title: Dist. 6, Part 2, Art. 3, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 157 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum exorcismus habeat aliquam efficaciam in parvulo, vel adulto.*

Secundo quaeritur circa hoc de exorcismo, utrum habeat aliquam efficaciam in parvulo vel adulto. Et dicitur, quod habet potestatem ad expellendum daemonem. Et quod istud sit verum, videtur:

1. Per Augustinum in libro de Symbolo[^1]: « Parvuli virtus exorcizatur, ut potestas diaboli expellatur ».

2. Item, Rabanus[^2]: « Exsufflatur a parvulo saeva potestas per pium sacerdotem ».

3. Item, quod habeat efficaciam, videtur *ratione*: quia sacerdos dicit exorcizando[^3]: « Exi ab eo, immunde Spiritus »: ergo si non frustra hoc instituit Ecclesia, diabolus exit, sicut imperat.

4. Item, exorcismi Salomonis pellebant daemones, et aliqui mali pellebant ad invocationem Christi[^4]: ergo si ille habet exorcizandi officium et habet exorcismos efficaciores, patet etc.

**Contra:** 1. Cyprianus[^5]: « Diaboli potestas non minuitur ante baptismum ».

2. Item, quod nullius sit efficaciae, videtur: quia si pellit daemones, aut *spiritualiter*, aut *corporaliter*. Non *spiritualiter*, quia tunc expellitur spiritualiter, quando expellitur culpa. Si quantum ad *corporalem* laesionem[^6]: ergo solum daemoniacis et obsessis deberet fieri exorcismus.

3. Item, si alium effectum non habet nisi daemonem pellere; cum multo efficacius pellatur in baptismo, deberet statim baptizari et nullo modo exorcizari. *Si dicas*, quod *disponit*, ut habeat maiorem effectum baptismus; *contra:* aut hoc facit *disponendo subiectum*, aut *fortificando baptismum*. Non *disponendo subiectum*, quia, si disponit, aut minuendo

<!-- page 158 -->

culpam, aut poenam; neutrum potest, cum non possit minui poena sine culpa[^7]. Non *fortificando baptismum*, quia nondum est, quando exorcismus fit.

4. Item, decedat aliquis exorcizatus ante baptismum; quaero, utrum aliquid conferat exorcismus. Si *nihil*, stultum est exspectare; si *aliquid*, quaero: quid? Si minores tenebras[^8]; *contra:* tenebrae sunt carentia visionis divinae; hac autem omnes sunt similiter privati.

Item, si dicas, quod fiat ad solemnitatem baptismi; quaero: quare magis baptismus habet solemnitatem quam alia Sacramenta? et quae et quot sunt illa quae attenduntur ad eius solemnitatem?

### Conclusio.

> *Exorcismus fit tum ad solemnitatem baptismi, tum ad cohibendum diabolum.*

**Respondeo:** Aliqui dixerunt, quod exorcismus solum fit ad solemnitatem et ad expressiorem significationem; nec aliquid ibi efficitur, sed solum significatur quod efficitur in baptismo.

Alii autem dixerunt, quod non tantum fiat ad solemnitatem, immo habeat effectum spiritualem, licet semiplenum ad *disponendum* ad baptismum. Unde parvuli non baptizati, sed exorcizati morientes sustinent minores tenebras.

Primi nimis parum dixerunt, et Sanctorum auctoritates plus dicunt; secundi nimis dixerunt. Ideo tenendum est medium, quod est[^9] ad solemnitatem et ad cohibendum diabolum, ut non possit occidere parvulum nec ita fortiter vexare adultum, ut retrahat a baptismo. Unde non est contra vexationem quam *faciat* in corpore, sed quam *faceret*, quia diabolus, ex quo videt, hominem praeparari ad baptismum, ipsum vexaret. Unde Gregorius[^10] dicit, quod « illos pulsare negligit, quos quieto iure possidere se sentit; sed quando videt, se deseri, tunc provocatur ».

1. 2. Ad prima duo obiecta patet responsio, quia Cyprianus intelligit de potestate spirituali. Et illud de vexatione similiter patet.

<!-- page 159 -->

3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur: quare non statim datur baptismus? dicendum, quod propter solemnitatem et propter hoc, quod baptismum debet praecedere doctrina sive catechismus; ut ergo diabolus arceatur a catechismo, annectitur exorcismus. Nec fit propter aliquam efficaciam gratiae in anima, sed solum ad significantiam et ad arcendam potestatem contrariam.

Ordo autem eorum quae sunt ad solemnitatem baptismi, secundum *morem Ecclesiae usitatiorem* hic est. Primo, exsufflatur, et hoc, ut virtus diaboli exterior expellatur et interior expellenda significetur. — Secundo, signum crucis fit in pectore et in fronte, ut daemon cognoscat se expellendum tam in occulto cordis quam in aperto confessionis. — Tertio, sal in ore ponitur, ut significetur, quod per baptismum sapor sapientiae praeparetur et foetor fomitis restringatur. — Quarto, fit linitio aurium et narium cum sputo, ut significetur gratia ad discernendum et ad obediendum. — Quinto, fit inunctio in pectore et spatulis[^11], ut significetur gratia unctionis ad Deum amandum et eius onera portanda. — Sexto, post baptismum fit inunctio chrismatis in vertice, ut significetur apertio mentis imputribilis ad contemplandum aeterna. Chrisma enim confectum est ex oleo lucente et balsamo conservante. — Septimo, vestitur vestimento mundo et albo, ut significetur candor innocentiae et stola resurrectionis. — Ultimo ponitur cereus in manibus, ut sit lucerna pedibus eius *verbum* Domini et *lumen semitis* eius[^12].

Secundum Hugonem vero de sancto Victore solutio[^13]: « forma exorcismi et aliorum sacramentalium in baptismo ita perficitur. Puer primo signatur crucis signaculo in fronte, in pectore, in oculis, in naribus, in ore, in auribus, ut totius corporis sensus hoc signaculo muniantur, cuius virtute omnia Sacramenta complentur, et omnia diaboli figmenta frustrantur ». Unde Rabanus de Institutione clericorum[^14]: « Ut ab eo diabolus expellatur, in vase suo pristino suae interemptionis signum cognoscens; iam sibi deinceps illud fiat alienum. — Postea datur sal benedictum in os eius, ut sapientia conditus careat foetore iniquitatis et ultra non putrescat a vermibus vitiorum ». Sal[^15] conservat carnem a foetore et putrefactione; sic sapientia per ipsum significata spiritum conservat, ne solvatur in vitia et foeteat per infamiam. — « Deinde exsufflatur malignus foris, ut spiritus spiritu pellatur[^16] », scilicet Spiritu sancto malignus, quia Spiritus sanctus per flatum significatus est, Ioannis penultimo: *Insufflavit et dixit eis: Accipite Spiritum sanctum* etc. — « Postea tanguntur ei aures et nares cum saliva, ut tactu supernae sapientiae et aures aperiantur ei ad audiendum verbum Dei et nares similiter ad discernendum odorem vitae et mortis. Hoc significavit Dominus, cum dixit in sanatione surdi et muti, Marci septimo[^17]: *Ephpheta* » etc.; Glossa: « Sputum de capite Domini est divina sapientia, quae solvit labia, ut dicat: Credo in Deum ». — Post haec introducitur baptizandus in ecclesiam. — « His habitis et completis, venit sacerdos ad fontem, et consecratur fons in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, ut sanctitas Sacramenti non ex eo qui ministrat, constare sciatur, sed ex eo qui sanctificat. — Post haec traditur novae vitae auditoribus catechumenis Symbolum fidei, in quo apostolicae doctrinae forma consistit[^18] ». Hoc non dicitur in moderno ordinali, ut credo. — « Post haec oblatus ad baptismum parvulus et interrogatus a sacerdote, si abrenuntiet satanae et omnibus pompis eius et omnibus operibus eius; per ora gestantium respondet, ut aliena iniquitate obligatus, aliena fide et confessione solvatur. — Postea inungitur oleo sacro in pectore, tanquam muniatur adversus hostem, ne ei deinceps immunda et noxia persuadere possit. Ungitur et inter spatulas, ubi vigor portandi oneris est, ut fortitudinem accipiat ad portandum onus[^19]. — Deinde interrogatur, si credat in Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, unam Ecclesiam catholicam, remissionem peccatorum et vitam aeternam; et sub hac fidei responsione trina immersione a sordibus vetustatis abluitur, novum indutus hominem. — Deinde, postquam baptizatus a fonte ascendit, sacro chrismate in vertice ungitur, ut spiritum Christi participando merito deinceps Christianus appelletur, coheres regni et gloriae sacra unctione effectus. — Deinde traditur Christiano vestis candida, ut qui primae nativitatis decorem vetustatis pannis obfuscaverat, habitu regenerationis gloriae praeferat indumentum. Tegitur etiam caput sacro velamine post unctionem sacram, ut intelligat se diademate regni et sacerdotali dignitate potiri. — Ad ultimum cereus accensus datur in manu eius, quo implere doceatur illud evangelicum, Matthaei quinto[^20]: *Sic luceat lux vestra coram hominibus.* Hanc lampadem si inexstinguibilem servaverit, inter virgines sapientes cum sponso caelesti ad nuptias introibit ». — Et statim, si adest episcopus, confirmatur; et datur ei eucharistia post confirmationem, si sit adultus, ut Christo incorporetur ».

english:
### Question II. *Whether exorcism has any efficacy in a child or in an adult.*

Secondly, the inquiry concerning exorcism is made: whether it has any efficacy in a child or in an adult. And it is said that it has the power to expel the demon. And that this is true seems to be the case:

1. By Augustine in the book *On the Creed*[^1]: « The power of the child is exorcised, so that the power of the devil may be expelled ».

2. Likewise, Rabanus[^2]: « The savage power is breathed out of the child by the devout priest ».

3. Likewise, that it has efficacy seems to follow *by reason*: for the priest says in exorcizing[^3]: « Go out of him, unclean Spirit »: therefore, if the Church did not institute this in vain, the devil goes out, just as he is commanded.

4. Likewise, the exorcisms of Solomon used to drive out demons, and certain wicked men used to drive them out at the invocation of Christ[^4]: therefore, if he [the priest] has the office of exorcizing and has more efficacious exorcisms, the point is clear, etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Cyprian[^5]: « The power of the devil is not lessened before baptism ».

2. Likewise, that it is of no efficacy seems [true]: for if it drives out demons, [it does so] either *spiritually* or *corporeally*. Not *spiritually*, for then it is expelled spiritually when guilt is expelled. If as regards *corporeal* injury[^6]: therefore exorcism ought to be performed only on the possessed and the obsessed.

3. Likewise, if it has no other effect than to drive out the demon; since [the demon] is driven out much more efficaciously in baptism, [the child] ought to be baptized at once and in no way exorcised. *If you say* that it *disposes* [the subject], so that baptism may have a greater effect; *on the contrary:* either it does this by *disposing the subject* or by *strengthening baptism*. Not by *disposing the subject*, because, if it disposes, [it does so] either by diminishing

guilt or punishment; it can do neither, since punishment cannot be diminished without guilt[^7]. Not by *strengthening baptism*, because [baptism] does not yet exist when the exorcism is performed.

4. Likewise, suppose someone exorcised dies before baptism; I ask whether the exorcism confers anything. If *nothing*, it is foolish to wait; if *something*, I ask: what? If [it confers] lesser darkness[^8]; *on the contrary:* darkness is the privation of the divine vision; but of this all [the unbaptized] are deprived alike.

Likewise, if you say that it is done for the solemnity of baptism; I ask: why does baptism have solemnity more than the other Sacraments? and what and how many are those things that pertain to its solemnity?

### Conclusion.

> *Exorcism is done both for the solemnity of baptism and for restraining the devil.*

**I respond:** It must be said that some have said that exorcism is done only for solemnity and for a more express signification; and that nothing is effected there, but only that which is effected in baptism is signified.

But others have said that it is not done only for solemnity, but rather has a spiritual effect, although a half-complete one, for *disposing* toward baptism. Hence children not baptized but exorcised, dying, sustain lesser darkness.

The first said too little, and the authorities of the Saints say more; the second said too much. Therefore the middle must be held, which is[^9] [that exorcism is] for solemnity and for restraining the devil, so that he cannot kill the child nor so violently vex the adult as to draw him back from baptism. Hence it is not against the vexation which he *does* in the body, but which he *would do*, because the devil, once he sees that a man is being prepared for baptism, would vex him. Hence Gregory[^10] says that « he neglects to assail those whom he feels himself to possess by undisturbed right; but when he sees himself being abandoned, then he is provoked ».

1. 2. To the first two objections the answer is clear, because Cyprian understands [it] of spiritual power. And that [argument] about vexation is likewise clear.

3. 4. To that which is objected: why is baptism not given at once? it must be said that [it is] on account of solemnity and on account of this, that doctrine or catechism ought to precede baptism; therefore, that the devil may be kept away from the catechism, exorcism is annexed. Nor is it done for the sake of any efficacy of grace in the soul, but only for signification and for warding off the contrary power.

Now the order of those things which pertain to the solemnity of baptism, according to the *more usual custom of the Church*, is this. First, [the child] is breathed upon, and this so that the exterior power of the devil may be expelled and the interior [power], yet to be expelled, may be signified. — Second, the sign of the cross is made on the breast and on the forehead, that the demon may recognize that he is to be expelled both in the secret of the heart and in the openness of confession. — Third, salt is put in the mouth, that it may be signified that through baptism the savor of wisdom is prepared and the stench of the tinder [of sin] is restrained. — Fourth, the anointing of the ears and nostrils with spittle is done, that grace for discerning and for obeying may be signified. — Fifth, the anointing on the breast and the shoulder-blades[^11] is done, that the grace of unction for loving God and bearing his burdens may be signified. — Sixth, after baptism the anointing with chrism on the crown of the head is done, that the opening of the incorruptible mind for contemplating eternal things may be signified. For chrism is made from shining oil and preserving balsam. — Seventh, [the child] is clothed with a clean and white garment, that the candor of innocence and the stole of the resurrection may be signified. — Lastly, a candle is placed in his hands, that the *word* of the Lord may be a lamp to his feet and a *light to* his *paths*[^12].

But according to Hugh of Saint Victor[^13]: « the form of exorcism and of the other sacramentals in baptism is performed thus. The child is first signed with the sign of the cross on the forehead, on the breast, on the eyes, on the nostrils, on the mouth, on the ears, that all the senses of the body may be fortified with this sign, by whose power all the Sacraments are completed and all the devil's fabrications are frustrated ». Hence Rabanus, *On the Instruction of the Clergy*[^14]: « That the devil may be driven out of him, recognizing in his former vessel the sign of his own destruction; that henceforth it may become alien to him. — Afterward, blessed salt is given into his mouth, that, seasoned with wisdom, he may lack the stench of iniquity and no longer rot from the worms of vices ». Salt[^15] preserves flesh from stench and putrefaction; so wisdom, signified by it, preserves the spirit, lest it dissolve into vices and reek through infamy. — « Then the evil one is breathed out, that spirit may be driven out by Spirit[^16] », namely the evil one by the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is signified by the breath, in John's penultimate [chapter]: *He breathed and said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit* etc. — « Afterward his ears and nostrils are touched with saliva, that by the touch of supernal wisdom both the ears may be opened to him for hearing the word of God and the nostrils likewise for discerning the odor of life and of death. This the Lord signified when he said, in the healing of the deaf and dumb man, in Mark, the seventh [chapter][^17]: *Ephphatha* » etc.; the Gloss: « The spittle from the head of the Lord is divine wisdom, which loosens the lips, that one may say: I believe in God ». — After these things the one to be baptized is led into the church. — « When these things have been done and completed, the priest comes to the font, and the font is consecrated in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, that the holiness of the Sacrament may be known to depend not on him who ministers, but on him who sanctifies. — After these things the Creed of faith is handed over to the catechumens, the hearers of the new life, in which the form of apostolic doctrine consists[^18] ». This is not said in the modern ordinal, as I believe. — « After these things the child offered for baptism and asked by the priest whether he renounces Satan and all his pomps and all his works; through the mouths of those holding him he answers, that, bound by another's iniquity, he may be loosed by another's faith and confession. — Afterward he is anointed with holy oil on the breast, as it were that he may be fortified against the enemy, lest henceforth [the enemy] be able to persuade him of things unclean and harmful. He is anointed also between the shoulder-blades, where the vigor for bearing a burden is, that he may receive strength for bearing the burden[^19]. — Then he is asked whether he believes in God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, one catholic Church, the remission of sins, and life everlasting; and under this response of faith he is washed by a threefold immersion from the filth of the old [state], having put on the new man. — Then, after the baptized one ascends from the font, he is anointed on the crown of the head with sacred chrism, that by participating in the Spirit of Christ he may deservedly henceforth be called a Christian, made a co-heir of the kingdom and of glory by the sacred unction. — Then a white garment is handed over to the Christian, that he who had obscured the beauty of his first birth with the rags of the old [state] may, by the habit of regeneration, display the garment of glory. The head also is covered with a sacred veil after the sacred unction, that he may understand himself to be endowed with the diadem of the kingdom and with the priestly dignity. — Lastly, a lighted candle is given into his hand, that he may be taught to fulfill that evangelical [word], in Matthew, the fifth [chapter][^20]: *So let your light shine before men.* If he keeps this lamp unextinguished, he will enter in with the wise virgins to the wedding with the heavenly bridegroom ». — And at once, if a bishop is present, [the child] is confirmed; and the Eucharist is given to him after confirmation, if he is an adult, that he may be incorporated into Christ ».

la: Sive Serm. (1.) de Symbolo ad catechum. c. 1. n. 2. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.

en: Or Sermon (1) *On the Creed, to the Catechumens*, c. 1, n. 2. See here the text of the Master, c. 7.

la: Libr. 1. de Institut. cleric. c. 27: *Exsufflatur ab eo saeva potestas, ut per pium sacerdotis mysterium* (?) *Spiritui sancto cedat fugiens spiritus malignus.* Cfr. C. *Postquam se* (61.), de Consecrat. d. 4. ubi recte ponitur *ministerium* pro *mysterium*.

en: Bk. 1, *On the Instruction of the Clergy*, c. 27: « The savage power is breathed out of him, that through the devout *mystery* (?) of the priest the malignant spirit, fleeing, may yield to the Holy Spirit. » Cf. canon *Postquam se* (61), *On the Consecration*, d. 4, where *ministry* is rightly placed for *mystery*.

la: Secundum Rituale Roman. (de Baptismo).

en: According to the Roman Ritual (*On Baptism*).

la: Matth. 7, 22: *Multi dicent mihi in illa die: Domine, Domine, nonne... in nomine tuo daemonia eiecimus* etc.? — Petr. Comestor., Histor. scholast. libri tertii Regum, c. 7, loquens de Salomone haec mira dicit: *Excogitavit etiam adiurationes, quibus aegritudines solent mitigari; alias quoque, quibus daemones eiicerentur, et alias, quibus obstricti non redirent. Excogitavit etiam characteres, qui inscribebantur gemmis, quae posita in naribus arreptitii cum radice Salomoni monstrata, statim eum a daemonibus liberabat* (sic)... *Iosephus* [Flavius] *quoque testatur, se vidisse quendam Eleazarum exorcismam coram Vespasiano* etc. Cfr. in appendice operum Mich. Pselli, opusculum intitulatum: *Testamentum Salomonis* (Migne, Patrol. Graec. tom. 122. col. 1315). — In fine arg. cod. aa addit: *maioris efficaciae sunt exorcismi Ecclesiae quam Salomonis, sed per exorcismos Salomonis expellebantur daemones: ergo* etc.

en: Matt. 7:22: *Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, did we not... in your name cast out demons* etc.? — Peter Comestor, *Scholastic History*, on the third book of Kings, c. 7, speaking of Solomon, says these wondrous things: « He devised also adjurations by which sicknesses are usually relieved; others too by which demons might be cast out, and others by which, once bound, they would not return. He devised also characters which were inscribed on gems, which, placed in the nostrils of a possessed person along with the root shown to Solomon, freed him at once from the demons » (sic)... « *Josephus* [Flavius] also testifies that he saw a certain Eleazar exorcizing before Vespasian » etc. Cf. in the appendix to the works of Michael Psellus, the little work entitled *The Testament of Solomon* (Migne, *Patrologia Graeca*, tom. 122, col. 1315). — At the end of the argument cod. aa adds: « The exorcisms of the Church are of greater efficacy than Solomon's, yet through Solomon's exorcisms demons were expelled: therefore » etc.

la: Epist. 76. ad Magnum. n. 15: *Sciat, diaboli nequitiam pertinacem usque ad aquam salutarem valere, in baptismo vero omne nequitiae suae virus amittere.*

en: Letter 76, *To Magnus*, n. 15: « Let him know that the persistent wickedness of the devil prevails up to the saving water, but that in baptism it loses all the venom of its wickedness. »

la: Cod. aa legit: *Non spiritualiter; quia sic expelleretur culpa, quod solum fit per baptismum; nec corporaliter, quia hoc modo solum expellitur ab obsessis a daemonibus.* Vat. paulo superius post *culpa* subiungit *ergo tunc ante baptisma expelleretur culpa.* Multi codd. omittunt *laesionem.*

en: Cod. aa reads: « Not spiritually; for thus guilt would be expelled, which is done only through baptism; nor corporeally, because in this way [the demon] is expelled only from those obsessed by demons. » The Vatican edition, a little above, after *guilt* adds: « therefore then before baptism guilt would be expelled. » Many codices omit *injury*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 4. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2. in corp.

en: Cf. above, d. 4, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2, in the body [of the article].

la: Ut tenet Praepositivus, S. p. IV. c. de Exorcismo, ubi dicit, « quod minorem poenam patitur exorcizatus, quam ille qui decedit sine exorcismo; etsi carentia visionis Dei sit mitissima poena, unus tamen eandem poenam potest habere mitiorem quam alius. Carentia enim visionis Dei nihil aliud est quam ignorantiae tenebrae et quidam profundiores tenebras patiuntur aliis ». — Post *Si* cod. A addit *dicas, quod patietur.* Inferius pro *similiter privati* cod. aa, posito *aequaliter privati*, deinde prosequitur: *Item, non diminuitur poena, culpa eadem manente; sed eadem manet culpa non diminuta: ergo et poena.*

en: As Praepositivus holds, *Summa*, p. IV, chapter *On Exorcism*, where he says: « that the one exorcised suffers a lesser punishment than he who dies without exorcism; even though the privation of the vision of God is the mildest punishment, yet one [person] can have the same punishment milder than another. For the privation of the vision of God is nothing other than the darkness of ignorance, and some suffer deeper darkness than others ». — After *If* cod. A adds *say that he will suffer.* Below, for *deprived alike* cod. aa, having placed *deprived equally*, then continues: *Likewise, the punishment is not diminished, the guilt remaining the same; but the same guilt remains undiminished: therefore the punishment also.*

la: Cod. aa supplet *exorcismus.*

en: Cod. aa supplies *exorcism.*

la: Libr. XXIV. Moral. c. 11. n. 27: *Eos enim pulsare... se sentit.* Contra nos vero eo vehementius incitatur, quo corde nostro quasi ex iure propriae habitationis expellitur. — Superius pro *ipsum vexaret* cod. aa *vel ad aliud bonum, tunc ad iracundiam provocatur.*

en: Bk. XXIV, *Moralia*, c. 11, n. 27: « For he feels himself to assail those... » Against us, however, he is the more vehemently incited the more he is expelled from our heart as if from the right of his own dwelling. — Above, for *would vex him* cod. aa [reads] *or to another good, then he is provoked to wrath.*

la: Ita codd.; cfr. DuCange, Glossarium etc., ubi notatur, quod ille terminus idem significat ac *latus* (gallice: épaule); Vat. hic sicut et infra *scapulis.*

en: Thus the codices; cf. DuCange, *Glossarium* etc., where it is noted that this term signifies the same as *side* (in French: épaule); the Vatican edition here as also below [reads] *shoulder-blades.*

la: Psalm. 118, 105. — Verba Hugonis habentur in II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 10.

en: Ps. 118:105. — The words of Hugh are found in [the work] *On the Sacraments*, II, p. VI, c. 10.

la: Libr. I. c. 27. Locus est corruptus; cfr. C. *Postea signatur* (63.) et seqq. de Consecrat. d. 4, ubi sic legitur: *Postea signatur baptizandus signaculo sanctae crucis tam in fronte quam in corde, ut ab eo* tempore *ipse apostata diabolus in vase suo pristino suae interemptionis cognoscens signaculum, iam sibi deinceps illud* sciat *esse alienum. Ex hinc iam dicuntur super eum orationes, ut fiat catechumenus. Tunc datur baptizando sal* etc. — In hoc testimonio codd. A H K W et ed. 1, concordante textu originali, omittunt *expellatur*, pro quo alii codd. *pellatur*, et pro *fiat* cod. Z *sciat.* Pro *interemptionis* plurimi codd. *interpretationis.*

en: Bk. I, c. 27. The passage is corrupt; cf. canon *Postea signatur* (63) and following, *On the Consecration*, d. 4, where it reads thus: « Afterward the one to be baptized is signed with the sign of the holy cross both on the forehead and in the heart, so that from that time the apostate devil himself, recognizing in his former vessel the sign of his own destruction, may henceforth know it to be alien to him. From here now the prayers are said over him, that he may become a catechumen. Then salt is given to the one to be baptized » etc. — In this testimony codd. A H K W and ed. 1, in agreement with the original text, omit *expellatur* [be expelled], for which other codices [read] *pellatur* [be driven], and for *fiat* [become] cod. Z [reads] *sciat* [know]. For *interemptionis* [destruction] very many codices [read] *interpretationis* [interpretation].

la: Textus originalis Hugonis, loc. cit., addit *Domini*, edd. *Christi.* Paulo inferius post *indutus hominem* in textu originali plura adiiciuntur.

en: The original text of Hugh, in the place cited, adds *of the Lord*; the editions [read] *of Christ.* A little below, after *put on the man*, more is added in the original text.

la: Edd. *Sicut enim sal.*

en: The editions [read] *For just as salt.*

la: Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 10. — Seq. textus Scripturae est Ioan. 20, 22.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments*, II, p. VI, c. 10. — The following scriptural text is John 20:22.

la: Vers. 34. seq. — Verba sunt Hugonis, loc. cit., qui sequitur hic et in seqq. Rabanum, loc. cit. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum in v. 33: *Spuma de carne* Domini, divina sapientia, quae solvit ignorantiam humani generis, ut dicat: Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem etc. Cfr. Beda, in v. 34: *Sputum namque Domini saporem designat sapientiae... Sputum etenim, quod ex capite Domini descendit, divinam eius naturam etc.* Gregor., I. Homil. in Ezech. homil. 10. n. 20: *Saliva nobis est ex ore Redemptoris accepta sapientia in eloquio divino. Saliva quippe ex capite defluit in ore* etc.

en: Vv. 34 and following. — The words are Hugh's, in the place cited, who here and in what follows follows Rabanus, in the place cited. — The Gloss is the *ordinary* one, in Strabo and Lyra, on v. 33: « The foam from the flesh of the Lord [is] divine wisdom, which dissolves the ignorance of the human race, that one may say: I believe in God the Father almighty » etc. Cf. Bede, on v. 34: « For the spittle of the Lord designates the savor of wisdom... For the spittle which descends from the head of the Lord [signifies] his divine nature » etc. Gregory, *Homilies on Ezekiel*, bk. I, homily 10, n. 20: « Saliva is for us the wisdom received from the mouth of the Redeemer in the divine word. For saliva flows down from the head into the mouth » etc.

la: Textus originalis textus *sanctificat* plura adiungit. — Mox pro *ordinali* codd. F G 1 *ordinario.*

en: The original text [after] *sanctifies* adds more. — Soon, for *ordinal* codd. F G 1 [read] *ordinary.*

la: Vers. 16. — Subinde respicitur parabola de decem virginibus, Matth. 25, 1. seqq. — De ultima propos. cfr. Dionys., Eccles. Hierarch. c. 2. p. III. § 8, et Gennad., de Eccles. dogmat. c. 22. et 41.

en: V. 16. — Immediately afterward the parable of the ten virgins is alluded to, Matt. 25:1 and following. — On the last proposition, cf. Dionysius, *Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, c. 2, p. III, § 8, and Gennadius, *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas*, c. 22 and 41.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

latin_scholion:
**II.** Circa seq. (2.) quaestionem est notandum, quod et prima opinio et secunda (quam tenuit Praepositivus, cfr. pag. 158, nota 2.) etiam a S. Thoma aliisque communiter reprobantur. De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., locc. citt. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 2. 3. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 1. 2. 3. — Durand., hic q. 4.

---

english_scholion:
**II.** Concerning the following (2nd) question it is to be noted that both the first opinion and the second (which Praepositivus held, cf. p. 158, note 2) are also commonly rejected by St. Thomas and others. On the same question: Alexander of Hales, in the places cited. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 3; Summa, in the place cited, a. 2, 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, in the place cited, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 6, q. 1, 2, 3. — Durandus, here q. 4.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (raw lines 17920–18152), with the 450 dpi column-band PDF (pp. 157–159, split x≈1880) authoritative wherever the OCR cascade-shattered the Respondeo, the Conclusio, the Hugh-of-St-Victor enumeration, the scholion, and all page footers. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 157 (pdf 177): article-level scholion (q1 + q2 sections) sits at the column-head; this chunk renders only the **q2 section** ("II. Circa seq. (2.) quaestionem…"). Then QUAESTIO II opener + args 1–4 (L) and Contra 1 + arg 2 + start of arg 3 (R). Body break placed at "…aut minuendo" / "culpam" boundary into p. 158.
- p. 158 (pdf 178): tail of arg 3, arg 4, the *quare magis baptismus* objection, Conclusio, Respondeo (two opinions + the *medium*), Gregory, and replies 1–2. Body break at "…ad prima duo obiecta…" → p. 159 ("3. 4. Ad illud…").
- p. 159 (pdf 179): replies 3–4, the *ordo solemnitatis* enumeration, and the long Hugh-of-St-Victor / Rabanus *forma exorcismi* citation through "…ut Christo incorporetur." That sentence is the **end of this chunk's body**; "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" immediately following belongs to the **dubia chunk** (neighbor).

**Footer ownership (claimed vs. left to neighbors).** 20 footnotes claimed, renumbered [^1]–[^20] continuously:
- p. 157 Quaracchi footers **nn. 3–8** → my [^1]–[^6] (markers on args 1–4 and Contra 1–2). Footers **nn. 1–2** on p. 157 ("Supple: requiruntur"; "Ita codd… votum proprie") sit on q1's *votum* tail at the column-head → **left to the a3-q1 chunk**.
- p. 158 Quaracchi footers **nn. 1–7** → my [^7]–[^13] (markers: *poena sine culpa*, Praepositivus/*tenebras*, *quod est*, Gregorius, *spatulis*, *semitis eius*, Hugo *solutio*). All mine.
- p. 159 Quaracchi footers **nn. 1–7** → my [^14]–[^20] (markers: *Sal*, *pellatur*, *Marci septimo*, *consistit*, *onus*, *Matthaei quinto*, *incorporetur*). Footers **nn. 8–9** on p. 159 (Luke 1:41/44 on *exsultatio*; *Cfr. tom. III. pag. 717*) belong to **Dub. I** → **left to the dubia chunk**.

**Scholion disposition.** ART III carries an article-level scholion block at the head of p. 157 with sections keyed "De 1. quaestione…" (=q1) and "II. Circa seq. (2.) quaestionem…" (=q2). This chunk renders **only the q2 section** (rendered as **II.**); the q1 ("De ritibus…/De 1. quaestione…") section belongs to the a3-q1 chunk. `has_scholion: true`.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Two source oddities noted in-apparatus rather than flagged: the *mysterium/ministerium* (?) crux in [^2] is the Quaracchi editors' own parenthetical "(?)", preserved; the Hugh passage in [^13] is editor-flagged "Locus est corruptus" and reproduced as printed.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 6, Part 1, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. VI)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. VI)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 147 -->

## Dubia circa litteram Magistri.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Beda: *Ne confessio sanctae Trinitatis et invocatio videatur annullari.* Videtur enim sua ratio non valere, quia, quando aliquis plus et pluries invocat Trinitatem et confitetur, non annihilat, sed potius honorat. — Item, si haec ratio bona est, tunc nullum opus debet iterari, in quo fit invocatio Trinitatis; quod manifeste falsum est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ista non est ratio Bedae, quia invocetur Trinitas, sed quia invocetur ad talem *effectum*, qui iterari non potest, sicut ad impressionem characteris[^1]; et ideo, si secundo invocat aliquis; cum non possit habere effectum, vel iam annihilat invocationem praecedentem, vel consequentem; hoc autem non semper est in aliis generibus operum vel Sacramentorum, nisi eorum quae characterem imprimunt. Ideo patet, quod non est simile.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Rebaptizare haereticum, qui haec sanctitatis signa perceperit* etc.; cum haereticus det ita verum baptisma, ut Catholicus, et similiter recipiat[^2]; quare maius peccatum, et magis immane scelus est rebaptizare Catholicum?

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quando haereticus baptizatur et iterum baptizatur, non est tantum peccatum, quantum est de Catholico. Et huius ratio est tum a parte rei Sacramenti, tum a parte ipsius Sacramenti. A parte rei Sacramenti: quia eam non recipit haereticus[^3]; et ideo, si iterum baptizatur, propter hoc efficacia non geminatur. A parte Sacramenti: quia dubium fuit, et probabiliter moti sunt, quod haeretici carentes fide non baptizent; et ubi dubitatio est, potest in casu quis rebaptizari. Et ideo nec omnino facit iniuriam rei nec omnino Sacramento secundum certam scientiam. Sed nunc[^4] determinatum est, quod Sacramentum recipit et characterem et rem, nisi sit obstaculum fictionis; et ideo peccatum est, quia ignorantia iuris non excusat a toto[^5]; et hic est ignorantia iuris. — Cum autem rebaptizatur Catholicus, de quo constat, quod recepit Sacramentum, et probabiliter creditur, quod receperit rem Sacramenti tunc ex certa scientia; fit iniuria Sacramento et Christo: quia effectum unicae passionis, scilicet remissionem peccatorum omnium, vult iterare; et quantum in se est, Christum iterum crucifigere; et Sacramentum irritat: ideo gravissime peccat[^6].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Cyprianus: *Quomodo sanctificare aquam potest, cum ipse immundus sit?* quia secundum hoc videtur, quod baptismus non fiat nisi in aqua sanctificata: ergo si aliquis baptizetur in aqua fluminis, est rebaptizandus. — Item, qualiter solvitur ad eius argumenta, ad quae Magister[^7] non respondet? Si enim nulla est sanctificatio nisi per Spiritum sanctum; et hunc haereticus non habet: ergo nihil sanctificat.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod duplex est sanctificatio: quaedam, quae spectat ad solemnitatem, quaedam ad necessitatem. Illa quae est ad solemnitatem est facta a praelato Ecclesiae per orationem: sed haec non addit aliquid nec adimit baptismo. Alia est per verbum adveniens ad elementum, per verbum, inquam, quod est de integritate formae Sacramenti: et quoniam istud non habet efficaciam a dicente, sed potius ab instituente: ideo sanctificat et est efficax non virtute ministri, sed Christi[^8]. Sicut notarius odiosus et malus scribit litteras, quas mandat regi filius eius; et quamvis notarius non placeat nec aliquid, quod sit in ipso, ipsi regi; placet tamen littera filii, et ideo[^9] efficax est apud regem; sic intelligendum est in proposito.

Et sic patet, quod obiectio sua non valet, quia non sanctificat Sacramentum spiritus baptizantis, sed spiritus Christi. Et hoc est quod Cyprianum decepit: quia baptismi potestatem ministro traditam non bene consideravit et de Sacramento secundum quod de eius *efficacia* iudicavit; et si quis hoc diceret, in errorem manifestum, si vellet hoc defendere, perveniret, quod nullus nisi sanctus posset Sacramenta ecclesiastica dispensare; quod modo tenent quorundam haereticorum sectae[^10].

<!-- page 148 -->

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Si quid purgandum erat, passionis falce tolleretur.* Videtur enim male dicere: quia haeresis est, quod baptizatus sit rebaptizandus, et grave peccatum est rebaptizare: ergo si hoc faciebat Cyprianus[^11], erat haereticus; sed si haereticus patiatur, non propter hoc salvatur: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Cyprianus hoc non dixit asserendo nec defendendo, sed opinando; et ideo non fuit haereticus, quia non erat in Ecclesia determinatum. Praeterea, zelus fidei[^12] et detestatio haereticorum, quae multum vigebat in eo, faciebant, ipsum ex humana infirmitate excedere; et ideo venialiter credendus est peccasse, si peccavit. Similiter Petrus amore quodam speciali movebatur erga gregem; et ideo, si ex hoc malum exemplum gentibus dedit, non graviter, sed venialiter credendus est peccasse. Et hoc innuit Augustinus[^13], cum dicit, quod «non sumus eis meliores»; quia propter veniale peccatum non est quis minus praeferendus alii. Venialia enim omnia resecantur falce martyrii.

---

english:
## Doubts concerning the text of the Master.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning what Bede says: *Lest the confession of the holy Trinity and the invocation seem to be annulled.* For his reasoning seems not to hold, since, when one invokes and confesses the Trinity more and more often, he does not annul it, but rather honors it. — Likewise, if this reasoning is sound, then no work in which the invocation of the Trinity takes place ought to be repeated; which is manifestly false.

**I respond:** It must be said that this is not Bede's reasoning—that the Trinity is invoked—but rather that it is invoked for such an *effect* as cannot be repeated, just as for the impressing of a character[^1]; and therefore, if one invokes a second time, since it cannot have the effect, he either annuls the preceding invocation or the subsequent one; but this is not always so in other kinds of works or sacraments, except in those which impress a character. Hence it is clear that the case is not the same.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what Augustine says: *To rebaptize a heretic who has received these signs of holiness,* etc.; since a heretic gives true baptism just as a Catholic does, and one likewise receives it[^2]; why is it a greater sin, and a more monstrous crime, to rebaptize a Catholic?

**I respond:** It must be said that when a heretic is baptized and is baptized again, it is not as great a sin as in the case of a Catholic. And the ground of this is both on the part of the reality of the Sacrament and on the part of the Sacrament itself. On the part of the reality of the Sacrament: because the heretic does not receive it[^3]; and therefore, if he is baptized again, the efficacy is not doubled on that account. On the part of the Sacrament: because there was doubt, and they were probably moved [to think] that heretics lacking faith do not baptize; and where there is doubt, in a given case one may be rebaptized. And therefore he does no injury, neither entirely to the reality nor entirely to the Sacrament according to certain knowledge. But now[^4] it has been determined that the Sacrament receives both the character and the reality, unless there is an obstacle of feigning; and therefore it is a sin, because ignorance of the law does not excuse from the whole[^5]; and this is ignorance of the law. — But when a Catholic is rebaptized, concerning whom it is established that he received the Sacrament, and it is probably believed that he then received the reality of the Sacrament out of certain knowledge, an injury is done to the Sacrament and to Christ: because he wishes to repeat the effect of the one Passion, namely the remission of all sins; and, so far as in him lies, to crucify Christ again; and he renders the Sacrament void: therefore he sins most gravely[^6].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what Cyprian says: *How can he sanctify water, since he himself is unclean?* because according to this it seems that baptism is not performed except in sanctified water: therefore if someone is baptized in river water, he is to be rebaptized. — Likewise, how is the reply made to his arguments, to which the Master[^7] does not respond? For if there is no sanctification except through the Holy Spirit, and the heretic does not have him: therefore he sanctifies nothing.

**I respond:** It must be said that sanctification is twofold: one which pertains to solemnity, another to necessity. That which is for solemnity is performed by a prelate of the Church through prayer: but this adds nothing to baptism nor takes anything away from it. The other is by the word coming to the element, by the word, I say, which belongs to the integrity of the form of the Sacrament: and since this does not have its efficacy from the one speaking, but rather from the one instituting it: therefore it sanctifies and is efficacious not by the power of the minister, but of Christ[^8]. Just as a hateful and wicked notary writes letters which the king's son commissions; and although the notary is not pleasing, nor anything that is in him, to the king himself; nevertheless the son's letter is pleasing, and therefore[^9] it is efficacious before the king; so it must be understood in the matter at hand.

And thus it is clear that his objection does not hold, because it is not the spirit of the one baptizing that sanctifies the Sacrament, but the Spirit of Christ. And this is what deceived Cyprian: because he did not rightly consider the power of baptism handed over to the minister and judged of the Sacrament according to what pertains to its *efficacy*; and if anyone were to say this, he would, should he wish to defend it, fall into manifest error, [namely] that no one but a holy man could dispense the ecclesiastical Sacraments; which the sects of certain heretics now hold[^10].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what Augustine says: *If there was anything to be purged, it would be cut away by the sickle of the Passion.* For he seems to speak ill: because it is heresy that one baptized should be rebaptized, and it is a grave sin to rebaptize: therefore if Cyprian did this[^11], he was a heretic; but if a heretic suffers, he is not saved on that account: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that Cyprian did not say this by asserting or defending it, but by opining; and therefore he was not a heretic, because it had not been determined in the Church. Moreover, zeal for the faith[^12] and detestation of heretics, which flourished greatly in him, made him exceed through human weakness; and therefore he is to be believed to have sinned venially, if he sinned. Likewise Peter was moved by a certain special love toward the flock; and therefore, if from this he gave a bad example to the Gentiles, he is to be believed to have sinned not gravely, but venially. And Augustine[^13] intimates this when he says that «we are not better than they»; because on account of a venial sin one is not to be less preferred to another. For all venial sins are cut away by the sickle of martyrdom.

---

la: Cfr. supra q. 5. et 6.

en: Cf. above, q. 5 and 6.

la: Vide supra d. 5, a. 1, q. 2.

en: See above, d. 5, a. 1, q. 2.

la: De quo cfr. supra d. 5, a. 2, q. 2. — Inferius post *moti sunt* cod. G addit *qui dixerunt.*

en: Concerning which cf. above, d. 5, a. 2, q. 2. — Below, after *moti sunt* («they were moved»), codex G adds *qui dixerunt* («who said»).

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 86, nota 7. — Inferius pro *recepit* plurimi codd. *recipit.*

en: Cf. above, p. 86, note 7. — Below, instead of *recepit* («received»), very many codices read *recipit* («receives»).

la: Cfr. Alcuin., Comment. in Hebr. 6, 1. seqq., qui illa verba Apostoli eodem modo exponit. — Pro *irritat* edd. *iterat.*

en: Cf. Alcuin, *Commentary on Hebrews* 6, 1ff., who expounds those words of the Apostle in the same way. — Instead of *irritat* («renders void»), the editions read *iterat* («repeats»).

la: Hic c. 2. — Inferius pro *hunc* codd. F H *hanc.*

en: Here, c. 2. — Below, instead of *hunc* («him»), codices F and H read *hanc* («her/this»).

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 1, et Comment. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. et a. 2. q. 1. seqq. nec non d. 5. a. 1. et 2.

en: Cf. above the text of the Master, d. III, c. 1, and the Commentary, p. I, a. 1, q. 2 and a. 2, q. 1ff., as also d. 5, a. 1 and 2.

la: Ita codd. F I, in aliis et edd. *omnino.*

en: Thus codices F and I; in the others and in the editions, *omnino* («wholly»).

la: Inter quas sunt Waldenses; cfr. Alan. ab Insulis, II. contra Haereticos, c. 5. seqq. — Superius pro *manifestum* cod. F *maximum.*

en: Among which are the Waldenses; cf. Alan of Lille, *Against the Heretics*, II, c. 5ff. — Above, instead of *manifestum* («manifest»), codex F reads *maximum* («greatest»).

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, ubi praemissum verbum Augustini affertur contra Cyprianum. — Mox pro *patiatur* Vat. *tolleretur.*

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2, where the aforementioned word of Augustine is adduced against Cyprian. — Presently, instead of *patiatur* («suffers»), the Vatican edition reads *tolleretur* («would be taken away»).

la: Cod. N *et eius fides.* Superius pro *quia non* cod. Y *quia nondum.*

en: Codex N reads *et eius fides* («and his faith»). Above, instead of *quia non* («because not»), codex Y reads *quia nondum* («because not yet»).

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2, in fine, ubi etiam in verbis Augustini tangitur factum Petri, de quo vide supra d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 2.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 2, at the end, where in the words of Augustine the deed of Peter is also touched upon, concerning which see above, d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 2. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 600 dpi PDF column bands of the CORRECT pages (vol4 printed pp.147–148 = **pdf 167–168**, colcrop split x≈1880), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 16776–16888) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the VOL II/IV OVERRIDE the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo regions and across all page footers (the OCR diagonally interleaves the two columns and fragments every footer one-token-per-line).

**OFFSET ERROR RESOLVED (decade gate, 2026-06-20).** This chunk was originally built reading PDF pages 147–148 under the false assumption that printed = pdf. That is WRONG: the +20 offset holds throughout Vol IV d.6, so printed pp.147–148 = **pdf 167–168**. Re-verified at 600 dpi against pdf 167–168: running head reads "DIST. VI. P. I. DUBIA." (p.147) / "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (p.148) — confirmed d.6 Pars I, not another distinction. All four Respondeo passages and all footers (p.147 nn.1–10, p.148 n.1) check out. Metadata = pdf_pages [167, 168].

**DUB. I cascade-merge SPLICE — RESOLVED.** The prior build carried a "[Continuatio Dub. I:] *tem* rebaptizatur Catholicus…peccat[^6]" artifact appended to DUB. I. The correct PDF reading shows this fragment is the **tail of DUB. II's Respondeo**, not DUB. I. On p.147 the DUB. II Respondeo fills the entire left column and breaks mid-word at the column foot ("…et hic est ignorantia iuris. — Cum au-"), continuing at the top of the right column ("[au]tem rebaptizatur Catholicus, de quo constat… ideo gravissime peccat[^6]") immediately before DUB. III. The IA djvu OCR's diagonal two-column reading interleaved the left-column body with this right-column tail and re-stitched the orphaned tail onto DUB. I. Fix: DUB. I now ends cleanly at "…non est simile."; the "Cum autem rebaptizatur Catholicus…gravissime peccat[^6]" clause is restored to the end of DUB. II's Respondeo; footnote [^6] (Alcuin / *irritat*~*iterat*) correctly attaches to the DUB. II tail.

**Dubia count.** Four dubia: **DUB. I** (Bede: whether repeating the Trinitarian invocation annuls it — no, because the *effect*, like the character, cannot be repeated); **DUB. II** (Augustine: why rebaptizing a Catholic is a worse crime than rebaptizing a heretic — the heretic does not receive the *res*, and there was excusable doubt); **DUB. III** (Cyprian: how an unclean minister can sanctify the water — sanctification of necessity comes from Christ via the word, not the minister, like a wicked notary's letter pleasing the king through the son); **DUB. IV** (Augustine "sickle of the Passion": whether Cyprian was a heretic — no, he only opined; his zeal made him err at most venially, cut away by martyrdom's sickle).

**Page-split map.** DUB. I–III + their footers (p.147 nn.1–10) are on printed p.147. DUB. IV + its footer (p.148 n.1) are on printed p.148; the dubia ends mid-left-column of p.148, immediately before COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI Pars II. Page 148 footers nn.2–6 belong to that following Pars II commentarius (divisio textus), not to the dubia, and are intentionally NOT rendered here.

**Boundary / hand-offs.** Upstream seam is page-clean: the dubia begins fresh at the top of p.147 with its own footer sequence from 1; nothing owed across the seam from d6-a1-q6 (which closed on p.146). Downstream boundary: d.6 Pars II commentarius begins at raw L16889 ("COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI Pars II"). NOTE: the raw OCR garble at L16889 reads "C0MMENTAIIIU8 IN DISTINCTIONEM YL" — "YL" is "VI", not VII; this is the start of d.6 Pars II, captured by the separate skeleton `bon-sent-IV-d6-p2-dubia.md`, NOT distinction VII.

**Marker ordering.** Quaracchi numbers p.147 footnotes by column reading order: left column first (n.1 DUB I *characteris*; nn.2–5 DUB II), then right column (n.6 = DUB II *Respondeo* tail at *peccat*, which physically sits at the top of the right column; nn.7–10 DUB III). Hence DUB I carries only n.1, and DUB II carries the contiguous run nn.2–6 (its Respondeo wraps left→right column). The earlier build mis-assigned n.6 to a "DUB I tail" — that was the cascade-merge artifact; corrected.

**Editorial marginalia trimmed.** Marginal glosses *Ad oppositum*, *Apparet ratio*, *Duplex sanctificatio*, *Exemplum* (p.147) are Quaracchi marginalia, not Bonaventure's text, and were not inlined.

**[?] flags.** None. After the decade-gate re-verification at 600 dpi against the correct pdf 167–168, all four dubia (incl. the now-resolved DUB. I / DUB. II splice), all body markers, and all footers read cleanly against the PDF column bands.

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. 6, Part 2, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. VI, Pars II)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. VI, Part II)

source_text:
<!-- page 159 -->

### DUB. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *In illo puero acceleratus est usus rationis*, utrum beatus Ioannes in utero habuerit usum liberi arbitrii. Et quod sic, videtur: quia exsultavit ad vocem beatae Mariae, sicut dicitur in textu[^1]; sed talis exsultatio non fuit nisi per apprehensionem rei amatae; res autem non apprehendebatur nisi ratione, nec amabilis erat nisi voluntate rationata[^2], scilicet praesentia Christi vel eius Matris: ergo videtur, cum

<!-- page 160 -->

usus liberi arbitrii sit secundum actum rationis et voluntatis, quod simpliciter habuit usum. Sed contra: Augustinus ad Dardanum[^3]: « Non est dictum, quia *credidit infans* »; ergo si motus fidei primus est inter motus virtutum, videtur, quod non habuerit actum alicuius virtutis: ergo cum hoc non fuerit propter defectum gratiae, fuit ergo propter defectum liberi arbitrii.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum quod circa hoc duplex fuit opinio; et Augustinus loquitur dubie. Fuerunt enim qui dicerent, Ioannem non habuisse motum liberi arbitrii, nec exsultationem illam fuisse *ab eo*, sed magis *in eo*, non per naturam, sed supra naturam; sicut asina Balaam locuta est, et tamen non intellexit[^4]; sic dicunt Ioannem motum fuisse a Spiritu sancto ad adventum Domini, et illum motum fuisse ad modum exsultantis, non quia ipse perciperet, sed quia volebat Dominus, ut mater motu pueri Dominum perciperet et Matrem eius, et ut hoc esset futurorum praesagium. Et huic opinioni verba consonant Augustini.

Fuerunt alii, qui dixerunt, Ioanni statim datum motum liberi arbitrii et illustrationem cognitionis, qua cognovit Dominum praesentem et gavisus est supra naturam. Et si tu obiicias, quod Dominus non subtrahit dona, et ita post semper habuit usum liberi arbitrii, quod nec creditur nec est probabile; propterea breviter respondetur, quod sicut Dominus gratiam raptus alicui dat ad unam horam; sic etiam Deus fecit hoc supra naturam ob specialem causam. — Utraque positio probabilis est nec potest de facili improbari[^5].

### DUB. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Zacharias: *Si ille qui baptizavit, non errorem introducens* etc. Videtur enim dicere, quod si vellet errorem introducere, quod non esset baptismus. Sed contra: fides, vel haeresis baptizantis nihil facit ad hoc, quod non sit baptismus[^6]: ergo videtur, quod idem sit iudicium, sive intendat errorem introducere, sive non.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc dixerunt aliqui, quod quamvis infidelitas circa alios articulos nihil faciat ad baptismi integritatem, tamen infidelitas circa baptismum multum facit. — Sed si attendamus: cum fidelitas comprehendat omnem articulum; et fidelitas circa aliquem articulum cum infidelitate circa alium non sit fides nec pars fidei[^7]: nihil facit ad hoc, ut videtur, ratione eius, qua est fidelitas, vel infidelitas. Ideo dicendum, quod nulla infidelitas aufert baptismum, dum tamen intentio sit salva, faciendi scilicet quod facit Ecclesia; et quoniam iste qui intendit introducere haeresim, intendit novam formam cudere[^8] et quod facit Ecclesia infirmare: ideo non est salva intentio, ac per hoc nec baptismus.

### DUB. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Leo papa: *De illis, de quibus nulla exstant indicia inter propinquos, agendum, ut renascantur.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia ita magnum peccatum est rebaptizare baptizatum, sicut omittere baptismum: ergo qui baptizat illum, de quo nulla exstant indicia, committit se periculo et discrimini, quia nescit, utrum rebaptizet baptizatum; sed omnis talis peccat: ergo etc.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, utrum aliquis possit baptizari dormiendo; et videtur, quod sic, quia de lethargico, qui non potest evigilare, videtur, quod debeat baptizari.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ignorantia facti, adhibita debita diligentia, excusat a toto[^9]; et quoniam, si aliquis baptizet aliquem, de quo non potest cognosci per aliquem, quod fuerit baptizatus, ignorat, eum esse baptizatum, et adhibet diligentiam, si requirat a notis: ideo non peccat. Rursus, quia illud est signum probabile, quod non sit baptizatus; tenetur et debet baptizari: et ita patet, quod baptizando non committit se discrimini[^10].

Quod quaeritur de dormiente, dicendum, quod si est adultus, aut prius consensit et voluit, aut noluit et renuit. Si consensit et voluit; si baptizatur, baptizatus est. Aut si[^11] prius negavit et renuit, baptizatus non est. Si autem indifferenter se habuit quantum ad id quod exterius est; non potest sciri nisi per ipsum; et si prius voluit, baptizatus est; si noluit, non; quia oportet, quod sit aliqualis consensus in adulto, vel coactus vel spontaneus[^12].

Si quaeratur, quid debeat fieri; dicendum, quod nullus debet aliquem baptizare dormiendo, nisi praesumatur, quod non evigilet ante mortem, et nisi praesumatur de eius praesenti voluntate per signa

<!-- page 161 -->

vel verba, saltem quia de Christianis natus. In hoc casu his concurrentibus, debet baptizari; et nisi fuerit fictio in anima ipsius ante dormitionem; tunc recipit Sacramentum et rem, ut dicit Innocentius[^13]. Si autem fuerit fictio, sed tamen voluntas ad baptismum; recipit Sacramentum et non rem. Omnino eodem modo dicendum est de furioso.

### DUB. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Si totum mimice et ioculariter ageretur, implorandum esset* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia intentio est de necessitate baptismi[^14]: ergo si totum factum est ioculariter, non est baptismus: ergo non est implorandum divinum consilium, sed baptizandus; quia in his, in quibus certi sumus et habemus humanum consilium, non oportet confugere ad Deum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum quod, sicut dicit Hugo[^15], ludus non semper excludit intentionem, sed compatitur, sicut patet. Et Hugo ponit exemplum: quia velle *dare ludicre* est duobus modis: uno modo velle ludere ita, quod nullo modo dare; *alio modo* ita, quod vult ludere, et nihilominus vult dare. Et primo quidem modo excludit intentionem, et qui sic dat ludendo non dat; secundo modo ponit intentionem dandi et vere dat. Sic in proposito intelligendum. Unde potest esse intentio cum ludo. Et ideo dicit Augustinus[^16], « implorandum esse divinum consilium ». Quod si Dominus non revelat, rebaptizandus est, tamen sub conditione. Et hoc est quod dicitur, quaestione prima[^17], de casu, qui ibi proponitur, quod puer Athanasius, simulans, se esse episcopum, baptizavit quosdam pueros ludicre, qui postmodum consilio Alexandri episcopi non sunt rebaptizati: quia inferius subditur, quod idem episcopus supervenit et quaesivit de intentione et cognovit per verba iuvenis, quod habuit intentionem; et ideo non debuerunt rebaptizari. Et quod habuit intentionem, coniicitur[^18], quia non baptizavit nisi catechumenos. Et sic patet intellectus verbi Augustini.

### DUB. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Cognoscendum, duo tempora in baptizandis electis esse servanda.* Videtur enim, quod magis competeret dies Epiphaniae, quia Dominus fuit in illo baptizatus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod die Epiphaniae non fit ita solemniter propter haeresim exstirpandam, quae dixit, solum illa die aquas posse regenerare. Fit autem aliis duobus diebus, quoniam in Paschate *lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo*[^19], in Pentecoste baptizavit Spiritu sancto; et quia baptismus hunc duplicem effectum habet; ideo tunc generaliter omnibus datur, sed specialiter datur cuilibet, quando timetur de morte[^20].

### DUB. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Magister, quod parvuli, alio profitente, baptizantur; utrum ille qui profitetur, debeat dici patrinus. Et quod sic, habet communis usus. Sed in contrarium videtur, quia pater dicitur solum qui generat aliquo modo, vel spiritualiter, vel carnaliter; sed talis neutro modo. — Item, quaeritur, utrum possint esse plures.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Hugo de sancto Victore[^21], « patrini vocantur qui parvulos ad baptismum offerunt, quia regenerandos ad novam vitam offerunt, et in oblatione et in responsione quodam modo faciunt ad ipsorum regenerationem »; et ideo recte patrini dicuntur. — Et post subiungit: « Placuit Patribus, ut per singulos baptizandos patrini singuli admitterentur, id est unus tantum vir, sive mulier, propterea fortassis, ne spiritualis cognatio, cui reverentia debetur, passim diffusa in matrimonii copulam obesse potuisset. Sed quaedam Ecclesiae hanc consuetudinem non servant, plures ad susceptionem parvulorum admittentes ».

### DUB. VII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Exorcismus fit post catechismum.* Videtur enim, quod male ordinet: quia exorcismus est ad expulsionem mali, sed catechismus ad institutionem boni; sed prius est malum expellere quam bonum inserere: ergo prius fuit agendum de exorcismo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ista duo possunt tripliciter ordinari: aut ratione eius, *ad quod* sunt; aut ratione eius, *a quo* dispensantur; aut ratione eius, *in quem* fiunt. Si ratione eius *ad quod*; sic, quia catechismus est ad perfectionem intellectus, et

<!-- page 162 -->

exorcismus ad id quod respicit affectum, quia ad suggestionem diaboli expellendam; catechismus praecedit, et sic ante exorcismum est catechismus[^22]. — Si ratione eius *a quo*; quia instructio est ab ordine lectorum, et exorcizatio ab exorcistis, et lectorum ordo praecedit[^23]; sic ante exorcismum est catechismus. Si ratione eius *in quem*; sic dicendum est, quod si adultus est, prius est capax doctrinae quam gratiae, parvulus e contrario; et ideo in adultis praecedit catechismus, in parvulis e contrario exorcismus. Et ideo ordo mutatus est secundum aliquas Ecclesias, nec servatur ille qui consuevit esse in primitiva Ecclesia, quia tunc baptizabantur adulti, nunc autem parvuli[^24].

---

english:
### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning this which Augustine says: *In that child the use of reason was hastened*, whether blessed John in the womb had the use of free will. And that he did, it seems: because he leaped at the voice of blessed Mary, as is said in the text[^1]; but such exultation was only through the apprehension of a thing loved; but a thing is not apprehended except by reason, nor is it lovable except by a reasoned will[^2], namely the presence of Christ or of his Mother: therefore it seems, since the use of free will is according to an act of reason and of will, that he simply had the use. But on the contrary: Augustine to Dardanus[^3]: « It is not said, that *the infant believed* »; therefore if the first motion of faith is among the motions of the virtues, it seems that he did not have the act of any virtue: therefore since this was not because of a defect of grace, it was therefore because of a defect of free will.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning this there was a twofold opinion; and Augustine speaks doubtfully. For there were those who said that John did not have a motion of free will, nor was that exultation *from him*, but rather *in him*, not through nature, but above nature; just as Balaam's ass spoke, and yet did not understand[^4]; so they say that John was moved by the Holy Spirit at the coming of the Lord, and that that motion was after the manner of one exulting, not because he himself perceived, but because the Lord willed that the mother should perceive the Lord and his Mother by the motion of the child, and that this should be a presage of things to come. And to this opinion the words of Augustine accord.

There were others who said that to John was straightway given a motion of free will and an illumination of cognition, by which he knew the Lord present and rejoiced above nature. And if you object that the Lord does not withdraw his gifts, and so afterwards he always had the use of free will, which is neither believed nor probable; therefore it is briefly answered that just as the Lord gives the grace of rapture to someone for one hour; so also God did this above nature for a special cause. — Either position is probable, nor can it easily be disproved[^5].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which Zacharias says: *If he who baptized, not introducing an error* etc. For he seems to say that if he wished to introduce an error, that it would not be a baptism. But on the contrary: the faith, or heresy, of the one baptizing does nothing toward this, that it not be a baptism[^6]: therefore it seems that the judgment is the same, whether he intend to introduce an error, or not.

**I respond:** To this some have said that although infidelity concerning the other articles does nothing toward the integrity of baptism, nevertheless infidelity concerning baptism does much. — But if we attend: since fidelity comprehends every article; and fidelity concerning one article together with infidelity concerning another is not faith nor a part of faith[^7]: it does nothing toward this, as it seems, by reason of that whereby it is fidelity, or infidelity. Therefore it must be said that no infidelity takes away baptism, provided the intention be sound, namely of doing what the Church does; and since he who intends to introduce a heresy intends to coin a new form[^8] and to weaken what the Church does: therefore the intention is not sound, and through this neither is the baptism.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which Pope Leo says: *Concerning those, about whom no indications exist among their kin, it must be acted, that they be reborn.* For he seems to speak ill, because it is as great a sin to rebaptize one baptized, as to omit baptism: therefore he who baptizes that one, about whom no indications exist, commits himself to peril and danger, because he knows not whether he rebaptizes one baptized; but every such person sins: therefore etc.

In connection with this it is asked whether anyone can be baptized while sleeping; and it seems that he can, because concerning a lethargic person, who cannot awaken, it seems that he ought to be baptized.

**I respond:** It must be said that ignorance of fact, due diligence having been applied, excuses entirely[^9]; and since, if someone baptizes someone, about whom it cannot be known through anyone whether he was baptized, he is ignorant that he is baptized, and he applies diligence if he inquires of those who know: therefore he does not sin. Again, because that is a probable sign that he is not baptized; he is bound and ought to be baptized: and so it is plain that in baptizing he does not commit himself to danger[^10].

As for what is asked concerning the sleeper, it must be said that if he is an adult, either he previously consented and willed, or he refused and rejected. If he consented and willed; if he is baptized, he is baptized. Or if[^11] he previously denied and rejected, he is not baptized. But if he behaved indifferently as to that which is external; it cannot be known except through himself; and if he previously willed, he is baptized; if he did not will, not; because it is necessary that there be some consent in an adult, either coerced or spontaneous[^12].

If it is asked what ought to be done; it must be said that no one ought to baptize someone while sleeping, unless it be presumed that he will not awaken before death, and unless it be presumed concerning his present will through signs

or words, at least because he is born of Christians. In this case, with these things concurring, he ought to be baptized; and unless there has been a feigning in his soul before sleep; then he receives the Sacrament and the reality, as Innocent says[^13]. But if there has been a feigning, yet the will to baptism remains; he receives the Sacrament and not the reality. In exactly the same way must it be said of the madman.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which Augustine says: *If the whole thing were done mimically and in jest, counsel must be implored* etc. For he seems to speak ill, because the intention is of the necessity of baptism[^14]: therefore if the whole thing was done in jest, it is not a baptism: therefore divine counsel is not to be implored, but he is to be baptized; because in those things in which we are certain and have human counsel, it is not necessary to flee to God.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Hugh says[^15], play does not always exclude intention, but is compatible with it, as is plain. And Hugh gives an example: that *to wish to give in play* is in two ways: in one way, to wish to play in such a way that one in no way gives; *in another way* in such a way that one wishes to play, and nonetheless wishes to give. And in the first way it excludes intention, and he who thus gives in playing does not give; in the second way it posits the intention of giving and truly gives. So in the matter at hand it must be understood. Hence there can be an intention together with play. And therefore Augustine says[^16], « divine counsel must be implored ». And if the Lord does not reveal, he is to be rebaptized, yet under condition. And this is what is said, in the first question[^17], concerning the case which is there proposed, that the boy Athanasius, pretending to be a bishop, baptized certain boys in play, who afterwards by the counsel of Bishop Alexander were not rebaptized: because below it is added that the same bishop came upon the scene and inquired concerning the intention and learned through the words of the youth that he had the intention; and therefore they ought not to have been rebaptized. And that he had the intention is gathered[^18], because he baptized none but catechumens. And so the meaning of Augustine's word is plain.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which is said: *It must be known that two times are to be observed in baptizing the elect.* For it seems that the day of Epiphany would be more fitting, because the Lord was baptized on that day.

**I respond:** It must be said that on the day of Epiphany it is not done so solemnly, on account of rooting out the heresy which said that on that day alone the waters could regenerate. But it is done on the other two days, because at Easter *he washed us from our sins in his own blood*[^19], at Pentecost he baptized with the Holy Spirit; and because baptism has this twofold effect; therefore then it is given generally to all, but specially it is given to anyone, when death is feared[^20].

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which the Master says, that infants are baptized while another professes; whether he who professes ought to be called a sponsor (*patrinus*). And that he should, common usage holds. But on the contrary it seems, because a father is called only one who begets in some way, either spiritually or carnally; but such a one does neither. — Likewise, it is asked whether there can be several.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Hugh of Saint Victor says[^21], « they are called sponsors who offer infants to baptism, because they offer them to be regenerated to a new life, and in the offering and in the response they in some way contribute to their regeneration »; and therefore they are rightly called sponsors. — And afterwards he adds: « It pleased the Fathers that for each one to be baptized individual sponsors should be admitted, that is, one only, either man or woman, perhaps for this reason, lest the spiritual kinship, to which reverence is owed, being spread about indiscriminately, might have stood in the way of the union of marriage. But certain Churches do not keep this custom, admitting several to the reception of infants ».

### Doubt VII.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which is said: *Exorcism takes place after catechism.* For it seems that he orders ill: because exorcism is for the expulsion of evil, but catechism for the instruction in good; but it is prior to expel evil than to implant good: therefore it was prior to deal with exorcism.

**I respond:** It must be said that these two can be ordered in three ways: either by reason of that *for which* they are; or by reason of that *by whom* they are dispensed; or by reason of him *in whom* they take place. If by reason of that *for which*; thus, because catechism is for the perfection of the intellect, and

exorcism for that which regards the affection, because it is for expelling the suggestion of the devil; catechism precedes, and so before exorcism is catechism[^22]. — If by reason of that *by whom*; because instruction is from the order of lectors, and exorcizing from exorcists, and the order of lectors precedes[^23]; thus before exorcism is catechism. If by reason of him *in whom*; thus it must be said that if he is an adult, he is prior capable of doctrine than of grace, an infant the contrary; and therefore in adults catechism precedes, in infants the contrary, exorcism. And therefore the order has been changed according to some Churches, nor is that kept which was wont to be in the primitive Church, because then adults were baptized, but now infants[^24].

---

la: Vers. 16. — Subinde respicitur parabola de decem virginibus, Matth. 25, 1 seqq. — De ultima propos. cfr. Dionys., de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 2, p. III, § 8, et Gennad., de Eccles. dogmat. c. 22 et 41.

en: Verse 16. — Thereupon the parable of the ten virgins is referred to, Matt. 25:1ff. — On the last proposition cf. Dionysius, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy* c. 2, p. III, § 8, and Gennadius, *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas* c. 22 and 41.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest. — Luc. 1, 41 et 44. — Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum: Ipso momento, quo vox intrat ad aures corporis, virtus spiritualis cor intrat audientis et non solum matrem, sed etiam sobolem amore advenientis accendit. — Isidor., I. Differentiar. II, 329: « Laetitia est mentis gaudium, *exsultatio* vero verborum atque membrorum. Rursus exsultatio a iubilatione distinguitur. Ubi enim verba sufficiunt laetitiae, et lingua idonea est mentis gaudium explicare, exsultatio est; ubi vero non potest quisque conceptum gaudium verbis annuntiare, sed ipsam animi effusi laetitiam in vocem quandam exsultationis erumpit, *iubilatio* est ». Cassiodor., in Ps. 9, 2: *Exsultare* est enim animi et corporis maiore motu iucundissima libertate gaudere. Cfr. supra pag. 137, nota 6, et S. Thom., IV. Sent. d. 49 q. 3 a. 1 quaestiunc. 4.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. — Luke 1:41 and 44. — Ordinary Gloss as in Strabus: At the very moment when the voice enters the ears of the body, a spiritual power enters the heart of the hearer and kindles with love of the one coming not only the mother but also the offspring. — Isidore, *Differences* II, 329: « Joy is gladness of the mind, but *exultation* is of words and members. Again, exultation is distinguished from jubilation. For where words suffice for gladness, and the tongue is fit to unfold the mind's joy, it is exultation; but where one cannot announce the conceived joy in words, but bursts forth the very gladness of the outpoured soul into a kind of cry of exultation, it is *jubilation* ». Cassiodorus, on Ps. 9:2: For *to exult* is to rejoice with most pleasant freedom by a greater motion of mind and body. Cf. above p. 137, note 6, and St. Thomas, IV Sent. d. 49 q. 3 a. 1 little-question 4.

la: Epist. 187 (alias 57.) c. 7 n. 23. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Quod actus fidei sit primus inter actus virtutum, ostensum est III. Sent. d. 23 a. 1 q. 1 in corp. et d. 27 a. 2 q. 1.

en: Epist. 187 (otherwise 57) c. 7 n. 23. See here the text of the Master, c. 3. — That the act of faith is the first among the acts of the virtues was shown in III Sent. d. 23 a. 1 q. 1 in the body, and d. 27 a. 2 q. 1.

la: Num. 22, 28 seqq. — Inferius pro *exsultantis* cod. Z *exsultationis*, et in fine proposit. pro *futurorum praesagium* codd. *futurum praesagium*.

en: Num. 22:28ff. — Below, for *exsultantis* cod. Z reads *exsultationis*, and at the end of the proposition, for *futurorum praesagium* the codd. read *futurum praesagium*.

la: Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: The same doubt is resolved by B. Albert, here a. 9; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Ut dictum est supra d. 5 a. 1 q. 2 et a. 2 q. 2.

en: As was said above d. 5 a. 1 q. 2 and a. 2 q. 2.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 23 a. 2 q. 1 ad 1 et q. 2 ad 1. — Verba *et infidelitas circa aliquem articulum* supplevimus ex codd. F G I, et subnexa *cum infidelitate circa alium* exhibent omnes codd., edd. autem substituunt *et in infidelitate*.

en: Cf. III Sent. d. 23 a. 2 q. 1 ad 1 and q. 2 ad 1. — The words *and infidelity concerning some article* we have supplied from codd. F G I, and the appended *with infidelity concerning another* all the codd. exhibit, but the editions substitute *and in infidelity*.

la: Codd. A U W *tradere*. Cum edd. et aliquot codd. superius post *et quoniam iste* retinuimus *qui*. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: Codd. A U W *tradere*. With the editions and several codd., above, after *et quoniam iste*, we have retained *qui*. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Vide supra pag. 86, nota 7.

en: See above p. 86, note 7.

la: Cfr. C. *Parvulos* (110.) et seqq., de Consecrat. d. 4. — Superius pro *quia illud* edd. *quia aliquod*.

en: Cf. canon *Parvulos* (110) and following, *de Consecratione* d. 4. — Above, for *quia illud* the editions read *quia aliquod*.

la: Pro *Aut si* cod. L *si autem*, codd. F G I *Sed si*.

en: For *Aut si* cod. L reads *si autem*, codd. F G I *Sed si*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 4 p. 1 a. 2 q. 1.

en: Cf. above d. 4 p. 1 a. 2 q. 1.

la: Cap. *Maiores*, X. (libr. III. tit. 42.) de Baptismo et eius effectu. Cfr. supra pag. 100, nota 1. — Aliquanto superius edd., omisso *praesenti*, post *vel verba* addunt *vel parentum*. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV q. 8 m. 7 a. 2 § 3; B. Albert, hic a. 10.

en: Chapter *Maiores*, X (book III tit. 42) *On Baptism and its effect*. Cf. above p. 100, note 1. — A little above, the editions, omitting *praesenti*, after *vel verba* add *vel parentum*. — The same doubt is resolved by Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV q. 8 m. 7 a. 2 § 3; B. Albert, here a. 10.

la: Vide supra a. 2 q. 1.

en: See above a. 2 q. 1.

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VI c. 13.

en: Book II *On the Sacraments* p. VI c. 13.

la: Prosequendo verba textus huius dubii. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3; in originali vero S. Augustini legitur *iudicium* pro *consilio*.

en: Following out the words of the text of this doubt. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3; but in the original of St. Augustine *iudicium* (judgment) is read for *consilio* (counsel).

la: Cap. *Spiritus sanctus* (58.) c. 1. Cfr. Rufin. Aquilei., I. Hist. eccles. c. 14, et Sozomen., II. Hist. c. 17.

en: Chapter *Spiritus sanctus* (58) c. 1. Cf. Rufinus of Aquileia, I *Eccl. Hist.* c. 14, and Sozomen, II *Hist.* c. 17.

la: Cod. Z addit *ex hoc*. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV q. 8 m. 3 a. 1 § 1; B. Albert., hic a. 11; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cod. Z adds *ex hoc*. — The same doubt is resolved by Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV q. 8 m. 3 a. 1 § 1; B. Albert, here a. 11; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Apoc. 1, 5. — Act. 1, 5: Vos autem baptizabimini Spiritu sancto non post multos hos dies. Cfr. ibid. 2, 3 seq. — Pro *in Paschate* codd. A O R T V *in passione*, codd. E I L bb et ed. I *in baptismate*.

en: Apoc. 1:5. — Acts 1:5: But you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence. Cf. ibid. 2:3f. — For *in Paschate* codd. A O R T V read *in passione*, codd. E I L bb and ed. I *in baptismate*.

la: Cfr. Leo 1, Epist. 16. universis episc. per Siciliam constitutis, ex qua sumtum est C. *Proprie* (13.) et seq., de Consecrat. d. 4. — Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 12.

en: Cf. Leo I, Epist. 16 to all the bishops set throughout Sicily, from which is taken the canon *Proprie* (13) and following, *de Consecratione* d. 4. — The same doubt is resolved by B. Albert, here a. 12.

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VI c. 12, pluribus tamen verbis adiunctis. Ibidem invenitur seq. testimonium, in quo textus originalis cum edd. *copula* pro *copulam*. — Cfr. C. *Non plures* (101.), de Consecrat. d. 4.

en: Book II *On the Sacraments* p. VI c. 12, with more words however added. In the same place is found the following testimony, in which the original text, with the editions, has *copula* for *copulam*. — Cf. canon *Non plures* (101), *de Consecratione* d. 4.

la: Codd. E F G H I bb omittunt *et sic... catechismus*. Aliquanto superius post *ad quod* in codd. E F G I (bb a secunda manu) additur *sunt*.

en: Codd. E F G H I bb omit *et sic... catechismus*. Somewhat above, after *ad quod*, in codd. E F G I (bb by a second hand) *sunt* is added.

la: Cfr. infra d. 24 p. II a. 1 q. 3 in corp. et a. 2 q. 4.

en: Cf. below d. 24 p. II a. 1 q. 3 in the body and a. 2 q. 4.

la: Vide supra n. 3 q. 1 seq. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV q. 7 m. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: See above n. 3 q. 1 and following. — The same doubt is resolved by Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV q. 7 m. 1; B. Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin reflowed (L-column then R-column) from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 159–162 (pdf pp. 179–182), authoritative wherever the OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, body span L18213–L18488) cascade-shattered the Respondeo passages and footers. The semantic header DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI sits at raw L18213; everything above it on p. 159 (the baptismal-rite *littera* with its "Decimo…Decimo quarto" margins) belongs to the *littera* chunk, not here.

**Dubia count: 7 (DUB. I–VII).**
- **Dub. I** — Whether John the Baptist had the use of free will in the womb (was his leaping *from* him or only *in* him?). Two probable opinions; neither easily disproved.
- **Dub. II** — Whether a baptizer's intent to introduce error invalidates baptism (no infidelity removes baptism if the intention to do what the Church does is sound).
- **Dub. III** — Baptizing where no indications of prior baptism exist, and baptizing the sleeping/lethargic/insane; diligence excuses; conditional baptism where feigning is doubted.
- **Dub. IV** — Baptism done "mimically/in jest" (boy-Athanasius-as-bishop case); play does not always exclude intention; conditional rebaptism if unrevealed.
- **Dub. V** — Why the two solemn baptismal seasons are Easter and Pentecost, not Epiphany (anti-heresy + the twofold effect: blood / Spirit).
- **Dub. VI** — Whether the one who professes for an infant is rightly called *patrinus* (sponsor), and whether several may be admitted.
- **Dub. VII** — Whether exorcism rightly follows catechism; threefold ordering (by *for-which* / *by-whom* / *in-whom*); order changed adults→infants.

**Page-split map.** p. 159: header + Dub. I objection. p. 160: Dub. I respondeo, Dub. II, Dub. III (through objection + start of respondeo). p. 161: Dub. III respondeo cont., Dub. IV, Dub. V, Dub. VI, Dub. VII (objection + start of respondeo). p. 162: Dub. VII respondeo completed (top of both columns), then DISTINCTIO VII begins.

**Footer ownership.** Claimed: p. 159 notes 8–9 (renumbered [^1]–[^2]); p. 160 notes 1–10 ([^3]–[^12]); p. 161 notes 1–9 ([^13]–[^21]); p. 162 notes 1–3 ([^22]–[^24]) = 24 total. Left to neighbors: p. 159 notes 1–7 (the *littera* baptismal-rite commentary, incl. its note 7 "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." which sits on the *littera* "incorporetur⁷", not on a dubium); on p. 162, everything below the dubia apparatus — the NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM and the DISTINCTIO VII material — belongs to the d. 7 *littera*/commentary chunks.

**d.7 boundary confirmed.** The d. 7 commentary header "COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VII" is at raw L18616 (the intervening L18492 "DISTINCTIO VII" + L18585 "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" are the d. 7 *littera* and its textual notes). Nothing from L18489 onward is captured here.

**[?] flags.** (1) In the p. 161 right column the superscript on *Hugo de sancto Victore* (Dub. VI) renders ambiguously at band resolution (reads like a small "5"); assigned as Quaracchi note 9 ([^21]) by content match (Hugh, *De Sacramentis* II p. VI c. 12, with the *copula/copulam* variant matching "matrimonii copulam"), since the page's right-column apparatus carries only notes 7–9 and only note 9 cites Hugh. (2) The Dub. IV title verb (printed *ioculariter*/marginally garbled to *iocularie* in OCR) follows the band reading. No residual genuinely-ambiguous readings; nothing illegible.


title: Dist. 7

title_alt: Distinctio VII — textus Magistri Sententiarum (De confirmatione)

title_alt: Distinction VII — text of the Master of the Sentences (On confirmation)

source_text:
> Le note numerate qui sotto corrispondono ai richiami nel testo latino e nella traduzione inglese. — The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation that follows; Quaracchi restarts its numbering on each printed page, but they are renumbered continuously here.

<!-- page 162 -->

DISTINCTIO VII.

### Cap. I. *De Sacramento confirmationis.*

Nunc de Sacramento confirmationis addendum est, de cuius virtute quaeri solet. Forma enim aperta est, scilicet verba, quae dicit episcopus, cum baptizatos in frontibus sacro signat chrismate.

### Cap. II. *Quod non nisi a summis sacerdotibus tradi potest.*

Quod[^1] Sacramentum ab aliis perfici non potest nisi a summis sacerdotibus, nec tempore Apostolorum ab aliis quam ab ipsis Apostolis legitur peractum, nec ab aliis, quam qui locum eorum tenent, perfici potest aut debet. Nam si aliter praesumptum fuerit, irritum habetur et vacuum nec inter ecclesiastica reputabitur Sacramenta. Licet autem presbyteris baptizatos tangere in pectore, sed non chrismate signare in fronte.

### Cap. III. *Quae sit virtus huius Sacramenti.*

Virtus vero huius Sacramenti est donatio Spiritus sancti ad robur, qui in baptismo datus est ad remissionem. Unde Rabanus[^2]: «A summo sacerdote per impositionem manus Paraclitus traditur baptizato, ut roboretur per Spiritum sanctum ad praedicandum aliis illud quod ipse in baptismo consecutus est». Item[^3] «Omnes fideles per manus impositionem episcoporum post baptismum accipere debent Spiritum sanctum, ut pleni Christiani inveniantur».

### Cap. IV. *Utrum hoc Sacramentum sit dignius baptismo.*

«Scitote, utrumque magnum esse Sacramentum, sed unum maiori veneratione tenendum, sicut a maioribus datur[^4]». — Ecce *maius* dicit Sacramentum confirmationis; sed forte non ob maiorem virtutem vel utilitatem, quam conferat, sed quia a dignioribus datur et in digniori parte corporis fit, id est in fronte; vel forte, quia maius virtutum augmentum praestat, licet baptismus ad remissionem plus valeat. Quod videtur innuere Rabanus[^5] dicens, «in unctione baptismi Spiritum sanctum descendere ad habitationem Deo consecrandam. In hac vero eiusdem septiformem gratiam cum omni plenitudine sanctitatis et virtutis venire in hominem». — Hoc Sacramentum tantum a ieiunis et ieiunis tradi debet, sicut et baptismus, nisi aliter cogat necessitas.

### Cap. V. *Utrum possit iterari.*

Nec debet iterari, sicut nec baptismus vel ordo. Nulli enim Sacramento facienda est iniuria; quod fieri putatur, quando non iterandum iteratur. — Sed utrum aliqua vel nulla iterari possint, quaestio est. Nam de baptismo et ordine, quod non debeant iterari, aperte Augustinus[^6] dicit: «Utrumque Sacramentum est et quadam consecratione datur: illud quidem, cum baptizatur; illud vero, cum ordinatur. Ideoque in Ecclesia catholica utrumque non licet iterari», quia neutri

<!-- page 163 -->

### Cap. VI.

facienda est iniuria. Quod indubitanter etiam de confirmatione tenendum est; de aliis vero, utrum iterari valeant vel debeant, postea disseremus.

*Notula.* Gregorius[^7] ita scribit Ianuario episcopo: «Pervenit ad nos, quosdam scandalizatos fuisse, quod presbyteros chrismate tangere eos qui baptizati sunt, prohibuimus; et nos quidem secundum veterem usum nostrae Ecclesiae fecimus. Sed si omnino de hac re aliqui contristantur; ubi episcopi desunt, ut presbyteri etiam in frontibus baptizatos chrismate tangere debeant, concedimus». «Sed istud pro scandalo sedando semel[^8] mihi concessum esse aestimatur».

english:
<!-- page 162 -->

DISTINCTION VII.

### Cap. I. *On the Sacrament of confirmation.*

Now something must be added concerning the Sacrament of confirmation, about whose power inquiry is wont to be made. For its form is plain, namely the words which the bishop speaks when he signs the baptized on their foreheads with the sacred chrism.

### Cap. II. *That it can be administered only by the highest priests.*

This[^1] Sacrament cannot be performed by others save by the highest priests, nor in the time of the Apostles is it read to have been performed by any others than the Apostles themselves, nor can it or ought it to be performed by others than those who hold their place. For if it has been presumptuously done otherwise, it is held void and empty, nor will it be reckoned among the ecclesiastical Sacraments. It is permitted, however, to presbyters to touch the baptized on the breast, but not to sign them with chrism on the forehead.

### Cap. III. *What the power of this Sacrament is.*

But the power of this Sacrament is the gift of the Holy Spirit unto strengthening, who in baptism was given unto remission. Hence Rabanus[^2]: «By the highest priest, through the imposition of the hand, the Paraclete is handed over to the baptized, that he may be strengthened through the Holy Spirit to preach to others that which he himself obtained in baptism». Likewise[^3] «All the faithful ought, through the imposition of the hands of the bishops, to receive the Holy Spirit after baptism, that they may be found full Christians».

### Cap. IV. *Whether this Sacrament is more worthy than baptism.*

«Know that both are a great Sacrament, but that one is to be held in greater veneration, inasmuch as it is given by greater persons[^4]». — Behold, he calls the Sacrament of confirmation *greater*; but perhaps not on account of a greater power or usefulness which it confers, but because it is given by worthier persons and is performed on a worthier part of the body, that is, on the forehead; or perhaps because it bestows a greater increase of virtues, although baptism avails more unto remission. This Rabanus[^5] seems to intimate, saying that «in the anointing of baptism the Holy Spirit descends to consecrate a dwelling-place for God. But in this [anointing] His sevenfold grace comes upon the man with all fulness of holiness and virtue». — This Sacrament ought to be administered only by those fasting and to those fasting, like baptism also, unless necessity compels otherwise.

### Cap. V. *Whether it can be repeated.*

Nor ought it to be repeated, just as neither baptism nor order. For no injury is to be done to any Sacrament; which is thought to be done when what is not to be repeated is repeated. — But whether some can be repeated or none, is a question. For concerning baptism and order, that they ought not to be repeated, Augustine[^6] plainly says: «Each is a Sacrament and is given by a certain consecration: the one indeed, when one is baptized; the other, when one is ordained. And therefore in the catholic Church it is not lawful to repeat either», because to neither

<!-- page 163 -->

### Cap. VI.

is injury to be done. This is undoubtedly to be held also concerning confirmation; but concerning the others, whether they can or ought to be repeated, we shall treat hereafter.

*Notula.* Gregory[^7] writes thus to Bishop Januarius: «It has come to us that some have been scandalized because we forbade presbyters to touch with chrism those who have been baptized; and we indeed did this according to the ancient custom of our Church. But if some are altogether grieved over this matter; where bishops are lacking, we concede that presbyters too may touch the baptized with chrism upon their foreheads». «But this seems to have been conceded to me once for all[^8] for the allaying of the scandal».

la: Edd., excepta I, et cod. B *hoc*. — Locus iste sumtus est ex Hugone a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 1, et C. *Manus quoque* (4.), de Consecrat. dist. 5. — Ante *qui locum* codd. AC et ipse canon cum plerisque edd. addunt *ab illis*, refragante ed. 1 et Hugone. Ultima verba capituli 2. sunt in C. *Presbyteris* (119.), de Consecrat. dist. 4.

en: The editions, except I, and codex B [read] *hoc*. — This passage is taken from Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 6, c. 1, and from the Canon *Manus quoque* (4.), *de Consecratione* dist. 5. — Before *qui locum* codices AC and the canon itself, with most editions, add *ab illis*, against edition 1 and Hugh. The last words of chapter 2 are in the Canon *Presbyteris* (119.), *de Consecratione* dist. 4.

la: Libr. I. de institutione clericorum, c. 30.

en: [Rabanus Maurus,] Book I, *On the Instruction of Clerics*, c. 30.

la: Can. *Omnes fideles* (1.), de Consecrat. dist. 5. — In fine huius capituli codd. BDE et ed. 1 subiungunt notulam: *Gregorius ita* etc., ab aliis in fine dist. positam.

en: The Canon *Omnes fideles* (1.), *de Consecratione* dist. 5. — At the end of this chapter codices BDE and edition 1 append the *notula*: *Gregorius ita*, etc., which is placed by others at the end of the distinction.

la: Can. *De his vero* (3.), de Consecrat. dist. 5.

en: The Canon *De his vero* (3.), *de Consecratione* dist. 5.

la: Loc. cit., et C. *Novissime* (5.), ibid. — Deinde ante *et ieiunis* solae edd., excepta I, male addunt *accipi*. — Quoad ieiunium cfr. C. *Ut ieiuni* (6.) et *Ut episcopi* (7.), ibid., nec non Hugo, II. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 5.

en: The passage cited, and the Canon *Novissime* (5.), in the same place. — Then before *et ieiunis* the editions alone, except I, wrongly add *accipi*. — As to fasting cf. the Canon *Ut ieiuni* (6.) and *Ut episcopi* (7.), in the same place, and also Hugh, II *On the Sacraments* p. VII, c. 5.

la: Libr. II. contra Epist. Parmeniani, c. 13. n. 28, et C. *Quod quidam* (97.), c. 1. q. 1. § 1.

en: [Augustine,] Book II *Against the Letter of Parmenian*, c. 13, n. 28, and the Canon *Quod quidam* (97.), c. 1, q. 1, § 1.

la: Libr. IV. Regist. indict. 12. epist. 26, et C. *Pervenit* (1.), dist. 95. Seq. locus exhibet verba Gratiani super C. *Presbyteros* (2.), ibid.

en: [Gregory,] Book IV of the *Register*, indiction 12, letter 26, and the Canon *Pervenit* (1.), dist. 95. The following passage gives the words of Gratian upon the Canon *Presbyteros* (2.), in the same place.

la: Verba haec («Sed istud … aestimatur») apud Gratianum (Dubium 1. Gratiani) sunt verba super C. *Presbyteros* (2.), dist. 95, in fronte capituli relata.

en: These words («But this … once for all») in Gratian (Gratian's first doubt) are the words upon the Canon *Presbyteros* (2.), dist. 95, reported at the head of the chapter. *[?]* — the marginal footer here was OCR-shattered (`nubinn) i. / Gratianus`); the substance (Gratian, C. *Presbyteros*, dist. 95) is read off the PDF band but the exact Quaracchi wording of this short footer is reconstructed and flagged.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (raw lines 18489–18615) with PDF column-band authority over the cascade-shattered footers, per the Vol II/IV override (two-column; `colcrop.py vol4`, split x≈1880). Pages 162–163, columns read L-then-R, body bands then footer bands. English is a fresh literal parallel translation. `has_scholion: false` — a littera (Lombard's text) has no scholion. Single-pars distinction → id carries no pars label.

**Chapters captured.** Lombard's chapter divisions in this range: **Cap. I** (De Sacramento confirmationis), **Cap. II** (Quod non nisi a summis sacerdotibus tradi potest), **Cap. III** (Quae sit virtus huius Sacramenti), **Cap. IV** (Utrum hoc Sacramentum sit dignius baptismo), **Cap. V** (Utrum possit iterari), and the unlabeled **Cap. VI** continuation (printed only as "Cap. VI" running into "facienda est iniuria…" + the *Notula* Gregorii). Six chapter units total.

**Page-split map.**
- p.162 left column: DISTINCTIO VII heading; Cap. I, Cap. II, Cap. III (body).
- p.162 right column: Cap. IV, Cap. V (body) — note the *top* of p.162 R still carries the END of d.6 (the "si adultus est… nunc autem parvuli" material with the marginal *Notandum* footer); that belongs to the preceding chunk, not here.
- p.163 left column: Cap. VI tail ("facienda est iniuria… postea disseremus") + the *Notula* Gregorii opening, then COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VII begins (excluded — divisio chunk).
- p.163 right column: continuation/close of the *Notula* Gregorii ("prohibuimus… aestimatur»").

**Footer ownership — claimed vs left to neighbors.**
- *Claimed (8, renumbered continuously):* p.162 **L** footers ¹ ² ³ (the NOTAE block anchored to Cap. II/III body markers Quod/Rabanus/Item → `[^1]`–`[^3]`); p.162 **R** footers ¹ ² ³ (anchored to Cap. IV/V body, the *Dubium 3–6* margin run → `[^4]`–`[^6]`); p.163 **L** footer ¹ (the Gregorius *Notula* → `[^7]`); p.163 **R** Gratianus/*Dubium 1* footer for the «Sed istud…» close → `[^8]`.
- *Left to the d.6-p2-dubia neighbor:* the **p.162 dubia-side / d.6 footers** (incl. the *Notandum* footer at p.162 R top tied to the "si adultus est… parvuli" d.6 tail) — per the brief, d6-p2-dubia already claimed p.162's dubia-side footers.
- *Left to the d.7 divisio / a1-q1 neighbors:* on p.163, the **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** block (footer ¹ "Edd. *ad ministri dignitatem*") and the *Fundamenta* footer ³ ("Libr. IV. Regist…" for the COMMENTARIUS/articulus body) belong to the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VII (divisio) and the following ART. I QUAEST. I — NOT claimed here.

**`[?]` flags.**
- `[^8]` — the short marginal footer behind the «Sed istud… aestimatur» close was OCR-shattered (`nubinn) i. / (^rali.iniis.` ≈ "Dubium 1. / Gratianus"); the reference (Gratian on C. *Presbyteros*, dist. 95) is read off the PDF, but the precise Quaracchi wording of this footer is reconstructed and flagged.
- The body marker on *Item* (Cap. III, `[^3]`) prints as a worn superscript in both OCR and the PDF band (OCR rendered it "²"); read as the third left-column footer by position. Not a content ambiguity, noted for completeness.