Dist. 5, Dubia
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 5
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: Iustos oportet esse per quos baptizatur; quia secundum hoc videtur, quodsi aliquis sacerdos sit in peccato mortali et baptizet, quod mortaliter peccet. Sed contra: facit id, ad quod tenetur: ergo baptizando non peccat.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod iste qui baptizat, aut est in peccato notorio1, aut occulto5; sive sic, sive sic distinguendum est: quia aut est necessitas, et timetur scandalum; et tunc non peccat baptizando, sed in hoc, quod negligit se praeparare et cum timore et reverentia ad Sacramentum accedere. — Si autem non est necessitas, nec timetur scandalum, si non baptizet; non debet baptizare, nisi prius se praeparet ad iustificationem; quod si non facit, non tantum peccat negligendo, sed, in quantum est de se, Sacramento contumeliam faciendo et usurpando id, ad quod non est idoneus6. — Si autem notorius est, peccat scandalizando. Et ideo dicit Augustinus, quod « mundos oportet esse ministros ». — Patet igitur responsio ad obiectum. Non enim peccat, quia facit quod non debet simpliciter, sed ut non debet7.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Si quos baptizavit ebriosus etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia ebrietas aufert vim rationis et intentionem; sed intentio necessaria est ad baptismum8: ergo si ebriosus caret intentione, non baptizat. — Item, quaeritur, si aliquis est ita ebrius, quod non est omnino in eo ligata ratio, quin possit aliquid dicere, sed tamen balbutiendo dicit, utrum sit baptizatus quem talis baptizat. Quod non, videtur: quia ligatio linguae signum est ligationis rationis: et necesse est, rationem esse solutam ad ea quae spectant ad ministerium Sacramenti: ergo etc.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod differentia est inter ebrium et ebriosum. Ebrius enim dicitur in actu, sed ebriosus in consuetudine9; et bene potest aliquis consuetus inebriari aliquando sobrius esse in actu, ita quod non biberit multum; et tunc, si baptizat, baptizatum est.
Quod quaeritur de ebrio, dicendum, quod si habeat ligatam rationem adeo, quod tollatur intentio baptizandi, quia nescit, quid faciat: tunc non baptizat. Si autem ratio soluta est tantum, quod scit, quid facit, tamen non omnimode est bene compos affectus. Quodsi non correxerit, manebit ad poenam usurpatoris quod datum est... non tamen pro non dato habebitur.
sui; tunc iudicandum est, quod sit baptizatus1, etiam si lingua aliquo modo balbutiat, quia illud non est signum ligaminis rationis semper efficax. Multi enim sunt, qui ex modico vino balbutiunt, et habent usum rationis. — Distinguendum tamen est in ligamine linguae: nam si format verba intelligibiliter2, licet non omnino perfecte, baptizatus est parvulus; si autem ita corrupte, quod intelligi non potest, profert et formam ita infringit, ut convenienter intelligi non possit, est rebaptizandus3.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quid noverat Ioannes Baptista? Dominum etc. Videtur enim dicere contra Hieronymum4 et Chrysostomum, qui dicunt, quod non noverat, eum esse Christum, et ita videtur contrarietas. Quaeritur ergo, quis melius inter eos senserit. Et videtur, quod Augustinus: quia, quando Iesus ad Ioannem venit, tunc dixit Ioannes: Ego a te debeo baptizari, sicut dicitur Matthaei tertio5: ergo cognoscebat ipsum esse Christum. — Quod autem Chrysostomus melius dicat, videtur: quia Ioanni, quando missus est, dictum fuit: Super quem videris Spiritum descendentem, hic est qui baptizat: ergo antequam veniret ad eum, sciebat, quod solus ipse esset, qui baptizaret interius, sed tamen non cognoscebat exterius ipsum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod utrumque verum fuit, sicut docet nos intelligere Chrysostomus. Primo enim Ioannes novit Christum in infantia notitia corporali, postmodum recessit in desertum; et tunc post longum tempus, quando missus est ad baptizandum, dictum est ei, quod Christus potestatem baptizandi sibi retineret; sed iam oblitus est propter magnam moram, quis vel qualis esset Christus in persona; et indicio columbae utrumque didicit, quia per hoc scivit, quod ipse esset Christus, et quod ipse esset qui peccata dimitteret et Spiritum sanctum daret. Utrumque ergo prius sciebat in generali, sed postmodum didicit in speciali; prius tamen cognovit, quis esset, quam cuius potestatis esset. Primum enim scivit per conversationem infantiae, secundum per revelationem prophetiae. Et sic patet utrumque6.
Dub. IV.
Item quaeritur de ratione ista, quam assignat Magister: Ne servus poneret spem in homine; quia illud nullum videtur inconveniens, quia possumus in orationibus Sanctorum confidere; unde clamamus de beata Virgine: « Vita, dulcedo et spes nostra, salve7 ».
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod est spes auxilii, et est spes praemii. Dicendum ergo, quod si potestas dimittendi peccata esset data homini, iam posset homo sperare ab homine gratiam et veniam, et ita per consequens gloriam, ad quam gratia est velut dispositio necessaria; sed haec ab homine sperari non potest nec debet. — Sed cum homo possit orationibus adiuvare quadam congruitate, potest homo sperare in aliquo Sancto tanquam in adiuvante, non tanquam in relevante, quia hoc est gratia specialis solius Christi8. Et sic patet illud.
Dub. V.
Item quaeritur de alia ratione, quam assignat, cum dicit: Ne tot essent baptismi, quot baptistae[^p132-9]. Videtur enim ratio non esse bona: quia aut intelligit tot numero, aut tot specie. Non tot specie; constat, quia consimilis forma et consimilis effectus est in omnibus: si tot numero, nullum esset inconveniens.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod intelligitur, quod tot essent denominatione; et ita scissura esset in Ecclesia, quia unus posset dicere10: Ego sum Pauli, alius autem: Ego sum Apollo; et sic non perfecta esset unitas in Ecclesia, cuius unitatis perfectio fundamentum habet in uno baptismo.
Dub. I.
In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this which Augustine says: Those through whom one is baptized ought to be just; because according to this it seems that if some priest is in mortal sin and baptizes, he sins mortally. On the contrary: he does that to which he is bound: therefore in baptizing he does not sin.
I respond: It must be said that this man who baptizes is either in notorious sin1 or in hidden sin5; whether the one way or the other, a distinction must be made: for either there is necessity, and scandal is feared; and then he does not sin in baptizing, but in this, that he neglects to prepare himself and to approach the Sacrament with fear and reverence. — But if there is no necessity, nor is scandal feared if he does not baptize, he ought not to baptize unless he first prepares himself for justification; and if he does not do this, he not only sins by neglect, but, as far as it is of himself, by doing dishonor to the Sacrament and usurping that for which he is not fit6. — But if he is notorious, he sins by giving scandal. And therefore Augustine says that « the ministers ought to be clean ». — Therefore the response to the objection is clear. For he does not sin because he does what he ought not absolutely, but as he ought not7.
Dub. II.
Likewise it is asked about this which he says: If a drunkard has baptized any etc. For he seems to speak ill, because drunkenness takes away the power of reason and intention; but intention is necessary for baptism8: therefore if a drunkard lacks intention, he does not baptize. — Likewise, it is asked, if someone is so drunk that reason is not entirely bound in him, so that he can say something, but yet says it stammering, whether the one whom such a man baptizes is baptized. That he is not, seems [the case]: because the binding of the tongue is a sign of the binding of reason; and it is necessary that reason be free for those things which pertain to the ministry of the Sacrament: therefore etc.
I respond: It must be said that there is a difference between ebrius (a drunken man) and ebriosus (a drunkard). For ebrius is said in act, but ebriosus in habit9; and someone accustomed to get drunk can well at some time be sober in act, so that he has not drunk much; and then, if he baptizes, [the one] is baptized.
As to what is asked about the drunken man, it must be said that if he has his reason so bound that the intention of baptizing is taken away, because he does not know what he does: then he does not baptize. But if reason is loosed only so far that he knows what he does, yet he is not altogether well in command of his disposition. And if he has not corrected himself, it will remain to the punishment of a usurper that what has been given... yet it will not be held as not given.
his own; then it must be judged that he is baptized1, even if the tongue stammers in some way, because that is not always an efficacious sign of the binding of reason. For there are many who stammer from a little wine, and have the use of reason. — Yet a distinction must be made in the binding of the tongue: for if he forms the words intelligibly2, although not entirely perfectly, the little child is baptized; but if so corruptly that it cannot be understood, and he so utters and breaks the form that it cannot suitably be understood, he is to be rebaptized3.
Dub. III.
Likewise it is asked about this which he says: What did John the Baptist know? The Lord etc. For he seems to speak against Jerome4 and Chrysostom, who say that he did not know that he was Christ, and so a contradiction seems [to arise]. It is asked therefore who among them judged better. And it seems [to be] Augustine: because, when Jesus came to John, then John said: I ought to be baptized by thee, as is said in the third [chapter] of Matthew5: therefore he knew him to be Christ. — But that Chrysostom speaks better, seems [the case]: because it was said to John, when he was sent: Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, this is he who baptizes: therefore before he came to him, he knew that he alone was the one who would baptize interiorly, but yet did not know him exteriorly.
I respond: It must be said that both were true, as Chrysostom teaches us to understand. For first John knew Christ in infancy by a bodily knowledge; afterward he withdrew into the desert; and then after a long time, when he was sent to baptize, it was said to him that Christ retained for himself the power of baptizing; but he had now forgotten, on account of the great delay, who or what manner of person Christ was; and by the sign of the dove he learned both, because by this he knew that he himself was Christ, and that he was the one who would forgive sins and give the Holy Spirit. Both therefore he knew before in general, but afterward learned in particular; yet he first knew who he was, before [knowing] of what power he was. For the first he knew through the converse of infancy, the second through the revelation of prophecy. And thus both are clear6.
Dub. IV.
Likewise it is asked about this reason which the Master assigns: Lest the servant should place hope in man; because that seems no unfitting thing, because we can trust in the prayers of the Saints; whence we cry concerning the blessed Virgin: « [Our] life, sweetness and our hope, hail7 ».
I respond: It must be said that there is a hope of help, and there is a hope of reward. It must be said therefore that if the power of forgiving sins were given to man, then man could hope from man for grace and pardon, and so consequently for glory, to which grace is, as it were, a necessary disposition; but this cannot and ought not to be hoped from man. — But since man can by his prayers help by a certain fittingness, man can hope in some Saint as in one who helps, not as in one who relieves, because this is the special grace of Christ alone8. And thus that is clear.
Dub. V.
Likewise it is asked about another reason which he assigns, when he says: Lest there should be as many baptisms as baptizers[^p132-9]. For the reason seems not to be good: because either he understands as many in number, or as many in kind. Not as many in kind; it is agreed, because a like form and a like effect is in all: if as many in number, it would be no unfitting thing.
I respond: It must be said that it is understood that there would be as many by denomination; and so there would be a rending in the Church, because one could say10: I am of Paul, and another: I am of Apollo; and thus the unity in the Church would not be perfect, the perfection of which unity has its foundation in one baptism.
- 1Cod. Z supplet clavis. Codd. T U (K a secunda manu) ex potestate, edd. per potestatem, qua.Codex Z supplies clavis. Codices T U (K by a second hand) read ex potestate, the editions per potestatem, qua.
- 5In cod. X secunda manus bene addidit occultus et est.In codex X a second hand has rightly added occultus et est.
- 6August., II. contra Epist. Parmeniani, c. 13. n. 29: Nulla enim cogente necessitate si fiat, alieni muneris usurpatio est... Illicitam autem usurpationem corrigit reminiscentis et poenitentis [animus]. — Cfr. Dist. 14. a. 2. q. 2; et tom. III. pag. 14, nota 3. — Vide Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 14. seqq.; et III. Sent. d. 17. a. 1. q. 1. — In principio solut. post filios edd. cum pluribus codd. addunt quae est. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest. — Seq. textus August. est in Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 13: Iustos oportet esse tanti iudicis ministros. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.Augustine, Against the Letter of Parmenianus II, c. 13, n. 29: For if it be done with no compelling necessity, it is the usurpation of another's office... But the unlawful usurpation is corrected by [the disposition] of one remembering and repenting. — Compare Distinction 14, a. 2, q. 2; and tom. III, page 14, note 3. — See John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith III, c. 14 ff.; and III Sentences, d. 17, a. 1, q. 1. — At the beginning of the solution, after filios the editions with many codices add quae est. — See the scholion on the preceding question. — The following text of Augustine is in the Commentary on John, tract 5, n. 13: The ministers of so great a judge ought to be just. Compare here the text of the Master, c. 1.
- 7Cod. I (a secunda manu) sed quia facit, ut non debet, edd. sed non facit, ut debet. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 6. a. 2. § 2; B. Albert., hic a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 4; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3.Codex I (by a second hand) reads sed quia facit, ut non debet, the editions sed non facit, ut debet. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 8, m. 6, a. 2, § 2; Albert the Great, here a. 1, little-question 1; Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, little-question 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1, little-question 4; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 3.
- 8Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. et infra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seq. — Cod. F ad baptizandum.Compare above, d. 3, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, and below, d. 6, p. II, a. 2, q. 1 following. — Codex F reads ad baptizandum.
- 9Vide Isidor., I. Differentiar. n. 183.See Isidore, Differences I, n. 183.
- 1Supplendum, ut ex subnexis colligitur, parvulus, vel legendum baptizatum.It is to be supplied, as is gathered from what follows, parvulus (a little child); or baptizatum (baptized) is to be read.
- 2Cod. F pro intelligibiliter substituit ita quod intelligitur, edd. intelligibilia.Codex F for intelligibiliter substitutes ita quod intelligitur, the editions intelligibilia.
- 3Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 6. a. 5; B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. Thom., hic d. 6. q. 1. a. 2. ad 3; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 8, m. 6, a. 5; Albert the Great, here a. 2; Thomas, here d. 6, q. 1, a. 2, to 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
- 4Exposit. in Evang. secundum Ioan. (inter opera), ubi ad 1, 33. ait: « Et ego nesciebam eum, ostendit Ioannes, non scire, per baptismum Christi redemptum esse mundum; nam sciebat, eum Filium Dei esse et natum in carne ». Haec verba referuntur etiam a Glossa ordinaria in praedictum loc. apud Strabum et Lyranum nec non ab Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 5. a. 4. Sententia Chrysostomi, quae infra in solut. plenius exponitur, habetur in ipsius Comment. in Ioan. 1, 33. seq. (c. 5.); (homil. 17. alias 16. n. 2. seq.). Ab hac tamen sententia Chrysostomi S. Bonav. recedit in suo Commentario in Ioannem 1, 31.Exposition on the Gospel according to John (among [Jerome's] works), where on 1, 33 it says: « And I knew him not, John shows, that he did not know, through the baptism of Christ, that the world had been redeemed; for he knew that he was the Son of God and born in the flesh ». These words are reported also by the Ordinary Gloss on the said passage in Strabo and Lyra, and also by Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 8, m. 5, a. 4. The opinion of Chrysostom, which is more fully expounded below in the solution, is found in his own Commentary on John 1, 33 ff. (c. 5); (homily 17, otherwise 16, n. 2 ff.). From this opinion of Chrysostom, however, St. Bonaventure departs in his own Commentary on John 1, 31.
- 5Vers. 14. — Seq. textus est Ioan. 1, 33, in quo Vulgata post descendentem addit et manentem super eum. — Inferius post quando missus est edd. cum uno alteroque cod. addunt ad baptizandum.Verse 14. — The following text is John 1, 33, in which the Vulgate after descendentem adds et manentem super eum (and remaining upon him). — Below, after quando missus est the editions with one or another codex add ad baptizandum.
- 6Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 5. a. 4; B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. Thom., hic circa lit.The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 8, m. 5, a. 4; Albert the Great, here a. 3; Thomas, here on the text.
- 7In antiphona ad Completorium: Salve Regina.In the antiphon at Compline: Salve Regina.
- 8Cfr. supra a. 3. q. 2, et I. Sent. d. 1. dub. 9. — Pro relevante cod. F remunerante, et pro gratia codd. F L gloria. — Idem dub. solvunt Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Compare above, a. 3, q. 2, and I Sentences, d. 1, dub. 9. — For relevante codex F reads remunerante, and for gratia codices F L gloria. — The same doubt is resolved by Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
- 9Cod. H baptizantes, Magister, hic in lit. c. 2, servi. — De diversitate numerica et specifica cfr. Aristot., I. Topic. c. 6. (c. 5.); V. Metaph. text. 12. et 16. (IV. c. 6. et c. 9. seq.).Codex H reads baptizantes, the Master, here in the text, c. 2, servi. — On numerical and specific diversity compare Aristotle, Topics I, c. 6 (c. 5); Metaphysics V, text 12 and 16 (IV, c. 6 and c. 9 ff.).
- 10Epist. 1. Cor. 1, 12. — Pro scissura codd. A F G schisma. — Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.First [Letter] to the Corinthians 1, 12. — For scissura codices A F G read schisma. — The same doubt is resolved by Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.