Respondeo ad primam quaestionem dicendum, quod secundum doctrinam Philosophi in Lib. 2 Posteriorum, triplex est genus definitionis. Quaedam enim sunt definitiones materiales, quas dicimus demonstrationis conclusiones: quaedam formales, quae sunt principia demonstrationis: quaedam materiales et formales simul, quae sunt demonstrationes positione differentes: quia habent medium demonstrationis, inquantum continent definitionem formalem, et conclusionem, inquantum continent materialem; sed deest solus ordo terminorum. Quia autem omne completivum quodammodo formale est respectu ejus quod completur, ideo definitio formalis non dicitur quae solum continet formam, sed illa quae continet hoc quod est completivum respectu alterius. Et quia in causis est talis ordo quod materia completur per formam, et forma per efficientem, et efficiens per finem; ideo definitio quandoque materialis dicitur, quae comprehendit tantum materiam rei, formalis autem quae comprehendit formam; sicut, ira est accensio sanguinis circa cor, dicitur materialis definitio; et, ira est appetitus in vindictam, dicitur formalis. Quandoque autem materialis comprehendit formam et materiam; sed formalis causam efficientem, sicut haec dicitur materialis: tonitruum est continuus sonus in nubibus; haec autem formalis: tonitruum est extinctio ignis in nube. Quandoque autem definitio materialis comprehendit materiam et formam et efficientem, formalis autem finem: sicut, domus est coopertorium factum ex lapidibus et lignis per talem modum et talem artem, est definitio materialis respectu hujus: domus est cooperimentum prohibens nos a frigoribus et caumatibus; et hoc praecipue accidit in instrumentis, quia in eis quasi tota ratio speciei a fine sumitur. To the first question, I answer that according to the teaching of the Philosopher in Book 2 of the Posterior Analytics, there are three kinds of definition. For some definitions are material, which we call conclusions of demonstration; some are formal, which are principles of demonstration; some are both material and formal, which are demonstrations differing in position: for they have a middle term of demonstration, inasmuch as they contain a formal definition, and a conclusion, inasmuch as they contain a material one; but only the order of terms is lacking. Since, however, everything completive is formal in a certain way with respect to whatever is completed, for this reason not only is the definition that contains the form called a formal definition, but also one that contains what is completive with respect to something else. And since the order among causes is such that matter is completed by form, and form by efficient cause, and efficient cause by final cause, for this reason a definition is sometimes called material, when it includes only the matter of the thing, but it is called formal when it includes the form. As, for example, ‘anger is the blood’s racing around the heart’ is called a material definition; and ‘anger is an appetite for vengeance’ is called a formal one. However, sometimes the material definition includes form and matter, while the formal definition includes the efficient cause, as this is called material: ‘thunder is a continual sound in the clouds’; while this is formal: ‘thunder is the discharge of fire in a cloud.’ But sometimes the material definition includes matter and form and efficient cause, but the formal definition includes the end: as, for example, ‘a house is a covering made from stones and wood in such-and-such a style with such-and-such a skill’ is a material definition in comparison with this one: ‘a house is a covering protecting us from cold and heat.’ And this happens particularly with instruments, for with them almost the entire account of their species is taken from the end. Et quia baptismus, cum sit sacramentum, quoddam instrumentum est; ideo definitio materialis ejus erit quae comprehendit materiam et formam ejus et efficientem; et formalis quae comprehendit finem; et sic definitio quam Magister in littera ponit, est materialis. Continet enim materiam in hoc quod dicit: ablutio exterior; et innuit efficientem in hoc quod dicit, facta; et ponit formam in hoc quod dicit, sub forma verborum praescripta. Et sciendum, quod Augustinus, ponit eamdem definitionem, quamvis sub aliis verbis; dicit enim: Baptismus est tinctio in aqua verbo vitae sanctificata. And because baptism, since it is a sacrament, is a certain instrument, for this reason the material definition of it will be one that comprehends its matter and form and efficient cause; and its formal definition will comprehend its end. And in this way the definition that the Master sets down in the text is material. For it contains the matter when he says: external washing; and it gives a nod to the efficient cause in saying, done; and it includes the form in saying, under the form of words prescribed. And it should be known that Augustine gives the same definition, although under other words, for he says: baptism is a drenching in the water sanctified by the word of life. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in sacramento baptismi sunt tria. Aliquid quod est sacramentum tantum, sicut aqua quae exterius fluit et transfluit, et non manet; et aliquid quod est sacramentum et res, et hoc semper manet, scilicet character; et aliquid quod est res tantum, quod quandoque manet quandoque transit, scilicet gratia. Magister ergo hic definit baptismum quantum ad id quod est sacramentum tantum, quia intendit ipsum materialiter definire. Reply Obj. 1: In the sacrament of baptism there are three things. There is something that is only a sacrament, like the water that flows externally and flows away, and does not remain; and something that is a sacrament-and-reality, and this remains forever, namely, the character; and something that is only a reality, which sometimes remains and sometimes passes away, namely, grace. Therefore, the Master here defines baptism according as it is a sacrament only, for he intends to define it materially. Ad secundum dicendum, quod sacramentum novae legis est signum et causa gratiae; unde secundum hoc est sacramentum, secundum quod habet significare, et causare. Aqua autem non habet significare et causare effectum baptismi, nisi secundum quod est abluens. Unde essentialiter baptismus est ipsa ablutio: quia ad ablutionem interiorem causandam institutus est, quam significando causat ipsa exterior ablutio: sed aqua est materia ejus remota, et ablutio ipsa est materiale baptismi; sed verbum vitae est forma completiva sacramenti. Augustinus autem et Magister definiunt baptismum per materiam proximam, quae praedicatur proprie de baptismo, sicut materia de artificialibus, ut phiala est argentum; sed Hugo definivit per materiam remotam, quae non ita proprie praedicatur, nisi per causam remotam. Reply Obj. 2: A sacrament of the New Law is a sign and a cause of grace; hence it is a sacrament according as it is able to signify and cause. But water is not able to signify and cause the effect of baptism, except insofar as it is cleansing. Hence baptism is essentially this very cleansing: for it was instituted to cause an interior cleansing, which the external cleansing itself causes by signifying it: but water is its remote matter, and the cleansing itself is the material of baptism; but the word of life is the form completive of the sacrament. Now Augustine and the Master define baptism by the proximate matter, which is properly predicated of baptism, like the matter of man-made things, as a cup is silver; but Hugh defined it by the remote matter, which is not as properly predicated, except through the remote cause. Ad tertium dicendum, quod baptismus, inquantum est sacramentum, est in genere signi vel causae; et in hoc genere constituitur per formam verborum, a qua habet significationem et efficaciam sacramentalem. Sicut autem artificialia non ponuntur in genere ex forma simpliciter, sed ex materia (non enim dicimus quod domus sit in genere qualitatis nisi inquantum artificiale figuratum, sed dicitur esse in genere substantiae), ita etiam est de sacramentis. Baptismus enim simpliciter est in genere ablutionis; sed secundum quid, scilicet inquantum est sacramentum, est in genere relationis. Reply Obj. 3: Baptism, inasmuch as it is a sacrament, is in the genus of sign or cause; and it is constituted in this genus by the form of words, from which it has its signification and sacramental efficacy. Now just as man-made things are not placed in a genus by their form, simply speaking, but rather by their matter—for we do not say that a house is in the genus of quality except insofar as it is a man-made shape, but it is rather said to be in the genus of substance—so also is it with the sacraments. For baptism, simply speaking, is in the genus of cleansing; but according to one aspect, that is, inasmuch as it is a sacrament, it is in the genus of relation. Ad quartum dicendum, quod finis ad quem est sacramentum, est ultimum formale ipsius, a quo sumitur formalis definitio. Magister autem non intendit hic definire baptismum formaliter, sed materialiter; et ideo sanctificationem praetermisit. Reply Obj. 4: The end for which a sacrament exists is its ultimate formal aspect, from which its formal definition is taken. However, the Master does not here intend to define baptism formally, but materially; and so he omits sanctification. Quaestiuncula 2 Response to Quaestiuncula 2 Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod definitio illa Hugonis complectitur et materiam baptismi in hoc quod dicit, aqua, et finem in hoc quod dicit, diluendis criminibus, et formam per hoc quod dicit, per verbum vitae sanctificata; unde est definitio composita ex materiali et formali, quasi demonstratio positione differens: et complete essentiam baptismi complectitur, excepto quod actus ablutionis intermittitur, qui facit materiam proximam baptismo; quamvis ex aliis quae ponuntur, intelligi possit. To the second question, it should be said that that definition of Hugh encompasses both the matter of baptism by saying water, and the end by saying for washing away our crimes, and the form by saying sanctified by the word of life. Hence it is a definition composed of matter and form, as though a demonstration differing in position: and it completely encompasses the essence of baptism, except for leaving out the act of cleansing, which constitutes the proximate matter of baptism—although that could be understood from the other things that are included. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod haec est propria praedicatio, baptismus fit in aqua; sed haec est per causam praedicatio, baptismus est aqua. Reply Obj. 1: This is proper predication, ‘baptism happens in water’; but this is predication through the cause, ‘baptism is water.’ Ad secundum dicendum, quod ibi non tangitur sanctificatio, nisi illa quae fit per formam baptismi, quae consistit in invocatione Trinitatis; et haec sanctificatio est de necessitate baptismi. Reply Obj. 2: Sanctification is not touched upon there except that which happens by the form of baptism, which consists in the invocation of the Trinity; and this sanctification is of necessity for baptism. Ad tertium dicendum, quod sacramenta non efficiunt nisi id quod figurant. Ex hoc autem ipso quod ponitur dilutio criminum, effectus baptismi potest accipi: quia baptismus materialiter non consistit in aqua nisi secundum quod est abluens; quandocumque autem est aqua sanctificata in actu ablutionis, est baptismus. Reply Obj. 3: Sacraments effect only what they represent. But by the very fact of including the washing away of crimes, the effect of baptism can be grasped: for baptism does not consist materially in water except as it cleanses; but whenever there is water sanctified in the act of cleansing, there is baptism. Ad quartum dicendum, quod idem numero quandoque est effectus alicujus et finis, sicut sanitas est effectus et finis medicantis; sed effectus, secundum quod producitur per actum medici, finis autem secundum quod est intentum a medico. Medicus autem potest impediri a productione sanitatis, sed non ab intentione; et ideo sanitas potest poni in definitione ut est finis, non autem ut est effectus; et similiter dilutio criminum in definitione sacramenti. Reply Obj. 4: Something numerically the same is sometimes an effect and sometimes an end, just as health is both an effect and an end of the one practicing medicine. But it is an effect according as it is produced by the action of the doctor, while it is an end according as it is intended by the doctor. Now a doctor can be impeded from producing health, but not from intending it; and thus health can be included in the definition as an end, but not as an effect; and similarly the washing away of crimes is included in the definition of this sacrament. Quaestiuncula 3 Response to Quaestiuncula 3 Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod Dionysius ex definitione baptismi data intendit procedere ad ea quae materialiter in baptismo requiruntur: unde post hanc definitionem datam, ritum baptismi ponit; et ideo ponit eam ut demonstrationis principium: et propter hoc est definitio totaliter formalis. Et est sciendum, quod in verbis ejus aliquid ponitur quasi definitum, et aliquid ponitur tamquam definitio. To the third question, it should be said that by the definition of baptism given, Dionysius intends to proceed to those things that are required materially in baptism. Hence, after having given this definition of baptism, he sets down the rite for baptism; and thus he includes it as a principle of demonstration; and because of this his definition is entirely formal. And it should be known that in his words something is included as the thing that is defined, and something else is included as the definition. Tamquam definitum ponitur, scilicet traditio sacrae et divinissimae regenerationis. Ista enim est quaedam circumlocutio baptismi, qua ipse frequenter utitur; et hoc patet ex hoc quod ibi baptismum non nominat; ut sit sensus: quoddam est principium etc., scilicet sacrae et divinissimae regenerationis traditio. Something like the thing defined is set down, namely, the handing over of a sacred and most divine regeneration. For that is a certain circumlocution for baptism that he frequently uses, and this is clear from the fact that he does not call it baptism there—so that the sense is: it is a certain principle, etc., namely, a handing on of a sacred and most divine regeneration. Quasi definitio ponitur hic, quod dicit, principium sanctissimorum mandatorum sacrae actionis. Et ponit tria ad quae baptismus ordinatur, quae formaliter rationem ejus complent. What serves as a definition is set down here where he says, a principle of the holiest commands of sacred action. And he sets down three things that baptism is ordered to, which formally complete its account. Unum est quod competit ei secundum quod est janua sacramentorum; et quantum ad hoc dicit, quod est principium sanctissimorum mandatorum sacrae actionis. Actiones enim sacras nominat actiones hierarchicas, scilicet purgare, illuminare, et perficere; quae praecipue in nostra hierarchia consistunt in dispensatione sacramentorum: quae quidem actiones nobis sub praecepto traditae sunt, et ad eas est principium baptismus quasi eorum janua. One is what pertains to it as the door of the sacraments; and as to this he says that it is the principle of the holiest commands of sacred action. For sacred actions are what he calls the actions of the hierarchy, namely, to purify, to illuminate, and to perfect, which, in our hierarchy, principally consist in the administration of the sacraments; for certain actions were handed down to us under a precept, and baptism is a principle for them, as their door. Secundum competit sibi inquantum est causa, prout scilicet characterem imprimit, et gratiam confert, secundum quod homo informatur et idoneus redditur ad aliorum sacramentorum perceptionem; et quantum ad hoc dicit, quod est formans per characterem et gratiam nostros animales habitus, idest, vires animae, ad susceptivam opportunitatem, idest ad idoneam et opportunam susceptionem divinorum eloquiorum quantum ad doctrinam fidei, et sacrarum actionum quantum ad alia sacramenta, quae nulli non baptizato debent conferri. The second thing pertains to it as a cause, namely, as it imprints a character and confers grace, according to which man is informed and rendered apt for the reception of the other sacraments. And as to this he says that it is forming, through a character and grace, our animal habits, that is, the powers of the soul, for the receptive opportunity, that is, for the appropriate and opportune reception, of divine utterances, as to the teaching of the faith, and sacred actions, as to the other sacraments, none of which should be conferred on someone who has not been baptized. Tertium competit sibi inquantum est signum et figura caelestium, et secundum hoc per baptismum manuducimur in caelestium contemplationem; et quantum ad hoc dicit, quod est faciens iter nostrum, idest praeparans nobis contemplationis viam ad anagogem, idest sursum ductionem, supercaelestis quietis, quae consistit in contemplatione spiritualium. Vel potest dici, quod per secundum tangit finem proximum baptismi quantum ad ea quae sunt viae; per tertium autem tangit finem remotum et ultimum, quantum ad ea quae sunt patriae; ad quam nos baptismus perducit per gratiam, quam confert, quae est res significata et non contenta. The third thing pertains to it as a sign and figure of the heavens, and, according to this, through baptism we are led by the hand to the contemplation of the heavens; and as to this, he says that it is making our journey, that is, preparing the way of contemplation for us, for the anagogue, that is, for being taken upward, of supercelestial rest, which consists in the contemplation of spiritual things. Or it can be said that by the second he touches on the proximate end of baptism as regards those things that are of the way, while by the third, he touches on the remote and last end as regards those things that are of heaven, to which baptism leads us through the grace that it confers, which is the reality signified and not contained. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Dionysius determinat de baptismo secundum quod est actio quaedam hierarchica; et ideo definit principium mandatorum, non quorumlibet sed illorum quibus actiones hierarchicae nobis traduntur. Reply Obj. 1: Dionysius examines baptism according as it is a certain hierarchical action; and thus he defines it as a principle of commands—not of just any commands, but of those by which the actions of the hierarchy are handed on to us. Ad secundum dicendum, quod per primum tangit tantum ordinem baptismi ad alia sacramenta, sed per secundum tangit effectum, quo mediante ad alia sacramenta percipienda idonee perducit, ut ex dictis patet. Reply Obj. 2: By the first phrase he touches upon only the order of baptism to the other sacraments, but by the second phrase he refers to its effect, by means of which it leads suitably to the receiving of the other sacraments, as is clear from what has been said. Ad tertium dicendum, quod animales habitus hic dicuntur ab anima, et non ab animalitate, qua scilicet cum aliis animalibus communicamus; ut ostendat quod non solum baptismus corpus exterius lavat, sed etiam animam interius format. Reply Obj. 3: Here, the phrase animal habits is named from the anima, not from that animality that we share with the other animals. He includes this phrase so that he may show that baptism does not merely wash the body externally, but also forms the soul interiorly. Ad quartum dicendum, quod haec definitio est principium omnium quae Dionysius de baptismo tradit; unde in principio statim hanc definitionem ponit. Et quia in omnibus quae sunt propter finem, ex fine debet accipi et forma competens fini et materia competens formae et fini; ideo in hac definitione non posuit formam et materiam, sed solum ea ad quae baptismus ordinatur quasi ad finem proximum vel remotum. Reply Obj. 4: This definition is the principle of all that Dionysius delivers concerning baptism; hence he places this definition immediately at the beginning. And since in all things that are for the sake of the end one must must accept from the end both the form that befits the end and the matter befitting the form and the end, for this reason he does not place form and matter in this definition, but only those things to which baptism is ordered as proximate or remote end. Quaestiuncula 4 Response to Quaestiuncula 4 Ad quartam quaestionem dicendum, quod Damascenus praedictam definitionem venatur ex hoc ipso quod baptismus regeneratio dicitur. Cum enim generatio sit motus ad esse, constat quod baptismus est per quem nobis traditur spirituale esse. Et quia nullus potest agere actionem alicujus naturae, nisi prius habeat esse in natura illa, ideo concluditur quod baptismus est principium omnium spiritualium actionum: et secundum hoc Damascenus baptismum definivit adhuc per priora quam Dionysius, inquantum accipit primum effectum baptismi, qui est constituere in spirituali vita, ex qua habet quod regeneratio dicatur; et ideo definit baptismum ut principium spiritualis vitae in hoc quod dicit, principium alterius vitae, scilicet spiritualis, quae est altera a naturali; ut haec generatio sit altera a naturali, et regeneratio dicatur; et iterum ut principium eorum quae ad vitam prima consequuntur, et ideo dicit: per quod fiunt primitiae spiritus, idest primi spiritus effectus in nobis. Hi autem effectus vel consequuntur ipsam generationem, sicut filiatio, vel aliqua talis relatio, et sic per baptismum dicimur regenerari in filios Dei, et quantum ad hoc dicitur regeneratio, vel consequuntur formam per generationem inductam; et hoc tripliciter. Primo in ordine ad generantem, secundum quod per formam inductam genitus fit similis generanti; et quantum ad hoc dicitur sigillum. Secundo quantum ad esse ipsius geniti, quod per formam conservatur; et quantum ad hoc dicitur custodia. Tertio quantum ad actionem ejus, cujus forma est principium; et quantum ad hoc dicitur illuminatio. To the fourth question, it should be said that Damascene arrives at the definition mentioned from the fact that baptism is called a regeneration. For since generation is a movement toward being, it is clear that baptism is that by which we are granted spiritual being. And since no one can perform an action of a certain nature unless first he has being in that nature, thus it is concluded that baptism is the beginning of all spiritual actions. And according to this, Damascene defined baptism by even more basic things than Dionysius, inasmuch as he takes the first effect of baptism, which is to constitute one in spiritual life, on which basis it may be called regeneration. And thus he defines baptism as the beginning of the spiritual life in that he says, the beginning of another life, namely, the spiritual one, which is other than the natural one; so that this generation is different from the natural one, and is called regeneration; and again, as the beginning of the first things that follow upon life, and thus he says, by which the first movements of the Holy Spirit happen, that is, the first spiritual effects in us. But these effects either result from the generation itself, like sonship or some relation like that, and in this way we are said to be regenerated by baptism as sons of God, and in this respect he says regeneration, or they result from the form instilled by that generation, and this happens in three ways. First, in the order to the one generating, according to which the one generated is made like the one generating by the form instilled; and this is how it is called a seal. The second has to do with the being of the one generated himself, which is preserved by that form; and in regard to this it is called a safekeeping. The third has to do with the action of whatever this form is the beginning of, and in this respect it is called illumination. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod primitiae spiritus dantur antequam percipiatur baptismus actu, sed non antequam percipiatur proposito habituali, sicut in Cornelio; vel actuali, sicut in aliis qui baptismi fidem habent. Vel dicendum, quod hic loquitur de vita spirituali, secundum quod homo quantum ad exteriora reputatur membrum ecclesiae, quod non fit ante baptismum, quia ad actus fidelium nullus ante baptismum admittitur. Reply Obj. 1: The first fruits of the Spirit are given before baptism is actually received, but not before the habitual intention of receiving it, as was the case with Cornelius, or the actual intention, as is the case with others who have the faith of baptism. Or it could be said that here he speaks of the spiritual life, according to which man is considered a member of the Church as to externals, which does not happen before baptism, for no one is admitted to the acts of the faithful before baptism. Ad secundum dicendum, quod regeneratio ponitur hic pro relatione consequente regenerationem, sicut est filiatio. Reply Obj. 2: Regeneration here stands for the relation that follows upon regeneration, as sonship is. Ad tertium dicendum, quod etiam Dionysius, vim illuminativam baptismo attribuit, quod quidem ei competit inquantum est fidei sacramentum; unde baptizatus jam admittitur ad inspectionem sacramentorum quasi illuminatus: non autem ante debet admitti, ne sancta canibus tradantur secundum Dionysium. Reply Obj. 3: Dionysius also attributed illuminative force to baptism, which indeed befits it as it is the sacrament of faith; hence someone already baptized is admitted to behold the sacraments as one illuminated, but he should not be admitted before that, lest holy things be given to dogs, according to Dionysius. Ad quartum dicendum, quod custodia conservationem importat: quae quidem est a Deo sicut a principio efficiente, a gratia autem baptismali sicut a principio formali. Reply Obj. 4. Safekeeping implies preservation, which indeed is from God as an efficient principle, but from baptismal grace as a formal principle. Articulus 2 Article 2 De forma ipsius The form of baptism Quaestiuncula 1 Quaestiuncula 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod integritas formae baptismalis non contineatur in his verbis, Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Flii et Spiritus Sancti. Actio enim magis debet attribui principali agenti quam secundario. Sed principalis baptizans est Christus, ut patet Joan. 1, 33, ubi dicitur: hic est qui baptizat; homo autem est tantum minister baptismi. Ergo magis debuit dici, Christus te baptizat, etc., quam ego te baptizo. Obj. 1: To the second we proceed thus. It seems that the integrity of the baptismal form is not contained in these words, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For an action should be attributed more to a principal agent than to a secondary one. But the principal baptizer is Christ, as is clear from the passage: He it is who baptizes (John 1:33); man, however, is only the minister of baptism. Therefore, it should be said Christ baptizes you, etc., rather than I baptize you. Praeterea, secundum grammaticos in verbis primae et secundae personae intelligitur nominativus certus et determinatus. Sed baptizo est verbum primae personae. Ergo non fuit necessarium quod adderetur ego. Obj. 2: Further, according to grammarians, in verbs of the first and second person a certain and determinate subject is understood. But baptizo is a verb in the first person. Therefore, it was not necessary to add ego. Praeterea, sacramenta habent a divina institutione efficaciam et virtutem. Sed ex forma quam Dominus tradidit Matth. ult. 19, ubi dicitur, docete omnes gentes, non potest haberi quod ego te baptizo sit de forma baptismi: quia hoc participium baptizantes, ponitur ibi ad designandum exercitium actus; non quasi pars formae. Ergo videtur quod non sit de necessitate formae. Obj. 3: Furthermore, sacraments have efficacy from divine institution and power. But on the basis of the form that the Lord handed down at the end of Matthew, where it is said, Go therefore and teach all nations (Matt 28:19), one cannot hold that I baptize you is the form of baptism: for this participle baptizing is set down there to designate the exercise of an act, not as part of the form. Therefore, it seems that it is not necessary to the form. Praeterea, simul Dominus praecepit actum docendi et baptizandi, Matth. ult. Sed non exigitur ad docendum quod sacerdos dicat, ego te doceo. Ergo similiter non exigitur ad baptismum quod dicat, ego te baptizo. Obj. 4: Furthermore, the Lord commanded the acts of teaching and baptizing at the same time (cf. Matt 28:19). But it is not required for teaching that a priest say, I teach you. Therefore, in the same way it is not required for baptism that he say, I baptize you.