|
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 XIX. |
DISTINCTION 19 |
|
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, |
Latin
text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, |
|
Cap. I.
De statu hominis ante peccatum, qualis fuit secundum corpus, et qualis post peccatum. |
Chapter I. On the state of man before the sin, such as it was according to the body, and such as (it was) after the sin. |
|
Solent quaeri plura de primo hominis statu ante peccatum, scilicet qualis fuerit homo, priusquam peccaret, et in corpore et in anima, mortalis, an immortalis, passibilis, an impassibilis; de termino inferioris vitae et de transitu ad superiorem; de modo propagationis filiorum, et alia multa, quae non inutiliter sciuntur, licet aliquando curiositate quaerantur. Et priusquam ad animi qualitatem pertinentia prosequamur, de qualitate eius secundum corpus et modo propagationis filiorum et de aliis quibusdam inspiciamus. |
Several (questions) are customarily asked concerning the first state of man before (original) sin, namely, “Of what kind was man, before he sinned, both in the body and in the soul: mortal, or immortal, passible, or impassible?”; “On the terminus of (this) inferior life”, and “On the transitus to (that) superior (life)”; “On the manner of the propagation of (his) sons”, and many others, which are not un-usefully known, though at times are asked out of curiosity. And before we prosecute (the questions) pertaining to the quality of the soul, let us inspect (those) concerning his quality according to body and the manner of the propagation of (his) sons and (those) concerning certain other (matters). |
|
« Primus igitur homo secundum naturam corporis terreni et immortalis fuit quodam modo secundum aliquid, quia potuit non mori, et mortalis quodam modo, quia potuit mori. In illo namque primo statu habuit posse mori et posse non mori. Et haec fuit prima humani corporis immortalitas, scilicet posse non mori. In secundo vero statu post peccatum habuit posse mori et non posse non mori, quia in hoc statu moriendi est necessitas. In tertio statu habebit posse non mori et non posse mori, quia ad illum statum pertinet moriendi impossibilitas, quod ex gratia erit, non ex natura ».1 |
« Therefore the first man according to the nature of (his) earthly body was both in a certain manner immortal according to something, because he could not die, and in a certain manner mortal, because he could die. For indeed in that first state he had a ‘being able to die’ [posse more] and a ‘being able not to die’ [posse non mori]. And the latter was the first immortality of the human body, namely the ‘being able not to die’. On the other hand, in the second state after the sin he had a ‘being able to die’ and a ‘not being able not to die’, because in this state there is a necessity of dying. In the third state he will have a ‘being able not to die’ and a ‘not being able to die’, because to that state pertains the impossibility of dying, which will be out of grace, not out of nature ».1 |
|
Cap. II.
Quomodo dicitur homo factus in animam viventem. |
Chapter II. In what manner is man said (to have) been made into a living soul? |
|
In primo statu fuit corpus hominis animale, id est egens alimoniis ciborum; unde et homo factus dicitur in animam viventem, non spiritualem, id est in animam corpus sensificantem, quod adhuc erat animal, non spirituale, quod egebat cibis, ut per animam viveret. Factus est igitur in animam viventem, id est vitam corpori dantem, tamen per sustentamenta ciborum; et tunc erat corpus mortale et immortale, quia poterat mori et poterat non mori. — « Post peccatum vero factum est mortuum, sicut dicit Apostolus:2 Corpus proper peccatum mortuum est, id est, necessitatem moriendi in se habet — In resurrectione vero erit spirituale, scilicet agile et cibis non egens, et immortale, non sicut in statu primo tantum fuit, scilicet quod possit non mori, sed etiam quod non poterit mori. Unde Augustinus super Genesim:3 « Apostolus ait: Corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum, etc. Prius de limo terrae formatum est corpus animale, non spirituale, cum quali resurgemus et renovabimur a vetustate, non in corpus animale, quale fuit, sed in melius, id est spirituale, cum hoc mortale induet immortalitatem,4 in quam mutandus erat Adam, nisi mortem corporis animalis peccando meruisset. Non ait Apostolus: corpus mortale est propter peccatum, sed: mortuum ». |
In the first state the body of man was animal, that is one needing the nourishments of (diverse) foods [alimoniis ciborum]; wherefore man is said (to have) been made “into a living soul”, not a spiritual one, that is, into a soul giving sense [sensificantem] to a body, which was still an animal one, not a spiritual one, which needed (diverse) foods, to live through the soul. Therefore he was made into a living soul, that is one giving life to a body, yet through the supports [sustentamenta] of (diverse) foods; and (his) body was then mortal and immortal, because it could die and it could not die. — « However after the sin it was made dead, just as the Apostle2 says: The body on account of sin is dead, that is, it has in itself the necessity of dying. — But in the resurrection it will be spiritual, that is agile and one not needing (diverse) foods, and immortal, not only just as it was in the first state, namely (as) one which cannot not die, but also (as) one which is not able to die. Wherefore (St.) Augustine (says) On (a Literal Exposition of) Genesis:3 « The Apostle says: The body indeed is dead on account of sin, etc.. The first body formed from the slime of the earth was animal, not spiritual, with which we shall rise again and be renewed from (our) decrepitude [a vetustate], not into the animal body, which it was, but into a better one, that is a spiritual one, since this mortal (body) shall put on the immortality,4 into which Adam was to be changed, if he had not merited the death of the animal body by sinning. The Apostle does not say: “the body is mortal on account of sin”, but: “(it is) dead” ». |
|
Cap. III.
Corpus hominis ante peccatum mortale et immortale erat, post peccatum mortuum. |
Chapter III. The body of man before sin was mortal and immortal, after sin dead. |
|
« Illud enim ante peccatum mortale et immortale erat, quia poterat mori et non mori. Aliud autem est non posse mori, aliud posse non mori. Ideo factum est per peccatum non mortale, quod erat, sed mortuum, quod non fieret, nisi peccaret. Animale enim est et hoc corpus, sicut primi hominis fuit, sed iam deterius est; habet enim necessitatem moriendi ». — Ecce hic evidenter aperit Augustinus, quod corpus hominis ante peccatum mortale et immortale fuit, sed non qualiter fiet in resurrectione. De hoc eodem Beda5 super Genesim ait: « Non est credendum, ante peccatum ita fuisse mortua corpora, sicut modo. Ait enim Apostolus: Corpus propter peccatum mortuum est, sed licet fuissent animalia nondum spiritualia, non tamen mortua, quae scilicet necesse esset mori ». |
« For before the sin it was mortal and immortal, because it could die and not die. Moreover it is one (thing) ‘to not be able to die’, another ‘to be able not to die’. For that reason it was not made through the sin mortal, as it was, but dead, which it would not have become, unless it sinned. For this body is also animal, just as (that) of the first man was, but it is already worse; for it has the necessity of dying ». — Behold (St.) Augustine evidently discloses [aperit], that the body of man before the sin was mortal and immortal, but not in what kind of manner it will become in the resurrection. Of this same (body St.) Bede (the Venerable)5 says On Genesis: « It must not be believed, that before the sin bodies thus died, just as (they do) now. For the Apostle says: The body on account of sin is dead, but though there were animal (bodies which were) not yet spiritual, yet (they were) dead (bodies), that is, it was necessary, that they die ». |
|
1 Hugo, de Sacram. I. p. 6. c. 18. Cfr. August., VI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 25. 26. Paulo inferius respicitur Gen. 2, 7. et I. Cor. 15, 45. Cfr. Glossa interlin. ad ultimum locum. 2 Rom. 8, 10. 3 Libr. VI. c. 22, ubi et quae praecedunt. Quae hic sequuntur et in cap. seq. habentur ibid. c. 24. 25. 26, multis omissis et mutatis. 4 Cfr. I. Cor. 15, 44-54. Paulo ante auctoritate codd. B D E et edd. 1, 8 correximus lectionem Vat, quae, omissa vocula et, pro renovabimur substituit Renovabitur, et subinde adiungit enim. 5 Libr. I. Hexaëm. ad Gen. 2, 17, et habetur in Glossa ord. |
1 Hugo (of St. Victor), On the Sacraments, Bk. I, p. 6, ch. 18. Cf. (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. VI, chs. 25 and 26. A little below this there is a reference to Gen. 2:7 and 1 Cor. 15:45. Cf. the Glossa interlinearis on the last passage. 2 Rom. 8:10. 3 Book VI, ch. 22, where those which precede (are) also (found). [Trans. note: Apparently said in reference to the « which appears before However after the sin [Post peccatum].] Those which follow here and in the following chapter are had ibid., chs. 24, 25, and 26, with many (things) omitted and changed. 4 Cf. 1. Cor. 15:44-54. A little before this, on the authority of codices B, D, and E, and editions 1 and 8, we have corrected the reading of the Vatican edition, which, having omitted the word and [et] and substituted For it will be renewed [Renovabitur enim] for be renewed [renovabimur]. 5 Hexaëmeron, Bk. I, on Gen. 2:17, (which) is also had in the Glossa ordinaria. |
p.
456
|
Cap. IV.
Utrum immortalitas, quam tunc habuit, fuerit de conditione naturae, an ex gratiae beneficio. |
Chapter IV. Whether the immortality, which it then had, was from the condition of (its) nature, or whether (it was) out of the benefice of a grace? |
|
Solet hic quaeri, cum homo primus mortale et immortale corpus habuerit, utrum ex conditione naturae ipsius corporis habuerit utrumque, an alterum beneficium esset gratiae, scilicet immortalitas, id est, posse non mori. — Ad quod dici potest, quia alterum habebat in natura corporis, id est posse mori, alterum vero, scilicet posse non mori, erat ei ex ligno vitae, scilicet ex dono gratiae. Unde Augustinus super Genesim:1 « Quodam modo creatus est homo immortalis, quod erat ei de ligno vitae, non de conditione naturae. Mortalis erat conditione corporis animalis, immortalis beneficio Conditoris. Non enim immortale erat, quod omnino mori non posset; quod non erit, nisi cum fuerit spirituale »; — Aperte dicit, quod non ex natura, sed ex ligno vitae habebat posse non mori. Propter hoc aliqui dicunt, quod nisi illo ligno vitae uteretur, non semper viveret, quia peccaret. Peccaret enim, si illo ligno non uteretur, quia praeceptum erat ei, ut comederet de omni ligno paradisi, nisi de ligno scientiae boni et mali. Sicut ergo peccavit comedendo quod erat prohibitum, ita etiam peccaret, si non comederet quod erat iusum. |
Here there is customarily asked, “Since the first man had a mortal and immortal body, Whether he had body out of the condition of the nature of the body itself, or was it another benefice of grace, namely the immortality, that is, the ‘being able not to die’?” — To which it can be said, that he had the one in the nature of (his) body, that is the ‘being able to die’, but the other, namely the ‘being able not to die’, was his on account of the Tree of Life, that is from a gift of grace. Wherefore (St.) Augustine (says) On (a Literal Exposition of) Genesis:1 « In a certain manner man was created immortal, which (gift) was his from the Tree of Life, not from the condition of (his) nature. He was mortal according to the condition of (his) animal body, immortal by the benefice of (his) Founder. For he was not immortal, because he could not entirely die; which he will not be, except when he will be spiritual »; — He openly says, that he had an ‘being able not to die’ not out of (his) nature, but out of the Tree of Life. On which account some say, that if he did not use that Tree of Life, he would not live forever, because he would sin. For he would sin, if he did not use that Tree, because it had been precepted to him, that he would eat [comederet] of every tree of Paradise, except from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore just as he sinned by eating what was prohibited, so also would he sin, if he did not eat what was commanded. |
|
Cap. V.
Si posset homo semper vivere, utens aliis lignis et non ligno vitae, Deo non mandante, ut de illo ederet. |
Chapter V. Whether man could live forever, using the other trees and not the Tree of Life, with God not commanding, that he eat from it? |
|
Sed adhuc quaeritur, si non esset praeceptum, ut de ligno vitae ederet, et aliis et non illo vesceretur, nunquid posset non mori? Si semper viveret, non utens illo ligno, non erat ei ex illo ligno posse non mori. Si vero non posset semper vivere, id erat ei ex illo ligno. — Aliqui dicunt, quod si non fuisset ei praeceptum vesci illo ligno, et aliis et non illo vesceretur, viveret semper; sic determinantes illud quod supra dixit Augustinus, scilicet: « Erat ei de ligno vitae, non de conditione naturae » tantum, scilicet quasi non ex conditione naturae solummodo erat ei, sed etiam ex illo ligno. — Aliis autem videtur, quod ex ligno vitae erat ei posse non mori, non ex natura. Ideo enim dicitur potuisse non mori, quia poterat uti illo ligno, de quo edens non moreretur. |
But still there is asked, “If it was not precepted, that he eat [ederet] of the Tree of Life, and fed on [vesceretur] the others and not that one, would he be able not to die?” If he lived forever, not using that Tree, it was not his on account of that Tree ‘to be able not to die’. But if he could live forever, that was his on account of that Tree. — Some say, that if it had not been precepted to him to feed on that Tree, and he fed on the others and not that one, he would live forever; thus determining that which (St.) Augustine said above, namely: « It was his from the Tree of Life, not from the condition of nature » only, that is if was his not as if on account of the condition of (his) nature only, but also on account of that Tree. — But it seems to others, that it was his ‘to be able not to die’ on account of the Tree of Life, not on account of (his) nature. For he is said ‘to have been able not to die’ for this reason, because he was able to use that Tree, eating [edens] of which he would not die. |
|
Cap. VI.
De immortalitate corporis prima et secunda. |
Chapter VI. On the first and second immortality of the body. |
|
De hac vero hominis immortalitate, qualis fuerit, Augustinus super Genesim2 quaestionem movens sic ait: « Quaeritur, quomodo immortalis factus sit homo prae aliis animantibus; et quomodo cum illis communem acceperit alimoniam. Sed alia est immortalitas carnis, quam in Adam accepimus; alia, quam in resurrrectione speramus per Christum. Ille factus est homo immortalis, ut non posset mori,3 si non peccaret, moreretur autem, si peccaret; filii vero resurrectionis nec poterunt ultra peccare nec mori. Caro nostra non tunc egebit refectione ciborum, quia nulla poterit esse defectio. Caro Adae ante peccatum ita immortalis creata est, ut per alimoniam adiuta, esset mortis et doloris expers. Sic ergo immortalis et incorruptibilis condita est caro hominis, ut suam immortalitatem et incorruptionem per observantiam mandatorum Dei custodiret. In quibus mandatis hoc continebatur, ut de illis lignis concessis manducaret et ab interdicto abstineret; per horum edulium immortalitatis dona conservaret, donec corporalibus incrementis perductus ad aetatem, quae Conditori placeret, multiplicata progenie, ipso iubente, sumeret de ligno vitae, quo perfecte immortalis factus sibi alimenta non ulterius requireret ». — Ecce his verbis videtur Augustinus tradere, quod caro primi hominis immortalitatem in se habuerit, quae per alimoniam ciborum conservaretur usque ad tempus suae translationis in melius, quando de ligno vitae comederet et fieret omnino immortalis, ita ut non posset mori. |
But of this immortality of man, of what kind of manner it was, (St.) Augustine says On (a Literal Exposition of) Genesis, moving the question thus: « There is asked, “In what manner was man made immortal in comparison with other living (things)?”; and “In what manner did he accept the nourishment (of food) common with them?” But there is one immortality of the flesh, which we accepted in Adam; another, which we hope for through Christ in the resurrection. The former made man immortal, so that he could not die,3 if he did not sin, but (so that) he would die, if he did sin; but the sons of the resurrection could neither sin further nor die. Our flesh will not then need the refection of (diverse) foods, because there will be able to be no failing (of its strength). The flesh of Adam before the sin was created thus immortal, that helped through nourishment, it would have not part in death and sorrow. Therefore, thus was the flesh of man founded immortal and incorruptible, so that he might keep he immortality and incorruption through the observance of God’s commandments [mandatorum]. In which commands this was contained, that he might eat [manducaret] of those trees conceded (to him) and abstain from (that) one forbidden (him); that through the (nourishments) of these eatables he might conserve the gifts of immortality, until conducted [perductus] by corporal increments to the age, which pleased the Founder, (and) with (his) progeny multiplied, he might, at His command [ipso iubente], take of the Tree of Life, (and) having been made perfectly immortal by which, require no further nourishments for himself ». — Behold by these words (St.) Augustine seems to hand down, that the flesh of the first man had immortality in itself, which was conserved through the nourishment of (diverse) foots up until the time of his translation into a better (state), when he would eat [comederet] of the Tree of Life and become entirely immortal, thus that he could not die. |
|
Ideo aliqui dicunt, quod immortalitatem de natura habebat, qua poterat non mori, quae aliorum lignorum esu poterat conservari; sed non poterat consummari nisi per assumtionem ligni vitae. Quod videtur Augustinus sentire super Genesim4 dicens: « Hoc quoque addo, talem cibum illam arborem praestitisse, quo corpus hominis stabili sanitate firmaretur, non sicut ex alio cibo, sed inspiratione salubritatis occulta ». Hic innuere videtur, quod cum aliis cibis posset corpus sustentari, hoc cibo indeficente sanitate firmaretur. Ex quo consequi videtur, quod sicut in natura sua habuit mortalitatem quandam, scilicet aptitudinem moriendi; ita aliquam immortalitatem in natura sua habuit, id est aptitudinem, qua poterat non mori, cibis adiutus; sed si perstitisse, immortalitatis perfectio esset ei de ligno vitae. — Sed qui hoc tradunt, quomodo superiora Augustini verba,5 quibus dicit, quod erat immortalis ex ligno vitae, huic sententiae non contradicant, diligenter inquirant. |
For that reason some say, that he had immortality from (his) nature, by which he could not die, which (immortality) could be conserved by eating of the other trees; but (which) could not be consummated except through a harvesting [assumtionem] of the Tree of Life. Which (St.) Augustine seems to think On (a Literal Exposition of) Genesis,4 saying: « This also do I add, that that tree guaranteed such a food, by which the body of the man would be strengthened by stable health [stabili sanitate], not just as out of other food, but by a hidden inspiration of soundness [salubritatis] ». Here he seems to indicate, that though (his) body could be sustained by other foods, he would by this food be strengthened with unfailing health. Out of which there seems to follow, that just as in his nature he had a certain mortality, namely an aptitude for dying; so he had in his nature some immortality, that is an aptitude, by which he could not die, helped by (these) foods; but if he had persisted, the perfection of immortality would have been his from the Tree of Life. — But let those who hand this down diligently inquire, in what manner the above words of (St.) Augustine,5 by which he says, that he was immortal on account of the Tree of Life, do not contradict this (their) sentence. |
|
1 Libr. VI. c. 25. n. 36. 2 Libr. III. c. 21. n. 33, et Quaest. veter. et nov. Test. q. 19, et alibi, sententialiter; sed fere ad verbum, paucis a Magistro mutatis et transpositis, apud Bedam, Hexaëm. I. et in Glossa ord. ad Gen. 1, 26. 3 Ed. 1: at posset non mori; est quidem bona lectio, sed non convenit cum lect. codd. et aliorum edd. nec non cum Glossa. 4 Libr. VIII. c. 5. n. 11, nonnullis omissis et transpositis. 5 Cfr. c. IV. huius dist. |
1 Book VI, ch. 25, n. 36. 2 Book III, ch. 21, n. 33, and Questions on the Old and New Testaments, q. 19, and elsewhere, according to the thought, but nearly word for word, with a few (things) changed and transposed by Master (Peter) from (St.) Bede (the Vernerable’s), Hexaëmeron, Bk. I, an in the Glossa ordinaria, on Gen. 1:26. 3 Edition 1 has: but he could not die [at posset non mori]; (which) indeed is a good reading, but (which) does not convene with the reading of the codices and the other editions, nor with the Gloss. 4 Book VIII, ch. 5, n. 11, with not a few (things) omitted and transposed. 5 Cf. ch. 4 in this Distinction. |
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.