|
Magistri Petri Lombardi |
Master Peter Lombard |
Sententiarum Quatuor Libri |
The Four Books of Sentences |
|
LIBER SECUNDUS SENTENTIARUM.
DE RERUM CREATIONE ET
FORMATIONE CORPORALIUM ET SPIRITUALIUM |
THE SECOND BOOK OF THE SENTENCES
ON THE CREATION AND FORMATION OF THINGS CORPORAL AND SPIRITUAL AND MANY OTHERS PERTAINING TO THIS |
|
DISTINCTIO IV. |
DISTINCTION 4 |
|
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, |
Latin
text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, |
|
Cap. I.
An perfecti et beati creati sint, an miseri et imperfecti. |
Chapter I. Whether (the Angels) were created perfect and blessed, or wretched and imperfect? |
|
Post haec videndum est, utrum perfectos et beatos creaverit Deus Angelos, an miseros et imperfectos. — Ad quod dici potest, quod nec in beatitudine nec in miseria creati sunt. Miseri enim ante peccatum esse non potuerunt, quia ex peccato miseria est.1 Nam si non fuisset peccatum, nulla esset miseria. Beati quoque nunquam fuerunt illi qui ceciderunt, quia sui eventus ignari fuerunt, id est peccati et supplicii futuri. Si enim lapsum suum praescierunt, aut vitare voluerunt, sed non potuerunt, et ita erant stulti et maligni. Ideoque dicimus, quod non erant praescii eventus sui, nec eis data est cognitio eorum quae futura erant super eos. — Boni vero et qui perstiterunt forte suae beatitudinis praescii fuerunt. Unde Augustinus super Genesim:2 « Quomodo, inquit, beatus inter Angelos fuit qui futuri peccati atque supplicii praescius non fuit? Quaeritur autem, cur non fuerit. Forte Deus revelare diabolo noluit, quid facturus vel passurus esset; ceteris vero revelare voluit, quod in veritate mansuri essent ». — His verbis videtur Augustinus significare, quod Angeli, qui corruerunt, non fuerunt praescii sui casus, ideoque beati non fuerunt; et quod Angeli, qui perstiterunt, beatitudinem sibi affuturam praescierunt atque de ea certi in spe exstiterunt; unde quodam modo iam beati erant. Et revera, si ita fuisset, potest dici, illos aliquo modo fuisse beatos, alio vero non, qui nescierunt eventum suum. |
After these (inquiries), one must see, whether God created the Angels perfect and blessed, or wretched [miseros] and imperfect. — To which it can be said, that they were created neither in beatitude nor in misery [miseria]. For they could not be wretched before sinning, because misery is from sin.1 For if there were no sin, there would be no misery. Those who fell down [ceciderunt], were also never blessed, because they were ignorant of their own outcome [eventus], that is of (their own) sin and future capital punishment [supplicium]. For if they has foreknown their own fall [lapsum], or had wanted to avoid (it), but could not, they were then also foolish and disposed to evil [maligni]. And for this reason we say, that they were not prescient of their own outcome, nor was there given to them a cognition of those (things) which were going to be upon them. — On the other hand the good and those who persisted (in the Truth) perhaps were prescient of their beatitude. Wherefore (St.) Augustine On Genesis2 says: « In what manner was one blessed among the Angels, who was not prescient of thee sin or punishment [supplicium] to come? Moreover there is the question: “Why was he not?” Perhaps God did not want to reveal to the Devil, what he was going to do and/or suffer, but to the rest he wanted to reveal, that they were going to remain in the Truth ». — With these words (St.) Augustine seems to signify, that the Angels, who fell down [corruerunt] (from Heaven), were not prescient of their own downfall [casus], and for that reason they were not blessed; and that the Angels, who persisted (in the Truth), foreknew the beatitude that (was) to be at hand for them and so stood forth certain in hope of it; wherefore they already in a certain manner blessed. And in truth, it can be said, that if it had been thus, that the latter were in a certain manner blessed, but the former, who did not know of their outcome, (were) not. |
|
Sed hac magis opinando et quaerendo dicit Augustinus quam asserendo; unde et huic opinioni opponens consequenter subdit: « Sed quare discernebantur illi a ceteris, ut Deus istis quae ad ipsos pertinerent non revelaret, aliis vero revelaret, cum non prius sit ipse ultor quam aliquis peccator? Non enim damnat ipse innocentes ». — Hic videtur innuere, quod nec peccaturis futurum malum, nec permansuris futurum bonum revelaverit. Ideoque nec illi qui ceciderunt, unquam, nec illi qui perstiterunt, usque ad consummationem beati fuerunt; quia beati non poterant esse, si de bea- / -titudine . . . |
But (St.) Augustine says this, opining and asking, more than asserting; wherefore opposing this opinion he also consequently subjoins: « But for what reason were the former distinguished [discernebantur] from the rest, so that God would not reveal to them what pertained to them, but to others would reveal (these things), since He Himself is not an avenger before someone (is) a sinner? For He does not damn the innocent ». — Here he seems to indicate [innuere], that He neither would reveal to (those) going to sin (their) future evil, nor to (those) going to remain (in the Truth their) future good. And for this reason neither were the former who fell, ever, nor those who persisted, up until (their) consummation, blessed; because they could not be blessed, if they were not certain / concerning . . . |
|
1 Cfr. Prov. 14, 34: Miseros autem facit populos peccatum. 2 Lib. XI. c. 17. n. 22, unde etiam quae sequuntur sumta sunt, sed multis omissis et mutatis. Quoad totam dist. cfr. Hugo, I. de Sacram. p. 5. c. 18. 19, et Sent. tr. 2. c. 2. 3. |
1 Cf. Prov. 14:34: But sin makes the peoples wretched [Miseros autem facit populos peccatum]. 2 Book XI, ch. 17, n. 22, from which even those which follow have been taken, but with many (things) omitted and changed. In regard to the whole Distinction, cf. Hugo (of St. Victor), On the Sacraments¸ Bk. I, p. 5, chs. 18 and 19, and Sentences., tr. 2, chs. 2 and 3. |
p. 131
|
bea- / -titudine certi non erant, vel si damnationis incerti erant. Unde Augustinus in eodem:1 « Dicere, inquit, de Angelis, quod in suo genere beati esse possunt, damnationis vel salutis incerti, quibus nec spes esset, quod mutandi essent in melius, nimia praesumtio est ». « Quomodo enim beati esse possunt, quibus est incerta sua beatitudo »? |
concerning (their) blessedness, and/or if they were uncertain of (their) damnation. Wherefore (St.) Augustine in the same (book)1 says: « To say of the Angels, that in their genus they can be blessed, uncertain of (their) damnation and/or salvation, for which there would be neither hope that they would be changed for the better, is exceeding presumption ». « For in what manner can they be blessed, to whom their own beatitude is uncertain »? |
|
Ex praedictis consequitur, quod Angeli, qui corruerunt, nunquam beati fuerunt, nisi beatitudinem aliquis accipiat illum statum innocentiae, in quo fuerunt ante peccatum. Illi vero qui perstiterunt, aut suam beatitudinem futuram, Deo revelante, praescierunt, et ita spei certitudine aliquo modo beati fuerunt; vel incerti exstiterunt suae beatitudinis, et ita aliter beati non fuerunt, quam reliqui qui ceciderunt.2 Mihi autem quod posterius dictum est probabilius videtur. |
From the aforesaid it follows [consequitur], that the Angels, who fell down, never were blessed, unless one accepts that state of innocence, in which they were before sinning, as beatitude. However, those who persisted (in the Truth), either foreknew their own future beatitude, with God revealing (it), and thus were blessed in a certain manner by the certitude of hope, and/or stood forth uncertain of their beatitude, and thus were not blessed in a manner other, than the rest who fell.2 But to me, what has been said second, seems more probable. |
|
Ad hoc autem, quod quaerebatur, utrum perfecti vel imperfecti fuerint creati, dici potest, quia quodam modo perfecti fuerunt, et quodam alio modo imperfecti. Non enim uno modo aliquid dicitur perfectum, sed pluribus. — Dicitur namque perfectum tribus modis. Est enim perfectum secundum tempus, et est perfectum secundum naturam, et est universaliter perfectum. Secundum tempus perfectum est quod habet quidquid tempus requirit, et convenit secundum tempus haberi; et hoc modo Angeli erant perfecti ante confirmationem, vel lapsum. Secundum naturam perfectum est quod habet quidquid debitum est vel expedit naturae suae ad glorificationem; et hoc modo perfecti fuerunt Angeli post confirmationem, et erunt Sancti post resurrectionem. Universaliter et summe perfectum est cui nihil unquam deest, et a quo universa proveniunt bona, quod est solius Dei. Prima ergo perfectio est naturae conditae, secunda naturae glorificatae, tertia naturae increatae. |
Moreover to that, which was asked, whether they were created perfect and/or imperfect, it can be said, that in a certain manner they were perfect, and in a certain other manner imperfect. For something is not said (to be) “perfect” in one manner, but in several. — For indeed the “perfect” is said in three manners. For there is the “perfect” according to season [tempus], and there is the “perfect” according to nature, and there is the universally “perfect”. According to time the “perfect” is that which has whatever the season requires, and (what) is fitting to be had according to the season; and in this manner the Angels were perfect before (their) confirmation, and/or lapse. According to nature the “perfect” is that which has whatever is due and/or expedient to its own nature for (its) glorification; and in this manner the angels were perfect after (their) confirmation, and (in this manner) the Saints shall be (“perfect”) after (their) resurrection. The universally and most highly “perfect” is that which is ever lacking nothing, and from which each and ever good comes forth, which (notion of perfection) belongs to God alone. Therefore the first perfection belongs to founded nature, the second to glorified nature, the third to uncreated Nature. |
|
Quales fuerint Angeli in creatione, ostensum est, boni scilicet et non mali, et iusti, id est innocentes, et perfecti quodam modo, alio vero imperfecti. Beati vero non fuerunt usque ad confirmationem, nisi beatitudo accipiatur, ut iam dictum est, ille status innocentiae et bonitatis, in quo conditi sunt. |
How the Angels were in (their) creation, has been shown, namely (that they were) good and not evil, and just, that is innocent, and perfect in a certain manner, but in another (manner) imperfect. On the other hand they were not blessed up until (their) confirmation (in grace), unless “beatitude” is accepted, as has already been said, as that state of innocence and goodness, in which they were founded. |
|
1 Cap. 19. n. 25, et seq. loc. ibid. c. 17. — Paulo post pro esse possunt Vat. cum cod. D et paucis edd. esse possent. 2 Cfr. August., XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 13. |
1 Chapter 19, n. 25, and the following passage is ibid., ch. 17. — A little after this for they can be [esse possunt] the Vatican edition, together with codex D and a few editions, has could have been [eses possent]. 2 Cf. (St.) Augustine, On the City of God, Bk. XI, ch. 13. |
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.