The doctrine of Hervaeus Natalis on primitive justice and original sin

Citation preview

Ana lect a Gre gor ia na Cura

Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae edita VOL. XLII SERIES FACULTATtS THEOLOGICAE Sectio B (n. 18)

The Doctrine of Hervaeus Natalis on Primitive Just ice and Original Sin As Developed in the Controversy on Original Sin during the Early Decades of the Fourteenth Century by

CYRIL 0. VOLLERT, S. J.

ROMAE APUD AEDES UNIVERSITATIS GREGORIANAE 1947

� •'�" u11--1� roLOG'"

sc�OOL OA�Rf;MOt''� . AT CL ' � r- .... � ·. r.f'J

IMPRIMI POTEST Romae, 31 Maii 194 7. P. PAULUS Dt:ZZA S. I. R�ctor Universitatis

IMPRIMATUR

Ex Vicariatu Urb"IS, die 18 Julii 1947. t A. TRAGLIA . A rchiep. Caesarien ., 'r vie. ger.

ROMA! - TYPIS PONTIPICIAE UNIV ERlilTATIS GREGORIAN AB

INTRODUCTION I The dissertation herewith submitted to the Faculty of Theo.;. logy of the Gregorian University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Sacred Theology, was undertaken in the fall of 1937 at the suggestion of Father Cle­ ment Fuerst, S. J., Professor of Dogma at the s�me. University, who also consented to direct the work. My intention at the be­ ginning of the investigation was merely to study the doctrine of Hervaeus alorn� on the problem of original sin, with of course some reference to his reil.ationship with St. Thomas Aquinas. But it soon became· apparent to me that the work to be of any value must rather take ·on the character of an inquiry into the de­ velopment of the dogma of original sin during the second ge­ neration following the death of St. Thomas; for throughout this period raged a sharp controversy on this important tenet of our Faith, and the guiding spirit of the debate was the champion of the ·Thomis't.ic tradition, Hervaeus Natalis. During th€ past fifteen ·or twenty years students of schol­ astic ideas and history have manifested an increasing interest in the career, the works, and the thought of this Fourt�enth !Century Dominican. Previously he had beien hardly more than ia vague name except to a few specialists in medievalism. Even as late as 192-5, F1a.ther Raymond Martin, 0. P., in an- article in the third volume of the X en.i�a Thmnistica found it necessary to inform his readers who Herva'.eus was. Since then, however, he has become well known, even in class-room manuals. The number of stud1es dealing with various aspects of his life and works has become legion; many details of his doctrine hav,e already been investig,ated, and at the present time several scholars are enga.ged in further research. 1

I - VOLLERT.

2

INTRODUCTION

Undoubtedly, one of the reasons for the resurgence of interest in Herva.:eus Natalis is the importance of the man in the history of philosophy and of dogma. This importan0e was fully realized in his own century. Thus, for instance, a fourteenth· century ma­ nuscript declares him to be a thedlogian second to none, a supreme metaphysician, ,a subtle dialectician, .a profound naturalist, a keen debater, whose: doctrine would gain for any disputant the assured prospect of academic victory ,. . Bernard Loonbardi, a con­ temporary, calls him « a very celebrated doctor», indeed, « the most subtle doctor of the Thomistic school» 2• Lazan1s. · Soardus, who first edited Hervaeus' · Comm.entary on the Sientenc.es, i.s e.nthusi,astic in his praise of him, although of course due allow­ ance must be made for the good salesmanship - of a publisher; according to him Herva,eus is second only to St. Thomas; and so well does Hervaeus deserve his reputation for subtlety that those ,,nho esteem Scotus for this quality can now see from this edition that the Franciscan doctor has stealthily pilforred from him more than a little! 3• Modtirn scholars likewise express a high esteem for Hervaeus. In the opinion of BraunmiiUer, his great service consists in this, that it was he who first insisted on a sharp distinction b.etween the Thomist and the Scotist systems, and defended the former 1 « Hervaeu�1, scilicet Herva;eus dominus (i. e. the General of the Orcler, as distinguished from any other Hervaeus), nulli prorsus theofogorum in­ ferior, met.aphysicus summus, dialecticus et terminista subtilis, naturali3 profundissimus, acerrimus disputator. Qui eum sequitur, E.emper incuriosus ot invincibilis erit >>. Cod. Vat. lat. 1076, f. 1 ra. 12 « Doctor celeherrimus », Cod. Lips. 529, f. 3 b; Herveus is written in the: margin. « ... doctor subtilissimus1 huius scholae », Cod. ·Clm. 13, 501, f. 56 ra; cited by J. Koen, Durand1is d-e S. Porciano, 0. P. Vol. I, p. 211, note 2. ,3 « Illud autem de hoc doctore a:ffi.rmare audemus, ex omnibus qui rem christianam iuverunt ( absit invidia verbo) sccundum, post Aqll:inatem Tho­ mam, locum tcnere, adeo ut subtilis cognomen merito sibi vindicarit; qui ve-ro hoc minoritae Scoto defe.runt, quanto in errore hucusque srint versati, ex hac editione cognosc,ere -poterunt, nempe boni Scoti non pauca deprehen­ dentur furta, ab ipso dissimulata ». Hervaeus Natalis, In qu.atuor Petri Lombardi sentent1'.arum vio,l'/,1,imina sciript,a S'Ubtil,issfm , a,, Venice, 1505; reverse of title page.

INTR0OU CTION

against the latter 4 • Dr. Josieiph Koch thinks Hervaeus the most prominent Dominican theologian of the eiarly fourteenth century, though this estimate is somewhat modified · by the statement that John of Naples is the most significant Thomist of this same period 5 • Fr. Pclster agrees that Hervaeus is the greatest Do- . minican theologi�n of his time (> . Many similar pronouncements have been uttered in favor of He.rvaeu.s . None however equals that of Dr. Martin Gra.bm:ann : « He- tempered himsieH into a mighty apologcte for the Ang·elic Doctor. His masterpiece, the short Commentary on the Sentences, is a veritab1ei golden key to the understanding of the letter and spirit of Aquinas. Unlike many of his � ontemporaries, he does not lose himself in pietty quibbles and doubts, but rather displays his keen intelle�t in a . metaphysicail and organic treatment and a well-rounded exposition of the chief heads of Thomistic doctrine·. As an indicator · of the true opinion of Aquinas in difficult controversial questions, . the objective and solidly-grounded judgement of Hervrueus Na­ talis is of great value » 7 • If such estimates of the position of Hervaeus Nata1is in schol­ astic thought are well-founded, the intierest latterly displayed in him is fully justifi.ed, and he merits thorough study. As one of_ the prob'lems which particularly interested him was the dogma of original sin, .and as no doctrinal inv€stigation of his views concerning this question has yet appear.ed, the reason for the p resent work is ·evident 8 • 4

BRAU N MULLER, 0. S. B., in Kirchenlexicon 2 V col. 19 16. « Her.veus Natalis war vielleicht der augesehenste Dominikan.e-rtheo­ loge des beginnenden 14. Jahrhunderts » ; op. cit., 211. « Johannes wohl der bedeuntendste Thomist des beginnenden 14. Jahrhunderts ist », i. bfrl., p. 287. r, « ... der bedeutendste Dominikanertheologe j ener Zeit », FranziBkanische Studien, 17 ( 1930) 272 . 7 M. GR AB MANN, Die Leh.re des hl. Thomas von A quin t:on cler Kirchc als Gottes1.verk, Regensburg, 1903, p. 34. s Father R. M. MARTIN, 0 . P., was urged by the reviewer of his splendi d b·ook of texts, La Controv.erse s1ff le , Peche Oiri,g i?-1,e l au cleb·ut dru, XJ Ve siedc , to engage in a doctrinal study of the controversy. Cf. Bulletin de Thoolog·i,,� ancien ne et Med·i eva le, 1 ( 193 1) 323. But Fr. Martin 's sub::equent re-scarehef 5

have turned to other subj ect�.

.4

I NTRODU CTIO N

II The division of my work into two main parts, namely an investigation of the doctrine of Hervaeus and his circle on original _justice and a similar study of original sin, is partly a matter of method ; for in the concept of original sin as ihe privation of original justiee, the notion of original sin itself is quite indef­ inite unless the character of original justice is clearly grasped.. Another reason for the separate · tma.tment of orig·inal justice is this : for the past twenty-five years or so there has taken place a dispute concerning the doctrine of St. Thomas on the nature of original justice. Now the main purpose of most of the theol­ ·ogians who have taken :part in this debate is · not so much a re-­ examinatiO'n of the objectivre truth of this matter in the light -0f the data of revelation, as the correct interpretation of St. Thoma s himself. It happens that also the Thomists of the early fourteenth c,entury were primarily engaged in an attempt to de­ fend a nd foster the doctrine of St. Thomas by me.a ns of a pen­ •etrating insight into, and a clear elucidation of his teaching. Hence a study of their int�rpretation of St. Thomas may serve to throw some ligh t on this difficult question . Several modern theologians, notably Canon Bittremieux of Louvain, have contrib­ uted similar studies . This is an insecure method, no doubt, of arriving .a t the true mind of the Angelic Doctor, for his suc­ Cessors we�e no slavish imitators , but thinkers for the most pa.rt · of resolute indep-endenee. Still, an inv;e.stigation of the teachings of a large number of ancient Thomists may, by a sort of « indue­ tion », a.id us in coming to the genuine thought of · St. Thomas. Since no adequate and unbi;ased account of the modern cOIJltro­ versy on the nature of original justicie has yet appeared, I take the opportunity of her.e attempting such a pr;esentation, which wil:I also serve conveniently as a mise en scene for the exposition of the doctrine of our fourteenth- cientury scholastics on this point. The second part of this work, the section dealing with original sin, is the principal object of my investigation. In this study the doctrine of Hervaeus Nata.Es on the several problems arising out

5.

INTRODU CTION

of the dogma of original sin is considered as necessarily related to the controversy from which largely it developed. Only by thus viJewing HervaeuS' against the background of the persons and writings of his contemporaries· is his figure seen in its proper relief, only thus also does the controversy of which he is the dom­ inating • protagonist come to life . By so regarding Hervacus Natalis in his proper milieu and in the circle of his fcllow-theo­ logfa.ns · we can hope to arrive at an estimate of his position and function as proponent of Thomism in the controv,e.rsy. The selec­ tion of Hervaeus as the centrrul figure in the dispute i;g obvious; for he is .at once the mos t wholesouled and ardent defender of' the Thomistic tradition, the relentless foe of its opponents, anJ the champion around whom rallied the contempor,ary disciples of the Angelic Doctor. In this section dealing- with the controversy on original sin. my debt to the recent fi nding·s of several scholars is quite patent. It is principally the doctrinaJl investigation that is original in my own work. But for the sake of completeness, and for the benefit of the reader, the historical Retting is p resented with some attempt at fulness and accuracy. For this historical account I have­ av.ailBd myself of a number of valuable studi,es, notably the writ­ ings of Dr. Joseph Koch, and ,especially his monumental work on Durandus, of which the first volume appeared in 1927, and the seconJ is awaited with some impatience by schofars interested in the period. For all important details I hav•e of course gorn� to c riginal sources, but t his was principaU.y for verification, as the­ scholars studied hav,e indicated and in some cases cited these. Wherever later and better collections of source-materials than those used by Dr. Koch and his predecessors are availabfo., it · is to these I invariably refer. The preliminary labor of establishing and publishing critical texts of some of the medi€val authors in whom we are int0rested has been admirably performed by Fr. R. M. Martin, 0. P. , whos·e book Let Controv ers,e sur le Pe, c he O riginel au d.e but d u XJve · siecle, appeared in 1930. Unfortunately, useful as is Father Mar­ tin 's edition, his work is not complete, as it is limited largely to Dominican authors of the first phases of the controversy. Omitted is Guido Terreni, 0. Carm., who enteT-ed the lists against Duran1

INTRODU CTION

• dus early in the conflict; omitted also is Peter Aureoli, against whom the important Quodlibet IV of Hervaeus is probably di­ rected. Nor is there in Father Martin 's book so much as mention made of Bernard Lombardi, _who in the last phase of the debate sided to a great extent with the party o.f the opposition, or of the mysterious « Durandellus », who fina1ly put .an end to the - discussions . With due expression of a�know.ledgment, therefore, I freely emplloy the texts -established by Father Martin; Pete:r Aureoli 's works on original sin are printed, the principal ones - critically; for Guido Terreni and Be:rnard Lombardi I cite the -only manuscripts known, while for DurandeHus I use two of the best manuscripts, .which iare preserved in the Vatican Library. I have not •Considered it necessary in this work to devot,e a. definite chapter to the life and works of Herv-aeus; indeed, biography is still, at the present stage of research, quite impos­ sible. I have not tried to determine further , data in the biography of Hervaeus, but retlying on t _he researches of others I shall, when occasion arises (Pa.rt II, Chapter I, -on the « History of the Con"'.' troversy ») confine myself to such fact� of his life- as are essential -or useful for an understanding of his part in the controversy. Finally, I may remark that in all quotations, whether I cite Martin 's texts, collections of sources, early editions, �r manu­ .scripts, I have adhered to the Latin orthography generally in use today. In the matter of punctuatio� too I have consulted my own preferences.

a

1

PART ON E

The Problem of Original J u stice

,.' • . , 1 . _· . . -· ·'

._::-3· .. . :

..

. . , .. . . �:·:·..· . .,:

'

1 .'.

•

,:i·

. , . · . ....

'· . .

\

,·

�

.

•

: .-

-"!'

....... .

,

. - · ....

-_, r , ··, . I .

_, ·

.,:. . i ..:..-�

.: . . .

,/:' ;:_, \;1" ; :. : •· •,.>'•,! '

•,: •

.: ··�·:� .,-"

- f• �.- ..-......,,....""· .. .

. .

't , p

,..

.....

:...

(

:• ·

. . ., . . . , ··

' ·. ' t

·I.

, ,. . .-

·, • .. ·, ,

I

.

/.

. •_ i

·. ' . ,_. ,.·

__.......•�

- .: _, .

�:;_- -...r

: ,;-·· -'"':'

.. . ,:--

_,•

: .(> . •.'

,. . . '

,: · I

• •

,·.

_IJ

;.

,·

/, :

; I

, · .,

/,

·

..

.. _...

INTRO DU,CTION Since Hervaeus Na tr.lis following St. Thomas defines original sin as the privation of orig·inal · j ustice, it is essential for an understanding of his theory of origin.al sjn to comprehend what he means by original justice. We are concerned however in this. dissertation not with a mere simple exposition of the doctrine of Hervaeus in itself - a study of but slight interest - but with such an investigation into his teaching as ,vill warrant an estimate of his position in the history of the theology of original sin. He.nee our purpose is to ·ex.amine his doctrine from the sta.nd­ poi n t of its causes and ·o ccasions and sources - an examination which will take us deep into the controversy in which he played snch a vital part, and which consequently must include compar­ ison with the opinions of his contemporaries. Further, as Hervaeus is an avowed Thomiist, indeed a most loyal and militant follower of St. Thomas in an age in which the Angelic Doctor was still opposed with vig·or, our study, if it is to result in a judgment of the · function of Hervaeus in the de­ velopment of dogma , must include a comparison of the disciple with the master whose doctrine he p ro.fess-es to elucidate. But what is the doctrine of St. Thomas on the obscure and difficult subject of the nature of primitive justice, and especia1'ly what is the relation of sanctifying grac� to original justice 1 Few theological p roblems have stirred up such spirited debate thus far in the twentieth century .as the· p roblem of this relationship ;· for upwa.rds of twenty-five years a controversy thereon has continued. N�w controversy often scrves, by bringing to light texts, interpretations, and arguments, omitted or ·obscured by partici­ p ants with a pr�onceived t hesis, to cilarify the p oint at issue and thus arrive at truth. Hence we shall first examine this m odern controversy, with a view to· determining ·with some finnness the

10

INTRODUCTION

doctrine of St. ·Thomas en this point. With this result we shall compa,ve the teaching of Herva.eus, so as to see whether he agrees - with or deviates from his master, and especially to learn . whether he can throw light on the Angelic Doctor 's understanding of orig­ jnal justice.

CHAPTER I . The recent controversy o n the rel ationshi p between s a n cti fyi ng gra ce an d o rigi n al j ustice accord i ng to S a i nt . Thomas

Besides numerous references to this controversy in the newer manuals and the review sections of :learned periodicals, several books and over thirty articles have been published on the subject. The sharpest period of the debate, which has extended over the • past twenty-five years and mo-re, ,occurred during the ten years from 1921 to 1931. At present there is a lull to the discussion, though nt a complete cessation. No .adequate, objective his­ torical survey of the controversy has yet appeared, and nothing at all, so far as I know in the English language. True, several hrief ac·counts have been written 1 , but these either w ere published too early to take in later developments of the controversy, OT are too incomplete or sketchy to be of much service. Accordingly I propos:e first to give a short but fairly complete chronological survey of the development .of the .controversy, and then to review in some detail the principal arguments for both sides. At the end an appraisal of the ,results of the controversy will be hazarded. Though the reader may disagree with this 1atter, he will at any rate have gained · an understanding of the importance of the ,q ues­ tion and. of the principaJ. point at issue for the following chapter. I

1

Cf. among others : J.

CoP P EN S,

Une controverse recente sur la nature

d u, p eche or,iginel, in Eph . theo l. LC>V. 1 ( 1924) 185-191, which gives a good resume of the early part of the controyersy ; C. VAN CRO M BRU GGE, De r, eia­ timw quae . existit inter J ustitiam, Origi.nalem et Grat.iOJm San,,.ctifioanteim, in Collationes G.a;ndavenses 13 ( 1 926) 1 1 0- 1 14 ; A. VAN HoVE, Heilig·ma1lcend,e gratie en OQlrspr>. Quaest. de Peccato O rigi1w z,1:, Martin, p. 104.

.54

CHAPTER J I

-cannot transmit a good or evil disposition o f the rational will, the function of which is the regulation of the senses in the di­ rection of good 119• Regarding its material component, original justice resides in those faculties which are subj ect to the control of the will; such are the sense faculties :2,0 , fo r these were in the st,a.t e of original justice regulated by the will ::n . Of cou rse the will itself is reg­ ulated by the complexus of habits calleµ original justice 2 2 ; but if we comp are the habit residing in the will with habit residing in the sense a.p p etite, the latter is seen to be regulated by the former, and thus the former has the character of the formal com­ ponent, the latter the character of the material compcnent of orig·· i nal justice ·23 • Of the two elements which make up original justice, the formal component is by far the most important, although Hervaeus .a.t times employs expressions which seem to indicate that the con­ trol of the inferior powers is the chief function of original justice, as when he affirms that original sin is the privation of a dispo­ sition which reguliated the human faculties, but especially the m « Et ideo, formaliter et principaliter loquendo, nee bonum nee ma­ l ucrn hominis, in eo quod homo, consistit in aliqua dispositione vel inclina­ tione virium sensit ivarum secundum se consi. Ibid., Mar-

tin, p. 65.

« Et fie. etiam. f.uissct iustitia originalis virtualiter i n semine, si A d am non peccasset : quia cum natura transfusa ab Adam mediantc se­ .. mine fuisset p raedicta i ustitia. transfusa ». Quaest�a de Pe- c cato O.riginali, Martin, p . 67. 42

64

CHAPTER I I

. So if Adam had not lost original j ustice b y sinning, original . justice would have existed virtually in his semen, since it would have been handed down by Adam · along with human nature through the medium of seminal generation 43 • From this description of the marrner in which original j ustice was to have been transmitted, we 1earn that Adam alone, not Eve could communicate it to us, fo,r the simple reason that the communication of whatever attribute belongs to common nature, whether such attribute be a supernatural gift or whether it pro-ceed from a natural principle, is ascribable to the a.ctive principle which the father exericises in begetting, and not to the passive principle which is the function of the mother in the act of gen­ eration '43 • And hence it is that only those who descend from Adam in virtue of the generative act performed by him were to he born in the state of original justice, since he had the p ower to t:mnsmit original justice, as well as whatever else belongs to the species by nature, or as a result of a divine gift, solely in as much as he acted efficiently . through his generative function for the introduction of the specific form. None there.fore ha,ve the right and duty to possess original justice who have not des,c,ended from Adam sec1mdrum r.ationeim seminal,em. Consequently if God mira.eulously fashioned a human being from a. rock, such a man vrnuld have neither original justice nor original sin , nor would his chHdrcn 44 • « Talis autem communicatio poterat :fieri a viro et non a muliere, · quia communicatio eorum quae consequuntur naturam communicatam, sive eam com:equuntur ex dono super.n aturali sive ex principi is naturalibus, de,­ bet attribui principio activo quod se tenet ex parte viri, cuius semen in · generatione est activ.um, et non principio passivo, quale est illud quod ad­ ministratur a muliere in generatione prolis ». Ibid., Martin, p. 79. 4'4 « Sed solis illis qui descendunt ab Adam secundum rationem s.emi­ nalem nata erat transfun-: 1,: ! ) \' 'l'H E �AT U G E 0 1'' O IU G J N A T, J U S TICE

71

i n the spiritual life. But all sin, whethe r orig·i nal or mortal , is opposed to gTace by which man is c on.stitukd in the spiritual life. Therefore- g·1�ace must destroy all sin. The opposition between grace and sin is most direct; and this is why baptism confers grace : to destroy sin. For a p rivation can be removed only by a habit whi.ch is directly opposed to it; since then b a.ptism re­ moves sin, it must do so by infusing a ha.bit which is diametrically opposite to sin. Such a habit is grace 5 ·5 _ From this opposition which Hervaeus so emphatically points out between sin and sanctifying grace, a conclusion may be de­ duced as r€gards the relationship which his doctrine implies be­ tween grace and original justice. For our present purpose we may concentrate upon sin as referring to original sin, prescinding from actual mortal sin, which is also_ remitted in baptism. In the first place, then, original sin is removed by baptism. Now the op­ position between original sin and grace , which baptism confers, is direct ; for, as Hervaeus insists, a privation is not removed ex­ •Cept by the opposite positive habit : non. tollitur priva,tio nis·i p:e,r ha.b itium opp,osit,urn. Concretely, in the ·present case, the ha.bit is -sanctifying grace, the privation is origin al sin. Accordingly, orig­ inal sin is the privation of sanctifying grace. On the other hand, in the common and frequently repeated definition cited by Hers:; « Quod autem tollat originalem culpam et actualem mortalem pro­ batur sic : primo ex parte suae signifi c ationis ; secundo ex parte sui effectus. Ex p arte suae significationis sic., quia baptismus significat perfectam ablu­ tionem mentis ; sed non potest esse perfecta ablutio mentis nisi auferatur omnis culpa originalis et actualis motta.lis saltem. Ergo, etc. Ex parte au­ tern e:ffectus probatur sic : quia su:�:>pono nunc quod per baptismum regene­ neratur homo in vi tam spiritualem. Ex hoc arguo sic : p er illud per quocl homo rcgeneratur in vi tam spiritualem tollitur omnis Jispositio opposita et . incornpossibilis tali formae per quam homo constituitur in vita sp irituali ; sed omnis culp a tam originalis quam mortalis opponitur gratiae per quam homo constituitur in vi tam spi.ritualem ». IV Sent., d. 4, q. 2 _; ed. 1505, f. 10 vb . « Baptismus confert gratiam et virtutes his qui pr�us non habebant ... Ratio quod infundit gratiam est ista. Primo quod non tollitur privatio nisi per habitum oppositum ; baptismus tollit culpam ; ergo non tollit eam nisi per habitum culpae : huiusmodi est gratia. Ergo etc., » Loe. c-i-t ., f. 11 ra.

72

CHAPTER II

vaeus, original sin is the privation of original justice . Hence sanctifying grace, while not purely and simply c�nvcrtible with original justice, must be at any rate the p rincipal part, the for­ mal -element, of original justice in the more comprehensive sense of the term. This does not negate the notion, so ·often inculcated by Hervaeus, that original j ustice is a disposition regulating the sensitive appetites so that their activity be consistently in accord with right reason; for in this case original justice is regarded in its restricted, quasi-technical meaning, and is thus equivalent to what later theologi,ans have ca\led « integrity ». The fact that in speaking of the remission of sin in the sacrament of baptism Hervacus couples original sin and actual mortal sin, further con­ firms the conclusion that original sin is formally the privation of grac�. Not only original sin, but al:s-o mortal sin is jncompatible with the form, sanctifying grace, which is infused i'n baptism; not only original sin hnt mortal sin is a privation whi cl1 can he removed only by the presence of the opposite habit. According to the common teaching of theologians, however, mortal sin, con­ sidered as habitual sin or the state of sin, is the privation of �anctifying grace ; in parallel fashion, consequently, original sin, considered as habitual sin , must he the priva.tion of grace. In this the two are identical, and differ in as much as the former connotes a. personal, adua l transgression of God 's law, while· the latter connut€s a particular, actual transgression o.f God 's will by Adam, the head of tha human race, with the consequence that all of Adam 's deseendants are born into the world in the same stat,e of sin in which he was constituted as a result of sin tha.t is, in the state of habitual sih , privation of sanctifying grace. Hence again, original scin is the privation of sanctifying grace ; and since original sin i s also the privation of original justice, sa nctifying grace is in some respect the same as original justice. , As how�ver, we lmow from other evidence, that according to Her­ vaeus original justice- ineluded elements which are not p redicable of sanctifying gra.c.e, the two terms are not equipoilent. Hence­ grace is distinct· from original justice, but inadequate.ly, as part is distinct from the whole. Sanctifying gl'iace , then, is the formal component of original justice, by which the mind and will of man are duly orientated to God, as supe-m atural last End.

TH E DOCTR I �E ON 1'H E �ATURE O J