Commentary on the Sentences, Book IV, Distinction IV, Part II
PART II.
On those who receive only the reality (rem) of the Sacrament.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
The Master above treated those who receive only the sacrament; here he treats those who receive the reality (rem) of the sacrament. And this part has two parts. In the first, the Master inquires whether they can possess the reality (rem) without the Sacrament. In the second, he asks whether afterwards they should receive the sacrament, where he says, “We are often asked about those who are already sanctified.”
The first part has two parts. In the first, he determines the truth. In the second, he removes doubts, where he says: “But it seems to oppose what the Lord says.” And first, he removes doubt having arisen from the word of the Lord in John. Second, from the word of Augustine, where he says: “But some argue that no adult.”
“We are often asked about those who are already sanctified.” This is the second part, in which the Master determines whether those who already possess the reality (rem) should receive the sacrament, and this part has two parts. In the first, he inquires what the sacrament accomplishes or confers in these cases. In the second, however, he inquires what it signifies in them, where he says: “If it is asked, of what reality (rei) is that baptism the sacrament,” determining what it signifies.
“It is also often asked if it is given to infants in baptism.” This is the second part of the principal distinction, in which the Master specifically determines the effect of Baptism in infants; whether infants receive the gifts of virtues. And this part has two parts. In the first, he inquires. In the second, he determines according to truth and opinion, where he says: “It seems that they do not receive it.”
TREATMENT OF QUESTIONS.
To understand what the Master says in this part, two principle questions are examined.
The first question is on the sanctification of adults besides Baptism.
The second question is on the sanctification of infants in baptism.
Concerning the first, three things are asked: since sanctification and purification occur through a triple baptism, as the Master 1 says, namely, of water (fluminis), of the spirit (flaminis), and of blood (sanguinis), questions are raised about these three:
Firstly, regarding their efficacy.
Secondly, regarding their preeminence.
Thirdly, regarding their fittingness.
ARTICLE I.
On the sanctification of adults besides Baptism.
QUESTION I.
Whether Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) without Baptism of Water (fluminis) is sufficient for salvation 2.
With regard to the first, we proceed as follows, and ask whether the Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) without the Baptism of Water (fluminis) is sufficient for salvation. And it is not, it seems:
Objection 1. First, by the authority of the Lord in John 3:5: Unless a man be born again, etc.; but no one is born again in this way except by being baptized with Baptism of Water; therefore, no one enters the kingdom of heaven without Baptism of Water; therefore, Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis), or of the Holy Ghost (Spiritus), is not sufficient.
Obj. 2. Also, this is proven by example, for in Acts 10:44 it is said that Cornelius and those with him first received the Holy Ghost, and afterwards they were baptized with Baptism of Water; therefore, it seems that those baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) are bound to Baptism of Water. Therefore, without this, there is no salvation.
Obj. 3. Also, if someone could be saved without Baptism of Water, it seems especially true for an infant who should be helped more quickly out of God’s mercy; but the infant who is not baptized with water is condemned, as Augustine says in his book, De Fide ad Petrum 3, and maintains in the text 4: “Hold firmly,” etc.; therefore, no one else can be saved without the Baptism of Water, no matter how much they may be baptized another way.
Obj. 4. Also, if someone can be saved in a way other than by Baptism of Water, then Baptism of Water is not a necessary sacrament. Therefore, those who refuse to be baptized do not sin; but this is manifestly false. Therefore, without Baptism of Water there is no salvation. Therefore, nothing else is sufficient without it.
On the contrary: a. John 11:26 states: every one that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever;: but the just believe and are faithful before they are baptized. Therefore, if they die in such faith, they will not die forever.
b. Also, Ambrose 5 says, and it is found in the text 6: “He whom I was about to regenerate did not lose the grace he sought”. Therefore, he who had died without being regenerated was saved without Baptism of Water. Therefore, without this, Baptism of Penance gives salvation.
c. Also, sanctifying grace is a sufficient disposition for salvation, and the disposition for grace is to turn to God with all one’s whole heart and to depart from error, and all this can be done by the grace of God without Baptism of Water. Therefore, someone can be saved by baptism of the Holy Ghost alone.
d. Also, that, on account of which a thing is so, is itself more so; but Baptism of Water (fluminis), or aquae, does not sanctify except through the Holy Ghost. Therefore, the Holy Ghost sanctifies more and makes one worthy of eternal life. If, therefore, someone has Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis), he has sanctification. And he who has this has what is sufficient for salvation. Therefore, etc. – If you say that no one can have Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) unless they are first baptized with Baptism of Water, it is shown to be false. First, because “God obliges no one to do the impossible;” and again, He denies Himself to no one who seeks Him. So if someone who cannot be baptized turns to God, God turns to him. But this can not happen except through uniting with the Holy Ghost, and this is to be baptized with Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis). Therefore, this can be obtained without the other.
I answer that, It must be said that Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Water (fluminis) are both necessary for salvation. But the first is necessary, not because it is a precept, but because without it no one is freed from sin. And since we are all born sinners, and no one can be saved unless he is freed from sin, therefore no one, neither young nor old, can be saved without Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis). – But the Baptism of Water (fluminis), or aquae, is necessary, because God instituted it and because he instituted it under precept; and since the precepts are necessary for salvation, therefore this baptism is necessary for salvation. – But since, as Jerome 7 says, “God obliges no one to do the impossible by His command;” and again, what a a man cannot do, if he wills to do it, is reckoned to him as done, as the gloss 8 on that Psalm [57:2] says: For in your heart you work iniquity, etc., “That which you cannot do, and desire, God regards as done.” Therefore, Baptism of Water is not necessary in such a way that, if the will is present and the possibility is lacking, someone cannot be saved without it.
It must be conceded, therefore, that Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) is sufficient without Baptism of Water (fluminis), so long as a man has the will and is hindered from receiving it before death due to a preventing necessity, as the last reasons show. It must nevertheless be conceded that no one can be saved without this, if he is able and neglects to be baptized. And this is what Augustine 9 says, that “one can be saved without receiving the sacrament of baptism, but he cannot be saved with contempt for the sacrament.” He despises it, however, when he can be baptized, and the place and time present themselves, and he neglects it. And then he is also deprived of Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis), because he falls from grace.
Reply Obj. 1-2. Therefore, to that objection concerning the Lord’s command, and to that concerning Cornelius, the answer is now clear: because both are understood in him who has the ability and is not hindered by necessity. For Cornelius had the place and time, and the Lord’s affirmative command bound him who was able.
Reply Obj. 3. To the objection concerning the infant, that, then, especially an unbaptized infant can be saved: it must be said that if an infant had Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) without Baptism of Water, he would never be condemned. He is then condemned because being deprived of Baptism of Water, he lacks the grace of the Holy Ghost: because he cannot otherwise be disposed to grace according to common law, unless God grants a special privilege, as in those sanctified in the womb. – But an adult, according to the common teaching, can, by faith and sorrow for sins, be disposed to grace, according to that in Ezekiel [33,2]: At whatever hour the sinner groans, life shall live, etc. Hence it is not similar, because each one’s own faith is worth more than another’s: and thus, the adult’s will is more effective than the will of a child. Nor is the child condemned for violation of a commandment, but because of original sin, which remains unremoved.
Reply Obj. 4. The last objection has already been resolved: for it is called a necessary sacrament, not because without it a man cannot be saved, but because he is bound to it if he can, and neglecting it, he cannot be saved.
QUESTION II.
Which baptism is more worthy, whether Baptism of Water or that of Blood (sanguinis) 10.
Secondly, the question of preeminence among these is asked, and it is inquired which baptism is more worthy, whether it is Baptism of Water or of blood. And it is that of water, it seems:
Objection 1. Because Damascene 11 distinguishes nine types of baptisms, ascending by degrees, and he places Baptism of Water (aquae), or fluminis, as last. Therefore, if it ascends by degrees, as is evident in the other differences, it seems that that which is placed last is more perfect; but lastly he places Baptism of Water: therefore, etc.
Obj. 2. Also, Baptism of Water has its efficacy from the Passion of Christ, but Baptism of Blood (sanguinis) from the passion of the martyr; but the Passion of Christ and its merit are greater and nobler than the passion of the martyr and its merit: therefore the efficacy of Baptism of Water is greater than that of Baptism of Blood (sanguinis): therefore Baptism of Water is more noble.
Obj. 3. Also, Baptism of Water confers sanctifying grace, through which the aurea is acquired; but Baptism of Blood leads to the aureolam, which is an accidental reward. Therefore, if a substantial reward surpasses an accidental one, then the baptism ordered toward a substantial merit and reward surpasses the other; and so on.
Obj. 4. Also, that remedy which cures more and heals from more maladies, and from more dangerous ones, is better and more useful. But Baptism of Water heals more people and from more maladies than Baptism of Blood, because it heals from all sin, both mortal and venial. Therefore, it is a better and more useful remedy, and thus nobler.
On the contrary. a. In Judges 6:25, above Take a bullock etc. the gloss 12 says: “Baptism of Blood makes one purer than Baptism of Water.” But that baptism is more perfect which makes one purer. Therefore, Baptism of Blood is more perfect and noble than Baptism of Water.
b. Also, Damascene 13 says that “Baptism of Blood is very good and venerable because it is not defiled by sequential sins.” But Baptism of Water is defiled by sequential sins. Therefore, Baptism of Blood is more perfect and nobler than Baptism of Water.
c. Also, the process is from the imperfect to the perfect; but it proceeds in right order from Baptism of Water to Baptism of Blood, or of martyrdom, and it does not regress. Therefore, that baptism in which there is a state of perfection is more worthy.
d. Also, what is closer to the end, and more certain, and more efficacious, and ranks in a higher degree, is simply nobler and better. Such is Baptism of Blood, for it immediately leads to glory without hindrance, not only acquiring glory, but a preeminent glory: therefore, etc.
I answer that, It should be said that the preeminent dignity in these baptisms is apparent from considering their effects. However, the effects of both, that is, of blood (sanguinis) and water (fluminis), is both in liberating from evil and ordering to good; and in both ways they relate as that which exceeds and that which is exceeded. – For a greater effect or efficaciousness in liberating from evil can be either extensive or intensive. If extensive, Baptism of Water goes beyond, because it frees more persons and from more maladies, both from mortal and venial sin. But Baptism of Blood liberates a few, and liberates only from the venial, not from the mortal, because Baptism of Blood presupposes charity; otherwise it would be of no use for salvation. Similarly, in ordering to the good, the excess can be greater in two ways: either extensively or intensively. If extensive, then Baptism of Water excels, because it gives a gratuitous grace, namely the character, and sanctifying grace, which disposes one to glory and the essential reward. But Baptism of Blood does not bestow sanctifying grace, but perfects it; nor does it bestow the character by which the soul is distinguished and prepared for grace.
In both of the aforementioned ways, Baptism of Blood exceeds intensively as well as extensively. For it is more effective and better in liberating from evil and from sin and punishment, because it cuts off every sin in potentiality and in actuality. Similarly, it is more effective in ordering towards the good, because it immediately leads to glory and perfection, and those who are baptized with this baptism receive a more glorious prize. Therefore, in response to the aforementioned question, they are as that which exceeds and that which is exceeded. – However, if you were to inquire which one excels more, I believe that Baptism of Martyrdom does, as shown by the reasons presented.
Reply Obj. 1: Therefore, to the first objection, that Damascene places Baptism of Water in the last place, we must briefly answer that he does not place it last because it is more worthy, but because it is intended to be treated principally, and because it has the name Baptism more properly, because it purifies both interiorly and exteriorly.
Reply Obj. 2: As for the objection that Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from the passion of Christ, therefore, etc; it should be noted that this argument is deficient in two ways. First, because the passion of Christ does not operate there with its full power. Second, because Baptism of martyrdom also derives its efficacy from the passion of Christ; for no martyrdom is efficacious except through it. Hence in Apocalypse 7:14 it is written of the martyrs: These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb, not only in their own, but also that of the Lamb. – The reason why it has greater efficacy is that in Baptism of Blood, there is a greater and fuller imitation and profession of Christ’s passion than in Baptism of Water. For there is profession by word and sign without action, but here not only by sign and action, but also by suffering. Hence death is signified by Baptism of Water, but here it is undertaken. Hence, because the profession of faith is more expressive there, therefore it is more efficacious. Whence Augustine, speaking to Fortunatus 14 on the comparison of these baptisms, says: “The baptized confesses his faith before the priest, the martyr before the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water after profession, the latter is sprinkled with blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost through the imposition of the bishop’s hands, the latter becomes the temple of the Holy Ghost.” And thus, it is clear that Baptism of Blood excels.
Reply Obj. 3-4: The last two objections do not prove that 15 it is plainly more efficacious, but that it pertains to more things, namely, to conferring sanctifying grace and defending against the death of sin; but here, although Baptism of Blood does not confer grace, it nevertheless completes it. For although Baptism of Blood does not remove sin, it nevertheless removes all possibility of sin; and this greater perfection than eliminating sin and removing the possibility of sin, but even the inclination to sin.
QUESTION III.
Whether Baptism of Blood is at least a sacrament 16.
The third question concerns their suitableness; and since Baptism of Water is both a Baptism and a sacrament, it’s asked whether Baptism of Blood is at least a sacrament. And it seems it is not:
Objection 1: Because previously, in the third distinction 17, the Master says that “the sacrament of Baptism is celebrated only in water, not in any other liquid.” But blood is not a liquid of the same kind as water: therefore, etc.
Obj. 2: Also, the sacrament is an expressive sign of what takes place interiorly; but blood taints the body rather than purifies it: therefore, since 18 the soul is not tainted interiorly, but is purified, Baptism of Blood is not a sacrament.
Obj. 3: Also, a sacrament of the New Law accomplishes or confers something interiorly in some way; but exterior blood and exterior persecution do not accomplish something interiorly, but rather receive their goodness from the interior: therefore, etc.
Obj. 4: Also, every sacrament is instituted, because it signifies by virtue of its institution; but this is not instituted: therefore it is not a sacrament.
On the contrary: 1. “A sacrament is the visible sign of invisible grace” 19; but this is true in martyrdom, because it is a sign of invisible grace in the heart, and the love of God is manifested through the shedding of blood: therefore, etc.
2. Also, on that passage of Romans 5:14: who is a figure of him who was to come, the Gloss 20 says: “From the side of the sleeping Christ all the sacraments flowed forth, from which the Church is formed”; and it says this because from there flowed forth blood and water. Therefore, it seems that blood, like water, approaches the notion of a sacrament.
3. Also, what participates in the name of a species participates in the name of a genus; but martyrdom or the shedding of blood is called Baptism: therefore it should be called a sacrament.
B. – According to this, it is asked: since there are many types of martyrdoms, why is martyrdom called Baptism of Blood rather than fire or another element, when the saints have suffered all of these?
C. – And again, since there are many kinds of baptisms, as Damascene 21 says, namely nine, it seems that the Master touches insufficiently on only three, namely, Baptism of Penance, Baptism of Blood, and Baptism of Water. for it seems that either the Master is diminishing or Damascene is superfluous.
I answer that, It must be said that Baptism of Blood is not a sacrament, because everything that belongs to the notion of a sacrament is lacking in it, namely, representation from similarity, signification from institution, and sanctification by the utterance of words, each of which it lacks, as is evident when examined and compared: and therefore it is not a sacrament.
Reply Obj. 1: Therefore, to that which is objected, that it is the visible sign of invisible grace, it must be said that this reasoning is incomplete and must be supplemented, as the Master has supplemented, above, in the first distinction 22: “so that it bears a likeness and a cause exists”, both of which are lacking in the proposed objection.
Reply Obj. 2: To the objection that the sacraments are said to have flowed forth when blood and water flowed forth, it must be said that the blood and water did not signify a sacrament of the same kind, but different ones; for the water prefigured the sacrament of Baptism, and the blood the sacrament of the Eucharist, where there truly is Christ’s blood; and therefore it is not necessary that the true sacrament of Baptism be in blood, because the Lord did not institute the sacrament of purification in blood, but that of nourishment and refreshment, according to Matthew 26:28: For this is the chalice of my blood, etc.
Reply Obj. 3:. To the objection that it participates in the name of the species, etc., it must be said that it is true, according to the fact that Baptism names the species of the sacrament; and this indeed it does as long as it is taken as a visible sign. But Baptism is not only called an exterior washing, but also an interior purification; and this is not a species of the sacrament, since this is not only in the Baptism of Water (fluminis), but also of the Spirit (flaminis) and of Blood (sanguinis). Wherefore, since each one purifies, it is not unreasonable that each is called Baptism, and this by the authority of sacred Scripture; for in Luke 12:50 it is said of the Baptism of Martyrdom: I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized, etc.; and concerning the Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) we read in Acts 1:5: But you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence.
B. – As to the question: why martyrdom is called Baptism of Blood, etc., it can be said that in martyrdom the life of the flesh is relinquished, and that life is in the blood, according to what is said in the law of Moses 23. – Alternatively, it must be said that this is called this because every kind of martyrdom attains its end there. For in all other cases, we read of the saints occasionally being delivered from all other things, besides the punishment of the sword.
If the reason for this is sought, it can be said that this kind of punishment is directly caused by the evil will of man, while other kinds of punishment come from creatures acting naturally; and since the martyr obeys God, it is fitting that the other workings of nature should obey him as a manifestation of the divine goodness and as a testimony to His strength. However, the evil will strives against God and wants to resist the Lord, and by the just judgment of God it is allowed to do evil when it wants; and therefore it is not fitting that he should be subjected to martyrdom, nor that he should be prevented from evil. And so, God has arranged for the other martyrs to be subjected to this punishment, so that none escape; for it was more fitting with martyrdom than of any other punishment. – Or, since he did not rescue His Only Begotten from this, why wonder if He does not rescue others, lest a servant should appear greater than his Lord? The first reason, however, seems to be better.
C. – To the last objection, that the Master states only three and Damascene nine, we must say that the Master deals here only with Baptism that purifies; and he comprises this under a threefold difference. Damascene, however, treats the differences of Baptism both with regard to purification and to signification; thus he sets forth nine, which can sufficiently explain it. For particular baptisms were for signification before the New Law, but in the New Law, they are for purification. The first four are according to the four prefigured in Baptism. For in Baptism there is water, there is the Holy Ghost, there is the power of passion, and fourthly, the act of baptizing. As for water, it was preceded as a figure in the baptism of the deluge, according to what is said in 1 Peter 3:21: Whom baptism being of the like form, now saveth. For he had previously mentioned that in the deluge eight souls were saved by the water. – As for the water and the Holy Ghost, in the baptism of the red sea; of which the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 10:2, all were baptized, in the cloud, and in the sea, and that cloud was fiery, in which the efficacy of the grace of the Holy Ghost is signified. – As for the power of the Passion, it is prefigured in the baptism of the Law, where there was sprinkling with water of the lustration; and there were the ashes of a red heifer, in which the slaying of the heifer signified the Passion of Christ, so that the the water of the lustration, having its power from those ashes, signifies that Baptism has its power from Christ’s Passion. And concerning this baptism, it is often mentioned in the Law and in Hebrews 9:13: The ashes of an heifer being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh. – As for the act of baptizing, in the baptism of John, where one was immersed in the name of one about to come, an express figure preceded with regard to the act. Concerning this baptism, it is mentioned in Matthew 3:7, Luke 3:16, Mark 1:8, and John 1:26. And thus, there are four in terms of signification.
There are, moreover, four in terms of purification. For there is a purification from sin, and thus, Baptism of Penance; and from sin and satisfactory punishment, and thus, Baptism of Water; and from the consequence, and thus, Baptism of Fiery Tongues 24; and from all misery, and thus Baptism of Blood. – And so it is clear that in the New Law there are four purifying, and in the Law before the New there are four signifying. And in the middle connecting them was the Baptism with which Christ was baptized, where regenerative power was conferred upon the waters and the Holy Ghost descended from heaven in the form of a dove 25. – And so it is evident that there are nine baptisms in total, and not more or fewer. It is also clear why the Master enumerates only three, because he only speaks of those which pertain to the efficacy of baptism in terms of purging from sin.
ARTICLE II.
On the sanctification of infants in Baptism.
Next, the question arises concerning the sanctification conferred upon infants through the sacrament of Baptism. In this regard, three main questions are asked.
The first question is whether infants receive sanctification in Baptism.
Secondly, whether they receive it fully.
Thirdly, whether they receive it equally.
QUESTION I.
Whether infants receive sanctification in Baptism 26.
The first point proceeds as follows: It seems that the infant cannot be justified:
Objection 1:. Because Bernard, in De libero arbitrio 27, says that two things are necessary for salvation, namely, the giver and free will, and he adds that “our salvation cannot exist without the will of one consenting, any more than it can exist without the grace of the giver.” But in an infant, there is no use of free will; therefore, salvation cannot exist in them.
Obj. 2: Also, Augustine states 28: “He who created you without you does not justify you without you”, that is, without an act of your will; but an infant does not possess this; therefore they cannot be justified.
Obj. 3: Also, the will of an infant does not change, therefore it always remains the same with respect to grace. But God is always ready to give. So, if what He gives in a way, He doesn’t give in another way, it is due to a change in the will of the recipient. Therefore, if the will of an infant remains unchanged, he does not receive the reality (rem). – If you say that the infant is disposed not by his own act, but by the faith of the offerers, suppose they were faithless, then the infant would be condemned.
Obj. 4: Also, in a sacrament, the signification precedes sanctification. Consequently, in the absence of signification, there is no sanctification. But the sacrament does not signify anything to an infant, because it causes nothing to come into their understanding. Therefore, it does not sanctify an infant.
On the contrary: a. It is more consistent with reason and piety that the condition of infants can be helped by somebody rather than harmed; but infants can and do contract sin without their consent; therefore much more so grace.
b. Also, in Romans 5:12: By one man sin entered into this world, and by one, life. But Christ is not less powerful than Adam, and grace spreads itself more than sin. Therefore, if Adam could corrupt them without their consent, much more could the sacrament of Christ save them.
c. Also, every person receiving the sacrament receives the reality (rem) unless there is an obstacle; but the infant receives the sacrament and has no obstacle, because the will does not obstruct it, nor can sin obstruct it: therefore, etc.
I answer that, It must be said that infants receive the reality (rem) of the sacrament, which is the remission of original sin; and this is by the merit of the passion of Christ, the faith of another, and the power of the sacrament. – And the reason for this is both due to divine mercy, their own inability, and then the nature of this sin. – Because the sin was contracted through the act of another, and they themselves could not help themselves, the merciful God deemed it fitting that they should be assisted by another. – Because no mere man could make satisfaction for that sin, God therefore came to the aid of the entire human race through the passion of Christ. – And again, because the passion has no effect except in those who want to become members of Christ and consent, and this cannot be willed by an infant, therefore the will and faith of another assists him. – But since faith assists by profession, and this is in the sacrament where the profession of Christ’s death is the sign, therefore it assists through the sacrament. – Consequently, there are three things that dispose the infant to salvation: and the first is the passion of Christ, the second is the faith of another, but the third, which is immediate, is the power of the sacrament, which impresses the character, which disposes to grace. – And by this, the objections are cleared.
Reply Obj. 1-3: For the first, it is understood that justification is from a sin committed, not contracted; The second and third are similarly clear, because the infant is not disposed according to his own act, but that of another, because in divine mercy another’s will is reputed as his own.
Reply Obj. 4: In response to the fourth, it must be said that a sacrament, in and of itself, always signifies and sanctifies; but nevertheless to an infant it does not have the effect of signifying, but of sanctifying, because it is not capable of learning, yet it is capable of grace, just as sin, and this is from the abundance of divine mercy. Although it does not signify to the infant, yet it signifies to others the grace that is bestowed upon the infant.
QUESTION II.
Whether in Baptism infants receive the full reality (rem) of the sacrament 29.
The second question is whether infants receive the full reality (rem) of the sacrament, that is, grace with the habits of virtues. And it seems not:
Objection 1: Augustine, in De Baptismo parvulorum 30, says: “Infants, although they do not yet have faith, which consists in the will of the believers, still the sacrament of faith itself makes them believers.” Therefore, they do not have the habit of faith.
Obj. 2: Also, it seems to reason that virtue is a habit; but habit renders a faculty ready to work; but this is not in the infant: therefore, etc.
Obj. 3: Also, virtue is a perfect habit, as virtue is what perfects the one possessing it; but the perfection of behavior presupposes the perfection of nature. Therefore, since there is no perfection of nature in an infant, neither will there be perfection of behavior in him, and thus, etc.
Obj. 4: Also, virtue is the habit of the moving potency; but the cognitive precedes the moving: therefore, since infants are not susceptible to cognitive habits, neither will they be to moving habits.
On the contrary: a. Augustine, in Ad Bonifacium 31, says: “The regeneration of the Holy Ghost is common in that offered to adults and that offered to infants.” Therefore it has the same effect in adults and infants.
b. Also, it seems by reason that Baptism causes an infant to take flight, if it dies, just as an adult; but virtues are wings to fly to heaven: therefore an infant has virtues if he is baptized.
c. Also, Baptism removes original sin in an infant; but original sin deforms not only the substances, but also the potencies in infants: therefore, if Baptism is a perfect remedy, it restores the potencies. But potencies are restored by habits of virtue: therefore Baptism gives infants habits of virtue.
d. Also, Baptism makes an infant worthy and suitable for the gifts of glory, which are vision, delight, and holding fast; but faith disposes him to vision, charity to delight, and hope to holding fast: therefore an infant has theological virtues and other virtues as a consequence.
I answer that, Some have said that virtues are given to infants as far as the roots, not as far as the habits, because grace is given to them by removing sin, but not as enabling their faculties, because their faculties are bound, hence they are not born enabled: but when the the faculties are loosed, grace branches out into the habits of virtues. – But this position cannot stand, because then someone possessing virtues would lose them, if their faculties were bound in him by foolishness or madness; which is foolish to say, when they are lost by sin alone.
Another position is that virtues are given to infants in terms of habit, but not in terms of use. – But then the question: what is called “use” here? It’s either the faculty to use it or the act. If it is the faculty, then he who possesses the habit possesses the faculty, and there is no need to distinguish. If it is the act, then adults do not always use their virtues, as when they focus on other things, yet they still completely possess the habits. If use is called a kind of habituation added to the function of virtue, as patience is said to have been in Job, it still does not resolve it, because this is not in all good adults.
The third position is that habits are given to them, but according to a state of imperfection; whence that habit is, as it were, a mean between bare faculty and perfect disposition, as is the case with the sight in the eye of the dog before the ninth day. – But this position cannot stand properly, because the perfection of infused habits comes from the part of grace; and by what they have, without addition, infants can perform good works once they have grown up.
And for this reason it must be said that they are given the perfect habits of virtues just as adults, although they do not operate through them. – Because of that, it should be noted that the faculties of the soul can be hindered in two ways that they may not proceed to their actions. in the first way, by the imperfection and corruption of the body; and thus they are hindered in infants, the foolish, and the sleeping. Against this the perfection of the body and a good disposition are remedies. In another way they are hindered by a bad habit, such as by concupiscence or sin; and in this case they are remedied by grace or virtues. Virtues, therefore, restore the potential of faculties by perfecting them, and in this, removing the sin; but they do not make another remedy. Hence, with an infant having both impediments, the one is removed by virtues, not both; and therefore they are not completely made ready.
And this kind of habit for readiness has a triple origin: for some it is innate, some acquired, and some infused. The first begins with nature and has its origin in its principles; and therefore it is imperfect in an imperfect nature, it grows with the growing nature, and it is perfected with a perfect nature, as is evident in natural judgment. But the second, that is, acquired, has its origin in free will, which has no use until nature is in some way perfected; and thus it follows a perfected nature. The third, however, has its origin from God, not from nature or from free will; and because it does not have its origin from free will, it can be in an infant before the exercise of free will; but because it has no origin from nature, it can be perfect, while the existing nature is imperfect. – By these the objections are cleared.
Reply Obj. 1: Now faith has something infused, and something acquired, such as underlying knowledge; It is in an infant by reason of the first, not by reason of the second.
Reply Obj. 2: To that which is objected about readiness, the answer is clear, because those habits make the faculty ready, but not entirely.
Reply Obj. 3: To that which is objected, that virtue is a perfect habit, etc., it must be said that the perfection of behavior is something acquired, and this presupposes the perfection of nature; and something infused, and this does not necessarily presuppose it. – It might be said, however, that the natural faculties in an infant, in which the virtues are born, are perfect, as far as they are concerned, although they do not come into action due to physical impediment. Hence, as soon as the soul of the infant is separated from the body, it has the operations due to it.
Reply Obj. 4: To the objection that cognitive habits precede etc., it must be said that although cognitive habits are acquired, they are still freely given by infusion. – But if the cognitive can be infused, why are they not given? The reason is because they are for knowing, and they do not have this act before the use of reason. – But the habits of moving are not so much to direct, but to make worthy of glory and to purify from sin.
QUESTION III.
Whether equal grace is given to all infants in Baptism 32.
Thirdly, it is asked whether equal grace is given to all infants in the sacrament. And it seems so:
Objection 1: Because a cause that impresses different effects, does so only because either the agent is voluntary, or because, if it is not voluntary, it behaves in a different way; or, if in the same way, the receiving matter behaves in a different way. But neither the sacrament nor the power of the Passion is a voluntary agent, nor diversified, nor is one child more disposed than another: therefore, etc.
Obj. 2: Also, with whatever disposition an infant is born, and whatever natural qualities they may possess, one is not born a sinner more than another: therefore, by the same token, in regeneration, one should not be regenerated more or better than another.
Obj. 3:. Also, one is not punished more than another: therefore neither is he rewarded.
On the contrary: 1. The goodness of nature is a disposition to grace: therefore where the nature is better, the disposition is better; but a cause that acts uniformly makes a greater impression on that which is better disposed, as light in air compare to in water: therefore, when one infant is better disposed than another, it is clear, etc.
2. Also, because God foresaw the future good in Jacob, he gave him grace, but did not give it to the other, that is, his brother, because he saw that he would persist in wickedness. Therefore, if He foresees some infants who will be baptized will be condemned and some will be saved, it seems that he should give greater grace to those who will be saved.
I answer that, It must be said that grace is measured according to the liberality of God who gives it, not according to the quality of the recipient, except according to what is appropriate, and this according to how the recipient prepares himself, not according to his capabilities. Therefore, because God works there according to the requirement of the sacrament, and furthermore, one is not disposed more than another, thus He gives equally to all the infants, according to the common law. However, because His power is not bound by the sacrament, it is not necessary that He always give equally, but he can grant a special privilege to whomever He wills.
Reply Obj. 1-2: Regarding the first objection about the agent acting in a different way, it must be said that it does not hold, because God operates in the sacrament as a voluntary agent. – Similarly, the second objection does not hold, because sensual propagation does this, which is turned into nature, and therefore operates uniformly.
Reply Obj. 3: Regarding the third objection concerning punishment, it must be said that it does not hold, because justice is precisely in respect to merit, but mercy is in respect to the kindness of the giver.
1. To what is objected against this, it must be said that the goodness of nature does not dispose it to grace as a necessity, nor even as a congruity, unless a determined preparation intervenes, so that it prepares it as a nature born to receive it.
2. The last point is clear, because the power of the sacrament does not concern the future, but the present disposition, but God considers both the future and the present.
DUBIA ABOUT THE MASTER’S TEXT.
DUB. I.
In this part there are questions about the text. And first there is a question about what he says: “Nor was that thief crucified for the name of Christ.” It seems from this that he was not a martyr, because “punishment does not make a martyr, but the cause does 33“. But on the contrary, Jerome 34 says: “Christ invited the thief from the cross to paradise, and so that no one thinks conversion is ever too late, He made a murderer’s punishment into martyrdom.” – Also, the act of martyrdom is to endure punishment out of love; but the thief endured it thus: therefore, etc.
I answer that, It must be said that two things concur to complete martyrdom, namely, a just will and a just cause. The first was lacking in the Holy Innocents, and the second in the thief; and thus neither of them had a complete martyrdom. But the Lord gave it to the Holy Innocents, because they were born at the same time with Him: and because He was a contemporary with them, He supplied what was lacking on the part of the will; as so in the thief, what was lacking on the part of the cause. Hence Jerome aptly says that “He made into martyrdom”, as though the Lord had supplied His own. And thus the controversy is cleared, for it was not a complete martyrdom in itself, but the Lord made it so.
DUB. II.
It is also asked about what Ambrose 35 says, that he “whom I was going to regenerate, I lost”, because if he lost him, then it seems that he sinned. Also, he grieved either because of the man’s sin or because of his own sin. But it was not because of the man’s sin, because he himself says 36 that “he did not lose the grace which he sought”: therefore it was because of his own sin.
I answer that, It must be said that it was the custom of the Church to postpone Baptism until certain times, unless there was imminent danger of death, and until instruction was complete. And therefore, because Ambrose saw there was no imminent danger, he postponed it, and thus did not sin. Nor was the man condemned, since he sought it; and so, with the will that was in him there was no contempt, and therefore he was saved. Neither did Ambrose grieve for his own sin nor the condemnation of the other; but he grieved with sorrowful compassion. For he was not baptized, and so he endured some purgative punishment for his sins; and therefore Ambrose had compassion in the manner of Isaiah [16, 11], who said: my bowels shall sound like a harp for Moab.
DUB. III.
It is also asked about what he says, “With the exception of martyrdom, in which all the sacraments of Baptism are fulfilled”. For it seems false to say that in Baptism of Water (fluminis) a character is imprinted, but not in Baptism of Blood: therefore not all the sacraments are fulfilled; or if they are all fulfilled, then the character is imprinted, where the reason of the sacrament mainly consists. But on the contrary: he who has the character cannot receive a character of the same kind: therefore he who was baptized with water could not be martyred. – Also, if all the sacraments, it seems that either this involves a mistake or that baptism contains multiple sacraments.
I answer that, It must be said that Baptism is called sacraments in the plural, not by reason of the principal sign or effect, but by reason of the resulting effects, which are to cleanse from sin, make satisfaction for punishment, and what follows. Since all these things are in martyrdom, therefore he says that it receives all the sacraments, that is, the fullness of their efficacy as far as the final reality (rem ultimam) is concerned. Therefore it is clear that the objection about the character is not valid. For he himself here calls these effects of the Sacrament of Baptism “sacraments”, which are the realities (res) only.
DUB. IV.
It is also asked about what Augustine says, that infants, if they have died before Baptism, are condemned even when they are brought to Baptism. For it seems wrong to say, because an adult, when he is unable, is excused from the precept: much more so for an infant. – Also, the Lord regards the faith of the parents as if it were the child’s. So, if a woman offers her infant in faith and charity, it seems that the Lord considers her as if she were the infant.
Therefore it is not condemned without Baptism. – Also, suppose someone kills an infant when he is being brought to baptism so that he won’t be baptized. Shall we say that the infant is condemned who died because they were to receive the sacrament? For this seems to be great cruelty. But if we say that they are saved, then what Augustine says in his writing 37 is not true, that they are not saved, even if they are being brought to Baptism. – Also, if they are condemned, then the condition of infants would be worse with respect to the state of the law of nature, in which they were saved by the faith of their parents alone.
I answer that, It must be said that no infant is saved except by the power of the sacrament, as far as the common law is concerned; not because an infant is bound by the precept, but because without the sacrament or something equivalent to a sacrament, God has not arranged to give grace. I say this because one who was killed by a persecutor for the sole reason that when he was being brought to Baptism he would not be baptized, dies for Baptism. Therefore he is piously believed to be baptized in his own blood. But if he is killed for another reason, no matter how much he is brought there and prayed for, he is condemned. – The reason for this is that after Christ’s Passion, the Church and the ecclesiastical sacraments were formed; and every infant who is saved is saved in the faith of the Church, no matter how evil the parents may be. And therefore, unless an ecclesiastical work, such as a sacramental one, is performed upon him, he lacks the faith of the Church, and, consequently, also salvation. – Another reason is that since all are saved after the Passion through faith of the already revealed Passion, it was fitting for this time that no one should be saved unless he either had faith within himself or about him a profession of faith would be expressed concerning Christ’s death. – From these it is evident why in the Old Law faith alone sufficed, but not now; for this is done by the certitude of the divine arrangement.
Therefore, what is objected about an adult, it must be said that both are excused from the precept, but the adult has the grace of penance, to which he has disposed himself through contrition, which disposes him to that grace, and that supplies the place of Baptism. An infant cannot be disposed to grace by something other than the sacrament before the grace of baptism, and he cannot be disposed to that except through the sacrament. Therefore, he dies without grace and dies in sin and thus is condemned.
To what is objected, that the faith of his parents is regarded as his own, it must be said that it does not do so except by virtue of the sacrament. The answer to this case put forth is clear: for it must be distinguished, as it was mentioned before.
As to the last question, why in ancient times they were saved in the faith of their parents alone, and not presently, the answer is already clear. Nor does it follow that they were then in a better condition, for no state is better because of the generality of the remedy; indeed, the particular condition of the person may have worsened. But God, in the institution of the sacraments, is concerned with the general state of the Church, not the particular person; and since the certainty of the remedy is greater and more common in the sacrament than in the merit of faith, therefore the answer is clear.
DUB. V.
Also, it is asked about what Augustine says, “infants… not yet baptized will be tormented with eternal punishment.” For this seems false to say, because infants have committed nothing, nor have they actually revolted from anything; but the punishment of fire is due to pleasure and revolt: therefore it is not owed to them. – Also, infants could not avoid it, thus they are not at all to be blamed. Therefore, their punishment must be very mild.
I answer that, It must be said that, as the Master says, infants do not have the sense of punishment, neither as to the fire nor as much as to the worm, but only the punishment of loss. and therefore the punishment will be very mild. But Augustine calls this “punishment”, though improperly, not because they are consumed by fire, or because they are gnawed by worms, but because the very deprivation is to them a great punishment. However, infants will not experience remorse, for by divine judgment and mercy, they will be content with the state they have. But this is discussed elsewhere more fully 38.
DUB. VI.
It is also asked about what he says, “They are not separated from the society of the faithful.” Now this seems wrong to say, because prayer is not said except for sinners; thus, if the Church prays for infants, she considers them sinners. Therefore she does an injustice to the sacrament of Baptism, as if it does not purify.
I answer that, It must be said that she does not pray for them because they themselves are in need, but to show that they are of her bosom and her children. Nor does she pray in vain, because those prayers for the infants are acts of thanksgiving; but the suffrages are counted for those in need, because they benefit others.
DUB. VII.
It is also asked about what he says, “Because if only men were presently freed from punishment, they would think it was the reward of Baptism.” Now it seems that none of this is unfitting, because if Baptism were to restore the body to every kind of purity, man would thereby have immortality from it, and this is then the reward of Baptism and a part of beatitude.
I answer that, It must be said that immortality, or health of the flesh, could be restored by Baptism in two ways: either in such a way that perfected grace is given at that moment, which would be nothing other than granting glory, which the Lord did not decide to do, because He wants the will to arrive as freely as it was instituted from the beginning. However, if immortality were to take place in the flesh, without perfect grace existing in the soul, then there might be an error and a reason for deviating, because a man would desire spiritual medicine for the sake of a bodily remedy; and thus the health of the body would be ordered downward and weaken the spirit; which is not fitting.
1 Hic, c. 4 (IV, 765 sqq.)
2 Cf. Alex., Summa, p. IV, q. 8, m. 9, a. 4, § 4; S. Th., IV Sent., d. 4, q. 3, a. 3, quaestiunc. 1 et 3; Summa, III, q. 66, a. 11; Scotus, Oxon., IV, d. 4, q. 6 (XVI, 451 sqq.); Rep., IV, ibid. (XXIII, 610 sqq.).
3 Pseudo-August., c. 27 (PL 40, 774).
4 Hic, c. 4 (IV, 769).
5 De obitu Valentin., n. 29 (PL 16, 1368).
6 Hic, c. 4 (IV, 769).
7 Potius Pseudo-Augustin., Sermo 236, n. 6 (PL 39, 2183).
8 Ordin., in h. 1. (PL 113, 928).
9 De Baptismo c. Donat., IV, c. 25, n. 32 (PL 43, 176).
10 Cf. Alex., Summa, p. IV, q. 8, m. 9, a. 5, § 1; S. Th., IV Sent., d. 4, q. 3, a. 3, quaestiunc. 4; Summa, III, q. 66, a. 12.
11 De fide orthod., IV, c. 9 (PG 94, 1123).
12 Origen., In Iud., homil. 7, n. 2 (PG 12, 980).
13 De fide orthod., IV, c. 9 (PL 94, 1126).
14 Potius Gennad., De eccles. dogmat., c. 41 (PL 42, 1220).
15 Supple: Baptismus aquae.
16 Cf. Alex., Summa, p. IV, q. 8, m. 9, a. 4, § 1 et 2; S. Th., Summa, III, q. 66, a. 11, ad 2.
17 Cap. 6 (IV, 759).
18 Supplendum est: in sacramento Baptismi.
19 Lombard., hic, d. 1, c. 2 (IV, 746).
20 Ordin., in h. 1. (PL 114, 486).
21 De fide orthod., IV, c. 9 (PG 1123 sq.).
22 Cap. 4 (IV, 746).
23 Levit. 17, 11 et 14.
24 Cf. Act. 1, 5 et 2, 3.
25 Matth. 3, 16.
26 Cf. Alex., Summa, p. IV, q. 8, m. 7, a. 1, § 1; S. Th., IV Sent., d. 4, q. 3, a. 1; Summa, III, q. 68, a. 9; Scotus, Oxon., IV, d. 4, q. 2 (XVI, 389 sqq.); Rep., IV, ibid. (XXIII, 597 sq.).
27 Cap. 1, n. 2 (PL 182, 1002).
28 Sermo 169, c. 11, n. 13 (PL 38, 923).
29 Cf. Alex., Summa, p. IV, q. 8, m. 8, a. 3, § 1; S. Th., IV Sent., d. 4, q. 2, a. 2, quaestiunc. 2; Summa III, q. 69, a. 6; Scotus, Oxon., IV, d. 4, q. 2 (XVI, 389 sqq.); Rep., IV, ibid. (XXIII, 597 sq.)
30 Lib I, c. 25 n. 38 et c. 33, n. 62, sententialiter (PL 44, 131 et 145); ipsa verba habentur in Epist. 98, n. 10 (PL 33, 364).
31 Epist. 98, n. 2 (PL 33, 360)
32 Cf. Alex., Summa, p. IV, q. 8, m. 8, a. 3, § 3; S. Th., IV Sent., d. 4, q. 2, a. 3, quaestiunc. 3.
33 Augustin., Enarrat. In Ps. 34, serm. 2, n. 13 (PL 36, 340).
34 Epist. 16, n. 1 (PL 22, 358).
35 De obitu Valentin., n. 29 (PL 16, 1368), ap. Lombard., hic, c. 4(IV, 766).
36 Loc. cit.
37 Potius Magister, deducens hoc ex verbis Augustini, hic in lit., c. 4 (IV, 768 sq.).
38 Libr. II, d. 33, a. 3, q. 1 sq.
Latin text from “Opera theologica selecta S. Bonaventurae Doctoris Seraphici”, Tomus IV, Liber IV, Sententiarum. Editio Minor. Iussu et auctoritate, R.mi P. Pacifici M. Perantoni, Totius Ordinis Fratrum Minorum Ministri Generalis, Cura PP. Collegii S. Bonaventurae. Ad Claras Aquas, Florentiae, Ex Typographia Collegii S. Bonaventurae. MCMXLIX. Imprimatur, Elias Card. Dalla Costa, Archiepiscopus, Jan. 26, 1949. Available online: https://books.google.com/books?id=ObfUAAAAMAAJ
English translation by Paul G. Matheson, assisted by Chat GPT 3.5, Google Translate, Wiktionary, Collantinus-web, and other Latin dictionaries. Feast of the Circumcision, 2024.
For Printable PDF:
English: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dMLt3Y_nQrA9jOwWH3VR_jGf_xZVkQ0C/view?usp=drive_link
Latin-English: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UJLwOmo4oWJwpC7yR6tuRfZzAmYzRUDn/view?usp=drive_link
The Centurion 