title: Dist. 4, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 100 -->

### ARTICULUS II.
### *De ficte suscipientibus baptismum.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de ficte accedentibus. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum aliquis invitus sive coactus suscipiat Sacramentum baptismi. Secundo, utrum fictus recipiat Sacramentum et non rem. Tertio, utrum, recedente fictione, baptismus habeat in eo plenam efficaciam.

### QUAESTIO I.
### *Utrum aliquis invitus sive coactus recipiat Sacramentum baptismi.*

Et quod aliquis invitus non recipiat baptismum, videtur:

1. Quia dicitur in decretali Innocentii[^1], quod « si aliquis omnino recusans immergatur, non est baptizatus ».

2. Item, in Sacramento baptismi contrahitur matrimonium spirituale, et desponsatur anima Deo; sed matrimonium spirituale aut tantum, aut plus exigit de consensu, quam matrimonium carnale: ergo si coactio impedit matrimonium carnale[^2], similiter videtur, quod impediat, ne quis suscipiat baptismatis Sacramentum.

3. Item, Sacramentum est donum Dei non solum ratione gratiae gratum facientis, sed etiam characteris impressi; sed Dei gratia non tantum non datur repugnantibus, immo etiam subtrahitur: ergo videtur, quod tali nullo modo conferatur Sacramentum.

4. Item, lex evangelica est lex libertatis[^3]: ergo et Sacramenta evangelica sunt libertatis; sed quod libertatis est libere suscipitur a voluntate: ergo videtur, quod nec de iure nec de facto aliquis Sacramentum baptismi recipiat invitus.

**Contra:**
1. Parvulus et furiosus recipiunt Sacramentum, quantumcumque renitantur, sicut patebit infra[^4]: si ergo hoc verum est, ad receptionem eius non concurrit actus voluntatis: ergo ita recipit invitus, ut voluntarius.

2. Item, baptismus est remedium contra originale[^5]; sed originale contrahit necessario puer, cum nascitur: ergo videtur similiter, quod ad baptismum possit inferri alicui necessitas violentiae.

3. Item, non potest magis cogi voluntas quam comminando vel intentando mortem; sed si aliquis compulsus timore mortis sacrificet[^6], erit idololatra: ergo similiter, si Sacramentum baptismi recipiat timore mortis, Sacramentum verum est.

4. Item, si aliquis baptizatur ex amore male inflammante, baptizatus est de facto: ergo si non minus repugnat baptismo amor male inflammans, quam timor male humilians[^7], si hic baptizatus ex malo amore baptizatus est, similiter videtur, quod baptizatus ex timore sit baptizatus.

> **CONCLUSIO.**
> Deficiente in adultis penitus intentione, non recipitur Sacramentum, ut in invito ob coactionem sufficientem et in illudente.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod coactio duplex est, scilicet *sufficiens* et *inducens*[^8]. Si aliquis mergatur coactione *sufficiente* — utpote quia violenter acceptus est et, ipso renitente manibus et pedibus, mersus est — talis nullo modo baptizatus est, quia nullo modo fuit in eo consensus nec voluntas, immo

<!-- page 101 -->

fuit omnino repugnans. — Si autem aliquis immergatur coactione *inducente*, utpote minis vel flagellis, ita quod magis vult se subiicere Sacramento Ecclesiae quam morte perire; dico, quod aut intendit alios *illudere* et mortem evadere, et tunc, quia non est intentio, non est Sacramentum, cum nullus dicatur baptizatus esse, qui consentit, se immergi ad iocum; aut ipse vult, illud quod facit Ecclesia circa se fieri[^9] magis, quam velit perire; et tunc, sive credat sive non, sive velit habere gratiam sive non, dicendum, quod recipit Sacramentum, eo quod, quamvis non sit ibi voluntas meritoria, est tamen ibi consensus et voluntas, nec est *simpliciter* involuntarium. Unde quia talis vult exterius Sacramentum recipere, etsi nolit interius aliquid in se fieri[^10], fit tamen, propter hoc quod qui subiicit se causae subiicit se necessario annexo: et ideo secundum canones et doctores theologiae talis indicandus est baptizatus.

1. Ex hoc patet illud quod primo obiicitur; nam ista est intentio Innocentii.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de matrimonio carnali, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia enim coacta connubia consueverunt habere malos exitus, ideo sacri canones non indulserunt ipsa. — Alia tamen potest esse ratio huius, ut dicetur infra[^11]. Nihilominus tamen illud verum est, quod non tanta voluntas requiritur in aliquo ad susceptionem baptismi, sicut ad contractionem matrimonii. Si enim pater exponat parvulum ad baptizandum, non potest parvulus, cum ad adultam aetatem venerit, revocare[^12]; non sic est de matrimonio, quia, quantumcumque pater obliget parvulum, nunquam obligatur, nisi consentiat, cum pervenerit ad annos discretionis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Sacramentum est donum Dei; dicendum, quod est donum gratiae gratis datae et gratum facientis; quamvis autem donum gratiae gratum facientis non detur habenti duplex cor et duplicem voluntatem[^13], datur tamen donum gratiae gratis datae, quod non exigit tantam dispositionem in suscipiente.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lex evangelica est lex libertatis; dicendum, quod verum est, quod de *iure* non datur nec dari debet ei qui libera voluntate non accedit; et ius divinum hoc dictat, et Constantinus[^14] de hoc legem condidit. De *facto* tamen, si fiat, factum est; hoc tamen habet veritatem in re[^15] Sacramenti, quod facit esse in lege libertatis.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod quantumcumque renitenti Sacramentum dari potest, propter parvulum et furiosum; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia illi non habent usum voluntatis, unde non statur appetitui suo, sed voluntati offerentium[^16]. — Tamen de *furioso* distinguitur: quia aut habuit aliquando usum liberi arbitrii, aut *non habuit*. Si *non habuit*, indicandum est sicut de parvulo. Si *habuit* et in illo baptizari voluit, indicandum est, eum baptismum recipere; sed si nullo modo voluit, non est credendum, ipsum recipere Sacramentum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod originale contrahit quis invitus; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia originalis contractio est quasi *naturalis*, et ideo inevitabilis; sed remedium baptismi non respicit *naturam*, sed potius *voluntatem personae*; et ideo non est simile[^17].

3, 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo de comminatione mortis; dicendum, quod maior potest esse coactio quam haec; nam haec est solum *inducens*, non *sufficiens*. Sed cum accipitur, velit nolit, et immergitur, ibi est *sufficiens* coactio. Quamvis enim voluntas non possit cogi *in volendo*, potest tamen simpliciter homini fieri coactio *in actu exteriori*. Unde voluntas *inducta* voluntas est[^18]; et ideo hic imprimitur character, et ibi non. — Et est exemplum in eo qui ponit thura timore mortis, et de eo cuius manus trahitur violenter; primus consentit et peccat et dicitur *sacrificare*, secundus non. Sic qui Sacramentum *inductus* suscipit, dicitur consentire; sive indicatur amore bono vel malo, sive timore bono vel malo, suscipit Sacramentum, quia Sacramenti susceptio est bonis malisve communis[^19]. Et ideo talis voluntas sufficit ad Sacramentum, ut seniores dicunt. — Et sic patet, quibus character baptismalis imprimitur.

<!-- page 102 -->

### SCHOLION

**I.** *Fictus* a Scholasticis communiter definitur esse is qui aliud exterius praetendit, aliud intendit interius. Hoc potest quoad baptismum esse dupliciter: vel quoad *susceptionem* (sive etiam collationem ex parte baptizantis) ipsius baptismi, dum voluntas contradicit ipsi *veritati* Sacramenti, unde collatio est prorsus inanis (cfr. infra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3.); vel quoad *dispositionem* requisitam, dum *gratia* Sacramenti percipiatur, dum scilicet voluntas contradicit *effectui* Sacramenti. Secunda haec fictio iterum tripliciter esse potest: vel quia fictus accedit *non contritus*, vel *non credens*, vel quia *contemnit* (Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 7. a. 2. § 2; cfr. S. Bonav. infra q. 2.). — De baptismo *parvulorum* vide hic dub. 2, et infra p. II. a. 2. et dub. 4.

**II.** Quaestio 1. communissime solvitur secundam distinctionem ab Innocentio IV. (cfr. arg. 1.) factam, scilicet inter modum, quo quis est invitus et non invitus, coactus et non coactus. Caietanus (in S. III. q. 68. a. 7.) tamen opinatur, etiam in adultis sufficere *indifferentiam* voluntatis sive non ponere obicem contrariae voluntatis; quod communiter non approbatur. Quaestio autem de necessitate intentionis in *baptizante* tractatur infra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. — S. Bonav. hic fere repetit dicta Alexandri Hal. — Ut autem praeter characterem etiam *gratia* conferatur (de quo agitur in 2. quaest.), in *adultis*, qui peccata actualia gravia habent, requiritur *attritio*, ut communissime docetur, minime refragante Scoto (cfr. hic q. 3. n. 2. 3.), quidquid nonnulli de eo in contrarium dixerint. Pauci auctores parum probabilius putant, sufficere attritionem *naturalem*. — Plurimi auctores 1. et 2. quaestionem simul tractant. De utraque: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 1. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiune. 1. 2; S. III. q. 68. a 7. 12, q. 69. a. 9. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiune. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 1. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

**III.** Quoad 3. quaestionem communius cum S. Augustino tenetur, quod recedente fictione, baptismus valeat ad remissionem peccatorum ante baptismum commissorum. Scot. tamen putat, esse probabilius, quod ipsum *peccatum fictionis* non vi baptismi, sed poenitentiae remittatur. Idem affert ibidem etiam duas alias opiniones, sed ut minus probabiles. — Alii cum Vasquez generatim negaverunt, peccata vi baptismi, recedente fictione, remitti, sed hoc tribuerunt subsequenti *poenitentiae*, quae peccatum *fictionis* remittat *per se*, peccata vero baptismum praecedentia *per accidens*. — De expulsione peccati per poenitentiam cfr. hic dub. 3. — De hac 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. in fine. — Scot., hic q. 3. n. 4. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiune. 3; S. III. q. 69. a. 10. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiune. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. — Durand., loc. cit. — Dionys. Carth., hic loc. cit.

english:
<!-- page 100 -->

### ARTICLE II.
### *On those who receive baptism feignedly.*

Next, as to the second article, there is a question about those who approach feignedly. And concerning this three things are asked. First it is asked whether anyone unwilling or coerced receives the Sacrament of baptism. Second, whether the feigned person receives the Sacrament and not the reality. Third, whether, when the feigning has departed, baptism has its full efficacy in him.

### QUESTION I.
### *Whether anyone unwilling or coerced receives the Sacrament of baptism.*

And that anyone unwilling does not receive baptism, it seems:

1. Because it is said in a decretal of Innocent[^1] that « if anyone, refusing altogether, is immersed, he is not baptized ».

2. Likewise, in the Sacrament of baptism a spiritual matrimony is contracted, and the soul is betrothed to God; but spiritual matrimony requires either as much, or more, of consent than carnal matrimony: therefore if coercion impedes carnal matrimony[^2], it seems likewise that it impedes anyone from receiving the Sacrament of baptism.

3. Likewise, the Sacrament is a gift of God not only by reason of grace making pleasing, but also of the character imprinted; but the grace of God is not only not given to those resisting, but is even withdrawn: therefore it seems that to such a one the Sacrament is in no way conferred.

4. Likewise, the evangelical law is a law of liberty[^3]: therefore the evangelical Sacraments are also of liberty; but what is of liberty is freely received by the will: therefore it seems that neither by right nor in fact does anyone receive the Sacrament of baptism unwilling.

**On the contrary:**
1. An infant and a madman receive the Sacrament, however much they resist, as will be evident below[^4]: if therefore this is true, the act of the will does not concur in its reception: therefore one receives it unwilling, just as a willing person does.

2. Likewise, baptism is a remedy against original sin[^5]; but a child necessarily contracts original sin when he is born: therefore it seems likewise that a necessity of violence can be applied to someone for baptism.

3. Likewise, the will cannot be coerced more than by threatening or intending death; but if anyone, compelled by fear of death, sacrifices[^6], he will be an idolater: therefore likewise, if he receives the Sacrament of baptism through fear of death, the Sacrament is true.

4. Likewise, if anyone is baptized out of an evilly inflaming love, he is in fact baptized: therefore since love evilly inflaming resists baptism no less than fear evilly humbling[^7], if this one baptized out of evil love is baptized, it seems likewise that the one baptized out of fear is baptized.

> **CONCLUSION.**
> When intention is entirely lacking in adults, the Sacrament is not received, as in one unwilling on account of sufficient coercion and in one mocking.

**I respond:** It must be said that coercion is twofold, namely *sufficient* and *inducing*[^8]. If anyone is immersed by *sufficient* coercion — namely because he was violently seized and, while he himself resists with hands and feet, he is immersed — such a one is in no way baptized, because in no way was there in him consent or will, but rather

<!-- page 101 -->

he was altogether resisting. — But if anyone is immersed by *inducing* coercion, namely by threats or scourges, such that he wills rather to subject himself to the Sacrament of the Church than to perish by death; I say that either he intends to *mock* others and to escape death, and then, because there is no intention, it is not a Sacrament, since no one is said to be baptized who consents to be immersed in jest; or he himself wills that what the Church does about him be done[^9] rather than that he should perish; and then, whether he believes or not, whether he wills to have grace or not, it must be said that he receives the Sacrament, because, although there is no meritorious will there, there is nevertheless there consent and will, nor is it *simply* involuntary. Hence, because such a one wills outwardly to receive the Sacrament, even if he is unwilling that anything be done inwardly in him[^10], it is nevertheless done, because he who subjects himself to the cause subjects himself to what is necessarily annexed: and therefore according to the canons and the doctors of theology such a one must be judged baptized.

1. From this is evident that which is objected first; for this is the intention of Innocent.

2. To that which is objected about carnal matrimony, it must be said that it is not a similar case: for because coerced marriages were wont to have bad outcomes, therefore the sacred canons did not allow them. — There can nevertheless be another reason for this, as will be said below[^11]. Nevertheless this is true, that not so great a will is required in someone for the reception of baptism, as for the contracting of matrimony. For if a father presents an infant for baptizing, the infant cannot, when he has come to adult age, revoke it[^12]; it is not so with matrimony, because, however much a father obliges an infant, he is never obliged unless he consents, when he has come to the years of discretion.

3. To that which is objected, that the Sacrament is a gift of God; it must be said that it is a gift of grace freely given and making pleasing; and although the gift of grace making pleasing is not given to one having a double heart and a double will[^13], the gift of grace freely given is nevertheless given, which does not require so great a disposition in the recipient.

4. To that which is objected, that the evangelical law is a law of liberty; it must be said that it is true that by *right* it is not given nor ought to be given to him who does not approach with a free will; and the divine law dictates this, and Constantine[^14] established a law about this. In *fact*, however, if it is done, it is done; this nevertheless has the truth in the reality[^15] of the Sacrament, which makes [it] to be in the law of liberty.

1. To that which is objected on the contrary, that the Sacrament can be given to one however much resisting, on account of the infant and the madman; it must be said that it is not a similar case: because those do not have the use of will, hence one does not abide by their appetite, but by the will of those offering them[^16]. — Nevertheless concerning the *madman* a distinction is made: for either he once had the use of free choice, or he *did not have* it. If he *did not have* it, judgment must be made as about an infant. If he *had* it and in it willed to be baptized, it must be judged that he receives baptism; but if he in no way willed it, it must not be believed that he receives the Sacrament.

2. To that which is objected, that one contracts original sin unwilling; it must be said that it is not a similar case: because the contraction of original sin is as it were *natural*, and therefore inevitable; but the remedy of baptism does not regard *nature*, but rather *the will of the person*; and therefore it is not a similar case[^17].

3, 4. To that which is objected last about the threatening of death; it must be said that there can be a greater coercion than this; for this is only *inducing*, not *sufficient*. But when one is taken, willing or unwilling, and is immersed, there is *sufficient* coercion there. For although the will cannot be coerced *in willing*, coercion can nevertheless simply be applied to a man *in the exterior act*. Hence the *induced* will is a will[^18]; and therefore here the character is imprinted, and there it is not. — And there is an example in one who places incense out of fear of death, and in one whose hand is drawn by force; the first consents and sins and is said to *sacrifice*, the second does not. Thus one who *induced* receives the Sacrament is said to consent; whether he is induced by good or evil love, or by good or evil fear, he receives the Sacrament, because the reception of the Sacrament is common to good and evil alike[^19]. And therefore such a will suffices for the Sacrament, as the elders say. — And thus it is evident to whom the baptismal character is imprinted.

<!-- page 102 -->

### SCHOLION

**I.** A *feigned person* is commonly defined by the Scholastics as one who pretends one thing outwardly, intends another inwardly. This can be twofold with respect to baptism: either with respect to the *reception* (or also the conferral, on the part of the one baptizing) of baptism itself, when the will contradicts the very *truth* of the Sacrament, whence the conferral is altogether void (cf. below d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3.); or with respect to the *disposition* required for the *grace* of the Sacrament to be received, that is, when the will contradicts the *effect* of the Sacrament. This second feigning can again be threefold: either because the feigned person approaches *not contrite*, or *not believing*, or because he *despises* (Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 8. m. 7. a. 2. § 2; cf. St. Bonaventure below q. 2.). — On the baptism of *infants* see here dub. 2, and below p. II. a. 2. and dub. 4.

**II.** Question 1 is most commonly solved by the distinction made by Innocent IV (cf. arg. 1.), namely between the manner in which one is unwilling and not unwilling, coerced and not coerced. Cajetan (in *Summa* III. q. 68. a. 7.), however, is of the opinion that even in adults the *indifference* of the will suffices, or the not-placing of an obstacle of a contrary will; which is commonly not approved. But the question concerning the necessity of intention in the *one baptizing* is treated below d. 6. p. II. a. 2. — St. Bonaventure here almost repeats the sayings of Alexander of Hales. — But that, besides the character, *grace* also be conferred (which is treated in the 2nd question), in *adults* who have grave actual sins, *attrition* is required, as is most commonly taught, with Scotus by no means opposing (cf. here q. 3. n. 2. 3.), whatever some have said about him to the contrary. A few authors, less probably, think that *natural* attrition suffices. — Most authors treat questions 1 and 2 together. On both: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 1. 2. — Scotus, in both *Scripta* here q. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 2. subquestions 1. 2; *Summa* III. q. 68. a. 7. 12, q. 69. a. 9. — Blessed Albert, here a. 2. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 2. subquestion 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 1. q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

**III.** As to the 3rd question, it is more commonly held with St. Augustine that, when the feigning has departed, baptism is valid for the remission of sins committed before baptism. Scotus, however, thinks it more probable that the *sin of feigning* itself is remitted not by the power of baptism, but of penance. He brings forward in the same place two other opinions as well, but as less probable. — Others with Vásquez generally denied that sins are remitted by the power of baptism when the feigning departs, but attributed this to a subsequent *penance*, which remits the sin of *feigning* *per se*, and the sins preceding baptism *per accidens*. — On the expulsion of sin through penance cf. here dub. 3. — On this 3rd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. at the end. — Scotus, here q. 3. n. 4. ff. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 2. subquestion 3; *Summa* III. q. 69. a. 10. — Blessed Albert, here a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 2. subquestion 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. — Durandus, loc. cit. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here loc. cit.

la: Innocentius IV, C. *Maiores* (3.) X. (lib. III. tit. 42.) de Baptismo et eius effectu, ubi haec sententia sustinetur respectu illorum qui penitus susceptioni baptismi contradicunt, et respectu dormientium ac amentium, qui, priusquam amentiam incurrerent aut dormirent, in contradictione consistunt: « Et si sic fuerint immersi, characterem non suscipiunt Sacramenti ». Ipse Innocentius allegat hac de re C. *De Iudaeis* (5.), d. 45. (ex Concilio Tolet. IV. c. 56.). — Pro *recusans* cod. Y *renitens.*

en: Innocent IV, ch. *Maiores* (3.) in the Decretals X. (bk. III. tit. 42.) On Baptism and its effect, where this opinion is maintained with respect to those who utterly contradict the reception of baptism, and with respect to the sleeping and the insane, who, before they fell into insanity or sleep, persist in contradiction: « And if they have been so immersed, they do not receive the character of the Sacrament ». Innocent himself cites on this matter ch. *De Iudaeis* (5.), d. 45. (from the Fourth Council of Toledo, c. 56.). — For *recusans* (refusing) codex Y reads *renitens* (resisting).

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 29. q. 1. — Paulo ante pro *quam* plures codd. *quantum.*

en: As is shown below d. 29. q. 1. — A little before, for *quam* (than) many codices read *quantum* (as much as).

la: Cfr. Gal. 4, 22. seqq.

en: Cf. Galatians 4:22 ff.

la: In p. II. huius dist. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: In p. II of this distinction, a. 2. q. 1. and following.

la: Ut ostensum est supra a. 1. q. 1.

en: As was shown above, a. 1. q. 1.

la: Supple cum codd. G I (E bb a secunda manu) *idolis.* Subinde permulti codd. omittunt *baptismi.*

en: Supply with codices G I (E bb from a second hand) *idolis* (to idols). Thereupon very many codices omit *baptismi* (of baptism).

la: De amore malo inflammante et timore male humiliante vide II. Sent. d. 5. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1, et in d. XLII. lit. Magistri, c. 4. verba Augustini. — Mox substituimus ex codd. B D H K L Q bb *si hic* pro *si sic*; Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 7. a. 2. § 1. ponit *si*, codd. A T U Z *si hic sit (sic?).*

en: On evilly inflaming love and evilly humbling fear see II. Sent. d. 5. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1, and in d. XLII. of the Master's text, c. 4. the words of Augustine. — Presently we have substituted from codices B D H K L Q bb *si hic* for *si sic*; Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 8. m. 7. a. 2. § 1. puts *si*, codices A T U Z *si hic sit (sic?)*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 4. — Inferius pro *utpote quia* codd. M O U *utpote qui*, edd. *utpote quia, cum*, Alex. Hal. loc. cit. legit: *Sufficiens*, si aliquis immergatur coactione sufficiente, utpote *quando.*

en: Cf. II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 4. — Below, for *utpote quia* (namely because) codices M O U read *utpote qui* (namely who), the editions *utpote quia, cum* (namely because, since), Alexander of Hales loc. cit. reads: *Sufficient*, if anyone is immersed by sufficient coercion, namely *when*.

la: Multi codd. et ed. I incongrue adiiciunt *velle.* Pro *vult* cod. bb *intendit.*

en: Many codices and the first edition incongruously add *velle* (to will). For *vult* (wills) codex bb reads *intendit* (intends).

la: Ita ex parte codd. A G I K O U aa, sed verba *fit tamen* adiecimus ex codd. O U, pro quibus in codd. A aa tantum *fit*, in pluribus aliis vero *tamen.* Cum cod. aa ante *subiicit* addidimus *qui.* Codd. F H legunt: *Sacramentum recipere et aliquid in se fieri, et propter hoc etc.*; alii codd. corrupte *Sacramentum recipere, aliquid in se fieri, fit propter hoc etc.*; edd. *Sacramentum recipere, vult aliquid in se fieri, quod fit; et sic propter hoc etc.* Locum ubique corruptum probabiliter sic corrigendum esse putavimus.

en: Thus in part from codices A G I K O U aa, but we have added the words *fit tamen* (it is nevertheless done) from codices O U, for which in codices A aa only *fit* (it is done), but in many others *tamen* (nevertheless). With codex aa we have added *qui* (who) before *subiicit*. Codices F H read: *Sacramentum recipere et aliquid in se fieri, et propter hoc etc.*; other codices corruptly *Sacramentum recipere, aliquid in se fieri, fit propter hoc etc.*; the editions *Sacramentum recipere, vult aliquid in se fieri, quod fit; et sic propter hoc etc.* We have thought the place, corrupt throughout, probably to be corrected thus.

la: Dist. 29. q. 1. — Permulti codd. ante *indulserunt* omittunt *non*, edd. substituunt *interdixerunt.*

en: Dist. 29. q. 1. — Very many codices before *indulserunt* (allowed) omit *non*, the editions substitute *interdixerunt* (forbade).

la: Vide infra d. 6. p. II. a. 3. q. 1.

en: See below d. 6. p. II. a. 3. q. 1.

la: Vide ipsius Edictum ad provinciales de falso cultu multorum deorum, n. 9. (In Eusebii Pamphili historia de vita Constantini, lib. II. c. 56.). — Codd. F I *Constantius*, plures codd. ob abbreviationem sunt dubiae lectionis.

en: See his own Edict to the provincials on the false worship of many gods, n. 9. (In the *History of the Life of Constantine* of Eusebius Pamphilus, bk. II. c. 56.). — Codices F I read *Constantius*; several codices, on account of the abbreviation, are of doubtful reading.

la: Scilicet gratia sanctificante; de quo vide supra d. 1. p. I. a. 5. scholion, et passim.

en: Namely by sanctifying grace; on which see above d. 1. p. I. a. 5. scholion, and passim.

la: Cfr. infra dub. 2. — Quae dicuntur de *furioso* sunt secundum Innocentium, loc. superius cit.

en: Cf. below dub. 2. — What is said about the *madman* is according to Innocent, in the place cited above.

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 2, et Innocent., loc. cit.

en: See above a. 1. q. 2, and Innocent, in the place cited.

la: Ut docet August., *de Spiritu et lit.* c. 31. n. 53. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 877, nota 2. Vide etiam II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 4. — Pro *inducta* cod. M *coacta.*

en: As Augustine teaches, *On the Spirit and the Letter* c. 31. n. 53. Cf. vol. III. p. 877, note 2. See also II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 4. — For *inducta* (induced) codex M reads *coacta* (coerced).

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: Cf. here the Master's text, c. 3.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Vol IV PDF column bands (Vol II/IV override — the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters this two-column page's *Respondeo*, replies, scholion, and footers into one-token-per-line fragments with cross-column bleed). Raw lines 11607–11850. ARTICULUS II header raw L11607; QUAESTIO I L11619; q1 (with the short Art.II opener folded in per the locked chunking convention) ends where QUAESTIO II begins (L11851). Printed pp. 100–102 (pdf pp. 120–122; offset pdf = printed + 20). Running head on p. 101 confirmed: *DIST. IV. P. I. ART. II. QUAEST. I.*

**Scholion.** The scholion is **Art.II-level**: it prints at the top of p. 102 (above QUAESTIO II) and covers all three quaestiones of the article. Part I defines the *fictus* (article-wide preamble); Part II = q1 (+ q2, "Plurimi auctores 1. et 2. quaestionem simul tractant"); Part III = q3. Per the locked convention it lives here in q1, placed body-last. It carries **no footnote markers**.

**Apparatus / page-split map — CORRECTED 2026-07-17 (J4 Class D/E repair, per `manual-review/J4-CLASS-DE-HANDOFF.md` §4).** The prior state of this file (11 apparatus defs against 20 body anchors per language, `defs=11 la=20 en=20`) was diagnosed as genuine **content loss**, not a benign duplicate-label case: 8 of the 19 real printed footnotes across pp. 100–101 had never been transcribed, several body anchors were bound to the wrong page's def content, and one phantom marker (no printed counterpart) had been inserted. Repaired by content-matching against the PDF column bands (`colcrop.py vol4 100 1880` / `colcrop.py vol4 101 1880`, both pages read in full — both columns, both footers), per the corpus's locked convention of a single continuous `[^N]` sequence spanning all of a chunk's printed pages (see e.g. `vol2/bon-sent-II-d1-p1-a1-q2.md`'s "Chunk-internal apparatus renumbering" note), not page-prefixed labels.

- **p. 100 footer notes 1–8 → `[^1]`–`[^8]`.** Body anchors for `[^1]`–`[^4]`, `[^6]`, `[^7]`, `[^8]` were already correctly placed. `[^5]` was mis-positioned on *baptismus* (opening of Contra-2: "Item, baptismus[^5] est remedium contra originale") — the printed superscript 5 actually sits after *originale*, one word later (the mark previously read after "baptismus" is print noise, not a footnote). Moved to "…est remedium contra originale[^5];". The def content previously carried at label `[^5]` in this file ("Supple cum codd. G I … idolis…") is actually printed note **6**, not 5 — it is now correctly `[^6]`. Likewise the old `[^6]` def ("De amore malo inflammante…") is printed note **7**, now `[^7]`; and the old `[^7]` def ("Cfr. II. Sent. d. 25… utpote quia…") is printed note **8**, now `[^8]`. The true p.100 note 5 ("Ut ostensum est supra a. 1. q. 1.") had never been transcribed at all — it is now added as `[^5]`.
- **p. 101 footer notes 1–11 → `[^9]`–`[^19]`.** The Respondeo's two genuine p.101 anchors (*circa se fieri* / *aliquid in se fieri*) were previously mislabeled `[^10]`/`[^11]`; they are now `[^9]`/`[^10]` (= printed notes 1–2). A **phantom `[^9]` marker on *ad iocum*** (immediately before *aliquid vult*) had no printed counterpart anywhere on p.101 and has been deleted outright — the printed page shows no superscript there. The eight replies to the four "videtur" objections + four "Contra" objections, previously mislabeled as a colliding `[^1]`–`[^9]` sequence, are now `[^11]`–`[^19]` (= printed notes 3–11), each verified against its printed superscript position. **Genuinely missing content added:** the true p.101 notes 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 (now `[^12]`, `[^13]`, `[^14]`, `[^15]`, `[^16]`, `[^17]`, `[^19]`) had never been transcribed — most importantly **`[^14]`, the citation of Constantine's edict against forced baptism, cited via Eusebius Pamphilus's *Life of Constantine* II.56** ("Vide ipsius Edictum ad provinciales de falso cultu multorum deorum, n. 9. (In Eusebii Pamphili historia de vita Constantini, lib. II. c. 56.)"), anchored on *Constantinus* in reply 4 to the *videtur* arguments — this was completely absent from the file prior to this repair. The former `[^8]` def ("Cfr. II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. a. 1. q. 4. — Pro inducens cod. M coacta.") was a truncated paraphrase of the true printed note 10 (which also cites Augustine, *de Spiritu et lit.* c. 31 n. 53, and reads *inducta* not *inducens*); replaced with the full verbatim text at `[^18]`.
- **Net result:** 19 defs, 19 anchors each in Latin and English, all content-verified against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for pp. 100–101 (both columns, both footers, read in full). No `[?]` flags — every reading was legible and unambiguous at 450 dpi.

**Hand-off forward → d4-p1-a2-q2 (QUAESTIO II, *Utrum fictus recipiat Sacramentum et non rem*, raw L11851).** q2's body opens on p. 102 right column ("Secundo quaeritur, utrum fictus recipiat..."). **p. 102 footer notes 1–4 are q2's**, NOT this q1's: note 1 = *Vers. 5* (Sapientiae primo, Sap. 1, 5); note 2 = *Vers. 16* (Marci ultimo, Mc. 16); note 3 = *Vide supra d. 1. p. I. q. 4. seq. — De minori vide Aristot.* (Sacramenta novae legis sunt causa); note 4 = *Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. — Mox pro* ibi esse *cod. K* inesse (significet). The q2 *Fundamenta* / *Ad oppositum* marginal anchors: *Sapientiae primo¹ / Marci ultimo² / causa³ / significet⁴*. The Art.II-level scholion (parts I–III) printed at the top of p. 102 has already been rendered HERE in q1 — q2 has no scholion of its own.

**[?] flags.** None. The cascade-shattered footers and scholion were all re-set from the 450 dpi column bands; codex-siglum readings (B D H K L Q bb; A G I K O U aa) and the Innocent IV / Constantine references are confident against the bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 4, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 102 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum fictus recipiat Sacramentum et non rem Sacramenti.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum fictus recipiat Sacramentum et non rem. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Sapientiae primo[^1]: *Spiritus sanctus disciplinae effugiet fictum.* *Fundamenta.*

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia gratia non stat nec stare potest cum proposito peccandi, immo habita expellitur; sed talis accedit in proposito peccandi: ergo etc.

3. Item, baptismus est Sacramentum fidei: ergo necesse est, accedentem ad ipsum credere, si est in statu, in quo possit. Unde Marci ultimo[^2]: *Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit* etc.

**Contra:** 1. Sacramenta novae legis sunt causa[^3]; sed «posita causa, ponitur effectus»: ergo si aliquis recipit Sacramentum, etiam si fictus est, recipit et rem. Si dicas, quod causa ista potest impediri, ut non efficiat, propter malam dispositionem in suscipiente; tamen non potest impediri, quin significet[^4]: ergo si significat, ibi esse gratiam, et non est, falsum ergo est signum. *Ad oppositum.*

2. Item, quaero: quid impedit? et constat, quod nihil magis repugnat gratiae quam culpa; sed culpa non impedit, immo expellitur: ergo a nullo alio potest impediri.

3. Item, si fictio impedit, quaero, quid faciat hominem fictum. Si defectus fidei: ergo eadem ratione defectus caritatis; et tunc omnis non habens caritatem est fictus: ergo nullus recipit gratiam.

> **Conclusio.** Ficte accedens ad baptismum recipit quidem Sacramentum, sed non rem Sacramenti.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ad hoc voluerunt aliqui dicere, quod fictus accedens ad baptismum recipit Sacramentum et rem pro instanti illo, in quo baptizatur, ut verificetur illud Apostoli[^5]: *Quicumque baptizati estis in Christo, Christum induistis*; sed statim post redeunt peccata merito

<!-- page 103 -->

fictionis; et hoc dicunt Augustinum sensisse. — Sed Magister hoc improbat in littera[^6] et ostendit, Augustinum sensisse contrarium.

Et propterea aliter est dicendum, quod ficte accedens recipit Sacramentum et non rem. — Fictus autem dicitur ille qui aliud exterius praetendit, aliud habet interius. Talis est qui exterius se corporaliter subiicit, sed interius voluntate adversatur. Unde cum triplex sit potentia interior, tripliciter potest adversari: aut discredendo quantum ad rationalem, aut malum appetendo quantum ad concupiscibilem, aut Sacramentum contemnendo quantum ad irascibilem[^7]; et in tali non habet effectum Sacramentum, quia Deus nulli invito dat iustitiam nec gratiam, alioquin non esset iustitia.

**Ad oppositorum solutionem:**

*Ad 1.* Et per hoc patet quod obiicit de causa. — Ad aliud dicendum, quod Sacramentum significat, se facere in recipiente remissionem, et quantum est de se, semper facit; sed quod non fiat[^8], vitium est suscipientis: et ita veritas est in Sacramento semper, sed falsitas in ficto.

*Ad 2.* Ad aliud dicendum, quod gratia expellitur et recipitur in anima secundum conformitatem voluntatis; similiter et culpa. Unde culpa non obsistit gratiae, nisi quamdiu voluntas est illi consentiens, quando autem dolet, tunc consona est. Cum ergo dicitur, quod nihil magis repugnat gratiae quam culpa; intelligendum est, quod repugnare potest esse dupliciter: vel quantum ad resistentiam, vel quantum ad oppositionem secundum formam. Exemplum est de tenebris in aere et de opacitate respectu lucis: sic dicendum in proposito, quod culpa et gratia repugnant secundum oppositionem formae, sed fictio secundum oppositionem resistentiae, unde fortius repugnat.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de defectu fidei, dicendum, quod necesse est, rationem concordare Sacramento et voluntatem, sed non oportet, quod perfecta concordia, quae est per gratiam gratum facientem, sed ea quae est per gratiam gratis datam. Sed ratio non efficitur concors nisi gratia fidei saltem informis; voluntas autem efficitur concors attritione; similiter irascibilis quadam humilitate sive subiectione: ideo non est simile de caritate. Bene autem opponeret, si intelligeretur de fide formata[^9].

---

english:
<!-- page 102 -->

### Question II. *Whether the feigner receives the Sacrament but not its reality.*

Secondly it is asked, whether the feigner receives the Sacrament but not its reality. And that he does, it seems:

1. Wisdom 1[^1]: *The Holy Spirit of discipline will flee the feigner.* *Foundations.*

2. Likewise, by reason it seems: for grace does not stand, nor can it stand, with a purpose of sinning, but rather, once had, it is expelled; but such a one comes with a purpose of sinning: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, baptism is the Sacrament of faith: therefore it is necessary that the one approaching it should believe, if he is in a state in which he can. Hence Mark, last chapter[^2]: *He who shall have believed and been baptized* etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. The Sacraments of the new law are a cause[^3]; but «the cause being posited, the effect is posited»: therefore if someone receives the Sacrament, even if he is feigning, he receives also its reality. If you say that this cause can be impeded, so that it does not effect, on account of the bad disposition in the recipient; nevertheless it cannot be impeded from signifying[^4]: therefore if it signifies that grace is there, and it is not, the sign is therefore false. *To the opposite.*

2. Likewise, I ask: what impedes? And it is agreed that nothing is more repugnant to grace than fault; but fault does not impede, but rather is expelled: therefore by nothing else can it be impeded.

3. Likewise, if feigning impedes, I ask what makes the man a feigner. If a defect of faith: therefore by the same reasoning a defect of charity; and then everyone not having charity is a feigner: therefore no one receives grace.

> **Conclusion.** One approaching baptism in feigning does indeed receive the Sacrament, but not the reality of the Sacrament.

**I respond:** It must be said that on this point some have wished to say that the feigner approaching baptism receives the Sacrament and its reality for that instant in which he is baptized, so that the saying of the Apostle may be verified[^5]: *As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ*; but immediately afterward the sins return by the desert

<!-- page 103 -->

of the feigning; and this they say Augustine held. — But the Master disproves this in the text[^6] and shows that Augustine held the contrary.

And therefore it must be said otherwise, that one approaching in feigning receives the Sacrament and not its reality. — Now a feigner is said to be one who outwardly puts forward one thing and inwardly holds another. Such is the one who outwardly subjects himself bodily, but inwardly is opposed in will. Hence, since the interior power is threefold, he can be opposed in three ways: either by disbelieving with respect to the rational [power], or by desiring evil with respect to the concupiscible, or by despising the Sacrament with respect to the irascible[^7]; and in such a one the Sacrament does not have its effect, because God gives justice or grace to no one unwilling, otherwise it would not be justice.

**To the solution of the objections:**

*To 1.* And by this is made clear what is objected concerning the cause. — To the other it must be said that the Sacrament signifies that it brings about remission in the recipient, and so far as in itself lies, it always does so; but that it is not done[^8] is the fault of the recipient: and thus the truth is always in the Sacrament, but the falsity in the feigner.

*To 2.* To the other it must be said that grace is expelled and received in the soul according to the conformity of the will; likewise also fault. Hence fault does not stand in the way of grace except so long as the will is consenting to it, but when it grieves, then it is in concord. When therefore it is said that nothing is more repugnant to grace than fault, it must be understood that to be repugnant can be in two ways: either with respect to resistance, or with respect to opposition according to form. The example is of darkness in the air and of opacity with respect to light: so it must be said in the matter at hand, that fault and grace are repugnant according to opposition of form, but feigning according to opposition of resistance, whence it is more strongly repugnant.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning the defect of faith, it must be said that it is necessary that the reason be in concord with the Sacrament, and the will; but it is not required that there be a perfect concord, which is through grace making-acceptable, but that which is through grace freely given. But the reason is not made concordant except by the grace of faith, at least unformed; the will, however, is made concordant by attrition; likewise the irascible by a certain humility or subjection: therefore it is not the same with charity. He would object well, however, if it were understood of formed faith[^9].

---

la: Vers. 5.

en: Verse 5. [Wisdom 1:5.]

la: Vers. 16.

la: Vide supra d. 1. p. I. q. 4. seq. — De minori vide Aristot., II. Rhetor. c. 30. (c. 23.); II. Poster. c. 17. (c. 14.); II. Phys. text. 37. (c. 3.); Boeth., III. de Differentiis topic.

en: See above, d. 1, p. I, q. 4 and following. — On the minor [premise] see Aristotle, *Rhetoric* II, c. 30 (c. 23); *Posterior Analytics* II, c. 17 (c. 14); *Physics* II, text 37 (c. 3); Boethius, *On Topical Differences* III.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. — Mox pro *ibi esse* cod. K *inesse.*

en: Cf. above, d. 1, p. I, q. 2. — Shortly, for *ibi esse* ["that grace is there"], codex K reads *inesse* ["is in"].

la: Gal. 3, 27. Cfr. Rom. 6, 3. seq. — Inferius pro *redeunt peccata merito* edd. *recedunt vitio.* — Petr. Pictaviensis, V. Sent. c. 6: «Antiqui dixerunt, quod ei qui ficte ad baptismum accedit, remittuntur peccata, dum est in aquis baptismi, sed quam cito surgit de aquis baptismi, redeunt peccata. Aliter enim, dicunt, transitus maris rubri non plene typum eius obtineret; ibi enim submersi sunt Aegyptii, et transierunt Israelitae; nisi ergo semper in baptismo remittantur ei et deleantur peccata, merserunt Aegyptii cum Israelitis. Moderni tamen dicunt, quod nihil prodest baptismus ei qui baptizatur fictus» etc.

en: Gal. 3:27. Cf. Rom. 6:3 and following. — Below, for *redeunt peccata merito* ["the sins return by the desert"] the editions read *recedunt vitio* ["withdraw by the fault"]. — Peter of Poitiers, *Sentences* V, c. 6: «The ancients said that to one who approaches baptism in feigning the sins are remitted while he is in the waters of baptism, but as soon as he rises from the waters of baptism, the sins return. For otherwise, they say, the crossing of the Red Sea would not fully retain its type; for there the Egyptians were submerged, and the Israelites passed over; therefore unless the sins are always remitted and blotted out for him in baptism, the Egyptians have been drowned together with the Israelites. The moderns, however, say that baptism profits nothing to one who is baptized in feigning» etc.

la: Hic c. 2.

en: Here, c. 2.

la: Haec B. Albert., hic a. 2, complectens dicit: *Fictus est, ut dicit Augustinus, qui non credit, vel indevotus accedit, vel qui aliter celebrat Sacramentum, quam institutum est, vel qui contemnit suscipere.* — Pro *rationalem* permulti codd. *rationem.*

en: Blessed Albert, here a. 2, summarizing, says these things: «A feigner is, as Augustine says, one who does not believe, or who approaches undevoutly, or who celebrates the Sacrament otherwise than it was instituted, or who despises to receive it». — For *rationalem* ["the rational"] very many codices read *rationem* ["the reason"].

la: Codd. M O U *facit.* Mox Vat. omittit *semper.*

en: Codices M O U read *facit* ["does"]. Shortly, the Vatican edition omits *semper* ["always"].

la: Cfr. infra d. 17. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. seq. De fide informi cfr. III. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Superius pro *voluntas* Vat. *concupiscibilis.* — Pro *sic dicendum* cod. F *et sic est.*

en: Cf. below, d. 17, p. I, a. 1, q. 2 and following. On unformed faith cf. III *Sentences*, d. 23, a. 2, q. 1 and following. — Above, for *voluntas* ["the will"] the Vatican edition reads *concupiscibilis* ["the concupiscible"]. — For *sic dicendum* ["thus it must be said"] codex F reads *et sic est* ["and so it is"].

translators_notes:
- **Provenance / page-split map:** Raw OCR L11851–12009 (q3 opens L12010). Printed pp. 102–103 (PDF 122–123). The quaestio opens p. 102 right-column body (Latin column layout: opener + args 1–3 + Contra in the left column; the IA djvu OCR interleaves the two columns, re-set here from PDF column bands `vol4-p102/103-{L,R}-{0,1,2}` at split x≈1880).
- **Apparatus split:** 10 entries. p. 102 footer notes 1–4 (Sap. 1:5; Mc. 16; *causa* + Aristotle/Boethius; *ibi esse→inesse*) were **picked up here from the a2-q1 hand-off** — they anchor in this q2's fundamenta/Contra. p. 102 note 5 (Gal. 3:27 + Peter of Poitiers, whose quotation's tail spills onto the p. 103 left-column footer) anchors in the Respondeo. p. 103 footer notes 1–5 anchor in the Respondeo + solutiones. p. 103 footer notes 6–11 belong to the **following chunk a2-q3** (QUAESTIO III's Contra args).
- **Scholion:** none here. The Art. II scholion (covering q1–q3) lives in **a2-q1** (committed dc61c9e); see that chunk.
- **Hand-off forward to a2-q3** (QUAESTIO III, *Utrum recedente fictione baptismus habeat plenam efficaciam*, raw L12010, opens p. 103 right column): the quaestio's Contra args (1. *Opera mortua non vivificantur*; 2–4) and CONCLUSIO begin p. 103 R-col below "de fide formata"; **p. 103 footer notes 6–11 belong to a2-q3** (6=Hic c. 2; 7=Cap. *Etsi Christus* X.; 8=infra d. 6 p. I q. 6; 9=infra d. 15 p. I q. 4; 10=Aristot. II Rhetor.; 11=Cap. *Intelleximus* X.).
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All anchors and footer notes legible at 450 dpi.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 4, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 103 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum fictus recipiat rem post Sacramentum, recedente fictione.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum fictus recipiat rem post Sacramentum, recedente fictione. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quoniam Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera[^6]: «Tunc incipit valere baptismus ad salutem, quando illa fictio veraci confessione de corde recesserit».

2. Item, fictio erat sola causa, quare Sacramentum non habebat efficaciam: ergo illa remota, habet effectum[^7].

3. Item, si non haberet effectum; cum Sacramentum non possit iterari[^8], et nullus sine efficacia baptismi possit salvari, non pateret huic via salutis.

**Contra:** 1. Opera mortua non vivificantur[^9]; sed iste recipit baptismum extra caritatem; et ita est opus mortuum.

2. Item, necesse est, causam esse coniunctam effectui, alioquin, si causa praeterit et non est, ergo nihil facit[^10]; sed ita est in hoc: ergo etc.

3. Item, si aliquis indigne recipit corpus Domini, recedente indignitate, non propter hoc aliquid efficit: ergo etc.

4. Item, quid erit de eo qui medio tempore peccavit? Si enim cum remittat omnem culpam, remittetur fictio et alia peccata; sed hoc non fieret ei, nisi fuisset fictus: ergo reportat commodum de malitia[^11].

<!-- page 104 -->

> **Conclusio.** Character in baptismo impressus, recedente fictione, praecedentia peccata remittit quoad culpam et poenam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum breviter, quod Sacramentum baptismi, cum non sit iterabile, imprimit characterem; et ille habet omnem efficaciam, recedente fictione, quam habuisset ante, unde peccata illa remittit quantum ad poenam et culpam, quae praecesserunt; quae autem post commisit, virtute poenitentiae remittuntur, et pro illis est poenitentia imponenda. — Ex his patent omnia.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod *opera mortua* etc.; dicendum, quod baptismus non est opus hominis, sed Dei, et ideo nunquam potest esse mortuum. Illud autem, quod dicitur de operibus mortuis, intelligitur de operibus nostris[^1].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod causa debet esse coniuncta effectui; dicendum, quod character semper manet et illud efficit, quod faceret gratia, fictione recedente.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Sacramento eucharistiae, patet responsio, quod non valet: tum quia transit et nihil relinquit gratis datum disponens ad gratiam gratum facientem, tum etiam quia est iterabile.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de eo qui medio tempore commisit; dicendum, quod omnia remittuntur ei: sed non reportat commodum, quoniam tam de fictione quam de peccatis postea perpetratis est ei poenitentia imponenda. — Et sic patet totum[^2].

---

english:
<!-- page 103 -->

### Question III. *Whether the feigner receives the reality after the Sacrament, when the feigning departs.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the feigner receives the reality after the Sacrament, when the feigning departs. And that he does, seems to be the case:

1. Because Augustine says, and it is contained in the text [of the Master][^6]: «Then baptism begins to avail unto salvation, when that feigning has withdrawn from the heart through a truthful confession».

2. Likewise, the feigning was the sole cause why the Sacrament did not have efficacy: therefore, that being removed, it has its effect[^7].

3. Likewise, if it did not have its effect; since the Sacrament cannot be repeated[^8], and no one can be saved without the efficacy of baptism, there would lie open no way [of salvation] for such a one.

**On the contrary:** 1. Dead works are not brought to life[^9]; but this man receives baptism outside of charity; and so it is a dead work.

2. Likewise, it is necessary that the cause be conjoined to its effect, otherwise, if the cause passes away and is not, then it does nothing[^10]; but so it is in this case: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, if someone receives the body of the Lord unworthily, when the unworthiness departs, he does not on that account effect anything: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, what will be the case of him who has sinned in the meantime? For if, when it remits all guilt, the feigning and the other sins are remitted; but this would not happen to him, unless he had been a feigner: therefore he draws a benefit from his malice[^11].

<!-- page 104 -->

> **Conclusion.** The character impressed in baptism, when the feigning departs, remits preceding sins as to guilt and punishment.

**I respond:** It must be said briefly that the Sacrament of baptism, since it is not repeatable, impresses a character; and that [character] has every efficacy, when the feigning departs, which it would have had before, whence it remits as to punishment and guilt those sins which preceded; but those which he committed afterward are remitted by the power of penance, and for those penance is to be imposed. — From these things all is plain.

1. To that, then, which is first objected, that *dead works* etc.; it must be said that baptism is not a work of man, but of God, and therefore can never be dead. But what is said of dead works is understood of our works[^1].

2. To that which is objected, that the cause ought to be conjoined to its effect; it must be said that the character always remains and effects that which grace would effect, when the feigning departs.

3. To that which is objected concerning the Sacrament of the eucharist, the answer is plain, that it does not hold: both because it passes away and leaves nothing freely given that disposes toward sanctifying grace, and also because it is repeatable.

4. To that which is objected concerning him who has committed [sin] in the meantime; it must be said that all things are remitted to him: but he does not draw a benefit, since penance is to be imposed on him both for the feigning and for the sins afterward perpetrated. — And so the whole is plain[^2].

---

en: Here, c. 2 [the text of the Master, d. IV, c. 2].

la: Cap. *Etsi Christus* (20.) X. (lib. II. tit. 24.) de Iureiurando: *Cessante causa, cessat effectus.* Cfr. supra pag. 102, nota 3.

en: Chapter *Etsi Christus* (20), [Decretals of Gregory IX] X (bk. II, tit. 24), on Oath-taking: *The cause ceasing, the effect ceases.* Cf. above, p. 102, note 3.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 6. p. I. q. 6.

en: As is shown below, d. 6, p. I, q. 6.

la: Cfr. infra d. 15. p. I. q. 4.

en: Cf. below, d. 15, p. I, q. 4.

la: Aristot., II. Rhetor. c. 30. (c. 23.): *Alius locus est a causa, ut si causa exstiterit, factum esse dicatur, si non exstiterit, non esse factum; nam simul est causa cum eo cuius est causa, et sine causa nihil est.*

en: Aristotle, *Rhetoric* II, c. 30 (c. 23): *Another commonplace is from the cause: as, if the cause existed, the deed is said to have been done; if it did not exist, not to have been done; for the cause is simultaneous with that of which it is the cause, and without a cause nothing exists.*

la: Cap. *Intelleximus* (7.) X. (lib. II. tit. 1.) de Iudiciis: *Ne videatur de sua malitia commodum reportare.* — Superius pro *remittetur fictio* cod. I *remittit fictionem.*

en: Chapter *Intelleximus* (7), [Decretals] X (bk. II, tit. 1), on Judgments: *Lest he seem to draw a benefit from his malice.* — Above, for *remittetur fictio* codex I [reads] *remittit fictionem.*

la: Vide infra d. 15. p. I. q. 4. ad 2.

en: See below, d. 15, p. I, q. 4, ad 2.

la: Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: See the scholion to the first question of this article.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the PDF column bands of printed pp.103–104 (vol4 colcrop split x=1880; `pdf = printed + 20`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw L12010–12105) used for footnote-marker spacing. q3 = *Utrum fictus recipiat rem post Sacramentum, recedente fictione*, the third and last question of Art. II (*De ficte suscipientibus*), Pars I. Alignment confirmed: opener *Tertio quaeritur, utrum fictus recipiat rem post Sacramentum, recedente fictione* (raw L12016–12018), matching the expected *Tertio quaeritur, utrum recedente fictione…* (the prompt's working title *Utrum recedente fictione baptismus habeat plenam efficaciam* is a paraphrase; the printed title is used here). The quaestio ends at *Et sic patet totum* (raw L12097), where **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI** begins (raw L12102/L12106, p.104 lower columns).

**No standalone scholion.** Per the Art. II convention, the scholion for the whole article (q1–q3) sits in **a2-q1** (committed dc61c9e); q3 has no scholion of its own. Footnote [^2] explicitly cross-refers *scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.* — the scholion of this article's first question.

**Page-split / footer map.**
- **p.103** (q3 opens the R-col below a2-q2's Respondeo "de fide formata⁵"; the fundamenta sit in the lower L-col, the Contra args in the R-col): body anchors 6–11. The page-foot footnote sequence 6–11 was **picked up** into this chunk from the a2-q2 hand-off (notes 1–5 belong to a2-q2): [^6] *Hic c. 2*, [^7] Cap. *Etsi Christus* X. (*Cessante causa…*), [^8] infra d. 6 p. I q. 6, [^9] infra d. 15 p. I q. 4, [^10] Aristot. II Rhetor. (*Alius locus est a causa…*), [^11] Cap. *Intelleximus* X. (*Ne videatur de sua malitia…*). (Note 5's tail — *…tantas Vat. concupiscibilis. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — heads the p.103 R-col footer but belongs to a2-q2.)
- **p.104** carries q3's CONCLUSIO + RESPONDEO + four solutiones in the upper L/R columns, then the DUBIA opener below. The page footer is a single sequence **1–7** in two columns: q3 takes **notes 1–2** (1 = *Vide infra d. 15 p. I q. 4 ad 2*, anchored at *operibus nostris¹*; 2 = *Vide scholion ad 1. huius art. quaest.*, anchored at *Et sic patet totum²*). Notes 3–7 belong to the Dubia.
- **Forward hand-off to d4-p1-dubia** (DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI, raw ~L12106, printed pp.104–105): Dub. I begins p.104 lower L-col (*In parte ista sunt dubitationes… Nisi poeniteat eum veteris vitae…*). The shared **p.104 footer notes 3–7** belong to the dubia chunk: 3 = *Supra d. II c. 2 et infra d. XIV… in qua fundatur solutio huius dubii* (anchored *contra Magistrum³*); 4 = *Cfr. infra d. 17… Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med.* (anchored *poenitere est⁴*); 5 = *Epist. 98 (alias 23.)* (anchored *a fide Ecclesiae⁵*); 6 = Dist. 3 p. I a. 1 q. 3 + August. de Peccat. merit.; 7 = Epist. 98 (alias 23.) n. 5. Those, plus the p.105 footer, go to the dubia chunk.

**`[?]` flags:** none. All readings resolved against the PDF column bands; the q3/Dubia footer split (p.104 notes 1–2 to q3, 3–7 to the dubia) was confirmed by anchor-matching each note's cross-reference to its body marker.


title: Dist. 4, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 106 -->

### Articulus I. *De sanctificatione adultorum praeter baptismum.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum baptismus flaminis sine baptismo fluminis sufficiat ad salutem.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum baptismus flaminis sine baptismo fluminis sufficiat ad salutem. Et quod non videtur,

1. *Primo* auctoritate Domini Ioannis tertio[^3]: *Nisi quis renatus fuerit* etc.; sed nullus sic renascitur, nisi baptizetur baptismo aquae: ergo nullus intrat in regnum caelorum sine baptismo aquae: ergo baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus non sufficit.

2. Item, hoc ipsum probatur exemplo, quia Actuum decimo[^4] dicitur, quod Cornelius et qui cum eo erant prius receperunt Spiritum sanctum, et postmodum baptizati sunt baptismo aquae: ergo videtur, quod baptizati baptismo flaminis tenentur ad baptismum aquae: ergo sine hoc non est salus.

3. Item, si aliquis posset salvari sine baptismo aquae, maxime videtur de parvulo, cui citius debet ex misericordia Dei subveniri; sed parvulus, qui non est renatus aqua, damnatur, sicut dicit Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum, et habetur in littera[^5]: «Firmissime tene» etc.: ergo nullus alius sine aquae baptismo, quantumcumque aliter baptizatus sit, salvari potest.

4. Item, si aliter quam per baptismum aquae potest quis salvari, ergo baptismus aquae non est Sacramentum necessitatis: ergo non peccant qui nolunt baptizari; sed hoc est manifeste falsum: ergo sine baptismo aquae non est salus: ergo nullus alius sufficit sine hoc.

**Contra:**
1. Ioannis undecimo[^6]: *Omnis qui vivit et credit in me non morietur in aeternum*; sed iusti credunt et fideles sunt, antequam baptizentur: ergo si moriuntur in tali fide, non moriuntur in aeternum.

2. Item, Ambrosius dicit, et habetur in littera[^7]: «Ille quem regeneraturus eram, gratiam, quam poposcit, non amisit»: ergo ille qui mortuus erat non regeneratus, erat salvus sine baptismo aquae: ergo baptismus poenitentiae sine isto dat salutem.

3. Item, gratia gratum faciens est dispositio sufficiens ad salutem; dispositio autem ad gratiam est toto corde[^8] ad Deum redire et ab errore recedere, et hoc totum potest esse per Dei gratiam sine baptismo fluminis: ergo aliquis solo Spiritus sancti baptismate salvari potest.

<!-- page 107 -->

4. Item, «propter quod unumquodque, et illud magis[^1b]»; sed baptismus fluminis sive aquae non sanctificat nisi per Spiritum: ergo Spiritus magis sanctificat et facit dignum vita aeterna. Si ergo aliquis habeat baptismum flaminis, habet sanctificationem; et qui hoc habet habet quod sufficit ad salutem: ergo etc. *Si tu dicas*, quod nemo potest habere baptismum flaminis, nisi prius baptizetur baptismo aquae; ostenditur esse falsum: primo, quia «Deus nullum obligat ad impossibile[^2b]»; et iterum, nulli se negat requirenti ipsum: si ergo aliquis, qui non potest baptizari, ad Deum convertitur, Deus convertitur ad ipsum. Sed hoc non est nisi per collationem Spiritus sancti, et hoc est baptizari baptismo flaminis: ergo ille potest haberi sine alio.

> **Conclusio.** Baptismi fluminis et flaminis sunt necessarii, ille tantum necessitate praecepti; sed praepediente impossibilitate, sufficit baptismus flaminis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod baptismus flaminis et baptismus fluminis uterque est necessarius ad salutem. Sed primus est necessarius, non quia sit in praecepto, sed quia sine illo nullus liberatur a peccato. Et quoniam omnes peccatores nascimur, et nullus salvari potest, nisi liberetur a peccato: ideo nullus sine baptismo flaminis, neque parvus neque magnus[^3b], potest salvari. — Baptismus autem fluminis sive aquae est necessarius, quia Deus instituit et quia instituit *sub praecepto*; et quoniam quae praecepta sunt sunt necessaria ad salutem, ideo talis baptismus est ad salutem necessarius. — Sed quoniam «Deus neminem obligat ad impossibile ex suo praecepto», ut dicit Hieronymus[^4b]; et iterum, quod quis non potest facere, si velit facere, reputatur ei pro facto, sicut dicit Glossa super illud Psalmi[^5b]: *Etenim in corde iniquitates operamini* etc.: «Quod non potes facere, et vis, Deus factum reputat»: ideo baptismus aquae non sic est necessarius, quin, si adsit voluntas, et desit possibilitas, non salvetur aliquis sine ipso.

Concedendum est ergo, quod baptismus flaminis sine baptismo fluminis sufficit, dum tamen homo habeat voluntatem et praepediatur, ut ante mortem non recipiat, praepediente necessitate, sicut ostendunt rationes ultimae. Concedendum est nihilominus, quod nullus sine hoc potest salvari, si possit et negligat baptizari. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus[^6b], quod «potest quis salvari non percepto Sacramento baptismi, sed non potest, Sacramento contempto». Tunc autem contemnit, cum baptizari potest, et locus et tempus se offert, et negligit; et tunc etiam privatur baptismo flaminis, quia a gratia cadit.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Domini mandato, et ad illud de Cornelio, iam patet responsio: quia utrumque intelligitur in eo qui facultatem habet et non praepeditur necessitate. Nam Cornelius ille locum et tempus habebat, et Domini mandatum *affirmativum* eum qui poterat, obligabat[^7b].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de parvulo, quod tunc maxime parvulus non baptizatus poterit salvari; dicendum, quod *parvulus*, si haberet baptismum flaminis sine baptismo aquae, numquam damnaretur. Quod ergo damnatur, hoc est, quia privatus baptismo aquae caret gratia Spiritus sancti; quia aliter ad gratiam non potest disponi, quantum est de iure communi, nisi Deus faciat de privilegio speciali, sicut in sanctificatis in utero. — Sed *adultus* de sententia communi potest per fidem et dolorem de peccatis ad gratiam disponi, secundum illud Ezechielis[^8b]: *Quacumque hora ingemuerit peccator, vita vivet* etc. Unde non est simile, quia unicuique plus valet fides sua quam aliena; et ita adulto voluntas sua, quam parvulo voluntas aliena. Nec damnatur parvulus propter transgressionem praecepti, sed propter culpam originalis, quae remanet non deleta.

*Ad 4.* Quod ultimo obiicitur iam solutum est, quia dicitur Sacramentum necessitatis, non quia sine ipso non possit homo salvari, sed quia ad hoc tenetur, si potest, et hoc neglecto, non potest salvari.

---

english:
<!-- page 106 -->

### Article I. *On the sanctification of adults apart from baptism.*
### Question I. *Whether baptism of the Spirit without baptism of water suffices for salvation.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether baptism of the Spirit [*flaminis*] without baptism of water [*fluminis*] suffices for salvation. And that it does not seems [so]:

1. *First*, by the authority of the Lord in John, third [chapter][^3]: *Unless one be born again* etc.; but no one is thus reborn unless he be baptized with the baptism of water: therefore no one enters into the kingdom of heaven without the baptism of water: therefore baptism of the Spirit, that is, of the Spirit [*flaminis sive Spiritus*], does not suffice.

2. Likewise, this very thing is proved by example, because in Acts, tenth [chapter][^4], it is said that Cornelius and those who were with him first received the Holy Spirit, and afterwards were baptized with the baptism of water: therefore it seems that those baptized with the baptism of the Spirit are bound to the baptism of water: therefore without this there is no salvation.

3. Likewise, if anyone could be saved without the baptism of water, this seems [to be true] most of all of a little child, who ought the sooner, out of God's mercy, to be helped; but a little child who is not reborn by water is damned, as Augustine says in the book *On Faith, to Peter*, and it is had in the text [of the Master][^5]: «Most firmly hold» etc.: therefore no other, however otherwise baptized, can be saved without the baptism of water.

4. Likewise, if someone can be saved otherwise than through the baptism of water, then the baptism of water is not the Sacrament of necessity: therefore those who refuse to be baptized do not sin; but this is manifestly false: therefore without the baptism of water there is no salvation: therefore no other suffices without this.

**On the contrary:**
1. John, eleventh [chapter][^6]: *Everyone who lives and believes in me shall not die forever*; but the just believe and are faithful before they are baptized: therefore if they die in such faith, they do not die forever.

2. Likewise, Ambrose says, and it is had in the text[^7]: «He whom I was about to regenerate did not lose the grace which he sought»: therefore he who had died not regenerated was saved without the baptism of water: therefore the baptism of penance, without that [of water], gives salvation.

3. Likewise, sanctifying grace [*gratia gratum faciens*] is a disposition sufficient for salvation; but the disposition for grace is to return to God with the whole heart[^8] and to withdraw from error, and all this can be through God's grace without the baptism of water [*fluminis*]: therefore someone can be saved by the baptism of the Holy Spirit alone.

<!-- page 107 -->

4. Likewise, «that on account of which a thing [is such], that thing [is so] more[^1b]»; but the baptism of water, that is, of water, does not sanctify except through the Spirit: therefore the Spirit sanctifies more and makes [one] worthy of eternal life. If therefore someone has the baptism of the Spirit, he has sanctification; and he who has this has what suffices for salvation: therefore etc. *If you say* that no one can have the baptism of the Spirit unless he be first baptized with the baptism of water; it is shown to be false: first, because «God obliges no one to the impossible[^2b]»; and again, He denies Himself to none who seek Him: if therefore someone, who cannot be baptized, turns to God, God turns to him. But this is only through the conferral of the Holy Spirit, and this is to be baptized with the baptism of the Spirit: therefore that [baptism] can be had without the other.

> **Conclusion.** The baptisms of water and of the Spirit are necessary, the former only by the necessity of precept; but when impossibility impedes, the baptism of the Spirit suffices.

**I respond:** It must be said that the baptism of the Spirit and the baptism of water are each necessary for salvation. But the first is necessary, not because it is under precept, but because without it no one is freed from sin. And since we are all born sinners, and no one can be saved unless he be freed from sin: therefore no one, neither small nor great[^3b], can be saved without the baptism of the Spirit. — But the baptism of water, that is, of water, is necessary because God instituted it and because He instituted it *under precept*; and since the things which are prescribed are necessary for salvation, therefore such a baptism is necessary for salvation. — But since «God obliges no one to the impossible by His precept», as Jerome says[^4b]; and again, that which one cannot do, if he wills to do it, is reckoned to him as done, as the Gloss says on that [verse] of the Psalm[^5b]: *For in your heart you work iniquities* etc.: «What you cannot do, and will [to do], God reckons as done»: therefore the baptism of water is not necessary in such a way that, if the will be present and the possibility be lacking, someone is not saved without it.

It must therefore be granted that the baptism of the Spirit without the baptism of water suffices, provided nonetheless that the man have the will and be impeded, so that before death he does not receive [it], necessity impeding, as the last arguments show. It must nonetheless be granted that no one can be saved without this, if he be able and neglect to be baptized. And this is what Augustine says[^6b], that «one can be saved without having received the Sacrament of baptism, but he cannot [be saved] if the Sacrament be contemned». But he contemns [it] when he can be baptized, and place and time offer themselves, and he neglects [it]; and then also he is deprived of the baptism of the Spirit, because he falls from grace.

**To the arguments for the affirmative part:**

*To 1, 2.* To that which is objected concerning the Lord's mandate, and to that concerning Cornelius, the response is already clear: because each is understood of him who has the opportunity and is not impeded by necessity. For that Cornelius had place and time, and the Lord's *affirmative* mandate obliged him who was able[^7b].

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning the little child, that then most of all an unbaptized little child could be saved; it must be said that the *little child*, if he had the baptism of the Spirit without the baptism of water, would never be damned. That [a child] therefore is damned, this is because, deprived of the baptism of water, he lacks the grace of the Holy Spirit; for otherwise he cannot be disposed to grace, as far as concerns common law, unless God act by a special privilege, as in those sanctified in the womb. — But an *adult*, by the common opinion, can be disposed to grace through faith and sorrow for sins, according to that [word] of Ezekiel[^8b]: *In whatever hour the sinner shall groan, he shall live in life* etc. Hence the case is not the same, because for each one his own faith avails more than another's; and so for an adult his own will [avails more] than for a little child another's will. Nor is the little child damned on account of the transgression of a precept, but on account of the fault of original [sin], which remains undeleted.

*To 4.* What is objected last is already solved, because it is called the Sacrament of necessity, not because without it a man cannot be saved, but because he is bound to it, if he is able, and this being neglected, he cannot be saved.

en: Verse 5.

la: Vers. 44. seqq.

en: Verses 44 ff.

la: Hic c. 4. circa finem. — Supra codd. G H K V *possit* pro *posset*.

en: Here [in the *Sentences*], chapter 4, near the end. — Above, codices G H K V [read] *possit* for *posset*.

la: Vers. 26. — Inferius pro *iusti* codd. G K N Y *multi*.

en: Verse 26. — Below, for *iusti* [the just] codices G K N Y [read] *multi* [many].

la: Hic c. 4. Cod. Z voci *gratiam* praemittit *salutis*. — Inferius pro *salvus* cod. X *salvatus*.

en: Here [in the *Sentences*], chapter 4. Codex Z prefixes *salutis* to the word *gratiam*. — Below, for *salvus* [saved] codex X [reads] *salvatus*.

la: Cod. V *contrito corde*.

en: Codex V [reads] *contrito corde* [with a contrite heart].

la: Aristot., I. Poster. c. 2.

en: Aristotle, *Posterior [Analytics]*, book I, c. 2.

la: Secundum Hieronym., in Explanat. Symboli ad Damasum (inter opera Hieronym.). Cfr. etiam I. Comment. in Matth. 5, 44, et tom. I. pag. 846, nota 2. — Zach. 1, 3: *Convertimini ad me, ait Dominus exercituum, et convertar ad vos.* Vide II. Sent. d. 28. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1.

en: According to Jerome, in the *Explanation of the Creed, to Damasus* (among the works of Jerome). Cf. also [Jerome's] *Commentary on Matthew*, book I, 5, 44, and tome I, page 846, note 2. — Zechariah 1:3: *Turn to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will turn to you.* See *II Sent.*, d. 28, a. 2, q. 1, ad 1.

la: Cod. U *adultus*.

en: Codex U [reads] *adultus* [adult].

la: Vide supra nota 2.

en: See above, note 2.

la: Psalm. 57, 2. — Glossa, quae est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum, delibata est ex August., in hunc locum: *Quidquid vis, et non potes, factum Deus computat.*

en: Psalm 57:2. — The Gloss, which is the *ordinary* [gloss] in Strabo and Lyranus, is drawn from Augustine, on this passage: *Whatever you will and cannot [do], God reckons as done.*

la: Libr. IV. de Baptismo contra Donatist. c. 25. n. 32. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Book IV, *On Baptism, against the Donatists*, c. 25, n. 32. See here the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Cap. 33, 12. seqq. Vulgata aliis verbis hanc sententiam refert. — Inferius post *adulto* edd. repetunt *plus*.

en: Chapter 33:12 ff. The Vulgate reports this sentence in other words. — Below, after *adulto* the editions repeat *plus*.

english_scholion:
**I.** Baptism of the Spirit [*flaminis*], which by the ancients was also called the baptism of penance, is perfect contrition of heart, or perfect charity, which always includes, at least implicitly, the vow [*votum*] of the Sacrament, as the Council of Trent teaches (Sess. XIV, c. 4) in these words: «Reconciliation itself is nonetheless not to be ascribed to that contrition apart from the vow of the Sacrament, which is included in it». — From the ecclesiastical teaching itself it is established that baptism is necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. VII, can. 4 on baptism), yet in such a way that the baptism of the Spirit may in necessity supply the place of the Sacrament as to its primary effect (the infusion of grace), although it does not imprint the character; whence (ibid., can. 4 on the Sacraments in general) those are reproved who teach that, without the Sacraments of the new law, «or the vow of them, men obtain from God the grace of justification through faith alone, although all are not necessary for each one». — On *fundamentum* 2, cf. here *dub.* 2. The various kinds of baptisms Alexander of Hales weaves into a diffuse disputation, P. IV, q. 8, m. 9, a. 1–5. — On this first question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 1, § 1. — Scotus, on this and the following questions, here q. 6. — St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 3, quaestiunc. 1, 2; [Summa] III, q. 66, a. 11. — Bl. Albert, on this, here a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 8, and Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 6.

**II.** In solving the second question St. Bonaventure follows Alexander of Hales, and St. Thomas and many others also agree. Cf. Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 5, § 1. — St. Thomas, here loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3; [Summa], loc. cit. a. 12. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 3.

**III.** The third question other authors for the most part touch only briefly in the foregoing (St. Thomas, [Summa], loc. cit. a. 11, ad 2). Diffusely on the same Alexander of Hales treats, loc. cit. a. 4, § 1, 2, 3; briefly Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 12291–12460), collated column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.106–108 (PDF pp.126–128; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF-priority inversion in the cascade-prone Conclusio / Respondeo / Solutio / footer regions). This is **Distinction IV, Part II, Article I, Question I** — *Utrum baptismus flaminis sine baptismo fluminis sufficiat ad salutem*. Per the locked chunking convention, the short **ARTICULUS I** opener (raw L12291–12293: `ARTICULUS I. / De sanctificatione adultorum praeter baptismum.`) is **folded into this q1** (no standalone `dN-pM-aK-divisio` chunk); the q1 incipit `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur…` is at raw L12301.

**Alignment confirmed.** The opener `Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum baptismus flaminis sine baptismo fluminis sufficiat ad salutem` (raw L12301, foot of p.106 R-column, verified eyes-on in `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p106-R-1.png`) matches the `QUAESTIO I` title exactly (raw L12296/12298). No q-swap.

**Scholion location.** This is the **Article-I-level scholion** (paragraphs **I**, **II**, **III** = one paragraph per article-question, covering **q1, q2, q3** respectively — "De hac I. quaestione…"; "In 2. quaestione solvenda…"; "Tertiam quaestionem alii auctores…"). Quaracchi prints it once, at the end of q1's body: paragraph I spans p.107 R-column foot → p.108 L-column top (raw L12409–12446), paragraphs II–III on p.108 L/R-columns (verified in `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p108-L-0.png` and `vol4-p108-R-0.png`). Placed **body-last here** per the parser rule (`### Scholion` must be the final subsection). The scholion's references are inline parenthetical citations (Trent sessions, Alex. Hal., S. Thom. etc.) — it carries **no separate numbered footnote anchors**. Sibling chunks a1-q2 and a1-q3 will therefore correctly have **no scholion** (`pro quaest. praec.`).

**Page-split / apparatus map (14 footer entries; running heads verified eyes-on at 450 dpi):**
- **p.106** (running head "106 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." / "DIST. IV. P. II. ART. I." at the q-body): q1 body opener + videtur args 1–3 + start of arg 4/Contra sit on p.106 (raw L12301–12377). p.106 footer carries **eight** notes; notes **1–2** belong to the preceding *Divisio textus* chunk (`d4-p2-divisio` [^2]/[^3]); **notes 3–8 are picked up here** (verified `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p106-L-2.png` for 3–5, `vol4-p106-R-2.png` for 6–8): 3 *Vers. 5.* → `[^3]` (Io. 3:5 anchor); 4 *Vers. 44. seqq.* → `[^4]` (Act. 10:44); 5 *Hic c. 4. circa finem…* → `[^5]`; 6 *Vers. 26. — Inferius pro iusti…* → `[^6]` (Io. 11:26); 7 *Hic c. 4. Cod. Z…* → `[^7]`; 8 *Cod. V contrito corde.* → `[^8]`.
- **p.107** (running head "DIST. IV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 107", verified `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p107-{L,R}-0.png`): arg 4 tail + Conclusio + Respondeo + Epilogus + Solutio (1–4) + scholion para I-start (raw L12378–L12460 region). p.107 footer carries **eight** notes (verified `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p107-L-2.png` for 1–4, `vol4-p107-R-2.png` for 5–8), rendered with `b` suffix to stay unique: 1 *Aristot., I. Poster. c. 2.* → `[^1b]`; 2 *Secundum Hieronym., in Explanat. Symboli…* → `[^2b]`; 3 *Cod. U adultus.* → `[^3b]`; 4 *Vide supra nota 2.* → `[^4b]`; 5 *Psalm. 57, 2. — Glossa…* → `[^5b]`; 6 *Libr. IV. de Baptismo contra Donatist…* → `[^6b]`; 7 *Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.* → `[^7b]`; 8 *Cap. 33, 12. seqq…* → `[^8b]` (Ezech. 33:12).

**Hand-off picked up from `d4-p2-divisio` (committed e6e102d).** That chunk forwarded: "q1 carries p.106 footer notes 3–8 (notes 1–2 were the divisio's), plus q1's own p.107 footers; the ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I opener folds into q1; QUAESTIO II header is OCR-dropped at raw L12461." All confirmed and discharged here: p.106 notes 3–8 placed as `[^3]`–`[^8]`; p.107 notes 1–8 placed as `[^1b]`–`[^8b]`; opener folded in.

**Cross-chunk hand-off forwarded to `bon-sent-IV-d4-p2-a1-q2`:** (a) **QUAESTIO II header is OCR-dropped/garbled** — it lives at **raw L12461** (printed as `0U,\ESTIO IL` = *QUAESTIO II*), title at raw L12465: *Quis baptismus sit dignior, utrum baptismus aquae, an sanguinis* (whether the baptism of water or of blood is more worthy); incipit *Secundo quaeritur de praeeminentia istorum…* at raw L12468 — the a1-q2 chunk must **restore the dropped header**. (b) q2 begins on **printed p.108** (running head "108 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."), its title/incipit verified eyes-on in `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p108-{L,R}-0.png`; q2's videtur args run down the page from there. (c) **q2 has NO scholion of its own** — the Art.-I scholion (covering q1–q3) is held here in q1; a1-q2 and a1-q3 should note `scholion pro quaest. praec. (a1-q1)`. (d) p.108 footer notes split by body anchor: the p.108 notes that key into the **q1 scholion** continuation (the bibliographic Alex. Hal./Durand./Dionys. refs at p.108 L/R foot) are already accounted for as the scholion's inline citations here; q2's own p.108 footers (Damascenus etc.) belong to a1-q2.

**`[?]` flags:** none. The body, Conclusio, Respondeo, all four solutions, and the three scholion paragraphs are fully legible in the 450 dpi column bands and match the OCR. OCR header garbles (`SCHOLIOK`→SCHOLION, `c N c L u S 1 0`→CONCLUSIO, `0U,\ESTIO IL` flagged forward but not in this chunk's body) are mechanical letter-substitutions corrected against the clean PDF; not flagged. The Quaracchi marginal labels ("Ad oppositum", "Fundamenta", "Conclusio 1–4", "Epilogus", "Solutio oppositorum", "Notandum") are editorial side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text, and are omitted per convention.