Prima Secundae
191. Aquinas: The devil as cause of sin, how original sin is passed on, and why only Adam's first sin is inherited (Summa I-II, q. 80 a. 4; q. 81 aa. 1-2)
Class of 2014-12-11
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/191-aquinas-the-devil-as-cause-of-sin-how-original-sin-is-passed/

[0:00] the Son, the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. God, our enlightenment. guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds. Ordinary images can't be as bad as he is, no matter how you try. He's got the he's got the first place there in that. Moreover, whoever sins mortally becomes a slave of the devil, according to that of John chapter eight, verse thirty-four.

[0:38] Who does sin becomes a slave of sin, and to that someone is what addicted to servitude by whom he has been what overcome, as is said in the second epistle of Peter chapter two. Therefore, whoever does sin has been overcome by the what devil.

[1:15] Those premises don't seem to be leading to that conclusion, do they? Anyway, moreover, Gregory says that the sin of the devil is irreparable because he fell with no one what suggesting.

[1:34] If therefore some men sin through free will with no one suggestion, their sin would be irremedial, which is clearly false. Therefore, all human sins are suggested by the devil. Interesting argument. But against this is what is said in the book on ecclesiastical dogmas, huh? For not all of our thoughts, our bad thoughts, are excited by the devil, but sometimes they emerge, huh? From the motion of our own what free will, huh?

[2:12] Judgment. So he had some kind of Denziger there. Thomas, refers to this book on the ecclesiastical dogma. I'd never seen the work itself though.

[2:30] My footnote here has a reference to Gennadius of Massilia circa 494. So let's go back a long way. Okay. Answer should be said that occasionally, right? That's like per accidens in a sense, and indirectly, the devil is the cause of all our sins, in so far as he induced the first man to sinning. From whose sin so much has vitiated human nature, that all of us are what inclined to sinning.

[3:10] Just as he is said to be the cause of the combustion of the wood, who dries out the wood, from which it follows that it is easily kindled. Yeah.

[3:26] But directly he is not the cause of all human sins, in sense that he what persuades each sinner. Which origin proves from this that even if the devil were not, man would have the desire of food and venereal things and such things, which could be disordered unless they were what ordered by reason.

[3:56] To which what which is subject to free will that reason orders these things. Look before and after right now. So the first it should be said then that the multitude of demons, as far as Dionysius is talking, is a cause of all our evils according to their first what origin. That's where all the trouble began.

[4:25] To second should be said that not only does one become the servant as the one, who overcomes him I guess Yeah, By whom he's overcome, but also the one that he voluntarily subjects himself to. That should become a servant of a slave of the woman, right?

[4:44] And in this way he becomes the servant of the devil who sins from his own what motion. To third it should be said that the sin of the devil was irremediable because he sinned no one suggesting, right? Nor did he have any proneness to sinning caused by some what preceding suggestion, which cannot be said of any what cannot be said. of yeah, can't be said of any sin of man, right? Let the devil off a little bit there, just a little bit off.

[5:35] Now we turn to question eighty-one. Then we're not to consider about the cause of sin on the side of man, right? Since man is a cause of sin to another man by suggesting in an outward way, just as the devil, right? Since he's like the devil,

[5:59] I was noticing a dialectical place there, and not the last one, the one before that, the little newsletter you send out. Well, the guy, the man argued was that if

[6:16] the devil tempted even Christ, then he would tempt us, right? And the way I understood that was that the devil doesn't like to tempt someone who doesn't follow his suggestion, right? Doesn't like to be overcome in that sense, right? So if he would try to what seduce Christ or to tempt Christ to turn the stones into bread and come down from the cross and so on, right?

[6:47] Then, of course, we were much more susceptible to his suggestions, right? He would do that, right? Well, that's kind of like what's dialectical place there, huh? But the predicate is more apt to belong to one subject than another, and in fact, it belongs to the lesser one than more so to the what other one, right? So if the devil was more apt to tempt us than Christ, but in fact he does tempt Christ, right?

[7:17] Then it's probable he would tempt us, right? So using a dialectical place there, right? I don't know who thought that dialectical place up. I got used to it, but it's a good one, huh?

[7:33] Okay. Since then, man is the cause of sin to another man by outwardly suggesting, huh? What Shakespeare says, sweet suggesting love, just as the devil, huh, has a special way of causing sin. Oh, okay. As a devil, by suggesting, surely he has a special way of causing sin another by what origin, origin huh? Whence one ought to speak about original sin, right? So why is it called original sin?

[8:16] Because it's original sin, the first sin, or is it because it's a sin that we contract by our origin from Adam? Maybe both. Maybe both.

[8:34] About which three things occur to be considered: first, about its being carried over, right? Huh? It's transmission. Secondly, about its very nature, essence, huh? And third, about the subject and of it and what it is. So this first question is about the transfer of it. About the first one, asks five things.

[9:04] First, whether the first sin of man is derived by origin in his posterity, right? Second, whether all the other sins of the first parent are also of our other parents, huh? Are derived by origin and posterity, huh? In which case, the human race would be getting progressively worse as we go on, huh?

[9:30] Yeah, yeah. Third, whether original sin is derived to all who are generated from Adam by way of his seed, right? Fourth, whether it would be derived to those who were formed miraculously from some part of the human body, if God should do like He did with Eve, right? Huh?

[10:04] And then fifth, whether if the woman had what sinned, but the man not sinning, huh? Would original sin be introduced? When I was young, there, there, Nativity Parish, there in Saint Paul, Minnesota, we were a big shot parish there, you know, big impressive parish. So we had the auxiliary bishop there, huh? And he resided there. I remember the ladies asking him one time, putting him down on this question, right?

[10:34] If Adam had not agreed to eat the apple and so on with Eve, would we have contracted original sin? He said, no, we had none of it. You know, this is what Thomas Cranmer saying in this article. I remember the bishop, you know, answering it there, you know, because kind of, you know, the old men and women who fight, you know, huh? So it's really man is responsible for this in some sense, you know, even though woman, you know, tempted him, right?

[10:58] I mean, she, she, he blames her, and she blames the the seed of the serpent and so on. Yeah. It's very saintly man that bishop and sort of funny you know and he's giving out communion and there'd be another priest giving out communion and all the ladies are rushing over to receive communion from the bishop like it's it's better than waiting to see the bishop than just the mere priest over there you know because they're so holy you know and so on.

[11:32] I remember when I was a kid we were staying somewhere on vacation and there happened to be a bishop staying there on vacation. We had one thing for somebody who was with us and they go fishing during the day. Yeah. Came back in the evening and I met a priest and he said and I we was in Ireland and we went to Knock that day and I got a new rosary and I'm showing the priest and he said bless I was a little guy can you bless my rosary?

[11:55] Wouldn't you want the bishop to bless him? Is it any better? It's better that way. Other time used to get usually in a week or so in July there we get some really atrocious weather right get really hot you know and then Minnesota was kind of sticky and it wasn't just hot like you know hot dry hot but it was wet hot and really really was people are really uncomfortable you know the bishop was saying that's because of our sins that we're getting this weather the same bishop was saying that to us in the pulpit.

[12:48] The first one goes forward thus, it seems that the first sin of the first parent are not what transferred to others by origin right huh? For it says in the prophet Ezekiel chapter eighteen the son does not carry the what iniquity of the father huh? But he would carry it if he contracted it from his what if he contracted iniquity from him right? Therefore no one draws from any of his parents by origin some what sin.

[13:26] That's really interesting argument now. Moreover an accident, huh, is distinguished from a substance is not what transferred by origin right unless the subject is transferred. And an accident does not go from one subject to another subject. But the rational soul which is a subject of guilt is not what or yeah even Aristotle saw this right in the book on the generation of animals right. Therefore neither is what any guilt, huh?

[14:04] able to be carried over through origin huh? Moreover everything that is carried over through human origin is caused from the seed huh? But the seed is not able to cause sin, in that it lacks the rational part of the soul, which alone can be the cause of sin. And therefore, no sin can be what passed on through origin.

[14:38] Moreover, what is more perfect in nature is more what powerful to acting. But perfect flesh cannot what infect the soul united to it. Otherwise, the soul could not be what purified while it is united to flesh, right? Therefore, much less can seed infect the what soul.

[15:10] Moreover, the philosopher himself says in the third book of the ethics that an account of nature, right, huh? Nothing ugly or filthy or something. Yeah, it's criticized for being that way, huh? But to those who are so, on account of negligence and neglect or something, huh? Laziness.

[15:33] Those, are however said to be by nature what? Evil, ugly, who have what? Turpitude from their origin. Therefore, nothing that is by origin is what to be criticized, huh? In order to be a sin, huh?

[15:55] So, can you be criticized for having leprosy from your parents or something? Or Ebola or something else from your parents? Yeah. Against this is what the apostle says, huh? In Romans chapter five, that to one man, huh, sin came into this world, huh? It's going to get a lot of ribbons next week. I think Adam Ray. What you think?

[16:26] Thanks. Billions and billions of people coming by. Thanks. Going to be more, more, more, more embarrassing than than than Peter's denial, right? Can't blame Adam. Which cannot be understood to be by way of imitation, right? On account of what is said in chapter two of Book of Wisdom, That that by the envy of the devil, death came into the what world, huh? It means, therefore, that the origin from the first man sin came into the world, huh?

[17:30] Thomas answers this by way of faith here, huh? I answer it should be said that according to the Catholic faith, huh, it should be held, huh, that the first sin of the first what man is transferred by origin to his what posterity, huh? Those who come after. On account of which, also boys, right? Soon, soon as born, right, huh? Are carried to what baptism, right, huh? As it were to be washed away from some infection of what guilt, huh?

[18:13] And the contrary is of the heresy of the Pelagians, huh? Do the Protestants follow that? I wonder or not. Pelagians. Yeah. I said contrary to this is the heresy of the Pelagians, as is clear, to, Augustine in his many books written against them.

[18:48] My cousin Don used to have their volumen of Augustine's works there, you know, and I'd go to the house there, and I'd always be reading these things on Pelagians and on grace in general, and necessity of grace, the good works too. Augustine has a lot of little works on that, huh?

[19:11] But to investigate in what way the sin of the first parent was is able to be what passed on to posterity through origin, huh? They proceeded in what diverse people proceeded in diverse ways, huh?

[19:34] For some, considering that the subject of sin is the rational soul, right, huh? They laid down that with the seed, the rational soul is what passed on, huh?

[19:49] So that from the what infected soul, right, huh? There seemed to be infected what souls derived, huh? Others repudiating this as erroneous, right, as being mistaken, attempted to show in what way the guilt of the first parents was what passed on to the offspring, even if the soul was not what passed on. So I didn't get. So the dog gets his soul from his parents, right? I don't get my soul from my parents, huh?

[20:32] So I thank my God for creating my soul, right? Thank God for giving me my body through my parents, but not for giving me my soul through my parents, huh? So he gave me the body that he put the soul in.

[20:57] So some repudiating this as erroneous, huh? Attempt to show in what way the guilt of the soul of the parents is carried over to the children offspring, even if the soul was not what passed on, huh? Through this, that the defects of the body are passed over by the parents to the what offspring, just as if a leper generates, say, what leper, right, huh? And a what?

[21:25] What's that? A gouty Yeah, it comes from podagra It means foot, right? Huh? You know, word pedestrian. Huh? Must be from the Greek. Huh? On account of some corruption of the seed, huh? Although such corruption is not called what? Leprosy or. gout. Since, however, the body is proportioned to the soul, and the defect of the soul redounds passes over into the body in a converso. In a similar way, they say that the guilty defect of the soul is derived by what being passed over by the passing over the seed to the what child, although the seed is not actually the subject of what guilt.

[22:21] Now, what you going to say here? But all these ways are insufficient, right? Huh? Because, given that some bodily defects are transferred from the parent, right, to the offspring by origin, and also some defects of the soul, right, consequently, right, huh? On account of the body being indisposed, right, to serve the soul, just as sometimes from the foolish, the foolish are what generated, huh? We

[23:01] won't give any examples of that. Huh? Nevertheless, this very thing that from what origin one has some defect would seem to what exclude the notion of what guilt, huh?

[23:21] Of reason of which, or the definition of which, is that it be something what voluntary, huh? Whence also it being posited, huh, that the rational soul was passed on, right, huh? From this, that the infection of the soul of the offspring was not in his will, it would lose the notion of guilt, obligating one to some kind of what punishment, huh?

[23:54] Because as the philosopher says in the third book of the ethics, no one is criticized for being born blind, right? But more, one feels mercy and sorrow for him, right?

[24:10] So, how I get to proceed here? And you know, got a what thing we say? Huh? More quick thing to the angel. Rouses to consider more correctly. So Thomas is Thomas's guardian angel. There is, you know, rousing him to consider more correctly, right? And therefore, by another way, one ought to proceed, saying that all men who are born from Adam, right, can be considered as what, One man, insofar as they agree in what nature, which they get from their first parent.

[24:49] According as in civil things, all who are one community are regarded as were one body, And the whole. Community as one man. Porphyry says that he says he often quotes this. By the participation of species, many men are what one man.

[25:17] Thus, therefore, many men derived from Adam are, as it were, many members of what one body. Now, the act of one member of the body, for example, the hand, is not voluntary by the will of the what hand itself, but by the will of the soul, which first moves the what members. Whence the homicide that the hand commits is not imputed to the hand for as a sin.

[25:54] If one considers the hand by itself as divided from the what body, but it's imputed to it in so far as it is something of the man who is moved by the first moving principle of man, his will. Thus, therefore, the disorder which is in this man, generated from Adam, is not voluntary by the will of himself, but by the will of his first what parent, who moves by the motion of generation all who are derived from his origin.

[26:34] Just as the will of the soul moves all the members to act. We come back to this when he says, you know, because in Aristotle, of course, the man is supposed to be the active principle and the white woman just the passive, right? Let's come on again. Whence the sin which is thus what derived from the first parent in his posterity is said to be original. Just as a sin that is from the soul is derived to the members of the body is called what actual, right?

[27:16] And just as the actual sin which is committed through the what member or part of the body is not a sin of that member, except in so far as that member is something of the what man himself, on account of which it is called a human what sin. So the original sin is not the sin of this person, except in so far as this person receives nature from his first what parent.

[27:47] Whence it is called a sin of what nature, according to that of Ephesians chapter two. We were by nature the sons of anger. Now this is a tough doctrine. Who can accept this, right? But that's the way Thomas explains it, huh?

[28:10] And agrees with the way the way Scripture speaks of it, huh? So he's saying what? What's the proportion there, right? Huh? He's saying that Adam is to us a little bit like what my will is to my hand, right? So when I strike you in anger, right, I shouldn't, you know, or try to kill you or something, you know. Let's see. My hand is committing a sin there, right?

[28:38] Insofar as it's moved by my what will, right? Huh? In the case of original sin, it's insofar as I'm moved by what Adam, right? Huh? Somewhere, is my active what source, huh? I was thinking of this just the other day. Somebody asked me about this, and one way I was trying to think about it without having to read this, of course. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I thought it's kind of like maybe a comparison, maybe not.

[29:14] Is when your elected official does something, you know, and say he's representing all of us. So what he does, you could say, well, they elected him. We didn't elect Adam, but what he does is he's acting in our name. Yeah, when the president declares war in some country, the the you know say don't say the president declared war; they say the United States declares war, right? That's the headlines will say, right?

[29:38] Then. So that he's acting in in the name of all the people. Yeah. I guess you could say he's juridically he's representing all the people who elected him. We didn't elect Adam, so the other way around, but but but it's kind of this representative. He's juridically acting in our name. Yeah. So it's he's just not the first in the series or something. He's more than the first in the series.

[30:00] I mean, yeah, he's like an all man's at work. He's something. Represents the whole nation. And that's what, as far as I understand, that's what theologians will say too. That he had knowledge that he was acting that way. He he didn't just. Oh, you mean oh, my kids are gonna oh no! No, if I had known that, I wouldn't have done it. No, he would have been selfish.

[30:33] Nevertheless, original sin is a sin in a different sense than mortal or venial sin. These actual sins, right? It's not it's not an equivocal original sin, right? Huh? I'm sure people have a hard time understanding this thought, right? Huh? Yeah. Hmm.

[30:58] To the first, therefore, it should be said, and that the first objection that was interesting from Ezekiel. To the first, therefore, it should be said, that the son is said to not carry the sin of the father, because he is not punished for the sin of the father, unless he be partaking of the what, the guilt, huh? And thus it is in the thing proposed, huh?

[31:26] For it is derived by origin guilt from the father to the son, just as actual sin is derived by what imitation, right? This is not by imitation. This is by origin.

[31:42] So you partake of the guilt of him, huh? But by nature, huh? To second, it should be said, that although the soul is not what, passed on, right? Because the power of the seed, is not able to cause the rational soul, but it moves nevertheless to what, the disposition, huh, for it. Whence through the power of the seed, is what, passed over human nature, from the parent to the offspring, and together with the nature, the infection of the what nature.

[32:32] So human nature, with this, you know, original justice as a gift, right, free gift of God, was given to Adam to be passed over with the nature to all his offspring, right? And so when he lost that, right, huh? Then he passed over the nature without that gift of original justice, huh? And that's why I'm so disordered, right? You too.

[33:04] Merry Christmas to you too. That's the problem, though, is the original sin is an is an irrational soul, and that doesn't come from Adam, that comes from God. Yeah. Don't have a problem. Well, human nature though involves the body as well as the soul, right, huh? So if we're talking about kind of privation, yeah, a privation that you locate in the rational part of man, the rational soul, then we see the privation is not coming.

[33:37] Well, we'll see when we get into the other question of what the subject of original sin is, right? But you can say that our nature is only passed on through what, our parents, right? Because God doesn't create the soul unless our body is there, right? So the the body is part of our nature, right? So our nature is receiving our nature without that original gift, huh?

[34:05] Yeah. But but you know you get the you get the appearance of how how much human nature is united, huh? We are united by having the the same nature, huh?

[34:19] Having all these you know kind of marches and riots now, you know, and it's kind of funny today. You know they're hurrying signs saying, I've seen them on TV and so on. Black lives matter. That's the slogan they have, right? Black I'm sorry Black lives matter, right? See, okay. And so anyway, the president was at Smith College, I guess, right? She was writing some kind of public letter to her students, you know, kind of thing, and she happened to say in there that all lives matter, right?

[34:54] Well, she got all kinds of revolt because of saying all lives matter, right? Oh my God? Because, because this was detracting from, you know, the slogan that Black Lives Matter, right? And you want to even set the fact that Black lives matter, you know? And so you say all lives matter, you're you're kind of diminishing the fact that black matters. So she had to write. she had to apologize to her students for writing that all lives matter.

[35:26] I'm sorry. Some of you matter. some of you don't. I'm surprised that she would say that anyway, because then you would have to say the unborn. matter. Yeah, I mean, she should say at least all lives matter, but especially Black lives matter.

[35:41] All lives matter, but some lives matter more. than others. This is, but this goes back to what he said: that foolish men generate foolish children. Yeah. I think so. Her parents had the problem. Mm-hmm. Foolish teachers generate foolish students. Yeah. Amen.

[36:20] Whence to the power of the seed going ad secundum there? Human nature is what passed over from the parent to the child, and together with nature, the what infection of nature, right? From which it comes about that the one who is born, right, is a consort, right, of the guilt of the first parent. That nature, right, from him, because the fact that he gets his nature from him, right, through the generative what motion, right?

[36:54] Essentially, you know, by this analogy, right, that the hand partakes of the what act of the will, right? But here it's not the will, but the but nature. It's called a peccatum nature. We were by nature the sons of anger, as Saint Paul says. It's called a peccatum naturae. To the third, it should be said that though guilt is not an act in the seed, is nevertheless there by virtue what in virtue by human nature, which such guilt what follows, huh?

[37:42] To the fourth, it should be said that the seed is a beginning source of generation, right, which is a proper act of nature, serving for its what propagation, and therefore the soul is more infected by seed. Than by flesh already what perfected, which is now already determined to what one person.

[38:12] To the fifth, it should be said, huh? You can see our style here now, that that which is by origin is not what. If it be considered who is what one who is born as such or by himself, right, but if it is considered in so far as it refers to some beginning, then is able to be what. Yeah.

[38:42] Just as someone who is born, right, suffers the ignominy of the genus from the guilt of whose what. Forebears. He is caused, right. So if you were born of Hitler, you would suffer from some kind of guilt there.

[39:08] Now, what about the rest of the sins? Huh? See how bad this is now. The second one precedes us. It seems also that the what other sins, either of the what first parent himself, or of one's what proximate parents, right, are passed over to what posterity, right, huh?

[39:40] So if you're a product of rape, you know, then would you have guilt from that rapist? Um, for punishment is not what owed except to guilt, right? But some are punished by divine judgment for the sin of their what proximate parents, according to that of Exodus chapter twenty, huh? I am the zealous God, right, visiting the iniquity of fathers on their sons to the third and the fourth generation.

[40:16] That's one of those texts of Scripture that that gets people worried about their understanding Scripture, yeah. For by human judgment, right, huh? In the crime of what? Majesty or offense against majesty. Sons are what disinherited, right, for the sins of their what parents. Therefore, also the guilt of their proximate parents passed over to their posterity. These tough things here.

[40:59] Moreover, what one is more able to transfer to another that which one has from oneself than what one has from another? Just as fire can more heat things than water, what? But man carries over to his son through origin the sin that he has from Adam. Therefore, much more the sin that he himself commits. That's that's a good a good argument, huh?

[41:33] Moreover, for that reason we contract from our first parent original sin, because we were in him, huh, as in the beginning of what a nature which he himself had corrupted, right? But likewise, we are in our proximate parents, huh, as in certain beginnings of our nature, huh? Which, although it be corrupted, is able even more to be corrupted through sin, according to that apocalypse, the ultimate there chapter, I guess.

[42:15] Who is what? Yeah. Therefore, sins, sins contract the sins of their proximate parents, the origin, just as of the first parent. See, Thomas must have got a headache doing this sort of stuff, huh?

[42:47] He had to take a little wine to relax his mind after this. Yeah. One of the times that he fell down there in prayer, you know, he has he stumped himself, huh?

[43:04] But against this, that the good is more diffusive of itself than evil is, huh? But the merits of one's proximate parents are not carried over to posterity; therefore, much less their sin, huh? That's using a dialectical place too, right?

[43:25] I answer: It should be said that Augustine moves this question in the Enchiridion and leaves it unsolved. My goodness, didn't expect this, did you?

[43:40] But Thomas is not going to be stopped by that. It's been interesting. Augustine leaves it unsolved, huh? Well, he was a busy man, so. It's a bishop, yeah. Thomas was thought a bishop. He just.

[44:00] But if one diligently pays attention, right, it is impossible that some sins of one's proximate parents, or even of the first parent, apart from that, what first sin, can be passed over by origin, huh?

[44:24] And the reason for this is that a man generates right to himself the same in what species, but not according to the what individual. And therefore, those things which directly pertain to the individual, as personal acts, right, and those which what to them are not passed over from by the parents to the son. For the grammarian, right, does not pass over into the son the science of what grammar, right?

[45:04] So I don't know if I passed on the science of logic to my my sons. I don't know. Not only my dad, not only my daughter. Maybe geometry, but not grammar.

[45:17] Well, one summer there, I said I was going to teach, you know, logic. I mean grammar, or I mean geometry, to the the little neighbor kids there, right? The little girls, little boys, right? And the boys persisted, but the little girls finally were were drawn off to bake cookies in the kitchen. Think about think about the geometry class, but the boys, the boys. They can make circles for cookies and squares and triangles.

[45:52] They can just do it a different way. So the grammaticus, right, does not pass over into his son the science of grammar, right? Which the what grammarian himself acquired by his own what study, yeah. A. Fort Zero, the teacher doesn't always pass over to the lazy student, huh? But those things which pertain to the nature of the species, huh, are passed over by the parents to their what sons, unless to be some defective nature, huh?

[46:35] Just as the one who has what I guess an eye there, huh, generates someone with an eye, right? Unless nature is what deficient, huh? And if the nature is strong, also some individual accidents are propagated in the what sons, pertaining to the disposition of nature, as the velocity of the body, right, huh? The good genius and other things of this sort, huh?

[47:05] But in no way those things which are purely what personal, huh? So my father had some used to hang around his uncle's shop there, machine shop, you know. So he got to understand machines, you know, and so on. And so he got into the U. S. Army there in the First World War. They had some big piece of machinery there that they couldn't fix, you know. And the officer was frustrated.

[47:37] He got up and he said, "Can anybody fix this machine?" My father volunteered. So they put him in ordnance, you know, because he fixed the thing, you know. But he was going out with my mother, you know. They would go out to the to the farms, you know. The farmer had a machinery and having trouble with a piece of machinery, you know. And my father leaves my mother with the farmer's wife, and you go on the field and fix the machine.

[47:59] You know, get to work again. You know, but then they don't have that that to fix the machines. You see, that's personal, right? Huh? Yeah, yeah. Otherwise, you might not be here.

[48:14] Yeah. Yeah, the field fixing the machine. For just as that pertains to a person, something what according to himself, and something from the gift of grace. So also to nature pertains something that pertains to it according to itself, right? Huh? What is caused from its principles, and something from the gift of what, grace? And in this way, original justice, huh? As has been said in the first part when he talked about this, sin was a what certain gift of. Grace given divinely right to the whole of human nature right in the first parent and to be passed on by him, right which the first man lost through his first sin

[49:18] whence just as that original justice what would have been passed on to his posterity together with the nature so the opposite what disorder right huh

[49:34] but other actual sins either of the first parent or others do not corrupt nature as regards that which is of nature but only that which pertains to the what person right huh that is according to his prorneness to action whence the other sins are not what passed on

[50:01] now what about that first thing there huh To the first therefore it should be said that spiritual pain right huh as Augustine says in the epistle to Avitum huh

[50:21] never are sons punished for their parents huh unless they what Share. share in the guilt huh either through origin or through what yeah because all souls are immediately what from God as is said in Ezekiel chapter eighteen verse four

[50:46] but sometimes one is receives a bodily punishment right either by divine judgment or by human judgment and the sins are punished for the parents in so far as the son is something of the father according to his what body so you punish with the bodily punishment huh so you how close you are to your parents all right

[51:16] the second should be said that that which someone has from himself he's more able to what pass on so long as as as it is passable on

[51:29] but the actual sins of one's proximate parents are not passable on because they are purely what personal as has been said huh to the first it should to the third it should be said that the first sin corrupts human nature by a corruption pertaining to nature other sins corrupt it by a corruption pertaining to the person alone Yeah.