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

source_text:
<!-- page 52 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum in tempore gratiae debuerint institui unum, an plura Sacramenta.*

Tertio quaeritur de numero Sacramentorum temporis Evangelii. Et quod debuerit esse *unum solum,* videtur:

1. Quia iugum evangelicum est iugum suavitatis et onus levitatis[^1]; sed levius est observare unum Sacramentum quam plura: ergo cum Deus virtutem omnium Sacramentorum potuerit dare uni, videtur, quod unum tantum debuerit esse.

2. Item, quod cetera[^2] praeter unum superfluant, videtur: quia in Sacramento uno, quod est eucharistia, significatur passio, a qua effectum habent omnia Sacramenta; et rursus, in illo Sacramento continetur Christus, in quo est omnis gratiae plenitudo: ergo videtur, quod ipsum solum possit omnia efficere, ad quae sunt alia instituta.

3. Item, videtur, quod unum solum faciat, quod omnia alia faciunt; baptismus enim delet omnem culpam, delet etiam omnem poenam culpae debitam, quia statim evolaret baptizatus, si moreretur[^3].

4. Item, baptismus dat gratiam, quae sanat animam et habilitat omnes potentias; sed ad aliud non sunt omnia Sacramenta: ergo sufficit baptismus.

**Quod autem debuerint esse plura, videtur:**

1. Quia, sicut dicitur distinctione praecedenti[^4], «contra peccati vulnus Sacramentorum remedia Deus instituit»; sed dicit Hieronymus: «Non sanat oculum quod sanat calcaneum»; cum igitur diversa sint vulnera: ergo diversa debent esse remedia: ergo Sacramenta plura.

2. Item, Sacramenta non tantum sanant, sed etiam significant[^5]: ergo si significatio est ex institutione, et quod ad multa instituitur ad significandum est multiplex et dubium: ergo si unum Sacramentum habet plures efficacias et plures significationes, duceret in dubitationem, non in cognitionem.

3. Item, necesse est, quod Sacramentum expressam habeat similitudinem[^6]; sed non invenitur species visibilis, quae habeat similitudinem expressam cum omnibus effectibus: ergo necesse est esse plures.

Supposito ergo, quod *plura,* quaeritur: quare tantum *septem?*

1. Quia, cum duo sint vulnera tantum, scilicet poenae et culpae; videtur, quod debuerint esse *duo* Sacramenta tantum. Si dicas, quod culpa et poena multiplicantur per differentias; *contra:* tunc erunt
<!-- page 53 -->
plura quam septem, quia genera peccatorum sunt septem. — Item, poenae sunt multae, sicut irregularitas, sicut concupiscentia circa gustum et sicut circa tactum, contra quae non sunt Sacramenta[^7].

2. Item, Sacramenta Evangelii se habent ex additione ad Sacramenta legis scriptae, sicut illa ad Sacramenta, quae sunt in lege naturae: ergo cum plura sint Sacramenta in lege scripta quam in lege naturae, plura debent esse in Evangelio quam in Lege[^8].

> ### Conclusio.
> Numerus septenarius Sacramentorum conveniens est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut ostensum est, necesse est, esse plura Sacramenta: plura quidem, quia sunt ad exercitandum, unum enim generaret fastidium; plura etiam, quia sunt ad erudiendum, unum enim generaret ambiguitatem[^9]. Sed *septem* sunt et non plura, quia sunt ad medicandum, quia medicina respicit *vulnera, quae sanat;* et sanando vulnera adiuvat virtutes; et adiuvando virtutes munit et armat contra infirmitates.

Secundum igitur quod Sacramenta sanant infirmitates, numerus eorum accipitur sic: quia est infirmitas culpae et poenae; infirmitas culpae in generali est peccatum originale, contra quod est baptismus; et peccatum actuale mortale, contra quod est poenitentia; et peccatum veniale, contra quod est extrema unctio. — Poenae autem infirmitas est quadruplex[^10], scilicet ignorantia, contra quam est ordo, in quo potestas traditur discernendi; secunda, infirmitas, contra quam est confirmatio; tertia est malitia, contra quam est eucharistia; quarta concupiscentia, contra quam est matrimonium.

Secundum autem quod Sacramenta sunt in adiutorium virtutum, accipitur numerus sic: quia in adiutorium fidei, sic est baptismus, qui est ianua Sacramentorum, sicut fides virtutum[^11]; in auxilium spei, sic est unctio extrema; in auxilium caritatis, eucharistia, quae unit et incorporat; in auxilium prudentiae, ordo; in auxilium iustitiae, poenitentia; in auxilium temperantiae, matrimonium; in auxilium fortitudinis, confirmatio.

Secundum vero, quod Sacramenta sunt arma turae Ecclesiae militantis, sumitur numerus sic: quia, sicut dicitur Canticorum sexto[^12], ipsa est terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata; terribilis est, quia munita et fortis, et hoc per confirmationem; acies, quia coniuncta et unita, et hoc per eucharistiam; ordinata, per ordinem. Haec acies variabilis est tanquam in hac vita consistens, unde ex ea aliqui subtrahuntur per mortem, aliqui prosternuntur per culpam; ideo necessarium est Sacramentum ad prolem multiplicandam ad divinum cultum, et hoc est matrimonium; necessarium est etiam ad resurgendum post lapsum, et hoc est poenitentia. In hac autem sola acie salus est; unde in eam ingreditur homo, ut proelietur, ex ea in morte egreditur, ut coronetur. Sed nullus recipitur ad pugnam, nisi habeat signum et arma Christi; ideo necessarium est Sacramentum, in quo haec conferantur, ut baptismus, et hoc est ianua intrantium; item, ex hac acie nullus egreditur, qui recipiatur in triumphante[^13], nisi habeat pignus et unctionem Spiritus sancti, in cuius signationem est unctio extrema, quae est Sacramentum exeuntium. — Et sic patet, quod tantum sunt septem, sive considerentur ut medicamenta, sive ut adiumenta, sive ut arma.

**Ad argumenta:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod deberet esse unum propter facilitatem; dicendum, quod opus divinum debet habere *facilitatem* in signum potentiae, debet habere et *congruitatem* in signum sapientiae, debet etiam habere *utilitatem* in signum bonitatis. Quia ergo, licet via facilior existeret in uno, tamen, quia non ita congrua ut in pluribus; ideo fuerunt plura.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de efficacia eucharistiae, dicendum, quod etsi in eucharistia significetur passio, et contineatur Christus, in quo est gratiae plenitudo; non tamen significatur passio secundum omnem suum effectum, nec continetur gratiae plenitudo ad omnem gratiam effundendam, sed specialiter ad effectum cibationis.

3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de baptismo, dicendum, quod baptismus directe est contra originale; unde non est iterabile, sed vulnera peccatorum[^14] sunt iterabilia. Item, etsi absolvat a poena satisfactionis,
<!-- page 54 -->
non tamen a poena, quae est sequela culpae; et contra has poenas sunt Sacramenta, quae non sunt tantum in dimissionem culpae; et ideo non sufficit.

**Ad argumenta contra numerum septenarium:**

1. Quod ergo obiicitur, quod debent esse duo tantum contra duo, scilicet poenam et culpam; patet responsio. Non enim est standum in *primis* differentiis, quae sunt poena et culpa, quia nimis sunt generales, nec descendendum est ad *speciales;* sed in eis, quae univocationem habent, ut puta originale ad omnia originalia, et mortale ad mortalia, et veniale ad venialia. Similiter nec in *differentiis* poenae, sed in *principalibus*[^15], quae sunt ratio ducendi in culpam. — Et sic patet de irregularitate; similiter de appetitu gulae, quia sine peccato potest esse in se, nisi deordinetur per nimium desiderium; sed concupiscentia carnis semper manet inordinata, nisi ordinetur.

2. Ad ultimum dicendum, quod Sacramenta legis scriptae addunt super Sacramenta legis naturae quantum ad certitudinem significationis et difficultatem oneris; ideo sunt evidentiora et plura. Sed Sacramenta Evangelii addunt super Sacramenta legis scriptae quantum ad expressionem et efficaciam et minuunt oneris duritiam; ideo sunt evidentiora et efficaciora, sed tamen pauciora[^16].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether in the time of grace one Sacrament, or many, ought to have been instituted.*

Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning the number of the Sacraments of the time of the Gospel. And that there ought to have been *but one,* it seems:

1. Because the evangelical yoke is a yoke of sweetness and a burden of lightness[^1]; but it is lighter to observe one Sacrament than many: therefore, since God could have given the power of all the Sacraments to one, it seems that there ought to have been but one.

2. Likewise, that the rest[^2] besides one are superfluous, seems [to follow]: because in the one Sacrament which is the Eucharist the Passion is signified, from which all the Sacraments have their effect; and again, in that Sacrament Christ is contained, in whom is all the fullness of grace: therefore it seems that it alone could effect all the things for which the others are instituted.

3. Likewise, it seems that one alone may do what all the others do; for baptism wipes out all guilt, and wipes out also all the punishment due to guilt, since the baptized person would fly straight up if he were to die[^3].

4. Likewise, baptism gives grace, which heals the soul and enables all the powers; but the Sacraments do not all exist for any other purpose: therefore baptism suffices.

**But that there ought to have been many, it seems:**

1. Because, as is said in the preceding distinction[^4], «against the wound of sin God instituted the remedies of the Sacraments»; but Jerome says: «What heals the eye does not heal the heel»; since therefore the wounds are diverse: therefore the remedies ought to be diverse: therefore many Sacraments.

2. Likewise, the Sacraments not only heal, but also signify[^5]: therefore if signification is from institution, and what is instituted for many things to signify is manifold and ambiguous: therefore if one Sacrament had many efficacies and many significations, it would lead into doubt, not into knowledge.

3. Likewise, it is necessary that a Sacrament have an express likeness[^6]; but no visible species is found which has an express likeness with all the effects: therefore there must be many.

Supposing therefore that [there ought to be] *many,* it is asked: why only *seven?*

1. Because, since there are only two wounds, namely of punishment and of guilt; it seems that there ought to have been only *two* Sacraments. If you should say that guilt and punishment are multiplied through their differences; *on the contrary:* then there will be
more than seven, because the kinds of sins are seven. — Likewise, the punishments are many, such as irregularity, such as concupiscence regarding taste and such as regarding touch, against which there are no Sacraments[^7].

2. Likewise, the Sacraments of the Gospel stand by way of addition to the Sacraments of the written law, as those [stand] to the Sacraments which are in the law of nature: therefore since there are more Sacraments in the written law than in the law of nature, there ought to be more in the Gospel than in the Law[^8].

> ### Conclusion.
> The sevenfold number of the Sacraments is fitting.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as has been shown, there must be many Sacraments: many indeed, because they are for exercising, for one alone would breed weariness; many also, because they are for instructing, for one alone would breed ambiguity[^9]. But there are *seven* and not more, because they are for healing, since medicine looks to *the wounds which it heals;* and in healing the wounds it aids the virtues; and in aiding the virtues it fortifies and arms against infirmities.

Accordingly, insofar as the Sacraments heal infirmities, their number is taken thus: because there is an infirmity of guilt and of punishment; the infirmity of guilt in general is original sin, against which is baptism; and actual mortal sin, against which is penance; and venial sin, against which is extreme unction. — But the infirmity of punishment is fourfold[^10], namely ignorance, against which is order, in which is handed on the power of discerning; the second, weakness, against which is confirmation; the third is malice, against which is the Eucharist; the fourth, concupiscence, against which is matrimony.

But insofar as the Sacraments are an aid to the virtues, the number is taken thus: because as an aid to faith, thus is baptism, which is the gate of the Sacraments, as faith is [the gate] of the virtues[^11]; as a help to hope, thus is extreme unction; as a help to charity, the Eucharist, which unites and incorporates; as a help to prudence, order; as a help to justice, penance; as a help to temperance, matrimony; as a help to fortitude, confirmation.

But insofar as the Sacraments are the arms of the militant Church, the number is taken thus: because, as is said in the sixth chapter of the Canticle[^12], she is *terrible as an army set in array;* terrible, because fortified and strong, and this through confirmation; an army, because joined and united, and this through the Eucharist; set in array, through order. This army is variable, as consisting in this life, whence from it some are withdrawn through death, some are laid low through guilt; therefore a Sacrament is necessary for multiplying offspring unto the divine worship, and this is matrimony; necessary also for rising again after a fall, and this is penance. But in this array alone is salvation; whence into it man enters, that he may do battle, and out of it he goes forth in death, that he may be crowned. But no one is received into the fight unless he has the sign and the arms of Christ; therefore a Sacrament is necessary in which these are conferred, namely baptism, and this is the gate of those entering; likewise, from this array no one goes forth who is received into the triumphant [Church][^13] unless he has the pledge and the unction of the Holy Spirit, in token of which is extreme unction, which is the Sacrament of those departing. — And thus it is clear that there are only seven, whether they be considered as medicines, or as aids, or as arms.

**To the arguments:**

1. To that, then, which is objected, that there ought to be one on account of facility; it must be said that the divine work ought to have *facility* as a sign of power, ought to have also *congruity* as a sign of wisdom, ought also to have *utility* as a sign of goodness. Since therefore, although an easier way would exist in one, yet, because not so congruous as in many; therefore there were many.

2. To that which is objected concerning the efficacy of the Eucharist, it must be said that although in the Eucharist the Passion is signified, and Christ is contained, in whom is the fullness of grace; nevertheless the Passion is not signified according to its every effect, nor is the fullness of grace contained so as to pour out every grace, but specially unto the effect of nourishment.

3. 4. To that which is objected concerning baptism, it must be said that baptism is directly against the original [sin]; whence it is not repeatable, but the wounds of sins[^14] are repeatable. Likewise, even if it absolves from the punishment of satisfaction,
not however from the punishment which is the sequel of guilt; and against these punishments are the Sacraments, which are not only for the remission of guilt; and therefore [baptism] does not suffice.

**To the arguments against the sevenfold number:**

1. To that, then, which is objected, that there ought to be only two against two, namely punishment and guilt; the answer is clear. For one must not stop at the *first* differences, which are punishment and guilt, because they are too general, nor must one descend to the *particular* ones; but [stop] at those which have univocity, as for instance the original against all original [sins], and the mortal against the mortal, and the venial against the venial. Likewise, neither at the *differences* of punishment, but at the *principal* ones[^15], which are the ground of leading into guilt. — And thus it is clear concerning irregularity; likewise concerning the appetite of the gullet, because it can be without sin in itself, unless it be disordered through excessive desire; but the concupiscence of the flesh always remains inordinate, unless it be set in order.

2. To the last it must be said that the Sacraments of the written law add over the Sacraments of the law of nature as regards the certitude of signification and the difficulty of the burden; therefore they are more evident and more numerous. But the Sacraments of the Gospel add over the Sacraments of the written law as regards expression and efficacy, and they lessen the harshness of the burden; therefore they are more evident and more efficacious, yet nevertheless fewer[^16].

---

la: Respicitur Matth. 11, 30: *Iugum enim meum suave* etc.

en: Reference is to Matthew 11:30: *For my yoke is sweet* etc.

la: Cod. Z *omnia alia Sacramenta.*

en: Codex Z [reads] *all the other Sacraments.*

la: Vide infra d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Codd. omittunt *baptizatus.*

en: See below, d. 4, p. I, a. 1, q. 1 and following. — The codices omit *the baptized person.*

la: Lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Verba, quae sequuntur, sunt in Comment. in Marc. 9, 28. olim *Hieronymo* attributo: *Medicina cuiusque vulneris adhibenda est ei. Non sanat oculum quod calcaneo adhibetur.* — Inferius post *sed* cod. P addit *sicut.*

en: The text of the Master, c. 1. — The words which follow are in the Commentary on Mark 9:28, formerly attributed to *Jerome:* *The medicine of each wound is to be applied to it. What is applied to the heel does not heal the eye.* — Below, after *but,* codex P adds *as.*

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. Ibid. ad 5. dicitur, quod actualis significatio sit *ex institutione.* Mox pro *ergo si* codd. F P *sed.* Inferius pro *habet* cod. F *haberet.*

en: As was shown above, d. 1, p. I, q. 2. There, in the reply to 5, it is said that the actual signification is *from institution.* Presently, for *therefore if* codices F P [read] *but.* Below, for *has* codex F [reads] *would have.*

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 4.

en: See above, the text of the Master, d. 1, c. 4.

la: Explicationem huius arg. praebet Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 7. a. 2: *Videtur, quod habeant esse plura, sic:* In Lege fuit unum Sacramentum solvens ab irregularitate, scil. aqua expiationis sive lustrationis, de qua Num. 19; sed sicut lex carnalis Sacramento uno solvit ab irregularitate carnali, similiter lex spiritualis debet uno solvere ab irregularitate spirituali... Item, quare non habemus unum Sacramentum in remedium [concupiscentiae circa gustum], sicut in remedium luxuriae [concupiscentiae circa tactum, cfr. II. Sent. d. 30. a. 2. q. 1, d. 31. a. 1. q. 3, d. 32. a. 2. q. 1. et d. 43. dub. 3. in fine]? — Edd. cum aliquot codd. omittunt duo ultima *sicut,* et pro *contra quae non sunt* non pauci codd. *circa quae non sunt,* edd. cum nonnullis codd. *contra quae sunt.*

en: An explanation of this argument is given by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 5, m. 7, a. 2: *It seems that there ought to be many, thus:* In the Law there was one Sacrament releasing from irregularity, namely the water of expiation or lustration, of which Numbers 19; but as the carnal law by one Sacrament releases from carnal irregularity, likewise the spiritual law ought by one to release from spiritual irregularity... Likewise, why do we not have one Sacrament as a remedy for [concupiscence regarding taste], as for a remedy for luxury [concupiscence regarding touch, cf. II Sent., d. 30, a. 2, q. 1; d. 31, a. 1, q. 3; d. 32, a. 2, q. 1; and d. 43, dub. 3, at the end]? — The editions with some codices omit the last two *as,* and for *against which there are not* not a few codices [read] *regarding which there are not,* the editions with some codices *against which there are.*

la: Vat. supplet *scripta.*

en: The Vatican edition supplies *written.*

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 8; ibid. Comment. p. I. in corp. et dub. 7. — Inferius pro *munit et armat* multi codd. cum ed. 1 *muniunt et armant,* tamen antea habent *adiuvant.* Subinde pro *contra infirmitates* cod. H *contra hostes.*

en: Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. 1, c. 8; ibid. the Commentary, p. I, in the body and dubium 7. — Below, for *fortifies and arms* many codices with edition 1 [read] *fortify and arm,* yet beforehand they have *aid.* Then for *against infirmities* codex H [reads] *against enemies.*

la: Secundum Bedam, qui a Scholasticis communiter allegatur. Vide II. Sent. d. 22. dub. 2. De potestate discernendi sive de clave scientiae cfr. infra d. 18. p. I. a. 3. q. 1. — Inferius pro *secunda, infirmitas,* scil. resistendi malo et standi in bono, edd. *secunda est impotentia.*

en: According to Bede, who is commonly cited by the Scholastics. See II Sent., d. 22, dub. 2. On the power of discerning, or on the key of knowledge, cf. below, d. 18, p. I, a. 3, q. 1. — Below, for *the second, weakness,* namely [the weakness] of resisting evil and standing in good, the editions [read] *the second is incapacity.*

la: Cfr. infra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3.

en: Verses 3 and 9. [Canticle 6:3 and 9.]

la: Verba *qui recipiatur in triumphante* supplevimus ex codd. F H; verba quae sequuntur, respiciunt I. Cor. 1, 21. seq., et Eph. 1, 14.

en: The words *who is received into the triumphant [Church]* we have supplied from codices F H; the words which follow look to 1 Corinthians 1:21 and following, and Ephesians 1:14.

la: Codd. F H *aliorum peccatorum.* Mox post *iterabilia* in cod. F additur: *et ideo oportet habere Sacramenta iterabilia.*

en: Codices F H [read] *of other sins.* Presently, after *repeatable,* in codex F is added: *and therefore it is necessary to have repeatable Sacraments.*

la: Vat. supplet *differentiis, scilicet ignorantia, concupiscentia, malitia et impotentia;* ed. 1, cum pluribus codd. legunt incongrue *sed in principali.* Aliquanto superius pro *ad speciales* codd. G Y *usque ad speciales.* — De irregularitate ait Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 7. a. 2: Ad illud quod quaeritur de irregularitate, dicendum, quod Sacramenta legis gratiae sunt propria ad hoc, quod homo sic conservetur in gratia, propter quod sunt in remedium defectuum, qui operantur ad ablationem gratiae, unde sunt instituta in remedium culpae vel poenae *deordinantis* sive *operantis dispositive* ad culpam. Talis non est irregularitas, quae poena est, non deordinans vel operans ad culpam, nisi *negative.*

en: The Vatican edition supplies *differences, namely ignorance, concupiscence, malice, and incapacity;* edition 1, with several codices, reads incongruously *but in the principal one.* Somewhat above, for *to the particular ones* codices G Y [read] *as far as the particular ones.* — On irregularity Alexander of Hales says, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 5, m. 7, a. 2: To that which is asked concerning irregularity, it must be said that the Sacraments of the law of grace are proper to this, that man be thus preserved in grace, on account of which they are for a remedy of the defects which work toward the removal of grace, whence they are instituted as a remedy for guilt or for the punishment that *disorders* or that *works dispositively* toward guilt. Such is not the irregularity which is a punishment, not disordering or working toward guilt, except *negatively.*

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 40. q. 3. in corp. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius art. quaest.

en: Cf. III Sent., d. 40, q. 3, in the body. — See the scholion on the first question of this article.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance / page-split map.** q3 spans printed pp.52–54 (pdf 72–74), raw lines 6158–6409. Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`colcrop.py vol4 <p> 1880`) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority inversion; the IA djvu OCR is cascade-shattered through the Respondeo and all footers. Body anchors: p.52 L = *unum solum* args 1–4 + opening of *Quod plura;* p.52 R = q3 opener (foot of column, *Tertio quaeritur…*) + *Quod plura* args 1–3 + *quare septem* arg 1; p.53 = remainder of *quare septem* args + Conclusio + Respondeo + *Ad argumenta;* p.54 L–R top = tail of replies (1. *Quod ergo obiicitur…principalibus* → 2. *Ad ultimum…pauciora*), ending immediately before ARTICULUS II.
- **Apparatus split (13 entries).** Picked up p.52 **right-column footers 5–11** per the hand-off from a1-q2 (committed 4782714); p.52 left-column footers 1–4 belong to q2 and were captured there. Rendered here as: [^1]–[^6] = p.52 notes 5,6,7,8,9,10,11 (note 5/Matt and 6/cod.Z and 7/Ioan and 8/d.4 and 9/Lit.Magistri and 10/d.1.p.I.q.2 and 11/lit.Magistri → mapped to [^1]–[^6] by body order). [^7]–[^14] = p.53 footers 1–8 (1/Alex.Hal., 2/Vat.supplet, 3/lit.Magistri d.1 c.8, 4/Bedam, 5/d.3, 6/Cant.6 vers.3 et 9, 7/qui recipiatur, 8/codd. F H). [^15]–[^16] = p.54 q3 footers 1 (Vat. supplet differentiis + Alex.Hal. de irregularitate) and 2 (Cfr. III Sent. d.40 + Vide scholion). p.54 footers 3–7 belong to ARTICULUS II and are NOT carried here.
- **Scholion.** No scholion in q3 — the article-level scholion (I–II) lives in q1 (per CLAUDE.md Vol II override step 5; confirmed by the q1 sibling). [^16] / p.54 footer 2 explicitly directs the reader to "the scholion on the first question of this article."
- **Hand-off forward to a2-q1 (ARTICULUS II, *De baptismo Ioannis*).** ARTICULUS II opens immediately after q3's tail on p.54 R (raw ~L6410): *Consequenter quantum ad secundam partem distinctionis quaeritur de baptismo Ioannis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria* (short article opener → fold into a2-q1 per the convention). **p.54 footers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 all belong to ARTICULUS II** (3/Vers.33 Vulgata baptizare addit *in aqua;* 4/Vers.4 Nec quisquam sumit; 5/Marc.11,30 + Luc.20,4 + Matth.21,25; 6/Cod.F subiungit *a ministro;* 7/Homil.29 Chrysostom) — a2-q1 must pick these up. q3 took NONE of them.
- **[?] flags.** None. All readings confirmed against PDF column bands; OCR garbles (e.g. *arwia-turae* → *arma… [militan]turae,* *Canticorum sexto* note, the *deordinantis/operantis* clause in [^15]) resolved by eyes-on PDF.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 54 -->

### Articulus II. *De baptismo Ioannis.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundam partem distinctionis quaeritur de baptismo Ioannis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, a quo fuerit Ioannis baptismus institutus.

Secundo quaeritur, ad quid fuerit institutus.

Tertio quaeritur de usu ipsius sive efficacia.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum baptismus Ioannis a Deo fuerit institutus.*

Et quod fuerit a Deo institutus, videtur:

1. Quia ille est institutor rei, qui iubet rem fieri, et cuius auctoritate fit; sed Ioannes auctoritate Domini et mandato baptizabat; unde Ioannis primo[^1]: *Qui misit me baptizare, ille mihi dixit*: ergo Ioannes a Domino missus erat ad baptizandum; et sic etc.

2. Item, baptizator sive baptista nomen est officii et officii honorabilis; sed nemo assumit sibi honorem, sicut dicitur ad Hebraeos quinto[^2], alioquin non est assumtio, sed usurpatio: ergo Ioannes fuit factus a Domino baptista; et si hoc, ergo et baptismus eius est a Domino institutus.

3. Item, fiat deductio Domini Iesu[^3]: Baptismus Ioannis de caelo erat, an ex hominibus? Si ex hominibus: ergo non erat ei credendum. Si de caelo: ergo institutus fuit ab ipso Deo.

**Contra:**
1. Si baptismus Ioannis fuit a Domino institutus; cum ergo debeat a quo instituitur denominari, non deberet dici baptismus Ioannis, sed Dei. *Media* patet, quia baptismus Christi dabatur a Petro et a Paulo, et ab eis non denominabatur, sed tantum a Christo, qui erat institutor. — Iuxta hoc quaeritur, cum Evangelium non tantum denominetur ab auctore principali, sed etiam a scriptore, ut Evangelium Ioannis, quare non similiter baptismus[^4]?

2. Item, quod sit institutus a Ioanne, videtur: quia, si a Deo, staret utique, Ioanne cessante; sed baptismus Ioannis cessavit statim, quando Ioannes missus est in carcerem, sicut dicit Chrysostomus super Ioannem[^5]: ergo baptismus eius fuit ab eo tantum institutus, non a Deo.

<!-- page 55 -->

> **Conclusio.** Baptismi a Ioanne denominati principalis institutor fuit Deus, sed Ioannes fuit administrator plenarius et praecipuus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod baptismi Ioannis Deus fuit principalis institutor, sicut probant rationes primae; sed Ioannes fuit administrator plenarius et praecipuus: plenarius, quia Deus nihil ibi faciebat, quod per ipsum non fieret — totum enim administrabat, quia tantum exterius lavabat[^6] — praecipuus vero, quia Deus per ipsum instituit et ei officium baptizandi commisit, ut nullus baptizaret illo baptismo, nisi ipse, vel aliquis eius auctoritate. Et inde est, quod denominabatur a Ioanne et cessavit, Ioanne cessante[^7]. Sed in baptismo Christi nullus erat administrator plenarius, quia ibi est interior regeneratio, quae solum fit a Deo, non ministerio humano; nullus etiam praecipuus, quia Christus instituit baptisma suum non per aliquem hominem, sed per se ipsum; nulli etiam sic commisit suum officium, ut alii eius auctoritate baptizarent[^8]. Ideo non denominatur ab eis baptismus Christi nec cessat, eis cessantibus.

**Ad argumenta:**
*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Evangelio, dicendum, quod Evangelista fuit administrator plenarius, quia quantum ad verba et intellectum: verba enim ex se dicebant, non omnino eadem, quae Christus in praedicando dixerat; rursus, sensum servabant; sed illi[^9] primo illuminati fuerunt et postmodum aliis exprimebant. In Sacramentis non sic, quia Apostoli signa ex se non habebant, sed a Domino instituta; rursus, per gratiam, qua erant purgati, alios non purgabant. Ideo non sic dicitur baptismus Matthaei, sicut Evangelium Matthaei dicitur.

*Ad 2.* Ad aliud patet responsio, quod non ideo cessavit baptismus Ioannis, quia esset principalis institutor, sed quia erat praecipuus administrator.

english:
### Article II. *On the baptism of John.*

Next, with respect to the second part of the distinction, inquiry is made concerning the baptism of John. And concerning this three things are asked.

First it is asked, by whom John's baptism was instituted.

Second it is asked, for what it was instituted.

Third inquiry is made concerning its use or efficacy.

### Question I. *Whether John's baptism was instituted by God.*

That it was instituted by God seems [to be the case]:

1. Because he is the institutor of a thing who commands the thing to be done, and by whose authority it is done; but John baptized by the authority and mandate of the Lord; whence John 1[^1]: *He who sent me to baptize, he said to me*: therefore John had been sent by the Lord to baptize; and thus, etc.

2. Likewise, "baptizer" or "baptist" is the name of an office, and of an honorable office; but no one takes the honor to himself, as is said to the Hebrews 5[^2], otherwise it is not an assuming [of the office] but a usurpation: therefore John was made a baptist by the Lord; and if this, then also his baptism is instituted by the Lord.

3. Likewise, let the Lord Jesus' inference be made[^3]: Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men? If from men: then it was not to be believed in. If from heaven: then it was instituted by God himself.

**Contra:**
1. If John's baptism was instituted by the Lord; since, then, it ought to be named from him by whom it is instituted, it ought not to be called the baptism of John, but of God. The *middle [term]* is clear, because the baptism of Christ was given by Peter and by Paul, and was not named from them, but only from Christ, who was the institutor. — Bound up with this it is asked: since the Gospel is named not only from the principal author, but also from the writer, as the Gospel of John, why not similarly the baptism[^4]?

2. Likewise, that it was instituted by John seems [to be the case]: because, if [it were] from God, it would surely stand even after John ceased; but John's baptism ceased at once, when John was sent into prison, as Chrysostom says on John[^5]: therefore his baptism was instituted by him alone, not by God.

> **Conclusion.** The principal institutor of the baptism named from John was God, but John was its full and chief administrator.

**I respond:** It must be said that God was the principal institutor of John's baptism, as the first arguments prove; but John was its full and chief administrator: full, because God did nothing there that was not done through him — for he administered the whole, since he only washed outwardly[^6] — but chief, because God instituted it through him and committed to him the office of baptizing, so that no one should baptize with that baptism except himself, or someone by his authority. And hence it is that it was named from John and ceased when John ceased[^7]. But in the baptism of Christ there was no full administrator, because there is the interior regeneration which is brought about by God alone, not by human ministry; nor was there any chief administrator, because Christ instituted his baptism not through any man, but through himself; nor did he so commit his office to anyone that others should baptize by his authority[^8]. Therefore Christ's baptism is not named from them, nor does it cease when they cease.

**To the arguments:**
*To 1.* As for what is objected concerning the Gospel, it must be said that the Evangelist was a full administrator, because [he was so] as to the words and the meaning: for the words they spoke of themselves were not altogether the same as those Christ had spoken in preaching; again, they preserved the meaning; but they[^9] were first illumined and afterwards expressed [it] to others. In the Sacraments it is not so, because the Apostles did not have the signs of themselves, but [these were] instituted by the Lord; again, by the grace by which they had been purged, they did not purge others. Therefore baptism is not called "of Matthew" the way the Gospel is called "of Matthew."

*To 2.* The reply is clear to the other [objection], that John's baptism did not cease because he was the principal institutor, but because he was the chief administrator.

la: Vers. 33, ubi Vulgata post *baptizare* addit *in aqua*. Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 6. — In fine arg. pro *et sic* edd. *ergo*.

en: Verse 33 [John 1:33], where the Vulgate adds *in water* after *to baptize*. Cf. Augustine, *On the Gospel of John*, tract. 5, n. 6. — At the end of the argument, for *and thus* the editions read *therefore*.

la: Vers. 4: *Nec quisquam sumit* etc.

en: Verse 4 [Hebrews 5:4]: *Neither does anyone take* [the honor to himself], etc.

en: Mark 11:30 ff.; Luke 20:4 ff.; Matthew 21:23 ff.

la: Cod. F subiungit *a ministro*.

en: Codex F adds *from the minister*.

la: Homil. 29. (alias 28.), n. 1, ubi solvit quaestionem: Quare, discipulis Iesu baptizantibus, Ioannes baptizare non destitit, donec in carcerem traderetur? Cfr. infra dub. 5.

en: Homily 29 (elsewhere 28), n. 1, where he resolves the question: Why, while the disciples of Jesus were baptizing, did John not cease to baptize until he was handed over into prison? Cf. below, dub. 5.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4, et infra dub. 4. — Pro *quia Deus nihil ibi faciebat* Vat. *quia nihil ibi fiebat*.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 4, and below, dub. 4. — For *because God did nothing there* the Vatican edition [reads] *because nothing was done there*.

la: Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 4. seqq., et V. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 9. n. 10. seq.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Gospel of John*, tract. 5, n. 4 ff., and book V *On Baptism, against the Donatists*, c. 9, n. 10 f.

la: Cfr. infra d. 5. a. 3. q. 1.

la: Plurimi codd. *sed illo*, cod. 1 a secunda manu *sed ab illo*, codd. F H *secundum quod illo*.

en: Most codices [read] *sed illo*; codex 1, by a second hand, *sed ab illo*; codices F H *secundum quod illo*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Contra antiquos nonnullos et contra novatores saeculi XVI. omnino tenendum est, quod baptismus Ioannis, de quo agitur in 3 qq. huius articuli, non fuit Sacramentum nisi improprie, quatenus ut sacrae rei signum aliquatenus initiavit ipsum baptismum Christi. Ad rem Concil. Trident. (Sess. VII. can. I.): « Si quis dixerit, baptismum Ioannis habuisse eandem vim cum baptismo Christi, a. s. ». Conveniunt autem posteriores doctores in hac tota doctrina, et quoad 3. quaestionem communiter reprobant doctrinam Magistri ibi explicatam (cfr. II. Sent. d. 41. dub. 3.). Iam Guliel. Antissiod. (Sum. p. IV. tr. 3. c. 1. q. 3.) dicit, magistros in hoc non consentire Petro Lombardo. — Quod Ioannes in baptizando usus sit forma: *in nomine venturi*, ex loco Act. 19, 4. Magister (hic c. 6.) vult concludere, quem sequuntur cum aliis antiquis S. Bonav. (hic dub. 5.) et S. Thomas. Sed Durand. (hic q. 3.) cum Estio aliisque recentioribus probabile esse vult, Ioannem nullam formam aquae ut materiae adiunxisse. — Quoad quaestionem incidentem cfr. hic dub. 4.

De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 6. m. 2. 6. S. — Scot., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. in utroque Scripto hic q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. III. q. 38. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 5.

**II.** De 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3.

**III.** De 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 7. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. loc. cit. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Against certain ancients and against the innovators of the sixteenth century it must be held without qualification that the baptism of John, which is treated in the 3 questions of this article, was not a Sacrament except improperly, inasmuch as, being a sign of a sacred thing, it in some way initiated the baptism of Christ itself. To the point is the Council of Trent (Sess. VII. can. I.): "If anyone shall say that the baptism of John had the same power as the baptism of Christ, let him be anathema." The later doctors agree in this whole doctrine, and as to the 3rd question they commonly reject the doctrine of the Master expounded there (cf. II Sent. d. 41 dub. 3). Already William of Auxerre (*Summa* p. IV tr. 3 c. 1 q. 3) says that the masters do not agree with Peter Lombard on this. — That John in baptizing used the form *in the name of the one to come*, the Master (here c. 6) wishes to conclude from the passage Acts 19:4, and S. Bonaventure (here dub. 5) and S. Thomas follow him along with the other ancients. But Durandus (here q. 3), with Estius and other more recent writers, holds it probable that John added no form of water as matter. — As to the incidental question cf. here dub. 4.

On the 1st question: Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV q. 6 m. 2, 6. S. — Scotus, on this and the 2 following questions, in both *Scripta*, here q. 2. — S. Thomas, here q. 2 a. 1; *Summa* III q. 38 a. 2. — B. Albert, here a. 5, 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2 a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2 q. 1, 2. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 5.

**II.** On the 2nd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 4. — S. Thomas, here q. 2 a. 2; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2 a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2 q. 3.

**III.** On the 3rd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 7. — S. Thomas, here q. 2 a. 1; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 6. — B. Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2 q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance / page-split map.** a2-q1 folds the short ARTICULUS II opener (*Consequenter… quaeruntur tria*) per CLAUDE.md Vol II override step 5 (no standalone divisio chunk). It spans printed pp.54–55 (pdf 74–75), raw lines 6410–6550. Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`colcrop.py vol4 <p> 1880`) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority inversion. Body anchors: p.54 L = ARTICULUS II header + opener + QUAESTIO I title + the 3 *pro* args (Fundamenta); p.54 R = the 3 *Tertio/Secundo* quaeritur lines + Contra args 1–2 (with the incidental question); p.55 L = Conclusio + Respondeo + Conclusio 1–2; p.55 R top = tail of Respondeo (*Christus instituit…*) + replies *Ad 1*/*Ad 2*; p.55 lower (both columns) = the article-level SCHOLION, ending immediately before QUAESTIO II (raw L6551).
- **Apparatus split (9 entries).** Picked up p.54 **right-column footers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7** per the hand-off from q3 (committed ffc4a9d); p.54 footers 1–2 belong to q3 and were captured there. Mapped by body order: [^1]=p.54 note 3 (Vers.33 + August.), [^2]=note 4 (Hebr. Vers.4), [^3]=note 5 (Marc/Luc/Matth), [^4]=note 6 (Cod.F *a ministro*), [^5]=note 7 (Homil.29 Chrysostom). [^6]–[^9] = p.55 **body** footers 1–4 (1/lit.Magistri c.4 + Vat. variant, 2/August. tr.5 + de Bapt. c.Donat., 3/d.5.a.3.q.1, 4/codd. *sed illo*). **p.55 footer 5 onward (Hugo, Libr.II de Sacram.) belong to QUAESTIO II and are NOT carried here.**
- **Scholion location.** The article-level scholion (sections **I/II/III** = De 1./2./3. quaestione) lives in THIS q1 chunk and covers all three quaestiones of Art. II. q2 and q3 will have NO scholion of their own (q3's [^16]/p.54 footer 2 already directed the reader to "the scholion on the first question of this article"). The scholion is printed in the lower portion of p.55, both columns, between q1's body and the start of QUAESTIO II.
- **Hand-off forward to a2-q2 (QUAESTIO II, *Utrum baptismus Ioannis fuerit institutus ad significandum / efficiendum*).** QUAESTIO II opens at the bottom of p.55 (raw L6551): *Secundo quaeritur, ad quid fuerit baptismus Ioannis institutus…* Its first markers are Hugo[5] (p.55 footer 5 = *Libr. II de Sacram. p. VI c. 6*), then footers 6 (Cfr. Sum. Sent.) and 7 (Vers.4 *Fuit Ioannes in deserto*). **a2-q2 must pick up p.55 footers 5, 6, 7** plus p.56's footers. q1 took p.55 footers 1–4 only; no q1 footers remain unclaimed.
- **[?] flags.** None. All readings confirmed against PDF column bands pp.54–55; OCR garbles (*Ulrum→Utrum, baptisnius→baptismus, instilutor→institutor, Diceiidam→Dicendum, SCHOLIOK→SCHOLION, Antissiod./Guliel.→William of Auxerre, d. 4i.→d. 41.*) resolved by eyes-on PDF.

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. 2, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 55 -->

### Quaestio II. *Ad quid fuerit institutus baptismus Ioannis.*

Secundo quaeritur, ad quid fuerit baptismus Ioannis institutus. Et quod ad significandum, videtur:

1. Per illud quod dicit Hugo[^1]: « Inter baptisma Christi et baptisma Ioannis hoc interest, quia ibi solum Sacramentum dabatur, hic Sacramentum et res Sacramenti, scilicet in baptismo Christi »: ergo si Sacramenti est significare, patet, quod ad significandum.

2. Item, per rationem videtur: quia magis conveniebat baptismus Ioannis cum baptismo Christi, quam baptismus legalis; sed ille, ut dicit Hugo[^2], significabat baptisma Christi: ergo multo fortius congruit, quod baptisma Ioannis.

Item, quod fuerit institutus ad efficiendum, videtur:

<!-- page 56 -->

1. Quia dicitur Marci primo[^3]: *Erat Ioannes baptizans et praedicans baptismum poenitentiae in remissionem peccatorum*: ergo cum remissio peccatorum non sit sine gratia, videtur, quod dabat gratiam.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia, sicut dicit Hugo[^4] « quemadmodum crescit in Sacramentis expressio significationis, crescit efficacia sanctificationis, et hoc secundum quod magis appropinquant ad adventum Christi »; sed baptismus Ioannis expressius signum erat quam circumcisio, et adventui magis appropinquabat: ergo maiorem efficaciam habebat.

3. Praeterea, si nullam habebat interius efficaciam, cum ablutio carnis parvae vel nullius esset utilitatis, non erat acceptandum nec approbandum: ergo stulte fecerunt qui susceperunt; male etiam fecit Christus, qui approbavit, dum ab eo baptizari voluit, sicut dicitur Matthaei tertio[^5]: ergo si nec illi faciebant stulte, nec Christus male, ergo aliquam efficaciam habuit.

4. Item, quod maiorem efficaciam habuit quam baptismus Christi, videtur: quia Christus baptizatus est baptismate Ioannis, non suo: ergo ex opere[^6] praeposuit illud suo; sed non esset praeponendum, nisi esset maioris virtutis et efficaciae: ergo etc.

**Contra:** Quod nec ad significandum nec ad efficiendum[^7], videtur:

5. Quia, si ad significandum tantum, ergo fuit Sacramentum legis veteris; si ad efficiendum, fuit novae: ergo cum baptismus Ioannis non fuerit Sacramentum legis veteris — quia Ioannes est terminus Legis — nec novae; manifestum est, quod nec significavit nec efficientiam habuit.

6. Item, quod nihil interius fecerit, videtur: quia Marci primo[^8] dicitur: *Ego baptizo vos aqua*; et Ioannis primo: *Propterea veni ego in aqua baptizans*; et Actuum primo: *Quia Ioannes baptizavit aqua*.

7. Item, super illud Ioannis tertio[^9]: *Erat Ioannes baptizans* etc.; Glossa: « Quantum catechumenis nondum baptizatis prodest doctrina fidei, tantum profuit baptisma Ioannis ante baptismum Christi »: ergo secundum hoc solum instruebat et nihil gratiae conferebat: patet igitur etc.

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** Baptismus Ioannis fuit institutus ad significandum, non ad efficiendum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod baptisma Ioannis fuit institutum ad praesignandum baptisma Christi, sicut dicit Magister[^10], quod « erat sacrae rei signum, quia significabat baptismum Christi », et ratione huius erat quodam modo Sacramentum. — Fuit etiam institutum ad assuefaciendum ad baptismum Christi, Matthaei tertio[^11]: *Ego baptizo* etc.; Glossa: « Tantum corpora lavo, quia peccata solvere nequeo, ut sicut nascendo et praedicando praecurro, sic baptizando ad baptisma Christi dirigam »; et quantum ad hoc non est Sacramentum, sed sacramentale, sicut torneamentum, quo milites assuescunt, non est bellum. — Fuit et tertio ad baptismum Christi initiandum, manifestando auctorem et praeparando materiam, et hoc, cum baptizavit Christum: manifestatus est Christus, Ioannis primo: *Ut manifestaretur in Israel, propterea veni ego in aqua baptizans*; et in illo baptizandi actu « contulit Christus aquis vim regenerativam contactu carnis suae », ut dicit Beda. Et quantum ad hoc, quod fuit initium novae legis, non fuit Sacramentum nec omnino veteris nec omnino novae legis.

Concedendum est igitur, quod fuit institutum ad significandum, non ad efficiendum, sicut dicit Hugo[^12]; nec oportet quod Sacramentum sit veteris legis propter hoc, quod initiabat Sacramentum novae.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Quod obiicitur de illo verbo: *praedicans* etc.; Glossa[^13] exponit sic: « *Poenitentiae baptismum* dicit *in remissionem peccatorum*, et hunc tantum praedicavit, non dedit ». Unde baptismus ille poenitentiae non erat baptismus Ioannis, quem ipse dabat, sed baptismus Christi, quem Ioannes praedicabat.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod expressius signum est quam legalia; dicendum quod circumcisio instituta fuit in remedium, non tantum in signum[^14], sed baptismus Ioannis tantum in signum, non in remedium; quodsi esset in remedium, utique esset efficacius remedium, sicut erat expressius signum.

*Ad 3.4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si nullius utilitatis etc.; dicendum, quod quamvis interius non purgaret, non tamen erat inutile, quia instruebat et assuefaciebat; et quod amplius est, fuit via manifestandi Christum et praeparandi materiam baptismo Christi. Et inde est, quod Christus in eo baptizari voluit, ut se baptizando materiam suo baptismati praepararet sanctificando aquam. — Et sic patet sequens, quia non praeposuit suo, sed ordinavit ad suum baptismum.

---

english:
### Question II. *For what end John's baptism was instituted.*

Second it is asked, for what end John's baptism was instituted. And that it was [instituted] for signifying seems [to be the case]:

1. By that which Hugh says[^1]: "Between the baptism of Christ and the baptism of John there is this difference, that there only the Sacrament was given, here the Sacrament and the reality of the Sacrament, namely in the baptism of Christ": therefore if it belongs to a Sacrament to signify, it is clear that [it was instituted] for signifying.

2. Likewise, by reason it seems [so]: because the baptism of John agreed more with the baptism of Christ than the legal baptism did; but that [legal baptism], as Hugh says[^2], signified the baptism of Christ: therefore much more fittingly does the baptism of John [signify it].

Likewise, that it was instituted for effecting seems [to be the case]:

1. Because it is said in Mark 1[^3]: *John was baptizing and preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins*: therefore since the remission of sins is not [given] without grace, it seems that he gave grace.

2. Likewise, by reason it seems [so]: because, as Hugh says[^4], "just as the expression of signification increases in the Sacraments, the efficacy of sanctification increases, and this in proportion as they draw nearer to the coming of Christ"; but the baptism of John was a more express sign than circumcision, and drew nearer to [Christ's] coming: therefore it had greater efficacy.

3. Furthermore, if it had no interior efficacy, since the washing of the flesh would be of little or no use, it was not to be accepted nor approved: therefore those who received it acted foolishly; Christ too did wrongly, who approved it when he willed to be baptized by him, as is said in Matthew 3[^5]: therefore if neither did they act foolishly, nor Christ wrongly, then it had some efficacy.

4. Likewise, that it had greater efficacy than the baptism of Christ seems [to be the case]: because Christ was baptized with John's baptism, not with his own: therefore by the deed itself[^6] he set it before his own; but it would not be preferred unless it were of greater virtue and efficacy: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:** That it was [instituted] neither for signifying nor for effecting[^7] seems [to be the case]:

5. Because, if [it was instituted] only for signifying, then it was a Sacrament of the old law; if for effecting, it was [a Sacrament] of the new: therefore since John's baptism was not a Sacrament of the old law — because John is the terminus of the Law — nor of the new; it is manifest that it neither signified nor had efficacy.

6. Likewise, that it did nothing interiorly seems [to be the case]: because it is said in Mark 1[^8]: *I baptize you with water*; and in John 1: *Therefore have I come baptizing in water*; and in Acts 1: *Because John baptized with water*.

7. Likewise, on that text of John 3[^9]: *John was baptizing* etc.; the Gloss [says]: "As much as the teaching of faith profits catechumens not yet baptized, so much did the baptism of John profit before the baptism of Christ": therefore according to this it only instructed and conferred nothing of grace: it is clear therefore, etc.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** John's baptism was instituted for signifying, not for effecting.

**I respond:** It must be said that John's baptism was instituted to pre-signify the baptism of Christ, as the Master says[^10], that "it was a sign of a sacred thing, because it signified the baptism of Christ," and by reason of this it was in a certain way a Sacrament. — It was also instituted to accustom [men] to the baptism of Christ, [as in] Matthew 3[^11]: *I baptize* etc.; the Gloss: "I only wash bodies, since I cannot loose sins, so that just as by being born and by preaching I run before [him], so by baptizing I may direct [men] to the baptism of Christ"; and as to this it is not a Sacrament, but a sacramental, like the tournament by which soldiers are trained, [which] is not [real] war. — It was also, thirdly, [instituted] for initiating the baptism of Christ, by manifesting the author and preparing the matter, and this, when he baptized Christ: Christ was manifested, [as in] John 1: *That he might be manifested in Israel, therefore have I come baptizing in water*; and in that act of baptizing "Christ conferred upon the waters a regenerative power by the contact of his flesh," as Bede says. And as to this, that it was the beginning of the new law, it was a Sacrament neither wholly of the old nor wholly of the new law.

It must therefore be granted that it was instituted for signifying, not for effecting, as Hugh says[^12]; nor is it necessary that it be a Sacrament of the old law on account of this, that it initiated the Sacrament of the new.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* As for what is objected concerning that word *preaching* etc.; the Gloss[^13] expounds it thus: "He calls it *the baptism of penance* *for the remission of sins*, and this he only preached, he did not give." Hence that baptism of penance was not the baptism of John, which he himself gave, but the baptism of Christ, which John preached.

*To 2.* As for what is objected, that it is a more express sign than the legal [signs]; it must be said that circumcision was instituted as a remedy, not only as a sign[^14], but John's baptism only as a sign, not as a remedy; for if it were a remedy, it would surely be a more efficacious remedy, just as it was a more express sign.

*To 3 and 4.* As for what is objected, that [it would be] of no use, etc.; it must be said that although it did not purge interiorly, yet it was not useless, because it instructed and accustomed [men]; and what is more, it was a way of manifesting Christ and of preparing the matter for the baptism of Christ. And hence it is that Christ willed to be baptized in it, so that by baptizing himself he might prepare the matter for his own baptism by sanctifying the water. — And thus the consequent is clear, that he did not set it before his own, but ordained it to his own baptism.

---

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 6. — Finem arg. codd. M O sic exhibent: *patet quod cum Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum, quod institutum ad signandum*; cod. X post *patet quod* supplet *sit*, cod. Z *erat*.

en: [Hugh of St. Victor,] book II *On the Sacraments*, part VI, c. 6. — The end of the argument codices M O give thus: *it is clear that since a Sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing, [it follows] that [it was] instituted for signifying*; after *it is clear that*, codex X supplies *it is*, codex Z *it was*.

la: Cfr. Sum. Sent. tr. 4. c. 2; I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 6. et II. p. VI. c. 3, ubi docet, Sacramenta legalia fuisse figuras et signa veritatis evangelicae.

en: Cf. *Summa Sententiarum* tract. 4, c. 2; [Hugh,] *On the Sacraments* book I, part XI, c. 6, and book II, part VI, c. 3, where he teaches that the legal Sacraments were figures and signs of the evangelical truth.

la: Vers. 4: *Fuit Ioannes in deserto baptizans* etc. Non pauci codd. cum ed. I: *Erat Ioannes baptizans baptismo poenitentiae* etc.

en: Verse 4 [Mark 1:4]: *John was in the desert baptizing* etc. Not a few codices, with the first edition, [read]: *John was baptizing with the baptism of penance* etc.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 6. Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. fundam. 1. — Circa finem arg. post *adventui* edd. repetunt *Christi*.

en: [Hugh,] *On the Sacraments* book I, part XI, c. 6. Cf. above, a. 1, q. 2, foundation 1. — Toward the end of the argument, after *coming* the editions repeat *of Christ*.

la: Vers. 13. seqq. Cfr. Glossa ordinaria in hunc loc. — In maiori, in qua pro *acceptandum* codd. F V *accipiendum*, respiciuntur verba Chrysostomi, Homil. 16. (alias 15.) in Ioan. n. 3, ubi Ioannes profitetur, baptisma suum parvum et vile esse et praeter aquam nihil amplius habere.

en: Verse 13 ff. [Matthew 3:13 ff.] Cf. the *Glossa ordinaria* on this passage. — In the major [premise], in which for *to be accepted* codices F V [read] *to be received*, there are regarded the words of Chrysostom, Homily 16 (elsewhere 15) on John, n. 3, where John professes that his baptism is small and cheap and has nothing more beyond the water.

la: Cod. Z *ex opere suo*.

en: Codex Z [reads] *by his own deed*.

la: In codd. F H (bb a secunda manu) additur *institutum fuerit*.

en: In codices F H (and bb by a second hand) is added *was instituted*.

la: Vers. 8, ubi Vulgata, quam sequitur Vat.: *Ego baptizavi vos aqua*. — Seq. textus est Ioan. 1, 31; tertius Act. 1, 5. — In fine arg. codd. M addunt: *Item Ioan. 1.* (26.): *Ego baptizo in aqua*; *Glossa* [ordinaria apud Strabum, de qua cfr. Gregor., Homil. 7. in Evang. n. 3.]: *Quia corpora abluo aqua, non aufero peccata ego in aqua baptizans.*

en: Verse 8 [Mark 1:8], where the Vulgate, which the Vatican edition follows, [reads]: *I have baptized you with water*. — The following text is John 1:31; the third [is] Acts 1:5. — At the end of the argument codices M add: *Likewise John 1* (26): *I baptize in water*; *Gloss* [the *ordinaria* in Strabo, on which cf. Gregory, Homily 7 on the Gospels, n. 3]: *Because I wash bodies with water, I do not take away sins, I who baptize in water.*

la: Vers. 23: *Erat autem et Ioannes baptizans*. — Glossa invenitur in Comment. Scoti Erigenae in hunc locum: *Quantum enim catechumenis nondum baptizatis doctrina fidei prodest, tantum Ioannis baptisma baptizatis in eo, priusquam baptisma Christi subirent, profuit.*

en: Verse 23 [John 3:23]: *And John also was baptizing*. — The Gloss is found in the Commentary of Scotus Eriugena on this passage: *For as much as the teaching of faith profits catechumens not yet baptized, so much did the baptism of John profit those baptized in it, before they underwent the baptism of Christ.*

la: Hic c. 5.

en: [The Master, Peter Lombard,] here c. 5.

la: Vers. 11. — De Glossa quae est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum, cfr. Beda, in Luc. 3, 16, ubi sequitur Gregorium, I. Homil. in Evang. homil. 7. n. 3. De *torneamentis* i. e. militaribus exercitiis ad ostensionem virium, vide Du Cange, Glossarium etc. — Post *assuescunt* cod. G addit *bellare*.

en: Verse 11 [Matthew 3:11]. — On the Gloss, which is the *ordinaria* in Strabo and in Lyra, cf. Bede on Luke 3:16, where he follows Gregory, book I of the Homilies on the Gospels, homily 7, n. 3. On *tournaments*, i. e. military exercises for the display of strength, see Du Cange, *Glossarium* etc. — After *are trained* codex G adds *to make war*.

la: Sum. Sent. tr. 5. c. I. et II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 6. — Post pauca pro *initiabat* multi codd. *nuntiabat*.

en: *Summa Sententiarum* tract. 5, c. 1, and [Hugh,] *On the Sacraments* book II, part VI, c. 6. — A little after, for *initiated* many codices [read] *announced*.

la: Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum, quae delibata est ex Gregor., I. Homil. in Evang. homil. 20. n. 2, sic habet: *Baptismum poenitentiae dedit, baptismum in remissionem peccatorum praedicavit, tamen non dedit.* Cfr. Hieron., Dialog. contra Luciferian. n. 7; August., V. de Baptismo contra Donatist. c. 10. n. 12, et Quaest. ex novo Testam. (inter opera August.) p. II. q. 29. (alias 18.).

en: The *Glossa ordinaria* in Strabo, which is drawn from Gregory, book I of the Homilies on the Gospels, homily 20, n. 2, runs thus: *He gave the baptism of penance, he preached the baptism for the remission of sins, yet he did not give [it].* Cf. Jerome, *Dialogue against the Luciferians*, n. 7; Augustine, book V *On Baptism, against the Donatists*, c. 10, n. 12, and *Questions on the New Testament* (among the works of Augustine) part II, q. 29 (elsewhere 18).

la: Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 5. — Superius pro *initiandum*, quod exhibet cod. bb a secunda manu, alii codd. cum edd. minus apte *nuntiandum*, cod. A *praenuntiandum*; cfr. finis responsionis. Subinde verbis *manifestatus est Christus* cod. G (K a secunda manu) praemittit *tunc enim*.

en: Cf. below, the text of the Master, d. III, c. 5. — Above, for *initiating*, which codex bb gives by a second hand, the other codices with the editions [read] less aptly *announcing*, codex A *foretelling*; cf. the end of the reply. Then before the words *Christ was manifested* codex G (K by a second hand) prefixes *for then*.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Raw lines 6551–6710 of `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, printed pp. 55–56 (pdf 75–76). Latin re-set column-by-column from PDF column bands (`colcrop.py vol4 <p> 1880`) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority inversion in the cascade-shattered Respondeo + footer regions; OCR used as base only for the clean running objection prose and footnote-marker spacing. QUAESTIO II opens at raw L6551 (bottom of p.55 left column under the article scholion) and ends at "ordinavit ad suum baptismum" (raw L6711), immediately before QUAESTIO III.
- **Page-split map.** p.55 (right column): the two *ad significandum* args (1: Hugo "Inter baptisma"; 2: Hugo "per rationem") + the opener of the *ad efficiendum* args ("1. Quia dicitur Marci primo: Erat Ioannes"). p.56 (both columns): the body of the *ad efficiendum* args (1 continued, 2 "crescit efficacia", 3 "si nullam habebat", 4 "ex opere"), the **Contra** args 5–7, the **CONCLUSIO**, the **Respondeo**, and the replies *Ad 1* and the head of *Ad 2*. The tail of *Ad 2* and *Ad 3.4* run onto the top of p.57 (clean OCR running prose; no markers there). — Footnotes: [^1] = p.55 footer 5, [^2] = p.55 footer 6, [^3] = p.55 footer 7; [^4]–[^14] = p.56 footers 1–11. **No p.57 footers belong to q2** (all footers after L6711 belong to QUAESTIO III).
- **Hand-offs picked up.** Per the hand-off from a2-q1 (committed 2e548e6): this chunk leads its apparatus with the p.55 footers 5, 6, 7 (the Hugo "Libr. II de Sacram." note, the "Sum. Sent." note, and the "Vers. 4: Fuit Ioannes in deserto baptizans" note), which a2-q1 explicitly did not consume. They are mapped to the three q2 objection markers [^1]/[^2]/[^3].
- **Hand-off forward to a2-q3 (QUAESTIO III, *De usu sive efficacia baptismi Ioannis*).** q3 begins at raw L6712, at the bottom of p.57: *Tertio quaeritur de usu baptismi Ioannis sive de efficacia, utrum scilicet baptismus Ioannis cum impositione manuum aequipollens esset baptismo Christi.* **All footers on p.57 belong to q3, not q2** — q2 takes none of p.57's footers. q3's first footers are: (1) *Cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. I. seqq.*; (2) *Edd. baptizato.*; (2-bis) *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* (this directs the reader to the article scholion which lives in a2-q1 — confirming q3 also carries no scholion of its own); (4) *Ioan. 3, 5*; (5) *Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 2.* etc.
- **Scholion location.** The article-level scholion (sections I–III) lives entirely in a2-q1; this q2 chunk carries no scholion of its own, and none should be added.
- **[?] flags.** None. All readings confirmed against the PDF column bands pp.55–56; OCR garbles (*institutics→institutus, instituticts→institutum, praesignandum, assuefaciendum, Finisi.→Finis 1., tornearaentum→torneamentum, regenerativam, manifestaretur, ordinabat→ordinavit, bapHzans→baptizans*) resolved by eyes-on PDF.


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

source_text:
<!-- page 57 -->

### Quaestio III. *De usu sive efficacia baptismi Ioannis.*

Tertio quaeritur de usu baptismi Ioannis sive de efficacia, utrum scilicet baptismus Ioannis cum impositione manuum aequipollens esset baptismo Christi. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Ratione:* quia ista duo completum faciunt baptisma, scilicet baptizari in aqua et Spiritu[^1]; sed per Ioannem baptizati sunt aqua, per manuum impositionem Spiritu: ergo aequipollent ista duo baptismo Christi.

2. Item, hoc videtur ratione alia: quia ad hoc, quod baptismus sit Sacramentum completum, non est necesse, aliquem simul lavari interius et exterius, sed successive, ut patet in accedente ficte[^2]: ergo videtur, quod ubi impositio manuum lavit interius per Spiritum, cum ablutione praecedenti exteriori fuit integrum Sacramentum.

3. Item, hoc videtur auctoritate Hieronymi et Magistri[^3]. Dicit enim Hieronymus super Ioelem: « Baptizati a Ioanne in nomine venturi, quia dixerunt: *Neque si Spiritus sanctus est, audivimus,* iterum baptizati sunt »: ergo haec est ratio, quia non cognoscebant Spiritum sanctum: ergo si haec est causa recta, oppositum est causa oppositi: ergo si baptizati erant et fidem Trinitatis habebant, non erant rebaptizandi.

4. Item, hoc videtur auctoritate Scripturae. Actuum octavo[^4] dicitur de Samaritanis, quod *baptizati erant in nomine Domini Iesu, et tunc imponebant manus super eos;* et Apostoli non faciebant aliud nisi imponere manus in nomine Domini Iesu; sed tunc quaero: aut baptismus ille fuit *Christi,* aut *Ioannis,* quo baptizati erant? Non Christi, ut patet per textum: *Nondum enim in quemquam illorum venerat* etc.; sed baptismus Christi dabat Spiritum sanctum, et Glossa dicit ibi: « Baptizati, tantum aqua tincti, non Spiritu »: ergo fuit baptismus Ioannis: ergo non oportebat nisi manus imponi.

**Contra:** 1. Legitur Actuum decimo nono[^5], quod Paulus rebaptizavit baptizatos baptismate Ioannis: ergo rebaptizandi sunt. Si dicas, quod ideo rebaptizavit, quia non habebant fidem Trinitatis; tunc ergo, suppleta fide Trinitatis, non oportuit rebaptizari; sed constat, quod ante instruxit in fide, quam baptizaret: ergo nullo modo debuit baptizare.

2. Item, Augustinus[^6] assignat generalem differentiam inter baptismum Ioannis et baptismum Christi, dicens: « Baptizavit Iudas, et rebaptizatum non est; baptizavit Ioannes, et rebaptizatum est »: ergo generaliter omnes erant rebaptizandi.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia, sicut dictum est[^7], baptismus Ioannis assuefaciebat et dirigebat ad baptismum Christi; unde ipse Ioannes dicebat: *Ego baptizo vos aqua, ille baptizabit vos Spiritu sancto:* ergo si frustra assuescit aliquis ad faciendum aliquid, quod non facit; frustra baptizati sunt baptismo Ioannis, nisi baptizarentur etiam baptismo Christi.

4. Item, impositio manuum habebat locum Sacramenti confirmationis; sed confirmationis Sacramentum praesupponit Sacramentum baptismi et alias non valet[^8]: ergo si nondum habebant plenum Sacramentum baptismi, nihil faciebat confirmatio sive impositio manuum eis.

<!-- page 58 -->

5. Item, in baptismo imprimitur character, qui est fundamentum ordinis et aliorum Sacramentorum[^9]; sed character non imprimebatur in baptismo Ioannis nec in impositione manuum, quia non habebant cum illo aliquam similitudinem: ergo tales semper carerent charactere: ergo nunquam eis valerent alia Sacramenta.

> **Conclusio.** Communis opinio contra Magistrum docet, baptizatos baptismo Ioannis omnes rebaptizandos fuisse.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod duplex fuit super hoc opinio, una videlicet, quod baptizati baptismo Ioannis, si non habebant fidem Trinitatis, rebaptizandi erant; si autem habebant fidem Trinitatis, non oportebat eos rebaptizari, sed sufficiebat, manus imponi. — Et *ratio* huius positionis fuit, quod quia tales habebant ablutionem exteriorem et habebant fidem Trinitatis, qua interius insigniebantur tanquam charactere, et habebant Spiritum sanctum per impositionem manuum; et ideo tales non erant rebaptizandi. — Haec autem opinio roboratur per *auctoritatem:* quia, Actuum octavo[^10], non sunt rebaptizati, et decimo nono, sunt rebaptizati; et ideo nec generaliter asserunt nec negant, sed distinguunt ad sustinendum hanc opinionem. Et dicunt, quod pro tempore illo impositio manuum plus valebat, quam nunc confirmatio; dabat enim baptismum flaminis. — Huius opinionis fuit Magister[^11] et alii, qui eum sustinent.

Alia opinio est, quod omnes sunt rebaptizandi, et quia ille baptismus Ioannis solum assuefaciebat, non regenerabat; *impositio manuum* non characteristicabat animam. Et ista est communis opinio modernorum magistrorum.

Quod ergo obiicitur, quod erat ablutio 1. 2. exterior et interior; dicendum, quod non quaecumque ablutio exterior est Sacramentum, sed in qua imprimitur character[^12]; et talis non fuit in baptismo Ioannis. Ideo patet illud.

3. Ad illud Hieronymi dicendum, quod non vult ibi tangere causam rebaptizationis, sed insufficientiam fidei in alteram personarum[^13]; et hoc patet, si inspiciantur antecedentia et consequentia.

4. Ad aliud dicendum, quod Samaritani baptizati erant a Philippo baptismo Christi, sicut innuit Glossa[^14]. Et quod dicitur, quod non receperant Spiritum sanctum, intelligitur visibiliter, quia ille non erat Philippus Apostolus, sed discipulus; et ideo baptizare potuit et praedicare, sed non manus imponere ad dandum Spiritum sanctum visibiliter. Unde Glossa, Actuum octavo[^15], super illud *Miserunt ad illos Petrum et Ioannem:* « Philippus, qui Samariae evangelizabat, unus de septem erat. Si enim Apostolus esset, manus imponere posset, quod solis episcopis convenit ».

Et ita patet, quod haec opinio, quae dicit, quod non erant *omnes* rebaptizandi, non habet fulcimentum ex Scriptura nec ex auctoritate evidenti, nec etiam habet rationem cogentem. — Alia vero opinio *auctoritatem* habet, scilicet quod *omnes* sunt rebaptizandi, sicut patet Actuum decimo nono[^16]. Et non est ratio, quia defectum haberent fidei; quantumcumque enim aliquis est infidelis, non est rebaptizandus, sed erudiendus: ergo haec erat ratio, scilicet quia ille baptismus non computabatur pro Sacramento. Et habet auctoritatem a Sanctis. Augustinus enim super Ioannem homilia quinta[^17] dicit: « Qui baptizati sunt baptismate Ioannis, non eis suffecit; baptizati enim sunt baptismate Christi ». Item Beda: « Ad hoc Ioannes baptizabat, ut ad baptismum Christi dirigeret ». Ad hoc facit Glossa super illud Ioannis tertio[^18]: « Quantum catechumenis », et haec supra habita est. — Rationem etiam habet propter characterem, qui imprimitur; et quia baptismus Christi erat ianua Sacramentorum; postremo, quia assuefactorius erat, frustra erat, quia vana est assuefactio, ubi non consequitur illud, ad quod est. Huic igitur opinioni tanquam securiori et rectiori consentiendum credo[^19].

---

english:
<!-- page 57 -->

### Question III. *On the use or efficacy of the baptism of John.*

Third, the question is asked concerning the use of John's baptism, or its efficacy: namely, whether the baptism of John, together with the laying-on of hands, was equivalent to the baptism of Christ. And that it was so seems [to be the case]:

1. *By reason:* because these two things make baptism complete, namely to be baptized in water and the Spirit[^1]; but by John they were baptized with water, [and] by the laying-on of hands with the Spirit: therefore these two are equivalent to the baptism of Christ.

2. Likewise, this seems [so] by another reason: because for baptism to be a complete Sacrament it is not necessary that someone be washed inwardly and outwardly at the same time, but [it may be done] successively, as is evident in one who approaches feignedly[^2]: therefore it seems that where the laying-on of hands washed inwardly through the Spirit, together with the preceding outward washing, there was an entire Sacrament.

3. Likewise, this seems [so] by the authority of Jerome and of the Master[^3]. For Jerome says, on Joel: « Those baptized by John in the name of the one to come, because they said: *Neither have we so much as heard whether there be a Holy Spirit,* were baptized again »: therefore this is the reason, that they did not know the Holy Spirit: therefore if this is the right cause, the opposite is the cause of the opposite: therefore if they were baptized and had faith in the Trinity, they were not to be rebaptized.

4. Likewise, this seems [so] by the authority of Scripture. In Acts the eighth[^4] it is said of the Samaritans that *they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and then they laid hands upon them;* and the Apostles did nothing else but lay hands [on them] in the name of the Lord Jesus; but then I ask: was that baptism *Christ's,* or *John's,* by which they had been baptized? Not Christ's, as is evident from the text: *For as yet he had come upon none of them,* etc.; but the baptism of Christ gave the Holy Spirit, and the Gloss says there: « Baptized, only dipped in water, not in the Spirit »: therefore it was the baptism of John: therefore nothing was required except that hands be laid [on them].

**On the contrary:** 1. It is read in Acts the nineteenth[^5] that Paul rebaptized those baptized with the baptism of John: therefore they are to be rebaptized. If you say that he rebaptized for this reason, that they did not have faith in the Trinity; then therefore, once faith in the Trinity was supplied, it was not necessary to be rebaptized; but it is established that he first instructed [them] in faith before he baptized: therefore in no way ought he to have baptized.

2. Likewise, Augustine[^6] assigns a general difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ, saying: « Judas baptized, and it was not rebaptized; John baptized, and it was rebaptized »: therefore generally all were to be rebaptized.

3. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason: because, as has been said[^7], the baptism of John accustomed [people] to and directed [them] toward the baptism of Christ; whence John himself said: *I baptize you with water, he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit:* therefore if someone is accustomed in vain to doing something which he does not do; [then] they were baptized in vain with the baptism of John, unless they were also baptized with the baptism of Christ.

4. Likewise, the laying-on of hands held the place of the Sacrament of confirmation; but the Sacrament of confirmation presupposes the Sacrament of baptism and otherwise is not valid[^8]: therefore if they did not yet have the full Sacrament of baptism, confirmation, or the laying-on of hands, did nothing for them.

<!-- page 58 -->

5. Likewise, in baptism a character is imprinted, which is the foundation of order and of the other Sacraments[^9]; but a character was not imprinted in the baptism of John nor in the laying-on of hands, because they had no likeness with [the baptism of Christ]: therefore such persons would always lack the character: therefore the other Sacraments would never avail them.

> **Conclusion.** The common opinion, against the Master, teaches that all those baptized with the baptism of John had to be rebaptized.

**I respond:** It must be said that there was a twofold opinion on this matter: one, namely, that those baptized with the baptism of John, if they did not have faith in the Trinity, were to be rebaptized; but if they had faith in the Trinity, it was not necessary that they be rebaptized, but it sufficed that hands be laid [on them]. — And the *reason* of this position was that, because such persons had the outward washing and had faith in the Trinity, by which they were inwardly marked as if with a character, and had the Holy Spirit through the laying-on of hands; and therefore such persons were not to be rebaptized. — But this opinion is strengthened by *authority:* because, in Acts the eighth[^10], they are not rebaptized, and in the nineteenth, they are rebaptized; and therefore [its holders] neither assert nor deny generally, but distinguish in order to maintain this opinion. And they say that for that time the laying-on of hands availed more than confirmation does now; for it gave the baptism of the spirit. — Of this opinion was the Master[^11] and others who uphold him.

The other opinion is that all are to be rebaptized, and because that baptism of John only accustomed, [but] did not regenerate; *the laying-on of hands* did not stamp a character on the soul. And this is the common opinion of the modern masters.

As to what is therefore objected, [objections] 1 and 2, that there was a washing outward and inward; it must be said that not just any outward washing is a Sacrament, but [only] one in which a character is imprinted[^12]; and such was not [present] in the baptism of John. Therefore that [objection] is clear.

3. To that [argument] of Jerome it must be said that he does not there intend to touch upon the cause of rebaptization, but [upon] the insufficiency of faith in one of the Persons[^13]; and this is evident if the antecedents and consequents are examined.

4. To the other it must be said that the Samaritans had been baptized by Philip with the baptism of Christ, as the Gloss intimates[^14]. And as to what is said, that they had not received the Holy Spirit, it is understood visibly, because that Philip was not the Apostle, but the disciple; and therefore he could baptize and preach, but not lay on hands to give the Holy Spirit visibly. Whence the Gloss, in Acts the eighth[^15], on the text *They sent unto them Peter and John:* « Philip, who was evangelizing in Samaria, was one of the seven. For if he had been an Apostle, he could have laid on hands, which belongs to bishops alone ».

And thus it is evident that this opinion, which says that *not all* were to be rebaptized, has no support from Scripture nor from evident authority, nor does it even have a compelling reason. — But the other opinion has *authority,* namely that *all* are to be rebaptized, as is evident in Acts the nineteenth[^16]. And the reason is not that they would have had a defect of faith; for however much someone is an unbeliever, he is not to be rebaptized, but to be instructed: therefore this was the reason, namely that that baptism was not reckoned as a Sacrament. And it has authority from the Saints. For Augustine, on John, in the fifth homily[^17], says: « To those who were baptized with the baptism of John, it did not suffice; for they were baptized with the baptism of Christ ». Likewise Bede: « To this end John baptized, that he might direct [them] to the baptism of Christ ». To this purpose serves the Gloss on the text of John the third[^18]: « As [it avails] for catechumens », and this has been treated above. — It also has a reason on account of the character which is imprinted; and because the baptism of Christ was the gate of the Sacraments; finally, because it was [merely] preparatory, it was in vain, since the accustoming is empty where that for which it exists is not obtained. To this opinion, therefore, as the safer and more correct, I believe one should assent[^19].

---

la: Ioan. 3, 5: *Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu* etc.

en: John 3:5: *Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit,* etc.

la: Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 2, et ibid. Comment. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. seq. — Inferius pro *lavit* edd. falso *non lavit.*

en: Cf. below, the text of the Master, d. IV, c. 2, and there the Commentary, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, following. — Further down, for *lavit* the editions wrongly [read] *non lavit.*

la: Hic c. 6, ubi etiam verba Hieron. super Ioel 2, 29. afferuntur, in quibus allegatur Act. 19, 2. — Inferius respicitur dictum Aristot., IV. Topic. c. 4: *Si oppositum in opposito, et propositum in proposito erit.*

en: Here, c. 6, where the words of Jerome on Joel 2:29 are also adduced, in which Acts 19:2 is cited. — Further down reference is made to the saying of Aristotle, *Topics* IV, c. 4: *If the opposite [is] in the opposite, then the proposed [will be] in the proposed.*

la: Vers. 16. seq. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 16. — De Glossa, quam exhibet Lyranus ut interlinearem, cfr. Beda, Retract. in Act. Apost. I, 5.

en: Verse 16 and following. — The following text is in the same place, v. 16. — On the Gloss, which Lyra presents as interlinear, cf. Bede, *Retractations on the Acts of the Apostles* I, 5.

la: Vers. 3. — De obiectione, quae mox infertur, vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.

en: Verse 3. — On the objection which is brought in shortly, see here the text of the Master, c. 6.

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 18.

en: *On the Gospel of John,* tractate 5, n. 18.

la: Quaest. praeced. — Textus Scripturae est Marc. 1, 6: *Ego baptizavi vos* etc. Cfr. Matth. 3, 11; Luc. 3, 16.

en: The preceding question. — The text of Scripture is Mark 1:6 [recte 1:8]: *I have baptized you* etc. Cf. Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 7. a. 3. q. 3. — Edd. *et aliis non valet, nisi baptizatis,* multi codd. incomplete *et aliis non valet.* In fine arg. pro *eis* cod. M *in eis.*

en: As is shown below, d. 7, a. 3, q. 3. — The editions [read] *and otherwise is not valid, except for the baptized;* many codices, incompletely, *and otherwise is not valid.* At the end of the argument, for *eis* codex M [reads] *in eis.*

la: Cfr. infra d. 6. p. I. q. 1. seqq.

en: Cf. below, d. 6, p. I, q. 1, and following.

la: Vers. 16. seq. — Seq. locus est ibid. 19, 5. — Pro *rebaptizati* multi codd. perperam *rebaptizandi.* Superius pro *roboratur* cod. II *roborabatur.*

en: Verse 16 and following. — The following passage is in the same place, 19:5. — For *rebaptizati* many codices wrongly [read] *rebaptizandi.* Above, for *roboratur* codex II [reads] *roborabatur.*

la: Hic c. 6. Magistrum sequitur Petr. Pictaviensis, V. Sent. c. 7. in fine. — Pro *qui eum* edd. *qui eam.*

en: Here, c. 6. Peter of Poitiers follows the Master, *Sentences* V, c. 7, at the end. — For *qui eum* the editions [read] *qui eam.*

la: Edd. subiungunt: *qui semper manet,* et in fine solut. *Et per hoc patet responsio ad secundum.*

en: The editions add: *who always remains,* and at the end of the solution: *And by this the reply to the second is clear.*

la: Scil. Trinitatis. Vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 6. locum Hieronymi et Dialog. contra Luciferianos, n. 7, ubi Hieronymus probat, baptizatos baptismate Ioannis rebaptizatos fuisse. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. fi. m. 7: *Male* [Magister] *intellexit Hieronymum.* Licet enim dixerit Hieronymus, quod illi qui non habuerunt fidem Spiritus sancti, rebaptizandi erant, non propter hoc consequens est, quod illi qui habuerunt, non erant rebaptizandi. Non enim intendebat dicere illud cum praecisione, sed simpliciter.

en: Namely, of the Trinity. See here in the text of the Master, c. 6, the passage of Jerome and the *Dialogue against the Luciferians,* n. 7, where Jerome proves that those baptized with the baptism of John were rebaptized. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 6, m. 7: *The Master understood Jerome wrongly.* For although Jerome said that those who did not have faith in the Holy Spirit were to be rebaptized, it does not follow from this that those who did have [it] were not to be rebaptized. For he did not intend to say that with precision, but simply.

en: On Acts 8:12.

la: Vers. 14. — Glossa sumta est ex Beda (in hunc locum): *Philippus... Si enim Apostolus esset, ipse utique manum imponere potuisset, ut acciperent Spiritum sanctum. Hoc enim solis pontificibus debetur.* Strabus et Lyranus exhibent hanc Glossam ut ordinariam in v. 17. — Aliquanto inferius pro *fulcimentum* cod. Z *fundamentum,* et pro *rationem cogentem* ed. I cum pluribus codd. perperam *auctoritatem cogentem.*

en: Verse 14. — The Gloss is taken from Bede (on this passage): *Philip... For if he had been an Apostle, he himself could indeed have laid on a hand, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For this is owed to pontiffs alone.* Strabo and Lyra present this Gloss as the ordinary one at v. 17. — Somewhat further down, for *fulcimentum* codex Z [reads] *fundamentum,* and for *rationem cogentem* edition I with several codices wrongly [reads] *auctoritatem cogentem.*

la: Vers. 5. — Post *patet* cod. H addit *per exemplum.*

en: Verse 5. — After *patet* codex H adds *per exemplum.*

la: Sive tract. 5. n. 5. — Sententia Bedae invenitur (aliis quidem verbis) in Expositione Evang. Ioan. I, 31. Cfr. ibid. 3, 27.

en: Or tractate 5, n. 5. — The opinion of Bede is found (though in other words) in the *Exposition of the Gospel of John* I, 31. Cf. the same place, 3, 27.

la: Vers. 23: *Erat autem et Ioannes baptizans.* Vide quaest. praeced. arg. 7. ad oppos. — Inferius respicitur definitio vani (frustra), quam dat Aristot., II. Phys. text. 62. (c. 6.): *Vanum est quod non includit finem, ad quem est.* Cfr. tom. III. pag. 830, nota 8. — Post *postremo, quia* codd. FII suppient *baptismus Ioannis,* cod. B autem ponit: *Baptismus Ioannis, qui anterior.*

en: Verse 23: *And John also was baptizing.* See the preceding question, argument 7 against [the affirmative]. — Further down reference is made to the definition of the vain (*frustra*) which Aristotle gives, *Physics* II, text 62 (c. 6): *That is vain which does not include the end for which it exists.* Cf. tome III, p. 830, note 8. — After *postremo, quia* codices FII supply *baptismus Ioannis,* but codex B reads: *The baptism of John, which [is] prior.*

en: See the scholion to question I of this same article.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (printed pp. 57–58; pdf 77–78; offset +20) per the Vol IV / Vol II PDF-priority inversion (two-column, IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the Respondeo + footers). Body reflowed left-column-then-right per page; cross-checked against raw OCR `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L6721–6897 for marker spacing. q3 opener "Tertio quaeritur de usu baptismi Ioannis sive de efficacia…" at raw L6721 (QUAESTIO III header L6721; printed p.57 left, after q2's tail which closes printed p.56–57 top). q3 ends where `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` begins (raw L6898, printed p.59).

**Alignment.** Confirmed (3) of Art. II's three quaestiones = *de usu sive efficacia* — matches the skeleton body. No q-swap.

**Apparatus / page-split map.** 19 entries total, one anchor per printed footer that belongs to q3. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page; this chunk carries the tail of p.57's sequence (nn.4–11) plus all of p.58's sequence (nn.1–11), renumbered continuously [^1]–[^19] for unique anchors:
- **Printed p.57 footers nn.4–11** → chunk [^1]–[^8], one-to-one: n.4→[^1] (arg 1, "in aqua et Spiritu"), n.5→[^2] (arg 2, "accedente ficte"), n.6→[^3] (arg 3, "Magistri"), n.7→[^4] (arg 4, "Actuum octavo"), n.8→[^5] (Contra 1, "Actuum decimo nono"), n.9→[^6] (Contra 2, "Augustinus"), n.10→[^7] (Contra 3, "dictum est"), n.11→[^8] (Contra 4, "alias non valet"). **Printed p.57 footers nn.1–3 do NOT belong to q3** — they sit under the right-column TOP of p.57, which is q2's tail (replies to q2's objs 3–4: "se baptizando", "ad suum baptismum"); they are rendered in the a2-q2 chunk (its [^12]–[^14], committed 6f56eeb).
- **Printed p.58 footers nn.1–11** → chunk [^9]–[^19], one-to-one: n.1→[^9] (arg 5, "aliorum Sacramentorum"), n.2→[^10] (opinion-1 "Actuum octavo"), n.3→[^11] (Magister), n.4→[^12] (solutio "imprimitur character"), n.5→[^13] ("alteram personarum"), n.6→[^14] (Samaritani "innuit Glossa"), n.7→[^15] (Glossa Philippus "Actuum octavo"), n.8→[^16] (opinion-2 "Actuum decimo nono"), n.9→[^17] (Augustine hom. 5 / Bede), n.10→[^18] (John 3:23 / Aristotle *Phys.* II text 62 / cod. variants), n.11→[^19] (scholion cross-ref). No footer dropped or folded.

**Hand-off picked up (from a2-q2, committed 6f56eeb).** a2-q2 captured printed p.57's footers nn.1–3 (its tail spills onto the top of p.57's right column). q3 therefore carries NONE of those; q3 takes p.57 nn.4–11 and all of p.58 nn.1–11 — confirmed by reading both pages' footer bands in printed order against the body marker positions in the PDF.

**Scholion.** None in this chunk. The article-level scholion (I–III) lives in **a2-q1** ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." / "Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest." — p.57 n.6 [^3] and p.58 n.11 [^19] both point back to it). Written `has_scholion: false`.

**Hand-off forward → d.2 DUBIA chunk.** The d.2 `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` begins at raw **L6898**, printed **p.59** (running head "DIST. II. DUBIA. 59"), pdf p.79. q3 takes nothing from p.59; the DUBIA chunk owns p.59's footers in full. q3's last body word is "credo" (Respondeo close, end of printed p.58); DUBIA opens fresh at the top of p.59 — no mid-page body seam to reconcile.

**[?] flags.** None. Two minor editorial dispositions, not flagged because PDF + apparatus resolve them: (a) OCR "b. Item" at p.58 left top = printed "5. Item" (fifth affirmative arg) — confirmed in PDF band p058-L-0. (b) p.57 footer n.10 ([^7]) apparatus reads "Marc. 1, 6"; the verse for "Ego baptizo vos aqua" is Mark 1:8 — noted in the **En.** as "[recte 1:8]" without altering the Latin (the Quaracchi cite is rendered verbatim).