SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IIa LXXIX-LXXXIV

Index

Question 79.1 The external causes of sin
Question 79.2
Question 79.3
Question 79.4

Question 80.1 The external causes of sin: the devil
Question 80.2
Question 80.3
Question 80.4

Question 81.1 The external causes of sin: man himself
Question 81.2
Question 81.3
Question 81.4
Question 81.5

Question 82.1 Original sin: its essence
Question 82.2
Question 82.3
Question 82.4

Question 83.1 Original sin: its subject
Question 83.2
Question 83.3
Question 83.4

Question 84.1 Sin caused by other sins
Question 84.2
Question 84.3
Question 84.4

LatinEnglish
q. 79 pr. Deinde considerandum est de causis exterioribus peccati. Et primo, ex parte Dei; secundo, ex parte Diaboli; tertio, ex parte hominis. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum Deus sit causa peccati. Secundo, utrum actus peccati sit a Deo. Tertio, utrum Deus sit causa excaecationis et obdurationis. Quarto, utrum haec ordinentur ad salutem eorum qui excaecantur vel obdurantur. Question 79. The external causes of sin Is God a cause of sin? Is the act of sin from God? Is God the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart? Are these things directed to the salvation of those who are blinded or hardened?
q. 79 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus sit causa peccati. Dicit enim apostolus, Rom. I, de quibusdam, tradidit eos Deus in reprobum sensum, ut faciant ea quae non conveniunt. Et Glossa ibidem dicit quod Deus operatur in cordibus hominum, inclinando voluntates eorum in quodcumque voluerit, sive in bonum sive in malum. Sed facere quae non conveniunt, et inclinari secundum voluntatem ad malum, est peccatum. Ergo Deus hominibus est causa peccati. Objection 1. It would seem that God is a cause of sin. For the Apostle says of certain ones (Romans 1:28): "God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not right [Douay: 'convenient']," and a gloss comments on this by saying that "God works in men's hearts, by inclining their wills to whatever He wills, whether to good or to evil." Now sin consists in doing what is not right, and in having a will inclined to evil. Therefore God is to man a cause of sin.
q. 79 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Sap. XIV, dicitur, creaturae Dei in odium factae sunt, et in tentationem animae hominum. Sed tentatio solet dici provocatio ad peccandum. Cum ergo creaturae non sint factae nisi a Deo, ut in primo habitum est, videtur quod Deus sit causa peccati provocans homines ad peccandum. Objection 2. Further, it is written (Wisdom 14:11): "The creatures of God are turned to an abomination; and a temptation to the souls of men." But a temptation usually denotes a provocation to sin. Since therefore creatures were made by God alone, as was established in the I, 44, 1, it seems that God is a cause of sin, by provoking man to sin.
q. 79 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, quidquid est causa causae, est causa effectus. Sed Deus est causa liberi arbitrii, quod est causa peccati. Ergo Deus est causa peccati. Objection 3. Further, the cause of the cause is the cause of the effect. Now God is the cause of the free-will, which itself is the cause of sin. Therefore God is the cause of sin.
q. 79 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, omne malum opponitur bono. Sed non repugnat divinae bonitati quod ipse sit causa mali poenae, de isto enim malo dicitur Isaiae XLV, quod Deus est creans malum; et Amos III, si est malum in civitate quod Deus non fecerit? Ergo etiam divinae bonitati non repugnat quod Deus sit causa culpae. Objection 4. Further, every evil is opposed to good. But it is not contrary to God's goodness that He should cause the evil of punishment; since of this evil it is written (Isaiah 45:7) that God creates evil, and (Amos 3:6): "Shall there be evil in the city which God [Vulgate: 'the Lord'] hath not done?" Therefore it is not incompatible with God's goodness that He should cause the evil of fault.
q. 79 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, Sap. XI, dicitur de Deo, nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti. Odit autem Deus peccatum, secundum illud Sap. XIV, odio est Deo impius, et impietas eius. Ergo Deus non est causa peccati. On the contrary, It is written (Wisdom 11:25): "Thou . . . hatest none of the things which Thou hast made." Now God hates sin, according to Wisdom 14:9: "To God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful." Therefore God is not a cause of sin.
q. 79 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod homo dupliciter est causa peccati vel sui vel alterius. Uno modo, directe, inclinando scilicet voluntatem suam vel alterius ad peccandum. Alio modo, indirecte, dum scilicet non retrahit aliquos a peccato, unde Ezech. III speculatori dicitur, si non dixeris impio, morte morieris, sanguinem eius de manu tua requiram. Deus autem non potest esse directe causa peccati vel sui vel alterius. Quia omne peccatum est per recessum ab ordine qui est in ipsum sicut in finem. Deus autem omnia inclinat et convertit in seipsum sicut in ultimum finem, sicut Dionysius dicit, I cap. de Div. Nom. Unde impossibile est quod sit sibi vel aliis causa discedendi ab ordine qui est in ipsum. Unde non potest directe esse causa peccati. Similiter etiam neque indirecte. Contingit enim quod Deus aliquibus non praebet auxilium ad vitandum peccata, quod si praeberet, non peccarent. Sed hoc totum facit secundum ordinem suae sapientiae et iustitiae, cum ipse sit sapientia et iustitia. Unde non imputatur ei quod alius peccat, sicut causae peccati, sicut gubernator non dicitur causa submersionis navis ex hoc quod non gubernat navem, nisi quando subtrahit gubernationem potens et debens gubernare. Et sic patet quod Deus nullo modo est causa peccati. I answer that, Man is, in two ways, a cause either of his own or of another's sin. First, directly, namely by inclining his or another's will to sin; secondly, indirectly, namely by not preventing someone from sinning. Hence (Ezekiel 3:18) it is said to the watchman: "If thou say not to the wicked: 'Thou shalt surely die' [Vulgate: "If, when I say to the wicked, 'Thou shalt surely die,' thou declare it not to him."] . . . I will require his blood at thy hand." Now God cannot be directly the cause of sin, either in Himself or in another, since every sin is a departure from the order which is to God as the end: whereas God inclines and turns all things to Himself as to their last end, as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. i): so that it is impossible that He should be either to Himself or to another the cause of departing from the order which is to Himself. Therefore He cannot be directly the cause of sin. In like manner neither can He cause sin indirectly. For it happens that God does not give some the assistance, whereby they may avoid sin, which assistance were He to give, they would not sin. But He does all this according to the order of His wisdom and justice, since He Himself is Wisdom and Justice: so that if someone sin it is not imputable to Him as though He were the cause of that sin; even as a pilot is not said to cause the wrecking of the ship, through not steering the ship, unless he cease to steer while able and bound to steer. It is therefore evident that God is nowise a cause of sin.
q. 79 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quantum ad verba apostoli, ex ipso textu patet solutio. Si enim Deus tradit aliquos in reprobum sensum, iam ergo reprobum sensum habent ad faciendum ea quae non conveniunt. Dicitur ergo tradere eos in reprobum sensum, inquantum non prohibet eos quin suum sensum reprobum sequantur, sicut dicimur exponere illos quos non tuemur. Quod autem Augustinus dicit, in libro de gratia et libero arbitrio, unde sumpta est Glossa, quod Deus inclinat voluntates hominum in bonum et malum; sic intelligendum est quod in bonum quidem directe inclinat voluntatem, in malum autem inquantum non prohibet, sicut dictum est. Et tamen hoc etiam contingit ex merito praecedentis peccati. Reply to Objection 1. As to the words of the Apostle, the solution is clear from the text. For if God delivered some up to a reprobate sense, it follows that they already had a reprobate sense, so as to do what was not right. Accordingly He is said to deliver them up to a reprobate sense, in so far as He does not hinder them from following that reprobate sense, even as we are said to expose a person to danger if we do not protect him. The saying of Augustine (De Grat. et Lib. Arb. xxi, whence the gloss quoted is taken) to the effect that "God inclines men's wills to good and evil," is to be understood as meaning that He inclines the will directly to good; and to evil, in so far as He does not hinder it, as stated above. And yet even this is due as being deserved through a previous sin.
q. 79 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum dicitur, creaturae Dei factae sunt in odium et in tentationem animae hominum, haec praepositio in non ponitur causaliter, sed consecutive, non enim Deus fecit creaturas ad malum hominum, sed hoc consecutum est propter insipientiam hominum. Unde subditur, et in muscipulam pedibus insipientium, qui scilicet per suam insipientiam utuntur creaturis ad aliud quam ad quod factae sunt. Reply to Objection 2. When it is said the "creatures of God are turned 'to' an abomination, and a temptation to the souls of men," the preposition "to" does not denote causality but sequel [This is made clear by the Douay Version: the Latin "factae sunt in abominationem" admits of the translation "were made to be an abomination," which might imply causality.]; for God did not make the creatures that they might be an evil to man; this was the result of man's folly, wherefore the text goes on to say, "and a snare to the feet of the unwise," who, to wit, in their folly, use creatures for a purpose other than that for which they were made.
q. 79 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod effectus causae mediae procedens ab ea secundum quod subditur ordini causae primae, reducitur etiam in causam primam. Sed si procedat a causa media secundum quod exit ordinem causae primae, non reducitur in causam primam, sicut si minister faciat aliquid contra mandatum domini, hoc non reducitur in dominum sicut in causam. Et similiter peccatum quod liberum arbitrium committit contra praeceptum Dei, non reducitur in Deum sicut in causam. Reply to Objection 3. The effect which proceeds from the middle cause, according as it is subordinate to the first cause, is reduced to that first cause; but if it proceed from the middle cause, according as it goes outside the order of the first cause, it is not reduced to that first cause: thus if a servant do anything contrary to his master's orders, it is not ascribed to the master as though he were the cause thereof. In like manner sin, which the free-will commits against the commandment of God, is not attributed to God as being its cause.
q. 79 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod poena opponitur bono eius qui punitur, qui privatur quocumque bono. Sed culpa opponitur bono ordinis qui est in Deum, unde directe opponitur bonitati divinae. Et propter hoc non est similis ratio de culpa et poena. Reply to Objection 4. Punishment is opposed to the good of the person punished, who is thereby deprived of some good or other: but fault is opposed to the good of subordination to God; and so it is directly opposed to the Divine goodness; consequently there is no comparison between fault and punishment.
q. 79 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod actus peccati non sit a Deo. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de perfectione iustitiae, quod actus peccati non est res aliqua. Omne autem quod est a Deo, est res aliqua. Ergo actus peccati non est a Deo. Objection 1. It would seem that the act of sin is not from God. For Augustine says (De Perfect. Justit. ii) that "the act of sin is not a thing." Now whatever is from God is a thing. Therefore the act of sin is not from God.
q. 79 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, homo non dicitur esse causa peccati nisi quia homo est causa actus peccati, nullus enim intendens ad malum operatur, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Sed Deus non est causa peccati, ut dictum est. Ergo Deus non est causa actus peccati. Objection 2. Further, man is not said to be the cause of sin, except because he is the cause of the sinful act: for "no one works, intending evil," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). Now God is not a cause of sin, as stated above (Article 1). Therefore God is not the cause of the act of sin.
q. 79 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, aliqui actus secundum suam speciem sunt mali et peccata, ut ex supradictis patet. Sed quidquid est causa alicuius, est causa eius quod convenit ei secundum suam speciem. Si ergo Deus esset causa actus peccati, sequeretur quod esset causa peccati. Sed hoc non est verum, ut ostensum est. Ergo Deus non est causa actus peccati. Objection 3. Further, some actions are evil and sinful in their species, as was shown above (18, A2,8). Now whatever is the cause of a thing, causes whatever belongs to it in respect of its species. If therefore God caused the act of sin, He would be the cause of sin, which is false, as was proved above (Article 1). Therefore God is not the cause of the act of sin.
q. 79 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, actus peccati est quidam motus liberi arbitrii. Sed voluntas Dei est causa omnium motionum, ut Augustinus dicit, III de Trin. Ergo voluntas Dei est causa actus peccati. On the contrary, The act of sin is a movement of the free-will. Now "the will of God is the cause of every movement," as Augustine declares (De Trin. iii, 4,9). Therefore God's will is the cause of the act of sin.
q. 79 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod actus peccati et est ens, et est actus; et ex utroque habet quod sit a Deo. Omne enim ens, quocumque modo sit, oportet quod derivetur a primo ente; ut patet per Dionysium, V cap. de Div. Nom. Omnis autem actio causatur ab aliquo existente in actu, quia nihil agit nisi secundum quod est actu, omne autem ens actu reducitur in primum actum, scilicet Deum, sicut in causam, qui est per suam essentiam actus. Unde relinquitur quod Deus sit causa omnis actionis, inquantum est actio. Sed peccatum nominat ens et actionem cum quodam defectu. Defectus autem ille est ex causa creata, scilicet libero arbitrio, inquantum deficit ab ordine primi agentis, scilicet Dei. Unde defectus iste non reducitur in Deum sicut in causam, sed in liberum arbitrium, sicut defectus claudicationis reducitur in tibiam curvam sicut in causam, non autem in virtutem motivam, a qua tamen causatur quidquid est motionis in claudicatione. Et secundum hoc, Deus est causa actus peccati, non tamen est causa peccati, quia non est causa huius, quod actus sit cum defectu. I answer that, The act of sin is both a being and an act; and in both respects it is from God. Because every being, whatever the mode of its being, must be derived from the First Being, as Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. v). Again every action is caused by something existing in act, since nothing produces an action save in so far as it is in act; and every being in act is reduced to the First Act, viz. God, as to its cause, Who is act by His Essence. Therefore God is the cause of every action, in so far as it is an action. But sin denotes a being and an action with a defect: and this defect is from the created cause, viz. the free-will, as falling away from the order of the First Agent, viz. God. Consequently this defect is not reduced to God as its cause, but to the free-will: even as the defect of limping is reduced to a crooked leg as its cause, but not to the motive power, which nevertheless causes whatever there is of movement in the limping. Accordingly God is the cause of the act of sin: and yet He is not the cause of sin, because He does not cause the act to have a defect.
q. 79 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus nominat ibi rem id quod est res simpliciter, scilicet substantiam. Sic enim actus peccati non est res. Reply to Objection 1. In this passage Augustine calls by the name of "thing," that which is a thing simply, viz. substance; for in this sense the act of sin is not a thing.
q. 79 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in hominem sicut in causam reducitur non solum actus, sed etiam ipse defectus, quia scilicet non subditur ei cui debet subdi, licet hoc ipse non intendat principaliter. Et ideo homo est causa peccati. Sed Deus sic est causa actus, quod nullo modo est causa defectus concomitantis actum. Et ideo non est causa peccati. Reply to Objection 2. Not only the act, but also the defect, is reduced to man as its cause, which defect consists in man not being subject to Whom he ought to be, although he does not intend this principally. Wherefore man is the cause of the sin: while God is the cause of the act, in such a way, that nowise is He the cause of the defect accompanying the act, so that He is not the cause of the sin.
q. 79 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est supra, actus et habitus non recipiunt speciem ex ipsa privatione, in qua consistit ratio mali; sed ex aliquo obiecto cui coniungitur talis privatio. Et sic ipse defectus, qui dicitur non esse a Deo, pertinet ad speciem actus consequenter, et non quasi differentia specifica. Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (Question 72, Article 1), acts and habits do not take their species from the privation itself, wherein consists the nature of evil, but from some object, to which that privation is united: and so this defect which consists in not being from God, belongs to the species of the act consequently, and not as a specific difference.
q. 79 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non sit causa excaecationis et indurationis. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., quod Deus non est causa eius quod homo sit deterior. Sed per excaecationem et obdurationem fit homo deterior. Ergo Deus non est causa excaecationis et obdurationis. Objection 1. It would seem that God is not the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart. For Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 3) that God is not the cause of that which makes man worse. Now man is made worse by spiritual blindness and hardness of heart. Therefore God is not the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart.
q. 79 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, Fulgentius dicit quod Deus non est ultor illius rei cuius est auctor. Sed Deus est ultor cordis obdurati, secundum illud Eccli. III, cor durum male habebit in novissimo. Ergo Deus non est causa obdurationis. Objection 2. Further, Fulgentius says (De Dupl. Praedest. i, 19): "God does not punish what He causes." Now God punishes the hardened heart, according to Sirach 3:27: "A hard heart shall fear evil at the last." Therefore God is not the cause of hardness of heart.
q. 79 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, idem effectus non attribuitur causis contrariis. Sed causa excaecationis dicitur esse malitia hominis, secundum illud Sap. II, excaecavit enim eos malitia eorum; et etiam Diabolus, secundum illud II ad Cor. IV, Deus huius saeculi excaecavit mentes infidelium; quae quidem causae videntur esse contrariae Deo. Deus ergo non est causa excaecationis et obdurationis. Objection 3. Further, the same effect is not put down to contrary causes. But the cause of spiritual blindness is said to be the malice of man, according to Wisdom 2:21: "For their own malice blinded them," and again, according to 2 Corinthians 4:4: "The god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers": which causes seem to be opposed to God. Therefore God is not the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart.
q. 79 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Isaiae VI, excaeca cor populi huius, et aures eius aggrava. Et Rom. IX dicitur, cuius vult, miseretur; et quem vult, indurat. On the contrary, It is written (Isaiah 6:10): "Blind the heart of this people, and make their ears heavy," and Romans 9:18: "He hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth."
q. 79 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod excaecatio et obduratio duo important. Quorum unum est motus animi humani inhaerentis malo, et aversi a divino lumine. Et quantum ad hoc Deus non est causa excaecationis et obdurationis, sicut non est causa peccati. Aliud autem est subtractio gratiae, ex qua sequitur quod mens divinitus non illuminetur ad recte videndum, et cor hominis non emolliatur ad recte vivendum. Et quantum ad hoc Deus est causa excaecationis et obdurationis. Est autem considerandum quod Deus est causa universalis illuminationis animarum, secundum illud Ioan. I, erat lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, sicut sol est universalis causa illuminationis corporum. Aliter tamen et aliter, nam sol agit illuminando per necessitatem naturae; Deus autem agit voluntarie, per ordinem suae sapientiae. Sol autem, licet quantum est de se omnia corpora illuminet, si quod tamen impedimentum inveniat in aliquo corpore, relinquit illud tenebrosum, sicut patet de domo cuius fenestrae sunt clausae. Sed tamen illius obscurationis nullo modo causa est sol, non enim suo iudicio agit ut lumen interius non immittat, sed causa eius est solum ille qui claudit fenestram. Deus autem proprio iudicio lumen gratiae non immittit illis in quibus obstaculum invenit. Unde causa subtractionis gratiae est non solum ille qui ponit obstaculum gratiae, sed etiam Deus, qui suo iudicio gratiam non apponit. Et per hunc modum Deus est causa excaecationis, et aggravationis aurium, et obdurationis cordis. Quae quidem distinguuntur secundum effectus gratiae, quae et perficit intellectum dono sapientiae, et affectum emollit igne caritatis. Et quia ad cognitionem intellectus maxime deserviunt duo sensus, scilicet visus et auditus, quorum unus deservit inventioni, scilicet visus, alius disciplinae, scilicet auditus, ideo quantum ad visum, ponitur excaecatio; quantum ad auditum, aurium aggravatio; quantum ad affectum, obduratio. I answer that, Spiritual blindness and hardness of heart imply two things. One is the movement of the human mind in cleaving to evil, and turning away from the Divine light; and as regards this, God is not the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart, just as He is not the cause of sin. The other thing is the withdrawal of grace, the result of which is that the mind is not enlightened by God to see aright, and man's heart is not softened to live aright; and as regards this God is the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart. Now we must consider that God is the universal cause of the enlightening of souls, according to John 1:9: "That was the true light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world," even as the sun is the universal cause of the enlightening of bodies, though not in the same way; for the sun enlightens by necessity of nature, whereas God works freely, through the order of His wisdom. Now although the sun, so far as it is concerned, enlightens all bodies, yet if it be encountered by an obstacle in a body, it leaves it in darkness, as happens to a house whose window-shutters are closed, although the sun is in no way the cause of the house being darkened, since it does not act of its own accord in failing to light up the interior of the house; and the cause of this is the person who closed the shutters. On the other hand, God, of His own accord, withholds His grace from those in whom He finds an obstacle: so that the cause of grace being withheld is not only the man who raises an obstacle to grace; but God, Who, of His own accord, withholds His grace. In this way, God is the cause of spiritual blindness, deafness of ear, and hardness of heart. These differ from one another in respect of the effects of grace, which both perfects the intellect by the gift of wisdom, and softens the affections by the fire of charity. And since two of the senses excel in rendering service to the intellect, viz. sight and hearing, of which the former assists "discovery," and the latter, "teaching," hence it is that spiritual "blindness" corresponds to sight, "heaviness of the ears" to hearing, and "hardness of heart" to the affections.
q. 79 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum excaecatio et induratio, ex parte subtractionis gratiae, sint quaedam poenae, ex hac parte eis homo non fit deterior, sed deterior factus per culpam, haec incurrit, sicut et ceteras poenas. Reply to Objection 1. Blindness and hardheartedness, as regards the withholding of grace, are punishments, and therefore, in this respect, they make man no worse. It is because he is already worsened by sin that he incurs them, even as other punishments.
q. 79 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de obduratione secundum quod est culpa. Reply to Objection 2. This argument considers hardheartedness in so far as it is a sin.
q. 79 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod malitia est causa excaecationis meritoria, sicut culpa est causa poenae. Et hoc etiam modo Diabolus excaecare dicitur, inquantum inducit ad culpam. Reply to Objection 3. Malice is the demeritorious cause of blindness, just as sin is the cause of punishment: and in this way too, the devil is said to blind, in so far as he induces man to sin.
q. 79 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod excaecatio et obduratio semper ordinentur ad salutem eius qui excaecatur et obduratur. Dicit enim Augustinus, in Enchirid., quod Deus, cum sit summe bonus, nullo modo permitteret fieri aliquod malum, nisi posset ex quolibet malo elicere bonum. Multo igitur magis ordinat ad bonum illud malum cuius ipse est causa. Sed excaecationis et obdurationis Deus est causa, ut dictum est. Ergo haec ordinantur ad salutem eius qui excaecatur vel induratur. Objection 1. It would seem that blindness and hardness of heart are always directed to the salvation of those who are blinded and hardened. For Augustine says (Enchiridion xi) that "as God is supremely good, He would nowise allow evil to be done, unless He could draw some good from every evil." Much more, therefore, does He direct to some good, the evil of which He Himself is the cause. Now God is the cause of blindness and hardness of heart, as stated above (Article 3). Therefore they are directed to the salvation of those who are blinded and hardened.
q. 79 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, Sap. I dicitur quod Deus non delectatur in perditione impiorum. Videretur autem in eorum perditione delectari, si eorum excaecationem in bonum eorum non converteret, sicut medicus videretur delectari in afflictione infirmi, si medicinam amaram, quam infirmo propinat, ad eius sanitatem non ordinaret. Ergo Deus excaecationem convertit in bonum excaecatorum. Objection 2. Further, it is written (Wisdom 1:13) that "God hath no pleasure in the destruction of the ungodly [Vulgate: 'God made not death, neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living.']." Now He would seem to take pleasure in their destruction, if He did not turn their blindness to their profit: just as a physician would seem to take pleasure in torturing the invalid, if he did not intend to heal the invalid when he prescribes a bitter medicine for him. Therefore God turns blindness to the profit of those who are blinded.
q. 79 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, Deus non est personarum acceptor, ut dicitur Act. X. Sed quorundam excaecationem ordinat ad eorum salutem, sicut quorundam Iudaeorum, qui excaecati sunt ut Christo non crederent, et non credentes occiderent, et postmodum compuncti converterentur, sicut de quibusdam legitur Act. II; ut patet per Augustinum, in libro de quaest. Evang. Ergo Deus omnium excaecationem convertit in eorum salutem. Objection 3. Further, "God is not a respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). Now He directs the blinding of some, to their salvation, as in the case of some of the Jews, who were blinded so as not to believe in Christ, and, through not believing, to slay Him, and afterwards were seized with compunction, and converted, as related by Augustine (De Quaest. Evang. iii). Therefore God turns all blindness to the spiritual welfare of those who are blinded.
q. 79 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra, non sunt facienda mala ut veniant bona, ut dicitur Rom. III. Sed excaecatio est malum. Ergo Deus non excaecat aliquos propter eorum bonum. Objection 4. On the other hand, according to Romans 3:8, evil should not be done, that good may ensue. Now blindness is an evil. Therefore God does not blind some for the sake of their welfare.
q. 79 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod excaecatio est quoddam praeambulum ad peccatum. Peccatum autem ad duo ordinatur, ad unum quidem per se, scilicet ad damnationem; ad aliud autem ex misericordi Dei providentia, scilicet ad sanationem, inquantum Deus permittit aliquos cadere in peccatum, ut peccatum suum agnoscentes, humilientur et convertantur, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de natura et gratia. Unde et excaecatio ex sui natura ordinatur ad damnationem eius qui excaecatur, propter quod etiam ponitur reprobationis effectus, sed ex divina misericordia excaecatio ad tempus ordinatur medicinaliter ad salutem eorum qui excaecantur. Sed haec misericordia non omnibus impenditur excaecatis, sed praedestinatis solum, quibus omnia cooperantur in bonum, sicut dicitur Rom. VIII. Unde quantum ad quosdam, excaecatio ordinatur ad sanationem, quantum autem ad alios, ad damnationem, ut Augustinus dicit, in III de quaest. Evang. I answer that, Blindness is a kind of preamble to sin. Now sin has a twofold relation--to one thing directly, viz. to the sinner's damnation--to another, by reason of God's mercy or providence, viz. that the sinner may be healed, in so far as God permits some to fall into sin, that by acknowledging their sin, they may be humbled and converted, as Augustine states (De Nat. et Grat. xxii). Therefore blindness, of its very nature, is directed to the damnation of those who are blinded; for which reason it is accounted an effect of reprobation. But, through God's mercy, temporary blindness is directed medicinally to the spiritual welfare of those who are blinded. This mercy, however, is not vouchsafed to all those who are blinded, but only to the predestinated, to whom "all things work together unto good" (Romans 8:28). Therefore as regards some, blindness is directed to their healing; but as regards others, to their damnation; as Augustine says (De Quaest. Evang. iii).
q. 79 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnia mala quae Deus facit vel permittit fieri, ordinantur in aliquod bonum, non tamen semper in bonum eius in quo est malum, sed quandoque ad bonum alterius, vel etiam totius universi. Sicut culpam tyrannorum ordinavit in bonum martyrum; et poenam damnatorum ordinat in gloriam suae iustitiae. Reply to Objection 1. Every evil that God does, or permits to be done, is directed to some good; yet not always to the good of those in whom the evil is, but sometimes to the good of others, or of the whole universe: thus He directs the sin of tyrants to the good of the martyrs, and the punishment of the lost to the glory of His justice.
q. 79 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus non delectatur in perditione hominum quantum ad ipsam perditionem, sed ratione suae iustitiae, vel propter bonum quod inde provenit. Reply to Objection 2. God does not take pleasure in the loss of man, as regards the loss itself, but by reason of His justice, or of the good that ensues from the loss.
q. 79 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc quod Deus aliquorum excaecationem ordinat in eorum salutem, misericordiae est, quod autem excaecatio aliorum ordinetur ad eorum damnationem, iustitiae est. Quod autem misericordiam quibusdam impendit et non omnibus, non facit personarum acceptionem in Deo, sicut in primo dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. That God directs the blindness of some to their spiritual welfare, is due to His mercy; but that the blindness of others is directed to their loss is due to His justice: and that He vouchsafes His mercy to some, and not to all, does not make God a respecter of persons, as explained in the I, 23, 5, ad 3.
q. 79 a. 4 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod mala culpae non sunt facienda ut veniant bona, sed mala poenae sunt inferenda propter bonum. Reply to Objection 4. Evil of fault must not be done, that good may ensue; but evil of punishment must be inflicted for the sake of good.
q. 80 pr. Deinde considerandum est de causa peccati ex parte Diaboli. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum Diabolus sit directe causa peccati. Secundo, utrum Diabolus inducat ad peccandum interius persuadendo. Tertio, utrum possit necessitatem peccandi inducere. Quarto, utrum omnia peccata ex Diaboli suggestione proveniant. Question 80. The cause of sin, as regards the devil Is the devil directly the cause of sin? Does the devil induce us to sin, by persuading us inwardly? Can he make us sin of necessity? Are all sins due to the devil's suggestion?
q. 80 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Diabolus sit homini directe causa peccandi. Peccatum enim directe in affectu consistit. Sed Augustinus dicit, IV de Trin., quod Diabolus suae societati malignos affectus inspirat. Et Beda, super Act., dicit quod Diabolus animam in affectum malitiae trahit. Et Isidorus dicit, in libro de summo bono, quod Diabolus corda hominum occultis cupiditatibus replet. Ergo Diabolus directe est causa peccati. Objection 1. It would seem that the devil is directly the cause of man's sinning. For sin consists directly in an act of the appetite. Now Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 12) that "the devil inspires his friends with evil desires"; and Bede, commenting on Acts 5:3, says that the devil "draws the mind to evil desires"; and Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii, 41; iii, 5) that the devil "fills men's hearts with secret lusts." Therefore the devil is directly the cause of sin.
q. 80 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Hieronymus dicit quod sicut Deus est perfector boni, ita Diabolus est perfector mali. Sed Deus est directe causa bonorum nostrorum. Ergo Diabolus est directe causa peccatorum nostrorum. Objection 2. Further, Jerome says (Contra Jovin. ii, 2) that "as God is the perfecter of good, so is the devil the perfecter of evil." But God is directly the cause of our good. Therefore the devil is directly the cause of our sins.
q. 80 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, philosophus probat, in quodam cap. Ethicae Eudemicae, quod oportet esse quoddam principium extrinsecum humani consilii. Consilium autem humanum non solum est de bonis, sed etiam de malis. Ergo sicut Deus movet ad consilium bonum, et per hoc directe est causa boni; ita Diabolus movet hominem ad consilium malum, et per hoc sequitur quod Diabolus directe sit causa peccati. Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher says in a chapter of the Eudemein Ethics (vii, 18): "There must needs be some extrinsic principle of human counsel." Now human counsel is not only about good things but also about evil things. Therefore, as God moves man to take good counsel, and so is the cause of good, so the devil moves him to take evil counsel, and consequently is directly the cause of sin.
q. 80 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus probat, in I et III de Lib. Arb., quod nulla alia re fit mens hominis serva libidinis, nisi propria voluntate. Sed homo non fit servus libidinis nisi per peccatum. Ergo causa peccati non potest esse Diabolus, sed sola propria voluntas. On the contrary, Augustine proves (De Lib. Arb. i, 11) that "nothing else than his own will makes man's mind the slave of his desire." Now man does not become a slave to his desires, except through sin. Therefore the cause of sin cannot be the devil, but man's own will alone.
q. 80 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod peccatum actus quidam est. Unde hoc modo potest esse aliquid directe causa peccati, per quem modum aliquis directe est causa alicuius actus. Quod quidem non contingit nisi per hoc quod proprium principium illius actus movet ad agendum. Proprium autem principium actus peccati est voluntas, quia omne peccatum est voluntarium. Unde nihil potest directe esse causa peccati, nisi quod potest movere voluntatem ad agendum. Voluntas autem, sicut supra dictum est, a duobus moveri potest, uno modo, ab obiecto, sicut dicitur quod appetibile apprehensum movet appetitum; alio modo, ab eo quod interius inclinat voluntatem ad volendum. Hoc autem non est nisi vel ipsa voluntas, vel Deus, ut supra ostensum est. Deus autem non potest esse causa peccati, ut dictum est. Relinquitur ergo quod ex hac parte sola voluntas hominis sit directe causa peccati eius. Ex parte autem obiecti, potest intelligi quod aliquid moveat voluntatem tripliciter. Uno modo, ipsum obiectum propositum, sicut dicimus quod cibus excitat desiderium hominis ad comedendum. Alio modo, ille qui proponit vel offert huiusmodi obiectum. Tertio modo, ille qui persuadet obiectum propositum habere rationem boni, quia et hic aliqualiter proponit proprium obiectum voluntati, quod est rationis bonum verum vel apparens. Primo igitur modo, res sensibiles exterius apparentes movent voluntatem hominis ad peccandum, secundo autem et tertio modo, vel Diabolus, vel etiam homo, potest incitare ad peccandum, vel offerendo aliquid appetibile sensui, vel persuadendo rationi. Sed nullo istorum trium modorum potest aliquid esse directa causa peccati, quia voluntas non ex necessitate movetur ab aliquo obiecto nisi ab ultimo fine, ut supra dictum est; unde non est sufficiens causa peccati neque res exterius oblata, neque ille qui eam proponit, neque ille qui persuadet. Unde sequitur quod Diabolus non sit causa peccati directe et sufficienter; sed solum per modum persuadentis, vel proponentis appetibile. I answer that, Sin is an action: so that a thing can be directly the cause of sin, in the same way as anyone is directly the cause of an action; and this can only happen by moving that action's proper principle to act. Now the proper principle of a sinful action is the will, since every sin is voluntary. Consequently nothing can be directly the cause of sin, except that which can move the will to act. Now the will, as stated above (9, A3,4,6), can be moved by two things: first by its object, inasmuch as the apprehended appetible is said to move the appetite: secondly by that agent which moves the will inwardly to will, and this is no other than the will itself, or God, as was shown above (9, A3,4,6). Now God cannot be the cause of sin, as stated above (Question 79, Article 1). Therefore it follows that in this respect, a man's will alone is directly the cause of his sin. As regards the object, a thing may be understood as moving the will in three ways. First, the object itself which is proposed to the will: thus we say that food arouses man's desire to eat. Secondly, he that proposes or offers this object. Thirdly, he that persuades the will that the object proposed has an aspect of good, because he also, in a fashion, offers the will its proper object, which is a real or apparent good of reason. Accordingly, in the first way the sensible things, which approach from without, move a man's will to sin. In the second and third ways, either the devil or a man may incite to sin, either by offering an object of appetite to the senses, or by persuading the reason. But in none of these three ways can anything be the direct cause of sin, because the will is not, of necessity, moved by any object except the last end, as stated above (10, A1,2). Consequently neither the thing offered from without, nor he that proposes it, nor he that persuades, is the sufficient cause of sin. Therefore it follows that the devil is a cause of sin, neither directly nor sufficiently, but only by persuasion, or by proposing the object of appetite.
q. 80 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnes illae auctoritates, et si quae similes inveniantur, sunt referendae ad hoc quod Diabolus suggerendo, vel aliqua appetibilia proponendo, inducit in affectum peccati. Reply to Objection 1. All these, and other like authorities, if we meet with them, are to be understood as denoting that the devil induces man to affection for a sin, either by suggesting to him, or by offering him objects of appetite.
q. 80 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod similitudo illa est attendenda quantum ad hoc, quod Diabolus quodammodo est causa peccatorum nostrorum, sicut Deus est aliquo modo causa bonorum nostrorum. Non tamen attenditur quantum ad modum causandi, nam Deus causat bona interius movendo voluntatem, quod Diabolo convenire non potest. Reply to Objection 2. This comparison is true in so far as the devil is somewhat the cause of our sins, even as God is in a certain way the cause of our good actions, but does not extend to the mode of causation: for God causes good things in us by moving the will inwardly, whereas the devil cannot move us in this way.
q. 80 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus est universale principium omnis interioris motus humani, sed quod determinetur ad malum consilium voluntas humana, hoc directe quidem est ex voluntate humana; et a Diabolo per modum persuadentis, vel appetibilia proponentis. Reply to Objection 3. God is the universal principle of all inward movements of man; but that the human will be determined to an evil counsel, is directly due to the human will, and to the devil as persuading or offering the object of appetite.
q. 80 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Diabolus non possit inducere ad peccandum interius instigando. Interiores enim motus animae sunt quaedam opera vitae. Sed nullum opus vitae potest esse nisi a principio intrinseco; nec etiam opus animae vegetabilis, quod est infimum inter opera vitae. Ergo Diabolus secundum interiores motus non potest hominem instigare ad malum. Objection 1. It would seem that the devil cannot induce man to sin, by internal instigations. Because the internal movements of the soul are vital functions. Now no vital functions can be exercised except by an intrinsic principle, not even those of the vegetal soul, which are the lowest of vital functions. Therefore the devil cannot instigate man to evil through his internal movements.
q. 80 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnes interiores motus, secundum ordinem naturae, a sensibus exterioribus oriuntur. Sed praeter ordinem naturae aliquid operari est solius Dei, ut in primo dictum est. Ergo Diabolus non potest in interioribus motibus hominis aliquid operari, nisi secundum ea quae exterioribus sensibus apparent. Objection 2. Further, all the internal movements arise from the external senses according to the order of nature. Now it belongs to God alone to do anything beside the order of nature, as was stated in the I, 110, 4. Therefore the devil cannot effect anything in man's internal movements, except in respect of things which are perceived by the external senses.
q. 80 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, interiores actus animae sunt intelligere et imaginari. Sed quantum ad neutrum horum potest Diabolus aliquid operari. Quia, ut in primo habitum est, Diabolus non imprimit in intellectum humanum. In phantasiam etiam videtur quod imprimere non possit, quia formae imaginatae, tanquam magis spirituales, sunt digniores quam formae quae sunt in materia sensibili; quas tamen Diabolus imprimere non potest, ut patet ex his quae in primo habita sunt. Ergo Diabolus non potest secundum interiores motus inducere hominem ad peccatum. Objection 3. Further, the internal acts of the soul are to understand and to imagine. Now the devil can do nothing in connection with either of these, because, as stated in the I, 111, A2,3, ad 2, the devil cannot impress species on the human intellect, nor does it seem possible for him to produce imaginary species, since imaginary forms, being more spiritual, are more excellent than those which are in sensible matter, which, nevertheless, the devil is unable to produce, as is clear from what we have said in the I, 110, 2; I, 111, A2,3, ad 2. Therefore the devil cannot through man's internal movements induce him to sin.
q. 80 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quia secundum hoc nunquam tentaret hominem nisi visibiliter apparendo. Quod patet esse falsum. On the contrary, In that case, the devil would never tempt man, unless he appeared visibly; which is evidently false.
q. 80 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod interior pars animae est intellectiva et sensitiva. Intellectiva autem continet intellectum et voluntatem. Et de voluntate quidem iam dictum est quomodo ad eam Diabolus se habet. Intellectus autem per se quidem movetur ab aliquo illuminante ipsum ad cognitionem veritatis, quod Diabolus circa hominem non intendit, sed magis obtenebrare rationem ipsius ad consentiendum peccato. Quae quidem obtenebratio provenit ex phantasia et appetitu sensitivo. Unde tota interior operatio Diaboli esse videtur circa phantasiam et appetitum sensitivum. Quorum utrumque commovendo, potest inducere ad peccatum, potest enim operari ad hoc quod imaginationi aliquae formae imaginariae praesententur; potest etiam facere quod appetitus sensitivus concitetur ad aliquam passionem. Dictum est enim in primo libro quod natura corporalis spirituali naturaliter obedit ad motum localem. Unde et Diabolus omnia illa causare potest quae ex motu locali corporum inferiorum provenire possunt, nisi virtute divina reprimatur. Quod autem aliquae formae repraesententur imaginationi, consequitur quandoque ad motum localem. Dicit enim philosophus, in libro de somno et vigilia, quod cum animal dormierit, descendente plurimo sanguine ad principium sensitivum, simul descendunt motus, sive impressiones relictae ex sensibilium motionibus, quae in sensibilibus speciebus conservantur, et movent principium apprehensivum, ita quod apparent ac si tunc principium sensitivum a rebus ipsis exterioribus immutaretur. Unde talis motus localis spirituum vel humorum potest procurari a Daemonibus, sive dormiant sive vigilent homines, et sic sequitur quod homo aliqua imaginetur. Similiter etiam appetitus sensitivus concitatur ad aliquas passiones secundum quendam determinatum motum cordis et spirituum. Unde ad hoc etiam Diabolus potest cooperari. Et ex hoc quod passiones aliquae concitantur in appetitu sensitivo, sequitur quod et motum sive intentionem sensibilem praedicto modo reductam ad principium apprehensivum, magis homo percipiat, quia, ut philosophus in eodem libro dicit, amantes modica similitudine in apprehensionem rei amatae moventur. Contingit etiam ex hoc quod passio est concitata, ut id quod proponitur imaginationi, iudicetur prosequendum, quia ei qui a passione detinetur, videtur esse bonum id ad quod per passionem inclinatur. Et per hunc modum Diabolus interius inducit ad peccandum. I answer that, The interior part of the soul is intellective and sensitive; and the intellective part contains the intellect and the will. As regards the will, we have already stated (1; I, 111, 1) what is the devil's relation thereto. Now the intellect, of its very nature, is moved by that which enlightens it in the knowledge of truth, which the devil has no intention of doing in man's regard; rather does he darken man's reason so that it may consent to sin, which darkness is due to the imagination and sensitive appetite. Consequently the operation of the devil seems to be confined to the imagination and sensitive appetite, by moving either of which he can induce man to sin. For his operation may result in presenting certain forms to the imagination; and he is able to incite the sensitive appetite to some passion or other. The reason of this is, that as stated in the I, 110, 3, the corporeal nature has a natural aptitude to be moved locally by the spiritual nature: so that the devil can produce all those effects which can result from the local movement of bodies here below, except he be restrained by the Divine power. Now the representation of forms to the imagination is due, sometimes, to local movement: for the Philosopher says (De Somno et Vigil.) [De Insomn. iii, iv.] that "when an animal sleeps, the blood descends in abundance to the sensitive principle, and the movements descend with it, viz. the impressions left by the action of sensible objects, which impressions are preserved by means of sensible species, and continue to move the apprehensive principle, so that they appear just as though the sensitive principles were being affected by them at the time." Hence such a local movement of the vital spirits or humors can be procured by the demons, whether man sleep or wake: and so it happens that man's imagination is brought into play. In like manner, the sensitive appetite is incited to certain passions according to certain fixed movements of the heart and the vital spirits: wherefore the devil can cooperate in this also. And through certain passions being aroused in the sensitive appetite, the result is that man more easily perceives the movement or sensible image which is brought in the manner explained, before the apprehensive principle, since, as the Philosopher observes (De Somno et Virgil.: De Insomn. iii, iv), "lovers are moved, by even a slight likeness, to an apprehension of the beloved." It also happens, through the rousing of a passion, that what is put before the imagination, is judged, as being something to be pursued, because, to him who is held by a passion, whatever the passion inclines him to, seems good. In this way the devil induces man inwardly to sin.
q. 80 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod opera vitae semper etsi sint ab aliquo principio intrinseco, tamen ad ea potest cooperari aliquod exterius agens, sicut etiam ad opera animae vegetabilis operatur calor exterior, ut facilius digeratur cibus. Reply to Objection 1. Although vital functions are always from an intrinsic principle, yet an extrinsic agent can cooperate with them, even as external heat cooperates with the functions of the vegetal soul, that food may be more easily digested.
q. 80 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod huiusmodi apparitio formarum imaginabilium non est omnino praeter ordinem naturae. Nec est per solum imperium, sed per motum localem, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. This apparition of imaginary forms is not altogether outside the order of nature, nor is it due to a command alone, but according to local movement, as explained above.
q. 80 a. 2 ad 3 Unde patet responsio ad tertium, quia formae illae sunt a sensibus acceptae primordialiter. Consequently the Reply to the Third Objection is clear, because these forms are received originally from the senses.
q. 80 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Diabolus possit necessitatem inferre ad peccandum. Potestas enim maior potest necessitatem inferre minori. Sed de Diabolo dicitur Iob XLI, non est potestas super terram quae ei valeat comparari. Ergo potest homini terreno necessitatem inferre ad peccandum. Objection 1. It would seem that the devil can induce man to sin of necessity. Because the greater can compel the lesser. Now it is said of the devil (Job 41:24) that "there is no power on earth that can compare with him." Therefore he can compel man to sin, while he dwells on the earth.
q. 80 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, ratio hominis non potest moveri nisi secundum ea quae exterius sensibus proponuntur et imaginationi repraesentantur, quia omnis nostra cognitio ortum habet a sensu, et non est intelligere sine phantasmate, ut dicitur in libro de anima. Sed Diabolus potest movere imaginationem hominis, ut dictum est, et etiam exteriores sensus, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., quod serpit hoc malum, scilicet quod est a Diabolo, per omnes aditus sensuales; dat se figuris, accommodat coloribus, adhaeret sonis, infundit saporibus. Ergo potest rationem hominis ex necessitate inclinare ad peccandum. Objection 2. Further, man's reason cannot be moved except in respect of things that are offered outwardly to the senses, or are represented to the imagination: because "all our knowledge arises from the senses, and we cannot understand without a phantasm" (De Anima iii, text. 30. 39). Now the devil can move man's imagination, as stated above (Article 2); and also the external senses, for Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 12) that "this evil," of which, to wit, the devil is the cause, "extends gradually through all the approaches to the senses, it adapts itself to shapes, blends with colors, mingles with sounds, seasons every flavor." Therefore it can incline man's reason to sin of necessity.
q. 80 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, secundum Augustinum, nonnullum peccatum est, cum caro concupiscit adversus spiritum. Sed concupiscentiam carnis Diabolus potest causare, sicut et ceteras passiones, eo modo quo supra dictum est. Ergo ex necessitate potest inducere ad peccandum. Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 4) that "there is some sin when the flesh lusteth against the spirit." Now the devil can cause concupiscence of the flesh, even as other passions, in the way explained above (Article 2). Therefore he can induce man to sin of necessity.
q. 80 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur I Petr. ult., adversarius vester Diabolus tanquam leo rugiens circuit, quaerens quem devoret, cui resistite fortes in fide. Frustra autem talis admonitio daretur, si homo ei ex necessitate succumberet. Non ergo potest homini necessitatem inducere ad peccandum. On the contrary, It is written (1 Peter 5:8): "Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour." Now it would be useless to admonish thus, if it were true that man were under the necessity of succumbing to the devil. Therefore he cannot induce man to sin of necessity. Further, it is likewise written (James 4:7): "Be subject . . . to God, but resist the devil, and he will fly from you," which would be said neither rightly nor truly, if the devil were able to compel us, in any way whatever, to sin; for then neither would it be possible to resist him, nor would he fly from those who do. Therefore he does not compel to sin.
q. 80 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Diabolus propria virtute, nisi refraenetur a Deo, potest aliquem inducere ex necessitate ad faciendum aliquem actum qui de suo genere peccatum est, non autem potest inducere necessitatem peccandi. Quod patet ex hoc quod homo motivo ad peccandum non resistit nisi per rationem, cuius usum totaliter impedire potest movendo imaginationem et appetitum sensitivum, sicut in arreptitiis patet. Sed tunc, ratione sic ligata, quidquid homo agat, non imputatur ei ad peccatum. Sed si ratio non sit totaliter ligata, ex ea parte qua est libera, potest resistere peccato, sicut supra dictum est. Unde manifestum est quod Diabolus nullo modo potest necessitatem inducere homini ad peccandum. I answer that, The devil, by his own power, unless he be restrained by God, can compel anyone to do an act which, in its genus, is a sin; but he cannot bring about the necessity of sinning. This is evident from the fact that man does not resist that which moves him to sin, except by his reason; the use of which the devil is able to impede altogether, by moving the imagination and the sensitive appetite; as is the case with one who is possessed. But then, the reason being thus fettered, whatever man may do, it is not imputed to him as a sin. If, however, the reason is not altogether fettered, then, in so far as it is free, it can resist sin, as stated above (Question 77, Article 7). It is consequently evident that the devil can nowise compel man to sin.
q. 80 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non quaelibet potestas maior homine, potest movere voluntatem hominis, sed solus Deus, ut supra habitum est. Reply to Objection 1. Not every power that is greater than man, can move man's will; God alone can do this, as stated above (Question 9, Article 6).
q. 80 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod illud quod est apprehensum per sensum vel imaginationem, non ex necessitate movet voluntatem, si homo habeat usum rationis. Nec semper huiusmodi apprehensio ligat rationem. Reply to Objection 2. That which is apprehended by the senses or the imagination does not move the will, of necessity, so long as man has the use of reason; nor does such an apprehension always fetter the reason.
q. 80 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod concupiscentia carnis contra spiritum, quando ratio ei actualiter resistit, non est peccatum, sed materia exercendae virtutis. Quod autem ratio ei non resistat, non est in potestate Diaboli. Et ideo non potest inducere necessitatem peccati. Reply to Objection 3. The lusting of the flesh against the spirit, when the reason actually resists it, is not a sin, but is matter for the exercise of virtue. That reason does not resist, is not in the devil's power; wherefore he cannot bring about the necessity of sinning.
q. 80 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnia peccata hominum sint ex suggestione Diaboli. Dicit enim Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod multitudo Daemonum causa est omnium malorum et sibi et aliis. Objection 1. It would seem that all the sins of men are due to the devil's suggestion. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that the "crowd of demons are the cause of all evils, both to themselves and to others."
q. 80 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, quicumque peccat mortaliter, efficitur servus Diaboli; secundum illud Ioan. VIII, qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. Sed ei aliquis in servitutem addicitur, a quo superatus est, ut dicitur II Petr. II. Ergo quicumque facit peccatum, superatus est a Diabolo. Objection 2. Further, whoever sins mortally, becomes the slave of the devil, according to John 8:34: "Whosoever committeth sin is the slave [Douay: 'servant'] of sin." Now "by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave" (2 Peter 2:19). Therefore whoever commits a sin, has been overcome by the devil.
q. 80 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, Gregorius dicit quod peccatum Diaboli est irreparabile, quia cecidit nullo suggerente. Si igitur aliqui homines peccarent per liberum arbitrium, nullo suggerente, eorum peccatum esset irremediabile, quod patet esse falsum. Ergo omnia peccata humana a Diabolo suggeruntur. Objection 3. Further, Gregory says (Moral. iv, 10) the sin of the devil is irreparable, because he sinned at no other's suggestion. Therefore, if any men were to sin of their own free-will and without suggestion from any other, their sin would be irremediable: which is clearly false. Therefore all the sins of men are due to the devil's suggestion.
q. 80 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in libro de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, non omnes cogitationes nostrae malae a Diabolo excitantur, sed aliquoties ex nostri arbitrii motu emergunt. On the contrary, It is written (De Eccl. Dogm. lxxxii): "Not all our evil thoughts are incited by the devil; sometimes they are due to a movement of the free-will."
q. 80 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod occasionaliter quidem et indirecte Diabolus est causa omnium peccatorum nostrorum, inquantum induxit primum hominem ad peccandum, ex cuius peccato intantum vitiata est humana natura, ut omnes simus ad peccandum proclives, sicut diceretur esse causa combustionis lignorum qui ligna siccaret, ex quo sequeretur quod facile incenderentur. Directe autem non est causa omnium peccatorum humanorum, ita quod singula peccata persuadeat. Quod Origenes probat ex hoc, quia etiam si Diabolus non esset, homines haberent appetitum cibi et venereorum et similium, qui posset esse inordinatus nisi ratione ordinaretur, quod subiacet libero arbitrio. I answer that, the devil is the occasional and indirect cause of all our sins, in so far as he induced the first man to sin, by reason of whose sin human nature is so infected, that we are all prone to sin: even as the burning of wood might be imputed to the man who dried the wood so as to make it easily inflammable. He is not, however, the direct cause of all the sins of men, as though each were the result of his suggestion. Origen proves this (Peri Archon iii, 2) from the fact that even if the devil were no more, men would still have the desire for food, sexual pleasures and the like; which desire might be inordinate, unless it were subordinate to reason, a matter that is subject to the free-will.
q. 80 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod multitudo Daemonum est causa omnium malorum nostrorum secundum primam originem, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. The crowd of demons are the cause of all our evils, as regards their original cause, as stated.
q. 80 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod non solum fit servus alicuius qui ab eo superatur, sed etiam qui se ei voluntarie subiicit. Et hoc modo fit servus Diaboli qui motu proprio peccat. Reply to Objection 2. A man becomes another's slave not only by being overcome by him, but also by subjecting himself to him spontaneously: it is thus that one who sins of his own accord, becomes the slave of the devil.
q. 80 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod peccatum Diaboli fuit irremediabile, quia nec aliquo suggerente peccavit, nec habuit aliquam pronitatem ad peccandum ex praecedenti suggestione causatam. Quod de nullo hominis peccato dici potest. Reply to Objection 3. The devil's sin was irremediable, not only because he sinned without another's suggestion; but also because he was not already prone to sin, on account of any previous sin; which can be said of no sin of man.
q. 81 pr. Deinde considerandum est de causa peccati ex parte hominis. Cum autem homo sit causa peccati alteri homini exterius suggerendo, sicut et Diabolus, habet quendam specialem modum causandi peccatum in alterum per originem. Unde de peccato originali dicendum est. Circa quod tria consideranda occurrunt, primo, de eius traductione; secundo, de eius essentia; tertio, de eius subiecto. Circa primum quaeruntur quinque. Primo, utrum primum peccatum hominis derivetur per originem in posteros. Secundo, utrum omnia alia peccata primi parentis, vel etiam aliorum parentum, per originem in posteros deriventur. Tertio, utrum peccatum originale derivetur ad omnes qui ex Adam per viam seminis generantur. Quarto, utrum derivaretur ad illos qui miraculose ex aliqua parte humani corporis formarentur. Quinto, utrum si femina peccasset, viro non peccante, traduceretur originale peccatum. Question 81. The cause of sin, on the part of man Is man's first sin transmitted, by way of origin to his descendants? Are all the other sins of our first parent, or of any other parents, transmitted to their descendants, by way of origin? Is original sin contracted by all those who are begotten of Adam by way of seminal generation? Would it be contracted by anyone formed miraculously from some part of the human body? Would original sin have been contracted if the woman, and not the man, had sinned?
q. 81 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod primum peccatum primi parentis non traducatur ad alios per originem. Dicitur enim Ezech. XVIII, filius non portabit iniquitatem patris. Portaret autem, si ab eo iniquitatem traheret. Ergo nullus trahit ab aliquo parentum per originem aliquod peccatum. Objection 1. It would seem that the first sin of our first parent is not contracted by others, by way of origin. For it is written (Ezekiel 18:20): "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." But he would bear the iniquity if he contracted it from him. Therefore no one contracts any sin from one of his parents by way of origin.
q. 81 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, accidens non traducitur per originem, nisi traducto subiecto, eo quod accidens non transit de subiecto in subiectum. Sed anima rationalis, quae est subiectum culpae, non traducitur per originem, ut in primo ostensum est. Ergo neque aliqua culpa per originem traduci potest. Objection 2. Further, an accident is not transmitted by way of origin, unless its subject be also transmitted, since accidents do not pass from one subject to another. Now the rational soul which is the subject of sin, is not transmitted by way of origin, as was shown in the I, 118, 2. Therefore neither can any sin be transmitted by way of origin.
q. 81 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, omne illud quod traducitur per originem humanam, causatur ex semine. Sed semen non potest causare peccatum, eo quod caret rationali parte animae, quae sola potest esse causa peccati. Ergo nullum peccatum potest trahi per originem. Objection 3. Further, whatever is transmitted by way of human origin, is caused by the semen. But the semen cannot cause sin, because it lacks the rational part of the soul, which alone can be a cause of sin. Therefore no sin can be contracted by way of origin.
q. 81 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, quod est perfectius in natura, virtuosius est ad agendum. Sed caro perfecta non potest inficere animam sibi unitam, alioquin anima non posset emundari a culpa originali dum est carni unita. Ergo multo minus semen potest inficere animam. Objection 4. Further, that which is more perfect in nature, is more powerful in action. Now perfect flesh cannot infect the soul united to it, else the soul could not be cleansed of original sin, so long as it is united to the body. Much less, therefore, can the semen infect the soul.
q. 81 a. 1 arg. 5 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod propter naturam turpes nullus increpat, sed eos qui propter desidiam et negligentiam. Dicuntur autem natura turpes qui habent turpitudinem ex sua origine. Ergo nihil quod est per originem, est increpabile, neque peccatum. Objection 5. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5): "No one finds fault with those who are ugly by nature, but only those who are so through want of exercise and through carelessness." Now those are said to be "naturally ugly," who are so from their origin. Therefore nothing which comes by way of origin is blameworthy or sinful.
q. 81 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. V, per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit. Quod non potest intelligi per modum imitationis, propter hoc quod dicitur Sap. II, invidia Diaboli mors intravit in orbem terrarum. Restat ergo quod per originem a primo homine peccatum in mundo intravit. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 5:12): "By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death." Nor can this be understood as denoting imitation or suggestion, since it is written (Wisdom 2:24): "By the envy of the devil, death came into this world." It follows therefore that through origin from the first man sin entered into the world.
q. 81 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod secundum fidem Catholicam est tenendum quod primum peccatum primi hominis originaliter transit in posteros. Propter quod etiam pueri mox nati deferuntur ad Baptismum, tanquam ab aliqua infectione culpae abluendi. Contrarium autem est haeresis Pelagianae, ut patet per Augustinum in plurimis suis libris. Ad investigandum autem qualiter peccatum primi parentis originaliter possit transire in posteros, diversi diversis viis processerunt. Quidam enim, considerantes quod peccati subiectum est anima rationalis, posuerunt quod cum semine rationalis anima traducatur, ut sic ex infecta anima animae infectae derivari videantur. Alii vero, hoc repudiantes tanquam erroneum, conati sunt ostendere quomodo culpa animae parentis traducitur in prolem, etiam si anima non traducatur, per hoc quod corporis defectus traducuntur a parente in prolem, sicut si leprosus generat leprosum, et podagricus podagricum, propter aliquam corruptionem seminis, licet talis corruptio non dicatur lepra vel podagra. Cum autem corpus sit proportionatum animae, et defectus animae redundent in corpus, et e converso; simili modo dicunt quod culpabilis defectus animae per traductionem seminis in prolem derivatur, quamvis semen actualiter non sit culpae subiectum. Sed omnes huiusmodi viae insufficientes sunt. Quia dato quod aliqui defectus corporales a parente transeant in prolem per originem; et etiam aliqui defectus animae ex consequenti, propter corporis indispositionem, sicut interdum ex fatuis fatui generantur, tamen hoc ipsum quod est ex origine aliquem defectum habere, videtur excludere rationem culpae, de cuius ratione est quod sit voluntaria. Unde etiam posito quod anima rationalis traduceretur, ex hoc ipso quod infectio animae prolis non esset in eius voluntate, amitteret rationem culpae obligantis ad poenam, quia, ut philosophus dicit in III Ethic., nullus improperabit caeco nato, sed magis miserebitur. Et ideo alia via procedendum est, dicendo quod omnes homines qui nascuntur ex Adam, possunt considerari ut unus homo, inquantum conveniunt in natura, quam a primo parente accipiunt; secundum quod in civilibus omnes qui sunt unius communitatis, reputantur quasi unum corpus, et tota communitas quasi unus homo. Porphyrius etiam dicit quod participatione speciei plures homines sunt unus homo. Sic igitur multi homines ex Adam derivati, sunt tanquam multa membra unius corporis. Actus autem unius membri corporalis, puta manus, non est voluntarius voluntate ipsius manus, sed voluntate animae, quae primo movet membra. Unde homicidium quod manus committit, non imputaretur manui ad peccatum, si consideraretur manus secundum se ut divisa a corpore, sed imputatur ei inquantum est aliquid hominis quod movetur a primo principio motivo hominis. Sic igitur inordinatio quae est in isto homine, ex Adam generato, non est voluntaria voluntate ipsius sed voluntate primi parentis, qui movet motione generationis omnes qui ex eius origine derivantur, sicut voluntas animae movet omnia membra ad actum. Unde peccatum quod sic a primo parente in posteros derivatur, dicitur originale, sicut peccatum quod ab anima derivatur ad membra corporis, dicitur actuale. Et sicut peccatum actuale quod per membrum aliquod committitur, non est peccatum illius membri nisi inquantum illud membrum est aliquid ipsius hominis, propter quod vocatur peccatum humanum; ita peccatum originale non est peccatum huius personae, nisi inquantum haec persona recipit naturam a primo parente. Unde et vocatur peccatum naturae; secundum illud Ephes. II, eramus natura filii irae. I answer that, According to the Catholic Faith we are bound to hold that the first sin of the first man is transmitted to his descendants, by way of origin. For this reason children are taken to be baptized soon after their birth, to show that they have to be washed from some uncleanness. The contrary is part of the Pelagian heresy, as is clear from Augustine in many of his books [For instance, Retract. i, 9; De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. ix; Contra Julian. iii, 1; De Dono Persev. xi, xii.] In endeavoring to explain how the sin of our first parent could be transmitted by way of origin to his descendants, various writers have gone about it in various ways. For some, considering that the subject of sin is the rational soul, maintained that the rational soul is transmitted with the semen, so that thus an infected soul would seem to produce other infected souls. Others, rejecting this as erroneous, endeavored to show how the guilt of the parent's soul can be transmitted to the children, even though the soul be not transmitted, from the fact that defects of the body are transmitted from parent to child--thus a leper may beget a leper, or a gouty man may be the father of a gouty son, on account of some seminal corruption, although this corruption is not leprosy or gout. Now since the body is proportionate to the soul, and since the soul's defects redound into the body, and vice versa, in like manner, say they, a culpable defect of the soul is passed on to the child, through the transmission of the semen, albeit the semen itself is not the subject of the guilt. But all these explanations are insufficient. Because, granted that some bodily defects are transmitted by way of origin from parent to child, and granted that even some defects of the soul are transmitted in consequence, on account of a defect in the bodily habit, as in the case of idiots begetting idiots; nevertheless the fact of having a defect by the way of origin seems to exclude the notion of guilt, which is essentially something voluntary. Wherefore granted that the rational soul were transmitted, from the very fact that the stain on the child's soul is not in its will, it would cease to be a guilty stain binding its subject to punishment; for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5), "no one reproaches a man born blind; one rather takes pity on him." Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that all men born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one common nature, which they receive from their first parents; even as in civil matters, all who are members of one community are reputed as one body, and the whole community as one man. Indeed Porphyry says (Praedic., De Specie) that "by sharing the same species, many men are one man." Accordingly the multitude of men born of Adam, are as so many members of one body. Now the action of one member of the body, of the hand for instance, is voluntary not by the will of that hand, but by the will of the soul, the first mover of the members. Wherefore a murder which the hand commits would not be imputed as a sin to the hand, considered by itself as apart from the body, but is imputed to it as something belonging to man and moved by man's first moving principle. In this way, then, the disorder which is in this man born of Adam, is voluntary, not by his will, but by the will of his first parent, who, by the movement of generation, moves all who originate from him, even as the soul's will moves all the members to their actions. Hence the sin which is thus transmitted by the first parent to his descendants is called "original," just as the sin which flows from the soul into the bodily members is called "actual." And just as the actual sin that is committed by a member of the body, is not the sin of that member, except inasmuch as that member is a part of the man, for which reason it is called a "human sin"; so original sin is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the "sin of nature," according to Ephesians 2:3: "We . . . were by nature children of wrath."
q. 81 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod filius dicitur non portare peccatum patris, quia non punitur pro peccato patris, nisi sit particeps culpae. Et sic est in proposito, derivatur enim per originem culpa a patre in filium, sicut et peccatum actuale per imitationem. Reply to Objection 1. The son is said not to bear the iniquity of his father, because he is not punished for his father's sin, unless he share in his guilt. It is thus in the case before us: because guilt is transmitted by the way of origin from father to son, even as actual sin is transmitted through being imitated.
q. 81 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, etsi anima non traducatur, quia virtus seminis non potest causare animam rationalem; movet tamen ad ipsam dispositive. Unde per virtutem seminis traducitur humana natura a parente in prolem, et simul cum natura naturae infectio, ex hoc enim fit iste qui nascitur consors culpae primi parentis, quod naturam ab eo sortitur per quandam generativam motionem. Reply to Objection 2. Although the soul is not transmitted, because the power in the semen is not able to cause the rational soul, nevertheless the motion of the semen is a disposition to the transmission of the rational soul: so that the semen by its own power transmits the human nature from parent to child, and with that nature, the stain which infects it: for he that is born is associated with his first parent in his guilt, through the fact that he inherits his nature from him by a kind of movement which is that of generation.
q. 81 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, etsi culpa non sit actu in semine, est tamen ibi virtute humana natura, quam concomitatur talis culpa. Reply to Objection 3. Although the guilt is not actually in the semen, yet human nature is there virtually accompanied by that guilt.
q. 81 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod semen est principium generationis, quae est proprius actus naturae, eius propagationi deserviens. Et ideo magis inficitur anima per semen quam per carnem iam perfectam, quae iam determinata est ad personam. Reply to Objection 4. The semen is the principle of generation, which is an act proper to nature, by helping it to propagate itself. Hence the soul is more infected by the semen, than by the flesh which is already perfect, and already affixed to a certain person.
q. 81 a. 1 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod illud quod est per originem, non est increpabile, si consideretur iste qui nascitur secundum se. Sed si consideretur prout refertur ad aliquod principium, sic potest esse ei increpabile, sicut aliquis qui nascitur patitur ignominiam generis ex culpa alicuius progenitorum causatam. Reply to Objection 5. A man is not blamed for that which he has from his origin, if we consider the man born, in himself. But it we consider him as referred to a principle, then he may be reproached for it: thus a man may from his birth be under a family disgrace, on account of a crime committed by one of his forbears.
q. 81 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod etiam alia peccata vel ipsius primi parentis, vel proximorum parentum, traducantur in posteros. Poena enim nunquam debetur nisi culpae. Sed aliqui puniuntur iudicio divino pro peccato proximorum parentum; secundum illud Exod. XX, ego sum Deus Zelotes, visitans iniquitatem patrum in filios, in tertiam et quartam generationem. Iudicio etiam humano, in crimine laesae maiestatis, filii exheredantur pro peccato parentum. Ergo etiam culpa proximorum parentum transit ad posteros. Objection 1. It would seem that also other sins, whether of the first parent or of nearer ancestors, are transmitted to their descendants. For punishment is never due unless for fault. Now some are punished by the judgment of God for the sin of their immediate parents, according to Exodus 20:5: "I am . . . God . . . jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation." Furthermore, according to human law, the children of those who are guilty of high treason are disinherited. Therefore the guilt of nearer ancestors is also transmitted to their descendants.
q. 81 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, magis potest transferre in alterum id quod habet aliquis a seipso, quam id quod habet ex alio, sicut ignis magis potest calefacere quam aqua calefacta, sed homo transfert in prolem per originem peccatum quod habet ab Adam. Ergo multo magis peccatum quod ipse commisit. Objection 2. Further, a man can better transmit to another, that which he has of himself, than that which he has received from another: thus fire heats better than hot water does. Now a man transmits to his children, by the way, of origin, the sin which he has from Adam. Much more therefore should he transmit the sin which he has contracted of himself.
q. 81 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, ideo contrahimus a primo parente peccatum originale, quia in eo fuimus sicut in principio naturae, quam ipse corrupit. Sed similiter fuimus in proximis parentibus sicut in quibusdam principiis naturae, quae etsi sit corrupta, potest adhuc magis corrumpi per peccatum, secundum illud Apoc. ult., qui in sordibus est, sordescat adhuc. Ergo filii contrahunt peccata proximorum parentum per originem, sicut et primi parentis. Objection 3. Further, the reason why we contract original sin from our first parent is because we were in him as in the principle of our nature, which he corrupted. But we were likewise in our nearer ancestors, as in principles of our nature, which however it be corrupt, can be corrupted yet more by sin, according to Apocalypse 22:11: "He that is filthy, let him be filthier still." Therefore children contract, by the way of origin, the sins of their nearer ancestors, even as they contract the sin of their first parent.
q. 81 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, bonum est magis diffusivum sui quam malum. Sed merita proximorum parentum non traducuntur ad posteros. Ergo multo minus peccata. On the contrary, Good is more self-diffusive than evil. But the merits of the nearer ancestors are not transmitted to their descendants. Much less therefore are their sins.
q. 81 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Augustinus hanc quaestionem movet in Enchiridio, et insolutam relinquit. Sed si quis diligenter attendit, impossibile est quod aliqua peccata proximorum parentum, vel etiam primi parentis praeter primum, per originem traducantur. Cuius ratio est quia homo generat sibi idem in specie, non autem secundum individuum. Et ideo ea quae directe pertinent ad individuum, sicut personales actus et quae ad eos pertinent, non traducuntur a parentibus in filios, non enim grammaticus traducit in filium scientiam grammaticae, quam proprio studio acquisivit. Sed ea quae pertinent ad naturam speciei, traducuntur a parentibus in filios, nisi sit defectus naturae, sicut oculatus generat oculatum, nisi natura deficiat. Et si natura sit fortis, etiam aliqua accidentia individualia propagantur in filios, pertinentia ad dispositionem naturae, sicut velocitas corporis, bonitas ingenii, et alia huiusmodi, nullo autem modo ea quae sunt pure personalia, ut dictum est. Sicut autem ad personam pertinet aliquid secundum seipsam, et aliquid ex dono gratiae; ita etiam ad naturam potest aliquid pertinere secundum seipsam, scilicet quod causatur ex principiis eius, et aliquid ex dono gratiae. Et hoc modo iustitia originalis, sicut in primo dictum est, erat quoddam donum gratiae toti humanae naturae divinitus collatum in primo parente. Quod quidem primus homo amisit per primum peccatum. Unde sicut illa originalis iustitia traducta fuisset in posteros simul cum natura, ita etiam inordinatio opposita. Sed alia peccata actualia vel primi parentis vel aliorum, non corrumpunt naturam quantum ad id quod naturae est; sed solum quantum ad id quod personae est, idest secundum pronitatem ad actum. Unde alia peccata non traducuntur. I answer that, Augustine puts this question in the Enchiridion xlvi, xlvii, and leaves it unsolved. Yet if we look into the matter carefully we shall see that it is impossible for the sins of the nearer ancestors, or even any other but the first sin of our first parent to be transmitted by way of origin. The reason is that a man begets his like in species but not in individual. Consequently those things that pertain directly to the individual, such as personal actions and matters affecting them, are not transmitted by parents to their children: for a grammarian does not transmit to his son the knowledge of grammar that he has acquired by his own studies. On the other hand, those things that concern the nature of the species, are transmitted by parents to their children, unless there be a defect of nature: thus a man with eyes begets a son having eyes, unless nature fails. And if nature be strong, even certain accidents of the individual pertaining to natural disposition, are transmitted to the children, e.g. fleetness of body, acuteness of intellect, and so forth; but nowise those that are purely personal, as stated above. Now just as something may belong to the person as such, and also something through the gift of grace, so may something belong to the nature as such, viz. whatever is caused by the principles of nature, and something too through the gift of grace. In this way original justice, as stated in the I, 100, 1, was a gift of grace, conferred by God on all human nature in our first parent. This gift the first man lost by his first sin. Wherefore as that original justice together with the nature was to have been transmitted to his posterity, so also was its disorder. Other actual sins, however, whether of the first parent or of others, do not corrupt the nature as nature, but only as the nature of that person, i.e. in respect of the proneness to sin: and consequently other sins are not transmitted.
q. 81 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod poena spirituali, sicut Augustinus dicit in epistola ad avitum, nunquam puniuntur filii pro parentibus, nisi communicent in culpa, vel per originem vel per imitationem, quia omnes animae immediate sunt Dei, ut dicitur Ezech. XVIII. Sed poena corporali interdum, iudicio divino vel humano, puniuntur filii pro parentibus, inquantum filius est aliquid patris secundum corpus. Reply to Objection 1. According to Augustine in his letter to Avitus [Ep. ad Auxilium ccl.], children are never inflicted with spiritual punishment on account of their parents, unless they share in their guilt, either in their origin, or by imitation, because every soul is God's immediate property, as stated in Ezekiel 18:4. Sometimes, however, by Divine or human judgment, children receive bodily punishment on their parents' account, inasmuch as the child, as to its body, is part of its father.
q. 81 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod illud quod habet aliquis ex se, magis potest traducere, dummodo sit traducibile. Sed peccata actualia proximorum parentum non sunt traducibilia, quia sunt pure personalia, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. A man can more easily transmit that which he has of himself, provided it be transmissible. But the actual sins of our nearer ancestors are not transmissible, because they are purely personal, as stated above.
q. 81 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod primum peccatum corrumpit naturam humanam corruptione ad naturam pertinente, alia vero peccata corrumpunt eam corruptione pertinente ad solam personam. Reply to Objection 3. The first sin infects nature with a human corruption pertaining to nature; whereas other sins infect it with a corruption pertaining only to the person.
q. 81 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum primi parentis non transeat per originem in omnes homines. Mors enim est poena consequens originale peccatum. Sed non omnes qui procedunt seminaliter ex Adam, morientur, illi enim qui vivi reperientur in adventu domini, nunquam morientur, ut videtur per quod dicitur I Thessal. IV, nos qui vivimus, non praeveniemus in adventu domini eos qui dormierunt. Ergo illi non contrahunt originale peccatum. Objection 1. It would seem that the sin of the first parent is not transmitted, by the way of origin, to all men. Because death is a punishment consequent upon original sin. But not all those, who are born of the seed of Adam, will die: since those who will be still living at the coming of our Lord, will never die, as, seemingly, may be gathered from 1 Thessalonians 4:14: "We who are alive . . . unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them who have slept." Therefore they do not contract original sin.
q. 81 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, nullus dat alteri quod ipse non habet. Sed homo baptizatus non habet peccatum originale. Ergo non traducit ipsum in prolem. Objection 2. Further, no one gives another what he has not himself. Now a man who has been baptized has not original sin. Therefore he does not transmit it to his children.
q. 81 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, donum Christi est maius quam peccatum Adae, ut apostolus dicit, Rom. V. Sed donum Christi non transit in omnes homines. Ergo nec peccatum Adae. Objection 3. Further, the gift of Christ is greater than the sin of Adam, as the Apostle declares (Romans 5:15, seqq). But the gift of Christ is not transmitted to all men: neither, therefore, is the sin of Adam.
q. 81 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. V, mors in omnes pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 5:12): "Death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned."
q. 81 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod secundum fidem Catholicam firmiter est tenendum quod omnes homines, praeter solum Christum, ex Adam derivati, peccatum originale ex eo contrahunt, alioquin non omnes indigerent redemptione quae est per Christum; quod est erroneum. Ratio autem sumi potest ex hoc quod supra dictum est, quod sic ex peccato primi parentis traducitur culpa originalis in posteros, sicut a voluntate animae per motionem membrorum traducitur peccatum actuale ad membra corporis. Manifestum est autem quod peccatum actuale traduci potest ad omnia membra quae nata sunt moveri a voluntate. Unde et culpa originalis traducitur ad omnes illos qui moventur ab Adam motione generationis. I answer that, According to the Catholic Faith we must firmly believe that, Christ alone excepted, all men descended from Adam contract original sin from him; else all would not need redemption [Cf. Translator's note inserted before TP, 27] which is through Christ; and this is erroneous. The reason for this may be gathered from what has been stated (1), viz. that original sin, in virtue of the sin of our first parent, is transmitted to his posterity, just as, from the soul's will, actual sin is transmitted to the members of the body, through their being moved by the will. Now it is evident that actual sin can be transmitted to all such members as have an inborn aptitude to be moved by the will. Therefore original sin is transmitted to all those who are moved by Adam by the movement of generation.
q. 81 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod probabilius et communius tenetur quod omnes illi qui in adventu domini reperientur, morientur, et post modicum resurgent, ut in tertio plenius dicetur. Si tamen hoc verum sit quod alii dicunt, quod illi nunquam morientur, sicut Hieronymus narrat diversorum opiniones in quadam epistola ad Minerium, de resurrectione carnis; dicendum est ad argumentum, quod illi etsi non moriantur, est tamen in eis reatus mortis, sed poena aufertur a Deo, qui etiam peccatorum actualium poenas condonare potest. Reply to Objection 1. It is held with greater probability and more commonly that all those that are alive at the coming of our Lord, will die, and rise again shortly, as we shall state more fully in the TP (XP, 78, 1, Objection 1). If, however, it be true, as others hold, that they will never die, (an opinion which Jerome mentions among others in a letter to Minerius, on the Resurrection of the Body--Ep. cxix), then we must say in reply to the objection, that although they are not to die, the debt of death is none the less in them, and that the punishment of death will be remitted by God, since He can also forgive the punishment due for actual sins.
q. 81 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod peccatum originale per Baptismum aufertur reatu, inquantum anima recuperat gratiam quantum ad mentem. Remanet tamen peccatum originale actu quantum ad fomitem, qui est inordinatio inferiorum partium animae et ipsius corporis, secundum quod homo generat, et non secundum mentem. Et ideo baptizati traducunt peccatum originale, non enim generant inquantum sunt renovati per Baptismum, sed inquantum retinent adhuc aliquid de vetustate primi peccati. Reply to Objection 1. Original sin is taken away by Baptism as to the guilt, in so far as the soul recovers grace as regards the mind. Nevertheless original sin remains in its effect as regards the "fomes," which is the disorder of the lower parts of the soul and of the body itself, in respect of which, and not of the mind, man exercises his power of generation. Consequently those who are baptized transmit original sin: since they do not beget as being renewed in Baptism, but as still retaining something of the oldness of the first sin.
q. 81 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut peccatum Adae traducitur in omnes qui ab Adam corporaliter generantur, ita gratia Christi traducitur in omnes qui ab eo spiritualiter generantur per fidem et Baptismum, et non solum ad removendam culpam primi parentis, sed etiam ad removendum peccata actualia, et ad introducendum in gloriam. Reply to Objection 3. Just as Adam's sin is transmitted to all who are born of Adam corporally, so is the grace of Christ transmitted to all that are begotten of Him spiritually, by faith and Baptism: and this, not only unto the removal of sin of their first parent, but also unto the removal of actual sins, and the obtaining of glory.
q. 81 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod, si aliquis formaretur ex carne humana miraculose, contraheret originale peccatum. Dicit enim quaedam Glossa Gen. IV, quod in lumbis Adae fuit tota posteritas corrupta, quia non est separata prius in loco vitae, sed postea in loco exilii. Sed si aliquis homo sic formaretur sicut dictum est, caro eius separaretur in loco exilii. Ergo contraheret originale peccatum. Objection 1. It would seem that original sin would be contracted by a person formed miraculously from human flesh. For a gloss on Genesis 4:1 says that "Adam's entire posterity was corrupted in his loins, because they were not severed from him in the place of life, before he sinned, but in the place of exile after he had sinned." But if a man were to be formed in the aforesaid manner, his flesh would be severed in the place of exile. Therefore it would contract original sin.
q. 81 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccatum originale causatur in nobis inquantum anima inficitur ex carne. Sed caro tota hominis est infecta. Ergo ex quacumque parte carnis homo formaretur, anima eius inficeretur infectione originalis peccati. Objection 2. Further, original sin is caused in us by the soul being infected through the flesh. But man's flesh is entirely corrupted. Therefore a man's soul would contract the infection of original sin, from whatever part of the flesh it was formed.
q. 81 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, peccatum originale a primo parente pervenit in omnes, inquantum omnes in eo peccante fuerunt. Sed illi qui ex carne humana formarentur, in Adam fuissent. Ergo peccatum originale contraherent. Objection 3. Further, original sin comes upon all from our first parent, in so far as we were all in him when he sinned. But those who might be formed out of human flesh, would have been in Adam. Therefore they would contract original sin.
q. 81 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quia non fuissent in Adam secundum seminalem rationem; quod solum causat traductionem peccati originalis, ut Augustinus dicit, X super Gen. ad Litt. On the contrary, They would not have been in Adam "according to seminal virtue," which alone is the cause of the transmission of original sin, as Augustine states (Gen. ad lit. x, 18, seqq.).
q. 81 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, peccatum originale a primo parente traducitur in posteros, inquantum moventur ab ipso per generationem, sicut membra moventur ab anima ad peccatum actuale. Non autem est motio ad generationem nisi per virtutem activam in generatione. Unde illi soli peccatum originale contrahunt, qui ab Adam descendunt per virtutem activam in generatione originaliter ab Adam derivatam, quod est secundum seminalem rationem ab eo descendere, nam ratio seminalis nihil aliud est quam vis activa in generatione. Si autem aliquis formaretur virtute divina ex carne humana, manifestum est quod vis activa non derivaretur ab Adam. Unde non contraheret peccatum originale, sicut nec actus manus pertineret ad peccatum humanum, si manus non moveretur a voluntate hominis, sed ab aliquo extrinseco movente. I answer that, As stated above (1,3), original sin is transmitted from the first parent to his posterity, inasmuch as they are moved by him through generation, even as the members are moved by the soul to actual sin. Now there is no movement to generation except by the active power of generation: so that those alone contract original sin, who are descended from Adam through the active power of generation originally derived from Adam, i.e. who are descended from him through seminal power; for the seminal power is nothing else than the active power of generation. But if anyone were to be formed by God out of human flesh, it is evident that the active power would not be derived from Adam. Consequently he would not contract original sin: even as a hand would have no part in a human sin, if it were moved, not by the man's will, but by some external power.
q. 81 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Adam non fuit in loco exilii nisi post peccatum. Unde non propter locum exilii, sed propter peccatum, traducitur originalis culpa ad eos ad quos activa eius generatio pervenit. Reply to Objection 1. Adam was not in the place of exile until after his sin. Consequently it is not on account of the place of exile, but on account of the sin, that original sin is transmitted to those to whom his active generation extends.
q. 81 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod caro non inficit animam nisi inquantum est principium activum in generatione, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. The flesh does not corrupt the soul, except in so far as it is the active principle in generation, as we have stated.
q. 81 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui formaretur ex carne humana, fuisset in Adam secundum corpulentam substantiam; sed non secundum seminalem rationem, ut dictum est. Et ideo non contraheret originale peccatum. Reply to Objection 3. If a man were to be formed from human flesh, he would have been in Adam, "by way of bodily substance" [The expression is St. Augustine's (Gen. ad lit. x). Cf. Summa Theologica TP, 31, 6, Reply to Objection 1, but not according to seminal virtue, as stated above. Therefore he would not contract original sin.
q. 81 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod, si Adam non peccasset, Eva peccante, filii originale peccatum contraherent. Peccatum enim originale a parentibus contrahimus, inquantum in eis fuimus, secundum illud apostoli, Rom. V, in quo omnes peccaverunt. Sed sicut homo praeexistit in patre suo, ita in matre. Ergo ex peccato matris homo peccatum originale contraheret, sicut et ex peccato patris. Objection 1. It would seem that if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have contracted original sin. Because we contract original sin from our parents, in so far as we were once in them, according to the word of the Apostle (Romans 5:12): "In whom all have sinned." Now a man pre-exist in his mother as well as in his father. Therefore a man would have contracted original sin from his mother's sin as well as from his father's.
q. 81 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, si Eva peccasset, Adam non peccante, filii passibiles et mortales nascerentur, mater enim dat materiam in generatione, ut dicit philosophus, in II de Generat. Animal.; mors autem, et omnis passibilitas, provenit ex necessitate materiae. Sed passibilitas et necessitas moriendi sunt poena peccati originalis. Ergo, si Eva peccasset, Adam non peccante, filii contraherent originale peccatum. Objection 2. Further, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have been born liable to suffering and death, since it is "the mother" that "provides the matter in generation" as the Philosopher states (De Gener. Animal. ii, 1,4), when death and liability to suffering are the necessary results of matter. Now liability to suffering and the necessity of dying are punishments of original sin. Therefore if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would contract original sin.
q. 81 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, in libro III, quod spiritus sanctus praevenit in virginem, de qua Christus erat absque peccato originali nasciturus, purgans eam. Sed illa purgatio non fuisset necessaria, si infectio originalis peccati non traheretur ex matre. Ergo infectio originalis peccati ex matre trahitur. Et sic, Eva peccante, eius filii peccatum originale contraherent, etiam si Adam non peccasset. Objection 3. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3) that "the Holy Ghost came upon the Virgin," (of whom Christ was to be born without original sin) "purifying her." But this purification would not have been necessary, if the infection of original sin were not contracted from the mother. Therefore the infection of original sin is contracted from the mother: so that if Eve had sinned, her children would have contracted original sin, even if Adam had not sinned.
q. 81 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. V, per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit. Magis autem fuisset dicendum quod per duos intrasset, cum ambo peccaverint; vel potius per mulierem, quae primo peccavit; si femina peccatum originale in prolem transmitteret. Non ergo peccatum originale derivatur in filios a matre, sed a patre. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 5:12): "By one man sin entered into this world." Now if the woman would have transmitted original sin to her children, he should have said that it entered by two, since both of them sinned, or rather that it entered by a woman, since she sinned first. Therefore original sin is transmitted to the children, not by the mother, but by the father.
q. 81 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod huius dubitationis solutio ex praemissis apparet. Dictum est enim supra quod peccatum originale a primo parente traducitur inquantum ipse movet ad generationem natorum, unde dictum est quod, si materialiter tantum aliquis ex carne humana generaretur, originale peccatum non contraheret. Manifestum est autem secundum doctrinam philosophorum, quod principium activum in generatione est a patre, materiam autem mater ministrat. Unde peccatum originale non contrahitur a matre, sed a patre. Et secundum hoc, si, Adam non peccante, Eva peccasset, filii originale peccatum non contraherent. E converso autem esset, si Adam peccasset, et Eva non peccasset. I answer that, The solution of this question is made clear by what has been said. For it has been stated (1) that original sin is transmitted by the first parent in so far as he is the mover in the begetting of his children: wherefore it has been said (4) that if anyone were begotten materially only, of human flesh, they would not contract original sin. Now it is evident that in the opinion of philosophers, the active principle of generation is from the father, while the mother provides the matter. Therefore original sin, is contracted, not from the mother, but from the father: so that, accordingly, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would not contract original sin: whereas, if Adam, and not Eve, had sinned, they would contract it.
q. 81 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in patre praeexistit filius sicut in principio activo, sed in matre sicut in principio materiali et passivo. Unde non est similis ratio. Reply to Objection 1. The child pre-exists in its father as in its active principle, and in its mother, as in its material and passive principle. Consequently the comparison fails.
q. 81 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod quibusdam videtur quod, Eva peccante, si Adam non peccasset, filii essent immunes a culpa, paterentur tamen necessitatem moriendi, et alias passibilitates provenientes ex necessitate materiae, quam mater ministrat, non sub ratione poenae, sed sicut quosdam naturales defectus. Sed hoc non videtur conveniens. Immortalitas enim et impassibilitas primi status non erat ex conditione materiae, ut in primo dictum est; sed ex originali iustitiae, per quam corpus subdebatur animae, quandiu anima esset subiecta Deo. Defectus autem originalis iustitiae est peccatum originale. Si igitur, Adam non peccante, peccatum originale non transfunderetur in posteros propter peccatum Evae; manifestum est quod in filiis non esset defectus originalis iustitiae. Unde non esset in eis passibilitas vel necessitas moriendi. Reply to Objection 2. Some hold that if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would be immune from the sin, but would have been subject to the necessity of dying and to other forms of suffering that are a necessary result of the matter which is provided by the mother, not as punishments, but as actual defects. This, however, seems unreasonable. Because, as stated in the I, 97, A1, 2, ad 4, immortality and impassibility, in the original state, were a result, not of the condition of matter, but of original justice, whereby the body was subjected to the soul, so long as the soul remained subject to God. Now privation of original justice is original sin. If, therefore, supposing Adam had not sinned, original sin would not have been transmitted to posterity on account of Eve's sin; it is evident that the children would not have been deprived of original justice: and consequently they would not have been liable to suffer and subject to the necessity of dying.
q. 81 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod illa purgatio praeveniens in beata virgine, non requirebatur ad auferendum transfusionem originalis peccati, sed quia oportebat ut mater Dei maxima puritate niteret. Non enim est aliquid digne receptaculum Dei, nisi sit mundum; secundum illud Psalmi XCII, domum tuam, domine, decet sanctitudo. Reply to Objection 3. This prevenient purification in the Blessed Virgin was not needed to hinder the transmission of original sin, but because it behooved the Mother of God "to shine with the greatest purity" [Cf. Anselm, De Concep. Virg. xviii.]. For nothing is worthy to receive God unless it be pure, according to Psalm 92:5: "Holiness becometh Thy House, O Lord."
q. 82 pr. Deinde considerandum est de peccato originali quantum ad suam essentiam. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum originale peccatum sit habitus. Secundo, utrum sit unum tantum in uno homine. Tertio, utrum sit concupiscentia. Quarto, utrum sit aequaliter in omnibus. Question 82. Original sin, as to its essence Is original sin a habit? Is there but one original sin in each man? Is original sin concupiscence? Is original sin equally in all?
q. 82 a. 1 arg. 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.
q. 82 a. 1 arg. 2 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.
q. 82 a. 1 arg. 3 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.
q. 82 a. 1 s. c. 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.
q. 82 a. 1 co. 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 (49, 4; 50, 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].
q. 82 a. 1 ad 1 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.
q. 82 a. 1 ad 2 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.
q. 82 a. 1 ad 3 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.
q. 82 a. 2 arg. 1 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 (Psalm 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.
q. 82 a. 2 arg. 2 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.
q. 82 a. 2 arg. 3 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 (Article 74). Since then one sin cannot be in different subjects, it seems that original sin is not one but several.
q. 82 a. 2 s. c. 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 (John 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.
q. 82 a. 2 co. 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 (81, 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.
q. 82 a. 2 ad 1 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.
q. 82 a. 2 ad 2 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.
q. 82 a. 2 ad 3 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.
q. 82 a. 3 arg. 1 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.
q. 82 a. 3 arg. 2 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 (Romans 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.
q. 82 a. 3 arg. 3 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 (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.
q. 82 a. 3 s. c. 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."
q. 82 a. 3 co. 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 (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.
q. 82 a. 3 ad 1 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.
q. 82 a. 3 ad 2 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 (25, 2, ad 1). Therefore original sin is ascribed to concupiscence, as being the chief passion, and as including all the others, in a fashion.
q. 82 a. 3 ad 3 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 (77, A1,2; 80, 2). Hence original sin is called concupiscence rather than ignorance, although ignorance is comprised among the material defects of original sin.
q. 82 a. 4 arg. 1 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.
q. 82 a. 4 arg. 2 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.
q. 82 a. 4 arg. 3 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.
q. 82 a. 4 s. c. 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.
q. 82 a. 4 co. 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.
q. 82 a. 4 ad 1 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.
q. 82 a. 4 ad 2 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.
q. 82 a. 4 ad 3 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.
q. 83 pr. Deinde considerandum est de subiecto originalis peccati. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum subiectum originalis peccati per prius sit caro vel anima. Secundo, si anima, utrum per essentiam aut per potentias suas. Tertio, utrum voluntas per prius sit subiectum peccati originalis quam aliae potentiae. Quarto, utrum aliquae potentiae animae sint specialiter infectae, scilicet generativa, vis concupiscibilis et sensus tactus. Question 83. The subject of original sin Is the subject of original sin the flesh rather than the soul? If it be the soul, is this through its essence, or through its powers? Is the will prior to the other powers the subject of original sin? Are certain powers of the soul specially infected, viz. the generative power, the concupiscible part, and the sense of touch?
q. 83 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum originale magis sit in carne quam in anima. Repugnantia enim carnis ad mentem ex corruptione originalis peccati procedit. Sed radix huius repugnantiae in carne consistit, dicit enim apostolus ad Rom. VII, video aliam legem in membris meis, repugnantem legi mentis meae. Ergo originale peccatum in carne principaliter consistit. Objection 1. It would seem that original sin is more in the flesh than in the soul. Because the rebellion of the flesh against the mind arises from the corruption of original sin. Now the root of this rebellion is seated in the flesh: for the Apostle says (Romans 7:23): "I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my mind." Therefore original sin is seated chiefly in the flesh.
q. 83 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, unumquodque potius est in causa quam in effectu, sicut calor magis est in igne calefaciente quam in aqua calefacta. Sed anima inficitur infectione originalis peccati per semen carnale. Ergo peccatum originale magis est in carne quam in anima. Objection 2. Further, a thing is more in its cause than in its effect: thus heat is in the heating fire more than in the hot water. Now the soul is infected with the corruption of original sin by the carnal semen. Therefore original sin is in the flesh rather than in the soul.
q. 83 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, peccatum originale ex primo parente contrahimus, prout in eo fuimus secundum rationem seminalem. Sic autem non fuit ibi anima, sed sola caro. Ergo originale peccatum non est in anima, sed in carne. Objection 3. Further, we contract original sin from our first parent, in so far as we were in him by reason of seminal virtue. Now our souls were not in him thus, but only our flesh. Therefore original sin is not in the soul, but in the flesh.
q. 83 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, anima rationalis creata a Deo corpori infunditur. Si igitur anima per peccatum originale inficeretur, consequens esset quod ex sua creatione vel infusione inquinaretur. Et sic Deus esset causa peccati, qui est auctor creationis et infusionis. Objection 4. Further, the rational soul created by God is infused into the body. If therefore the soul were infected with original sin, it would follow that it is corrupted in its creation or infusion: and thus God would be the cause of sin, since He is the author of the soul's creation and fusion.
q. 83 a. 1 arg. 5 Praeterea, nullus sapiens liquorem pretiosum vasi infunderet ex quo sciret ipsum liquorem infici. Sed anima rationalis est pretiosior omni liquore. Si ergo anima ex corporis unione infici posset infectione originalis culpae, Deus, qui ipsa sapientia est, nunquam animam tali corpori infunderet. Infundit autem. Non ergo inquinatur ex carne. Sic igitur peccatum originale non est in anima, sed in carne. Objection 5. Further, no wise man pours a precious liquid into a vessel, knowing that the vessel will corrupt the liquid. But the rational soul is more precious than any liquid. If therefore the soul, by being united with the body, could be corrupted with the infection of original sin, God, Who is wisdom itself, would never infuse the soul into such a body. And yet He does; wherefore it is not corrupted by the flesh. Therefore original sin is not in the soul but in the flesh.
q. 83 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod idem est subiectum virtutis et vitii sive peccati, quod contrariatur virtuti. Sed caro non potest esse subiectum virtutis, dicit enim apostolus, ad Rom. VII, scio quod non habitat in me, hoc est in carne mea, bonum. Ergo caro non potest esse subiectum originalis peccati, sed solum anima. On the contrary, The same is the subject of a virtue and of the vice or sin contrary to that virtue. But the flesh cannot be the subject of virtue: for the Apostle says (Romans 7:18): "I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good." Therefore the flesh cannot be the subject of original sin, but only the soul.
q. 83 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid potest esse in aliquo dupliciter, uno modo, sicut in causa, vel principali vel instrumentali; alio modo, sicut in subiecto. Peccatum ergo originale omnium hominum fuit quidem in ipso Adam sicut in prima causa principali; secundum illud apostoli, Rom. V, in quo omnes peccaverunt. In semine autem corporali est peccatum originale sicut in causa instrumentali, eo quod per virtutem activam seminis traducitur peccatum originale in prolem, simul cum natura humana. Sed sicut in subiecto, peccatum originale nullo modo potest esse in carne, sed solum in anima. Cuius ratio est quia, sicut supra dictum est, hoc modo ex voluntate primi parentis peccatum originale traducitur in posteros per quandam generativam motionem, sicut a voluntate alicuius hominis derivatur peccatum actuale ad alias partes eius. In qua quidem derivatione hoc potest attendi, quod quidquid provenit ex motione voluntatis peccati ad quamcumque partem hominis quae quocumque modo potest esse particeps peccati, vel per modum subiecti vel per modum instrumenti, habet rationem culpae, sicut ex voluntate gulae provenit concupiscentia cibi ad concupiscibilem, et sumptio cibi ad manus et os, quae inquantum moventur a voluntate ad peccatum, sunt instrumenta peccati. Quod vero ulterius derivatur ad vim nutritivam et ad interiora membra, quae non sunt nata moveri a voluntate, non habet rationem culpae. Sic igitur, cum anima possit esse subiectum culpae, caro autem de se non habeat quod sit subiectum culpae; quidquid provenit de corruptione primi peccati ad animam, habet rationem culpae; quod autem provenit ad carnem, non habet rationem culpae, sed poenae. Sic igitur anima est subiectum peccati originalis, non autem caro. I answer that, One thing can be in another in two ways. First, as in its cause, either principal, or instrumental; secondly, as in its subject. Accordingly the original sin of all men was in Adam indeed, as in its principal cause, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 5:12): "In whom all have sinned": whereas it is in the bodily semen, as in its instrumental cause, since it is by the active power of the semen that original sin together with human nature is transmitted to the child. But original sin can nowise be in the flesh as its subject, but only in the soul. The reason for this is that, as stated above (Question 81, Article 1), original sin is transmitted from the will of our first parent to this posterity by a certain movement of generation, in the same way as actual sin is transmitted from any man's will to his other parts. Now in this transmission it is to be observed, that whatever accrues from the motion of the will consenting to sin, to any part of man that can in any way share in that guilt, either as its subject or as its instrument, has the character of sin. Thus from the will consenting to gluttony, concupiscence of food accrues to the concupiscible faculty, and partaking of food accrues to the hand and the mouth, which, in so far as they are moved by the will to sin, are the instruments of sin. But that further action is evoked in the nutritive power and the internal members, which have no natural aptitude for being moved by the will, does not bear the character of guilt. Accordingly, since the soul can be the subject of guilt, while the flesh, of itself, cannot be the subject of guilt; whatever accrues to the soul from the corruption of the first sin, has the character of guilt, while whatever accrues to the flesh, has the character, not of guilt but of punishment: so that, therefore, the soul is the subject of original sin, and not the flesh.
q. 83 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in libro Retract., apostolus loquitur ibi de homine iam redempto, qui liberatus est a culpa, sed subiacet poenae, ratione cuius peccatum dicitur habitare in carne. Unde ex hoc non sequitur quod caro sit subiectum culpae, sed solum poenae. Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Retract. i, 27) [Cf. QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 66, the Apostle is speaking, in that passage, of man already redeemed, who is delivered from guilt, but is still liable to punishment, by reason of which sin is stated to dwell "in the flesh." Consequently it follows that the flesh is the subject, not of guilt, but of punishment.
q. 83 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod peccatum originale causatur ex semine sicut ex causa instrumentali. Non autem oportet quod aliquid sit principalius in causa instrumentali quam in effectu, sed solum in causa principali. Et hoc modo peccatum originale potiori modo fuit in Adam, in quo fuit secundum rationem actualis peccati. Reply to Objection 2. Original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental cause. Now there is no need for anything to be more in the instrumental cause than in the effect; but only in the principal cause: and, in this way, original sin was in Adam more fully, since in him it had the nature of actual sin.
q. 83 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod anima huius hominis non fuit secundum seminalem rationem in Adam peccante sicut in principio effectivo, sed sicut in principio dispositivo, eo quod semen corporale, quod ex Adam traducitur, sua virtute non efficit animam rationalem, sed ad eam disponit. Reply to Objection 3. The soul of any individual man was in Adam, in respect of his seminal power, not indeed as in its effective principle, but as in a dispositive principle: because the bodily semen, which is transmitted from Adam, does not of its own power produce the rational soul, but disposes the matter for it.
q. 83 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod infectio originalis peccati nullo modo causatur a Deo, sed ex solo peccato primi parentis per carnalem generationem. Et ideo, cum creatio importet respectum animae ad solum Deum, non potest dici quod anima ex sua creatione inquinetur. Sed infusio importat respectum et ad Deum infundentem, et ad carnem cui infunditur anima. Et ideo, habito respectu ad Deum infundentem, non potest dici quod anima per infusionem maculetur; sed solum habito respectu ad corpus cui infunditur. Reply to Objection 4. The corruption of original sin is nowise caused by God, but by the sin alone of our first parent through carnal generation. And so, since creation implies a relation in the soul to God alone, it cannot be said that the soul is tainted through being created. On the other hand, infusion implies relation both to God infusing and to the flesh into which the soul is infused. And so, with regard to God infusing, it cannot be said that the soul is stained through being infused; but only with regard to the body into which it is infused.
q. 83 a. 1 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod bonum commune praefertur bono singulari. Unde Deus, secundum suam sapientiam, non praetermittit universalem ordinem rerum, qui est ut tali corpori talis anima infundatur, ut vitetur singularis infectio huius animae, praesertim cum natura animae hoc habeat, ut esse non incipiat nisi in corpore, ut in primo habitum est. Melius est autem ei sic esse secundum naturam, quam nullo modo esse, praesertim cum possit per gratiam damnationem evadere. Reply to Objection 5. The common good takes precedence of private good. Wherefore God, according to His wisdom, does not overlook the general order of things (which is that such a soul be infused into such a body), lest this soul contract a singular corruption: all the more that the nature of the soul demands that it should not exist prior to its infusion into the body, as stated in the I, 90, 4; I, 118, 3. And it is better for the soul to be thus, according to its nature, than not to be at all, especially since it can avoid damnation, by means of grace.
q. 83 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum originale non sit per prius in essentia animae quam in potentiis. Anima enim nata est esse subiectum peccati, quantum ad id quod potest a voluntate moveri. Sed anima non movetur a voluntate secundum suam essentiam, sed solum secundum potentias. Ergo peccatum originale non est in anima secundum suam essentiam, sed solum secundum potentias. Objection 1. It would seem that original sin is not in the essence of the soul rather than in the powers. For the soul is naturally apt to be the subject of sin, in respect of those parts which can be moved by the will. Now the soul is moved by the will, not as to its essence but only as to the powers. Therefore original sin is in the soul, not according to its essence, but only according to the powers.
q. 83 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccatum originale opponitur originali iustitiae. Sed originalis iustitia erat in aliqua potentia animae, quae est subiectum virtutis. Ergo et peccatum originale est magis in potentia animae quam in eius essentia. Objection 2. Further, original sin is opposed to original justice. Now original justice was in a power of the soul, because power is the subject of virtue. Therefore original sin also is in a power of the soul, rather than in its essence.
q. 83 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut a carne peccatum originale derivatur ad animam, ita ab essentia animae derivatur ad potentias. Sed peccatum originale magis est in anima quam in carne. Ergo etiam magis est in potentiis animae quam in essentia. Objection 3. Further, just as original sin is derived from the soul as from the flesh, so is it derived by the powers from the essence. But original sin is more in the soul than in the flesh. Therefore it is more in the powers than in the essence of the soul.
q. 83 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, peccatum originale dicitur esse concupiscentia, ut dictum est. Sed concupiscentia est in potentiis animae. Ergo et peccatum originale. Objection 4. Further, original sin is said to be concupiscence, as stated (82, 3). But concupiscence is in the powers of the soul. Therefore original sin is also.
q. 83 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod peccatum originale dicitur esse peccatum naturale, ut supra dictum est. Anima autem est forma et natura corporis secundum essentiam suam, et non secundum potentias, ut in primo habitum est. Ergo anima est subiectum originalis peccati principaliter secundum suam essentiam. On the contrary, Original sin is called the sin of nature, as stated above (Question 81, Article 1). Now the soul is the form and nature of the body, in respect of its essence and not in respect of its powers, as stated in the I, 76, 6. Therefore the soul is the subject of original sin chiefly in respect of its essence.
q. 83 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod illud animae est principaliter subiectum alicuius peccati, ad quod primo pertinet causa motiva illius peccati, sicut si causa motiva ad peccandum sit delectatio sensus, quae pertinet ad vim concupiscibilem sicut obiectum proprium eius, sequitur quod vis concupiscibilis sit proprium subiectum illius peccati. Manifestum est autem quod peccatum originale causatur per originem. Unde illud animae quod primo attingitur ab origine hominis, est primum subiectum originalis peccati. Attingit autem origo animam ut terminum generationis, secundum quod est forma corporis; quod quidem convenit ei secundum essentiam propriam, ut in primo habitum est. Unde anima secundum essentiam est primum subiectum originalis peccati. I answer that, The subject of a sin is chiefly that part of the soul to which the motive cause of that sin primarily pertains: thus if the motive cause of a sin is sensual pleasure, which regards the concupiscible power through being its proper object, it follows that the concupiscible power is the proper subject of that sin. Now it is evident that original sin is caused through our origin. Consequently that part of the soul which is first reached by man's origin, is the primary subject of original sin. Now the origin reaches the soul as the term of generation, according as it is the form of the body: and this belongs to the soul in respect of its essence, as was proved in the I, 76, 6. Therefore the soul, in respect of its essence, is the primary subject of original sin.
q. 83 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut motio voluntatis alicuius propriae pervenit ad potentias animae, non autem ad animae essentiam; ita motio voluntatis primi generantis, per viam generationis, pervenit primo ad animae essentiam, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. As the motion of the will of an individual reaches to the soul's powers and not to its essence, so the motion of the will of the first generator, through the channel of generation, reaches first of all to the essence of the soul, as stated.
q. 83 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod etiam originalis iustitia pertinebat primordialiter ad essentiam animae, erat enim donum divinitus datum humanae naturae, quam per prius respicit essentia animae quam potentiae. Potentiae enim magis videntur pertinere ad personam, inquantum sunt principia personalium actuum. Unde sunt propria subiecta peccatorum actualium, quae sunt peccata personalia. Reply to Objection 2. Even original justice pertained radically to the essence of the soul, because it was God's gift to human nature, to which the essence of the soul is related before the powers. For the powers seem to regard the person, in as much as they are the principles of personal acts. Hence they are the proper subjects of actual sins, which are the sins of the person.
q. 83 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod corpus comparatur ad animam sicut materia ad formam, quae etsi sit posterior ordine generationis, est tamen prior ordine perfectionis et naturae. Essentia autem animae comparatur ad potentias sicut subiecta ad accidentia propria, quae sunt posteriora subiecto et ordine generationis et etiam perfectionis. Unde non est similis ratio. Reply to Objection 3. The body is related to the soul as matter to form, which though it comes second in order of generation, nevertheless comes first in the order of perfection and nature. But the essence of the soul is related to the powers, as a subject to its proper accidents, which follow their subject both in the order of generation and in that of perfection. Consequently the comparison fails.
q. 83 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod concupiscentia se habet materialiter et ex consequenti in peccato originali, ut supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 4. Concupiscence, in relation to original sin, holds the position of matter and effect, as stated above (Question 82, Article 3).
q. 83 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum originale non per prius inficiat voluntatem quam alias potentias. Omne enim peccatum principaliter pertinet ad potentiam per cuius actum causatur. Sed peccatum originale causatur per actum generativae potentiae. Ergo inter ceteras potentias animae, videtur magis pertinere ad generativam potentiam. Objection 1. It would seem that original sin does not infect the will before the other powers. For every sin belongs chiefly to that power by whose act it was caused. Now original sin is caused by an act of the generative power. Therefore it seems to belong to the generative power more than to the others.
q. 83 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccatum originale per semen carnale traducitur. Sed aliae vires animae propinquiores sunt carni quam voluntas, sicut patet de omnibus sensitivis, quae utuntur organo corporali. Ergo in eis magis est peccatum originale quam in voluntate. Objection 2. Further, original sin is transmitted through the carnal semen. But the other powers of the soul are more akin to the flesh than the will is, as is evident with regard to all the sensitive powers, which use a bodily organ. Therefore original sin is in them more than in the will.
q. 83 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, intellectus est prior voluntate, non enim est voluntas nisi de bono intellecto. Si ergo peccatum originale inficit omnes potentias animae, videtur quod per prius inficiat intellectum, tanquam priorem. Objection 3. Further, the intellect precedes the will, for the object of the will is only the good understood. If therefore original sin infects all the powers of the soul, it seems that it must first of all infect the intellect, as preceding the others.
q. 83 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod iustitia originalis per prius respicit voluntatem, est enim rectitudo voluntatis, ut Anselmus dicit, in libro de conceptu virginali. Ergo et peccatum originale, quod ei opponitur, per prius respicit voluntatem. On the contrary, Original justice has a prior relation to the will, because it is "rectitude of the will," as Anselm states (De Concep. Virg. iii). Therefore original sin, which is opposed to it, also has a prior relation to the will.
q. 83 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in infectione peccati originalis duo est considerare. Primo quidem, inhaerentiam eius ad subiectum, et secundum hoc primo respicit essentiam animae, ut dictum est. Deinde oportet considerare inclinationem eius ad actum, et hoc modo respicit potentias animae. Oportet ergo quod illam per prius respiciat, quae primam inclinationem habet ad peccandum. Haec autem est voluntas, ut ex supradictis patet. Unde peccatum originale per prius respicit voluntatem. I answer that, Two things must be considered in the infection of original sin. First, its inherence to its subject; and in this respect it regards first the essence of the soul, as stated above (Article 2). In the second place we must consider its inclination to act; and in this way it regards the powers of the soul. It must therefore regard first of all that power in which is seated the first inclination to commit a sin, and this is the will, as stated above (74, A1,2). Therefore original sin regards first of all the will.
q. 83 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod peccatum originale non causatur in homine per potentiam generativam prolis, sed per actum potentiae generativae parentis. Unde non oportet quod sua potentia generativa sit primum subiectum originalis peccati. Reply to Objection 1. Original sin, in man, is not caused by the generative power of the child, but by the act of the parental generative power. Consequently, it does not follow that the child's generative power is the subject of original sin.
q. 83 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod peccatum originale habet duplicem processum, unum quidem a carne ad animam; alium vero ab essentia animae ad potentias. Primus quidem processus est secundum ordinem generationis, secundus autem secundum ordinem perfectionis. Et ideo quamvis aliae potentiae, scilicet sensitivae, propinquiores sint carni; quia tamen voluntas est propinquior essentiae animae, tanquam superior potentia, primo pervenit ad ipsam infectio originalis peccati. Reply to Objection 2. Original sin spreads in two ways; from the flesh to the soul, and from the essence of the soul to the powers. The former follows the order of generation, the latter follows the order of perfection. Therefore, although the other, viz. the sensitive powers, are more akin to the flesh, yet, since the will, being the higher power, is more akin to the essence of the soul, the infection of original sin reaches it first.
q. 83 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod intellectus quodam modo praecedit voluntatem, inquantum proponit ei suum obiectum. Alio vero modo voluntas praecedit intellectum, secundum ordinem motionis ad actum, quae quidem motio pertinet ad peccatum. Reply to Objection 3. The intellect precedes the will, in one way, by proposing its object to it. In another way, the will precedes the intellect, in the order of motion to act, which motion pertains to sin.
q. 83 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praedictae potentiae non sint magis infectae quam aliae. Infectio enim originalis peccati magis videtur pertinere ad illam animae partem quae prius potest esse subiectum peccati. Haec autem est rationalis pars, et praecipue voluntas. Ergo ipsa est magis infecta per peccatum originale. Objection 1. It would seem that the aforesaid powers are not more infected than the others. For the infection of original sin seems to pertain more to that part of the soul which can be first the subject of sin. Now this is the rational part, and chiefly the will. Therefore that power is most infected by original sin.
q. 83 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, nulla vis animae inficitur per culpam, nisi inquantum potest obedire rationi. Generativa autem non potest obedire, ut dicitur in I Ethic. Ergo generativa non est maxime infecta per originale peccatum. Objection 2. Further, no power of the soul is infected by guilt, except in so far as it can obey reason. Now the generative power cannot obey reason, as stated in Ethic. i, 13. Therefore the generative power is not the most infected by original sin.
q. 83 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, visus inter alios sensus est spiritualior et propinquior rationi, inquantum plures differentias rerum ostendit, ut dicitur in I Metaphys. Sed infectio culpae primo est in ratione. Ergo visus magis est infectus quam tactus. Objection 3. Further, of all the senses the sight is the most spiritual and the nearest to reason, in so far "as it shows us how a number of things differ" (Metaph. i). But the infection of guilt is first of all in the reason. Therefore the sight is more infected than touch.
q. 83 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in XIV de Civ. Dei, quod infectio originalis culpae maxime apparet in motu genitalium membrorum, qui rationi non subditur. Sed illa membra deserviunt generativae virtuti in commixtione sexuum, in qua est delectatio secundum tactum, quae maxime concupiscentiam movet. Ergo infectio originalis peccati maxime pertinet ad ista tria, scilicet potentiam generativam, vim concupiscibilem et sensum tactus. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 16, seqq., 24) that the infection of original sin is most apparent in the movements of the members of generation, which are not subject to reason. Now those members serve the generative power in the mingling of sexes, wherein there is the delectation of touch, which is the most powerful incentive to concupiscence. Therefore the infection of original sin regards these three chiefly, viz. the generative power, the concupiscible faculty and the sense of touch.
q. 83 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod illa corruptio praecipue infectio nominari solet, quae nata est in aliud transferri, unde et morbi contagiosi, sicut lepra et scabies et huiusmodi, infectiones dicuntur. Corruptio autem originalis peccati traducitur per actum generationis, sicut supra dictum est. Unde potentiae quae ad huiusmodi actum concurrunt, maxime dicuntur esse infectae. Huiusmodi autem actus deservit generativae, inquantum ad generationem ordinatur, habet autem in se delectationem tactus, quae est maximum obiectum concupiscibilis. Et ideo, cum omnes partes animae dicantur esse corruptae per peccatum originale, specialiter tres praedictae dicuntur esse corruptae et infectae. I answer that, Those corruptions especially are said to be infectious, which are of such a nature as to be transmitted from one subject to another: hence contagious diseases, such as leprosy and murrain and the like, are said to be infectious. Now the corruption of original sin is transmitted by the act of generation, as stated above (Question 81, Article 1). Therefore the powers which concur in this act, are chiefly said to be infected. Now this act serves the generative power, in as much as it is directed to generation; and it includes delectation of the touch, which is the most powerful object of the concupiscible faculty. Consequently, while all the parts of the soul are said to be corrupted by original sin, these three are said specially to be corrupted and infected.
q. 83 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod peccatum originale ex ea parte qua inclinat in peccata actualia, praecipue pertinet ad voluntatem, ut dictum est. Sed ex ea parte qua traducitur in prolem, pertinet propinque ad potentias praedictas, ad voluntatem autem remote. Reply to Objection 1. Original sin, in so far as it inclines to actual sins, belongs chiefly to the will, as stated above (Article 3). But in so far as it is transmitted to the offspring, it belongs to the aforesaid powers proximately, and to the will, remotely.
q. 83 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod infectio actualis culpae non pertinet nisi ad potentias quae moventur a voluntate peccantis. Sed infectio originalis culpae non derivatur a voluntate eius qui ipsam contrahit, sed per originem naturae, cui deservit potentia generativa. Et ideo in ea est infectio originalis peccati. Reply to Objection 2. The infection of actual sin belongs only to the powers which are moved by the will of the sinner. But the infection of original sin is not derived from the will of the contractor, but through his natural origin, which is effected by the generative power. Hence it is this power that is infected by original sin.
q. 83 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod visus non pertinet ad actum generationis nisi secundum dispositionem remotam, prout scilicet per visum apparet species concupiscibilis. Sed delectatio perficitur in tactu. Et ideo talis infectio magis attribuitur tactui quam visui. Reply to Objection 3. Sight is not related to the act of generation except in respect of remote disposition, in so far as the concupiscible species is seen through the sight. But the delectation is completed in the touch. Wherefore the aforesaid infection is ascribed to the touch rather than to the sight.
q. 84 pr. Deinde considerandum est de causa peccati secundum quod unum peccatum est causa alterius. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum cupiditas sit radix omnium peccatorum. Secundo, utrum superbia sit initium omnis peccati. Tertio, utrum praeter superbiam et avaritiam, debeant dici capitalia vitia aliqua specialia peccata. Quarto, quot et quae sint capitalia vitia. Question 84. The cause of sin, in respect of one sin being the cause of another Is covetousness the root of all sins? Is pride the beginning of every sin? Should other special sins be called capital vices, besides pride and covetousness? How many capital vices there are, and which are they?
q. 84 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod cupiditas non sit radix omnium peccatorum. Cupiditas enim, quae est immoderatus appetitus divitiarum, opponitur virtuti liberalitatis. Sed liberalitas non est radix omnium virtutum. Ergo cupiditas non est radix omnium peccatorum. Objection 1. It would seem that covetousness is not the root of all sins. For covetousness, which is immoderate desire for riches, is opposed to the virtue of liberality. But liberality is not the root of all virtues. Therefore covetousness is not the root of all sins.
q. 84 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, appetitus eorum quae sunt ad finem, procedit ex appetitu finis. Sed divitiae, quarum appetitus est cupiditas, non appetuntur nisi ut utiles ad aliquem finem, sicut dicitur in I Ethic. Ergo cupiditas non est radix omnis peccati, sed procedit ex alia priori radice. Objection 2. Further, the desire for the means proceeds from desire for the end. Now riches, the desire for which is called covetousness, are not desired except as being useful for some end, as stated in Ethic. i, 5. Therefore covetousness is not the root of all sins, but proceeds from some deeper root.
q. 84 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, frequenter invenitur quod avaritia, quae cupiditas nominatur, oritur ex aliis peccatis, puta cum quis appetit pecuniam propter ambitionem, vel ut satisfaciat gulae. Non ergo est radix omnium peccatorum. Objection 3. Further, it often happens that avarice, which is another name for covetousness, arises from other sins; as when a man desires money through ambition, or in order to sate his gluttony. Therefore it is not the root of all sins.
q. 84 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit apostolus, I ad Tim. ult., radix omnium malorum est cupiditas. On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Timothy 6:10): "The desire of money is the root of all evil."
q. 84 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod secundum quosdam cupiditas multipliciter dicitur. Uno modo, prout est appetitus inordinatus divitiarum. Et sic est speciale peccatum. Alio modo, secundum quod significat inordinatum appetitum cuiuscumque boni temporalis. Et sic est genus omnis peccati, nam in omni peccato est inordinata conversio ad commutabile bonum, ut dictum est. Tertio modo sumitur prout significat quandam inclinationem naturae corruptae ad bona corruptibilia inordinate appetenda. Et sic dicunt cupiditatem esse radicem omnium peccatorum, ad similitudinem radicis arboris, quae ex terra trahit alimentum, sic enim ex amore rerum temporalium omne peccatum procedit. Et haec quidem quamvis vera sint, non tamen videntur esse secundum intentionem apostoli, qui dixit cupiditatem esse radicem omnium peccatorum. Manifeste enim ibi loquitur contra eos qui, cum velint divites fieri, incidunt in tentationes et in laqueum Diaboli, eo quod radix omnium malorum est cupiditas, unde manifestum est quod loquitur de cupiditate secundum quod est appetitus inordinatus divitiarum. Et secundum hoc, dicendum est quod cupiditas, secundum quod est speciale peccatum, dicitur radix omnium peccatorum, ad similitudinem radicis arboris, quae alimentum praestat toti arbori. Videmus enim quod per divitias homo acquirit facultatem perpetrandi quodcumque peccatum, et adimplendi desiderium cuiuscumque peccati, eo quod ad habenda quaecumque temporalia bona, potest homo per pecuniam iuvari; secundum quod dicitur Eccle. X, pecuniae obediunt omnia. Et secundum hoc, patet quod cupiditas divitiarum est radix omnium peccatorum. I answer that, According to some, covetousness may be understood in different ways. First, as denoting inordinate desire for riches: and thus it is a special sin. Secondly, as denoting inordinate desire for any temporal good: and thus it is a genus comprising all sins, because every sin includes an inordinate turning to a mutable good, as stated above (Question 72, Article 2). Thirdly, as denoting an inclination of a corrupt nature to desire corruptible goods inordinately: and they say that in this sense covetousness is the root of all sins, comparing it to the root of a tree, which draws its sustenance from earth, just as every sin grows out of the love of temporal things. Now, though all this is true, it does not seem to explain the mind of the Apostle when he states that covetousness is the root of all sins. For in that passage he clearly speaks against those who, because they "will become rich, fall into temptation, and into the snare of the devil . . . for covetousness is the root of all evils." Hence it is evident that he is speaking of covetousness as denoting the inordinate desire for riches. Accordingly, we must say that covetousness, as denoting a special sin, is called the root of all sins, in likeness to the root of a tree, in furnishing sustenance to the whole tree. For we see that by riches man acquires the means of committing any sin whatever, and of sating his desire for any sin whatever, since money helps man to obtain all manner of temporal goods, according to Ecclesiastes 10:19: "All things obey money": so that in this desire for riches is the root of all sins.
q. 84 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non ab eodem oritur virtus et peccatum. Oritur enim peccatum ex appetitu commutabilis boni, et ideo appetitus illius boni quod iuvat ad consequenda omnia temporalia bona, radix peccatorum dicitur. Virtus autem oritur ex appetitu incommutabilis boni, et ideo caritas, quae est amor Dei, ponitur radix virtutum; secundum illud Ephes. III, in caritate radicati et fundati. Reply to Objection 1. Virtue and sin do not arise from the same source. For sin arises from the desire of mutable good; and consequently the desire of that good which helps one to obtain all temporal goods, is called the root of all sins. But virtue arises from the desire for the immutable God; and consequently charity, which is the love of God, is called the root of the virtues, according to Ephesians 3:17: "Rooted and founded in charity."
q. 84 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod appetitus pecuniarum dicitur esse radix peccatorum, non quia divitiae propter se quaerantur, tanquam ultimus finis, sed quia multum quaeruntur ut utiles ad omnem temporalem finem. Et quia universale bonum est appetibilius quam aliquod particulare bonum, ideo magis movent appetitum quam quaedam bona singularia, quae simul cum multis aliis per pecuniam haberi possunt. Reply to Objection 2. The desire of money is said to be the root of sins, not as though riches were sought for their own sake, as being the last end; but because they are much sought after as useful for any temporal end. And since a universal good is more desirable than a particular good, they move the appetite more than any individual goods, which along with many others can be procured by means of money.
q. 84 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut in rebus naturalibus non quaeritur quid semper fiat, sed quid in pluribus accidit, eo quod natura corruptibilium rerum impediri potest, ut non semper eodem modo operetur; ita etiam in moralibus consideratur quod ut in pluribus est, non autem quod est semper, eo quod voluntas non ex necessitate operatur. Non igitur dicitur avaritia radix omnis mali, quin interdum aliquod aliud malum sit radix eius, sed quia ex ipsa frequentius alia mala oriuntur, ratione praedicta. Reply to Objection 3. Just as in natural things we do not ask what always happens, but what happens most frequently, for the reason that the nature of corruptible things can be hindered, so as not always to act in the same way; so also in moral matters, we consider what happens in the majority of cases, not what happens invariably, for the reason that the will does not act of necessity. So when we say that covetousness is the root of all evils, we do not assert that no other evil can be its root, but that other evils more frequently arise therefrom, for the reason given.
q. 84 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod superbia non sit initium omnis peccati. Radix enim est quoddam principium arboris, et ita videtur idem esse radix peccati et initium peccati. Sed cupiditas est radix omnis peccati, ut dictum est. Ergo ipsa etiam est initium omnis peccati, non autem superbia. Objection 1. It would seem that pride is not the beginning of every sin. For the root is a beginning of a tree, so that the beginning of a sin seems to be the same as the root of sin. Now covetousness is the root of every sin, as stated above (Article 1). Therefore it is also the beginning of every sin, and not pride.
q. 84 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, Eccli. X dicitur, initium superbiae hominis apostatare a Deo. Sed apostasia a Deo est quoddam peccatum. Ergo aliquod peccatum est initium superbiae, et ipsa non est initium omnis peccati. Objection 2. Further, it is written (Sirach 10:14): "The beginning of the pride of man is apostasy [Douay: 'to fall off'] from God." But apostasy from God is a sin. Therefore another sin is the beginning of pride, so that the latter is not the beginning of every sin.
q. 84 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, illud videtur esse initium omnis peccati, quod facit omnia peccata. Sed hoc est inordinatus amor sui, qui facit civitatem Babylonis, ut Augustinus dicit, in XIV de Civ. Dei. Ergo amor sui est initium omnis peccati, non autem superbia. Objection 3. Further, the beginning of every sin would seem to be that which causes all sins. Now this is inordinate self-love, which, according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv), "builds up the city of Babylon." Therefore self-love and not pride, is the beginning of every sin.
q. 84 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccli. X, initium omnis peccati superbia. On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 10:15): "Pride is the beginning of all sin."
q. 84 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dicunt superbiam dici tripliciter. Uno modo, secundum quod superbia significat inordinatum appetitum propriae excellentiae. Et sic est speciale peccatum. Alio modo, secundum quod importat quendam actualem contemptum Dei, quantum ad hunc effectum qui est non subdi eius praecepto. Et sic dicunt quod est generale peccatum. Tertio modo, secundum quod importat quandam inclinationem ad huiusmodi contemptum, ex corruptione naturae. Et sic dicunt quod est initium omnis peccati. Et differt a cupiditate, quia cupiditas respicit peccatum ex parte conversionis ad bonum commutabile, ex quo peccatum quodammodo nutritur et fovetur, et propter hoc cupiditas dicitur radix, sed superbia respicit peccatum ex parte aversionis a Deo, cuius praecepto homo subdi recusat; et ideo vocatur initium, quia ex parte aversionis incipit ratio mali. Et haec quidem quamvis vera sint, tamen non sunt secundum intentionem sapientis, qui dixit, initium omnis peccati est superbia. Manifeste enim loquitur de superbia secundum quod est inordinatus appetitus propriae excellentiae, ut patet per hoc quod subdit, sedes ducum superborum destruxit Deus. Et de hac materia fere loquitur in toto capitulo. Et ideo dicendum est quod superbia, etiam secundum quod est speciale peccatum, est initium omnis peccati. Considerandum est enim quod in actibus voluntariis, cuiusmodi sunt peccata, duplex ordo invenitur, scilicet intentionis, et executionis. In primo quidem ordine, habet rationem principii finis, ut supra multoties dictum est. Finis autem in omnibus bonis temporalibus acquirendis, est ut homo per illa quandam perfectionem et excellentiam habeat. Et ideo ex hac parte superbia, quae est appetitus excellentiae, ponitur initium omnis peccati. Sed ex parte executionis, est primum id quod praebet opportunitatem adimplendi omnia desideria peccati, quod habet rationem radicis, scilicet divitiae. Et ideo ex hac parte avaritia ponitur esse radix omnium malorum, ut dictum est. I answer that, Some say pride is to be taken in three ways. First, as denoting inordinate desire to excel; and thus it is a special sin. Secondly, as denoting actual contempt of God, to the effect of not being subject to His commandment; and thus, they say, it is a generic sin. Thirdly, as denoting an inclination to this contempt, owing to the corruption of nature; and in this sense they say that it is the beginning of every sin, and that it differs from covetousness, because covetousness regards sin as turning towards the mutable good by which sin is, as it were, nourished and fostered, for which reason covetousness is called the "root"; whereas pride regards sin as turning away from God, to Whose commandment man refuses to be subject, for which reason it is called the "beginning," because the beginning of evil consists in turning away from God. Now though all this is true, nevertheless it does not explain the mind of the wise man who said (Sirach 10:15): "Pride is the beginning of all sin." For it is evident that he is speaking of pride as denoting inordinate desire to excel, as is clear from what follows (verse 17): "God hath overturned the thrones of proud princes"; indeed this is the point of nearly the whole chapter. We must therefore say that pride, even as denoting a special sin, is the beginning of every sin. For we must take note that, in voluntary actions, such as sins, there is a twofold order, of intention, and of execution. In the former order, the principle is the end, as we have stated many times before (1, 1, ad 1; 18, 7, ad 2; 15, 1, ad 2; 25, 2). Now man's end in acquiring all temporal goods is that, through their means, he may have some perfection and excellence. Therefore, from this point of view, pride, which is the desire to excel, is said to be the "beginning" of every sin. On the other hand, in the order of execution, the first place belongs to that which by furnishing the opportunity of fulfilling all desires of sin, has the character of a root, and such are riches; so that, from this point of view, covetousness is said to be the "root" of all evils, as stated above (Article 1).
q. 84 a. 2 ad 1 Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum. This suffices for the Reply to the First Objection.
q. 84 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod apostatare a Deo dicitur esse initium superbiae ex parte aversionis, ex hoc enim quod homo non vult subdi Deo, sequitur quod inordinate velit propriam excellentiam in rebus temporalibus. Et sic apostasia a Deo non sumitur ibi quasi speciale peccatum, sed magis ut quaedam conditio generalis omnis peccati, quae est aversio ab incommutabili bono. Vel potest dici quod apostatare a Deo dicitur esse initium superbiae, quia est prima superbiae species. Ad superbiam enim pertinet cuicumque superiori nolle subiici, et praecipue nolle subdi Deo; ex quo contingit quod homo supra seipsum indebite extollatur, quantum ad alias superbiae species. Reply to Objection 2. Apostasy from God is stated to be the beginning of pride, in so far as it denotes a turning away from God, because from the fact that man wishes not to be subject to God, it follows that he desires inordinately his own excellence in temporal things. Wherefore, in the passage quoted, apostasy from God does not denote the special sin, but rather that general condition of every sin, consisting in its turning away from God. It may also be said that apostasy from God is said to be the beginning of pride, because it is the first species of pride. For it is characteristic of pride to be unwilling to be subject to any superior, and especially to God; the result being that a man is unduly lifted up, in respect of the other species of pride.
q. 84 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in hoc homo se amat, quod sui excellentiam vult, idem enim est se amare quod sibi velle bonum. Unde ad idem pertinet quod ponatur initium omnis peccati superbia, vel amor proprius. Reply to Objection 3. In desiring to excel, man loves himself, for to love oneself is the same as to desire some good for oneself. Consequently it amounts to the same whether we reckon pride or self-love as the beginning of every evil.
q. 84 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod praeter superbiam et avaritiam, non sint quaedam alia peccata specialia quae dicantur capitalia. Ita enim se videtur habere caput ad animalia, sicut radix ad plantas, ut dicitur in II de anima, nam radices sunt ori similes. Si igitur cupiditas dicitur radix omnium malorum, videtur quod ipsa sola debeat dici vitium capitale, et nullum aliud peccatum. Objection 1. It would seem that no other special sins, besides pride and avarice, should be called capital. Because "the head seems to be to an animal, what the root is to a plant," as stated in De Anima ii, text. 38: for the roots are like a mouth. If therefore covetousness is called the "root of all evils," it seems that it alone, and no other sin, should be called a capital vice.
q. 84 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, caput habet quendam ordinem ad alia membra, inquantum a capite diffunditur quodammodo sensus et motus. Sed peccatum dicitur per privationem ordinis. Ergo peccatum non habet rationem capitis. Et ita non debent poni aliqua capitalia peccata. Objection 2. Further, the head bears a certain relation of order to the other members, in so far as sensation and movement follow from the head. But sin implies privation of order. Therefore sin has not the character of head: so that no sins should be called capital.
q. 84 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, capitalia crimina dicuntur quae capite plectuntur. Sed tali poena puniuntur quaedam peccata in singulis generibus. Ergo vitia capitalia non sunt aliqua determinata secundum speciem. Objection 3. Further, capital crimes are those which receive capital punishment. But every kind of sin comprises some that are punished thus. Therefore the capital sins are not certain specific sins.
q. 84 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius, XXXI Moral., enumerat quaedam specialia vitia, quae dicit esse capitalia. On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 17) enumerates certain special vices under the name of capital.
q. 84 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod capitale a capite dicitur. Caput autem proprie quidem est quoddam membrum animalis, quod est principium et directivum totius animalis. Unde metaphorice omne principium caput vocatur, et etiam homines qui alios dirigunt et gubernant, capita aliorum dicuntur. Dicitur ergo vitium capitale uno modo a capite proprie dicto, et secundum hoc, peccatum capitale dicitur peccatum quod capitis poena punitur. Sed sic nunc non intendimus de capitalibus peccatis, sed secundum quod alio modo dicitur peccatum capitale a capite prout metaphorice significat principium vel directivum aliorum. Et sic dicitur vitium capitale ex quo alia vitia oriuntur, et praecipue secundum originem causae finalis, quae est formalis origo, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo vitium capitale non solum est principium aliorum, sed etiam est directivum et quodammodo ductivum aliorum, semper enim ars vel habitus ad quem pertinet finis, principatur et imperat circa ea quae sunt ad finem. Unde Gregorius, XXXI Moral., huiusmodi vitia capitalia ducibus exercituum comparat. I answer that, The word capital is derived from "caput" [a head]. Now the head, properly speaking, is that part of an animal's body, which is the principle and director of the whole animal. Hence, metaphorically speaking, every principle is called a head, and even men who direct and govern others are called heads. Accordingly a capital vice is so called, in the first place, from "head" taken in the proper sense, and thus the name "capital" is given to a sin for which capital punishment is inflicted. It is not in this sense that we are now speaking of capital sins, but in another sense, in which the term "capital" is derived from head, taken metaphorically for a principle or director of others. In this way a capital vice is one from which other vices arise, chiefly by being their final cause, which origin is formal, as stated above (Question 72, Article 6). Wherefore a capital vice is not only the principle of others, but is also their director and, in a way, their leader: because the art or habit, to which the end belongs, is always the principle and the commander in matters concerning the means. Hence Gregory (Moral. xxxi, 17) compares these capital vices to the "leaders of an army."
q. 84 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod capitale dicitur denominative a capite, quod quidem est per quandam derivationem vel participationem capitis, sicut habens aliquam proprietatem capitis, non sicut simpliciter caput. Et ideo capitalia vitia dicuntur non solum illa quae habent rationem primae originis, sicut avaritia, quae dicitur radix, et superbia, quae dicitur initium, sed etiam illa quae habent rationem originis propinquae respectu plurium peccatorum. Reply to Objection 1. The term "capital" is taken from "caput" and applied to something connected with, or partaking of the head, as having some property thereof, but not as being the head taken literally. And therefore the capital vices are not only those which have the character of primary origin, as covetousness which is called the "root," and pride which is called the beginning, but also those which have the character of proximate origin in respect of several sins.
q. 84 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod peccatum caret ordine ex parte aversionis, ex hac enim parte habet rationem mali; malum autem, secundum Augustinum, in libro de natura boni, est privatio modi, speciei et ordinis. Sed ex parte conversionis, respicit quoddam bonum. Et ideo ex hac parte potest habere ordinem. Reply to Objection 2. Sin lacks order in so far as it turns away from God, for in this respect it is an evil, and evil, according to Augustine (De Natura Boni iv), is "the privation of mode, species and order." But in so far as sin implies a turning to something, it regards some good: wherefore, in this respect, there can be order in sin.
q. 84 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod illa ratio procedit de capitali peccato secundum quod dicitur a reatu poenae. Sic autem hic non loquimur. Reply to Objection 3. This objection considers capital sin as so called from the punishment it deserves, in which sense we are not taking it here.
q. 84 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit dicendum septem esse vitia capitalia, quae sunt inanis gloria, invidia, ira, tristitia, avaritia, gula, luxuria. Peccata enim virtutibus opponuntur. Virtutes autem principales sunt quatuor, ut supra dictum est. Ergo et vitia principalia, sive capitalia, non sunt nisi quatuor. Objection 1. It would seem that we ought not to reckon seven capital vices, viz. vainglory, envy, anger, sloth, covetousness, gluttony, lust. For sins are opposed to virtues. But there are four principal virtues, as stated above (Question 61, Article 2). Therefore there are only four principal or capital vices.
q. 84 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, passiones animae sunt quaedam causae peccati, ut supra dictum est. Sed passiones animae principales sunt quatuor. De quarum duabus nulla fit mentio inter praedicta peccata, scilicet de spe et timore. Enumerantur autem aliqua vitia ad quae pertinet delectatio et tristitia, nam delectatio pertinet ad gulam et luxuriam, tristitia vero ad acediam et invidiam. Ergo inconvenienter enumerantur principalia peccata. Objection 2. Further, the passions of the soul are causes of sin, as stated above (Question 77). But there are four principal passions of the soul; two of which, viz. hope and fear, are not mentioned among the above sins, whereas certain vices are mentioned to which pleasure and sadness belong, since pleasure belongs to gluttony and lust, and sadness to sloth and envy. Therefore the principal sins are unfittingly enumerated.
q. 84 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, ira non est principalis passio. Non ergo debuit poni inter principalia vitia. Objection 3. Further, anger is not a principal passion. Therefore it should not be placed among the principal vices.
q. 84 a. 4 arg. 4 Praeterea, sicut cupiditas, sive avaritia, est radix peccati, ita superbia est peccati initium, ut supra dictum est. Sed avaritia ponitur unum de septem vitiis capitalibus. Ergo superbia inter vitia capitalia enumeranda esset. Objection 4. Further, just as covetousness or avarice is the root of sin, so is pride the beginning of sin, as stated above (Question 84, Article 2). But avarice is reckoned to be one of the capital vices. Therefore pride also should be placed among the capital vices.
q. 84 a. 4 arg. 5 Praeterea, quaedam peccata committuntur quae ex nullo horum causari possunt, sicut cum aliquis errat ex ignorantia; vel cum aliquis ex aliqua bona intentione committit aliquod peccatum, puta cum aliquis furatur ut det eleemosynam. Ergo insufficienter capitalia vitia enumerantur. Objection 5. Further, some sins are committed which cannot be caused through any of these: as, for instance, when one sins through ignorance, or when one commits a sin with a good intention, e.g. steals in order to give an alms. Therefore the capital vices are insufficiently enumerated.
q. 84 a. 4 s. c. Sed in contrarium est auctoritas Gregorii sic enumerantis, XXXI Moralium. On the contrary, stands the authority of Gregory who enumerates them in this way (Moral. xxxi, 17).
q. 84 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, vitia capitalia dicuntur ex quibus alia oriuntur, praecipue secundum rationem causae finalis. Huiusmodi autem origo potest attendi dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, secundum conditionem peccantis, qui sic dispositus est ut maxime afficiatur ad unum finem, ex quo ut plurimum in alia peccata procedat. Sed iste modus originis sub arte cadere non potest, eo quod infinitae sunt particulares hominum dispositiones. Alio modo, secundum naturalem habitudinem ipsorum finium ad invicem. Et secundum hoc, ut in pluribus unum vitium ex alio oritur. Unde iste modus originis sub arte cadere potest. Secundum hoc ergo, illa vitia capitalia dicuntur, quorum fines habent quasdam primarias rationes movendi appetitum, et secundum harum rationum distinctionem, distinguuntur capitalia vitia. Movet autem aliquid appetitum dupliciter. Uno modo, directe et per se, et hoc modo bonum movet appetitum ad prosequendum, malum autem, secundum eandem rationem, ad fugiendum. Alio modo, indirecte et quasi per aliud, sicut aliquis aliquod malum prosequitur propter aliquod bonum adiunctum, vel aliquod bonum fugit propter aliquod malum adiunctum. Bonum autem hominis est triplex. Est enim primo quoddam bonum animae, quod scilicet ex sola apprehensione rationem appetibilitatis habet, scilicet excellentia laudis vel honoris, et hoc bonum inordinate prosequitur inanis gloria. Aliud est bonum corporis, et hoc vel pertinet ad conservationem individui, sicut cibus et potus, et hoc bonum inordinate prosequitur gula; aut ad conservationem speciei, sicut coitus, et ad hoc ordinatur luxuria. Tertium bonum est exterius, scilicet divitiae, et ad hoc ordinatur avaritia. Et eadem quatuor vitia inordinate fugiunt mala contraria. Vel aliter, bonum praecipue movet appetitum ex hoc quod participat aliquid de proprietate felicitatis, quam naturaliter omnes appetunt. De cuius ratione est quidem primo quaedam perfectio, nam felicitas est perfectum bonum, ad quod pertinet excellentia vel claritas, quam appetit superbia vel inanis gloria. Secundo de ratione eius est sufficientia, quam appetit avaritia in divitiis eam promittentibus. Tertio est de conditione eius delectatio, sine qua felicitas esse non potest, ut dicitur in I et X Ethic., et hanc appetunt gula et luxuria. Quod autem aliquis bonum fugiat propter aliquod malum coniunctum, hoc contingit dupliciter. Quia aut hoc est respectu boni proprii, et sic est acedia, quae tristatur de bono spirituali, propter laborem corporalem adiunctum. Aut est de bono alieno, et hoc, si sit sine insurrectione, pertinet ad invidiam, quae tristatur de bono alieno, inquantum est impeditivum propriae excellentiae; aut est cum quadam insurrectione ad vindictam, et sic est ira. Et ad eadem etiam vitia pertinet prosecutio mali oppositi. I answer that, As stated above (Question 84, Article 3), the capital vices are those which give rise to others, especially by way of final cause. Now this kind of origin may take place in two ways. First, on account of the condition of the sinner, who is disposed so as to have a strong inclination for one particular end, the result being that he frequently goes forward to other sins. But this kind of origin does not come under the consideration of art, because man's particular dispositions are infinite in number. Secondly, on account of a natural relationship of the ends to one another: and it is in this way that most frequently one vice arises from another, so that this kind of origin can come under the consideration of art. Accordingly therefore, those vices are called capital, whose ends have certain fundamental reasons for moving the appetite; and it is in respect of these fundamental reasons that the capital vices are differentiated. Now a thing moves the appetite in two ways. First, directly and of its very nature: thus good moves the appetite to seek it, while evil, for the same reason, moves the appetite to avoid it. Secondly, indirectly and on account of something else, as it were: thus one seeks an evil on account of some attendant good, or avoids a good on account of some attendant evil. Again, man's good is threefold. For, in the first place, there is a certain good of the soul, which derives its aspect of appetibility, merely through being apprehended, viz. the excellence of honor and praise, and this good is sought inordinately by "vainglory." Secondly, there is the good of the body, and this regards either the preservation of the individual, e.g. meat and drink, which good is pursued inordinately by "gluttony," or the preservation of the species, e.g. sexual intercourse, which good is sought inordinately by "lust." Thirdly, there is external good, viz. riches, to which "covetousness" is referred. These same four vices avoid inordinately the contrary evils. Or again, good moves the appetite chiefly through possessing some property of happiness, which all men seek naturally. Now in the first place happiness implies perfection, since happiness is a perfect good, to which belongs excellence or renown, which is desired by "pride" or "vainglory." Secondly, it implies satiety, which "covetousness" seeks in riches that give promise thereof. Thirdly, it implies pleasure, without which happiness is impossible, as stated in Ethic. i, 7; x, 6,7,[8] and this "gluttony" and "lust" pursue. On the other hand, avoidance of good on account of an attendant evil occurs in two ways. For this happens either in respect of one's own good, and thus we have "sloth," which is sadness about one's spiritual good, on account of the attendant bodily labor: or else it happens in respect of another's good, and this, if it be without recrimination, belongs to "envy," which is sadness about another's good as being a hindrance to one's own excellence, while if it be with recrimination with a view to vengeance, it is "anger." Again, these same vices seek the contrary evils.
q. 84 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non est eadem ratio originis in virtutibus et vitiis, nam virtutes causantur per ordinem appetitus ad rationem, vel etiam ad bonum incommutabile, quod est Deus; vitia autem oriuntur ex appetitu boni commutabilis. Unde non oportet quod principalia vitia opponantur principalibus virtutibus. Reply to Objection 1. Virtue and vice do not originate in the same way: since virtue is caused by the subordination of the appetite to reason, or to the immutable good, which is God, whereas vice arises from the appetite for mutable good. Wherefore there is no need for the principal vices to be contrary to the principal virtues.
q. 84 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod timor et spes sunt passiones irascibilis. Omnes autem passiones irascibilis oriuntur ex passionibus concupiscibilis, quae etiam omnes ordinantur quodammodo ad delectationem et tristitiam. Et ideo delectatio et tristitia principaliter connumerantur in peccatis capitalibus, tanquam principalissimae passiones, ut supra habitum est. Reply to Objection 2. Fear and hope are irascible passions. Now all the passions of the irascible part arise from passions of the concupiscible part; and these are all, in a way, directed to pleasure or sorrow. Hence pleasure and sorrow have a prominent place among the capital sins, as being the most important of the passions, as stated above (Question 25, Article 4).
q. 84 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ira, licet non sit principalis passio, quia tamen habet specialem rationem appetitivi motus, prout aliquis impugnat bonum alterius sub ratione honesti, idest iusti vindicativi; ideo distinguitur ab aliis capitalibus vitiis. Reply to Objection 3. Although anger is not a principal passion, yet it has a distinct place among the capital vices, because it implies a special kind of movement in the appetite, in so far as recrimination against another's good has the aspect of a virtuous good, i.e. of the right to vengeance.
q. 84 a. 4 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod superbia dicitur esse initium omnis peccati secundum rationem finis, ut dictum est. Et secundum eandem rationem accipitur principalitas vitiorum capitalium. Et ideo superbia, quasi universale vitium, non connumeratur, sed magis ponitur velut regina quaedam omnium vitiorum, sicut Gregorius dicit. Avaritia autem dicitur radix secundum aliam rationem, sicut supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 4. Pride is said to be the beginning of every sin, in the order of the end, as stated above (Question 84, Article 2): and it is in the same order that we are to consider the capital sin as being principal. Wherefore pride, like a universal vice, is not counted along with the others, but is reckoned as the "queen of them all," as Gregory states (Moral. xxxi, 27). But covetousness is said to be the root from another point of view, as stated above (Question 84, Article 1, Question 84, Article 2).
q. 84 a. 4 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod ista vitia dicuntur capitalia, quia ex eis ut frequentius alia oriuntur. Unde nihil prohibet aliqua peccata interdum ex aliis causis oriri. Potest tamen dici quod omnia peccata quae ex ignorantia proveniunt, possunt reduci ad acediam, ad quam pertinet negligentia qua aliquis recusat bona spiritualia acquirere propter laborem, ignorantia enim quae potest esse causa peccati, ex negligentia provenit, ut supra dictum est. Quod autem aliquis committat aliquod peccatum ex bona intentione, videtur ad ignorantiam pertinere, inquantum scilicet ignorat quod non sunt facienda mala ut veniant bona. Reply to Objection 5. These vices are called capital because others, most frequently, arise from them: so that nothing prevents some sins from arising out of other causes. Nevertheless we might say that all the sins which are due to ignorance, can be reduced to sloth, to which pertains the negligence of a man who declines to acquire spiritual goods on account of the attendant labor; for the ignorance that can cause sin, is due to negligence, as stated above (Question 76, Article 2). That a man commit a sin with a good intention, seems to point to ignorance, in so far as he knows not that evil should not be done that good may come of it.




THE LOGIC MUSEUM II