Prima Secundae
Lecture 210: The Subject of Original Sin: Soul vs. Flesh

Transcript
================================================================================

Now we're going to find out if we're lucky or not lucky. The fourth one goes forth thus. It seems that original sin is not equally at all. For original sin is disordered concubiscence, huh? But not all are equally prone to concubiscence. There you go. Therefore, original sin is not equally at all. Well, it convinces me, because I'm kind of dimwit or something. You've heard by a famous distinction of the three minds, the wits, the dimwits, and the nitwits. The wits, you know, can discover the great things by themselves. The dimwits can learn them from the wits, but they can't discover them themselves. And the nitwits can do neither. Kind of the wits, I guess, on the three groups. Best of all, the man can discover these things himself and express the man who can learn them from them. And the man who can is useless, you know. Thomas is kind, you know, as far as knowing. He's got charity, that's why. Okay. Moreover, original sin is a disordered disposition of the soul. Just as sickness is a disordered disposition of the body, huh? When we say you sin, I'm disordered or something. The guy's sick, you know. He's usually disordered sometimes. Indisposed, yeah. Like Father Robert. Yeah, Father Robert has a cold right now. Yeah. But sickness receives more and what? Less. Ah. Therefore, original sin receives more and less. Giving more or less sick, right? Yeah. Yeah. That sounds reasonable. Very reasonable, right? Yeah. More of our question says in the book on nuptials, right? And concubicence, huh? That libido, huh? That's the type of concubicence, right? Mm-hmm. Transmits original sin to one's offspring, right? Yeah. You're responsible for all this. But there can be greater, what? Love. What shall we say? I don't know. That's how they translate it. They trust that. Yeah. Of one in the active generation. Than another. Than another, yeah. And therefore, original sin can be more in one than in, what? Another. It's funny how that word got moved into English. The libido. Mm-hmm. Against this is that original sin is a sin of, what? Nature. That nature is found, what? Is equally in all. Therefore, it is, what? Therefore, also for original sin, right? Equally in all. Hmm. I know one time he says in the class of the adults, you know, we're all created equal, you know. Well, is one of us, in what sense is that true, right? Is one of us more a man than another, right? See. And that's the sense in which we're really equal, right? That's nature, right, that he's talking about. Yeah. The answer should be said that there are two things in original sin. One of which, which you said is the formal aspect, right, was the defect, right, of original justice. Another is relation of this defect to the sin of the first parent, from whom it is derived, right, by the origin being vitiated, huh? As you garaged the first, original sin does not receive more and less. Because the whole gift of original justice is what? Taken away. Taken away. Privations, however, totally depriving something, right? As death, right? And darkness do not receive more and less. One pitch darkness, right? It's that force of another, right? Yeah. Okay. Or if one's, you know, really totally blind, one man's not more blind than another, right? Okay. Likewise, neither is your garaged the second, huh? For equally, all have relation to the first beginning of this vicious, what? Origer. Origer. From which original sin receives the notion of guilt, huh? But relations do not receive more and less. Huh. I'm more double than something else is double, right? I'm more double than some of my grandchildren. Yeah, you're more, you're more uncle to some, than your brother. Once it is manifest that original sin cannot be more of one than another. It's awfully subtle, isn't it, huh? He's quite a subtle man this time, isn't it? But he can solve it. Houdini of theology, yeah. We're all in this mess together. That's right. To the first, therefore, it should be said, that being dissolved the, what? Bond. Bond, you might say, original justice, under which, right, in a sense, in a certain order, all the powers of the soul are contained, right, huh? Then each power of the soul tends to its own, what? Motion. Motion. And the more vehemently, the stronger it is. But it happens that, what? Some powers of the soul are stronger in one man than, what? In another. In another. An account of the diverse complexions of the body, right? Then that one man is more prone to what? That's right. In another. It is not by reason of original sin, but he is more of original sin. Thomas is saying it right? Mm-hmm. Since in all, it equally unties the bond of original justice, and equally, huh, in all, the inferior parts of the soul are left to themselves, right, huh? But this happens from a diverse digitization of powers. So he's not denying that somebody may have, well, Gibson's another, right? Mm-hmm. Or some people are more given to anger, right, huh? Some of the saints there, you know, had overcome anger, didn't they? Mm-hmm. Um, did you remember a problem with anger? Yeah. And even, uh, did it, uh, who's it, the French saint there? Yeah, wasn't he, wasn't he? I've heard it said, I've heard it said that, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know, that's what, the Jerome, I think, one of the ways that he would get over that was, uh, when the pilgrims would come, he would wash their camels. Yeah, yeah. I have the theory, you know, that men who get to positions of great power, right, huh, are more apt to, what, have a sense of anger, right, than other men, right? Like other cholerics. Like other cholerics. Like other cholerics, yeah, yeah. I just met a man the other day, he's a big, well-to-do businessman, very successful. Mm-hmm. And he's just choleric as a ghetto. Yeah. I mean, he's, he was a great basketball player. Yeah. He was a college. He was a coach. He's just a born leader. Yeah. Because he's, he's choleric, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. stones that were arranged in the initials SM for St. Mary's, and it was a tradition when they had sometimes a real bloody football game or what it was with some opposite college that someone from another college would climb from the hill and rearrange the stones. Well the day that LVJ was going to speak, I looked up with the stones and it said JWB, and I guess that was the other guy who was fascinated by Lincoln and his initials. John Will's booth. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I said, I said, what's that JWB? And so he told me, yeah. So someone got up there in the hill before and we were able to see LVJ, you know. LVJ had a little bit of a cold idea or something, so he wasn't coming out until the time to give us talk, you know. But he was in there, you know, in the way the Christian Brothers, Christian Brothers College, told me afterwards, he was chewing out his supportage, you know, real irascible, you know. He was in the impression of this guy, he said, you know. You can take a sense of anger, you know. You read about Washington, you know. Once a father loses temperament. It was really, you know, formidable. Yeah. You know, he would get you. The story would have told one guy, the other guy, you know, that he could go over and slap him on the back, you know. You know, venting with his stupid things, you know, and kind of hit him on the back, you know. I mean, washing him around would give him such a look. What's that word? Whatever. Yeah. I heard somebody, they had like, put their hand on his shoulder like that and he just took the hand and took it off. Yeah. So, in the implied act for his objection, I guess, huh? He's saying what? That the original sin is not more, right, huh? Mm-hmm. But that he moves, but... Moves differently. It shouldn't work, you know. Motion. What was it he called it? Yeah. It's a certain control of the powers, and therefore they follow their own way, right? Some prisons are more plenty of anger, some people want. Right. Plenty of incubus and others, and so on. The second should be said, huh? That bodily sickness does not have, in all, an equal cause. Even if it be of the same, what, species, huh? As if the fever is, what, from cholera is, you know? Yeah. There can be more or less... Corruption. I told you, too, right? Yeah, yeah. Pugifaxial. Yeah. And, uh, near or more remote from the beginning of life, right? The principal of life. But the cause of original sin, in all, is not equal. Equal. Yeah. It's not similar. No. To the third, it should be said, that the libido, huh? Which transmits original sin to the, what? Child. Child. Is not, what? Actual. Actual libido. Because, given by divine power, it would be conceded to someone that he sensed no disordered desire, right? Libido, in the act of generation. Nevertheless, he would still transmit original sin to, what? The child. Yeah. So, whether you enjoy the act a lot or not, would not, uh... Prevent original sin. Yeah. But libido, but that libido should be understood habitualitarian, the way of a habit, according as the sense-desiring power, is not contained under reason by the bond of, what? Richness. Justice. Being dissolved. And thus, and such libido in all is equal. Is equal. Individually. We all equally have the bond removed, is what he's saying, I guess. Okay, Tom. You're quite a scholar of original sin, huh? Mm-hmm. Then we're not to consider... the subject of original sin. First, whether the subject of original sin is before the flesh or before the soul, right? Is your soul corrupting your body or is your body corrupting your soul? Secondly, if the soul, my goodness, I was going to say that. Whether through essence or through its what? Power. Third, the will is before the subject of original sin than the other powers. You're going to put that will in its place, right? For whether some powers in the soul are especially affected to it the generative power, right? The concubiscible power and the sense of what? Touch. So whether original sin is more in the flesh than in the soul. To the first, therefore, one precedes thus. It seems that original sin is more in the flesh than in the soul. When the flesh wars against the spirit, right? Mm-hmm. There you go. The repugnance of the flesh to the mind proceeds from the corruption of original sin. But the root of this repugnance consists in the flesh. So it's false to say he's got more flesh than a man. That's right. He's got more excuse. For even the Apostle said, I don't want to use the false step. The Apostle says to Romans 7, I see another law in my members, right? That is repugnant to the law of my mind. Mm-hmm. And therefore, original sin chiefly consists, or it consists chiefly or principally, in the flesh, right? Mm-hmm. That's, that's St. Paul now, you know? St. Paul and Falstaff together. Falstaff is just a mouthpiece of St. Paul. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The disciple of St. Paul. And the life of St. Paul. Moreover, each thing is more potent in its cause than in the effect. Just as heat is more in the fire, heating, than in the water, eating. Mm-hmm. But the soul is infected by the infection of original sin through the carnal, what, seed. And therefore, original sin is more in the flesh than in the soul. The soul. Mm-hmm. And of course, you know, the soul is created by God, isn't it, right? Right? Yes. We want to attribute that to God. Yeah, yeah. So, to consider that filthy body, right? Sure. The problem arises, obviously, the body is, right? Exactly. This is a figure. Right, exactly. You're really tying yourself into a knot this time, Tom. So, you'll never get out. Indeedy. Yeah, the rest of these pages are actually blank. I had nothing to say after this. Mm-hmm. Moreover, original sin, we can track original sin from our first parent, insofar as we were in him, according to a seed-like rancio. Mm-hmm. Uh-huh. Thus, therefore, there was, what? There the soul, but only the, what? Flesh. Flesh. Yeah. Therefore, original sin is not in the soul, but in the flesh. That's right. It's like you said, it comes from Adam, not from God. Yeah. He provides for the flesh, not the soul. There you go. Whoever the irrational soul, created by God, is poured into the body, right? Right. If, therefore, the soul is infected by original sin, it would follow that it was from, what? Creation. Creation. Or infusion it was, what? Maybe filthy or something. What did they say? Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt. is further derived to the nourishing power and to the interior members, which are not actively moved by the will, does not have the notion of what? Guilt, huh? So digestion does not move the will the way the hand is, right? Thus, therefore, since the soul is able to be the subject of guilt, flesh does not of itself have it be the subject of guilt, huh? And whatever comes of the corruption of first sin to the soul has a notion of guilt. But what comes to flesh does not have the notion of guilt, but of what? Punishment. Thus, therefore, the soul is the subject of original justice, original sin, rather, but not the flesh. You should read that again, Thomas, huh? Yeah. Let's look at the reply to the objection to the Althas. Here's a text now from Romans, right? I see another law in my members, repugnant to the law of my mind, huh? And then he argues in that, therefore, original sin is what? Principally in the what? Yeah. Because of the lex phomites, right, huh? We'll come to law eventually, I hope. To the first, therefore, it should be said that, as Augustine says in the Book of Retractions, the Apostle speaks there of man already, what? Redeemed. Redeemed. Who has been liberated from what? Guilt, but is subject to punishment. To punishment. For a reason of that, reason of which sin is said to, what? Dwell in the flesh. Well in the flesh. Hence, from this does not follow that flesh is the subject of guilt, but only a punishment. Hmm. It's pretty sly. It's getting off the subject, Thomas. Yeah. It's dim with some. Okay. Second objection now. Something is more potent in its cause than its effect, right? But the soul is infected by the infection of original sin through the, what, flesh-laid seed, right? So there must be more there in the body, right? To the second, it should be said that original, what, sin is caused from the seed as from an instrumental cause, right? Mm-hmm. Now, it's not necessary that something be chiefly an instrumental cause, be more chiefly an instrumental cause than in the effect, but only in the, what? Principal cause. Yeah. And in this way original sin was more, what? In Adam. In a stronger way was in Adam, right? In whom it was according to the notion of actual sin. Yeah. Hmm. That's interesting. So Thomas, when he comes to the third kind of cause, the mover or maker, he always, what, quotes that text of Avicenna, right? He distinguishes between the chief cause and the instrumental cause, right? Third objection now. The original sin, we can track original sin from the first parent, in so far as it was in him, according to a seminal reason. In so far as it was in him, according to a seminal reason. In so far as it was in him, according to a seminal reason. In so far as it was in him, according to a seminal reason. In so far as it was in him, according to a seminal reason. In so far as it was in him, according to a seminal reason. In so far as it was in him, according to a seminal reason. In so far as it was in him, according to a seminal reason. In so far as it was in him, according to a seminal reason, right? But the soul wasn't there in that thing, in the flesh. To the third, it should be said that the soul of this man was not according to a, what, seminal seed-like reason in Adam sinning, as in a, what? Effective beginning. Yeah. But in a beginning that is... Exposed, I guess you'd say. In that the bodily seed, which we carried over from Adam, right? By its power does not affect the, what, rational soul. But merely what disposes for it. Do you understand that, Thomas? I guess that seed-like reason is not the same thing as the seed of the flesh. Maybe that's what he's, is that what he's trying to distinguish there? That's one of the things, I don't know. It still seems to make it more difficult here about the soul and what God's doing, right? Mm-hmm. That's the next objection. Yeah. Fourth one here, right? Mm-hmm. The rational soul created by God is poured into the body. If, therefore, the soul was, what? Infected. Yeah. Which is sin. Consequently, from what? Its creation or infusion, it would be, what? State. Yeah. And this God would be the cause of sin, who is the author of creation and pouring in. To the fourth, it should be said that the infection, original sin, in no way is caused by God, right? Right. Mm-hmm. But from the sin alone of the first parent to fleshly, what? Generation. Mm-hmm. And, therefore, since creation implies the relation of the soul to God alone, right, huh? It cannot be said that the soul is stained from its, what? Creation. But the infusion implies a respect both to God, what? Pouring in. Pouring in. And to the flesh to which the soul is poured in. To which the soul is poured in. And, therefore, respect being had to God pouring in, it cannot be said that the soul is stained through, what? Pouring in. Pouring in. But only having respect to what? The body to which it is poured in, huh? That's an awfully subtle thing he's saying here, isn't it? Would it be lost on most moderns who are influenced by Descartes, the Cartesian dualism, but also perhaps many of our ecumenical brethren as well? The Catholic understanding of the human being being soul and body together as a single unit, essentially. That's correct. That helps us perhaps understand what Thomas is saying. And if we did not have that understanding of human nature, what a human being is, then understanding Thomas would be, well, more difficult. Or no? Well, we don't want to get into Descartes' understanding of the soul because it's all filled up, right? Yeah, yeah. Even Heisenberg said Thomas makes more sense than Descartes. Did he really know you? Even though, you know, he didn't have that training. What about God? He's going to pour it into this poor container, right? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. To the fifth, it should be said that the common good is preferred to the singular good. Whence God, according to his, what, wisdom, does not forego, right, the universal order of things, which is that to such a body, such a soul is, what? So that, what, one avoids the singular infection of the soul, especially since the nature of the soul has that it, what? Does not begin. That it will not begin to be, right, except in a body, right, as it was had in the first party. You know, Thomas's argument gets to origin and so on, right now, right? So the souls were created, you know, by themselves. For it is better for it to be thus according to nature than in no way to be, right now, especially since it is able through grace to evade. Damnation. I don't know about this, Thomas. I have to come back to that one. Yeah. Let's just go back to the body article. Look at that again. Answer, it should be said, that something is able to be in something in two ways. In one way, as in a, what, cause. Either a chief cause or a, what, instrumental cause. Another way, as in a, what, subject. Subject, right? Now, original sin, original sin of all men was added in themselves as in the first clause, principal clause, right? Mm-hmm. Not as the instrumental clause, but the first principle clause, right? Mm-hmm. According to that of the apostle, Romans 5, 12, in whom all, what, sin, right? But in the bodily, what, seed, right? There is found original sin, as in a, what? Instrumental. Instrumental clause. Yes. In that, through the active power of the seed is carried over, original sin to the, what? Offspring. Together. Together with, what? Human nature. Human nature, right? Yeah. So, you know, if they had not sinned, they would have been carried over in the original justice, right? Simo cum naturumas, together with human nature, right? Right, huh? But, as in a subject, huh? Original sin in no way is able to be in flesh, but only in the, what? Soul. So, he has a three-fold distinction there, right, huh? See, something can be in something, as in a clause, and then he subdivided it into two. Principle or... Instrumental. Yeah. Or as in a subject, right? And you say original sin can be in, what? Adam, the principal clause, right? And in the seed, as a, what? Instrumental. Instrumental cause, a tool, right? But it can only be in the soul, as in what? The subject of the soul. Got three different things going on there. Yeah. Three is the first number, you say all, right? Yeah. It's all mixed up, then. It's all, it's all infected. No, it's all distinguished, right? Yes. It's distinguished into three, right, huh? Interesting, we use the word, where, when talking about in, right, huh? You know, the first sense of in is what? In place, right, huh? And of course, where is first meaning, refers to what? Place, right, huh? Okay. Where are we? We're in this room here, right, huh? But if you say, you know, where is number? You know, in logic, I might say what's in the genus quantity, right? And that's one of the senses of in, right? The species is said to be in the genus, right, huh? That's the fourth sense, I guess, of in, right? The first sense of in place. The second is a part in the whole, right? The third is the genus and the species. And the fourth is species and the genus, right? So we say, you know, where would you put dog? Well, in substance. Where would you put number? Well, in quantity. Where would you put virtue? Well, in quality, right? Where would you put father, well, in towards something, right? And so, where is original sin? Where is it? Three different things. Yeah. In one way, it's the happen, right? That's what original sin is. It's the principal cause. It's in the seed, huh? It's in a what? Tool. Tool. And it's in the soul. As in the subject, right? That's a fun amount of distinction. You know, the three-four distinction there, right? Original sin of all men was in Adam as in a first principal cause, right? In the Bible, we see original sin is as in a what? Instrumental. Instrumental cause, right? But as in the subject, it was what? No way able to be in the flesh, but only in the soul. Yeah, yeah. So, when Michelangelo made the Pietas, right, was the shape of the Pietas where, what is it? In what is it? In what is it, you see? Where is it? Where is it? The shape? Yeah, but it's in a subject, it's in the what? Marvel, isn't it? You see? But it's in Michelangelo as a what? Principal cause, right? The artist. It's in the hammer and chisel or whatever as in a what? Instrumental. Tool, right? It's not too hard to see there, right? Mm-hmm. Now he's saying, but where is original sin? Where is the principal cause, like Michelangelo, except in this case it's Adam, right? Mm-hmm. And it's in what? It's a tool, not in the hammer and chisel, but in the what? Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. Seed. And my own son, Marcus, there you go, there you come out of beer, you know, huh? And so I kept on telling him that, but you could. They're too late to be educated. But they get wine too, you know. I kind of lost my piece of beer, kind of. It's got to be, you know, a sausage or something, you know. There's a call for beer. It's a sauce. See, but you couldn't say that wine is better than beer. You couldn't distinguish between wine and beer, right? You couldn't say Mozart's music is better than Heidegger. You could, you know, distinguish the two. So, then, having made all those distinctions, or rather seen all those distinctions, I should say. Don't make them. Yeah, it sounds too artificial, right? Then He says, in the next paragraph, Who is rock's dress, right? The reason of this is, right? Because as has been said above, In this way, right? From the will of the first parent, Original sin is carried over to one's posterity, right? Through a certain, what? Emotional generation. It's like the tool, right? In other words, if we were not generated from Adam, we would not. In other words, I would say. Yeah. Okay. And He compares it. Just as from the will of some man, right? Is derived actual sin, right? Through his parts. Through his parts. Through his parts, right? Through my hands, striking me, killing me for something, right? Or your mouth, whatever it is. Yeah. Saying evil things. That's why we wash out the mouth, right? That's right. I was just saying, that's what our Lord says. From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. But then He talks about how the sin is what comes out of the mouth, comes from the heart. He says the same thing basically. In which derivation, this can be noted, right? That whatever comes from the motion of the will of sin, right? To any what? Any part. Of man. Which in some way is able to partake of the sin, right? Either by way of being the subject of it, right? Or by way of what? Instrument. Instrument, huh? Has the notion of what? Guilt. Yeah, it's, yeah. Just as from the will of gluttony comes the desire of food to the, what? The kibbispo. And the taking of food to the hand and the hands and the mouth, right? Yeah. Which insofar as they are moved by the will to sin, are tools, huh? Instruments of sin, right? Yeah. But that they are further derived to the nourishing power and to the... Lower memories. Interior memories. Oh, interior memories, sorry. Which are not actively moved by the will. It does not have the right seal of what? Guilt. Yeah. Am I digesting the food? It's not a bad thing. Morally. Thus therefore, since the soul is able to be the subject of guilt, right, huh? Flesh of itself does not have to be the subject of what? Guilt. Guilt, huh? Whatever then comes from... Whatever comes of the corruption of the first sin to the soul has the notion of what? Guilt. Guilt. But what comes to the flesh does not have the notion of what? Guilt, but of punishment. Guilt, but of punishment, huh? Thus therefore, the soul is the subject of original sin, but not the what? Flesh. Flesh. So, the continuation of original sin being passed down... Mm-hmm. I'm trying to think. I don't know if it makes sense of it. I'll wait. I have to wait then. And he's saying here that the soul is able to be the subject of guilt, right? Mm-hmm. But the flesh of itself does not have that it be the subject of guilt. Mm-hmm. So the act of generation is not... Yeah, you're talking about the flesh itself now, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. To not be of itself, right? Mm-hmm. The subject of guilt. Then whatever comes to the corruption of the first sin to the soul has the aspect of what? Guilt. Guilt, yeah. But what comes to the flesh does not have the notion of guilt, but of what? Punishment. Punishment, huh? Yes. Thus therefore, the soul is the subject of original sin, not the flesh. Conflation. Is that because of concupiscence? Mm-hmm. Is that because concupiscence is in the part of the soul? And that's... No, because sin is in the will, as I said before. It's the will. So the will of your first parent. That's the cause of the guilt of sin. Okay. But how interesting how the soul can be affected by the physical medium of the transmission of the sin, the instrumentality? Well, you see, you're receiving the human nature, in a sense, from Adam, right? Right. But you're receiving it without original justice, right? Right. Right. Right. So therefore, the soul, in a sense, is what? Vitiated. Vitiated, yeah. Vitiated, yeah. It's lacking something. Subject to God, right? It should, right? So that's where it is chiefly. Yeah. In one way chiefly in the First Father, because he's the chief cause, but... But let's look at the objections again here, you know, because this is a hard story. Yeah. And look at the first objection again. The repugnance of the flesh to the mind proceeds from the corruption of original sin, right? Mm-hmm. But doesn't the root of this repugnance consist in the flesh? Doesn't the Apostle say in Romans 7, I see another law in my members, right? Repugnant to the law of my mind. Therefore, original sin consists chiefly in the, what? Flesh, right? Mm-hmm. Well, he says... Well, now maybe Augustine got a little bit, you know, because this is a book of retractions, right? Yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that as Augustine says in the book of retractions, huh? Who's choice to say? Every professor should be made to write a book of retractions. They're not smart enough to discover their own mistakes, though. Well, that's the trouble, you know. They wouldn't retract if they don't recognize their own mistakes. Okay? To the first, therefore, it should be said, as Augustine says in the book of, what? Retractions. The Apostle speaks there of man, what? Already redeemed. Already redeemed, right? Who has been liberated from his, what? Guilt. Guilt, right? By baptism, right? Grace. Grace. But he's subject to what? Punishment. Yeah. By reason of which... It is called. Yeah. Sin in the flesh. Sin is said to dwell in the flesh. Yeah. By reason of the punishment. Once from this, it does not follow that flesh is the subject of guilt, but only of punishment. But we speak of it as sin dwelling in the flesh, or he does there, because it's a consequence of sin. Yeah. He attributes it to the cause there. Morver, the second section. Morver, each thing is more in the cause than in the effect. As heat is more in the fire heating than in the water heating, right? But the soul is infected by the infection of original sin through what? Seed in the flesh. Infection of the seed. Yeah. I think this was, yeah. Therefore, original sin is more in the flesh than in the soul, right? Mm-hmm. So secondly, it should be said that original sin is caused from the seed as from an instrumental cause. Mm-hmm. Now, it is not necessary that something be more chiefly in the instrumental cause than in the effect, but only in the principal cause, right? Yeah. Yeah. So that, that axiom implies. So that, that axiom implies. So that, that axiom implies. So that, that axiom implies. That axiom implies. That axiom implies. he's saying, to the chief cause, the principal cause, rather than the instrumental. In this way, original sin was more in Adam, in which it was according to what? The character of an actual sin. Take an example of the teacher, right? If the teacher is wiser than the student, he should be, right? In a regard to what he's teaching, anyway, right? Okay. Are the words of the teacher wiser than the student? The words of the teacher. Those are his tools. Yeah. Because the words of the teacher are what? His tools that he uses to teach, right? And they're really sounds, right? And aren't those sounds capable of wisdom? No. If we speak of the teacher's words as being wise, what does that mean? It's like an attribution is what you're saying. But he transmits his knowledge to the student by his what? His words. His words, right? But the words themselves are not wiser than the student. Those sounds are not wiser than the student, are they? Hopefully not. In that case, he's just memorizing words, right? Yeah. Wisdom is the perfection of the mind, the reason, right? So wisdom is in the mind of the teacher, right, huh? But he's trying to communicate that wisdom to the student, so it would be in the mind of the student, and students through his what? Words, huh? These bad teachers, right? They're deceiving by their words, right? Passing on corruption. Yeah, usually they're deceived first. In some way, anyway. So he's saying the original sin in that way is more in what? Adam, right? Than us, because it's more the guilt that he has, right? Yeah. If he wouldn't say it's more than the seed. Yeah. Makes sense, doesn't it? Yeah. Third objection. Original sin, we can track original sin from the first parent, insofar as it was in him, according to a what? Seed-like notion. However, you can say that, whatever that is. But thus, there was not there the what? Soul. The soul, but only the flesh. The original sin is not in the soul, but in the what? Flesh. To the third, it should be said that the soul of this man, right, was not, according to a what? Seminal reason, in Adam's sinning, as in a what? Effective, beginning of hell. But as in a what? Disposing. Disposing one, right? Yeah. In that, the bodily seed, which is carried over from Adam, by its power does not make the rational soul, but disposes for it, right? Okay. That's true of the parents, right? The parents don't make the soul of the child, right? That's what they dispose of it. The dog, I guess, the parents make the soul of the dog, right? Okay. But your parents don't make... The rational soul. The rational soul. Because that's not something that depends upon the body, right? It doesn't come about the rational soul through the transformation of matter, right? And Aristotle himself talks about this in the book on the generation of animals, right? That the rational soul doesn't come from the parents. It's amazing that he saw that, right? Yeah. But he saw it because of the way he learned about the rational soul in the Dianima, right? It doesn't depend on the body, yeah. On the fourth objection, the rational soul is created by God to... And what? Pour it into the bud. Yeah. The rational soul created by God is poured into the body. If, therefore, the soul is infected by what? Original sin. It would follow that it is from its what? Creation. Or it's pouring into its... Stain. Stain. And thus God would be the cause of sin who is the author of creation. And intrusion. Yeah. To the fourth it should be said that the infection, original sin, in no way is caused by God, but it's what? Only from the sin alone of the first parent. Yeah. Through... Through karma generation. So it includes both the instrument and the principal cross. And therefore, since creation implies respect, a relation of the soul to God alone, it cannot be said that the soul is stained from its what? Creation. But the infusion implies respect, both to God, what? Pouring it in, and to the flesh to which the soul is what? Poured in. Poured in. And therefore, having respect to God pouring it in, it cannot be said that the soul is stained to what? Poured in. But only having respect to the what? The body. The body to which it is what? Poured in. Yes. So being poured into that kind of a body, we see is what? Human nature, right? Without what? Original justice. Even to us dimwits a bit, eh? Mm-hmm. In other words, until the soul is united to the body, it wouldn't have original sin. Yeah, it's not on the part of God pouring it in, it's just on the part of the matter that receives it, and it's passing on the nature. It's not created, you know, in time or before. It's refused, right? It's all simultaneously. Yes, I get it. It's distinction, yeah. The sixth objection is the most interesting in some ways, huh? Yeah. No one wise, huh, pours, what? A precious liquid. Liquor, liquid, into a vase, right? It's infected. From which he knows that the liquid will be infected, right? To be making wine, you've got to pour it into the right barrels, right? That's right. But the rational soul is more precious than any liquor, right? Yes. Of course. If, therefore, the soul, from the union of the body, is able to be infected by the infection of no guilt, God, who is wisdom itself, would never, he would never do it. Yeah. Never would pour a soul into such a body. He does so, huh? He does pour it in. Therefore, it's not staying for the flesh. Thus, therefore, original sin is not in the soul, but in the flesh. In the flesh, each of these follows, each of these is building on the previous one. Yeah. This is, yeah. The fifth, it should be said that the common good is referred to the, what, singular good, right? Whence God, according to his wisdom, does not forego the universal order of things, huh? Which is that to such a body, such a soul, should be poured in, right? In order that you might avoid the singular infection of the soul. Especially since the nature of the soul has it that it begins to be, it does not begin to be, except in the body, which is something we took up in the Prima Parsons. And it's better for us to be according to nature than in no way to be, right? Mm-hmm. Especially since it can be, what? Avoid damnation through grace. Yeah. Yeah. Can you give me a little bit of time to understand that then? Yeah. Got to stop now or what? Sure. Yeah, that's good. Yeah. Okay.