Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de peccato originali quantum ad suam essentiam. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. | We must now consider original sin as to its essence, and under this head there are four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum originale peccatum sit habitus. | (1) Whether original sin is a habit? |
| Secundo, utrum sit unum tantum in uno homine. | (2) Whether there is but one original sin in each man? |
| Tertio, utrum sit concupiscentia. | (3) Whether original sin is concupiscence? |
| Quarto, utrum sit aequaliter in omnibus. | (4) Whether original sin is equally in all? |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod originale peccatum non sit habitus. Originale enim peccatum est carentia originalis iustitiae, ut Anselmus dicit, in libro de concepto virginali, et sic originale peccatum est quaedam privatio. Sed privatio opponitur habitui. Ergo originale peccatum non est habitus. | Objection 1: It would seem that original sin is not a habit. For original sin is the absence of original justice, as Anselm states (De Concep. Virg. ii, iii, xxvi), so that original sin is a privation. But privation is opposed to habit. Therefore original sin is not a habit. |
| Praeterea, actuale peccatum habet plus de ratione culpae quam originale, inquantum habet plus de ratione voluntarii. Sed habitus actualis peccati non habet rationem culpae, alioquin sequeretur quod homo dormiens culpabiliter, peccaret. Ergo nullus habitus originalis habet rationem culpae. | Objection 2: Further, actual sin has the nature of fault more than original sin, in so far as it is more voluntary. Now the habit of actual sin has not the nature of a fault, else it would follow that a man while asleep, would be guilty of sin. Therefore no original habit has the nature of a fault. |
| Praeterea, in malis actus semper praecedit habitum, nullus enim habitus malus est infusus, sed acquisitus. Sed originale peccatum non praecedit aliquis actus. Ergo originale peccatum non est habitus. | Objection 3: Further, in wickedness act always precedes habit, because evil habits are not infused, but acquired. Now original sin is not preceded by an act. Therefore original sin is not a habit. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de Baptismo puerorum, quod secundum peccatum originale parvuli sunt concupiscibiles, etsi non sint actu concupiscentes. Sed habilitas dicitur secundum aliquem habitum. Ergo peccatum originale est habitus. | On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Baptism of infants (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i, 39) that on account of original sin little children have the aptitude of concupiscence though they have not the act. Now aptitude denotes some kind of habit. Therefore original sin is a habit. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, duplex est habitus. Unus quidem quo inclinatur potentia ad agendum, sicut scientiae et virtutes habitus dicuntur. Et hoc modo peccatum originale non est habitus. Alio modo dicitur habitus dispositio alicuius naturae ex multis compositae, secundum quam bene se habet vel male ad aliquid, et praecipue cum talis dispositio versa fuerit quasi in naturam, ut patet de aegritudine et sanitate. Et hoc modo peccatum originale est habitus. Est enim quaedam inordinata dispositio proveniens ex dissolutione illius harmoniae in qua consistebat ratio originalis iustitiae, sicut etiam aegritudo corporalis est quaedam inordinata dispositio corporis, secundum quam solvitur aequalitas in qua consistit ratio sanitatis. Unde peccatum originale languor naturae dicitur. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [49], Article [4]; Question [50], Article [1]), habit is twofold. The first is a habit whereby power is inclined to an act: thus science and virtue are called habits. In this way original sin is not a habit. The second kind of habit is the disposition of a complex nature, whereby that nature is well or ill disposed to something, chiefly when such a disposition has become like a second nature, as in the case of sickness or health. In this sense original sin is a habit. For it is an inordinate disposition, arising from the destruction of the harmony which was essential to original justice, even as bodily sickness is an inordinate disposition of the body, by reason of the destruction of that equilibrium which is essential to health. Hence it is that original sin is called the "languor of nature" [*Cf. Augustine, In Ps. 118, serm. iii]. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut aegritudo corporalis habet aliquid de privatione, inquantum tollitur aequalitas sanitatis; et aliquid habet positive, scilicet ipsos humores inordinate dispositos, ita etiam peccatum originale habet privationem originalis iustitiae, et cum hoc inordinatam dispositionem partium animae. Unde non est privatio pura, sed est quidam habitus corruptus. | Reply to Objection 1: As bodily sickness is partly a privation, in so far as it denotes the destruction of the equilibrium of health, and partly something positive, viz. the very humors that are inordinately disposed, so too original sin denotes the privation of original justice, and besides this, the inordinate disposition of the parts of the soul. Consequently it is not a pure privation, but a corrupt habit. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod actuale peccatum est inordinatio quaedam actus, originale vero, cum sit peccatum naturae, est quaedam inordinata dispositio ipsius naturae, quae habet rationem culpae inquantum derivatur ex primo parente, ut dictum est. Huiusmodi autem dispositio naturae inordinata habet rationem habitus, sed inordinata dispositio actus non habet rationem habitus. Et propter hoc, peccatum originale potest esse habitus, non autem peccatum actuale. |
Reply to Objection 2: Actual sin is an inordinateness of an act: whereas original sin, being the sin of nature, is an inordinate disposition of nature, and has the character of fault through being transmitted from our first parent, as stated above (Question [81], Article [1]). Now this inordinate disposition of nature is a kind of habit, whereas the inordinate disposition of an act is not: and for this reason original sin can be a habit, whereas actual sin cannot. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de habitu quo potentia inclinatur in actum, talis autem habitus non est peccatum originale. Quamvis etiam ex peccato originali sequatur aliqua inclinatio in actum inordinatum, non directe, sed indirecte, scilicet per remotionem prohibentis, idest originalis iustitiae, quae prohibebat inordinatos motus, sicut etiam ex aegritudine corporali indirecte sequitur inclinatio ad motus corporales inordinatos. Nec debet dici quod peccatum originale sit habitus infusus; aut acquisitus per actum nisi primi parentis, non autem huius personae; sed per vitiatam originem innatus. | Reply to Objection 3: This objection considers the habit which inclines a power to an act: but original sin is not this kind of habit. Nevertheless a certain inclination to an inordinate act does follow from original sin, not directly, but indirectly, viz. by the removal of the obstacle, i.e. original justice, which hindered inordinate movements: just as an inclination to inordinate bodily movements results indirectly from bodily sickness. Nor is it necessary to says that original sin is a habit "infused," or a habit "acquired" (except by the act of our first parent, but not by our own act): but it is a habit "inborn" due to our corrupt origin. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in uno homine sint multa originalia peccata. Dicitur enim in Psalmo l, ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis concepit me mater mea. Sed peccatum in quo homo concipitur, est originale. Ergo plura peccata originalia sunt in uno homine. |
Objection 1: It would seem that there are many original sins in one man. For it is written (Ps. 1:7): "Behold I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me." But the sin in which a man is conceived is original sin. Therefore there are several original sins in man. |
| Praeterea, unus et idem habitus non inclinat ad contraria, habitus enim inclinat per modum naturae, quae tendit in unum. Sed peccatum originale, etiam in uno homine, inclinat ad diversa peccata et contraria. Ergo peccatum originale non est unus habitus, sed plures. | Objection 2: Further, one and the same habit does not incline its subject to contraries: since the inclination of habit is like that of nature which tends to one thing. Now original sin, even in one man, inclines to various and contrary sins. Therefore original sin is not one habit; but several. |
| Praeterea, peccatum originale inficit omnes animae partes. Sed diversae partes animae sunt diversa subiecta peccati, ut ex praemissis patet. Cum igitur unum peccatum non possit esse in diversis subiectis, videtur quod peccatum originale non sit unum, sed multa. |
Objection 3: Further, original sin infects every part of the soul. Now the different parts of the soul are different subjects of sin, as shown above (Question [74]). Since then one sin cannot be in different subjects, it seems that original sin is not one but several. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. I, ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi. Quod singulariter dicitur, quia peccatum mundi, quod est peccatum originale, est unum; ut Glossa ibidem exponit. |
On the contrary, It is written (Jn. 1:29): "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him Who taketh away the sin of the world": and the reason for the employment of the singular is that the "sin of the world" is original sin, as a gloss expounds this passage. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in uno homine est unum peccatum originale. Cuius ratio dupliciter accipi potest. Uno modo, ex parte causae peccati originalis. Dictum est enim supra quod solum primum peccatum primi parentis in posteros traducitur. Unde peccatum originale in uno homine est unum numero; et in omnibus hominibus est unum proportione, in respectu scilicet ad primum principium. Alio modo potest accipi ratio eius ex ipsa essentia originalis peccati. In omni enim inordinata dispositione unitas speciei consideratur ex parte causae; unitas autem secundum numerum, ex parte subiecti. Sicut patet in aegritudine corporali, sunt enim diversae aegritudines specie quae ex diversis causis procedunt, puta ex superabundantia calidi vel frigidi, vel ex laesione pulmonis vel hepatis; una autem aegritudo secundum speciem, in uno homine non est nisi una numero. Causa autem huius corruptae dispositionis quae dicitur originale peccatum, est una tantum, scilicet privatio originalis iustitiae, per quam sublata est subiectio humanae mentis ad Deum. Et ideo peccatum originale est unum specie. Et in uno homine non potest esse nisi unum numero, in diversis autem hominibus est unum specie et proportione, diversum autem numero. |
I answer that, In one man there is one original sin. Two reasons may be assigned for this. The first is on the part of the cause of original sin. For it has been stated (Question [81], Article [2]), that the first sin alone of our first parent was transmitted to his posterity. Wherefore in one man original sin is one in number; and in all men, it is one in proportion, i.e. in relation to its first principle. The second reason may be taken from the very essence of original sin. Because in every inordinate disposition, unity of species depends on the cause, while the unity of number is derived from the subject. For example, take bodily sickness: various species of sickness proceed from different causes, e.g. from excessive heat or cold, or from a lesion in the lung or liver; while one specific sickness in one man will be one in number. Now the cause of this corrupt disposition that is called original sin, is one only, viz. the privation of original justice, removing the subjection of man's mind to God. Consequently original sin is specifically one, and, in one man, can be only one in number; while, in different men, it is one in species and in proportion, but is numerically many. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod pluraliter dicitur in peccatis, secundum illum morem divinae Scripturae quo frequenter ponitur pluralis numerus pro singulari, sicut Matth. II, defuncti sunt qui quaerebant animam pueri. Vel quia in peccato originali virtualiter praeexistunt omnia peccata actualia, sicut in quodam principio, unde est multiplex virtute. Vel quia in peccato primi parentis quod per originem traducitur, fuerunt plures deformitates, scilicet superbiae, inobedientiae, gulae, et alia huiusmodi. Vel quia multae partes animae inficiuntur per peccatum originale. | Reply to Objection 1: The employment of the plural—"in sins"—may be explained by the custom of the Divine Scriptures in the frequent use of the plural for the singular, e.g. "They are dead that sought the life of the child"; or by the fact that all actual sins virtually pre-exist in original sin, as in a principle so that it is virtually many; or by the fact of there being many deformities in the sin of our first parent, viz. pride, disobedience, gluttony, and so forth; or by several parts of the soul being infected by original sin. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod unus habitus non potest inclinare per se et directe, idest per propriam formam, ad contraria. Sed indirecte et per accidens, scilicet per remotionem prohibentis, nihil prohibet, sicut, soluta harmonia corporis mixti, elementa tendunt in loca contraria. Et similiter, soluta harmonia originalis iustitiae, diversae animae potentiae in diversa feruntur. | Reply to Objection 2: Of itself and directly, i.e. by its own form, one habit cannot incline its subject to contraries. But there is no reason why it should not do so, indirectly and accidentally, i.e. by the removal of an obstacle: thus, when the harmony of a mixed body is destroyed, the elements have contrary local tendencies. In like manner, when the harmony of original justice is destroyed, the various powers of the soul have various opposite tendencies. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod peccatum originale inficit diversas partes animae, secundum quod sunt partes unius totius, sicut et iustitia originalis continebat omnes animae partes in unum. Et ideo est unum tantum peccatum originale. Sicut etiam est una febris in uno homine, quamvis diversae partes corporis graventur. | Reply to Objection 3: Original sin infects the different parts of the soul, in so far as they are the parts of one whole; even as original justice held all the soul's parts together in one. Consequently there is but one original sin: just as there is but one fever in one man, although the various parts of the body are affected. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum originale non sit concupiscentia. Omne enim peccatum est contra naturam, ut dicit Damascenus, in II libro. Sed concupiscentia est secundum naturam, est enim proprius actus virtutis concupiscibilis, quae est potentia naturalis. Ergo concupiscentia non est peccatum originale. | Objection 1: It would seem that original sin is not concupiscence. For every sin is contrary to nature, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 4,30). But concupiscence is in accordance with nature, since it is the proper act of the concupiscible faculty which is a natural power. Therefore concupiscence is not original sin. |
| Praeterea, per peccatum originale sunt in nobis passiones peccatorum; ut patet per apostolum, Rom. VII. Sed multae aliae sunt passiones praeter concupiscentiam, ut supra habitum est. Ergo peccatum originale non magis est concupiscentia quam aliqua alia passio. |
Objection 2: Further, through original sin "the passions of sins" are in us, according to the Apostle (Rm. 7:5). Now there are several other passions besides concupiscence, as stated above (Question [23], Article [4]). Therefore original sin is not concupiscence any more than another passion. |
| Praeterea, per peccatum originale deordinantur omnes animae partes, ut dictum est. Sed intellectus est suprema inter animae partes; ut patet per philosophum, in X Ethic. Ergo peccatum originale magis est ignorantia quam concupiscentia. |
Objection 3: Further, by original sin, all the parts of the soul are disordered, as stated above (Article [2], Objection [3]). But the intellect is the highest of the soul's parts, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. x, 7). Therefore original sin is ignorance rather than concupiscence. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro Retract., concupiscentia est reatus originalis peccati. | On the contrary, Augustine says (Retract. i, 15): "Concupiscence is the guilt of original sin." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod unumquodque habet speciem a sua forma. Dictum est autem supra quod species peccati originalis sumitur ex sua causa. Unde oportet quod id quod est formale in originali peccato, accipiatur ex parte causae peccati originalis. Oppositorum autem oppositae sunt causae. Est igitur attendenda causa originalis peccati ex causa originalis iustitiae, quae ei opponitur. Tota autem ordinatio originalis iustitiae ex hoc est, quod voluntas hominis erat Deo subiecta. Quae quidem subiectio primo et principaliter erat per voluntatem, cuius est movere omnes alias partes in finem, ut supra dictum est. Unde ex aversione voluntatis a Deo, consecuta est inordinatio in omnibus aliis animae viribus. Sic ergo privatio originalis iustitiae, per quam voluntas subdebatur Deo, est formale in peccato originali, omnis autem alia inordinatio virium animae se habet in peccato originali sicut quiddam materiale. Inordinatio autem aliarum virium animae praecipue in hoc attenditur, quod inordinate convertuntur ad bonum commutabile, quae quidem inordinatio communi nomine potest dici concupiscentia. Et ita peccatum originale materialiter quidem est concupiscentia; formaliter vero, defectus originalis iustitiae. |
I answer that, Everything takes its species from its form: and it has been stated (Article [2]) that the species of original sin is taken from its cause. Consequently the formal element of original sin must be considered in respect of the cause of original sin. But contraries have contrary causes. Therefore the cause of original sin must be considered with respect to the cause of original justice, which is opposed to it. Now the whole order of original justice consists in man's will being subject to God: which subjection, first and chiefly, was in the will, whose function it is to move all the other parts to the end, as stated above (Question [9], Article [1]), so that the will being turned away from God, all the other powers of the soul become inordinate. Accordingly the privation of original justice, whereby the will was made subject to God, is the formal element in original sin; while every other disorder of the soul's powers, is a kind of material element in respect of original sin. Now the inordinateness of the other powers of the soul consists chiefly in their turning inordinately to mutable good; which inordinateness may be called by the general name of concupiscence. Hence original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia in homine concupiscibilis naturaliter regitur ratione, intantum concupiscere est homini naturale, inquantum est secundum rationis ordinem, concupiscentia autem quae transcendit limites rationis, est homini contra naturam. Et talis est concupiscentia originalis peccati. | Reply to Objection 1: Since, in man, the concupiscible power is naturally governed by reason, the act of concupiscence is so far natural to man, as it is in accord with the order of reason; while, in so far as it trespasses beyond the bounds of reason, it is, for a man, contrary to reason. Such is the concupiscence of original sin. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, omnes passiones irascibilis ad passiones concupiscibilis reducuntur, sicut ad principaliores. Inter quas concupiscentia vehementius movet, et magis sentitur, ut supra habitum est. Et ideo concupiscentiae attribuitur, tanquam principaliori, et in qua quodammodo omnes aliae passiones includuntur. |
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question [25], Article [1]), all the irascible passions are reducible to concupiscible passions, as holding the principle place: and of these, concupiscence is the most impetuous in moving, and is felt most, as stated above (Question [25], Article [2], ad 1). Therefore original sin is ascribed to concupiscence, as being the chief passion, and as including all the others, in a fashion. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut in bonis intellectus et ratio principalitatem habent, ita e converso in malis inferior pars animae principalior invenitur, quae obnubilat et trahit rationem, ut supra dictum est. Et propter hoc peccatum originale magis dicitur esse concupiscentia quam ignorantia, licet etiam ignorantia inter defectus materiales peccati originalis contineatur. |
Reply to Objection 3: As, in good things, the intellect and reason stand first, so conversely in evil things, the lower part of the soul is found to take precedence, for it clouds and draws the reason, as stated above (Question [77], Articles [1],2; Question [80], Article [2]). Hence original sin is called concupiscence rather than ignorance, although ignorance is comprised among the material defects of original sin. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 82 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum originale non sit aequaliter in omnibus. Est enim peccatum originale concupiscentia inordinata, ut dictum est. Sed non omnes aequaliter sunt proni ad concupiscendum. Ergo peccatum originale non est aequaliter in omnibus. |
Objection 1: It would seem that original sin is not equally in all. Because original sin is inordinate concupiscence, as stated above (Article [3]). Now all are not equally prone to acts of concupiscence. Therefore original sin is not equally in all. |
| Praeterea, peccatum originale est quaedam inordinata dispositio animae, sicut aegritudo est quaedam inordinata dispositio corporis. Sed aegritudo recipit magis et minus. Ergo peccatum originale recipit magis et minus. | Objection 2: Further, original sin is an inordinate disposition of the soul, just as sickness is an inordinate disposition of the body. But sickness is subject to degrees. Therefore original sin is subject to degrees. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de Nupt. et Concupisc., quod libido transmittit originale peccatum in prolem. Sed contingit esse maiorem libidinem unius in actu generationis, quam alterius. Ergo peccatum originale potest esse maius in uno quam in alio. | Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (De Nup. et Concep. i, 23) that "lust transmits original sin to the child." But the act of generation may be more lustful in one than in another. Therefore original sin may be greater in one than in another. |
| Sed contra est quia peccatum originale est peccatum naturae, ut dictum est. Sed natura aequaliter est in omnibus. Ergo et peccatum originale. |
On the contrary, Original sin is the sin of nature, as stated above (Question [81], Article [1]). But nature is equally in all. Therefore original sin is too. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in originali peccato sunt duo, quorum unum est defectus originalis iustitiae; aliud autem est relatio huius defectus ad peccatum primi parentis, a quo per vitiatam originem deducitur. Quantum autem ad primum, peccatum originale non recipit magis et minus, quia totum donum originalis iustitiae est sublatum; privationes autem totaliter aliquid privantes, ut mors et tenebrae, non recipiunt magis et minus, sicut supra dictum est. Similiter etiam nec quantum ad secundum, aequaliter enim omnes relationem habent ad primum principium vitiatae originis, ex quo peccatum originale recipit rationem culpae; relationes enim non recipiunt magis et minus. Unde manifestum est quod peccatum originale non potest esse magis in uno quam in alio. |
I answer that, There are two things in original sin: one is the privation of original justice; the other is the relation of this privation to the sin of our first parent, from whom it is transmitted to man through his corrupt origin. As to the first, original sin has no degrees, since the gift of original justice is taken away entirely; and privations that remove something entirely, such as death and darkness, cannot be more or less, as stated above (Question [73], Article [2]). In like manner, neither is this possible, as to the second: since all are related equally to the first principle of our corrupt origin, from which principle original sin takes the nature of guilt; for relations cannot be more or less. Consequently it is evident that original sin cannot be more in one than in another. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, soluto vinculo originalis iustitiae, sub quo quodam ordine omnes vires animae continebantur, unaquaeque vis animae tendit in suum proprium motum; et tanto vehementius, quanto fuerit fortior. Contingit autem vires aliquas animae esse fortiores in uno quam in alio, propter diversas corporis complexiones. Quod ergo unus homo sit pronior ad concupiscendum quam alter, non est ratione peccati originalis, cum in omnibus aequaliter solvatur vinculum originalis iustitiae, et aequaliter in omnibus partes inferiores animae sibi relinquantur, sed accidit hoc ex diversa dispositione potentiarum, sicut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: Through the bond of original justice being broken, which held together all the powers of the soul in a certain order, each power of the soul tends to its own proper movement, and the more impetuously, as it is stronger. Now it happens that some of the soul's powers are stronger in one man than in another, on account of the different bodily temperaments. Consequently if one man is more prone than another to acts of concupiscence, this is not due to original sin, because the bond of original justice is equally broken in all, and the lower parts of the soul are, in all, left to themselves equally; but it is due to the various dispositions of the powers, as stated. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod aegritudo corporalis non habet in omnibus aequalem causam, etiam si sit eiusdem speciei, puta, si sit febris ex cholera putrefacta, potest esse maior vel minor putrefactio, et propinquior vel remotior a principio vitae. Sed causa originalis peccati in omnibus est aequalis. Unde non est simile. | Reply to Objection 2: Sickness of the body, even sickness of the same species, has not an equal cause in all; for instance if a fever be caused by corruption of the bile, the corruption may be greater or less, and nearer to, or further from a vital principle. But the cause of original sin is equal to all, so that there is not comparison. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod libido quae transmittit peccatum originale in prolem, non est libido actualis, quia dato quod virtute divina concederetur alicui quod nullam inordinatam libidinem in actu generationis sentiret, adhuc transmitteret in prolem originale peccatum. Sed libido illa est intelligenda habitualiter, secundum quod appetitus sensitivus non continetur sub ratione vinculo originalis iustitiae. Et talis libido in omnibus est aequalis. | Reply to Objection 3: It is not the actual lust that transmits original sin: for, supposing God were to grant to a man to feel no inordinate lust in the act of generation, he would still transmit original sin; we must understand this to be habitual lust, whereby the sensitive appetite is not kept subject to reason by the bonds of original justice. This lust is equally in all. |