S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis
S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae
atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio
Cardinal Bishop of Alba
& Doctor of the Church

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis

of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

SECUNDI LIBRI

BOOK TWO

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM V.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION V

ARTICULUS II.

 

Quaestio II.

ARTICLE II

 

Question 2

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 152-154.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 152-154.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO II.

 

Utrum peccatum minorum Angelorum habeat ordinem ad peccatum luciferi.

QUESTION 2

 

Whether the sin of the lesser Angels has an order to the sin of Lucifer?

SECUNDO QUAERITUR de comparatione peccati minorum Angelorum ad peccatum luciferi, et quaeritur, utrum habeat ordinem ad ipsum.  —  Et quod habeat ordinem causalitatis cuiusdam, videtur.

SECOND THERE IS ASKED concerning the sin of the lesser Angels regarding the sin of Lucifer, and there is asked, whether (the former) has an order to the latter.  —  And that it does have an order of a certain causality, seems:

1. Apocalypsis duodecimo:2  Draco traxit secum tertiam partem stellarum.  Sancti et magistri exponunt de lucifero et de daemonibus.  Si traxit:  ergo aliquo modo procuravit casum eorum:  ergo etc.

1. According to the twelfth (chapter) of the Apocalypse:2  The dragon dragged with him a third part of the stars.  The Saints and masters (of theology) expound (this) of Lucifer and the demons.  If he dragged (them):  therefore in some manner he procured their downfall:  ergo etc..

2. Item, Ioannis octavo3 dicitur, quod ipse mendax est, et pater eius:  ergo diabolus est pater mendacii:  ergo cum mendacium ibi vocetur omne peccatum, videtur, quod ipse fuit pater omnis peccati, ergo et peccati minorum Angelorum:  et ita videtur, quod sit ordo causalitatis.

2. Likewise, in the eighth (chapter of the Gospel of St.) John3 there is said, that He is a liar, and the father of that:  therefore the Devil is the father of the lie:  therefore since in that (Gospel) every sin is called a “lie”, it seems, that he himself was the father of every sin, therefore also of the sin of the lesser Angels:  and thus it seems, that there is an order of causality (there).

3. Item, quod sit ibi ordo temporis sive durationis, videtur, quia Hugo4 dicit et Magister, quod peccaverunt peccato consentiendo; sed non potuerunt consentire peccato luciferi, nisi quod praecesserat; prius enim vult aliquis aliquid, quam requirat consensum:  ergo etc.

3. Likewise, that there is an order of time or duration there, seems, because Hugo (of Saint Victor)4 says and Master (Peter too), that they sinned by consenting to sin; but they could not consent to the sin of Lucifer, unless it had preceded (their own); for someone wills something before it requires the consent (of others):  ergo etc..

4. Item, hoc videtur, quia diabolus aliquo modo fuit origo, sive suggerendo, sive exemplum praebendo.  Non potuit suggerere, nisi postquam appetiit, nec etiam demonstrare aliis conceptum suum, nec illi consentire, nisi postquam cognoverunt:  ergo in medio inter peccatum diaboli et aliorum cecidit suggestio, vel saltem demonstratio et perceptio et adiudicatio de percepto.  Sed ista non possunt simul esse:  ergo fuit ibi ordo temporis.5

4. Likewise, this seems, because the Devil in some manner was the origin (of their sin), either by suggesting (it), or by proffering an example.  He could not suggest (it), except after he desired (his own sin), nor even demonstrate to the others his own (sin now) conceived, nor (could) they consent (to this), except after they cognized (his sin):  therefore in the middle between the sin of the Devil and their own there fell (his) suggestion, and/or at least demonstration and (their) perception and adjudication of (what was) perceived.  But these cannot be together:  therefore there was an order of time there.5

SED CONTRA:  1. Quod non potuerit ibi esse ordo causalitatis sive occasionis, videtur, quia statim ut peccavit, deformatus est:  ergo cum Angeli ante peccatum haberent limpidum visum, si viderunt deformitatem, potius debuerunt a peccato retrahi quam eius exemplum vel suggestionem imitari:  ergo non peccaverunt eius exemplo vel suggestione.

BUT ON THE CONTRARY:  1. That there could not be an order of causality or of occasion there, seems, because as soon as he sinned, he was deformed:  therefore since the Angels before sinning had clear sight [limpidum visum], if they saw (his) deformity, they ought rather to have been drawn back from (his) sin than to imitate his example and/or suggestion:  therefore they did not sin by his example and/or suggestion.

2. Item, quod non fuit ibi ordo temporis, videtur, quia statim ut diabolus peccavit, corruit; alioquin « fuisset dedecus peccati sine decore iustitiae »;6 sed omnes simul ceciderunt — unde Damascenus dicit, quod « simul cum eo, scilicet lucifero, convulsa est innumera multitudo » — ergo simul, tempore omnes peccaverunt.

2. Likewise, that there was not an order of time there, seems, because as soon as the Devil sinned, he fell down [corruit]; otherwise « there would have been the shame of sin [deducus peccati] with the ornament of justice »;6 but all fell down [ceciderunt] together — wherefore (St. John) Damascene says, that « together with him, namely Lucifer, there was dragged off [convulsa est] a numberless [innumera] multitude » — therefore together, in time all sinned.

3. Item, potest obiici, quod neuter ordo ibi fuerit; quia boni simul conversi sunt, ita quod nec fuit ibi ordo causalitatis sive suggestionis, nec . . .

3. Likewise, it can be objected, that there was neither order there, because the good (Angels) were converted together, such that there was neither an order of causality or suggestion, nor . . .

2  Vers. 4.

3  Vers. 44.  —  In fine argumenti post quod sit Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. interserit ibi.

4  Liber. I. de Sacram. p. V. c. 30.  Vide quaest. praec. fundam. 2.  —  Magister docet idem infra d. VI. c. 2.  —  Circa finem argumenti cod. K quam quod requirat pro quam requirat.

5  Cfr. August., III. de Lib. Arb. c. 25. n. 74. seq.

6  August., III. de Lib. Arb. c. 9. n. 26.  —  Sequens textus Damasc. habetur II. de Fide orthod. c. 4:  Sunapespasqh de, kai hcolouqhsen autv, kai sunepese plhqos apeiron tvn up autv tetagmenwn aggelwn i. e. simul cum eo avulsa est et secuta est eum et concidit infinita subiectorum ipsi Angelorum multitudo.

2  Verse 4.

3  Verse 44.  —  At the end of the argument after that there is [quod sit] the Vatican edition, together with one or the other codex, inserts there [ibi] for (there).

4  On the Sacraments, Bk. I, p. V, ch. 30.  See the 2nd argument of the fundament in the preceding Question.  —  Master (Peter) teaches the same below in d. VI, ch. 2.  —  Near the end of the argument codex K reads beforehand which [quam quod] for before it [quam].

5  Cf. (St.) Augustine, On Free Will, Bk. III, ch. 25, n. 74 f..

6  (St.) Augustine, On Free Will, Bk. III, ch. 9, n. 26.  —  The following text from (St. John) Damascene is had in (his) On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. II, ch. 4:  Sunapespasqh de, kai hcolouqhsen autv, kai sunepese plhqos apeiron tvn up autv tetagmenwn aggelwn, i. e. together with there was dragged forth [avulsa est] and there followed and fell together with him an limitless [infinita] multitude of Angels subject to him.

p. 151

temporis:  ergo si statim divisa est lux a tenebris, statim boni facti sunt lux, et mali tenebrae:  ergo simul non tantum tempore, verum etiam natura.

of time:  therefore if light was divided from darkness [tenebris] immediately, as soon as the good where made light, the evil (were) also (made) shadows [tenebrae]:  therefore (they sinned) not only together in time, but even in nature.

4. Item, adhuc quod neuter ordo ibi fuerit, videtur, quia, si fuit ordo causalitatis, ergo videtur, peccatum aliorum Angelorum remediabile, sicut et peccatum hominis, quod aliunde habuit remedium, quia aliunde habuit occasionem.1  Si vero fuit ordo temporis, ergo videtur, quod peccatum minorum Angelorum sit gravius, cum non formidaverint divinum iudicium, quod conspexerunt circa luciferum.

4. Likewise, it still seems that neither order was there, because, if there was an order of causality, therefore it seems, that the sin of the other Angels (was) remediable, just as also (is) the sin of man, which has a remedy from elsewhere, because it had (its) occasion from elsewhere.1  But if there was an order of time, therefore it seems, that the sin of the lesser Angels is more grave, since they did not dread the Divine judgment, which they saw completely (had fallen) about Lucifer.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Inter luciferi peccatum et ceterorum fuit ordo et quoad gradum et quoad occasionem et quoad durationem.

CONCLUSION

 

Between the sin of Lucifer and (that) of all the others there was an order, both in regard to grade and in regard to occasion and in regard to duration.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum ad praedictorum intelligentiam, quod hic triplex conseuvit poni positio.

I RESPOND:  There must be said for an understanding of the aforesaid, that in this there is customarily posited a threefold position.

Quidam enim voluerunt dicere, quod non fuit ibi ordo nisi secundum gradum, quia maius et excellentius fuit peccatum luciferi, eo quod magis superbivit; nec tamen fuit prius peccato aliorum tempore nec origine, sed statim in eodem puncto quilibet, propria voluntate depravatus, sine exemplo peccavit; et quia aspectum habuerunt ad idem, ideo consimili modo et eodem genere peccati peccaverunt.  Et concedunt rationes ad hoc.

For certain (authors) wanted to say, that there was not an order there except according to grade, because greater and more excellent was the sin of Lucifer, by this that he was more proud; nor yet was it prior to the sin of the others in time nor in origin, but immediately in these same point (of time) each, depraved by his own will, without the example (of another) sinned; and because they had (their) gaze regarding the same (end), for that reason they sinned in a consimilar manner and in the same genus of sin.  And they concede the reasons for this.

Aliorum positio fuit, quod non tantum fuit ordo excessus,2 immo causalitatis, ut causalitas large dicatur non tantum ad causam vere, sed etiam ad occasionem; non tantum ad perpetrationem, sed etiam ad suggestionem; non tamen ordo temporis.  Et hoc volunt dare sic intelligere, quod in lucifero simul fuit tempore appetitus et eius expressio, et in Angelis simul perceptio et appetitio, et ita simul tempore peccaverunt; tamen peccatum diaboli praebuit aliis viam, sicut exemplum.  —  Et ponunt simile:  si oculus aspiceret directe in orientem, existens in occidente, simul fieret coruscatio et appareret in oculo.3  A minori volunt hoc esse posse in Angelo; et per hoc solvunt obiecta.

The position of others was, that there was not only an order of excess,2 nay (one) of causality, so that “causality” is said broadly not so much regarding a cause truly, but even regarding an occasion; not only regarding the perpetration, but even regarding the suggestion; yet not an order of time.  And by this they wanted to grant that one thus understand, that in Lucifer there were at once in time the appetite and its expression, and in the Angels at once the perception and desiring [appetitio], and thus together in time they sinned; yet the sin of the Devil proffered to the others a way, just as an example (does).  —  And they posit a simile:  if an eye, existing in the west, would look directly unto the east, the twinkling (of the morn) would at once come to be and appear in the eye.3  They want a minori that this is able to be in an Angel; and through this they solve the objections.

Tertia positio est, quod fuit ibi ordo et quantum ad gradum et quantum ad occasionem et quantum ad durationem:  quantum ad gradum, quia illud luciferi4 fuit maius; quantum ad occasionem, quia aliis praebuit exemplum; quantum ad durationem, quia, sicut in lucifero necesse fuit tempore ante esse quam peccare, quia non potuit in eodem instanti habere cognitionem, quae praeexigitur ad peccatum, cum deordinata affectione; sic in minoribus Angelis dicunt fuisse in peccando, cum peccaverunt aspiciendo quod Angelus volebat, et exinde aspiciendo commodum suum.  —  Et haec positio videtur intelligibilior, unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

The third position is, that there was an order there both as much as regards a grade and as much as regards the occasion and as much as regards the duration:  as much as regards a grade, because that (sin)4 of Lucifer was greater; as much as regards the occasion, because he proffered an example to the others; as much as regards the duration, because, just as in Lucifer it was necessary that he be in time before he sin, because he could not in the same instant have the cognition, which was required beforehand for the sin, with a disordered affection; so they say it was in the lesser Angels in sinning, when they sinned by looking at what the Angel wanted, and thereupon by looking to their own advantage.  —  And this position seems more intelligible, wherefore the reasons brought forward for it are to be conceded.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod deformis fuit statim; potest responderi, quod deformis fuit, sed illa deformitas erat intra conscientiam, et ideo non apparuit, quia non revelavit.  —  Vel potest dici, quod est deformitas contra naturam et contra voluntatem.  Deformitatem contra naturam statim natura cognoscit et respuit, quia non movetur nisi uno modo.5  Sed deformitatem voluntatis non sic respuit voluntas, eo quod ipsa libera est; et ideo frequenter placet ei actus culpabilis et deformis; nec unquam talis actus displicet ei, nisi in quantum adhaeret aliquod modo iustitiae.  Et quia Angeli quidam adhaeserunt iustitiae; ideo eis displicuit motus Angeli et deformis voluntas.  Alii vero non adhaeserunt; ideo immunditiam non perceperunt, sed magis ut apparens bonum acceptaverunt.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that he was immediately deformed; it can be responded, that he was deformed, but that deformity was within (his) conscience, and for that reason it did not appear, because he did not reveal it.  —  And/or it can be said, that there is a deformity contrary to nature and contrary to will.  Nature immediately recognizes [cognoscit] a deformity against nature and rejects (it), because it is not moved except in one manner.5  But the will does not thus reject a deformity of will, by this that it itself is free; and for that reason a culpable and deformed act frequently is pleasing to it; nor is such an act every displeasing to it, except inasmuch as (the will) adheres in some manner to justice.  And because certain Angels adhered to justice; for that reason deformed movement and will of the (now evil) Angel displeased them.  But the others did not adhere (to justice); for that reason they did not perceive (Lucifer’s) uncleanliness, but rather accepted (it) as an apparent good.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod simul ceciderunt; potest dici, quod simul, non quia in eodem instanti, sed quia repente, quasi in imperceptibili tempore; et ibi bene potest esse ordo, quamvis non percipiatur.  —  Vel aliter et melius potest dici, quod satanas non cecidit statim ut appetiit, sed postquam peccatum eius fuit consummatum et confirmatum per odium et invidiam,6 et postquam facta est divisio bonorum Angelorum a malis, de quorum consortio post beatificationem statim repulsi sunt.  Nec valet illud quod obiicitur de peccati dedecore, quia peccatum semper habet poenam internam sibi coniunctam.  Unde sicut homo non statim fuit eiectus de paradiso ut peccavit, sed tamen statim poenam habuit; ita videtur de Angelo esse dicendum, quod non in eodem instanti cecidit.

2. To that which is objected, that they fell down together; it can be said, that (they did fall down) together, not because (they fell) in the same instant, but because (they did so) suddenly [repente], as if in an imperceptible time; and there can well be an order there, even though it is not perceived.  —  And/or it can be said in another manner and better, that Satan did not fall down as soon as he desired (his sin), but after his sin had been consummated and confirmed through hatred and envy (of God),6 and after the division of the good Angels was made from the evil ones, from the company [consortio] of whom, after (their) beatification, (the evil Angels) were immediately repulsed.  Nor is that, which objects concerning the shame of sin valid, because sin always has an internal punishment conjoined with itself.  Wherefore just as man was not ejected from Paradise as soon as he sinned, but yet immediately had (his) punishment, so it seems that (it must) be said concerning an (evil) Angel, that he did not fall down in the same instant (in which he sinned).

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de bonis Angelis, dicendum, quod tam conversionem bonorum Angelorum quam aversionem daemonum peccatum luciferi praecessit.  Nam ipse prius superbivit et superbiam suam omnibus indicavit; et ex tunc quidam adhaeserunt sibi, alii vero restiterunt et adhaeserunt Deo; et simul isti lux, illi tenebrae facti sunt. . . .

3. To that which is objected concerning the good Angels, it must be said, that the sin of Lucifer preceded both the conversion of the good Angels and the aversion of the demons.  For he first was proud and indicated his pride to all, and from then on certain ones indeed adhered to him, but others resisted and adhered to God; and together the latter were made light, the former shadows. . . .

1  Ut insinuatur I. de Mirabil. s. Script. c. 2. (inter opera August.); Gregor., IV. Moral. c. 3. n. 8; Hugo de S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 9.  —  Paulo superius cod. cc et ed. 1 voci hominis praemittunt primi.

2  Nonnulli codd. ut W bb excellentiae, cod. I excessus vel excellentiae.

3  Hoc simile ponitur a Praepositivo in sua Summa, p. II. q. 6, ubi hanc secundam positionem tenet his verbis:  Ad hoc dicimus, quod sicut quam cito coruscatio fit in oriente, tam cito ego video, et tam cito in mente moveor; ita tam cito quod lucifer peccavit, tam cito, revelatione divina faciente, omnes alii viderunt, et illi qui ceciderunt tam cito moti sunt ad consentiendum ei in malo; et sicut omnes eodem momento peccaverunt, et alii illo eodem momento omnes confirmati sunt.  Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 99. m. 5.

4  Codd. N aa supplent peccatum.  Paulo inferius post ante esse Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. subiungit cognitionem, cod. F (a secunda manu) et cognoscere.  Cfr. de hoc supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2.

5  Aristot., Mechanicae, c. 1:  Natura etenim eundem semper habet modum.  Cfr. IX. Metaph. text. 3. et 10. (VIII. c. 2. et 5.).

6  De quo supra a. 1. q. 1. in corp.

1  As is hinted at in (the book) On the Wonders of Sacred Scripture, ch. 2 (among the works of St. Augustine); (St.) Gregory (the Great), Morals on the Book of Job, Bk. IV, ch. 3, n. 8; Hugo of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, Bk. I, p. VII, ch. 9.  —  A little above this codex cc and edition 1 before the word man [hominis] prefix the first [homini].

2  Not a few codices, such as W and bb, have of excellence [excellentiae], codex I has of excess and/or of excellence [excessus vel excellentiae].

3  This simile is posited by Praepositivus in his Summa., p. II, q. 6, where he holds this second position in these words:  To this we say, that just as swift as the twinkling (of the morn) comes to be in the east, so swift do I see (it), and so swift am I moved in mind; thus as swift as Lucifer sinned, so swift, by the working of a divine revelation, all the others saw (it), and they who fell down were as swiftly moved to consent to him in evil; and just as all sinned in the same moment, all the others too were confirmed in that same moment.  Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 99, m. 5.

4  Codices N and aa supply sin [peccatum].  A little below this for that he be in time before [tempore ante esse] the Vatican edition, together with one or the other codex, has that there be a cognition in time before [tempore ante esse cognitionem], codex F (by a second hand) that he be and cognize in time before [tempore ante esse et cognoscere].  On this cf. above d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 2.

5  Aristotle, Mechanics, ch. 1:  For indeed nature always has the same manner.  Cf. Metaphysics, Bk. IX, texts 3 and 10 (Bk. VIII, chs. 2 and 5).

6  Concerning which, cf. above a. 1, q. 1 in the body of the Question.

p. 154

Quamvis ergo simul fuerit Angelorum conversio et daemonum aversio, non tamen simul cum peccato luciferi.

Therefore, though the conversion of the Angels and the aversion of the demons was together; yet (it was) not together with the sin of Lucifer.

4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de excusabilitate vel gravitate, dicendum, quod prima pars ratiocinationis dupliciter deficit:  primum, quia illa non est sufficiens ratio, quare peccatum hominis fuit remediabile, sicut infra patebit melius;1 secundum, quia non est simile.  Aliter enim diabolus dedit occasionem homini, aliter Angelis malis:  homini promittendo et fallendo, sed Angelis solum conceptum suum insinuando; unde non dicitur eos tentasse, ut primos parentes.  Secunda pars deficit, quia non adverterunt eius ruinam nec viderunt divini iudicii serveritatem in ipsum, quousque peccatum eius fuit consummatum, ut prius tactum est et determinatum.2

4. To that which is last objected concerning the excusability and/or gravity (of their sin), it must be said, that the first part of the reasoning [ratiocinationis] is deficient in a twofold manner:  first, because that is not a sufficient reason, why the sin of man was remediable, just as will be better shown below;1 second, because it is not similar.  For the Devil gave an occasion (of sin) to man in one manner, to the evil Angels in another manner:  to man by promising and deceiving, but to the Angels by insinuating only his own (now) conceived (sin); wherefore he is not said to have tempted them, as (he did our) first parents.  The second part fails, because they did not advert to his ruin nor did they see the severity of the Divine Judgment upon him, until his sin was consummated, as has been touched upon and determined before.2

1  Dist. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.

2  In solutione ad 2.  —  Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

1  Distinction 7, p. I, q. 1, q. 1.

2  In the solution to n. 2.  —  See the Scholium to the preceding Question.

This English Translation and the digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup,  all emendations and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator, are © 2007, 2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo.  The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator.
Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.