Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 3, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 3

Textus Latinus

p. 64

Articulus I. De his quae pertinent ad integritatem Sacramenti baptismi.

Quaestio I. Quid sit baptismus a parte elementi, utrum aqua, vel intinctio in aqua.

Primo ergo quaeritur, quid sit baptismus secundum suam essentiam, utrum aqua, vel tinctio in aqua. Et quod aqua sit, videtur:

1. Per definitionem Hugonis¹: « Baptismus est aqua abluendis criminibus sanctificata ». Similiter per definitionem sui generis: « Sacramentum est elementum ex similitudine repraesentans » etc.: ergo si aqua est elementum, Sacramentum baptismi est aqua. Si dicas, quod utramque definitionem assignat per causam materialem, non per essentiam; contra: haec est per essentiam: baptismus est Sacramentum; et haec: Sacramentum est signum; et haec: « Signum est species sensibilis, aliud faciens in cognitionem venire² »: ergo haec est vera secundum substantiam: baptismus est species vel forma visibilis rei invisibilis; sed haec forma vel species non est nisi aqua: ergo etc.

2. Item, species panis est Sacramentum in eucharistia, non ipsa panis manducatio, sed magis usus; et hoc, quia similitudinem habet ad significatum ibi contentum: ergo si in baptismo gratia abluens significatur per aquam abluentem, ergo aqua abluens est Sacramentum; sed non aliud quam baptismus: ergo etc.

Quod autem aqua non sit baptismus, sed tinctio, videtur:

1. Per illud quod dicit Magister in littera³ definiens baptismum: « Baptismus est ablutio corporis exterior facta sub forma verborum praescripta »; et subdit: « Accedente verbo ad elementum, fit Sacramentum; non ipsum elementum fit Sacramentum, sed ablutio facta in elemento »: ergo patet, quod baptismus non est aqua, sed ablutio in aqua.

2. Item, hoc ipsum patet ratione, quia, si baptismus esset aqua, cum aqua sit semper aqua, semper esset baptismus; quod falsum est, quia non

p. 65

est, nisi dum aliquis baptizatur. Et iterum, cum aliquis baptizaretur in mari, tunc mare esset baptismus, et flumen; quod non est rationabile⁴.

3. Item, ad Sacramentum baptismi concurrit verbum et elementum⁵: ergo si verbum est necessarium, utpote quod significat, illud proprie est baptismus, ad quod refertur verbum; sed verbum refertur ad actum abluendi, cum dicitur abluo te, non ad aquam: ergo baptismus non est aqua.

4. Quod autem nec aqua sit nec tinctio in aqua, videtur: quia baptismus manet, recedente aqua et ablutione, in baptizato: ergo etc. Quod maneat, videtur, quia semper denominat⁶ et nunquam iteratur.

Conclusio

Utrumque, scilicet aqua abluens et ablutio, est Sacramentum, unum tamen.

Respondeo: Ad intelligentiam praedictorum est notandum, quod baptizare in Graeco tantum valet, quantum lavare in Latino⁷; unde Iudith duodecimo: Descendebat in vallem Bethuliae et baptizabat se. Ab eo autem quod est lavare oritur lavacrum et lotio. Lavacrum est aqua deputata ad lavandum, sicut balneum est aqua deputata ad balneandum humano artificio. Lotio vero est usus vel effectus aquae. — Baptismus igitur accipitur pro lavacro, ut Canticorum quarto⁸: Dentes tui sicut greges tonsarum, quae ascenderunt de lavacro; Glossa: « Loti in baptismo ». Et e converso, ad Titum tertio⁹: Per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis. — Accipitur etiam pro lotione, Marci septimo: Tenentes traditionem hominum, baptismata calicum et urceorum, id est lotiones; similiter ablutio pro baptismo, Ioannis decimo tertio: Qui lotus est non indiget etc.: lotus, id est baptizatus.

Cum igitur nomen baptismi aequivaleat lavacro et etiam lotioni, dixerunt aliqui, quod baptismus, secundum quod est nomen Sacramenti, idem est quod lavacrum; alii, quod est idem quod tinctio. Primae opinionis videtur fuisse magister Hugo, sed secundae Magister¹⁰. Credo tamen, quod utroque modo dictum est, quia secundum quod lavacrum, est sacrae rei signum; aqua enim abluens signum est gratiae intus mundantis, et ablutio signum interioris mundationis; et ita utrumque Sacramentum, nec tamen duo Sacramenta, quia unum est propter alterum. Aqua enim non est Sacramentum, nisi in quantum abluens; et lotio non est Sacramentum nisi quia lotio aquae vel in aqua; et ideo unum tantum Sacramentum.

Si tamen quaeras, quod per prius et proprius dicitur Sacramentum, utrum baptismus pro lavacro, an pro lotione; est distinguendum, quod baptismus dicitur Sacramentum sanctificans, et sic principalius dicitur de lotione, quia immediatius respicit interiorem effectum et verbum¹¹; dicitur etiam Sacramentum significans, et sic principaliter dicitur de lavacro, quia significatum interius proprie et per prius est gratia mundans, et per consequens ipsa lotio. — Et est exemplum: circulus expositus ante tabernam signum est vini vendendi, et expositio circuli signum est venditionis; tamen magis proprie est signum circulus quam expositio; sic aqua magis quam ablutio. — Et concedendae sunt rationes hoc probantes.

Ad argumenta in contrarium:

Ad 1. Ad illud autem quod obiicitur in contrarium de Magistro, dicendum, quod ipse fuit alterius opinionis; nihilominus concedendum est, quod tamen ex hoc sequitur, quod baptismus sit ablutio; nec non sit aqua abluens. Quod autem dicit, quod elementum non fit Sacramentum: intelligendum, non secundum id quod est, sed secundum actum, qui est lavare.

Ad 2. 3. Per hoc etiam patet sequens: quia aqua non est Sacramentum secundum quod aqua solum,

p. 66

sed secundum actum lavandi, sicut gratia medetur secundum actum purgandi¹²; et ideo non sequitur, quod semper aqua sit Sacramentum, nec quod omnis aqua, sed aqua quae lavat et quae deputatur ad hoc; et hoc non est totum mare vel fluvius, sed illud aquae, quod de proximo coniungitur corpori lavando. — Ex hoc etiam patet sequens, quia verbum refertur ad aquam, secundum quod Sacramentum in actu, et sic est in quantum lavans.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod manet; dicendum, quod baptismus proprie, secundum quod dicit Sacramentum exterius, non manet in se, sed in suo effectu, et ratione illius dicitur manere. Effectus enim baptismi aliquando dicitur baptismus.

Unde notandum, quod cum in baptismo sint tria: quoddam, quod est Sacramentum tantum, ut elementum visibile; quoddam, quod est res tantum, sicut gratia curans; quoddam, quod est Sacramentum et res Sacramenti, ut character. De re Sacramenti dicitur¹³ communiter; de re et Sacramento dicitur proprie; de Sacramento autem dicitur magis proprie; sed de lotione adhuc magis proprie; de elemento autem sub tali actu maxime proprie. — Et secundum has quatuor acceptiones quadrupliciter definitur. Secundum quod baptismus est nomen elementi significantis et sanctificantis virtute verbi, definitur ab Hugone¹⁴: « Baptismus est aqua diluendis criminibus sanctificata ». — Secundum quod pro actu vel usu elementi, a Magistro: « Baptismus est tinctio corporis exterior facta sub forma verborum praescripta ». — Secundum quod accipitur pro Sacramento et re Sacramenti, quod est character, sic a Damasceno¹⁵: « Baptismus est vitae spiritualis principium, sigillum et custodia et illuminatio mentis ». Et tangitur quadruplex conditio characteris: quia enim praeparat ad gratiam, ideo principium vitae; quia distinguit gregem Domini, sic sigillum; quia indelebiliter perseverat, sic custodia; quia specialiter disponit ad fidem, dicitur illuminatio mentis. — Secundum quod accipitur pro re Sacramenti, definitur a Dionysio¹⁶: « Baptismus est regenerationis Sacramentum, secundum quod primitus subsistit in anima, spiritualiter formans animales motus ad opportunitatem divinorum eloquiorum et actionum, et ad caelestis quietis anagogen iter faciens ». In hac definitione tangitur res huius Sacramenti, quae est gratia animam vivificans, cum dicit: « secundum quod primitus subsistit in anima »; tangitur etiam habilitatio potentiae per virtutem, primo ad activam, cum dicit: « formans animales motus »; secundo ad contemplativam, cum dicit: « ad caelestis quietis anagogen ».

Scholion

I. Iam a tempore S. Thomae distinguitur baptismi materia remota et proxima; et quod illa sit aqua, exclusa qualicumque altera materia, constat magisterio Ecclesiae (Concil. Trid. Sess. VII. can. 2.), quidquid docuerint novatores saeculi XVI. eorumque sequaces. Similiter patet, quod materia proxima consistat in applicatione aquae ad baptizandum sive in ablutione, quocumque modo fiat. Cum autem ablutio intelligi possit sensu et activo et passivo, « lotio passiva immediatius respicit baptismum et praesupponit duplicem lotionem praedictam » etc. (ita hic cum Richardo a Med. aliisque dub. 2.). Recte igitur dici potest, materiam proximam consistere in ablutione tam activa quam passiva, licet non eodem modo concurrant. Alii quidem solam passivam lotionem volunt esse materiam proximam, sed vix nisi verbis ab illa sententia recedere videntur. — Etiam duplex modus ille loquendi, hic Hugoni et Magistro tributus, adhibita distinctione materiae remotae et proximae satis componi potest. — Solutio ad 4. respicit opinionem Gulielmi Antissiod. (Sum. p. IV. tr. 3. c. 2.), qui, postquam retulit duas opiniones, quarum prima censuit, essentiam baptismi consistere in aqua ut abluente, altera vero, consistere in charactere, cum sit aliquod permanens; deinde resolvit: « Nec sola aqua abluens vel ablutio aquae est baptismus, nec solus character, sed illa duo, ita quod utraque sunt unus baptismus ». Et in solut. ad I. dicit, quod baptismus transit in quantum aqua abluens, manet in quantum character. — De tota utriusque articuli doctrina cfr. Breviloq. p. VI. c. 7. De hac I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. I. et m. 3. a. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 1. 2; S. Thom., hic q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. 1. 2; S. III. q. 66. a. I. — B. Albert., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic a. I. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. I. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. I.

II. In duabus seqq. qq. nulla difficultas occurrit. De 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 3. a. 3. § I. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. I. De 3. quaestione similiter agit: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 7. a. 2. § 2. circa med. Alii paulo aliter et alibi hanc quaestionem ponunt, scilicet utrum in baptizando fides requiratur. Ita S. Thom., IV. Sent. d. 6. q. I. a. 3; S. III. q. 68. a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., IV. Sent. d. 6. q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., IV. Sent. d. 4. a. 1. q. I. — Dionys. Carth., IV. Sent. d. 6. q. 2.

---

English Translation

Article I. On the things that pertain to the integrity of the Sacrament of baptism.

Question I. What baptism is on the side of the element, whether it is water, or the dipping in water.

First, then, it is asked what baptism is according to its essence, whether it is water, or a dipping in water. And that it is water seems [so]:

1. By the definition of Hugh¹: « Baptism is water sanctified for the washing away of sins ». Likewise by the definition of its genus: « A Sacrament is an element representing by likeness » etc.: therefore if water is the element, the Sacrament of baptism is water. If you say that he assigns both definitions by the material cause, not by the essence; on the contrary: this is [stated] by essence: baptism is a Sacrament; and this: a Sacrament is a sign; and this: « A sign is a sensible species, making something else come into knowledge² »: therefore this is true according to substance: baptism is a visible species or form of an invisible thing; but this form or species is nothing but water: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the species of bread is the Sacrament in the eucharist, not the eating of the bread itself, but rather the use; and this, because it has a likeness to the thing signified and contained therein: therefore if in baptism the washing grace is signified through the washing water, then the washing water is the Sacrament; but [it is] nothing other than baptism: therefore etc.

But that water is not baptism, but rather the dipping, seems [so]:

1. By that which the Master says in the text³, defining baptism: « Baptism is the exterior washing of the body done under the prescribed form of words »; and he adds: « When the word comes to the element, the Sacrament is made; the element itself does not become the Sacrament, but the washing done in the element »: therefore it is clear that baptism is not water, but the washing in water.

2. Likewise, this same thing is clear by reason, because, if baptism were water, since water is always water, it would always be baptism; which is false, because it is not [baptism]

except while someone is being baptized. And again, when someone were baptized in the sea, then the sea would be baptism, and the river [also]; which is not reasonable⁴.

3. Likewise, to the Sacrament of baptism there concur word and element⁵: therefore if the word is necessary, inasmuch as it signifies, that is properly baptism to which the word refers; but the word refers to the act of washing, when it is said I wash thee, not to the water: therefore baptism is not water.

4. But that it is neither water nor a dipping in water seems [so]: because baptism remains in the baptized when the water and the washing have withdrawn: therefore etc. That it remains seems [so], because it always denominates⁶ and is never repeated.

Conclusion

Both, namely the washing water and the washing, are the Sacrament, yet one [Sacrament].

I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that baptizare in Greek is worth as much as lavare (to wash) in Latin⁷; whence Judith twelve: He was going down into the valley of Bethulia and baptizing himself. Now from that which is to wash arises lavacrum (laver/washing-place) and lotio (washing). A lavacrum is water set apart for washing, just as a bath is water set apart for bathing by human craft. But lotio is the use or effect of water. — Baptism therefore is taken for the lavacrum, as in Canticles four⁸: Thy teeth as flocks of the shorn, which came up from the washing; the Gloss: « Washed in baptism ». And conversely, to Titus three⁹: Through the laver of regeneration and renewal. — It is also taken for the lotion, Mark seven: Holding the tradition of men, the washings of cups and pitchers, that is, washings; likewise ablution for baptism, John thirteen: He that is washed needeth not etc.: washed, that is, baptized.

Since therefore the name of baptism is equivalent to lavacrum and also to lotion, some have said that baptism, insofar as it is the name of the Sacrament, is the same as the lavacrum; others, that it is the same as the dipping. Of the first opinion master Hugh seems to have been, but of the second the Master¹⁰. I believe, however, that it is said in both ways, because insofar as it is lavacrum, it is the sign of a sacred thing; for the washing water is the sign of the grace inwardly cleansing, and the washing is the sign of interior cleansing; and so each is a Sacrament, yet not two Sacraments, because one is on account of the other. For water is not a Sacrament except inasmuch as washing; and the washing is not a Sacrament except because [it is] a washing of water or in water; and therefore [there is] only one Sacrament.

If, however, you ask, by which is the Sacrament said more first and more properly, whether baptism for the lavacrum, or for the lotion; a distinction must be made, [namely] that baptism is called the sanctifying Sacrament, and thus it is said more principally of the washing, because it more immediately regards the interior effect and the word¹¹; it is also called the signifying Sacrament, and thus it is said principally of the lavacrum, because the thing signified inwardly, properly and more first, is the cleansing grace, and consequently the washing itself. — And there is an example: a hoop displayed before a tavern is a sign of wine to be sold, and the displaying of the hoop is a sign of the selling; yet the hoop is more properly a sign than the displaying; so [too] the water more than the washing. — And the reasons proving this are to be conceded.

To the arguments to the contrary:

To 1. As for that which is objected to the contrary concerning the Master, it must be said that he was of another opinion; nonetheless it must be conceded that yet from this it follows that baptism is a washing; and it is not the case that it is not washing water. But as for what he says, that the element does not become the Sacrament: it is to be understood, not according to that which it is, but according to the act, which is to wash.

To 2 and 3. By this also the following is clear: that water is not the Sacrament insofar as it is water alone,

but according to the act of washing, just as grace heals according to the act of purging¹²; and therefore it does not follow that water is always the Sacrament, nor that all water [is], but the water which washes and which is set apart for this; and this is not the whole sea or river, but that [part] of the water which is most immediately joined to the body to be washed. — From this also the following is clear, that the word refers to the water insofar as [it is] Sacrament in act, and thus it is [Sacrament] inasmuch as washing.

To 4. As for that which is objected, that it remains; it must be said that baptism properly, insofar as it names the exterior Sacrament, does not remain in itself, but in its effect, and by reason of that it is said to remain. For the effect of baptism is sometimes called baptism.

Whence it must be noted that since in baptism there are three things: one, which is Sacrament only, as the visible element; one, which is the thing (res) only, as the healing grace; one, which is Sacrament and res of the Sacrament, as the character. Of the res of the Sacrament it is said¹³ commonly; of the res-and-Sacrament it is said properly; of the Sacrament, however, it is said more properly; but of the washing still more properly; and of the element under such an act most properly. — And according to these four acceptations it is defined fourfold. Insofar as baptism is the name of the element signifying and sanctifying by the power of the word, it is defined by Hugh¹⁴: « Baptism is water sanctified for the washing away of sins ». — Insofar as [it is taken] for the act or use of the element, by the Master: « Baptism is the exterior dipping of the body done under the prescribed form of words ». — Insofar as it is taken for the Sacrament-and-res of the Sacrament, which is the character, thus by Damascene¹⁵: « Baptism is the principle of the spiritual life, a seal and a guard and an illumination of the mind ». And a fourfold condition of the character is touched upon: for because it prepares for grace, it is therefore the principle of life; because it distinguishes the flock of the Lord, thus [it is] a seal; because it perseveres indelibly, thus [it is] a guard; because it specially disposes for faith, it is called an illumination of the mind. — Insofar as it is taken for the res of the Sacrament, it is defined by Dionysius¹⁶: « Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration, insofar as it first subsists in the soul, spiritually forming the animal motions toward an aptitude for the divine words and actions, and making a way toward the anagogy of the heavenly rest ». In this definition is touched upon the res of this Sacrament, which is the grace vivifying the soul, when he says: « insofar as it first subsists in the soul »; there is also touched upon the enabling of the power through virtue, first toward the active, when he says: « forming the animal motions »; secondly toward the contemplative, when he says: « toward the anagogy of the heavenly rest ».

Scholion

I. Already from the time of St. Thomas the remote and proximate matter of baptism is distinguished; and that the former is water, every other matter being excluded, is established by the magisterium of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. VII, can. 2), whatever the innovators of the sixteenth century and their followers may have taught. Likewise it is clear that the proximate matter consists in the application of water for baptizing, or in the ablution, in whatever way it is done. But since ablution can be understood in both an active and a passive sense, « the passive washing more immediately regards baptism and presupposes the twofold washing aforesaid » etc. (so here with Richard of Mediavilla and others, dub. 2). Rightly therefore can it be said that the proximate matter consists in ablution both active and passive, though they do not concur in the same way. Some indeed will have it that the passive washing alone is the proximate matter, but they seem to recede from that opinion scarcely except in words. — Also that twofold manner of speaking, here attributed to Hugh and the Master, can be sufficiently reconciled by applying the distinction of remote and proximate matter. — The solution to [argument] 4 regards the opinion of William of Auxerre (Summa pt. IV, tr. 3, c. 2), who, after reporting two opinions—of which the first held that the essence of baptism consists in water as washing, the other that it consists in the character, since it is something permanent—then resolves: « Neither the washing water alone nor the washing of water is baptism, nor the character alone, but those two, in such a way that both are one baptism ». And in the solution to [argument] I he says that baptism passes away inasmuch as [it is] washing water, [and] remains inasmuch as [it is] character. — On the whole doctrine of both articles, cf. Breviloquium pt. VI, c. 7. On this first question: Alexander of Hales, Summa pt. IV, q. 8, m. 1 and m. 3, a. 2. — Scotus, in both Writings here q. 1, 2; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, quaestiunc. 1, 2; Summa III, q. 66, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, on this and the 2 following questions here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1, 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

II. In the two following questions no difficulty occurs. On the 2nd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 3, a. 3, § 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1. On the 3rd question likewise treats: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 7, a. 2, § 2, near the middle. Others put this question somewhat differently and elsewhere, namely whether in the one to be baptized faith is required. So St. Thomas, IV Sent. d. 6, q. 1, a. 3; Summa III, q. 68, a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, IV Sent. d. 6, q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, IV Sent. d. 4, a. 1, q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, IV Sent. d. 6, q. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus

1
Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 2. Seq. — definitio Sacramenti est ipsius Hugonis, I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 2; cfr. supra d. I. p. I. q. 2. fundam. 2.
Bk. II On the Sacraments pt. VI, c. 2. The following — [namely] the definition of a Sacrament is Hugh's own, bk. I On the Sacraments pt. IX, c. 2; cf. above, dist. I, pt. I, q. 2, fundam. 2.
2
Secundum August., II. de Doctr. christ. c. 1. n. 1. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 3. Ibid. c. 2. et 4. insinuatur tam praecedens propositio quam sequens.
According to Augustine, On Christian Doctrine bk. II, c. 1, n. 1. Cf. above, the Master's text, dist. I, c. 3. Ibid. cc. 2 and 4 there is intimated both the preceding proposition and the following.
3
Hic c. 1.
Here, c. 1.
4
Cod. U esset baptismus, quod falsum est, quia non est rationabile.
Codex U [reads] esset baptismus, quod falsum est, quia non est rationabile (it would be baptism, which is false, because it is not reasonable).
5
Vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1, allata verba Augustini. — Mox pro utpote codd. E F L ut.
See here in the Master's text, c. 1, the cited words of Augustine. — Soon, for utpote (inasmuch as) codices E, F, L [read] ut.
6
Simul audi: baptizatum. — Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. I.: Baptismus perpetuus manet in baptizato, sed ablutio statim deficit: ergo etc. Quod perpetuo maneat, videtur, quia, cum aliquis baptizatur, recipit Sacramentum baptismi, et quamdiu est baptizatus, habet Sacramentum, sicut, unus albus, habet albedinem; sed semel baptizatus semper est baptizatus: igitur semper habet Sacramentum baptismi.
At the same time understand: baptizatum (the baptized). — Alexander of Hales, Summa pt. IV, q. 8, m. 1: « Baptism remains perpetually in the baptized, but the ablution at once ceases: therefore etc. » That it remains perpetually seems [so], because, when someone is baptized, he receives the Sacrament of baptism, and as long as he is baptized, he has the Sacrament, just as one who is white has whiteness; but once baptized [a man is] always baptized: therefore he always has the Sacrament of baptism.
7
Vers. 7: Et exibat (Iudith) noctibus in vallem etc.
Verse 7: And (Judith) went out by night into the valley etc.
8
Vers. 2. — Glossa, quam exhibet Lyranus ut interlinearem, delibata est ex expositione in Cantic. (inter opera Isidori), c. 4. n. 3: Id est fonte sacri baptismatis, qui et tonsi et toti sunt, hoc est nudati renuntiando saeculo et vitae lavacro mundati.
Verse 2. — The Gloss, which Lyranus presents as interlinear, is drawn from the exposition on Canticles (among the works of Isidore), c. 4, n. 3: « That is, by the font of holy baptism, who are both shorn and entire, that is, stripped by renouncing the world and cleansed by the laver of life. »
9
Vers. 5. — Codd. G I glossando clarius habent Et converso lavacrum accipitur pro baptismo. — Seq. textus est Marc. 7, 3. seq.: Tenentes traditionem seniorum... baptismata calicum etc. Multi codd. Tenentes baptismata hominum, calicum et urceorum, codd. G I Tenentes baptismata calicum et urceorum. — Tertius textus est Ioan. 13, 10, quem Beda ita explicat: Quia qui ablutus est fonte baptismatis in remissionem omnium peccatorum non indiget rursus, immo non potest eodem modo ablui, sed quotidiana tantum mundanae conversationis contagia necesse habet quotidiana sui Redemptoris indulgentia tergantur.
Verse 5. — Codices G, I in glossing more clearly read Et converso lavacrum accipitur pro baptismo (And conversely the laver is taken for baptism). — The following text is Mark 7:3 seq.: Holding the tradition of the ancients... the washings of cups etc. Many codices [read] Holding the washings of men, of cups and pitchers, codices G, I Holding the washings of cups and pitchers. — The third text is John 13:10, which Bede explains thus: « Because he who has been washed at the font of baptism unto the remission of all sins needs not again, nay rather cannot be washed in the same way, but the daily contagions of worldly conversation need only be wiped away by the daily indulgence of his Redeemer. »
10
al. et baptismus dicitur. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 1, eandem quaest. solvens ait: « Respondeo, quod in baptismo tria sunt: ipsum elementum, verbum sanctificans et ipsa tinctio. Dicendum igitur, quod in elemento est virtus regenerativa potentia ex contactu carnis Christi; quae potentia reducitur in actum per verbum ipsum, sicut color est visibilis potentia et luce efficitur actu visibilis; sed in tinctione virtus regenerativa effectum habet in homine. Unde illud quod immediate operatur principalem effectum baptismi, est ipsa tinctio ». Et paulo ante: In forma praescripta a Domino non refertur verbum, a quo est virtus Sacramenti, ad elementum, sed ad ipsam ablutionem sive tinctionem, quod patet, cum dicitur: Ego baptizo te... debet igitur ablutio dici Sacramentum.
[Vat. reads] et baptismus dicitur (and baptism is said). Alexander of Hales, Summa pt. IV, q. 8, m. 1, solving the same question, says: « I respond that in baptism there are three things: the element itself, the sanctifying word, and the dipping itself. It must therefore be said that in the element there is a regenerative power in potency from contact with the flesh of Christ; which power is reduced to act through the word itself, just as color is visible in potency and is made actually visible by light; but in the dipping the regenerative power has its effect in the man. Whence that which immediately works the principal effect of baptism is the dipping itself. » And a little before: « In the form prescribed by the Lord the word, from which is the power of the Sacrament, is not referred to the element, but to the ablution or dipping itself, which is clear, since it is said: I baptize thee... therefore the ablution ought to be called the Sacrament. »
11
Locc. in argg. allegatis.
The passages in the arguments cited.
12
Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 2. § 3. ad 2: Dicendum, quod aqua est Sacramentum, non in quantum est aqua solum, proprie loquendo, sed potius, in quantum illi convenit actus ablutionis; nec res Sacramenti est, proprie loquendo, gratia, sed gratia mundans sive spiritualiter abluens. — Aliquanto inferius pro sed illud aquae, quod cod. sed aqua, quae.
Alexander of Hales, Summa pt. IV, q. 8, m. 3, a. 2, § 3, ad 2: « It must be said that water is the Sacrament, not insofar as it is water alone, properly speaking, but rather insofar as the act of ablution befits it; nor is the res of the Sacrament, properly speaking, grace, but cleansing grace, or grace spiritually washing. » — Somewhat below, for sed illud aquae, quod (but that of the water which) a codex [reads] sed aqua, quae (but water which).
13
Supple cum codd. H P Q baptismus.
Supply with codices H, P, Q baptismus.
14
Loc. cit. — Cod. Z Secundum quod sumitur pro Sacramento, id est pro elemento, sic definitur baptismus ab Hugone.
Loc. cit. — Codex Z [reads] Secundum quod sumitur pro Sacramento, id est pro elemento, sic definitur baptismus ab Hugone (Insofar as it is taken for the Sacrament, that is, for the element, baptism is thus defined by Hugh).
15
Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 9. — Pro quod est character edd. quae [plures codd. qui] est character. De charactere agitur infra d. 6. p. 1. q. 1. seqq. Aliquanto inferius post ideo codd. G I Z supplent dicitur. Subinde pro specialiter codd. G K W spiritualiter.
Bk. IV On the Orthodox Faith c. 9. — For quod est character (which is the character) the editions [read] quae [several codices qui] est character. On the character it is treated below, dist. 6, pt. 1, q. 1 seqq. Somewhat below, after ideo (therefore) codices G, I, Z supply dicitur (is called). Then for specialiter (specially) codices G, K, W [read] spiritualiter (spiritually).
16
De Eccles. Hierarch. c. 2. p. 1. — Cod. Z addit: et hoc dupliciter; tangitur enim ut est perfectio substantiae animae, quia est. Idem cod. Z inferius post tangitur etiam subiungit ut.
On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy c. 2, pt. 1. — Codex Z adds: et hoc dupliciter; tangitur enim ut est perfectio substantiae animae, quia est (and this in two ways; for it is touched upon as it is the perfection of the substance of the soul, because it is). The same codex Z below, after tangitur etiam (there is also touched upon), subjoins ut.