Dist. 5, Art. 3, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 5
Articulus III. De potestate baptizantium per comparationem ad dantem illam.
Quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur de potestate baptizantium per comparationem ad dantem illam. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, quae sit illa potestas, quam Christus dare potuit ministris et non dedit. Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christo fuerit data potestas dimittendi peccata.
Quaestio I. Quae sit illa potestas, quam Christus dare potuit ministris et non dedit.
Circa primum sic proceditur.
1. Super illud Ioannis primo4: Hic est qui baptizat, dicit Augustinus, quod Ioannes didicit5, quod «Christus potestatem mundandi a peccatis ministris dare potuit, sed non dedit»: ergo videtur, quod illa fuerit potestas cooperationis.
2. Item, quod illam dare potuerit, sed non dedit, videtur per verbum Augustini6 et Magistri: quia non dedit hanc potestatem, «ne homo spem poneret in homine»; sed propter nullam potentiam homo speraret in homine, nisi homo haberet potentiam dimittendi culpam et dandi gratiam: ergo de illa intelligitur.
3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione, quod potuit hanc communicare, per simile in spiritualibus: quia Angelo superioris ordinis dedit potentiam purgandi alium, qui est inferioris ordinis7: ergo cum ita sit ordo in ecclesiastica hierarchia, sicut in angelica, patet etc.
4. Item, ostenditur etiam per simile in corporalibus: quia rebus corporalibus dedit potentiam curandi a morbo corporali: ergo animabus sanctis debuit dare potentiam curandi a morbo spirituali.
5. Item, hoc etiam probatur a minori8: quia dare potuit ministris Ecclesiae potentiam expellendi daemones: ergo multo fortius seminarium eorum, quod est peccatum.
6. Item, a minori videtur alio modo: quia nulla creatura nobilior est anima sancta9; sed gratiae dedit potentiam expellendi culpam: ergo et animae dare potuit.
Contra: 1. Augustinus10: «Maius est iustificare impium quam creare caelum et terram»; sed potentiae creandi non est capax creatura: ergo nec potentiae iustificandi sive dimittendi peccata. Fundamenta.
2. Item, omnis actio est per coniunctionem agentis; sed solus Deus potest illabi animae11: ergo solus potest purgare.
3. Item, purgatio a culpa est a superiori; sed solus Deus est supra liberum arbitrium12: ergo solus Deus potest culpam dimittere, quae est in libero arbitrio.
4. Item, interius baptizare est gratiam infundere, et gratiam infundere est ipsam creare; sed solius Dei est creare gratiam: ergo ipsius tantum est interius baptizare sive a culpa purgare.
Conclusio. Potestas, de qua loquitur Augustinus, est potestas cooperationis talis, ut homo non efficiendo, sed impetrando baptizato gratiam obtineat.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod circa baptismum possunt sex potestates annotari, ut videamus, quam dare potuit Dominus, et non dedit. — Prima est auctoritatis; haec est, qua Deus a se ipso, non aliunde, habet potestatem interius mundandi a culpa. — Secunda est cooperationis, ut homo, accepta divinitus potentia, in tali actu esset cooperator1. — Tertia est excellentiae, ut secundum abundantiorem gratiam existentem in baptizante maiorem conferret gratiam in baptizato. — Quarta est invocationis, ut homo in nomine Petri baptizari possit, sicut in nomine Christi, vel etiam Trinitatis. — Quinta est institutionis, ut, sicut Christus habuit potestatem instituendi baptismum in aqua, ita alius haberet in aqua, vel alibi. — Sexta est ministerii, qua dat2, ut per hominem possit exterius ministrari et verbum et elementum.
Primam nec dare potuit nec dedit, ultimam dare potuit et dedit. De omnibus intermediis dicunt Magistri, quod dare potuit, sed non dedit. — Secundam enim et tertiam non dedit, ne spes in homine poneretur; quia, si unus homo posset alium sanare spiritualiter, vel suis meritis plus de gratia dare: speraret homo ab homine gratiam et veniam. Quartam vero et quintam non dedit, ne tot essent baptismi, quod baptistae; quia numeratur baptismus et denominatur ab eo, in cuius nomine fit, et ab eo qui instituit; et ideo, ne multi essent baptismi, sed unus solus, instituit, ut unus solus invocaretur. — De potestate vero cooperationis controversia est, quia Magister3 dicit, quod illam dare potuit; hoc tamen communiter negatur.
Sed quia Augustinus videtur hoc dicere, propter hoc notandum, quod cooperari alii est dupliciter: vel per modum vere4 efficientis, sicut natura cooperatur Deo in productione naturalium, et liberum arbitrium gratiae in faciendo opus meritorium; secundo vero per modum disponentis, sicut cooperatur homo Deo quantum ad gratiam, quia se disponit. Primo modo, quidquid videatur dicere Magister, Deus dare non potuit, quia creatura capax non fuit; nec hoc modo intellexit Augustinus. Sicut enim tactum fuit in primo libro, distinctione decima quarta5 et per obiectiones ostensum, dare gratiam est potentiae infinitae et potentiae supra mentem humanam, quae immediate est in Deum. Secundo vero modo dare potuit, ut homo secundum actum interiorem baptizato gratiam obtineret, non gratiam efficiendo, sed ipsam impetrando; sicut dedit homini virtutem faciendi miracula, non quia ipse ea efficeret, sed virtute sibi a Deo data, quoties vellet, impetraret. — Sed hanc non dedit homini, scilicet ut tantum posset interius in sanando6 animam, sicut exterius virtute miraculorum sanat corpora. Tunc enim ad eos recurreretur pro salute animae, sicut ad Deum. Dominus autem quantum ad hanc potentiam omnes fecit aequales, ut salutem animae a se solo doceat requirendam. Omnes enim aequaliter purgant, qui Sacramentum administrant; et ita non est efficacia in actu mentis7 baptizantis, sed solum in administratione Sacramenti. — Et per hoc manifesta est solutio obiectorum.
3. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Angelus superioris ordinis purgat etc.; dicendum, quod illud est intelligendum quantum ad cognitionem, et hoc solum dispositive. Sed maius est purgare affectivam8, quia magis est Deo coniuncta; praeterea, habitus, qui reformat affectivam, est habitus magis deiformis. — Nihilominus tamen dicit Augustinus9 quod solus Deus est doctor, sicut solus baptizat interius. Sed in hoc non contradicit Dionysio; non enim vult excludere dispositionem doctoris exterioris, quae est per modum cuiusdam extensionis; sed vult, quod habitus a solo Deo infundatur; nec in hoc excludit cooperationem luminis naturalis. Aliqua enim sunt, quae possumus cognoscere per lumen naturaliter inditum; similiter aliqua bona sunt, ad quae possumus assuefieri per rectitudinem naturaliter insertam. Et sicut ad ea quae supra
naturam sunt, solus Deus elevat cognitivam, infundendo habitum cognitivum, utpote illustrationem prophetiae vel fidei1; sic, cum gratia gratum faciens et caritas elevent supra naturam, non insunt ibi nisi per infusionem. Et sicut cognitiva, Deo cooperante, potest se perficere aliquo habitu naturali, utpote cognitionis naturalis, aliquo vero non, utpote infusae; sic ex parte affectivae est intelligendum quantum ad habitus morales et infusos; et quia gratia gratum faciens naturam supra se elevat, habitus est infusus, et ideo ab illo solo est, qui2 potest illabi animae. — Quamvis autem utrumque sit a Deo, tamen in habitu cognitionis doctor praeparat non solum verbo exteriori, sed etiam per habitum interiorem; et ita unus est melior doctor quam alter. Ita Deus potuisset facere in baptismo, sed noluit, ut ei soli omnipotentia, honor et gloria attribuatur3.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de medicina corporali, patet responsio, quod non est simile, quia medicinae sanitatem non efficiunt, sed disponunt adiuvando naturam. Non est etiam simile, quia corporalia mutuo agunt et patiuntur; non sic autem anima influit in animam; et ratio huius assignata fuit in primo libro4.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de expulsione daemonum, dicendum, quod illud non est maius, sed minus, quia daemon potest expelli sine melioratione et infusione gratiae, sed non culpa; daemon enim potest expelli, quia potest arctari per contrariam potestatem.
6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de gratia, dicendum, quod gratia expellit informando, non efficiendo5, et quia anima non potest animam informare, ideo nec actum illum communicare; effective autem solus Deus est, qui potest gratiam dare.
Patet igitur, de qua potestate Augustinus intellexerit, scilicet de potestate cooperationis, qua dicitur aliquis cooperari, non quia simul cum illo efficit, sed quia aliquo dono sibi dato aliquid facit, quo facto Deus facit, scilicet solo nutu mentis sine actu Sacramenti. Unde sicut beatus Petrus dicitur mortuos suscitasse et infirmos curasse, et habere virtutem curandi et gratiam sanitatum, non quia ipse faceret, sed quia Deus nutu suo faciebat sine aliquo visibili Sacramento; sic diceretur aliquis purgare et purificare et Deo cooperari, si data esset ei consimilis gratia ad animas purgandas; quod noluit Deus, sicut dicit Augustinus. Ideo etiam non dedit, quod unus baptizaret melius quam alter. — Et si Magister ita intellexit, bene intellexit, et rationes inductae ad oppositum non sunt contra ipsum. Verumtamen ipse in littera6 multum exprimit; et ideo in parte ista non est ei usquequaque consentiendum. — Et ita patet solutio obiectorum. Ad hoc problema terminandum valent quae scripta sunt de donatione gratiae, decima quarta distinctione libri primi7.
I. Cum S. Augustinus (cfr. hic argg. 1. 2. ad oppos.) dixerit, Christum aliquam potestatem circa baptismum sibi retinuisse, quam tamen communicare potuerit; Magister (hic c. 3.), quaerens, quae sit talis potestas, resolvere videtur, quod minister per virtutem divinitus datam Deo possit proprie cooperari in interiore baptizati sanctificatione, sicut in bonis operibus liberum arbitrium cooperatur gratiae. Simul addit, etiam in creando similem cooperationem a causa secunda, Deo dante, fieri posse. — Assertio Magistri, sic intellecta, a ceteris Scholasticis improbatur (cfr. II. Sent. d. 44. dub. 3.). — S. Bonav. enumerat sex potestates circa baptismum; sed Alex. Hal. (S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 5. a. 1.) quinque tantum recenset, omittens scilicet potestatem institutionis. S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 1, et S. III. q. 64. a. 3. 4.) uno nomine potestatis excellentiae, quam tribuit Christo, comprehendit quatuor species (2. 3. 4. et 5.) hic relatas. Idem potestatem cooperationis, de qua est tota controversia, iterum quadrupliciter distinguit in Comment. (ibid. a. 2.): «Uno modo, sicut adiuvans ei cui auxilium praebet, cooperatur; alio modo, sicut consilium praebens; tertio modo, sicut quo mediante agens primum suum effectum inducit, sicut cooperantur instrumenta principali agenti; quarto modo, sicut disponens materiam ad effectum agentis principalis suscipiendum». Deinde dicit, quod quarto modo tum ex opere operante tum ex opere operato minister Deo in remissione peccatorum cooperari possit. Tertio vero modo, licet in aliquibus actionibus homo Deo cooperatur ut instrumentale agens, non tamen cooperatur in remissione peccatorum. In Summa vero (loc. cit. a. 3.) ipse dicit, quod Christus, «secundum quod est homo, operatur ad interiores effectus Sacramentorum meritorie et efficienter, sed instrumentaliter» (cfr. d. 1. p. I. q. 3. scholion).
II. De sententia Magistri praedicta et de contraria communiter sustenta, quod talis potestas cooperationis non possit ministro conferri, S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 3.) dicit, quod «utraque opinio aliquo modo sustineri potest. Cooperatur enim aliquid Deo instrumentaliter duobus modis: uno modo ita, quod per virtutem aliquam habentem esse absolutum et completum in natura operetur ad effectum aliquem producendum non solum secundarium, sed principalem... et hoc modo accipiendo cooperationem, non poterat conferri homini, ut Deo cooperaretur in interiore mundatione, quae fit per gratiam.. Alio modo aliquid cooperatur Deo non per virtutem, quae habeat esse perfectum in natura, neque ad ultimum principalem effectum [scil. gratiam] pertingendo». Deinde asserit, ultimum hunc modum pertinere ad potestatem excellentiae, quae fuit in Christo homine; unde, absolute loquendo, etiam aliis potuisset a Deo dari. — Hinc patet, quae sit differentia inter opinionem SS. Thomae et Bonaventurae aliorumque. — De quaestione, utrum creatura instrumentaliter concurrere possit ad creationem, cfr. II. Sent. d. 1. p. I. a. 2. q. 2.
III. De hac I. quaestione praeter locos citatos: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 1. et 2. — Scot. rem tangit IV. Sent. d. 1. q. 3. n. 5. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. 3. — Durand., hic q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2.
IV. De seq. (2.) quaestione cfr. III. Sent. d. 19. a. 1. q. 1.
---
Article III. On the power of those who baptize, by comparison with the one who gives that [power].
As to the third article, inquiry is made concerning the power of those who baptize, by comparison with the one who gives that [power]. And concerning this two questions are asked. First it is asked, what is that power which Christ could have given to ministers but did not give. Secondly it is asked, whether to Christ was given the power of forgiving sins.
Question I. What is that power which Christ could have given to ministers but did not give.
Concerning the first, one proceeds thus.
1. Upon that text of John 14: This is he who baptizes, Augustine says that John learned5 that «Christ could have given to His ministers the power of cleansing from sins, but did not give it»: therefore it seems that that was the power of cooperation.
2. Likewise, that He could have given it, but did not give it, seems [to follow] from the word of Augustine6 and of the Master: for He did not give this power, «lest a man place his hope in a man»; but on account of no [other] power would a man hope in a man, unless a man were to have the power of forgiving fault and giving grace: therefore it is of that [power] that it is understood.
3. Likewise, this very thing is shown by reason, that He could have communicated this, by a likeness in spiritual things: for to an Angel of a higher order He gave the power of purging another who is of a lower order7: therefore since the order in the ecclesiastical hierarchy is just as in the angelic, it is clear, etc.
4. Likewise, it is shown also by a likeness in bodily things: for to bodily things He gave the power of curing from bodily illness: therefore to holy souls He ought to have given the power of curing from spiritual illness.
5. Likewise, this also is proved from the lesser8: for He could have given to the ministers of the Church the power of casting out demons: therefore much more strongly the seed-bed of them, which is sin.
6. Likewise, from the lesser it seems [to follow] in another way: for no creature is nobler than a holy soul9; but to grace He gave the power of casting out fault: therefore He could have given it also to the soul.
On the contrary: 1. Augustine10: «It is greater to justify the ungodly than to create heaven and earth»; but a creature is not capable of the power of creating: therefore neither of the power of justifying or of forgiving sins. Foundations.
2. Likewise, every action is through the conjunction of the agent; but God alone can enter into the soul11: therefore He alone can purge it.
3. Likewise, the purging from fault is from a superior; but God alone is above free will12: therefore God alone can forgive the fault which is in free will.
4. Likewise, to baptize inwardly is to infuse grace, and to infuse grace is to create it; but to create grace belongs to God alone: therefore to baptize inwardly, or to purge from fault, belongs to Him alone.
Conclusion. The power of which Augustine speaks is a power of cooperation of such a kind that a man, not by effecting but by impetrating, obtains grace for the one baptized.
I respond: It must be said that concerning baptism six powers can be noted, that we may see which the Lord could have given, and did not give. — The first is of authority; this is that by which God, from Himself, not from elsewhere, has the power of inwardly cleansing from fault. — The second is of cooperation, that a man, having received the power divinely, might be a cooperator in such an act1. — The third is of excellence, that according to the more abundant grace existing in the one baptizing he might confer greater grace in the one baptized. — The fourth is of invocation, that a man might be able to be baptized in the name of Peter, just as in the name of Christ, or even of the Trinity. — The fifth is of institution, that, just as Christ had the power of instituting baptism in water, so another might have [the power of instituting it] in water, or elsewhere. — The sixth is of ministry, by which He gives2, that through a man both word and element can be outwardly ministered.
The first He neither could give nor gave, the last He could give and did give. Concerning all the intermediate [powers] the Masters say that He could have given them, but did not give them. — For the second and the third He did not give, lest hope be placed in a man; for if one man could heal another spiritually, or by his own merits give more of grace: a man would hope from a man for grace and pardon. The fourth and the fifth He did not give, lest there be as many baptisms as baptizers; for baptism is numbered and named from him in whose name it is done, and from him who instituted it; and therefore, lest there be many baptisms, but one only, He instituted that one only be invoked. — But concerning the power of cooperation there is controversy, because the Master3 says that He could have given it; this, however, is commonly denied.
But because Augustine seems to say this, on this account it must be noted that to cooperate with another is twofold: either by the mode of truly4 effecting, as nature cooperates with God in the production of natural things, and free will [cooperates] with grace in doing a meritorious work; or secondly by the mode of disposing, as a man cooperates with God as regards grace, because he disposes himself. In the first mode, whatever the Master may seem to say, God could not give it, because the creature was not capable; nor did Augustine understand it in this mode. For as was touched on in the first book, distinction fourteen5, and shown by the objections, to give grace belongs to an infinite power and to a power above the human mind, which is immediately upon God. But in the second mode He could have given it, that a man according to an interior act might obtain grace for the one baptized, not by effecting the grace, but by impetrating it; just as He gave to a man the power of working miracles, not because he himself effected them, but by a power given him by God, so that as often as he willed he might impetrate. — But this He did not give to a man, namely that he could so much inwardly in healing6 the soul, as outwardly by the power of miracles He heals bodies. For then recourse would be had to them for the salvation of the soul, as to God. But the Lord, as regards this power, made all equal, that He might teach that the salvation of the soul is to be sought from Himself alone. For all who administer the Sacrament purge equally; and so there is no efficacy in the act of mind7 of the one baptizing, but only in the administration of the Sacrament. — And by this the solution of the objections is made clear.
3. To that, therefore, which is objected, that an Angel of a higher order purges, etc.; it must be said that this is to be understood as regards cognition, and this only dispositively. But it is greater to purge the affective [power]8, because it is more conjoined to God; moreover, the habit which reforms the affective [power] is a habit more deiform. — Nevertheless Augustine9 says that God alone is teacher, just as He alone baptizes inwardly. But in this he does not contradict Dionysius; for he does not wish to exclude the disposition of the exterior teacher, which is by the mode of a certain extension; but he wishes that the habit be infused by God alone; nor in this does he exclude the cooperation of the natural light. For there are some things which we can know by the light naturally given; likewise there are some goods to which we can become habituated by the rectitude naturally implanted. And just as for those things which are above
nature, God alone elevates the cognitive [power], by infusing a cognitive habit, such as the illustration of prophecy or of faith1; so, since grace making-acceptable and charity elevate above nature, they are not present there except by infusion. And just as the cognitive [power], with God cooperating, can perfect itself by some natural habit, such as that of natural cognition, but by some it cannot, such as that of infused [cognition]; so on the part of the affective [power] it must be understood as regards moral and infused habits; and because grace making-acceptable elevates nature above itself, the habit is infused, and therefore is from Him alone who2 can enter into the soul. — But although both are from God, nevertheless in the habit of cognition the teacher prepares [the soul] not only by the exterior word, but also through an interior habit; and so one is a better teacher than another. So God could have done in baptism, but He did not will [to], that to Him alone omnipotence, honor, and glory be attributed3.
4. To that which is objected concerning bodily medicine, the response is clear, that it is not alike, because medicines do not effect health, but dispose [for it] by aiding nature. Nor is it alike either, because bodily things mutually act and are acted upon; but the soul does not so flow into the soul; and the ground of this was assigned in the first book4.
5. To that which is objected concerning the casting out of demons, it must be said that this is not greater, but lesser, because a demon can be cast out without the bettering and infusion of grace, but fault [cannot]; for a demon can be cast out because it can be constrained by a contrary power.
6. To that which is objected concerning grace, it must be said that grace casts out [fault] by informing, not by effecting5, and because the soul cannot inform [another] soul, therefore neither can it communicate that act; but effectively it is God alone who can give grace.
It is clear, therefore, of what power Augustine understood, namely of the power of cooperation, by which someone is said to cooperate, not because he effects together with Him, but because by some gift given him he does something, which being done God does [it], namely by the mere nod of the mind without the act of the Sacrament. Hence just as blessed Peter is said to have raised the dead and cured the sick, and to have the power of curing and the grace of healings, not because he himself did it, but because God by His nod did it without any visible Sacrament; so someone would be said to purge and purify and to cooperate with God, if a like grace for purging souls were given him; which God did not will, as Augustine says. For this reason also He did not give that one should baptize better than another. — And if the Master understood it thus, he understood well, and the reasons brought against [it] are not against him. Nevertheless he himself in the text6 expresses much; and therefore in this part he is not to be agreed with in every respect. — And thus the solution of the objections is clear. For terminating this problem, the things written concerning the donation of grace, in the fourteenth distinction of the first book7, avail.
I. Since St. Augustine (cf. here, arguments 1 and 2 to the opposite) had said that Christ retained to Himself a certain power concerning baptism, which nevertheless He could have communicated; the Master (here, c. 3), asking what such a power is, seems to resolve that the minister, through a power divinely given, can properly cooperate with God in the interior sanctification of the one baptized, just as in good works free will cooperates with grace. At the same time he adds that even in creating a similar cooperation, by a second cause, with God giving [it], could come to be. — The Master's assertion, so understood, is disproved by the other Scholastics (cf. II Sentences, d. 44, dub. 3). — St. Bonaventure enumerates six powers concerning baptism; but Alexander of Hales (Summa p. IV, q. 8, m. 5, a. 1) reckons only five, omitting namely the power of institution. St. Thomas (here q. 1, a. 1, and Summa III, q. 64, a. 3, 4), under the single name of the power of excellence, which he attributes to Christ, comprehends four species (2, 3, 4, and 5) here related. The same [author] again distinguishes the power of cooperation, about which is the whole controversy, in fourfold manner in his Commentary (ibid. a. 2): «In one way, as one helping him to whom he affords aid cooperates; in another way, as one offering counsel; in a third way, as that by the mediation of which the prime agent induces its effect, as instruments cooperate with the principal agent; in a fourth way, as one disposing the matter for receiving the effect of the principal agent». Then he says that in the fourth mode, both by the work of the worker and by the work worked, the minister can cooperate with God in the remission of sins. But in the third mode, although in some actions a man cooperates with God as an instrumental agent, nevertheless he does not cooperate in the remission of sins. But in the Summa (loc. cit. a. 3) he himself says that Christ, «according as He is man, works toward the interior effects of the Sacraments meritoriously and efficiently, but instrumentally» (cf. d. 1, p. I, q. 3, scholion).
II. Concerning the aforesaid opinion of the Master and the contrary [opinion] commonly held, that such a power of cooperation cannot be conferred on a minister, St. Thomas (here q. 1, a. 3) says that «either opinion can in some way be sustained. For something cooperates with God instrumentally in two ways: in one way thus, that through some power having an absolute and complete being in nature it works toward producing some effect not only secondary, but principal... and accepting cooperation in this mode, it could not be conferred on a man, that he might cooperate with God in the interior cleansing which comes about through grace. In another way something cooperates with God not through a power which has a perfect being in nature, nor by attaining to the ultimate principal effect [namely grace]». Then he asserts that this ultimate mode pertains to the power of excellence, which was in Christ as man; whence, absolutely speaking, it could have been given by God even to others. — Hence it is clear what is the difference between the opinion of SS. Thomas and Bonaventure and of others. — Concerning the question whether a creature can instrumentally concur toward creation, cf. II Sentences, d. 1, p. I, a. 2, q. 2.
III. Concerning this first question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 1 and 2. — Scotus touches the matter, IV Sentences, d. 1, q. 3, n. 5, 6. — Blessed Albert, here a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2, 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2, 3. — Durandus, here q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 2.
IV. Concerning the following (2nd) question, cf. III Sentences, d. 19, a. 1, q. 1.
---
- 4Plurimi codd. addunt tertio, cod. H scilicet, codd. F Q de tertia, scilicet.Very many codices add tertio ["thirdly"], codex H scilicet ["namely"], codices F Q de tertia, scilicet ["of the third, namely"].
- 5Vers. 33. — Verba August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 7, sunt: Et potuit hanc potestatem servis dare et noluit. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Codd. et ed. 1 omittunt Christus.Verse 33. — The words of Augustine, On the Gospel of John, tractate 5, n. 7, are: And He could have given this power to His servants and did not will [to]. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2. — The codices and the first edition omit Christus.
- 6Loc. cit. — Magister, hic c. 2.The place cited. — The Master, here c. 2.
- 7Secundum Dionys., de Caelesti Hierarch. c. 3. § 2. seq.According to Dionysius, On the Celestial Hierarchy, c. 3, § 2 and following.
- 8Loc. cit. in nota penultima. — Superius pro et intra Ecclesiam Vat. et filii intrant Ecclesiam. Inferius pro conveniat et convenit cod. N bis communicat; et pro et intra et pluribus aliis locc., de quo vide tom. II. pag. 127, nota 2. et pag. 267, nota 4. Cfr. etiam de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 2.The place cited in the penultimate note. — Above, for et intra Ecclesiam ["and within the Church"] the Vatican edition reads et filii intrant Ecclesiam ["and the sons enter the Church"]. Below, for conveniat et convenit codex N twice reads communicat; and for et intra, and in several other places, on which see tome II, p. 127, note 2, and p. 267, note 4. Cf. also On the Divine Names, c. 4, § 2.
- 9Cfr. tom. I. pag. 835, nota o. Cod. bb per locum a minori, cod. W a maiori.Cf. tome I, p. 835, note o. Codex bb [argues] by the place from the lesser, codex W from the greater.
- 10Vide August., de Quantitate animae, c. 34. n. 78. Cfr. etiam tom. II. pag. 43, nota 5.See Augustine, On the Quantity of the Soul, c. 34, n. 78. Cf. also tome II, p. 43, note 5.
- 11In Ioan. Evang. tr. 72. n. 3.On the Gospel of John, tractate 72, n. 3.
- 12Ut ostensum est II. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 2. Cfr. August., I. de Ordine, c. 4. n. 10., et Bernard., Serm. in Cantic. serm. 8. n. 8. ac serm. 31. n. 6. — De maiori vide Aristot., III. Phys. text. 16. seq. (c. 2.); VII. Phys. text. 9. (c. 2.); I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 43. seq. et text. 54. (c. 6. seq.).As was shown, II Sentences, d. 8, p. II, q. 2. Cf. Augustine, On Order I, c. 4, n. 10, and Bernard, Sermons on the Canticle, sermon 8, n. 8, and sermon 31, n. 6. — On the major [premise] see Aristotle, Physics III, text 16 and following (c. 2); Physics VII, text 9 (c. 2); On Generation and Corruption I, text 43 and following and text 54 (c. 6 and following).
- 1Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 5. a. 1: Potestas scil. cooperationis, qua scil. homo cooperari dicitur Deo in ablutione interiori, id est in remissione peccati et infusione gratiae, sicut cooperatur homini in ablutione exteriori. — Superius pro a culpa cod. K peccata. Inferius pro in baptizato, quod habent codd. F H W (bb a secunda manu) et ed. 1, alii in baptizando (edd. omittunt in), cod. K in baptismo.Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV, q. 8, m. 5, a. 1: «The power namely of cooperation, by which namely a man is said to cooperate with God in the interior cleansing, that is in the remission of sin and the infusion of grace, just as he cooperates with a man in the exterior cleansing». — Above, for a culpa ["from fault"] codex K reads peccata ["sins"]. Below, for in baptizato ["in the one baptized"], which codices F H W (bb in a second hand) and the first edition have, others read in baptizando (the editions omit in), codex K in baptismo ["in baptism"].
- 2Cod. G quae dat, cod. Z qua datur.Codex G [reads] quae dat ["which gives"], codex Z qua datur ["by which it is given"].
- 3Hic c. 3. — Sententiam August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 7, vide hic in lit. — Aliquanto superius pro Magistri, c. 2. baptistae codd. G H baptizantes. Subinde non pauci codd. omittunt in cuius nomine fit, et ab eo.Here c. 3. — The opinion of Augustine, On the Gospel of John, tractate 5, n. 7, see here in the text. — A little above, for the Master's [text], c. 2, [for] baptistae ["baptizers"] codices G H read baptizantes ["those baptizing"]. Thereupon not a few codices omit in cuius nomine fit, et ab eo ["in whose name it is done, and from him"].
- 4Cod. A (H a secunda manu) naturae. Inferius pro secundo vero edd. vel; et post ad gratiam Vat. addit recipiendam.Codex A (H in a second hand) [reads] naturae ["of nature"]. Below, for secundo vero ["but secondly"] the editions read vel ["or"]; and after ad gratiam ["as regards grace"] the Vatican edition adds recipiendam ["to be received"].
- 5Art. 2. q. 2. — Post pauca pro quae cod. F quia, et pro in Deum edd. in Deo. Subinde pro baptizato codd. G K W baptizando.Article 2, q. 2. — A little after, for quae codex F reads quia, and for in Deum ["upon God"] the editions read in Deo ["in God"]. Thereupon for baptizato ["the one baptized"] codices G K W read baptizando.
- 6Ex codd. F H K substituimus sanando pro salvando.From codices F H K we have substituted sanando ["healing"] for salvando ["saving"].
- 7Codd. R T (P a secunda manu) meritis; cod. U meriti; sed in aliis et edd. bene meritis. In fine corp. voci obiectorum edd. praemittunt duorum primorum.Codices R T (P in a second hand) [read] meritis; codex U meriti; but in others and in the editions correctly meritis. At the end of the body, to the word obiectorum ["of the objections"] the editions prefix duorum primorum ["of the first two"].
- 8Cfr. II. Sent. d. 10. a. 2. q. 1. seq.Cf. II Sentences, d. 10, a. 2, q. 1 and following.
- 9Vide supra pag. 60, nota 4. — De Dionysio cfr. supra pag. 127, nota 7. — Cod. U solus Christus est doctor interius, sicut etc. Codd. K T V W X aa exhibent Christus pro Deus.See above, p. 60, note 4. — On Dionysius cf. above, p. 127, note 7. — Codex U alone [reads] Christ is teacher inwardly, just as, etc. Codices K T V W X aa exhibit Christus for Deus.
- 1Cfr. I. Sent. d. 17. p. I. q. 4. — Superius pro insertam cod. F insitam. Mox post elevent cod. X bene supplet affectivam. Post pauca pro aliquo vero non, quod exhibetur in cod. I (a secunda manu), alii codd. perperam aliquo modo non, edd. aliquo non.Cf. I Sentences, d. 17, p. I, q. 4. — Above, for insertam ["implanted"] codex F reads insitam. Soon after elevent codex X rightly supplies affectivam ["the affective"]. A little after, for aliquo vero non ["but by some not"], which is exhibited in codex I (in a second hand), other codices wrongly [read] aliquo modo non, the editions aliquo non.
- 2Non pauci codd. et ed. 1 quod. Inferius post et ita cod. F addit sicut.Not a few codices and the first edition [read] quod. Below, after et ita ["and so"] codex F adds sicut ["just as"].
- 3Epist. I. Tim. 1, 17: Soli Deo honor et gloria. Cfr. Iudas 1, 25.Epistle, 1 Tim. 1:17: To God alone be honor and glory. Cf. Jude 1:25.
- 4Dist. 14. a. 2. q. 2. in solut. argg. — De prima ratione cfr. August., VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 9. n. 18. — Pro libro cod. N articulo, forsan intelligitur d. 1. p. I. q. 4.Distinction 14, a. 2, q. 2, in the solution of the arguments. — On the first reason cf. Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter VIII, c. 9, n. 18. — For libro ["book"] codex N reads articulo ["article"], perhaps d. 1, p. I, q. 4 is understood.
- 5Vide supra d. 1. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2, et II. Sent. d. 26. q. 2. ac q. 4. ad 5. — Inferius post ideo supple: Deus; subinde cod. F omittit est, qui.See above, d. 1, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, ad 2, and II Sentences, d. 26, q. 2 and q. 4, ad 5. — Below, after ideo ["therefore"] supply: Deus ["God"]; thereupon codex F omits est, qui ["is, who"].
- 6Hic c. 3. — Superius pro purgandas cod. K purificandas, cod. V curandas.Here c. 3. — Above, for purgandas ["to be purged"] codex K reads purificandas ["to be purified"], codex V curandas ["to be cured"].
- 7Art. 2. q. 2.Article 2, q. 2.