Sentences, Books I–II

Chapter 1 (213).

1. How original sin is remitted in baptism, although afterward there remains that concupiscence which is called original sin. Since it was said above¹ that original sin is the defect of concupiscence, and it was explained how it is drawn from parents and called original, it remains to investigate how it is remitted in baptism, since even after baptism the concupiscence that existed before remains. Hence it seems either that original sin is not concupiscence, or that it is not remitted in baptism.

2. Augustine in the book On Marriage and Concupiscence² *. “For, as Augustine says, carnal concupiscence remains in this body of death³, whose vicious desires we command must not be obeyed; nevertheless, this concupiscence is diminished day by day in those who progress and practice continence.” Although concupiscence remains after baptism, it does not nevertheless dominate and reign as before; rather, through the grace of baptism it is moderated and diminished, so that afterward it cannot dominate unless someone restores strength to the enemy by following concupiscences⁴. Nor does it remain after baptism as guilt, because it is not imputed as sin, but is only the punishment of sin; before baptism, however, it is both punishment and guilt.

3. That original sin is remitted in two ways, namely by weakening it and by releasing its guilt. Original sin is therefore said to be remitted in baptism for two reasons: because through the grace of baptism the defect of concupiscence is weakened and diminished, so that it no longer reigns unless strength is restored to it by consent, and because its guilt is released.

¹ corruption BCOPV. || thus omitted in BCOPX, interlinear T. 10 nor] nevertheless added in BCOPX. 13 aborted child] abortion BOPW. 18 soul is transposed in OP. 19 Rubric omitted in RVW. 23–24 also sometimes is transposed in BCO. 25 birth is called is transposed in OP.]

1 See Eph. 2:3. 2 Ps. 50:7, partly according to the Old Latin and partly according to the Vulgate and Augustine, Questions on the Heptateuch, II, q. 80 (PL 34, 626; CSEL 28-II, 147; CCL 33, 111). 3 Exod. 21:22–23, partly according to the Vulgate and partly according to the Old Latin. 4 Ordinary Gloss on this passage (apud Lyranum, I, 168c); from Augustine, Questions on the Heptateuch, II, q. 80. 5 See Matt. 1:20: “what was born from her”; Luke 1:35: “and what will be born from you,” etc. Cf. Ordinary Gloss on Matt. 1:20: “To be born from her is to be brought into the light. To be born in her, however, is to be conceived” (apud Lyranum, IV, 8a). Cf. Augustine, Letter 187 (to Dardanus), chap. 10, no. 33 (PL 33, 844; CSEL 57, 110ff.).

1 Dist. 30, chap. 8, no. 2 (p. 500). 2 Book I, chap. 25, no. 28 (PL 44, 430; CSEL 42, 241). For what follows, see ibid., chap. 23, no. 25 (428; 237ff.). 3 See Rom. 7:24. 4 See Sirach 18:30; Rom. 6:12–14.

² concupiscentiis OP. 13 and] in added in OP. 21 therefore] ergo OPW, vero LN.]

Distinction XXXII: O. M. Lottin, Péché originel et baptême de saint Anselme d'Aquin, in Psychology and Morality, IV, 284–305. — Chapter 1, no. 1: Hugh, On the Sacraments, I, 7, 37 (PL 176, 304 B–D); Summa of Sentences, III, 11 (PL 171, 1135 D; 176, 107 B–C). — No. 2: Lombard's Gloss on Rom. 4:8 (PL 191, 1369 B); Summa of Sentences, III, 11; the Master's statements in the same Gloss (PL 191, 1369 A and D).

4. Authority for one mode of remission *. Hence Augustine, in the book On the Baptism of Infants¹: “Through baptism grace accomplishes this, that the old man is crucified and the body of sin is destroyed²—not so that concupiscence, which is spread through and innate in the very living flesh, is suddenly consumed and ceases to exist, but so that what was present in the one born may not harm the one who has died. For if he lives after baptism, he has concupiscence in the flesh with which to fight, and, with God’s help, to overcome it, provided that he has not received God’s grace in vain³. This therefore is not accomplished in baptism—unless perhaps by an ineffable miracle of the Creator—that the law of sin which is in the members⁴ is completely extinguished and ceases to exist; rather, everything evil done, said, or thought by a human being is wholly obliterated and regarded as though it had not been done. Concupiscence itself, however, once the bond of guilt by which the devil held the soul through it and separated it from its Creator has been released, remains in the struggle.” Here he clearly shows that it is remitted in baptism for this reason: not because it does not remain after baptism, but because its guilt is abolished in baptism.

5. Authority for the other *. Next he himself shows that it is also remitted in this way, because through the grace of baptism concupiscence itself is moderated and diminished, saying in the same book⁵: “The law of the flesh, which the Apostle calls sin—‘Let sin not reign in your mortal body’—does not remain in the members of those who have been reborn from water and the Spirit⁷ in the same way as where the remission of sins is made complete; rather, it remains in the oldness of the flesh as something overcome and slain, unless by some illicit consent it comes back to life, dominates its own kingdom, and is recalled.” Here he clearly intimates that concupiscence is weakened in baptism; hence it is also said to be remitted, not only because its guilt is removed.

6. Scripture teaches this mode of remission by many other testimonies as well. For Augustine says, in Against Julian⁸: “The law that is in the members is a defect of the flesh, which arises from the punishment of sin and from the transmission of death.” “But this law which is in the members¹ has been remitted through spiritual rebirth, and remains in mortal flesh. It has been remitted because its guilt has been released by the sacrament through which the faithful are reborn; but it remains because it produces desires against which the faithful struggle.” — The same author, in a certain sermon On the Concupiscence of the Flesh²: “Through the grace of baptism and the washing of rebirth, the guilt of concupiscence itself, with which you were born, has also been released, together with whatever you previously consented to of evil concupiscence, whether in thought, speech, or action.” — The same author, in the book On Marriage and Concupiscence³: “Although carnal concupiscence is no longer counted as sin in those who have been reborn, nevertheless whatever offspring is born is bound by original sin.” — Likewise⁴: “Carnal concupiscence is remitted in baptism, not so that it does not exist, but so that it is not imputed as sin.” “For this⁵ is not to have sin: not to be guilty of sin. Therefore, just as other sins pass away in act and remain in guilt, as homicide and similar sins do, so conversely it can happen that concupiscence passes away in guilt and remains in act.” From the foregoing it is clearly shown how original sin is remitted in baptism.

³ through the grace of baptism NRV. 20 holy added in NRTVW.]

1 Book I, chap. 39, no. 70 (PL 44, 150ff.; CSEL 60, 70). 2 See II Cor. 6:1: “that you do not receive the grace of God in vain.” 3 Book II, chap. 28, no. 45 (PL 44, 178; CSEL 60, 116). 4 See Rom. 7:23. 5 Master’s Gloss on Rom. 7:23 (PL 191, 1430 C; 1432 B; 1369 A–B). 6 Gloss on Rom. 6:6. 7 Cf. Gloss on Rom. 6:12 (PL 191, 1407 B–C). 8 Gloss on Rom. 7:23; Summa of Sentences, III, 11 (PL 171, 1136 A; 176, 107 C–D).

No. 4. Lombard’s Gloss on Romans 6:6 (PL 191, 1404 C). — No. 5. The same Gloss on Romans 6:12 (PL 191, 1407 B–C).

No. 6. Gloss on Romans 7:25; 8:1; 4:7–8 (PL 191, 1430 C, 1432 B, 1369 A–B). “The same in On Marriage and Concupiscence.” Summa of Sentences, III, 11 (PL 171, 1136 A; 176, 107 C–D).

Chapter 2 (214).

1. On the foulness that the flesh contracts from the lust of intercourse: whether it is washed away in baptism. It is commonly asked here whether the flesh itself is cleansed in baptism from that foulness which it contracted in conception from lustful concupiscence.

2. Some say that the flesh is cleansed there of that pollution *. It seems to some⁴ that, just as the soul is purified from guilt, so the flesh is also cleansed from that pollution.

⁵ also, LV; omitted, W. 14–15 sins] evils, OPX. 15 pass away is transposed; therefore, OP. 16 remain] remain behind, LR. 20 contracts] contracted, X; draws, MNRVW. 21 it is commonly asked here is transposed in OP. 24 Rubric (authentic?) LM; omitted by the others.]

1 See Rom. 7:23. 2 Sermon 152, no. 3 (PL 38, 820ff.). 3 Book I, chap. 24, no. 27 (PL 44, 429; CSEL 42, 240). 4 Ibid., chap. 25, no. 28 (PL 44, 430; CSEL 42, 240). 5 Ibid., chap. 26, no. 29 (430; 241ff.). So that, just as the mystery of baptism is completed by two things, namely water and the Spirit, so two things may be cleansed there: the soul from guilt, and the flesh from that contagion. This is indeed probable. — Others say no *. Others, however, think that only the soul is cleansed there, while the flesh is not cleansed from that foulness.

3. He shows the incongruity against those who deny it. But if that foulness remains until the procreation of children, which takes place in the concupiscence of the flesh, the nature of the flesh seems to be corrupted more and more, and the flesh of the offspring seems more corrupted than that of the parent: for polluted flesh is drawn from flesh that retained the pollution it had from conception; and the offspring is conceived in concupiscence, and is therefore also polluted, and so is contaminated for two reasons. Hence the pollution of the flesh in the offspring seems greater than it was in the parent.

4. Their response *. To this they say that, although the flesh of the offspring is sown from foul flesh and conceived in concupiscence, it nevertheless does not draw greater foulness than the flesh from which it is sown possessed. For although the flesh of the offspring is more foul and unclean, and therefore more corrupted than the flesh of the parent, they say that this does not prejudice the truth: since they also say it is not absurd if the nature of the flesh is drawn more corrupted in later generations, nor if the soul is more infected by flesh that is itself more corrupted.

Chapter 3 (215).

From what author that concupiscence comes, whether from God or from another. It is also usually asked whether the concupiscence that remains after baptism and is only a punishment, whereas before baptism it was both punishment and guilt, has God as its author or another. — Response *. Responding briefly, we say that insofar as it is punishment, it has God as its author; but insofar as it is guilt, it has the devil or the human being as its author.

Chapter 4 (216).

1. By what justice that sin is imputed to a soul clean from creation, although it cannot avoid it. It is also usually asked by what justice that sin is held against a soul created innocent by God, since it is not in its power to avoid it: for it is not committed through free choice, because the soul does not exist before it is liable to that sin.

2 There two is transposed in MRV. 6 Rubric omitted in RVW. 8 incongruity] incongruous, LMNT. 13 more foul in W, corrected interlinearly from fouler in NOT. 18–19 corrupted is transposed; more] further, MRTW. 21 is] becomes, OP; omitted, X. 24 is infected] will be infected, BCVW.

1 The more common opinion, based on Augustine’s words, above, chap. 1, no. 6.

Chapter 4, nos. 1–2: Summa of Sentences, III, 12 (PL 171, 1137 C; 176, 108 D–A); Hugh, On the Sacraments, I, 7, 35–36 (PL 176, 303ff.). — No. 3: Gloss on II Cor. 5:4 (PL 192, 37 B).

2. A false response of some *. To this certain people¹ say that the soul is guilty of that sin, although it was created clean by God, because when it is infused into the body it takes pleasure together with the flesh, and thereby contracts sin. — If that were so, it would no longer be called original, but actual.

3. A suitable and true response *. It can therefore more properly be said that this sin is rightly imputed to the soul because it inevitably draws it from the corruption of the body, since, as Augustine says in the book City of God², “it was not the corruption of the body that burdens the soul³ which was the cause of the first sin, but its punishment; nor did corruptible flesh make the soul sinful, but the sinful soul made the flesh corruptible.”

Chapter 5 (217).

1. Whether that sin is voluntary or necessary. It can also reasonably be asked whether original sin should be called voluntary or necessary.

2. That it can be called both voluntary and necessary *. It can be called necessary, because it cannot be avoided; hence the Prophet also says⁴: Deliver me from my necessities. And it is not improperly called voluntary, because it proceeded from the will of the first human being, as Augustine shows in Book I of the Retractations⁵.

1 Sentences, nos. 328, 523 (O. Lottin, Psychology and Morality, V, 256, 349); Sentences of the Divine Page, in Research in Ancient and Medieval Theology 5 (1933), 249; texts of the Summa “God, whose beginning and end are not mentioned” and “The Beginning and Cause of All Things,” ed. F. Bliemetzrieder, 77. 2 Book XIV, chap. 3, no. 2 (PL 41, 406; CSEL 40-II, 6; CCL 48, 417). 3 See Wis. 9:15. 4 Ps. 24:17. 5 Chap. 13, no. 5 (PL 32, 604; CSEL 36, 60ff.).

Chapter 5. Summa of Sentences, III, 12 (PL 171, 1137 D–1138 A; 176, 109 B); Hugh, On the Sacraments, I, 7, 35 (PL 176, 303 B); Augustine’s Retractations. — Chapter 6. Summa of Sentences, III, 12 (PL 171, 1138 A; 176, 109 C); Hugh, On the Sacraments, I, 7, 36 (PL 176, 303 D–304 A); the Summa “God, whose beginning and end are not mentioned,” in Research in Ancient and Medieval Theology 5 (1933), 265, lines 4–12; Sentences of the Divine Page, ed. F. Bliemetzrieder, 34; Arras Sentences, ed. O. Lottin, in Psychology and Morality, V, 413ff.; nos. 246, 465 (pp. 203, 308); IV, 19ff., 36 note 5; R. M. Martin, Robert of Melun’s Ideas on Original Sin, in Review of Philosophical and Theological Sciences 9 (1920), 104–109. — “What is called original sin in infants, while they still do not use the free choice of the will, is not absurdly called voluntary, because, having been contracted from the first human being’s evil will, it has in a certain way become hereditary.”

Chapter 6 (218).

1. Why God joins the soul to the body, knowing that it will thereby be stained and consequently condemned. If it is asked why God, who made the soul itself without stain and knows that it draws the stain of sin from its union with the body, and that it may sometimes be separated from that body before baptism and thus be condemned, joins it to the body, we answer that this proceeds from the depth of God’s judgments¹, and that God does not do this unjustly. For he not unreasonably preserves, without alteration, the mode of human creation that he established in the beginning, although human sins have intervened: forming bodies from matter made without defect in the beginning, creating souls from nothing, and perfecting the human being by their union. Since, therefore, both natures of the human being were established by God without defect, although they have been corrupted by sin against him, the immutable God was not for that reason obliged to change the primordial law of human creation, or to cease from the multiplication of human beings.

Chapter 7 (219).

1. Whether the soul is such as it is created by God. — How some prove that it is not such *. Some people commonly ask here whether the soul before baptism is such as it is created by God. They try to prove that it is not so in the following way: The soul is created in a body, and in its union with the body it is stained by sin. Therefore, as soon as it exists, it has sin, and it did not exist before it had sin. It is therefore not such as it is created by God: for it is created by God innocent and without defect, and is never such.

1 See Rom. 11:33. 2 III, 12 (PL 171, 1138 A–B; 176, 109 C–D).

2. Solution *. To this it can be said that it is not altogether such as God made it: for God made it good and endowed it with goodness without corruption. This is called the natural goodness that it received from the Creator at creation; it did not utterly lose this goodness through sin, but possessed it in a corrupted state—although God made it without defect. For if the soul were not a good thing, evil could not exist in it, since evil cannot exist except in a good, as will be said later¹. The soul is therefore not altogether such as it was created by God: just as someone with polluted hands did not have an apple such as the one I gave with clean hands—for I gave a clean one.

Chapter 8 (220).

Whether souls are equal in natural gifts from creation. It is also reasonably asked whether all souls are equal from creation, or whether some are more excellent than others. — To many it seems, not unreasonably, that from creation itself some surpass others in natural gifts, as in essence: one is more subtle than another and more capable of understanding and remembering, being endowed with a sharper intelligence and more penetrating understanding. — This is not improbably said, since it is clear that this was so among the angels². And although some excel others in natural gifts, nevertheless those who depart from the body before baptism receive an equal punishment, and after baptism immediately receive an equal crown, because the sharpness or dullness of intelligence does not establish reward or punishment in the future.