Dist. 1, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 1
ARTICULUS I.
De remedio contra peccatum originale tempore legis naturalis.
QUAESTIO I.
Utrum ad remedium originalis suffecerit fides informis.
Et quod fides informis non suffecerit, ostenditur sic.
1. Nihil placet Deo nisi ex caritate1; sed professio fidei informis est sine caritate: ergo Domino non placebat: ergo propter illam vel meritum illius iustificationem parvulo non infundebat.
2. Item, si aliquis possit mereri alii, tamen efficacius meretur sibi2: ergo si parentes per fidem informem non poterant sibi mereri iustificationem, ergo nec parvulo.
Contra:
1. Per fidem informem meretur quis et facit operationem miraculorum et impetrat alii sanitatem corporalem3: ergo si Deus aeque pronus est et magis ad sanandum spiritualiter quam corporaliter, videtur, quod per fidem informem possit spiritualis sanitas impetrari ei saltem, qui non potest se ad sanitatem praeparare.
2. Item, si non posset, tria ex hoc inconvenientia sequerentur. Primum, quia peccatum actuale imputaretur filio, qui alias mundaretur, si essent parentes sine peccato4. Secundum, quia cum nullus sit certus, utrum sit in caritate, nulla ei esset certitudo de curatione parvuli: ergo semper deberet curare et remedium offerre. Tertium, quia potius deberet dici parvulus mundari in caritate parentum quam in fide; quod non dicit Gregorius5.
CONCLUSIO.
Fides informis parentum in lege naturae probabiliter poterat esse remedium parvulis.
Respondeo: Ad hoc dixerunt aliqui, quod fides parentum erat remedium parvulo non ratione actus credendi principaliter, sed ratione ipsius crediti, a quo, in quantum creditum, fluit virtus in omnia Sacramenta. Et quia creditum nunquam est informe, sed uniforme respectu fidei informis et formatae; ideo per fidem quantumcumque informem, dum tamen esset vera, dabatur remedium parvulo.
Aliter tamen potest dici, quod non ipsum creditum erat remedium, sed ipsa fidei professio, quae vel fit motu fidei, vel actu exteriori, erat dispositio curationis; et haec est in circumcisione et baptismate, quia est ibi professio fidei ipso facto; sed professio fidei, quam faciebant parentes, reputabatur6 parvulo ex divina misericordia. Et quia professio fidei in habente originale tantum sufficienter disponit ad gratiam, etiam si non fiat in caritate — habens enim originale, cum non teneatur conteri, ex sola voluntate credendi et captivatione intellectus7 ad gratiam se praeparat; sic et parvulus praeparatur merito congrui; in iustificatione enim
sive in curatione parvuli potius requiritur meritum congrui quam condigni, sicut etiam in iustificatione adulti — ideo dico sine praeiudicio, quod fides informis parentum esse poterat remedium parvulo.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod fides informis non placet Deo; dicendum, quod8 non placet Deo tanquam meritorium ex condigno, bene tamen placet sicut dispositivum de congruo.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fides informis non sufficit ad remissionem propriae culpae; dicendum, quod illud non valet: quia maior dispositio requiritur ad hoc, ut remittatur actuale quam originale, quia est ex maiori culpa commissum; ideo requiritur attritio cum fide, sed in habente originale sufficit fides9. Quando ergo dicit: magis meretur quilibet sibi quam alii; intelligendum est, ceteris conditionibus existentibus paribus.
I. In tribus huius articuli quaestionibus agitur de remedio contra peccatum originale, quod Deus iis quibus circumcisio non erat mandata, providit, quod est fides in Redemptorem vel propria, vel aliena, parvulis applicata (cfr. infra q. 3.). Ortum et receptum principium tenet, ab illo peccato naturae neminem nisi per coniunctionem quandam cum Christo liberari posse. Virtus autem salvandi parvulum oritur non tam ex parte subiecti actum fidei elicientis quam ex parte obiecti crediti, ut docet S. Thomas; alii autem simul urgent meritum de congruo, quod comitatur illam protestationem fidei. Plura dubia circa hoc remedium discutienda sunt, scilicet utrum sufficiebat fides in habitu sine actu, item utrum fides informis, denique utrum solus actus internus fidei sine protestatione vel signo externo. Durandus in nonnullis a ceteris in his recedit. De I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., de hac et seq. q. S. p. IV. q. 2. m. 5; cfr. q. 1. m. 5. a. 2. § 1. 2. — Scot., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 7. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 6; cfr. S. III. q. 61. a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2. — Durand., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 8. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 9.
II. Primae solutioni 2. quaestionis adhaeret Durand. (loc. cit.), et aliquatenus favet Scotus; ipse etiam S. Thom. in Summa (loc. cit. ad 3, et q. 70. a. 4. ad 2; de Malo q. 4. a. 8. ad 12.) hanc potius opinionem tanquam probabilem praeferre videtur; sed in Comment. (loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2.) manifeste ob auctoritatem Gregorii cum S. Bonav. secundam declarat probabiliorem. De eadem tractant praeter laudatos: Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 3.
III. De 3. quaestione similiter fuit duplex opinio: una tenuit, adultis praeter interiorem fidei actum necessariam fuisse protestationem fidei per aliqua signa sensibilia determinata; altera vero, tantum interiorem actum fuisse necessarium, cultum vero Dei per signa aliqua externa tantum valde convenientem, sive, ut dicit S. Bonav., de consilio. Huic sententiae favet etiam S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 6. quaestiunc. 3; S. I. II. q. 102. a. 1; III. q. 60. a. 5. ad 3, q. 70. a. 2. ad 1. Idem docet Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 3. a. 1. 2. 3, qui de Sacramentis et sacrificiis legis naturae ibidem et m. 1. et 2. multas solvit quaestiones. — De speciebus numerorum cfr. I. Sent. d. 2. q. 4. scholion. De eadem quaestione praeter laudatos: B. Albert., hic a. 8. 11. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 5. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 4.
---
ARTICLE I.
On the remedy against original sin in the time of the natural law.
QUESTION I.
Whether informed faith would suffice for the remedy of original [sin].
And that informed faith would not have sufficed is shown thus.
1. Nothing pleases God except from charity1; but the profession of informed faith is without charity: therefore it was not pleasing to the Lord: therefore on account of it, or [on account of] its merit, he did not infuse justification into the little child.
2. Likewise, if someone can merit for another, nevertheless he merits more efficaciously for himself2: therefore if the parents, through informed faith, could not merit justification for themselves, then neither [could they] for the child.
On the contrary:
1. Through informed faith one merits and performs the working of miracles and obtains bodily health for another3: therefore if God is equally and more inclined to heal spiritually than bodily, it seems that through informed faith spiritual health can be obtained for him at least who cannot prepare himself for health.
2. Likewise, if it could not [be obtained], three unfitting [consequences] would follow from this. The first, that an actual sin would be imputed to the son, who would otherwise be cleansed, if the parents were without sin4. The second, that since no one is certain whether he is in charity, there would be for him no certainty about the cure of the child: therefore he ought always to cure [him] and to offer the remedy. The third, that the child ought rather to be said to be cleansed in the charity of the parents than in [their] faith; which Gregory does not say5.
CONCLUSIO.
The informed faith of the parents in the natural law could probably be a remedy for little children.
I respond: To this some have said that the faith of the parents was a remedy for the child not principally by reason of the act of believing, but by reason of the thing believed itself, from which, insofar as it is believed, virtue flows into all the Sacraments. And since the thing believed is never informed but uniform with respect to informed and formed faith; therefore through faith, however informed [it be], provided nevertheless it were true, a remedy was given to the child.
Otherwise, however, it can be said that it was not the thing believed itself that was the remedy, but the profession of faith itself, which comes about either by an act of faith or by an exterior act, that was the disposition for the cure; and this [profession] is [found] in circumcision and in baptism, because there is there a profession of faith by the very deed; but the profession of faith which the parents made was reckoned6 to the child out of divine mercy. And because the profession of faith in one having original [sin] only sufficiently disposes for grace, even if it be not made in charity — for one having original [sin], since he is not bound to be contrite, prepares himself for grace from the will to believe alone and from the captivity of the intellect7; so too the child is prepared by the merit of congruity; for in justification
or in the cure of a child the merit of congruity is required rather than [that] of condignity, just as also in the justification of an adult — therefore I say without prejudice that the informed faith of the parents could be a remedy for the child.
1. To that, then, which is objected, that informed faith does not please God; it must be said that8 it does not please God as something meritorious from condignity, yet it does please [him] as something dispositive from congruity.
2. To that which is objected, that informed faith does not suffice for the remission of one's own guilt; it must be said that this does not hold: because a greater disposition is required for this, that an actual [sin] be remitted, than [for] an original [sin], because it was committed from a greater guilt; therefore contrition together with faith is required, but in one having original [sin] faith suffices9. When therefore he says: each one merits more for himself than for another; it must be understood [with] the other conditions remaining equal.
I. In the three questions of this article there is treated the remedy against original sin which God provided for those to whom circumcision was not commanded, which is faith in the Redeemer, whether one's own or another's, applied to little children (cf. below, q. 3). It holds [as] an arisen and received principle that no one can be freed from that sin of nature except through a certain conjunction with Christ. But the power of saving the child arises not so much on the part of the subject eliciting an act of faith as on the part of the object believed, as St. Thomas teaches; others, however, at the same time press the merit of congruity which accompanies that protestation of faith. Many doubts about this remedy must be discussed, namely whether faith in habit without an act sufficed, likewise whether informed faith [sufficed], and finally whether the interior act of faith alone without a protestation or external sign [sufficed]. Durandus in some [points] departs from the others in these matters. On the first question: Alex. of Hales, on this and the following q., S. p. IV. q. 2. m. 5; cf. q. 1. m. 5. a. 2. § 1. 2. — Scotus, on this and the 2 following qq., here q. 7. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 6; cf. S. III. q. 61. a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 1. 2. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 5. q. 2. — Durandus, on this and the 2 following qq., here q. 8. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the 2 following qq., here q. 9.
II. To the first solution of the 2nd question Durandus adheres (loc. cit.), and Scotus somewhat favors it; St. Thomas himself too in the Summa (loc. cit. ad 3, and q. 70. a. 4. ad 2; de Malo q. 4. a. 8. ad 12) seems rather to prefer this opinion as probable; but in the Commentary (loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2) he manifestly, on account of the authority of Gregory, with St. Bonaventure declares the second [opinion] the more probable. On the same [question] there treat, besides those praised [above]: Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 5. q. 3.
III. On the 3rd question there was likewise a twofold opinion: one held that, for adults, besides the interior act of faith, a protestation of faith through certain determinate sensible signs was necessary; the other, however, [held] that only the interior act was necessary, but that the worship of God through some external signs only was highly fitting, or, as St. Bonaventure says, [a matter] of counsel. This opinion is favored also by St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 6. quaestiunc. 3; S. I. II. q. 102. a. 1; III. q. 60. a. 5. ad 3, q. 70. a. 2. ad 1. The same is taught by Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. m. 3. a. 1. 2. 3, who, concerning the Sacraments and sacrifices of the natural law, in the same place and in m. 1 and 2 solves many questions. — On the kinds of numbers cf. I. Sent. d. 2. q. 4. scholion. On the same question, besides those praised [above]: B. Albert, here a. 8. 11. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 5. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 5. q. 4.
---
- 1Cfr. I. Cor. 13, 1. seqq. — Cod. Z nisi fiat in caritate. Superius pro suffecerit codd. F G H I Z aa sufficeret. Inferius pro primo ergo cod. V ideo.Cf. 1 Cor. 13:1ff. — Codex Z [reads] unless it be done in charity. Above, for would have sufficed, codices F G H I Z aa [read] would suffice. Below, for the first therefore, codex V [reads] thus.
- 2Vide Glossam Bedae tom. II. pag. 661, nota 6. — Pro si aliquis cod. Q etsi aliquis, pro possit, quod habent codd. A E G I K V W, in aliis posset. In fine arg. pro ergo nec cod. Z ergo multo minus.See the Gloss of Bede, vol. II, p. 661, note 6. — For if someone codex Q [reads] even if someone, and for can, which codices A E G I K V W have, in others [the reading is] could. At the end of the argument, for therefore neither codex Z [reads] therefore much less.
- 3Respicitur I. Cor. 13, 2.Reference is made to 1 Cor. 13:2.
- 4Cfr. II. Sent. d. 33. a. 1. q. 1, ubi ostenditur, peccata actualia parentum filiis non imputari. — Post pauca respicitur Eccle. 9, 1: Nescit homo, utrum amore, an odio dignus sit. — Superius pro si non posset non pauci codd. si non possent. Subinde post actuale codd. F H supplent parentum.Cf. II Sent. d. 33. a. 1. q. 1, where it is shown that the actual sins of the parents are not imputed to the sons. — A little after, reference is made to Eccles. 9:1: Man knows not whether he is worthy of love or of hatred. — Above, for if he could not not a few codices [read] if they could not. Then, after actual, codices F H supply of the parents.
- 5Libr. IV. Moral. c. 3. praefationis. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 8. — Pro debere dici cod. F diceretur.Book IV of the Morals, c. 3 of the preface. See here the text of the Master, c. 8. — For that it ought to be said codex F [reads] it would be said.
- 6Non pauci codd. reputatur, ed. 1 imputabatur. Mox pro parvulo cod. R abundans.Not a few codices [read] is reckoned, the first edition was imputed. Then, for to the child, codex R is redundant.
- 7Respicitur II. Cor. 10, 5: In captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi. — Cfr. infra d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — De merito congrui et condigni vide in iustificatione II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. — Circa finem corp. pro dico codd. F H I O R T U X dicendum, ed. 1 cum aliquot codd. dicit, Vat. dicitur. Subinde voci remedium cod. Z praemittit in.Reference is made to 2 Cor. 10:5: Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ. — Cf. below, d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — On the merit of congruity and condignity, see [the treatment] of justification at II Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. — Near the end of the body [of the article], for I say codices F H I O R T U X [read] it must be said, the first edition with some codices he says, the Vatican [edition] it is said. Then, before the word remedy, codex Z prefixes in.
- 8Cod. Z addit verum est, quod.Codex Z adds it is true, that.
- 9Vide infra d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Paulo superius pro quam originale cod. H quam ad hoc, ut remittatur originale, Vat. mortale, codd. C D W et ed. 1 pro actuale quam originale substituunt originale, quorum lectio explicatur a cod. F: quin maior dispositio ibi requiritur quam ad hoc, ut remittatur originale. Subinde pro attritio codd. F H contritio.See below, d. 16. p. II. a. 1. q. 1 and following. — A little above, for than [an] original [sin] codex H [reads] than [for] this, that an original [sin] be remitted, the Vatican [edition] mortal, codices C D W and the first edition for an actual than an original [sin] substitute an original [sin], whose reading is explained by codex F: but rather a greater disposition is there required than for this, that an original [sin] be remitted. Then, for attrition codices F H [read] contrition.