Ad tertium dicendum, quod fidei efficacia non est diminuta, cum omnia sacramenta ex fide efficaciam habeant; sed est ei aliquid adjunctum quod necesse est observari; sicut non est minoris efficaciae lex moris in religioso quam in saeculari; quamvis praecepta moralia sufficiant ad salutem in saeculari, sed in religioso requirantur consilia, ad quae se ex voto obligavit.
Reply Obj. 3: The efficacy of faith is not diminished, since all sacraments have their efficacy from faith, but there is something added to it that must be observed, even as the moral law is not of less efficacy for a religious than for someone living in the world (although the moral precepts are sufficient for salvation to the one living in the world), but in a religious there may be required counsels to which he obligated himself by his own choice.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod illa sacramenta legis naturae non erant ex praecepto divino obligantia, sed ex voto celebrabantur, secundum quod unicuique dictabat sua mens, ut fidem suam aliis exteriori signo profiteretur ad honorem Dei, secundum quod habitus caritatis inclinabat ad exteriores actus; et sic dicimus de caritate quod sufficit motus interior. Quando autem tempus habet operandi, requiruntur etiam exteriores actus. Ita etiam quantum ad adultos in lege naturae sufficiebat sola fides, cum etiam modo sufficiat ei qui non ex contemptu sacramenta dimittit; sed ipsa fides, quando tempus habebatur, instigabat ut se aliquibus signis exterioribus demonstraret. Quando autem illa signa adhibebantur, non erat efficacia remissionis culpae ex illis exterioribus, sed ex interiori fide; et sic intelligenda sunt verba Gregorii.
To the third question, it should be said that those sacraments of the law of nature did not oblige by divine command, but were celebrated by choice, according as the mind of each dictated, so that each might profess his faith to others by external signs and do so for God’s honor, according as the habit of charity inclined to external acts. And in this way we say of charity that an interior movement suffices. When, however, it has the opportunity to act, external acts are also required. So, too, for adults under the law of nature, faith alone sufficed, since also nowadays it would suffice for someone who, through no contempt, lacked the sacraments. But faith itself, when the opportunity arose, would agitate to demonstrate itself by some external signs. When those signs were displayed, however, the efficacy of the remission of fault was not from those exterior things, but from the interior faith; and this is how the words of Gregory are to be understood.
Et per hoc patet solutio ad objecta.
And by this the answers to the objections are clear.
Exposition of the text
In sinu Abrahae, sinus Abrahae dicitur limbus patrum, in quo distincti erant sancti ab aliis; et quia Abraham primus ab infidelibus loco et ritu se separasse legitur, ideo dicitur Abrahae sinus.
In the bosom of Abraham. The bosom of Abraham is called the limbo of the fathers, in which the saints were set apart from all others; and because Abraham is said to have first separated himself from unbelievers by place and practice, it is called the bosom of Abraham.
Lapideo cultro, intelligendum est non semper, sed in quibusdam notabilibus circumcisionibus, sicut legitur Exod. 4, et Josue 5.
With a stone knife is to be understood not always as an element of the rite of circumcision but in certain notable circumcisions, as is read in Exodus 4 and Joshua 5.
In carne vero praeputii ideo jussa est fieri circumcisio, quia in remedium instituta est originalis peccati. Caro praeputii dicitur pellicula contegens carnem: quia in ipsa carne, ubi concupiscentia magis est, non poterat abscissio fieri sine periculo.
And so circumcision was commanded to be done in the flesh of the prepuce because it was instituted as a remedy against original sin. The flesh of the foreskin is called the skin protecting the flesh: for in flesh where concupiscence most resides no amputation could happen without danger.
Tamen sub lege, ingruente necessitate mortis, ante octavum diem circumcidebant sine peccato filios. Magister hic loquitur secundum opinionem suam; tamen alia opinio quae supra posita est, videtur esse magis probabilis.
But perhaps under the Law, if the necessity of death was pressing, they circumcised their sons before the eighth day without sin. The Master here speaks according to his own opinion; however, the other opinion, which was set down above, seems to be more probable.
De sacramentis novae legis
Sacraments of the New Law
Postquam determinavit Magister de sacramentis in communi, hic descendit ad sacramenta novae legis, de quibus principaliter intendit; et dividitur in partes duas: in prima determinat de quibusdam quae praeexiguntur ad sacramenta novae legis; in secunda prosequitur de eis, 3 dist., ibi: post hoc videndum est quid sit baptismus. Prima dividitur in duas: in prima determinat quaedam quae praeexiguntur ad sacramenta novae legis ordine doctrinae; in secunda determinat de baptismo Joannis, quod praeexigebatur ad ea ut dispositio, sive praeparatio, ibi: nunc autem de baptismi sacramento videamus. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit distinctionem sacramentorum novae legis et quantum ad numerum et quantum ad effectum; secundo ponit eorum institutionem, ibi: si vero quaeratur, etc. Ubi primo ponit communem sacramentorum novae legis institutionem; secundo excipit matrimonium quantum ad aliquid, ibi: fuit tamen conjugium ante peccatum institutum.
After having defined the sacraments in general, here the Master moves to the sacraments of the New Law, about which he is mainly concerned. And his treatment is divided into two parts: in the first, he examines certain prerequisites for the sacraments of the New Law; in the second, he pursues these, at: after these matters, we must see what Baptism is (Dist. 3). The first is divided in two: in the first, he defines certain things that are prerequisites in the order of teaching the sacraments of the New Law; in the second, he examines the baptism of John, which was needed to dispose or prepare for them: Now let us examine the sacrament of baptism. Concerning the first he does two things: first, he gives the distinction of the sacraments of the New Law both as to their number and as to their effect; second, he defines their institution, at: If it is asked, etc. There, he first sets down the general institution of the sacraments of the New Law; second, he excepts matrimony in a certain respect, at: Marriage, however, was instituted before sin.
Nunc autem de baptismi sacramento videamus. Hic determinat de baptismo Joannis; et circa hoc duo facit: primo determinat de ipso baptismo secundum se; secundo de eo quantum ad suscipientes, ibi: hic considerandum est, etc. Circa primum duo facit: primo ostendit differentiam baptismi Joannis ad baptismum Christi; secundo ostendit quasdam conditiones baptismi Joannis; et primo utilitatem, ibi: ad quid ergo utilis erat baptismus Joannis? Secundo nomen, ibi: sed quaeritur quare dictus est baptismus Joannis; tertio genus, ibi: si vero quaeritur an sacramentum fuerit, satis potest concedi, etc. Hic est duplex quaestio. Primo de sacramentis novae legis in generali. Secundo de baptismo Joannis.
But now let us examine the sacrament of baptism. Here he examines the baptism of John; and about this he does two things: first, he considers that baptism in itself; second, in regard to those who received it, at: Here it is to be considered, etc. Concerning the first he does two things: first, he shows the difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ; second, he shows certain conditions of the baptism of John; and first, its benefit, at: And so what was useful about John’s baptism? Second, its name, at: But it is asked why it is called John’s baptism; third, its genus, at: But if it is asked whether it was a sacrament, it may well be granted that it was, etc. Here there are two questions. First, concerning the sacraments of the New Law in general. Second, concerning the baptism of John.
De sacramentis novae legis
Sacraments of the New Law
Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor:
About the first, four questions arise:
primo, de distinctione sacramentorum quantum ad effectum;
first, the distinction of the sacraments as to effect;
secundo, de distinctione eorum quantum ad numerum;
second, their distinction as to number;
tertio, de ordine ipsorum;
third, their order;
quarto, de institutione eorum.
fourth, their institution.
De distinctione sacramentorum quantum ad effectum
The distinction of the sacraments as to effect
Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnia sacramenta sint instituta in remedium contra aliquem animae defectum. Sacramentum enim a sanctitate dicitur. Sed sanctitas non semper importat remedium contra defectum, sed etiam confirmationem in bono. Ergo non omne sacramentum est ad remedium institutum.
Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. It seems that not all sacraments were instituted as a remedy against some defect of the soul. For a sacrament is named from sanctity. But sanctity does not always convey a remedy against a defect, but also confirmation in good. Therefore, not every sacrament was instituted as a remedy.
Praeterea, omne remedium contra aliquem defectum ad purgationem pertinet. Sed Dionysius, distinguit sacramenta quae pertinent ad perfectionem, scilicet confirmationem et Eucharistiam, ab illis quae pertinent ad purgationem, sicut est baptismus. Ergo non omne sacramentum est ad remedium.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, every remedy against a certain defect pertains to purgation. But Dionysius distinguishes sacraments that pertain to perfection, namely confirmation and Eucharist, from those that pertain to purgation, such as baptism. Therefore, not every sacrament is a remedy.
Praeterea, hoc videtur ex definitione quam Magister ponit in littera. Quibusdam enim attribuit remedium conferre et gratiam, sicut baptismo; quibusdam gratiam tantum, sicut confirmationi et ordini; matrimonio autem remedii collationem tantum. Ergo non omne sacramentum est ad remedium institutum.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, this is seen in the definition that the Master gives in the text. For he attributes to certain sacraments, like baptism, the conferral of a remedy as well as grace; to others, like confirmation and holy orders, only the conferral of grace; while to marriage, only the conferral of a remedy. Therefore, not every sacrament was instituted as a remedy.
Sed contra est quod Hugo de sancto Victore dicit, quod sacramenta sunt vasa medicinalia. Sed omnis medicina est in remedium alicujus morbi. Ergo et omne sacramentum est in remedium alicujus defectus spiritualis.
On the contrary, is what Hugh of St. Victor says, that sacraments are vessels of medicine. But every medicine is a remedy for some sickness. Therefore, every sacrament, too, is a remedy for some spiritual defect.
Praeterea, sacramenta, ut dictum est, dist. 1, quaest. 1, art. 4, quaestiunc. 1, habent efficaciam a passione Christi. Sed passio Christi directe ordinatur ad tollendos defectus nostros. Ergo et sacramenta in remedium ordinata sunt.
Furthermore, as was said in Distinction 1, Question 1, Article 4, Subquestion 1, sacraments have efficacy from the Passion of Christ. But the Passion of Christ is ordered directly to taking away our defects. Therefore, the sacraments are also ordered to being a remedy.
Ulterius. Videtur quod aliquod sacramentum sit tantum in remedium, scilicet matrimonium. Solus enim consensus mutuus matrimonium facit. Sed consensus non potest esse causa gratiae, quia gratia non est ex actibus nostris. Ergo in matrimonio gratia non confertur; et sic est in remedium tantum.
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that one sacrament is a remedy only, namely, marriage. For mutual consent alone makes a marriage. But consent cannot be a cause of grace, for grace is not from our acts. Therefore, in marriage grace is not conferred, and so it is only a remedy.
Praeterea, secundum Hugonem, sacramenta ex sanctificatione invisibilem gratiam continent. Sed sanctificatio quae fit per ministros ecclesiae, non est de essentia matrimonii quantum ad sacramenti necessitatem, sed solum est de solemnitate ipsius. Ergo non confertur ibi gratia; et sic idem quod prius.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to Hugh, sacraments, by their sanctification, contain invisible grace. But the sanctification done by the ministers of the Church is not of the essence of marriage as necessary for the sacrament, but belongs only to its solemnity. Therefore, no grace is conferred there, and so the same as above.
Praeterea, hoc Magister expresse in littera dicit.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, the Master expressly says this in the text.
Sed contra, definitio generis debet omnibus speciebus convenire. Sed in definitione sacramenti novae legis ponitur: ut causa gratiae existat. Ergo convenit matrimonio; et sic non est tantum in remedium.
On the contrary, the definition of the genus must apply to all species. But in the definition of sacrament of the New Law is included that it exists as a cause of grace. Therefore, it belongs to marriage; and so it is not a remedy only.
Ulterius. Videtur quod sacramenta non sint in remedium contra poenam, sed solum contra culpam. Sacramenta enim efficaciam habent ex hoc quod gratiam continent. Sed gratia non opponitur poenae, sed culpae. Ergo sacramenta non ordinantur in remedium contra poenam.
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that sacraments are not a remedy against punishment, but only against the fault itself. For sacraments have efficacy from the fact that they contain grace. But grace is not opposed to punishment, but to fault. Therefore, sacraments are not ordained as a remedy against punishment.
Praeterea, sapientis medici est per causam curare effectum. Sed causa poenae est culpa. Ergo cum Christus sit sapientissimus medicus, non instituit aliqua sacramenta ad curandum poenam, nisi ea quae curant et culpam.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, the effect of a wise physician is to cure something through its cause. But the cause of punishment is fault. Therefore, since Christ is the wisest physician, he did not institute certain sacraments to cure punishment, except those that also cure the fault.