Dist. 6, Part 1, Dubia
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 6
## Dubia circa litteram Magistri.
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Beda: Ne confessio sanctae Trinitatis et invocatio videatur annullari. Videtur enim sua ratio non valere, quia, quando aliquis plus et pluries invocat Trinitatem et confitetur, non annihilat, sed potius honorat. — Item, si haec ratio bona est, tunc nullum opus debet iterari, in quo fit invocatio Trinitatis; quod manifeste falsum est.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ista non est ratio Bedae, quia invocetur Trinitas, sed quia invocetur ad talem effectum, qui iterari non potest, sicut ad impressionem characteris1; et ideo, si secundo invocat aliquis; cum non possit habere effectum, vel iam annihilat invocationem praecedentem, vel consequentem; hoc autem non semper est in aliis generibus operum vel Sacramentorum, nisi eorum quae characterem imprimunt. Ideo patet, quod non est simile.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: Rebaptizare haereticum, qui haec sanctitatis signa perceperit etc.; cum haereticus det ita verum baptisma, ut Catholicus, et similiter recipiat2; quare maius peccatum, et magis immane scelus est rebaptizare Catholicum?
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quando haereticus baptizatur et iterum baptizatur, non est tantum peccatum, quantum est de Catholico. Et huius ratio est tum a parte rei Sacramenti, tum a parte ipsius Sacramenti. A parte rei Sacramenti: quia eam non recipit haereticus3; et ideo, si iterum baptizatur, propter hoc efficacia non geminatur. A parte Sacramenti: quia dubium fuit, et probabiliter moti sunt, quod haeretici carentes fide non baptizent; et ubi dubitatio est, potest in casu quis rebaptizari. Et ideo nec omnino facit iniuriam rei nec omnino Sacramento secundum certam scientiam. Sed nunc4 determinatum est, quod Sacramentum recipit et characterem et rem, nisi sit obstaculum fictionis; et ideo peccatum est, quia ignorantia iuris non excusat a toto5; et hic est ignorantia iuris. — Cum autem rebaptizatur Catholicus, de quo constat, quod recepit Sacramentum, et probabiliter creditur, quod receperit rem Sacramenti tunc ex certa scientia; fit iniuria Sacramento et Christo: quia effectum unicae passionis, scilicet remissionem peccatorum omnium, vult iterare; et quantum in se est, Christum iterum crucifigere; et Sacramentum irritat: ideo gravissime peccat6.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Cyprianus: Quomodo sanctificare aquam potest, cum ipse immundus sit? quia secundum hoc videtur, quod baptismus non fiat nisi in aqua sanctificata: ergo si aliquis baptizetur in aqua fluminis, est rebaptizandus. — Item, qualiter solvitur ad eius argumenta, ad quae Magister7 non respondet? Si enim nulla est sanctificatio nisi per Spiritum sanctum; et hunc haereticus non habet: ergo nihil sanctificat.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod duplex est sanctificatio: quaedam, quae spectat ad solemnitatem, quaedam ad necessitatem. Illa quae est ad solemnitatem est facta a praelato Ecclesiae per orationem: sed haec non addit aliquid nec adimit baptismo. Alia est per verbum adveniens ad elementum, per verbum, inquam, quod est de integritate formae Sacramenti: et quoniam istud non habet efficaciam a dicente, sed potius ab instituente: ideo sanctificat et est efficax non virtute ministri, sed Christi8. Sicut notarius odiosus et malus scribit litteras, quas mandat regi filius eius; et quamvis notarius non placeat nec aliquid, quod sit in ipso, ipsi regi; placet tamen littera filii, et ideo9 efficax est apud regem; sic intelligendum est in proposito.
Et sic patet, quod obiectio sua non valet, quia non sanctificat Sacramentum spiritus baptizantis, sed spiritus Christi. Et hoc est quod Cyprianum decepit: quia baptismi potestatem ministro traditam non bene consideravit et de Sacramento secundum quod de eius efficacia iudicavit; et si quis hoc diceret, in errorem manifestum, si vellet hoc defendere, perveniret, quod nullus nisi sanctus posset Sacramenta ecclesiastica dispensare; quod modo tenent quorundam haereticorum sectae10.
Dub. IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: Si quid purgandum erat, passionis falce tolleretur. Videtur enim male dicere: quia haeresis est, quod baptizatus sit rebaptizandus, et grave peccatum est rebaptizare: ergo si hoc faciebat Cyprianus11, erat haereticus; sed si haereticus patiatur, non propter hoc salvatur: ergo etc.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Cyprianus hoc non dixit asserendo nec defendendo, sed opinando; et ideo non fuit haereticus, quia non erat in Ecclesia determinatum. Praeterea, zelus fidei12 et detestatio haereticorum, quae multum vigebat in eo, faciebant, ipsum ex humana infirmitate excedere; et ideo venialiter credendus est peccasse, si peccavit. Similiter Petrus amore quodam speciali movebatur erga gregem; et ideo, si ex hoc malum exemplum gentibus dedit, non graviter, sed venialiter credendus est peccasse. Et hoc innuit Augustinus13, cum dicit, quod «non sumus eis meliores»; quia propter veniale peccatum non est quis minus praeferendus alii. Venialia enim omnia resecantur falce martyrii.
---
## Doubts concerning the text of the Master.
Doubt I.
In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning what Bede says: Lest the confession of the holy Trinity and the invocation seem to be annulled. For his reasoning seems not to hold, since, when one invokes and confesses the Trinity more and more often, he does not annul it, but rather honors it. — Likewise, if this reasoning is sound, then no work in which the invocation of the Trinity takes place ought to be repeated; which is manifestly false.
I respond: It must be said that this is not Bede's reasoning—that the Trinity is invoked—but rather that it is invoked for such an effect as cannot be repeated, just as for the impressing of a character1; and therefore, if one invokes a second time, since it cannot have the effect, he either annuls the preceding invocation or the subsequent one; but this is not always so in other kinds of works or sacraments, except in those which impress a character. Hence it is clear that the case is not the same.
Doubt II.
Likewise it is asked concerning what Augustine says: To rebaptize a heretic who has received these signs of holiness, etc.; since a heretic gives true baptism just as a Catholic does, and one likewise receives it2; why is it a greater sin, and a more monstrous crime, to rebaptize a Catholic?
I respond: It must be said that when a heretic is baptized and is baptized again, it is not as great a sin as in the case of a Catholic. And the ground of this is both on the part of the reality of the Sacrament and on the part of the Sacrament itself. On the part of the reality of the Sacrament: because the heretic does not receive it3; and therefore, if he is baptized again, the efficacy is not doubled on that account. On the part of the Sacrament: because there was doubt, and they were probably moved [to think] that heretics lacking faith do not baptize; and where there is doubt, in a given case one may be rebaptized. And therefore he does no injury, neither entirely to the reality nor entirely to the Sacrament according to certain knowledge. But now4 it has been determined that the Sacrament receives both the character and the reality, unless there is an obstacle of feigning; and therefore it is a sin, because ignorance of the law does not excuse from the whole5; and this is ignorance of the law. — But when a Catholic is rebaptized, concerning whom it is established that he received the Sacrament, and it is probably believed that he then received the reality of the Sacrament out of certain knowledge, an injury is done to the Sacrament and to Christ: because he wishes to repeat the effect of the one Passion, namely the remission of all sins; and, so far as in him lies, to crucify Christ again; and he renders the Sacrament void: therefore he sins most gravely6.
Doubt III.
Likewise it is asked concerning what Cyprian says: How can he sanctify water, since he himself is unclean? because according to this it seems that baptism is not performed except in sanctified water: therefore if someone is baptized in river water, he is to be rebaptized. — Likewise, how is the reply made to his arguments, to which the Master7 does not respond? For if there is no sanctification except through the Holy Spirit, and the heretic does not have him: therefore he sanctifies nothing.
I respond: It must be said that sanctification is twofold: one which pertains to solemnity, another to necessity. That which is for solemnity is performed by a prelate of the Church through prayer: but this adds nothing to baptism nor takes anything away from it. The other is by the word coming to the element, by the word, I say, which belongs to the integrity of the form of the Sacrament: and since this does not have its efficacy from the one speaking, but rather from the one instituting it: therefore it sanctifies and is efficacious not by the power of the minister, but of Christ8. Just as a hateful and wicked notary writes letters which the king's son commissions; and although the notary is not pleasing, nor anything that is in him, to the king himself; nevertheless the son's letter is pleasing, and therefore9 it is efficacious before the king; so it must be understood in the matter at hand.
And thus it is clear that his objection does not hold, because it is not the spirit of the one baptizing that sanctifies the Sacrament, but the Spirit of Christ. And this is what deceived Cyprian: because he did not rightly consider the power of baptism handed over to the minister and judged of the Sacrament according to what pertains to its efficacy; and if anyone were to say this, he would, should he wish to defend it, fall into manifest error, [namely] that no one but a holy man could dispense the ecclesiastical Sacraments; which the sects of certain heretics now hold10.
Doubt IV.
Likewise it is asked concerning what Augustine says: If there was anything to be purged, it would be cut away by the sickle of the Passion. For he seems to speak ill: because it is heresy that one baptized should be rebaptized, and it is a grave sin to rebaptize: therefore if Cyprian did this11, he was a heretic; but if a heretic suffers, he is not saved on that account: therefore etc.
I respond: It must be said that Cyprian did not say this by asserting or defending it, but by opining; and therefore he was not a heretic, because it had not been determined in the Church. Moreover, zeal for the faith12 and detestation of heretics, which flourished greatly in him, made him exceed through human weakness; and therefore he is to be believed to have sinned venially, if he sinned. Likewise Peter was moved by a certain special love toward the flock; and therefore, if from this he gave a bad example to the Gentiles, he is to be believed to have sinned not gravely, but venially. And Augustine13 intimates this when he says that «we are not better than they»; because on account of a venial sin one is not to be less preferred to another. For all venial sins are cut away by the sickle of martyrdom.
---
- 1Cfr. supra q. 5. et 6.Cf. above, q. 5 and 6.
- 2Vide supra d. 5, a. 1, q. 2.See above, d. 5, a. 1, q. 2.
- 3De quo cfr. supra d. 5, a. 2, q. 2. — Inferius post moti sunt cod. G addit qui dixerunt.Concerning which cf. above, d. 5, a. 2, q. 2. — Below, after moti sunt («they were moved»), codex G adds qui dixerunt («who said»).
- 4Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.See here the text of the Master, c. 2.
- 5Cfr. supra pag. 86, nota 7. — Inferius pro recepit plurimi codd. recipit.Cf. above, p. 86, note 7. — Below, instead of recepit («received»), very many codices read recipit («receives»).
- 6Cfr. Alcuin., Comment. in Hebr. 6, 1. seqq., qui illa verba Apostoli eodem modo exponit. — Pro irritat edd. iterat.Cf. Alcuin, Commentary on Hebrews 6, 1ff., who expounds those words of the Apostle in the same way. — Instead of irritat («renders void»), the editions read iterat («repeats»).
- 7Hic c. 2. — Inferius pro hunc codd. F H hanc.Here, c. 2. — Below, instead of hunc («him»), codices F and H read hanc («her/this»).
- 8Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 1, et Comment. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. et a. 2. q. 1. seqq. nec non d. 5. a. 1. et 2.Cf. above the text of the Master, d. III, c. 1, and the Commentary, p. I, a. 1, q. 2 and a. 2, q. 1ff., as also d. 5, a. 1 and 2.
- 9Ita codd. F I, in aliis et edd. omnino.Thus codices F and I; in the others and in the editions, omnino («wholly»).
- 10Inter quas sunt Waldenses; cfr. Alan. ab Insulis, II. contra Haereticos, c. 5. seqq. — Superius pro manifestum cod. F maximum.Among which are the Waldenses; cf. Alan of Lille, Against the Heretics, II, c. 5ff. — Above, instead of manifestum («manifest»), codex F reads maximum («greatest»).
- 11Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, ubi praemissum verbum Augustini affertur contra Cyprianum. — Mox pro patiatur Vat. tolleretur.Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2, where the aforementioned word of Augustine is adduced against Cyprian. — Presently, instead of patiatur («suffers»), the Vatican edition reads tolleretur («would be taken away»).
- 12Cod. N et eius fides. Superius pro quia non cod. Y quia nondum.Codex N reads et eius fides («and his faith»). Above, instead of quia non («because not»), codex Y reads quia nondum («because not yet»).
- 13Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2, in fine, ubi etiam in verbis Augustini tangitur factum Petri, de quo vide supra d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 2.Here in the text of the Master, c. 2, at the end, where in the words of Augustine the deed of Peter is also touched upon, concerning which see above, d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 2. ---