LIBER SECUNDUS SENTENTIARUM -- D. 30: Petri Lombardi

Magistri Petri Lombardi Arch. Episc. Parisiensis	Master Peter Lombard Archbishop of Paris
Sententiarum Quatuor Libri	The Four Books of Sentences
LIBER SECUNDUS SENTENTIARUM. DE RERUM CREATIONE ET FORMATIONE CORPORALIUM ET SPIRITUALIUM ET ALIIS PLURIBUS EO PERTINENTIBUS	THE SECOND BOOK OF THE SENTENCES ON THE CREATION AND FORMATION OF THINGS CORPORAL AND SPIRITUAL AND MANY OTHERS PERTAINING TO THIS
DISTINCTIO XXX.	DISTINCTION 30
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 710-713. Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 710-713. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
Cap. I. Quod per Adam peccatum et poena transit in posteros.	Chapter I. That through Adam sin and punishment passed into (his) descendents.
In superioribus¹ insinuatum est — licet ex parte, non enim perfecte sufficimus exponere — qualiter primus homo deliquerit, et quam pro peccato poenam subierit; quibus adiiciendum est, peccatum simul ac poenam per eum transisse in posteros, sicut Apostolus ostendit inquiens: Sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit.	In the above¹ it was insinuated — though in part, for we were not sufficient to expound (the matter) perfectly — in what kind of manner the first man forsook (God), and how he underwent punishment for (his) sin; to which there must be added, that (that) sin and punishment together passed [transisse] through him into (his) descendents [in poseteros], just as the Apostle shows, saying: Just as through one man sin entered into this world, so death passed through (him) [pertransit] into all men.
Cap. II. Utrum illud peccatum, quod transit, fuerit originale, vel actuale.	Chapter II. Whether that sin, which passed (into all men), was the original one, and/or the actual one?
Hic primum videndum est, quod fuerit illud peccatum, originale scilicet, an actuale; et si de originali intelligatur, consequenter, quid sit originale peccatum, et quare dicatur originale, et quomodo pertransierit vel pertranseat in omnes, diligenter investigandum est.	Here one must first see, what that sin was, namely original, or actual; and if it is understood of the original one, consequently, what is “original sin”, and for what reason is it said (to be) “original”, and in what manner it has and/or does pass through (him) into all, must be diligently investigated.
Cap. III. Quidam putant fuisse actuale.	Chapter III. Certain ones think that it was the original one.
Quibusdam placuit de peccato actuali Adae illud accipere, asserentibus, hic Apostoum² sensisse, cum inferius ait: Sicut per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi, ita etc. Evidenter, inquiunt, etiam ipso nomine exprimit Apostolus peccatum, quod per unum hominem intravit in mundum, scilicet inobedientiam. Inobedientiam vero peccatum actuale est.	To certain (authors) it pleased to accept that (verse of St. Paul) concerning the actual sin of Adam, asserting (as they did), that the Apostle thought this, when he says further below: Just as through the disobedience of one man many have been constituted sinners, so etc.. “Evidently,” they say, “the Apostle also expresses by the same name the sin, which through one man entered into the world, namely the disobedience. But disobedience is an actual sin.
Cap. IV. Quomodo assignant, illud intrasse in mundum.	Chapter IV. In what manner they assign, that it entered into the world.
Hoc autem dicunt intrasse in mundum non traductione originis, sed similitudine praevaricationis; omnesque in illo uno³ peccasse dicunt, quia omnibus ille unus peccandi exemplum exstitit. — Hoc male senserunt quidam haeretici, qui dicti sunt Pelagiani, de quibus Augustinus in libro de Baptismo parvulorum⁴ commemorat dicens: « Sciendum est, haereticos quosdam, qui nominati sunt Pelagiani, dixisse, peccatum primae transgressionis in alios homines non propagatione, sed imitatione transisse. Unde etiam in parvulis nolunt credere per baptismum solvi originale peccatum, quod in nascentibus nullum esse omnino contendunt. Sed eis dicitur, quia, si Apostolus peccatum imitationis, non propagationis intelligi voluisset, eius principem non Adam, sed diabolum diceret. De quo in libro Sapientiae⁵ dicitur: Invidia diaboli mors intravit in orbem terrarum. Et quia non vult intelligi, hoc esse factum propagatione, sed imitatione, continuo subiunxit Scriptura: Imitantur autem eum qui sunt ex parte ipsius. Imitantur quidem Adam quotquot per inobedientiam transgrediuntur mandatum Dei; sed aliud est quod exemplum est voluntate peccantibus, aliud quod origo est cum peccato nascentibus ». Non est igitur accipiendum, peccatum Adae transisse in omnes imitationis tantum exemplo, sed propagationis et originis vitio.	Moreover the says that this has entered into the world not by a transduction of origin, but by a similitude of prevarication; and they say that all sinned in that one (sin),³ because that one (act) of sinning [unus peccandi] stood forth as an example for all. — Certain heretics wrongly [male] through this, who were called “Pelagians”, of whom (St.) Augustine in (his) book On the Bapstism of Little Ones⁴ recalls, saying: : « It must be known, that certain heretics, who are named “Pelagians”, said, that the sin of the first transgression passed into other men not by propagation, but by imitation. Wherefore they do not want to believe that in little ones original sin is loosed [solvi] through Baptism, wherefore they contend that in newborns [nascentibus] there is entirely no (sin). But to them there is said, that, if the Apostle would have wanted that there be understood the sin of imitation, not of propagation, he would have said that its head [principem] (was) not Adam but the Devil. Of whom there is said in the Book of Wisdom:⁵ By the envy of the Devil death entered into this world [in orbem terrarum]. And because he does not want that there be understood, that this was done by propagation, but by imitation, he immediately subjoined the Scripture: But they imitate him who are of his part. They indeed imitate Adam as many as transgress God’s commandment through disobedience; but that which is an example for (those) sinning by will is one (thing; that which is the origin for (those) being born with sin is another ». Therefore, it must not be accepted, that the sin of Adam has passed into all by the example of imitation only, but by the vice of (their) propagation and origin.
Cap. V. Quod originale peccatum vere fuit, quod transit in posteros.	Chapter V. That it was truly the original sin, which passed into (his) descendents.
Et est illud peccatum originale, ut aperte Augustinus⁶ testatur, quod per Adam transivit in omnes per eius carnem vitiatam concupiscentialiter generatos.	And that is the original sin [peccatum originale], as (St.) Augustine⁶ openly testifies, which passed through Adam into all (those) generated in the manner of concupiscence [concupiscentialiter] through his vitiated flesh.
Cap. VI. Quid sit originale peccatum.	Chapter VI. What is original sin?
Quod diligenter investigandum est, quid sit. De hoc enim sancti doctores subobscure⁷ locuti sunt, atque scholastici doctors varie senserunt. — Quidam enim putant, originale peccatum esse reatum poenae pro peccato primo hominis, id est debitum vel obnoxietatem, qua obnoxii et addicti sumus poenae temporali et aeternae pro primi hominis actuali peccato: quia pro illo, ut aiunt, omnibus debetur poena aeterna, nisi per gratiam liberentur. — Iuxta horum sententiam oportet dici, originale peccatum nec culpam esse, nec poenam. Culpam non esse ipsi fatentur; poena quoque secundum eos esse non potest, quia, si debitum poenae originale peccatum est, cum debitum poenae non sit poena, nec originale peccatum est poena. Quod etiam quidam eorum admittunt dicentes, in Scriptura originale peccatum saepe nominari reatum, et reatum ibi intelligunt, ut dictum est, obnoxietatem poenae; et ea ratione asserunt peccatum originale dici esse in parvulis, quia parvuli pro illo primo peccato rei sunt poenae; sicut pro peccato iniqui parentis aliquando exulant filii secundum iustitiam fori.	Wherefore there must be diligently investigated, what it is. For concerning this the holy doctors spoke somewhat obscurely [subobscure],⁷ and even scholastic doctors thought variously. — For certain ones think, that original sin is the liability for punishment [reatum poenae] for the first sin of man, that is the debt and/or liability [obnoxietatem], by which we are liable [obnoxii] and doomed [addicit] to temporal and eternal punishment for the actual sin of the first man: because for that, as they say, eternal punishment is owed to all, unless they are liberated through grace. — In accord with their sentence one must say [oportet dici], that original sin is neither a fault, nor a punishment. They themselves say that it is not a fault; according to them it also cannot be a punishment, because if original sin is a debt of punishment, since the debit of a punishment is not the punishment, neither is original sin a punishment. Which certain ones of them also admit, saying, that in Scripture original sin is often named a reatum, and they understand reatum there, as has been said, (to be) the liability for the punishment [obnoxietatem poenae]; and by this reckoning they assert that original sin is said to be in little ones, because little ones are liable for punishment [rei poenae] for that first sin; just as in virtue of the sin of an iniquitous parent (his) sons sometimes live in exile according to the justice to be done [fori].
¹ Dist. XXI. et XXV. p. II. — Paulo inferius post sufficimus omittitur exponere a codd. B C D E et ed. 1. — Locus Scripturae est Rom. 5, 12. ² Loc. cit. v. 19. ³ Edd. 1, 8 addunt peccato. ⁴ Libr. I. c. 9. n. 9, et Serm. 294. c. 14. 15. n. 15. ⁵ Cap. 2, 24; seq. textus ibid. v. 25. ⁶ Libr. XIII. de Trin. c. 16. n. 21. ⁷ Ita nostri codd.; edd. sub obscuritate. Plura in hoc capitulo sumta sunt ex Hugone, Sum. Sent. tr. 3. c. 11.	¹ Distinctions XXI and XXV, p. II. — A little below this for sufficient [sufficimus] in codices B C D E and edition 1 there is omitted to expound (the matter) [exponere]. — The Scripture passage is Rom. 5:12. ² Loc. cit., v. 19. ³ Editions 1 and 8 add sin [peccato]. ⁴ Book I, ch. 9, n. 9, and Sermon 294, chs. 14-15, n. 15. ⁵ Wis. 4:24; the following text is ibid., v. 25. ⁶ On the Trinity, Bk. XIII, ch. 16, n. 21. ⁷ Thus our codices; the editions have under an obscurity [sub obscuritate] for somewhat obscurely [subobscure]. In this chapter several (expressions) have been taken from Hugo (of St. Victor), Summa Sententiarum, tr. 3. ch. 11.

p. 711

Cap. VII. Quod originale peccatum est culpa.	Chapter VII. That original sin is a fault.
Sed quod originale peccatum culpa sit, pluribus Sanctorum testimoniis edocetur. Super Exodo,¹ ubi dicitur: Primogenitum asini mutabis ove, Gregorius ait: « Omnes in peccatis nati sumus, et ex carnis delectatione concepti, culpam originalem nobis contraximus, unde et voluntate nostra peccatis implicamur ». — Ecce! culpam originalem dicit nos trahere; unde constat, originale peccatum culpam esse. Augustinus quoque in libro de Natura et gratia² de hoc eodem sic ait: « Omnes, ut ait Apostolus, peccaverunt, utique vel in se ipsis, vel in Adam, quia sine peccato non sunt, vel quod originaliter attraxerunt, vel quod malis moribus addiderunt ». « Peccatum enim primo hominis non solum ipsum, sed omne nocuit genus humanum, quia ex eo damnationem simul et culpam suscepimus ». Idem super Psalmo quinquagesimo:³ « Quod de corpore mortuo seminatur cum vinculo peccati originalis nascitur et mortis ». « Ideo igitur se in iniquitatibus conceptum dicit David, quia in omnibus trahitur iniquitas ex Adam et vinculum mortis; nemo enim nascitur nisi trahens poenam et meritum poenae Meritum autem poenae peccatum est. Omnis ergo, qui nascitur per carnis concupiscentiam, peccatum trahit. Peccatum itaque originale culpa est, quam omnes concupiscentialiter concepti trahunt ». Unde in Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus⁴ scriptum est: « Firmissime tene et nulla tenus dubites, omnem hominem, qui per concubitum viri et mulieris concipitur, cum originali peccato nasci, impietati suditum mortique subiectum, et ob hoc natura irae nasci filium, a qua nullus liberatur, nisi per fidem Mediatoris Dei et hominum ». — His aliisque auctoritatibus evidenter ostenditur, peccatum originale culpam esse et in omnibus concupiscentialiter genitis trahi a parentibus.	But that original is is a fault [culpa], is taught by more testimonies of Saints. On Exodus,¹ where there is said: The first born of an ass thou shalt change for a sheep, (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great) says: « We have all been born in sins, and conceived out of delectation of the flesh, we have contracted [contraximus] the original fault for ourselves, whence we too are implicated by our will in sins ». — Behold! he says that “original sin” “draws” [trahere] us; wherefore it is established, that original sin is a fault. (St.) Augustine also speaks of the same in (his) book On Nature and Grace² thus: « “All,” as the Apostle says, “have sinned,” at least either in their very selves, and/or in Adam, because they are not without sin, and/or because they drew (themselves) toward [attraxerunt] (it) originally, and/or because they gave (themselves) up to [addiderunt] (it) by evil morals ». « For the sin of the first man harms not only himself, but all the human race [omne genus humanum], because on account of it we have suscepted damnation and fault together ». The same on the Fiftieth Psalm³ (says): « What is sowed from a dead body is born with the chain of original sin and death ». « For that reason, therefore, (King) David says that he was “conceived in iniquities”, because in all there is contracted [trahibur] an iniquity out of Adam and a chain of death; for no one is born except as one contracting [trahens] punishment and the merit of the punishment. But the sin has merited punishment. Therefore, all, who are born through the concupiscence of the flesh, have contracted the sin. And thus original sin is a fault, which all having been conceived in the manner of concupiscence [concupiscentialiter] contract ». Wherefore in Ecclesiatical Dogmas⁴ there was written: « Holy most firmly and doubt to no extent, that every man, who is conceived through the lying together of man and woman, is born with original sin, (has) been submitted [subditum] to impiety, and (is) subject to death, and because of this is born by nature a son of wrath, from which no one is liberated, except through faith in the Mediator of God and men ». — By these and other authorities there is evidently shown, that original sin is a fault and is contracted in all (those) begotten in the manner of concupiscence by their parents.
Cap. VIII. Quod originale peccatum dicitur fomes peccati, id est concupiscentia.	Chapter VIII. That original sin is said (to be) the “fomes of sin”, that is “concupiscence”.
Nunc superest videre, quid sit ipsum originale peccatum, quod cum non sit actuale, non est actus sive motus animae vel corporis. Si enim actus est animae vel corporis, actuale utique peccatum est; sed actuale non est: non est igitur actus vel motus. Quid igitur originale peccatum dicitur? Fomes peccati, scilicet concupiscentia vel concupiscibilitas, quae dicitur lex membrorum, sive languor naturae, sive tyrannus, qui est in membris nostris, sive lex carnis. Unde Augustinus in libro de Baptismo parvulorum:⁵ « Est in nobis concupiscentia, quae non est permittenda regnare. Sunt et eius desideria, quae sunt actuales concupiscentiae, quae sunt arma diaboli, quae veniunt ex languore naturae ». « Languor autem iste tyrannus est, qui movet mala desideria. Si ergo vis esse victor tyranni atque inermem inimicum invenire, non obedias concupiscentiae malae ». — His verbis satis ostenditur, fomitem peccati concupiscentiam.	Now it remains (for one) to see, what original sin itself is, which since it is not an actual (sin), is not an act or movement of the soul and/or body. For if it an act of the soul and/or body, it is at any rate an actual sin; but it is not an actual (sin): therefore it is not an act and/or movement. Therefore what is said (to be) original sin? The fomes of sin, that is, concupiscence and/or the concupiscibility, which is said (to be) the “law of (our) members”, or the “languor of (our) nature”, or the “tyrant”, which is in our members, or the “law of the flesh”. Wherefore (St.) Augustine in (his) book On the Baptism of Little Ones⁵ (says): « There is in us a concupiscence, which must not be permitted to reign. There are also desires, which are actual (movements) of concupiscence, which are the arms of the Devil, which come out of the languor of (our) nature ». « But this languor is a tyrant, who moves evil desires. If, therefore, you wish to be the victor of (this) tyrant and to find (your) enemy unarmed [inermem], do not obey evil concupiscence ». — With these words there is sufficiently shown, that the fomes of sin (is) concupiscence.
Cap. IX. Quid nomine concupiscentiae intelligitur, quae fomes est peccati.	Chapter IX. What is understood by (this) name of “concupiscence”, which is the “fomes of sin.”
Nomine autem concupiscentiae non actum concupiscendi, sed vitium primum significavit, cum eam dixit legem carnis. Unde idem in tractatu de Verbis Apostoli⁶ ait: « Semper pugna est in corpore mortis huius, quia ipsa concupiscentia, cum qua nati sumus, finiri non potest, quamdiu vivimus; quotidie minui potest, finiri non potest ». Quae autem est concupiscentia, cum qua nati sumus? Vitium utique est, quod parvulum habilem concupiscere facit, adultum etiam concupiscentem reddit. « Sicut enim in oculo caeci in nocte vitium caecitatis est, sed non apparet, nec discernitur inter videntem et caecum nisi luce veniente; sic in puero vitium esse non apparet, donec aetatis provectior tempus occurat ».	Moreover, when (the Apostle) called it “the law of the flesh”, he did not signified by the name of “concupiscence” the act of completely desiring [actum concupiscendi], but the first vice. Wherefore the same in (his) Tract on the Words of the Apostle⁶ says: « There is always a battle in the body of this death, because the very concupiscence, with which we have been born, cannot be ended [finiri], so long as we live; it can be daily lessened, but it cannot be ended ». But what is the concupiscence, with which we have been born? It is at least the vice, which causes a little one (to be) able to completely desire [concupiscere], (and) to also render the adult concupiscent. « For just as in the eye of a blind (man) there is the vice of blindness at night, but it does not appear, nor does one discerned between one seeing and a blind (man) except with the coming light; so in a child [puero] there does not appear to be vice, until age’s more advanced time occur ».
Cap. X. Quod per Adam originale peccatum intravit in omnes, id est concupiscentia.	Chapter X. That through Adam original sin, that is concupiscence, entered into all.
Ex his dicitur intelligi, quid sit originale peccatum, scilicet vitium concupiscentiae, quod in omnes concupiscentialiter natos per Adam intravit eosque vitiavit. Unde Augustinus in libro de Baptismo parvulorum:⁷ « Adam praeter imitationis exemplum occulta etiam tabe carnalis concupiscentiae suae tabificavit in se omnes de sua stirpe venturos. Unde Apostolus recte ait: In quo omnes peccaverunt. Circumspecte et sine ambiguitate dicit hoc Apostolus; sive enim intelligatur, in quo homine, sive in quo peccato, sanum est ». « In Adam enim omnes peccaverunt ut in materia, non solum eius exemplo, ut dicunt Pelagiani. Omnes enim ille unus homo fuerant, id est in eo materialiter erant ».⁸ « Manifestum est itaque, omnes in Adam peccasse . . .	From these there is said to be understood, what original sin is, namely the vice of concupiscence, which entered into all born in the manner of concupiscence [concupiscentialiter] through Adam and vitiated them. Wherefore (St.) Augustine (says) in (his) book On the Baptism of Little Ones:⁷ « Adam, besides the example of imitation, also wasted [tabificavit] in himself all (those) to come from his stock [stirpe] by a hidden wasting [occulta tabe]. Wherefore the Apostle rightly says: In which all have sinned. The Apostle says this circumspectly and without ambiguity; for whether it be understood, in which man, or in which sin, (the saying) is a sane one ». « For in Adam all sinned as in (his matter), not only by his example, as the Pelagians say. For all were that one man, that is were in him materially ».⁸ « And so it is also manifest, that all sinned in Adam . . .
¹ Cap. 13, 43; Greg. XXVII. Moral. c. 18. n. 39, et in Glossa apud Lyranum. In quo textu pro nobis contraximus Vat. cum codd. A B C et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 non bene nobiscum traximus, et deinde eadem cum pluribus edd. dixit pro dicit. ² Cap. 4. n. 4. Seq. locus est II. Hypognostic. c. 4. n. 4. In primo textu Vat. cum pluribus edd. et cod. A contraxerunt pro attraxerunt. In secundo loco pro nocuit, quod habent August., codd. et edd. 1, 8, Vat. cum aliis edd. necavit. — De nocere cum accusativo personali cfr. Forcellini Lexicon etc. ³ Enarrat. in hunc Ps. n. 10; apud Lyranum v. 7. Pro ultimo verbo mortis, originale habet moritur. — Quae sequuntur inveniuntur ibid., secundum sensum. ⁴ Revera est de Fide ad Petrem, c. 26. n. 69. Respicitur ibi Eph. 2, 3. et in fine I. Tim. 2, 5. ⁵ Potius de Continentia, c. 3. n. 8. — Seq. locus Serm. 30. c. 5. n. 6. ⁶ Serm. 151. c. 5. n. 5. — Exemplum in fine capituli est ex Hugone, Sum Sent. tr. 3. c. 11. ⁷ Libr. I. de Peccator. meritis . . . et bapt. parvul. c. 9. n. 10. et c. 10. n. 11. — Pro vitiavit cod. C et edd. 1, 8 commaculavit, codd. B E maculavit. Paulo inferius locus Apostoli est Rom. 5, 12. ⁸ Est in Glossa ad Rom. 5, 12, sicut etiam seq. locus. Haec et quae sequuntur secundum sententiam inveniuntur apud August., loc. cit. c. 11. et 12. — Post verba per peccatum corruptus cod. A et edd. 1, 8 addunt est.	¹ Exodus 13:43; (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great), Morals on the Book of Job, Bk. XXVII, ch. 18, n. 39, and in the Gloss in (Nicholas) of Lyra. In which text for we have contracted . . . for ourselves [nobis contraximus], the Vatican edition, together with codices A B C and editions 2, 3, 4, 5, , 67 and 9 have not well we have drawn . . . with us [nobiscum traximus], and then the same (edition) together with several editions has he said [dixit] for he says [dicit]. ² Chapter 4, n. 4. The following passage is Hypognosticon, Bk. II, ch. 4, n. 4. In the first text the Vatican edition, together with several editions and codex A, has contracted [contraxerunt] for drew (themselves) toward [attraxerunt]. In the second passage for harms [nocuit], which (St.) Augustine, the codices and editions 1 and 8 have, the Vatican edition, together with the other editions has slew [necavit]. — On nocere with a personal accusative, cf. Forcellini’s Lexicon.. ³ Enarrations on the Psalms, on this psalm, n. 10; in (Nicholas) of Lyra, v. 7. For the final word death [mortis], the original has dies [moritur]. — Those which follow are found ibid., according to the sense. ⁴ In truth it is On the Faith to Peter, ch. 26, n. 69. There is a reference there to Eph. 2:3 and at the end to 1 Tim. 2:5. ⁵ Rather On Continence, ch. 3, n. 8. — The following passage is Sermon 30, ch. 5, n. 6. ⁶ Sermon 151, ch. 5, n 5. — The example at the end of the chapter is from Hugo (of St. Victor’s), Summa Sententiarum, tr. 3, ch. 11. ⁷ On the Merits of Sinners . . . and the Baptism of Little Ones, ch. 9, n. 10, and ch. 10, n. 11. — For vitiated [vitiavit] codex C and editions 1 and 8 have completely stained [commaculavit], codices B and E stained [maculavit]. A little below this the passage from the Apostle is Rom. 5:12. ⁸ This is in the Gloss on Rom. 5:12, just as is also the following passage. These and those which follow are found according to the thought in (St.) Augustine, loc. cit., chs. 11, and 12. — Codex A and editions 1 and 8, on the next page read He himself has been corrupted through sin, (those) whom etc. [corruptus est].

p. 712

quasi in massa. Ipse enim per peccatum corruptus quos genuit, omnes nati sunt sub peccato; ex eo igitur¹ cuncti constituti sunt peccatores ». Ita et in illo uno peccato, quod intravit in mundum, recte omnes dicuntur peccasse; quia, sicut ab illo uno homine, sic ab eodem uno peccato immunes esse non possunt, nisi ab eius reatu per Christi baptismum absolvantur. « Alia ergo sunt propria peccata, in quibus tantum peccant quorum peccata sunt; aliud hoc unum, in quo omnes peccaverunt, id est, ex quo omnes peccatores constituti sunt ».²	as if in a mass. For he himself, having been corrupted through sin, (those) whom he begot, all have been born under sin; on account of him, therefore,¹ all the rest have been constituted sinners ». Thus too in that one sin, which entered into the work, all are rightly said “to have sinned”; because, jut as from that one man, so from that same one sin they cannot be immune, unless they are absolved from his crime [ab eius reatu] through the Baptism of Christ. « Therefore one are their own sins, in which they only sin whose sins they are; another that one (sin), in which all sinned, that is, on account of which all were constituted sinners ».²
Cap. XI. An sit peccatum originale, in quo omnes peccaverunt.	Chapter XI. Whether the sin, in which all have sinned, is the original one?
Hoc est originale peccatum, quo peccatores nascuntur omnes concupiscentialiter geniti, quod ex Adam sive ex eius inobedientia emanavit et in posteros demigravit. Unde Apostolus³ consequenter per inobedientiam unius hominis multos dicit constitutos esse peccatores, quae est actuale peccatum. Cum autem dixerit, per unum hominem peccatum intrasse in mundum, et in eo omnes peccasse, quod de originali dictum est oportere accipi.	This is the original sin, by which all begotten in the manner of concupiscence are born sinners, which emanated out of Adam or out of his disobedience and went forth [demigravit] into (his) descendents. Wherefore the Apostle³ consequently says that through the disobedience of one man many were constituted sinners, which (disobedience) is an actual sin. But when he said, that through one man sin entered into the world, and in that all sinned, which has been said must be accepted [dictum est oportere accipi] of original (sin).
Cap. XII. Ex quo sensu dictum est, per inobedientiam unius multos constitui peccatores.	Chapter XII. Out of which sense has it been said, that through the disobedience of one many have been constituted sinners?
Quod ergo ait: Per inobedientiam unius multi constitui sunt peccatores, eo sensu dictum esse intelligendum est, quia ex inobedientiae Adae, scilicet ex peccato actuali Adae, processit originale peccatum, quo omnes peccatores nascuntur, ut et in illo esset et in omnes transiret.	What, therefore, he says: Through the disobedience of one many have been constituted sinners, must be understood to have been said in this sense, that out of the disobedience of Adam, that is out of the actual sin of Adam, there proceeds the original sin, by which all are born sinners, such that it was both in him and has passed into all.
Cap. XIII. Quod peccatum originale in Adam fuit et in nobis est.	Chapter XIII. That the original sin was in Adam and is in us.
Unde Augustinus⁴ Iuliano haeretico, nullum peccatum in parvulis esse contendenti, respondens, aperte asserit, peccatum originale ex voluntate Adae processisse ac per eius inobedientiam in mundum intrasse. Quaerit enim Iulianus: Per quid peccatum invenitur in parvulo, ita inquiens: « Non peccat iste qui nascitur, non peccat ille qui genuit, non peccat ille qui condidit. Per quas igitur ruinas, inter tot praesidia innocentiae, peccatum fingis ingressum? Et respondet sancta Pagina: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum; per unius inobedientiam, ait Apostolus. Quid quaerit amplius, quid quaerit apertius? Item inquit Iulianus: Si per hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, peccatum vel ex voluntate, vel ex natura est. Si ex voluntate est, mala est voluntas, quae peccatum facit; si autem ex natura est, mala est natura. Cui respondeo: Ex voluntate peccatum est. Quaerit forte, utrum originale peccatum ex voluntate sit. Respondeo, prorsus et originale peccatum ex voluntate esse, quia hoc ex voluntate primi hominis seminatum est, ut in illo esset et in omnes transiret ».	Wherefore (St.) Augustine⁴ responding to the heretic Julian, (who was) contending [contendenti] that there was no sin in little ones, openly asserts, that original sin has proceeded out of the will of Adam and through his disobedience has entered into the world. For Julian asks: “Through what is sin found in a little one?”, inquiring thus: « This one which is born does not sin, that one which begot does not sin, that One which bounded (man) does not sin. Through which ruins, therefore, among all the defenses [praesidia] of innocence, do you feign that sin (has) stepped in? And the Holy Page responds: Through one man sin entered into the world; through the disobedience of one, says the Apostle. What more do you seek? what do you seek more openly? Likewise Julian inquires: “If sin entered into the world through a man, the sin is either out of (his) will, and/or out of (his) nature. If it is out of (his) will, the will, which worked the sin, is evil; but if it is out of (his) nature, the nature is evil. To which I respond: “The sin is out of (his) will. Perhaps he asks, whether original sin is out of (his) will. I respond, that original in is entirely [prorsus] out of (his) will, because this (sin) was sown on account of the will of the first man, such that it was in him and has passed into all ».
« Ad hoc autem, quod diximus, in Adam fuisse omnes homines, quidam verborum sectatores sic obiiciunt dicentes: Non omnis caro, quae ab Adam traducta est, in eo simul existere potuit; quia multo maioris quantitatis est, quam fuerit corpus Adae, in quo nec tot etiam atomi fuerunt, quot ab eo homines descenderunt. Quocirca verum non esse asserunt, substantiam uniuscuiusque in primo fuisse parente ».⁵	« To this, however, which we have said, that all men were in Adam, certain followers of words [sectatores verborum] object thus, saying: “Not every flesh, which has been transduced from Adam, could exist together in him; because it is of a much greater quantity, than the body of Adam was, in which there were not even as many atoms, as men (who) have descended from him.” On which account they assert that it is not true, that the substance of any one was in the first parent ».⁵
Cap. XIV. Quomodo omnes dicuntur in Adam fuisse, quando peccavit, et ex eo descendisse.	Chapter XIV. In what manner are all said “to have been in Adam”, when he sinned, and “to have descended from him”?
Quibus responderi potest, quod materialiter atque causaliter, non formaliter, dicitur fuisse in primo homine omne quod in humanis corporibus naturaliter est, descenditque a primo parente lege propagationis et in se auctum et multiplicatum est, nulla exteriori substantia in id transeunte, et ipsum in futuro resurget. Fomentum quidem habet a cibis, sed non convertuntur cibi in humanam substantiam, quae scilicet per⁶ propagationem descendit ab Adam. Transmisit enim Adam modicum quid de substantia sua in corpora filiorum, quando eos procreavit, id est, aliquid modicum de massa substantiae eius divisum est, et inde formatum corpus filii suique multiplicatione sine rei extrinsecae adiectione auctum est; et de illo ita augmentato aliquid inde⁷ separatur, unde formantur posterorum corpora; et ita progreditur procreationis ordo lege propagationis usque ad finem humani generis. Itaque diligenter ac perspicue intelligentibus patet, omnes secundum corpora in Adam fuisse per seminalem rationem et ex eo descendisse propagationis lege.	To whom it can be responded, that materially and also causally, not formally, that everything which is naturally in human bodies is said to be in the first man, and it descends from the first parent by the law of propagation and has been increased and multiplied in itself, with the passing of no exterior substance into it, and it will rise again in the (world) to come. It indeed has a foment from foods, but foods are not converted into the human substance, which, that is, descends from Adam through⁶ propagation. For Adam transmitted a small something [modicum quid] of his substance into the bodies of his children [filiorum], when he procreated them, that is, something of a small measure [aliquid modicum] was divided from the mass of his substance, and (his) son’s body formed therefrom has been increased by its multiplication without the addition [adiectione] of an extrinsic thing; and from that thus augmented something is thence⁷ separated, whence there is formed the bodies of (his) descendents; and thus there progresses the order of procreation according to the law of propagation unto the end of the human race [humani generis]. And so it is clear to (those) understanding (the matter) diligently and perspicaciously, that all were in Adam according to (their) bodies through a seminal reason and have descended from him according to the law of propagation.
Cap. XV. Quod nihil extrinseum convertatur in humanam substantiam, quae est ex Adam.	Chapter XV. That nothing extrinsic is converted into the human substance, which is out of Adam.
Quod vero nihil extrinsecum in humani corporis naturam transeat, Veritas in Evangelio⁸ significat dicens: Omne quod intrat in os, in ventrem vadit et in secessum emittitur. « Quod etiam ratione ostendi potest . . .	On the other hand, that nothing extrinsic passes into the nature of the human body, the Truth signifies in the Gospel,⁸ saying: Everything which entered into the mouth, goes into the stomach and is passed into the drain [in secessum emittitur]. « Which can also be shown by reason . . .
¹ Vat. et edd., excepta 1, sed contra codd., addunt sicut. ² August., I. de Peccator. meritis et remiss. c. 10. n. 11. ³ Epist. ad Rom. 5, 19. — In fine capituli contra codd. et edd. 1, 2, 8. Vat. cum ceteris edd. non bene peccasse, de originali dictum esse, oportet accipi. ⁴ Libr. II. de Nuptiis et concupiscentia, c. 28. n. 47. 48. ⁵ Haec et multa, quae sequuntur, sunt ex Hugone, Sum. Sent. tr. 3. c. 10. — Supra locutio verborum sectatores alludere videtur ad Prov. 19, 7: Qui tantum verba sectatur nihil habebit. ⁶ Edd. 1, 8 secundum. — De hac sententia Magistri et Hugonis, quae communiter non tenetur, cfr. Bonav. hic a. 3. q. 1. 2. ⁷ Codd. A B et ed. 1 non male ibidem. Paulo superius Vat. in augmento pro ita augmentato, edd. 1, 8 ita augmentando. ⁸ Matt., 15, 17. Deinde prosequitur Hugo, loc. cit., qui multa sumsit ex August., XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 14. 19. — In textu pro parva fuit mortua edd. 1, 5, 8 parva fuit in ortu.	¹ The Vatican edition and the editions, except edition 1, have out of him, therefore, just as [igitur sicut cuncti etc.] for on account of him, therefore [igitur], contrary to the codices. ² (St.) Augustine, On the Merits of Sinners and the Remission., Bk. I, ch. 10, n. 11. ³ In his Epistle to the Romans 5:19. — At the end of the chapter, contrary to the codices and editions 1, 2, and 8. The Vatican edition, together with all the other editions, has not well: have sinned, it is necessary that one accept, that it has been said of original (sin) [peccasse, de originali dictum esse, oportet accipi]. ⁴ On Nuptials and Concupiscence, Bk. II, ch. 28, nn. 47-48. ⁵ These and many of those which follow, are from Hugo (of St. Victor), Summa Sententiarum, tr. 3, ch. 10. — Above the expression followers of words [verborum sectatores] seems to allude to Proverbs 19:7: He who only follows words will have nothing [Qui tantum verba sectatur nihil habebit]. ⁶ Editions 1 and 8 have according to [secundum] for through [per]. — On this sentence of Master (Peter) and Hugo (of St. Victor), which is commonly not held, cf. (St.) Bonaventure, here in a. 3, qq. 1 and 2. ⁷ Codices A and B and edition 1 have not badly therein [ibidem]. A little above this the Vatican edition has in the augment [in augmento] for thus augmented [ita augmentato], editions 1 and 8 have thus being augmented [ita augmentaando]. ⁸ Mt. 15:17. Thereafter commences Hugo, loc. cit., who has taken many (things) from (St.) Augustine, On the City of God¸ Bk. XXII, chs. 14, 19. — In the text for died so small [parva fuit mortua] editions 1, 5 and 8 have was so small in (its) birth [parva fuit in ortu].

p. 713

hoc modo: puer, qui statim post ortum moritur, in illa statura resurget, quam habiturus erat, si viveret usque ad aetatem triginta annorum, nullo vitio corprois impeditus. Unde ergo illa substantia, quae adeo parva fuit mortua, in resurrectione tam magna erit, nisi sui in se multiplicatione? Unde apparet, quod etiam si viveret, non aliunde, sed in se augmentaretur illa substantia; sicut costa, de qua facta est mulier, et sicut panes evangelici. Non infitiamur tamen, quin cibi et humores in carnem et sanguinem transeant, sed non in veritatem humanae naturae, quae a primis descendit parentibus, quae tamen ciborum aliarumque rerum fomentis coalescit.

in this manner: the child, who dies immediately after birth [post ortum], will rise in that stature, which he was going to have, if he lived until the age of thirty years, impeded by no vice of body. Whence, therefore, will that substance, which died so small, be so great in the Resurrection, except by its own multiplication in itself? Wherefore it appears, that even if had lived, that substance would have been increased, not from another, but in itself; just as the rib, from which the woman was made, and just as the loaves of the Gospel. Nevertheless, we do not deny [infitiamur], that foods and humors pass into flesh and blood, but (they do) not (pass) into the truth of human nature, which descends from (our) first parents, yet which coalesces by the foments of foods and other things.

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 © 2009, 2010 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.

Sententiarum Quatuor Libri

The Four Books of Sentences