Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 3, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 3

Textus Latinus

p. 78

Quaestio II. Utrum ex institutione baptismi aliqua vis sit collata aquis.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum ex institutione baptismi in aqua collata sit aliqua vis aquis. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Lucae tertio³: Baptizato Iesu; Glossa: « Dominus baptizatus est, non mundari indigens, sed tactu mundae carnis suae aquas mundans, ut vim abluendi habeant »: ergo si vis abluendi est aliqua vis, patet, quod aquis collata est aliqua vis.

2. Item, habetur de Consecratione, distinctione quarta⁴: « Nunquam aquae baptismi purgare credentium peccata potuissent, nisi contactu dominici corporis sanctificata fuissent ».

3. Item, ratione videtur, quia omnis operatio egreditur a substantia mediante aliqua virtute⁵: ergo cum aqua tangendo corpus abluat animam, hoc est ab aqua virtute aliqua mediante; sed non naturali: ergo data est aquis aliqua virtus in baptismi institutione.

Contra: 1. Si data est aliqua virtus aquae, quaero, quomodo data; et dicit Glossa⁶, quod « contactu carnis Domini »: si ergo per contactum carnis dominicae, ergo habent ipsam, omni alio circumscripto: ergo si quis immergeretur in aquam sine omni verbo, aqua regenerabit eum; quod falsum est. Si tu dicas, quod simul est in aqua et verbo; obiicitur tunc, quia haec differunt substantia et natura, ergo operatione et virtute⁷: ergo non potest una virtus esse in utroque.

2. Item, si munda caro Christi contulit illam vim; sed frequenter tetigit aquas, ut quando puer lavabatur, et quando lavabat manus; et ubi eadem causa, ibi idem effectus⁸: ergo ante contulit, quam baptizaretur.

3. Item, si contactu carnis: ergo solum illae aquae virtutem habent, quas Christi caro tetigit, non ergo omnis aqua. Si dicas, quod virtus illa derivata est in alias aquas; ergo cum derivatio a corpore in corpus non fiat nisi per continuum⁹, nullo modo poterit pervenire ad aquas illis aquis discontinuas: ergo idem inconveniens.

p. 79

4. Item, si virtus aliqua collata est, quaero, quid sit: quia, si bonum, aut de bonis minimis aut maximis, aut mediis. Si de minimis, illud est inferius anima: ergo non agit in ipsam. Si de mediis: ergo par est animae nec adhuc influit. Si de maximis: ergo est data aquis virtus aliqua gratuita^1bis.

Conclusio. Probabilis et intelligibilior est opinio, quod aquae baptismali non aliqua proprietas absoluta addita sit, sed tantum ordinatio ad hominem regenerandum.

Respondeo: Dicunt aliqui, quod Dominus contactu mundissimae carnis suae vim contulit aquis, quam non habebant; et vis ista fuit aliqua proprietas absoluta; et haec proprietas fuit aquae melioratio et reductio ad statum primum^2bis, in quo erat ante hominis lapsum, quia post lapsum omnia elementa sunt deteriorata, ut habitatio congrueret habitatori deteriorato. Sed quia homo per aquae Sacramentum meliorari debebat et resurgere; ideo aqua meliorata et ad primum statum reducta est; et hanc vocant illam vim. — Sed ista positio non potest stare: primo, quia haec vis dicitur vis ad regenerandum; sed hanc non habebat aqua in statu innocentiae, quia non erat opus regeneratione; unde illa melioratio nihil facit ad rem. Praeterea, si aqua est meliorata, et non alia elementa: ergo videtur, quod ordinatio elementorum sit dissipata, cum necesse sit, quod habeant debitam proportionem.

Et propterea dicunt alii, quod collatio vis regenerativae non est aquae melioratio vel purificatio, sed alicuius virtutis supernaturalis collatio, quae non est data aquae secundum esse perfectum, quoadusque veniat verbum; sicut vis immutandi visum non est in colore perfecta, nisi superveniente lumine; et haec supra naturam data est et supra naturam ibi existit, ut effectum habeat supra naturam per voluntatem divinam.

Sed quoniam illud difficile est intelligere, quomodo aliquid absolutum sive secundum naturam sive supra naturam, sit modo in aqua, quod non erat prius; et quomodo datum sit contactu carnis etiam aquis remotis: propterea dicendum, sicut tactum fuit supra^3bis, quod vis illa non est aliqua proprietas vel essentia absoluta, addita aquae, sed solum ordinatio eius ad hoc, quod homo regeneretur. — Prius enim omnes liquores erant indifferentes, et poterat, quantum est de se, in aliquo alio liquore baptizari ut in aqua; sed cum Dominus voluit mergi et baptizatus est in aqua, iam sola aqua habuit ordinationem ad hoc: et ideo solum in ea potuit fieri baptismus. Sed quia non instituit, baptismum fieri tantum per immersionem, immo etiam per verborum prolationem et talium verborum; similiter et verba ad hoc ordinavit. Unde et aqua, in quam mersus est, et verba, quae protulit, ulterius^4bis habent vim, nec unum sine altero, quia utrumque insimul ad regenerationem obtinendam ordinavit.

Et sic patent obiecta ad utramque partem, quia prima procedunt de vi, ut est ordinatio ad regenerationem; secunda autem de vi, quae est qualitas absoluta. Haec autem vis non est per transfusionem, sed per institutionem. Unde sicut Dominus non tantum verba, quae protulit, ordinavit et instituit ad regenerandum, sed etiam omnia consimilia; sic non tantum aquam, quam tetigit, sed omnem aquam specie consimilem — «est autem omnis aqua omni aquae specie consimilis^5bis » — ideo omni aquae contulit. — Et est simile: si rex ordinaret, quod litterae suae tantum haberent virtutem et efficaciam, quae scriberentur in pellibus caprinis et quae essent scriptae aliquibus determinatis verbis; et hoc quidem faceret manu sua, scribendo in illo genere pellis: quod rex illa manu diceretur, sua efficaciam dedit illi pergameno et omni pergameno eiusdem speciei, etiam quod futurum est usque ad multa tempora; et hoc per solam institutionem et ordinationem, non per alicuius^6bis collationem. Sic intelligendum in proposito: quoniam Dominus tactu carnis mundae dedit vim aquis, non quia munditia transiret a carne in aquam, sed quia, cum Dominus esset mundus, voluit ob nihil aliud in aquam mergi, nisi ut illa immersione aqua haberet istam ordinationem. Unde si aqua crearetur de novo consimilis isti in specie, credo, quod eandem haberet ordinationem et eandem diceretur habere virtutem.

Et si tu obiicias mihi: omnis relatio fundatur super aliquid absolutum, eo quod advenit^7bis: ergo si haec ordinatio, quae est relatio, advenit, oportuit, aliquid absolutum dari; dicendum, quod illud non habet veritatem in relationibus voluntariis, quia nummus, ut dicit Augustinus^8bis, sine sui mutatione fit pignus, et similiter haec vox buba sine sui mutatione posset fieri significativa. Similiter et in proposito intelligendum. — Et licet utraque harum

p. 80

opinionum sit catholica et probabilis, haec tamen est magis intelligibilis et consona Sanctorum auctoritatibus. Dicuntur enim aquae mundatae et sanctificatae et virtuosae effectae^1ter, quia ad sanctificationem animae et munditiam efficaciter sunt ordinatae, non faciendam ab ipsis, sed suscipiendam et dandam in ipsis a Deo ipsi homini baptizando; et sic exponenda sunt consimilia. Nec est intelligendum, quod aliqua actio sit ab aquis in animam. Sicut enim aquae non habent proprie virtutem, ita nec operationem; sed earum virtus et actio est efficax ordinatio vel secundum actum, vel secundum habitum. Et sic non habent calumniam quae circa haec dicuntur^2ter.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether by the institution of baptism some power was conferred on the waters.

Secondly it is asked whether, by the institution of baptism, some power was conferred on the waters in the water. And that it is so, seems [to be the case].

1. Luke, chapter three³: When Jesus had been baptized; Gloss: « The Lord was baptized, not because he needed to be cleansed, but cleansing the waters by the touch of his clean flesh, so that they might have the power of washing »: therefore if the power of washing is some power, it is clear that some power was conferred on the waters.

2. Likewise, it is held in [the part] On Consecration, distinction four⁴: « Never could the waters of baptism have purged the sins of believers, had they not been sanctified by the touch of the Lord's body ».

3. Likewise, by reason it seems [so], because every operation proceeds from a substance by means of some power⁵: therefore since water, by touching the body, washes the soul, this is from the water by means of some power; but not by a natural one: therefore some power was given to the waters in the institution of baptism.

On the contrary: 1. If some power was given to the water, I ask how it was given; and the Gloss says⁶ that [it was given] « by the touch of the Lord's flesh »: if therefore [it is] by the touch of the Lord's flesh, then they [the waters] have it [the power], everything else being set aside: therefore if anyone were immersed in water without any word, the water would regenerate him; which is false. If you say that it is [given] simultaneously in the water and the word; then it is objected that these [water and word] differ in substance and nature, therefore in operation and power⁷: therefore there cannot be one power in both.

2. Likewise, if the clean flesh of Christ conferred that power; but it frequently touched waters, as when the boy was being washed, and when he washed his hands; and where the cause is the same, there the effect is the same⁸: therefore he conferred [it] before he was baptized.

3. Likewise, if [it is] by the touch of his flesh: therefore only those waters have the power which the flesh of Christ touched, therefore not every water. If you say that that power was derived into other waters; then since derivation from body to body does not occur except through what is continuous⁹, in no way will it be able to reach waters discontinuous from those waters: therefore the same difficulty [follows].

4. Likewise, if some power was conferred, I ask what it is: because, if [it is] a good, [it is] either of the least goods, or of the greatest, or of the middle ones. If of the least, it is inferior to the soul: therefore it does not act upon it. If of the middle ones: therefore it is equal to the soul and still does not flow in. If of the greatest: therefore some gratuitous power was given to the waters^1bis.

Conclusion. The more probable and more intelligible opinion is that no absolute property was added to the baptismal water, but only an ordination toward the regenerating of man.

I respond: Some say that the Lord, by the touch of his most clean flesh, conferred upon the waters a power which they did not have; and that this power was some absolute property; and that this property was an improvement of the water and its reduction to the first state^2bis, in which it was before man's fall, because after the fall all the elements were made worse, so that the dwelling might match the worsened dweller. But because man, through the Sacrament of water, was to be improved and to rise again; therefore the water was improved and reduced to its first state; and this they call that power. — But this position cannot stand: first, because this power is said to be a power for regenerating; but the water did not have this in the state of innocence, because there was no need of regeneration; hence that improvement contributes nothing to the matter. Furthermore, if the water is improved, and not the other elements: then it seems that the ordination of the elements is broken up, since it is necessary that they have their due proportion.

And therefore others say that the conferral of regenerative power is not an improvement or purification of the water, but the conferral of some supernatural power, which is not given to the water according to perfect being, until the word comes; just as the power of altering sight is not perfect in color, except when light supervenes; and this is given above nature and exists there above nature, so that it may have an effect above nature through the divine will.

But since it is difficult to understand how anything absolute, whether according to nature or above nature, should now be in the water, which was not [there] before; and how it should have been given by the touch of [Christ's] flesh even to remote waters: therefore it must be said, as was touched on above^3bis, that that power is not any absolute property or essence added to the water, but only its ordination to this, that man be regenerated. — For previously all liquids were indifferent, and one could, so far as it lies in itself, be baptized in some other liquid as in water; but when the Lord willed to be immersed and was baptized in water, now water alone had the ordination to this: and therefore baptism could be done only in it. But because he did not institute that baptism be done only through immersion, but rather also through the utterance of words and of such words; likewise he ordained the words to this. Hence both the water, in which he was immersed, and the words, which he uttered, henceforth^4bis have power, neither one without the other, because he ordained both together for obtaining regeneration.

And thus the objections to both sides become clear, because the first ones proceed concerning power as it is an ordination to regeneration; but the second ones [proceed] concerning power which is an absolute quality. This power, however, is not through transfusion, but through institution. Hence just as the Lord ordained and instituted not only the words which he uttered for regenerating, but also all things alike; so [he ordained] not only the water which he touched, but all water alike in species — « now all water is alike to all water in species^5bis » — therefore he conferred [it] on all water. — And there is a likeness: if a king should ordain that only his letters should have power and efficacy which were written on goatskins and which were written in certain determined words; and this indeed he would do with his own hand, by writing on that kind of skin: [so that] the king would be said [to do it] by that hand, [and] gave his efficacy to that parchment and to every parchment of the same species, even that which is to come for a long time hence; and this through institution and ordination alone, not through any conferral upon^6bis [it]. So it must be understood in the matter at hand: that the Lord, by the touch of his clean flesh, gave power to the waters, not because cleanness passed from the flesh into the water, but because, since the Lord was clean, he willed for no other reason to be immersed in the water, except that by that immersion the water might have this ordination. Hence if water were created anew like this one in species, I believe that it would have the same ordination and would be said to have the same power.

And if you object to me: every relation is founded upon something absolute, because of which it accrues^7bis: therefore if this ordination, which is a relation, accrues, it was necessary that something absolute be given; it must be said that this does not hold true in voluntary relations, because a coin, as Augustine says^8bis, becomes a pledge without any change in itself, and likewise this word buba could become significative without any change in itself. Likewise it must be understood in the matter at hand. — And although each of these

opinions is catholic and probable, this one nevertheless is more intelligible and more consonant with the authorities of the Saints. For the waters are said to be cleansed and sanctified and made powerful^1ter, because they are efficaciously ordained to the sanctification and cleansing of the soul, not to be done by them, but to be received and given in them by God to the very man being baptized; and similar [expressions] are to be explained in this way. Nor is it to be understood that there is any action from the waters upon the soul. For just as the waters do not properly have power, so neither [do they have] operation; but their power and action is an efficacious ordination, either according to act, or according to habit. And so they incur no censure of the things which are said concerning these matters^2ter.

---

Apparatus Criticus

3
Vers. 21. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum, sumta est ex Beda in hunc loc. Cfr. supra pag. 2, nota 3.
Verse 21. — The Gloss, which is the ordinary [gloss] in Strabus and Lyra, is taken from Bede on this passage. Cf. above, p. 2, note 3.
4
Can. 10. Verba (olim tributa Chrysostomo) sunt Chromatii, episc. Aquilei. († 407 aut 408), tr. 1. in Matth. 3. n. 1.
Canon 10. The words (formerly attributed to Chrysostom) are those of Chromatius, bishop of Aquileia (d. 407 or 408), tractate 1 on Matthew 3, n. 1.
5
Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. dub. 3. et p. II. a. I. q. 3. nec non d. 8. p. II. q. 2. Aristot., de Sens. et sens. c. 4. docet, nullam rem agere posse, nisi mediantibus accidentibus.
Cf. I Sent., d. 3, p. I, dub. 3, and p. II, a. I, q. 3, as also d. 8, p. II, q. 2. Aristotle, On Sense and Sensibles c. 4, teaches that no thing can act except by means of accidents.
6
In I. arg. allegata. Cfr. Gregor. Naz., Orat. 38. n. 23. et Orat. 39. n. 27; Hilar., in Matth. 3, 13. (c. 2. n. 3.); Ambros., in Luc. 3, 21. — Multi codd. dicunt Glossae.
In the first argument alleged. Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 38, n. 23, and Oration 39, n. 27; Hilary, On Matthew 3:13 (c. 2, n. 3); Ambrose, On Luke 3:21. — Many codices read of the Gloss.
7
Inferius pro immergeretur, quod habent codd. MO, alii cum edd. immergeret, cui cod. X addit aliquem. — Cfr. supra pag. 42, nota 10.
Below, for immergeretur, which codices MO have, others with the editions [read] immergeret, to which codex X adds aliquem [someone]. — Cf. above, p. 42, note 10.
8
Colligi potest ex verbis Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 86. (c. 13.): Easdem enim eorundem necessarium est esse causas eisdem (Versio Arabico-Latina: Causae enim eaedem et consimiles sunt causatorum consimilium). — In maiori post illam vim cod. Z supplet haec fecisset, quandocumque tetigit aquas.
It can be gathered from the words of Aristotle, On the Heavens II, text 86 (c. 13): For it is necessary that the same causes belong to the same things (the Arabic-Latin version: For the causes of like effects are the same and alike). — In the major [premise], after that power, codex Z supplies this it would have done, whenever it touched the waters.
9
Cfr. Aristot., I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 43. seqq. (c. 6. seq.), et V. Phys. text. 21. seqq. (c. 3.).
Cf. Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption I, text 43ff. (c. 6f.), and Physics V, text 21ff. (c. 3).
1bis
Vide supra d. 1. p. I. q. 4. lateral. q. 2. arg. 2.
See above, d. 1, p. I, q. 4, in the lateral [gloss] q. 2, arg. 2.
2bis
Cod. K pristinum.
Codex K [reads] pristinum [original].
3bis
Dist. 1. p. I. q. 4. in fine.
Distinction 1, p. I, q. 4, at the end.
4bis
Cod. X interius.
Codex X [reads] interius [inwardly].
5bis
Aristot., I. Topic. c. 6. (c. 5.). Vide Tertull., de Baptismo, c. 4.
Aristotle, Topics I, c. 6 (c. 5). See Tertullian, On Baptism, c. 4.
6bis
Edd. supplent virtutis alterius. Superius post quod rex cod. bb illam pro illa. Aliquanto inferius permulti codd. noluit pro voluit.
The editions supply of another power. Above, after that the king, codex bb [reads] illam for illa. A little below, very many codices [read] noluit [he was unwilling] for voluit [he willed].
7bis
Ab Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 20. (IV. c. 15.), assignatur triplex fundamentum sive causa relationis, scil. unitas et numerus (convenientia et disconvenientia), actio et passio, mensura et mensurabile. — Vat. perperam eo quod aliquid absolutum de novo advenit.
By Aristotle, Metaphysics V, text 20 (IV, c. 15), a threefold foundation or cause of relation is assigned, namely unity and number (agreement and disagreement), action and passion, measure and measurable. — The Vatican edition wrongly [reads] because something absolute accrues anew.
8bis
Vide supra pag. 24, nota 5. — Petr. Hispan., Summul. tr. 1, agens de vocibus, ait: Vox non significativa est, quae auditui nihil repraesentat, ut bu ba baf. Codd. FH (bb a secunda manu) voci voluntariis praemittunt omnino. Inferius pro posset fieri edd. potest fieri.
See above, p. 24, note 5. — Peter of Spain, Summulae tr. 1, treating of words, says: A word is non-significative which represents nothing to the hearing, as bu ba baf. Codices FH (bb by a second hand) prefix omnino [altogether] to the word voluntariis [voluntary]. Below, for posset fieri [could become], the editions [read] potest fieri [can become].
1ter
Codd. F I effective. Circa finem quaest. post in animam edd. sic prosequuntur: aquae enim illae non habent proprie virtutem illam, nec operationem etc.
Codices F I [read] effective [effectively]. Near the end of the question, after upon the soul, the editions continue thus: for those waters do not properly have that power, nor operation, etc.
2ter
Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
See the scholion to the preceding question.