SECUNDO QUAERITUR, utrum ad remissionem originalis sufficeret sola fides. Et quod sic, videtur:

SECOND THERE IS ASKED, whether for the remission of original (sin) faith alone would suffice. And it seems, that (it is) so:

1. Per verbum Gregorii, quod ponitur in littera:³ « Pro parvulis sola fides ».

1. Through the word of (St.) Gregory (the Great), which is posited in the text:³ « On behalf of little ones, faith alone ».

2. Item, Hugo de sancto Victore⁴ dicit, quod « tempore legis naturae non fuerunt aliqua Sacramenta in praecepto », ergo sine omnibus poterat homo salvari; sed nullus poterat salvari sine remissione originalis: ergo remissio originalis poterat fieri sine aliquo Sacramento exteriori in sola fide.

2. Likewise, Hugo of St. Victor⁴ says, that « in the time of the law of Nature there were not any Sacraments in precept », therefore without all a man could have been saved; but no one could have been salved without the remission of original (sin): therefore the remission of original (sin) could have been done without any exterior Sacrament in faith alone.

3. Item, si tempore illo Sacramenta virtutem totam habebant a fide: ergo tantum faciebat sola fides, quantum fides cum illis Sacramentis: ergo videtur, quod sola fide parentum potuerunt⁵ salvari.

3. Likewise, if at that time the Sacraments used to have (their) entire virtue by faith: therefore faith alone worked only, as much as faith (does) with those Sacraments: therefore it seems, that by the faith alone of the parents (little ones) could be⁵ saved.

CONTRA: 1. Si parvulis sufficiebat sola fides tunc temporis, et modo non sufficit nec tempore circumcisionis sufficiebat: ergo videtur, quod fides tunc esset maioris virtutis quam post: ergo videtur, post fuisse deterioris conditionis. Sed post non fuit deterioris conditionis:⁶ ergo si post non sufficeret, nec prius.

ON THE CONTRARY: 1. If for little ones faith alone use to suffice at that time [tunc temporis], and now it does not suffice nor did it use to suffice in the time of circumcision: therefore it seems, that faith then would be of greater virtue than afterwards [post]: therefore it seems, that afterwards it was of a deteriorated [deterioris] condition. But afterwards it was not of a deteriorated condition:⁶ therefore if it would not suffice afterwards, neither (would it) before.

2. Item, si sola fides sufficiebat, ergo parvulus in omni statu salvari poterat: cum ergo nihil oporteret circa corpus pueri fieri, videtur, quod posset⁷ iustificari in ventre matris.

2. Likewise, if faith alone use to suffice, therefore a little one could have been saved in every state: since therefore it would be proper that nothing be done to the body of a boy, it seems, that he could⁷ be justified in the womb of (his) mother.

3. Item, videtur, quod⁸ non posset parvulus mori sine remedio, parentibus existentibus fidelibus; sed modo non sic est, immo possunt et praepediuntur

3. Likewise, it seems, that⁸ a little one could not die without remedy, with faithful parents existing; but now it is not so, nay rather they can and are entangled

etiam nati: ergo sunt peioris conditionis in statu gratiae quam in statu naturae.

even as newborns [etiam nati]: therefore they are of a worse condition in the state of grace than in the state of Nature.

RESPONDEO: Ad hoc est duplex opinio, cum dicitur, quod fides parentum erat in remedium parvulo.

I RESPOND: As regards this there is a twofold opinion, when there is said, that the faith of the parents was as a remedy for a little one.

Quidam dicunt, quod non fides — habitus, sed fides ratione actus et motus sive professionis, et non cuiuscumque professionis, sed eius qua profitebantur, parvulum curandum esse ab eo quem expectabant.¹ Et de hac professione quidam dicunt, quod oportebat, quod fieret professio non tantum actu mentis vel oris, sed etiam in signo visibili, ut puta in oblatione vel in sacrificio sive decimatione, vel aliquo alio signo; quoniam Ecclesia fidelium semper aliqua signa habuit, in quibus fideles colligebantur et profitebantur fidem in facto. Unde Augustinus contra Faustum:² « In nullum nomen religionis, sive verum sive falsum, coadunari possent homines, nisi aliquo signorum velut Sacramentorum visibilium consortio unirentur ». Unde dicunt, quod aliquod erat signum cum fide. Et quod dicit Gregorius sola fide intelligit: fide³ parentum sine consensu vel fide parvuli. — Sed haec positio non congruit, quia ipse addit in auctoritate: « vel pro maioribus virtus sacrificii ». Quare ergo dicit sola Quia,⁴ cum de maioribus egit, addit et dicit: virtus sacrificii; praeterea, cum nulla⁵ essent necessitatis, etsi talis professio de congruo deberet esse cum fide, non tamen necessario. Unde Hugo: « Commonemur, quod illa Sacramenta primi temporis magis ad devotionem proposita fuerunt quam ad obtinendam salutem indicta».

Certain ones say, that not faith — the habit, but faith by a reckoning of act and of movement or of profession, and not of the profession of any (faith) whatsoever, but of that (faith) by which they professed, that (their) little one was to be cured by Him whom they exspected.¹ And concerning this profession certain ones say, that it was proper, that the profession be done not only by an act of the mind and/or mouth, but also in a visibile sign, considered as [ut puta] in an offering and/or sacrifice or tithing, and/or by any other sign; since the Church of the faithful always had some signs, in which the faithful were bound together and professed the Faith in a deed. Whence (St.) Augustine Against Faustus:² « Unto no name of religion, wether the True or a false one, can men be united together [coadunari], unless they be united [unirentur] by some consortium of signs as visible Sacraments ». Whence they say, that something was a sign with faith. And that which (St.) Gregory says by faith alone, he understands: by the faith³ of the parents without the consenet and/or faith of the little one. — But this position is not congruous, because he himself adds in that quote [in auctoritate]: « and/or on behalf of the elders [maioribus] the virtue of sacrifice ». Why, therefore, does he say by it alone? Because,⁴ when he deals with the elders, he adds and says: the virtue of sacrifice; moreover, since none⁵ were of necessity, even if such a profession de congruo ought to have been with faith, nevertheless [tamen] not necessarily. Whence Hugo (says): « Let us be thoroughly warned, that those Sacraments of the first time had been proposed for devotion rather than made publically known [indicta] for obtaining salvation ».

Propter hoc alia positio dicit, quod professio fidei sufficiebat, qualitercumque fieret, sive signo, sive verbo, sive actu cordis, dum tamen fieret a parentibus, et haberetur respectus ad parvulum.

On account of this another position says, that the profession of faith use to suffice, in whatever manner it was done, whether by sign, or by word, or by an act of the heart, so long, however, as it was done by the parents, and a regard was had for the little one.

Si autem quaeratur: quare magis fides parentum? dici potest, quod parentes dicuntur hic omnes qui curam gerebant de parvulo; aut si dicantur parentes proprie, ratio, quare magis in fide ipsorum, est: quia per ipsos parvulus contraxerat culpam, congruum erat, ut eorum fide mereretur gratiam.

If however it is asked, why rather the faith of the parents? it can be said, that here all who use to exercise care for the little one are said (to be) parents; or if "parents" are meant properly, the reason, why rather in the faith of these, is: because through them the little one had contracted fault, it was congruous, that by their faith he merit grace.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod videtur fides deteriorata; dicendum, quod illud non sequitur simpliciter, quod fides sit deteriorata, sed quod vel deteriorata est, vel aliquid sit ei adiunctum, quod necessitate servari oportet, sicut sunt instituta Sacramenta sub praecepto. Exemplum de observantia mandatorum in eo qui est liberae voluntatis, et in eo qui intravit religionem: primo sufficit ad salutem, secundo non.⁶

1. To that which is objected, that faith seems to have deteriorated [deteriorata]; it must be said, that it does not follow simply (speaking), that faith has deteriorated, but that it has deteriorated and/or that something has been adjoined to it, which by necessity is proper to be observed, such as the Sacraments instituted under precept. (There is) an example of the observance of the mandates in him who is of a free will, and in him who has entered religion: in the first (such an observance) is sufficient for salvation, in the second (it is) not.⁶

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod secundum hoc parvulus in ventre matris posset iustificari; dicendum, quod non habebat efficaciam fides secundum communem legem, nisi quando natus erat ex utero, sicut nec baptismus. Deus enim secundum ius commune non regenerat nisi prius per naturam natum. Quare autem non, infra dicetur in tractatu de baptismo.⁷

2. To that which is objected, that according to this a little one in the womb of (his) mother could be justified; it must be said, that faith did not use to have an efficacy according to common law [communem legem], except when one had been born out of a womb, just as neither (does) Baptism. For God according to common right [ius communem] does not regenerate (anyone) except the one born beforehand through nature. Moreover, why (He does) not, will be said below in the tract on Baptism.⁷

3. Sed quod de natis obiicit, dicendum, quod habent se sicut excedentia⁸ et excessa. In hoc enim excedit illud, quod parvulo periclitanti facilius poterat subveniri; sed in hoc aliud excedit, quia, parentibus entibus infidelibus, adultus salvari poterat, sed parvulus non; praeterea, dubium est, quin / oporteret

3. But because one objects concerning the new born [natis], it must be said, that they are regarded [habent se] as ones exceeding⁸ and exceeded. For in this the former [illud] exceeds, because with the little one endangered [periclinanti] he could have been succoured more easily; but in this the latter [aliud] exceeds, because, with the parents being unfaithful, an adult could have been saved, but not a little one; moreover, there is a doubt, if / it would be proper

oporteret, utrumque esse fidelem; et alia multa bona nunc habentur, quae non tunc,¹ ut puta maior certitudo salutis, maius munus gratiae et alia bona, quae proveniunt, scilicet obedientia et humilitate et consimilia; et ideo non sequitur ex hoc, quod status ille esse melior.

if / it would be proper, that both be faithful; and many other good (things) are now had, which (were) not (had) then,¹ such as [ut puta] a greater certitude of salvation, a greater gift of grace and other goods, which come about [proveniunt], namely by obedience and humility and (things) entirely similar; and for that reason it does not follow from this, that that (former) state is better.