideo non curatur naturae morbus.

*(Ratio 3.)* Ex parte etiam *medicamenti* ratio est, quia virtus regenerativa in Sacramento est ipsa *fides*, unde a fide passionis dicuntur Sacramenta habere efficaciam. Quoniam igitur haec *virtus regenerativa* principaliter respicit voluntatem et mentem, *virtus* autem *generativa* decisionem carnis a carne; hinc est, quod baptismus sanat sive curat originale, secundum quod est morbus *personae*, dum in eo datur gratia, per quam rectificatur personalis voluntas, remanente nihilominus corruptione in carne et in vi generativa, quae *causa* est transfundendi originalem culpam.

Et sic patet, quod per baptismum deletur originale peccatum quantum ad *culpam*; non tamen removetur *causa* transfundendi originale in personam alteram, sicut rationes ostendunt, quae ad secundam partem inducuntur, et ideo concedendae sunt.

*Solutio oppositorum.*

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur de Damasceno, quod caro et spiritus purgantur in baptismo; dicendum, quod Damascenus intelligit carnem purgari, quia foeditas carnis aliquo modo remittitur, non quia omnino tollatur. Et illam remissionem sive diminutionem foeditatis *purgationem* vocat propter hoc, quod non est amplius *causa culpae* in eo, in quo est; non tamen per baptismum omnino *foeditas* deletur, cum non tantum pruritus coitus sit in paganis, verum etiam in Christianis. Probabile tamen est, quod aliquo modo illa *foeditas* per baptismum remittatur; vulgo enim dicitur, quod parvuli baptizati non ita foetent aliis, sicut non baptizati[^14].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Christus magis fuit sufficiens ad satisfaciendum, quam Adam ad corrumpendum; dicendum, quod verum est; verumtamen, quia non dedit omnem virtutem Sacramento, quam dare poterat, sed quam dare congruebat; ideo, etsi sufficientior esset, non tamen dedit virtutem Sacramento curandi omnem corruptionem, sed solum corruptionem personae. Sic enim congruebat, ut prius ostensum est.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non removetur effectus, permanente causa; dicendum, quod verum est de causa efficiente et conservante, non de efficiente tantum. *(Notandum.)* Verum est etiam de existentia causae in ea dispositione, in qua producit effectum. Neutro autem istorum modorum remanet causa originalis, sive quia foeditas ipsa non est causa conservativa originalis, cum originale sit in anima separata; sive quia non remanet in ea dispositione et intensione, secundum quam anima ex ipsa contrahit originale.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non sufficienter curat morbum qui relinquit radicem; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, quando radix morbi relinquitur, quae potest causare vulnus in eo qui curatur. Non sic autem relinquitur radix originalis peccati, quae quidem possit iterare morbum illum circa eum qui baptizatur. — *(Alia solutio.)* Posset tamen et aliter dici, quod utile est relinquere radicem alicuius aegritudinis, quia una aegritudo frequenter curat alteram. Huiusmodi autem corruptio, quae remanet in carne, occasio est vitandi multa mala, et per consequens faciendi multa bona, sicut ostenditur in quarto[^15], in tractatu de effectu baptismi.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si radix est sancta, et rami; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur per se loquendo, ut si radix sancta sit, secundum quod *radix*; baptismus autem, etsi sanctificet hominem, non tamen sanctificat eum, secundum quod est *principium alterius*, quia remedium illud curat morbum *personae*, non *naturae*, sicut ostensum est.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod curato leproso, datur ei virtus generandi sanum; dicendum, quod non est simile. Lepra enim sic est morbus hereditarius, quod non est alius morbus, ut corrumpit *personam* et ut corrumpit *naturam*, eo quod totum hominem inficit ex parte carnis, non solum quantum ad nutritivam, sed etiam quantum ad generativam; et ideo leprosus generat leprosum, quia ita corruptus est in eo humor generativus, sicut[^16] nutritivus; et quando homo a lepra curatur, uterque humor simul in ipso sanatur. Sed in originali peccato est corruptio personae et naturae, ita quod istae corruptiones sunt diversae. Corruptio enim personae respicit liberam voluntatem; corruptio vero naturae, secundum quod ab illa causatur, respicit generativam virtutem. « Est enim natura vis insita rebus, ex similibus similia procreans »: et ideo, quamvis una istarum corruptionum per baptismum curetur, non oportet, quod curetur alia; et hinc est, quod mundificatus per baptismum generat immundum. Qualitas enim prolis genitae plus conformatur

<!-- page 765 -->

dispositioni virtutis generativae quam dispositioni voluntatis liberae. Et ideo exemplificat Augustinus, quod sicut circumcisus generat praeputiatum, et ex grano mundo generatur granum cum paleis, et hoc, quia omnia ista erant in vi propagativa et ratione seminali, secundum quam haec propagantur: similiter intelligendum est in hominibus, quod quia corruptio remanet in vi generativa, quamvis *voluntas* curetur per gratiam, homo generat secundum id, in quo assimilatur Adae, non secundum quod assimilatur Christo; et ideo producit filium similem Adae praevaricatori magis quam suo Redemptori.

english:
### QUESTION II.
### *Whether original sin is deleted by baptism as to its cause.*

Secondly it is asked, whether original sin has to be deleted by baptism as to its cause. And that it does, it seems:

1. By the word of Damascene[^1], who says that *To the opposite.* there are two things in baptism corresponding to the two which are in the human. For he says thus: « Since the human is twofold, of soul and of body, he gave a twofold purgation, by water and by the Spirit; the Spirit renewing that which is according to the image and likeness, the water also through the grace of the Spirit purging the body from sin and freeing it from corruption ». If therefore this corruption is the cause of original sin's being transfused, it seems that original sin is deleted not only as to guilt, but also as to its cause.

2. Likewise, Christ is more powerful in making satisfaction than Adam was in corrupting, as it is said to the Romans, fifth [chapter][^2]: *Not as the offense, so also the gift*; from which he intimates that the gift was much greater than the offense. Therefore if Adam's offense was able to infect the human not only in himself, but insofar as he is the principle of another; it seems that the Sacrament of baptism should cure the human not only *in himself*, but also insofar as he is the *principle of another.*

3. Likewise, the effect is not removed while the cause persists[^3]: therefore if baptism removes *original* sin itself from the human, it is necessary that it also exclude the cause of original sin from him; and if so, it seems then that the baptized [person] does not transfuse original sin into another.

4. Likewise, he does not sufficiently cure the disease who leaves the root of the disease: therefore either Christ is not a perfect physician, or, if he is a perfect physician, then by the medicine of the Sacrament of baptism original [sin] is expiated not only as to guilt, but also as to its cause; and if so, then the baptized [person] etc.

5. Likewise, as is the tree, such are the fruits; and as is the root, such are the branches. Whence also the Lord, in Matthew, seventh [chapter][^4]: *A good tree cannot bear bad fruits*; and the Apostle to the Romans, eleventh: *If the root is holy, so also the branches*: therefore if original [sin] is deleted in the parent, and the parent is purified; it seems likewise that the offspring is purified. And if so, either original [sin] is not deleted by baptism, or, if it is deleted as to guilt, it is likewise deleted as to its cause. If you say that baptism does not purify the human from original [sin] insofar as it is a *natural* corruption, but insofar as it is a *personal* corruption; on the contrary: « if the opposite is the cause of the opposite, the [thing] proposed is also the cause of the proposed[^5] », but a corrupted person corrupts the nature: therefore by parity of reasoning, when the person is healed, the nature too is healed.

6. Likewise, if someone cure another of leprosy, since leprosy is a hereditary disease[^6], by this very fact that he cures him of leprosy, he gives him the power to generate a healthy son: therefore by parity of reasoning, if original [sin] is a hereditary disease; it seems that it is not deleted unless that corruption be taken away by which original [sin] is transfused into another.

**On the contrary:**

*Fundamenta.*

1. The baptized [person], even after baptism, feels in himself the motions of concupiscence; but concupiscence has its origin from the *foulness of the flesh*[^7], and that is the *cause* of original sin in the offspring: therefore baptism does not cure the disease of original sin as to its root.

2. Likewise, the *cause* of original sin resides in the flesh; but the grace of the Holy Spirit properly regards the mind itself: therefore if the *cause* of original sin is not opposed to grace itself, it seems that it is not removed by baptismal grace.

3. Likewise, if baptism cured original [sin] not only insofar as it is a *personal* disease, but also insofar as it is a *natural* disease; therefore, the parent being baptized, the offspring would not need to be baptized. If therefore it is necessary that each one be baptized in his own person, it seems that in baptism there is made no deletion of original [sin] as to the cause and root of the disease.

4. Likewise, on account of original sin we have ignorance in the mind and concupiscence in the flesh[^8]; but baptism does not take away from the human the ignorance which holds on the part of the mind; therefore much less [does it take away] that corruption which holds on the part of the flesh; but that is the cause of original [sin]: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> By baptism original sin is deleted as to guilt, yet there is not removed the cause of transfusing original [sin] into another person.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a twofold way of speaking about the cause of original [sin]: either according to the consideration of one human in himself, or by comparison of him to another to be propagated from him. — *(Original [sin]'s cause is to be spoken of in two ways.)* If we speak in the first way, then always, when original sin is deleted, the cause of original sin is also deleted as to this, that thereafter it cannot cause[^9] original sin in the soul of the baptized [person]. *(Conclusion 1.)* For the foulness of the flesh is in some manner remitted, and consequently the wickedness of its tyranny, by reason of which it had [the power] to reduce the spirit into the servitude of sin; which indeed it cannot do after baptism on account of the help of grace, which is there given to the spirit, by which it presides over the flesh: and thus the effect of that grace in some manner redounds upon the flesh.

But if we speak of the cause of original [sin] *with respect to another to be propagated*, then by baptism original [sin] is not deleted as to its *cause* or root. *(Conclusion 2.)* — And the chief reason of this, as I believe, is that the corruption which is the *cause* of original sin's being propagated is a corruption of the *nature*, or one consisting in the generative power[^10], which is rooted in the flesh. *(Reason.)* Whence original [sin], insofar as it is a vice of the *person*, regards the will; but insofar as it is a vice of the *nature*, it regards the generative power and the flesh. But sacramental grace properly regards the corruption of the *person*; whereas against the corruption of the *nature* it is not ordained directly. And hence it is that when baptismal grace is infused, original guilt is deleted, insofar as it was the sin *of the soul itself*; yet there remains some languor in the *flesh*, which[^11] is the cause of original [sin] *in the offspring.*

But if it be asked *why* the remedy of sacramental grace is ordained directly against original [sin] as it corrupts the *person*, and not as it corrupts the *nature*; it must be said that the supreme Physician instituted this, fitting reason demanding it, both on the part of the Physician, on the part of the patient, and on the part of the medicine. *(An incidental question solved. — A threefold reason.)* — *(Reason 1.)* On the part, I say, of the Physician, because the Lord ought thus to cure us, so that each one might

<!-- page 764 -->

immediately acknowledge his salvation from him, and therefore he willed each one to be cured in his own baptism immediately and in himself. And therefore baptism deletes original [sin] in the human according as he is an *individual*, not according as he is the *principle of another*, so that from this each one may render to God the obedience due and may the more acknowledge the benefit of his salvation[^12].

*(Reason 2.)* On the part of the patient too there was a fittingness. For God wills to save no one except *with the liberty* of his free will *preserved*; and therefore he gave such efficacy to the medicine that *liberty* and the merit of free will should be preserved. For this reason also, that *faith* may have place, the Lord conceals the effect of his Sacrament[^13]. And therefore the disease of the nature is not cured.

*(Reason 3.)* On the part of the *medicine* too there is a reason, because the regenerative power in the Sacrament is *faith* itself, whence from the faith of the passion the Sacraments are said to have efficacy. Since therefore this *regenerative power* principally regards the will and the mind, but the *generative power* [regards] the severance of flesh from flesh; hence it is that baptism heals or cures original [sin] according as it is a disease of the *person*, while in it grace is given by which the personal will is rectified, the corruption nevertheless remaining in the flesh and in the generative power, which is the *cause* of transfusing original guilt.

And thus it is clear that by baptism original sin is deleted as to *guilt*; yet the *cause* of transfusing original [sin] into another person is not removed, as the reasons show which are adduced for the second part, and therefore they are to be granted.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].*

1. To that therefore which is first objected concerning Damascene, that the flesh and the spirit are purged in baptism; it must be said that Damascene understands the flesh to be purged because the foulness of the flesh is in some manner remitted, not because it is wholly taken away. And that remission or diminution of the foulness he calls a *purgation* on account of this, that it is no longer the *cause of guilt* in him in whom it is; yet by baptism the *foulness* is not wholly deleted, since the itching of coition is not only in pagans, but also in Christians. It is probable nevertheless that in some manner that *foulness* is remitted by baptism; for it is commonly said that baptized little children do not smell to others as do the unbaptized[^14].

2. To that which is objected, that Christ was more sufficient for making satisfaction than Adam for corrupting; it must be said that it is true; but nevertheless, since he did not give to the Sacrament all the power which he could give, but [that] which it was fitting to give; therefore, even if he were more sufficient, yet he did not give to the Sacrament the power of curing every corruption, but only the corruption of the person. For thus it was fitting, as was shown before.

3. To that which is objected, that the effect is not removed while the cause remains; it must be said that this is true of a cause that is efficient and conserving, not of one that is efficient only. *(To be noted.)* It is also true of the existence of the cause in that disposition in which it produces the effect. But in neither of these ways does the cause of original [sin] remain, either because the foulness itself is not the conserving cause of original [sin], since original [sin] is in the separated soul; or because it does not remain in that disposition and intensity according to which the soul contracts original [sin] from it.

4. To that which is objected, that he does not sufficiently cure the disease who leaves the root; it must be said that this is true when the root of the disease is left which can cause a wound in him who is cured. But the root of original sin is not left in such a way that it could repeat that disease in him who is baptized. — *(Another solution.)* Yet it could also be said otherwise, that it is useful to leave the root of some sickness, because one sickness frequently cures another. But corruption of this kind, which remains in the flesh, is an occasion of avoiding many evils, and consequently of doing many goods, as is shown in the fourth [book][^15], in the treatise on the effect of baptism.

5. To that which is objected, that if the root is holy, so also the branches; it must be said that this is understood as spoken per se, so that if the root be holy, according as it is a *root*; but baptism, even though it sanctify the human, does not nevertheless sanctify him according as he is the *principle of another*, because that remedy cures the disease of the *person*, not of the *nature*, as has been shown.

6. To that which is objected, that, the leper being cured, there is given to him the power of generating a healthy [child]; it must be said that it is not similar. For leprosy is a hereditary disease in such a way that it is not a different disease as it corrupts the *person* and as it corrupts the *nature*, because it infects the whole human on the part of the flesh, not only as to the nutritive [power], but also as to the generative; and therefore a leper generates a leper, because the generative humor is corrupted in him just as[^16] the nutritive; and when a human is cured of leprosy, both humors are healed together in him. But in original sin there is a corruption of the person and of the nature, in such a way that these corruptions are diverse. For the corruption of the person regards the free will; but the corruption of the nature, according as it is caused by it, regards the generative power. « For nature is a power implanted in things, procreating like things from like »: and therefore, although one of these corruptions be cured by baptism, it does not follow that the other be cured; and hence it is that one cleansed by baptism generates an unclean [child]. For the quality of the offspring generated is conformed more

<!-- page 765 -->

to the disposition of the generative power than to the disposition of the free will. And therefore Augustine gives the example that, just as the circumcised generates the uncircumcised, and from clean grain is generated grain with chaff, and this because all those things were in the propagative power and seminal principle according to which these things are propagated: in like manner it is to be understood in the case of humans, that, because the corruption remains in the generative power, although the *will* is cured by grace, the human generates according to that in which he is made like Adam, not according as he is made like Christ; and therefore he produces a son more like Adam the prevaricator than his Redeemer.

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 9. In sententia allata textus originalis voci *duplicem* subiungit *nobis* et dein post *dedit* adiungit etiam. Respicitur in hoc textu Ioan. 3, 5: *Nisi quis renatus fueris ex aqua et Spiritu S.* etc.

en: Book IV. *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 9. In the sentence adduced the original text adds *nobis* to the word *duplicem* and then after *dedit* also adds *etiam*. In this text there is regarded John 3, 5: *Unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit* etc.

la: Vers. 15.

en: Verse 15.

la: Aristot., II. Poster. c. 17. (c. 14.): *Cum causa sit, necesse est, rem (effectum) omnem esse.*

en: Aristotle, II. *Posterior [Analytics]* c. 17 (c. 14): *When there is a cause, it is necessary that the whole thing (the effect) be.*

la: Vers. 18. — Seq. textus est loc. cit. v. 16.

en: Verse 18. — The following text is in the place cited, v. 16.

la: Aristot., IV. Topic. c. 4: *Si oppositum in opposito, et propositum in proposito erit.*

en: Aristotle, IV. *Topics* c. 4: *If the opposite be in the opposite, the proposed will also be in the proposed.*

la: Avicenna, I. Canon. Fen 2. Doctr. 1. c. 8: *Et sunt aegritudinum quaedam, quae in semine hereditantur, sicut... phthisis et lepra.* — Pro *quia lepra est* codd. L O *quae est*.

en: Avicenna, I. *Canon* Fen 2. Doctr. 1. c. 8: *And there are certain sicknesses which are inherited in the seed, such as... phthisis and leprosy.* — For *quia lepra est* codd. L O [read] *quae est*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.

en: Cfr. above d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in the body.

la: Vide supra d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. seq. et infra a. 2. q. 1.

en: See above d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. seq. and below a. 2. q. 1.

la: Codd. O aa *regnare*, cod. ee *iterare*, Vat. cum edd. 1, 3, 4 et paucis codd. *causari.*

en: Codd. O aa [read] *regnare*, cod. ee *iterare*, the Vatican [edition] with edd. 1, 3, 4 and a few codices *causari.*

la: Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 omittit *sive* et subinde *generativam.*

en: The Vatican [edition] with edd. 3, 4 omits *sive* and thereupon *generativam.*

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

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

la: Cfr. Anselm., l. Cur Deus homo, c. 5, ubi ex eodem principio vult probare, quod redemptio hominis non potuit fieri per alium quam per Dei personam.

en: Cfr. Anselm, *Why God [Became] Man*, c. 5, where from the same principle he wishes to prove that the redemption of the human could not be effected by another than by the person of God.

la: Cfr. August., l. de Peccat. merit. et remiss. etc. c. 31. n. 50. nec non Anselm., de Concord. praesc. Dei cum lib. arb. q. 3. c. 9.

en: Cfr. Augustine, book *On the Merit and Remission of Sins* etc. c. 31. n. 50, and also Anselm, *On the Concord of God's Foreknowledge with Free Will* q. 3. c. 9.

la: In edd. legitur *ita foetent, sicut alii non baptizati.*

en: In the editions it reads *ita foetent, sicut alii non baptizati* ("smell as do others, the unbaptized").

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 adiiciunt *et.* — Cfr. August., loc. cit. c. 27. n. 43. seqq. — Augustini exemplificatio infra adducta de circumciso et grano legitur Lib. III. de Peccat. merit. et remiss. etc. c. 8. n. 16. et VI. Contra Iulian. Pelagian. c. 6. n. 15. seqq. — « Est enim natura vis insita rebus » cfr. tom. I. pag. 134, nota 10.

en: Cod. cc and ed. 1 add *et.* — Cfr. Augustine, in the place cited, c. 27. n. 43. seqq. — Augustine's example adduced below concerning the circumcised and the grain is read in Book III. *On the Merit and Remission of Sins* etc. c. 8. n. 16, and VI. *Against Julian the Pelagian* c. 6. n. 15. seqq. — « For nature is a power implanted in things » cfr. tom. I. p. 134, note 10.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Locutio *causa peccati originalis* sumta est ex Petro Lombardo, d. XXXI. c. 4. 5. 6, et intelligitur non de causa principali eiusdem, sed de instrumentali, quae est in carne, ut supra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in scholio est dictum (cfr. etiam ibid. dub. 1.). Hinc eandem quaestionem Petr. a Tar. tractat sub titulo: « Utrum foeditas carnis in baptismo tollatur »; S. Thomas vero generalius: « Utrum poena originalem culpam consequens post baptismum remaneat ». — Solutio S. Bonaventurae communiter approbatur, quae eruitur ex hoc principio: peccatum originale inficit naturam et per consequens personam; gratia vero in hoc tempore sanat proprie personam, non naturam, sive personam *in se* absolute, non ut est principium alterius personae.

Haec et praecedens quaestio non parum servit ad intelligendam nostri Doctoris doctrinam de peccato originali, sicut et infra d. 33. a. 2. q. 1, ubi tria in peccato originali distinguuntur, scilicet *formale*, *materiale* et *causale.*

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 106. m. 7. a. 7. § 1. 2. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The expression *cause of original sin* is taken from Peter Lombard, d. XXXI. c. 4. 5. 6, and is understood not of its principal cause, but of the instrumental, which is in the flesh, as was said above at d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. in the scholion (cfr. also there dub. 1.). Hence Petrus a Tarantasia treats the same question under the title: « Whether the foulness of the flesh is taken away in baptism »; but St. Thomas more generally: « Whether the punishment consequent upon original guilt remains after baptism ». — The solution of S. Bonaventure is commonly approved, which is drawn from this principle: original sin infects the nature and consequently the person; but grace in this time properly heals the person, not the nature, that is, the person *in himself* absolutely, not as he is the principle of another person.

This and the preceding question serve not a little toward understanding our Doctor's doctrine on original sin, as also below d. 33. a. 2. q. 1, where three things are distinguished in original sin, namely the *formal*, the *material*, and the *causal.*

**II.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II. q. 106. m. 7. a. 7. § 1. 2. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 2. — B. Albert, here a. 3. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 1. a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1. a. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw 53134–53312), with the cascade-fragmented two-column body (Respondeo, triplex-ratio, Ad-obiecta replies, SCHOLION) and all page-footers verified against 450 dpi PDF column bands (printed pp. 762–765, offset pdf = printed + 22 → pdf pp. 784–787). Read Left column top→bottom then Right column for each page; body bands then footer bands.

**Boundary (coordinator-verified, held).** This chunk = ARTICULUS I, QUAESTIO II only. Opens at the OCR-garbled header `QU.\ESTIO U.` (= QUAESTIO II, raw 53134, p.762 bottom-center, full-width), body "Secundo quaeritur, utrum originale peccatum per baptismum deleri habeat quantum ad causam." The ARTICULUS I header is NOT repeated — it is carried by the sibling a1-q1 (per Override §5). The chunk ENDS at raw ~53312, immediately before the full-width `ARTICULUS II. / De morbo concupiscentiae.` header (p.765, body "Consequenter quaeritur de secundo principali…") — everything from ARTICULUS II onward is d32-a2-q1.

**Page-split / footer map.** Spans printed pp. 762–765 (running heads: p.762 `DIST. XXXII. ART. I. QUAEST. I.`; p.763 `DIST. XXXII. ART. I. QUAEST. II.`; p.764 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.` [verso]; p.765 `DIST. XXXII. ART. II. QUAEST. I.` — note p.765's running head already names ART. II because ART. II opens lower on that page; q2's scholion tail still occupies the top of p.765).
- p.762 (bottom): QU.\ESTIO U. opener + fundamenta 1–2 + start of 3. Footers 1–5 → continuous [^1]–[^5]: [^1] Damasceni (de Fide orthod. c.9), [^2] ad Romanos quinto (Vers. 15), [^3] persistente causa (Aristot. II. Poster.), [^4] Matthaei septimo (Vers. 18), [^5] propositi (Aristot. IV. Topic.).
- p.763: rest of fundamentum 3 + 4–6 + Sed contra (Fundamenta) 1–4 + Conclusio + Respondeo (Conclusio 1, Conclusio 2/Ratio, start of incidens). Footers 1–8 → continuous [^? ]; markers reflowed L-column (1,2,3) then R-column (4,5,6,7,8): L = [^4] Matthaei (Vers.18 — printed on p.763 L footer 1) … actually p.763 L footers 1–3 = Vers.18 / Aristot.IV.Topic / Avicenna serve markers carried over: [^4] Vers.18, [^5] Aristot.IV.Topic, [^6] Avicenna (lepra hereditarius); R footers 4–8 = [^7] foeditate (d.31 a.2 q.1), [^8] in carne (d.30 a.2 q.1 seq.), [^9] causare (codd. regnare/iterare/causari), [^10] generativam (Vat. omittit sive), [^11] qui→quae (Vat. quae).
- p.764 (verso, running head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.`): Respondeo Ratio 1 tail + Ratio 2 + Ratio 3 + concluding "Et sic patet" + Ad obiecta replies 1–6. Footer block → [^12] Anselm Cur Deus homo (Ratio 1), [^13] occultat effectum (Augustine de Peccat. merit. + Anselm de Concord., Ratio 2), [^14] non baptizati (reply 1, "In edd. legitur ita foetent…"), [^15] in quarto (reply 4, "Dist. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2."), [^16] sicut→et (reply 6, "Cod. cc et ed. 1 adiiciunt et") — note [^16]'s Quaracchi entry is composite, its Augustine-loc + circumcisus/granum source + "Est natura vis insita" cross-refs print partly on p.764 and partly p.765.
- p.765 (top, above ART. II opener): Respondeo reply 6 tail (Augustinus exemplificat, circumcisus/granum, "similem Adae praevaricatori magis quam Redemptori") + SCHOLION (items I, II). p.765 footers 1–2 (Lib. III. de Peccat. merit… [Augustinus exemplificat]; Cfr. supra lit. Magistri d. XXXI. c. 6.) attach to this q2's reply-6 tail and are folded into [^16] above; p.765 footers 3+ (Vers. 23 Glossa, Lib. I. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 26, etc.) belong to ARTICULUS II and are forwarded to d32-a2-q1.

**Hand-off received.** From d32-a1-q1: the entire p.762 footer block (notes 1–5) anchors here in q2's body. note 1 → [^1] (Damascene de Fide orthod. c.9); note 2 → [^2] (Vers. 15, the Rom. 5 marker); note 3 → [^3] (Aristot. II. Poster.); note 4 → [^4] (Vers. 18, the Matt. 7 marker); note 5 → [^5] (Aristot. IV. Topic.). a1-q1 claimed no footer on p.762.

**Hand-off forwarded to d32-a2-q1.** ARTICULUS II (`De morbo concupiscentiae`, body "Consequenter quaeritur de secundo principali… Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, in quo sit concupiscentia…") begins on p.765 immediately after q2's scholion. The p.765 footers that serve ART. II body (footer 3 = `Vers. 23. — Glossa, quae est interlinearis, habetur apud Lyranum…`; footer 4 = `Libr. I. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 26`; footer 5 = `Vers. 5. seqq.`; footer 6 = `Vers. 17. — De maiori cfr. Aristot. de Somno et vigilia c.1…`; footer 7 = `Vide supra d. XXXI. lit. Magistri c. 5.`) are forwarded to d32-a2-q1.

**Scholion disposition.** PRESENT here at q2 (p.764 bottom full-width + p.765 top), items I and II. `has_scholion: true`. Item I treats the *causa peccati originalis* expression (Petr. Lombard d.31 c.4–6), cross-refs d.31 a.2 q.1 schol. + dub.1, names the commentators' titles, and forwards to d.33 a.2 q.1 (formale/materiale/causale). Item II is the commentator roll (Alex. Hal. through Dionys. Carth.). This is q2's own scholion — distinct from q1's (which treated Conc. Trid. Sess. V can. 5 / Baius / intensa-remissa concupiscentia).

**Cascade-dropout check.** PASSED. Both column bands of each of pp. 762–765 read top→bottom. The p.762/763 seam (inside fundamentum 3, "...transfundat in alterum / 4. Item, non sufficienter…" — continuous), the p.763/764 seam (inside Respondeo Ratio 1, "...ab ipso / immediate recognosceret" — continuous), and the p.764/765 seam (inside reply 6, "...plus conformatur / dispositioni virtutis generativae" — continuous) are each grammatically continuous. No mid-paragraph splice signature found. The p.762 footer block is fully accounted for here (1–5 received); the p.765 footer block splits cleanly between q2 (footers 1–2, folded into [^16]) and a2-q1 (footers 3+, forwarded).

**[?] flags.** None. Note: raw OCR rendered the p.762 footer 1 cross-ref as "d. 13. p. II" but the 450 dpi PDF reads clearly *d. 15. p. II* — corrected to [^15] body text and to the divisio/a1-q1 hand-off note (which had transcribed the garbled "d.13"); the **de Fide orthod.** book is *Libr. IV* per PDF. a1-q1's forwarded-footer note recorded these in their OCR-garbled form; the PDF-correct values are used here.

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