Sentences, Books I–II

Chapter 1 (191).

That sin and punishment passed through Adam to his descendants. In what has gone before 1 it was indicated, though only in part—for we are not fully equal to it—how the first man sinned and what punishment he underwent for his sin. To this we must add that sin and punishment alike passed through him to his descendants, as the Apostle shows, saying 2: Just as through one man sin entered this world, so death passed to all men.

Chapter 2 (192).

Whether that sin was original or actual. First, we must see what that sin was: original or actual. If it is understood as original, we must then investigate carefully what original sin is, why it is called original, and how it has passed or passes to all.

Chapter 3 (193).

Some understand it as actual sin *. Some have chosen to understand this as Adam's actual sin, asserting that this is what the Apostle meant when he says below 3: Just as through the disobedience of one man the many were constituted sinners, and so forth. They say the Apostle clearly expresses even by the name the sin that entered the world through one man 4, namely disobedience; but disobedience is actual sin.

Apparatus: 8 ita] et add. LMRTV. 13 originale om. OP. 16 Rubrica om. RVW. 19 etiam] et MN, om. R.

1 In Dists. 21, 22, 25, 29. 2 Rom. 5:12. 3 Rom. 5:19. 4 Rom. 5:12.

Dist. XXX. Compare J. Schupp, The Doctrine of Grace of Peter Lombard, 71–88; and especially O. Lottin, Theories of Original Sin from Saint Anselm to Saint Thomas Aquinas, in Psychology and Morality IV, 11–171, where the twelfth century is treated.

Cap. 2. Compare Hugh, On the Sacraments, I, 7, 25 (PL 176, 298 A).

Chapter 4 (194).

1. How they say it entered the world. They say that it entered the world not by transmission through origin, but by likeness to transgression 1; and they say that all sinned in that one man because that one man became an example of sinning for all.

2. The Pelagians say this *. Certain heretics called Pelagians held this erroneous view. Augustine recalls them in his book On the Baptism of Infants 2, saying: «It must be known, he says, that certain heretics called Pelagians said that the sin of the first transgression passed to other people not by propagation but by imitation. Hence they do not wish to believe that original sin is washed away in infants through baptism, contending that there is none at all in those being born. But they are told that if the Apostle had meant the sin of imitation rather than propagation, he would have named the devil, not Adam, as its author; of him it is said in the Book of Wisdom 3: Through the envy of the devil death entered the world. And because Scripture does not wish this to be understood as having happened by propagation but by imitation, it immediately added 4: But they who are of his side imitate him. All who transgress God's command through disobedience do indeed imitate Adam; but one thing is an example for those who sin by their own will, another is an origin for those born with sin». Therefore Adam's sin must not be understood to have passed to all merely as an example of imitation, but through the defect of propagation and origin.

Chapter 5 (195).

Here he makes clear that the sin which passes to descendants is original sin. That sin is original sin, as Augustine clearly attests 5: it passed through Adam to all those generated concupiscently from his corrupted flesh.

Apparatus: 2 dicunt] trp. p. Quomodo MRV. 4 dicunt] dicuntur NW, dicentur V. 6 Rubrica om. MNVW. 8 dicens om. LM, interl. TV. 25 est illud trp. LMRTV.

1 Cf. Rom. 5:14: in the likeness of Adam's transgression. 2 Book I, ch. 9, nos. 9–10 (PL 44, 114; CSEL 60, 10ff.). 3 Wis. 2:24. 4 Wis. 2:25. 5 In the testimony in the preceding chapter, and also below in ch. 10, nos. 1–2.

Cap. 4, no. 2. From the Master's Gloss on Rom. 5:12 (PL 191, 1388 B–C); this testimony is read more fully in this place in Florus (in Bede's Works, VI, Cologne 1688, 90–91), and partly in the Middle Gloss of Gilbert of Poitiers; concerning this, see R. M. Martin, «Original Sin According to Gilbert of Poitiers (†1154) and His School», in Church History Review 13 (1912), 678.

Chapter 6 (196).

1. Here he inquires what original sin is. We must investigate carefully what it is. For the holy teachers have spoken about it somewhat obscurely, and the scholastic teachers have held various views.

2. The opinion of some concerning original sin *. Some 1 think that original sin is liability to punishment for the sin of the first man, that is, the debt or liability by which we are bound and subject to temporal and eternal punishment for the actual sin of the first man; for, they say, eternal punishment is owed to all on account of that sin unless they are freed by grace. — According to their view, original sin must be said to be a punishment; they themselves admit it is not a fault. It cannot be a punishment, because if original sin is the debt of punishment, and a debt of punishment is not itself a punishment, then neither is original sin a punishment. — Some of them also admit this, saying that Scripture often calls original sin reatus; by reatus they understand, as stated, liability to punishment. For this reason they assert that original sin is said to be in infants: infants are liable to punishment on account of that first sin, just as, under the justice of the civil court, children sometimes go into exile for the sin of an unjust father.

Chapter 7 (197).

1. He proves by authorities that original sin is a fault. But that it is a fault is taught by many testimonies of the saints. — Gregory *. On Exodus, where it says 2: You shall redeem the firstborn of a donkey with a sheep, Gregory 1 says: «We were all born in sins and conceived from the pleasure of the flesh; we drew original fault along with us, and therefore become entangled in sins by our own will». Behold, he says that we draw original fault; hence it is clear that original sin is a fault.

2. Augustine *. Augustine too says of this same matter in his book On Nature and Grace 2: «All have sinned, as the Apostle says: either in themselves or in Adam, because they are not without sin, whether from what they originally drew or from what they added through evil habits». «For the sin 4 of the first man harmed not only him but the whole human race, because from him we received condemnation and fault together».

3. Augustine *. The same author 5, on Psalm 50: «What is sown from a dead body is born bound by original sin and death. David therefore says that he was conceived in iniquities, because in all people iniquity is drawn from Adam along with the bond of death; for no one is born without drawing punishment and the merit of punishment». But sin is the merit of punishment; therefore everyone born through the concupiscence of the flesh draws sin.

4. Original sin, then, is a fault that all those conceived concupiscently draw. Hence it is written in Ecclesiastical Dogmas 6: «Hold most firmly and do not doubt in any way that every person conceived through the intercourse of man and woman is born with original sin, subject to impiety and bound to death, and therefore is born by nature a child of wrath 7; no one is freed from it except through faith in the mediator between God and men 8». — These and other authorities clearly show that original sin is a fault and is drawn from parents by all those generated concupiscently.

Chapter 8 (198).

1. What is called original sin: namely, the tinder of sin, that is, concupiscence. It remains now to see what original sin itself is.

Apparatus: 4 doctores] lectores LMNRTVW. 5 Rubrica om. MRVW.

1 Peter Abelard, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, II, ch. 5 (PL 178, 866 C, 871 A–B); cf. J. Rivière, «The “Capitula” of Abelard Condemned at the Council of Sens», in Research in Ancient and Medieval Theology 5 (1933), 16, art. 8: «We did not contract fault from Adam, but punishment alone»; some observations on this question are added in E. Buytaert, The Anonymous Capitula of Peter Abelard's Heresies and the Synod of Sens, 1140, in Anton. vivum 43 (1968), 419–460. 2 Exod. 13:13. 3 Rom. 5:19. 4 Exod. 13:13. 5 On Genesis, 3, 24 (PL 131, 68 A). 6 Cf. Gen. 3:23. 7 Expositions on Psalm 50, 7, no. 10 (PL 36, 591ff.; CCL 38, 606ff.). 8 Rather, in Fulgentius, On the Faith to Peter, ch. 26, no. 67 (PL 65, 701 A; CCL 91A, 753). 9 Cf. Eph. 2:3: And we were by nature children of wrath. 10 1 Tim. 2:5.

Cap. 6. Cf. J. Schupp, The Doctrine of Grace, 74–78. — No. 2. Summa sententiarum, III, 11 (PL 171, 1134 D–1135 A; 176, 106 B–C); O. Lottin, Theories of Original Sin…, in Psychology and Morality, IV, 27ff., 68, 74.

Cap. 7. Cf. O. Lottin, ibid., 74. — No. 1: From the Ordinary Gloss on Exod. 13:13 (in Lyra, I, 151a). — No. 2: From the Master's Gloss on Exod. 13:13 (PL 191, 487 C–D). — No. 3: In abbreviated form from the same author's Gloss on Ps. 50:7 (PL 191, 1361 A).

Since it is not actual, it is not an act or movement of soul or body. For if it is an act of soul or body, it is certainly actual sin. But it is not actual; therefore it is not an act or movement. What, then, is it?

2. Original sin is called the tinder of sin, namely concupiscence or concupiscibility, which is called the law of the members, or the sickness of nature, or the tyrant within our members, or the law of the flesh. — Hence Augustine says in On the Baptism of Infants 1: «There is in us concupiscence, which must not be allowed to reign. There are also its desires, which are actual concupiscences: they are the devil's weapons, arising from the sickness of nature». «This sickness 2 is a tyrant that stirs evil desires. If, then, you wish to conquer the tyrant», and to have your enemy come unarmed 3, do not obey evil concupiscence. — These words sufficiently show that concupiscence is the tinder of sin.

Chapter 9 (199).

1. By the name concupiscence is meant the tinder called the tinder of sin. By the name concupiscence he meant not the act of desiring but the original vice, when he called it the «law of the flesh» 4. Hence he had said earlier: the tinder of sin, which is called concupiscence or concupiscibility, or the law of the members, or the sickness of nature, and by other names. — In the treatise On the Words of the Apostle 1 he says: «There is always a struggle in this body of death 2, because the very concupiscence with which we were born cannot be ended as long as we live; it can be diminished daily, but it cannot be ended». What, then, is the concupiscence with which we were born? It is a vice that makes an infant capable of desiring, and also makes an adult desire.

2. He shows this by comparison *. Just as the defect of blindness is present in a blind eye at night but does not appear, and one cannot distinguish the seeing person from the blind person until light comes; so the vice in a child does not appear until the time of more advanced age arrives.

Apparatus: 15 Quod] Quid LMNR. || fomes om. LMNRTVW, peccati add. BCX. 17 primum] prius MRX, om. W.

1 On Continence, ch. 3, no. 8: «Therefore there is in us the concupiscence of sin, which must not be allowed to reign; there are its desires, which must not be obeyed» (PL 40, 354; CSEL 41, 149); the Master's Gloss on Rom. 6:12–14 (PL 191, 1408 A); On the Words of the Apostle, sermon 12, that is, Sermon 30 (PL 38, 190; CCL 41, 386). 2 The cited Gloss (PL 191, 1408 A); Ambrosiaster on Rom. 6:13: «Therefore we must restrain our members … so that our enemy, found unarmed, may be subjected» (PL 17 [1845], 102 B; CSEL 81-I, 198); the Master's Gloss (PL 191, 1408 A): «Do not obey concupiscence by acting evilly, nor even by taking delight or consenting to concupiscences» [sic]. 3 Augustine, On the Baptism of Infants, II, ch. 28, no. 45: law of sin (PL 44, 178; CSEL 60, 116ff.). 4 Augustine, On the Baptism of Infants, II, ch. 28, no. 45: law of sin; the Master's Gloss on Rom. 6:12 (PL 191, 1407 B): law of the flesh.

Cap. 8, no. 2. Lombard's Gloss on Rom. 4:7 (PL 191, 1368 D–1369 A): «as if almost everything were from the Ordinary Gloss on this passage, in Lyra, VI, 11a». The Gloss on Rom. 6:12–14 (PL 191, 1407 D–1408 A); law of the flesh, ibid. (1407 B). Cap. 9. Summa sententiarum, III, 11 (PL 171, 1135 C; 176, 107 A–B); the Gloss on Rom. 7:25 (PL 191, 1431 D–1432 A) and Rom. 4:7 (PL 191, 1369 A). The Master's Gloss on Rom. 4:7: «it makes an infant capable of desiring, but not to desire; an adult, however, it makes desire» (PL 191, 1369 A).

Chapter 10 (200).

1. That through Adam original sin, that is, concupiscence, entered into all. From these points we can understand what original sin is: the vice of concupiscence, which entered through Adam into all those born concupiscently and defiled them. — Hence Augustine says in On the Baptism of Infants 3: «Adam, besides the example of imitation, also infected with the hidden taint of his carnal concupiscence all those who were to come from his stock. Hence the Apostle rightly says 4: In whom all sinned.»

2. How “in whom all sinned” is to be understood. «The Apostle said this cautiously 5 and without ambiguity: whether it is understood as in which man or as in which sin, the meaning is sound». «For all sinned in Adam 6 as in matter, not merely by his example, as the Pelagians say 7. For all were that one man», that is, they were in him materially. — Ambrose 8: «It is therefore clear 8 that all sinned in Adam as in a mass. For he, corrupted through sin, begot all who were born under sin; therefore all are sinners from him». — Augustine, To Hilarius's Questions *. Thus, too, all are rightly said to have sinned in that one sin which entered the world 1: because «just as they cannot be free from that one man, so they cannot be free from that one sin unless they are absolved from its liability through Christ's baptism» 2. — Augustine, On the Baptism of Infants *: «Other sins, then, are personal sins, in which only those whose sins they are sin; but this one sin is different: from it all were constituted sinners» 4.

Chapter 11 (201).

What sin it is in which all sinned: namely, original sin, which proceeded from disobedience. This is original sin, in which all those born concupiscently are born sinners; it flowed from Adam, or from his disobedience, and passed down to his descendants. — Hence the Apostle says that through the disobedience of one man many were constituted sinners: this is actual sin, whereas earlier 6 he said that through one man sin entered the world and all sinned in him; this must be understood as spoken of original sin.

Chapter 12 (202).

In what sense it was said that “through the disobedience of one man many were constituted sinners.” What he says, then—that through the disobedience of one man many were constituted sinners—is to be understood in this sense: from Adam's disobedience, that is, from Adam's actual sin, original sin proceeded, in which people are born; thus it was in him and passed into all 7.

Apparatus: 1 cuncti] constituti NRTVW. 2 omnes om. LMRW. 7 peccaverunt] certaverunt BC, ceciderunt X. 10 Quod] Quid BCOPX.

1 Cf. Rom. 5:12: Through one man sin entered the world … in whom all sinned. 2 Rom. 5:19. 3 Rom. 5:12. 4 Rom. 5:12. 5 Augustine, On the Baptism of Infants, I, ch. 10, no. 11 (PL 44, 115; CSEL 60, 12). 6 Rom. 5:19. 7 See below, at the end of ch. 13.

Cap. 11–12. Cf. the Master's Gloss on Rom. 5:19 (PL 191, 1395 C).

Chapter 13 (203).

1. That original sin was in Adam and is in us. Hence Augustine, replying 1 to the heretic Julian, who contended that there is no sin in infants, clearly asserts that original sin proceeded from Adam's will and entered the world through his disobedience.

2. Julian's question *. Julian asks by what means sin is found in an infant, saying: «This one who is born does not sin; the one who begot him does not sin; the one who created him does not sin. Through what openings, then, do you imagine sin entered amid so many safeguards of innocence?» — Augustine's reply *: «Holy Scripture answers him 2: Through one man sin entered the world; the Apostle says 3, through the disobedience of one. What more does he ask? What could be clearer?»

3. Another question of Julian *. Julian also says: «If sin entered the world through a man, sin comes either from the will or from nature. If it comes from the will, the will that makes sin is evil; but if it comes from nature, nature is evil». — Augustine's reply *. «I answer him: Sin comes from the will. Perhaps he asks whether original sin comes from the will. I answer unequivocally that original sin too comes from the will, because it was sown from the will of the first man, so that it might be in him and pass into all».

Chapter 14 (204).

1. Objection by some against what was said above, that all human beings were in Adam. But concerning what we said 4, that all human beings were in Adam, certain followers of words 5 object as follows, saying: Not every substance transmitted from Adam could have existed in him at the same time, since it is of much greater quantity than Adam's body was, in which there were not even as many atoms as there are human beings descended from him. For this reason they assert that it is not true that the substance of each person existed in the first parent.

Apparatus: 2 est om. BCX. || Unde] Inde OP. 4 aperte om. BCOPX, trp. p. contendenti W. 6 Iuliani quaestio om. RVW. 10 Responsio Aug. om. RVW. 13 Rubrica om. MRVW. 14 vel 1 om. BCOP. 15 est 1 om. NOP.

1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, II, chs. 27–28, nos. 47–48 (PL 44, 463ff.; CSEL 42, 302ff.), from which nos. 2–3 are also taken. 2 Rom. 5:12. 3 Rom. 5:19. 4 Cf. above, at the end of ch. 10; this is Augustine's sentence in On the Baptism of Infants, I, ch. 10, no. 11: «This is the one sin in which all sinned, when all were that one man» (PL 44, 115; CSEL 60, 12); see also Book III, ch. 7, no. 14 (PL 44, 194; CSEL 60, 141), and Unfinished Work Against Julian, IV, 104 (PL 45, 1400). 5 Cf. Prov. 19:7: He who follows mere words, etc.

Chapter 13: Gloss on Rom. 5:19 (PL 191, 1397 A–C). — Chapter 14, nos. 1–2: Summa sententiarum, III, 10 (PL 171, 1134 A–B; 176, 105 D–106 A); O. Lottin, Psychology and Morality, IV, 10 and 38.

2. The reply explains how they were in Adam according to seminal reason and how they descended from him, namely by the law of propagation. We may reply that everything naturally present in human bodies is said to have existed in the first man materially 1 and causally, not formally; it descended from the first parent by the law of propagation, grew and multiplied in itself, with no external substance passing into it; and it will itself rise again in the future. It receives nourishment from food, but food is not converted into the human substance that descends from Adam by propagation. For when Adam begot his children, he transmitted a small part of his substance into their bodies: that is, a small portion was divided from the mass of his substance and formed the child's body; by multiplying itself, it grew without the addition of anything external. From this body, once thus increased, another portion is likewise separated, from which the bodies of descendants are formed. Procreation thus proceeds in order, by the law of propagation, to the end of the human race. Therefore it is clear to those who understand carefully and plainly that all human beings were in Adam bodily by seminal reason and descended from him by the law of propagation.

3. How it descends by propagation *. For when Adam begot his children, he transmitted a small part of his substance into their bodies: that is, a small portion was divided from the mass of his substance and formed the child's body; by multiplying itself, it grew without the addition of anything external. From this body, once thus increased, another portion is likewise separated, from which the bodies of descendants are formed.

Chapter 15 (205).

1. Authority and reason prove that nothing external is converted into the human substance that comes from Adam. — Authority *. The Truth signifies in the Gospel that nothing external passes into the substance of the human body, saying 2: Everything that enters the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the sewer. — Reason *. This can also be shown by reason as follows: A child who dies immediately after birth will rise again at the stature he would have had if he had lived to the age of thirty years, with no bodily defect to impede him. Where, then, would that substance—which was so small at birth—become so great at the resurrection, if not by multiplying itself within itself? This shows that, even if the child lived, that substance would increase not from outside but within itself, as did the rib from which the woman was made and the Gospel loaves.

Apparatus: 9 propagationis] propaginis MRT, quod corr. P. 14 Rubrica om. RVW. 26 Auctoritas om. RVW. 29 Ratio om. RVW.

1 Cf. above, ch. 10, no. 2 (p. 501, lines 21–22); and Lombard's Gloss on Ps. 84:6 (PL 191, 795 D–796 A). 2 Matt. 15:17.

Summa of Sentences, III, 10 (PL 171, 1134 B–C; 176, 106 A–B); O. Lottin, Psychology and Morality, IV, 39; V, 35ff., 374ff.; IV, 55, in note.