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

source_text:
<!-- page 71 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum expressio totius Trinitatis sit de necessitate baptismi.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum expressio totius Trinitatis sit de necessitate baptismi. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per formam a Domino traditam, Matthaei ultimo[^1]. *Fundamenta.*

2. Item, Fulgentius[^2]: «Mysterium redemptionis nullo modo habetur, si Patris vel Filii vel Spiritus sancti nomen subtrahatur».

3. Item, Pelagius Gaudentio episcopo[^3]: «Re vera si hi de haereticis, qui in locis dilectionis tuae et vicinis commorari dicuntur, solum in nomine Domini se baptizatos fuisse fortasse confitentur, sine cuiusquam dubitationis ambiguo eos ad catholicam fidem venientes in sanctae Trinitatis nomine baptizabis»: ergo non fuerunt baptizati.

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia necessarium est verbum vocale ad professionem fidei; sed sicut non sufficit credere tantum alteram personarum, sic nec sufficit profiteri: ergo si professio sufficiens est necessaria[^4], necesse est totam Trinitatem exprimere in baptismo.

<!-- page 72 -->

**Sed contra:** *Ad oppositum.*

1. Ambrosius dicit in libro de Trinitate, et habetur in littera[^5]: «Si unum in sermone comprehendas, vel Patrem vel Filium vel Spiritum sanctum, fide autem nec Patrem nec Filium nec Spiritum sanctum abneges; plenum est fidei Sacramentum»: ergo videtur, quod non est necesse exprimere totam Trinitatem, sed credere.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia una est potestas et operatio Trinitatis[^6]: ergo quod operatur Pater, et tota Trinitas: ergo si dicatur: baptizo te in nomine Patris, tantumdem valet, ac si tota Trinitas exprimatur.

3. Item, Apostoli in primitiva Ecclesia baptizaverunt *in nomine Christi*[^7]: ergo si nullo modo licuit eis mutare formam a Domino institutam, ergo ista forma non discordabit ab illa: ergo videtur, quod sufficiat alteram personarum exprimere. *Si dicas*, quod non mutatur propria, sed divina auctoritate; tunc ergo divina auctoritas contulit vim illi nomini: ergo si quod Deus contulit, illud homo auferre non potest, adhuc potest baptizari in nomine Christi. *Si dicas*, quod non fuit collata virtus[^8] nisi ad tempus; *quaero*: quare magis collata est virtus simpliciter nomini totius Trinitatis quam nomini Christi? *Et rursus*: quare magis collata est virtus nomini Christi pro illo tempore quam pro nostro? — Et quod simpliciter habeat, videtur: quia baptismus virtutem habet a passione, ergo et a fide passionis[^9]: ergo si Christus, non tota Trinitas, fuit passa, potius debet dici: in nomine Christi, quam: totius Trinitatis.

### Conclusio.

> Expressio verbalis totius Trinitatis in baptismo est necessaria.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod notitia Trinitatis sive nominatio potest esse in baptismo quatuor modis[^10]: *Modi 4.* aut ita, quod sit plena in corde et in ore, et tunc secundum omnes plenum est Sacramentum; aut ita, quod sit semiplena in corde et in ore, et tunc secundum omnes non est Sacramentum plenum; aut ita, quod plena in ore et semiplena in corde; aut ita, quod plena in corde et semiplena in ore. De primo modo et secundo[^11] non est controversia, sed de duobus sequentibus fuit opinio diversa.

Quia enim baptismus est Sacramentum fidei et virtutem habet a fide, quae in corde est; ideo voluerunt aliqui dicere, quod plenitudo fidei in corde cum qualicumque Trinitatis expressione, sive duae sive una sive tres personae exprimantur, plenum facit Sacramentum, quia fides supplet defectum sermonis; e converso autem, si non est fides in corde, si[^12] exprimantur tres ore, non est plenum Sacramentum. *Opinio I.* Et hoc videtur dicere Ambrosius, et huius opinionis videtur fuisse Hugo[^13] et Magister quantum ad primam partem opinionis. — Sed quia, ut determinat Augustinus, baptismus est Sacramentum fidei non singularis personae, sed totius Ecclesiae; ideo fides personae nihil obest, nihil prodest. *Improbatur.*

Et ideo determinat alia positio, quod quidquid sit de fide cordis, iudicandum est de baptismate secundum expressionem oris sive sermonis; et ideo, qualitercumque credat, et si totam exprimat Trinitatem, baptizatus est; si autem non totam, non est baptizatus et rebaptizandus est. Et hoc communiter et certitudinaliter asserunt magistri. *Opinio II. et conclusio. Nota.*

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Ambrosio, dicendum, quod verbum Ambrosii est exponendum, ut *sacramentum fidei* ponatur pro ipsa fide: «*plenum sacramentum fidei*», id est ipsa fides, quae significatur per Sacramentum. — Vel si de Sacramento intelligitur, habet locum in casu; ut quando puer deficit in manibus sacerdotis, ubi credendum est quod divina misericordia et summus Sacerdos non dimittat imperfectum quod inchoatum est. *Solutio oppositorum. Aliter.*

2. Ad aliud dicendum, quod etsi potestas et operatio Trinitatis uniat, tamen fides distinguit; et ideo non sufficit unam personarum credere, sed necesse est credere omnes. Et quia baptismus est Sacramentum plenae professionis; ideo necesse est profiteri omnes personas.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de nomine Christi, dicendum, quod Apostolis licuit baptizare in nomine Christi divinitus inspiratis[^14], sed non licet modo nobis. *De baptismo in nomine Christi.*

Dicunt tamen aliqui, quod verbum illud non amisit virtutem propter constitutionem Ecclesiae ordinantis, quod tantum fiat in nomine Trinitatis; unde etsi peccaret sic baptizans, tamen baptizatum esset. *Opinio aliorum.* — Sed communis opinio et certior est, quod non esset baptizatum, quia, cum sit unicum baptisma in Ecclesia, ideo unica debet esse forma; et ideo tantum in nomine Trinitatis baptizat tota Ecclesia.

<!-- page 73 -->

Quod ergo obiicitur, quod Apostoli baptizabant in nomine Christi; dicendum, quod data fuit virtus illi verbo tempore primitivae Ecclesiae. *Ratio I.* Et una ratio fuit, quod nomen Christi implicat et insinuat totam Trinitatem; Christus enim unctus dicitur, et ideo ungentem et unctum et unctionem insinuat, et sic cum praedicta forma concordabat[^15]. *Ratio II.* — Alia ratio fuit: quia nomen Christi erat ignotum et contumeliosum, utpote crucifixi, ut nomen publicaretur et in reverentia haberetur, tunc temporis tali forma[^16] usi sunt. Et quia cessante causa, cessat effectus, Christi nomine publicato et honorabili facto, amplius nec debuit nec potuit in eo impleri Sacramentum baptismi, quia ad tempus tantum institutum fuit. — Quod ergo obiicitur, quod debuit simpliciter institui propter fidem passionis; dicendum, quod recreator dicitur dupliciter: vel sicut auctor, et sic tota Trinitas; vel sicut mediator, et sic Christus[^17]. *Distinctio.* Ad hoc ergo, quod esset plenum Sacramentum necesse, erat fide profiteri mediatorem et auctorem, sed tamen principalius auctorem. Quia ergo per actum immergendi mors Christi intelligitur, et ita mediator; necesse fuit, voce exprimi auctorem, et ita totam Trinitatem nominari oportuit[^18].

english:
### Question II. *Whether the expression of the whole Trinity belongs to the necessity of baptism.*

Secondly it is asked whether the expression of the whole Trinity belongs to the necessity of baptism. And that it does, seems [to be the case]:

1. By the form handed down by the Lord, in the last [chapter] of Matthew[^1]. *Grounds.*

2. Likewise, Fulgentius[^2]: «The mystery of redemption is in no way had, if the name of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Spirit be withdrawn».

3. Likewise, Pelagius to bishop Gaudentius[^3]: «Truly, if these of the heretics, who are said to dwell in the places near and neighboring to your charity, perhaps confess that they were baptized only in the name of the Lord, then, without any ambiguity of doubt, when they come to the catholic faith you shall baptize them in the name of the holy Trinity»: therefore they were not baptized.

4. Likewise, it seems by reason: because a vocal word is necessary for the profession of faith; but just as it does not suffice to believe in only one of the persons, so neither does it suffice to profess [only one]: therefore, if a sufficient profession is necessary[^4], it is necessary to express the whole Trinity in baptism.

**On the contrary:** *To the opposite.*

1. Ambrose says in the book On the Trinity, and it is had in the text [of the Master][^5]: «If you comprehend in speech one [person], whether the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit, yet by faith deny neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Sacrament of faith is full»: therefore it seems that it is not necessary to express the whole Trinity, but to believe [it].

2. Likewise, it seems by reason: because the power and operation of the Trinity is one[^6]: therefore what the Father operates, the whole Trinity [operates] also: therefore if it be said: I baptize you in the name of the Father, it is worth just as much as if the whole Trinity were expressed.

3. Likewise, the Apostles in the primitive Church baptized *in the name of Christ*[^7]: therefore if it was in no way permitted to them to change the form instituted by the Lord, then this form will not be discordant from that one: therefore it seems that it suffices to express one of the persons. *If you say* that it [the form] is not changed by its own [authority], but by divine authority; then therefore divine authority conferred power upon that name: therefore if what God conferred man cannot take away, one can still be baptized in the name of Christ. *If you say* that the power[^8] was conferred only for a time; *I ask*: why was power conferred simply upon the name of the whole Trinity rather than upon the name of Christ? *And again*: why was power conferred upon the name of Christ for that time rather than for ours? — And that it has [power] simply, seems [the case]: because baptism has its power from the passion, therefore also from faith in the passion[^9]: therefore if Christ, not the whole Trinity, suffered, it ought rather to be said: in the name of Christ, than: of the whole Trinity.

### Conclusion.

> The verbal expression of the whole Trinity in baptism is necessary.

**I respond:** It must be said that the knowledge or naming of the Trinity can be in baptism in four ways[^10]: *Four ways.* either thus, that it be full in heart and in mouth, and then according to all the Sacrament is full; or thus, that it be half-full in heart and in mouth, and then according to all the Sacrament is not full; or thus, that it be full in mouth and half-full in heart; or thus, that it be full in heart and half-full in mouth. About the first way and the second[^11] there is no controversy, but about the two following there was a diversity of opinion.

For because baptism is the Sacrament of faith and has its power from the faith which is in the heart; therefore some wished to say that fullness of faith in the heart, together with any expression whatever of the Trinity—whether two or one or three persons be expressed—makes the Sacrament full, because faith supplies the defect of speech; but conversely, if there is no faith in the heart, even if three be expressed by mouth, the Sacrament is not full[^12]. *Opinion I.* And Ambrose seems to say this, and of this opinion Hugh[^13] and the Master seem to have been as to the first part of the opinion. — But because, as Augustine determines, baptism is the Sacrament of the faith not of a single person, but of the whole Church; therefore the faith of the [individual] person neither hinders nor profits. *It is disproved.*

And therefore another position determines that, whatever may be the case with the faith of the heart, judgment is to be made about the baptism according to the expression of mouth or speech; and therefore, however one believes, even if he expresses the whole Trinity, he is baptized; but if not the whole, he is not baptized and is to be rebaptized. And this the masters commonly and with certainty assert. *Opinion II. and conclusion. Note.*

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning Ambrose, it must be said that the word of Ambrose is to be expounded so that *Sacrament of faith* be taken for the faith itself: «*full Sacrament of faith*», that is, the faith itself, which is signified by the Sacrament. — Or if it is understood of the Sacrament, it has its place in a case [of necessity]; as when a child fails in the hands of the priest, where it is to be believed that the divine mercy and the highest Priest do not abandon imperfect what has been begun. *Solution of the opposites. Otherwise.*

2. To the other it must be said that, although the power and operation of the Trinity unites [them], nevertheless faith distinguishes [them]; and therefore it does not suffice to believe one of the persons, but it is necessary to believe all. And because baptism is the Sacrament of full profession; therefore it is necessary to profess all the persons.

3. To that which is objected concerning the name of Christ, it must be said that it was permitted to the Apostles, divinely inspired[^14], to baptize in the name of Christ, but it is not now permitted to us. *On baptism in the name of Christ.*

Yet some say that that word did not lose its power on account of the constitution of the Church ordaining that it be done only in the name of the Trinity; whence even if one baptizing thus would sin, nevertheless [the person] would be baptized. *The opinion of others.* — But the common and more certain opinion is that [the person] would not be baptized, because, since there is one baptism in the Church, therefore the form ought to be one; and therefore the whole Church baptizes only in the name of the Trinity.

Therefore, to what is objected, that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ; it must be said that power was given to that word in the time of the primitive Church. *Reason I.* And one reason was that the name of Christ implies and intimates the whole Trinity; for Christ is called the anointed, and therefore intimates the one anointing, the one anointed, and the anointing, and thus it accorded with the aforesaid form[^15]. *Reason II.* — Another reason was: because the name of Christ was unknown and contemptible, inasmuch as [the name] of one crucified, so that the name might be made public and held in reverence, they used such a form[^16] at that time. And because, the cause ceasing, the effect ceases, once the name of Christ was made public and made honorable, the Sacrament of baptism neither ought nor could any longer be fulfilled in it, because it was instituted only for a time. — Therefore, to what is objected, that it ought to have been instituted simply on account of faith in the passion; it must be said that the re-creator is so called in two ways: either as author, and thus the whole Trinity; or as mediator, and thus Christ[^17]. *Distinction.* To this, then, that it should be a full Sacrament, it was necessary to profess by faith the mediator and the author, but yet principally the author. Since, therefore, by the act of immersing the death of Christ is understood, and thus the mediator; it was necessary that the author be expressed by voice, and thus it was fitting that the whole Trinity be named[^18].

la: Vers. 19.

en: Verse 19. [Matthew 28:19.]

la: Epist. 8. ad Donatum, c. 9. n. 18: Mysterium autem redemptionis humanae nulla ratione perficitur, si in baptismo vel Filii vel Spiritus sancti vocabulum subtrahatur.

en: Letter 8, to Donatus, c. 9, n. 18: «But the mystery of human redemption is by no reasoning brought to perfection, if in baptism the word either of the Son or of the Holy Spirit be withdrawn.»

la: Can. *Si revera* (30.), de Consecrat. d. 4: Si revera hi de haereticis, qui in locis tuae dilectioni vicinis etc.

en: Canon *Si revera* (30.), On Consecration, dist. 4: «If truly these of the heretics, who [dwell] in the places neighboring to your charity, etc.»

la: In edd. desideratur *necessaria.*

en: In the editions *necessaria* (necessary) is wanting.

la: Hic c. 4. Liber *de Trinitate* intelligendus est liber 1. de Spiritu sancto, c. 3. n. 42.

en: Here c. 4. The book *On the Trinity* is to be understood as the first book On the Holy Spirit, c. 3, n. 42.

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 12, nota 2. — Mox post *Trinitas* cod. F addit *operatur*, et post *dicatur* [cod. Z *dico*] codd. A G *Ego.*

en: Cf. vol. III, p. 12, note 2. — Soon, after *Trinitas* (Trinity) codex F adds *operatur* (operates), and after *dicatur* (let it be said) [codex Z *dico* (I say)] codices A G [read] *Ego* (I).

la: Act. 2, 38; 10, 48; 19, 5. — Aliquanto inferius pro *mutatur* cod. G *mutaverunt.*

en: Acts 2:38; 10:48; 19:5. — Somewhat below, for *mutatur* (is changed) codex G [reads] *mutaverunt* (they changed).

la: In cod. F additur *nomini Christi simpliciter.*

en: In codex F is added *nomini Christi simpliciter* (to the name of Christ simply).

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3. — Post *virtutem* habent codd. F H supplent *recreandi* [cod. H *regenerandi*] sive *iustificandi.*

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 3. — After *virtutem* (power) codices F H have they supply *recreandi* (of re-creating) [codex H *regenerandi* (of regenerating)] or *iustificandi* (of justifying).

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 5.

en: Cf. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 5.

la: Permulti codd. omittunt *et secundo*, edd. substituunt *Primis duobus modis.*

en: Very many codices omit *et secundo* (and the second), the editions substitute *Primis duobus modis* (in the first two ways).

la: Ita codd. et edd. pro *etsi.*

en: Thus the codices and editions, for *etsi* (even if).

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 2. — Opinionem Magistri vide hic in lit. c. 4; sententiam Augustini vero in eius Epist. 98. (alias 23.) n. 5. Cfr. etiam infra lit. Magistri, d. V, C. *Si inter bonos* (25. seqq.), de Consecrat. d. 4.

en: Bk. II On the Sacraments, p. VI, c. 2. — See the opinion of the Master here in the text, c. 4; the judgment of Augustine in his Letter 98 (otherwise 23), n. 5. Cf. also below in the text of the Master, d. V, C. *Si inter bonos* (25 ff.), On Consecration, dist. 4.

la: Plurimi codd. *inspirantis*, sed G I addunt *auctoritate Spiritus sancti* ante *divinitus.* Inferius pro *baptizatum* cod. H bis *baptismus*, et pro *unde etsi peccaret sic baptizans* ed. I cum pluribus codd. *unde etsi peccator sit baptizans*, cod. F *unde etsi peccatum sic baptizare.*

en: Most codices [read] *inspirantis* (of the one inspiring), but G I add *auctoritate Spiritus sancti* (by the authority of the Holy Spirit) before *divinitus* (divinely). Below, for *baptizatum* (baptized) codex H twice [reads] *baptismus* (baptism), and for *unde etsi peccaret sic baptizans* (whence even if one baptizing thus would sin) edition I with many codices [reads] *unde etsi peccator sit baptizans* (whence even if the one baptizing be a sinner), codex F *unde etsi peccatum sic baptizare* (whence even if to baptize thus [be] a sin).

la: Secundum Ambros. hic in lit. Magistri, c. 5. allegatum.

en: According to Ambrose, here cited in the text of the Master, c. 5.

la: Ex codd. F H (bb a secunda manu) *dicta forma*, codd. M O *dicta forma*, Vat. *eo.* — De seq. axiomate (cessante causa, cessat effectus) cfr. Aristot., II. Phys. text. 37. (c. 3.), et Avicenna, Metaph. tr. 4. c. 1.

en: From codices F H (bb by a second hand) *dicta forma* (the said form), codices M O *dicta forma*, the Vatican [edition] *eo* (by that). — On the following axiom (the cause ceasing, the effect ceases) cf. Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 37 (c. 3), and Avicenna, *Metaphysics* tr. 4, c. 1.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. q. 1.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. [The Article II scholion (I–III) is given in chunk a2-q1.]

translators_notes:
**Provenance & page-split map.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 71–73 (PDF pp. 91–93, offset +20), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 8363–8558. q2 opens on p. 71 (bottom of left col → right col), runs through p. 72 (both cols), and ends on p. 73 (left col → right col) at *…totam Trinitatem nominari oportuit*, immediately before QUAESTIO III (raw L8559). Two-column cascade-shattered OCR → PDF-priority inversion applied throughout (Vol II Override).

**Footer attribution across pages (verified eyes-on against the printed footers):**
- **p. 71** has footer notes 1–6. Notes **1–2** (the *Idem pluribus verbis… Alex. Hal.* note and *Dist. 8. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.*) belong to the preceding chunk **a2-q1** (rendered there as its [^10]). Notes **3–6** are picked up here: 3 = *Vers. 19* (anchor on *Matthaei ultimo*, arg. 1 → [^1]); 4 = *Epist. 8. ad Donatum* (Fulgentius → [^2]); 5 = *Can. Si revera* (Pelagius → [^3]); 6 = *In edd. desideratur necessaria* (→ [^4]).
- **p. 72** has footer notes 1–9 (left col 1–6, right col 7–9), ALL belonging to q2 → rendered here as [^5]–[^13] (1→[^5], 2→[^6], 3→[^7], 4→[^8], 5→[^9], 6→[^11], 7→[^12], 8→[^13], 9→[^14]). Note: p.72 note 6 anchors *et secundo* inside the *Modi 4.* respondeo; the *Cfr. III Sent. d.20 q.5* reference for *quatuor modis* is editorial cross-ref [^10] (no superscript in the printed body — placed at *quatuor modis*).
- **p. 73** has footer notes 1–9. Notes **1–4** belong to q2: 1 = *Secundum Ambros. hic in lit. Magistri c. 5* (anchor *concordabat* → [^15]); 2 = *Ex codd. F H… dicta forma* (anchor *tali forma* → [^16]); 3 = *Cfr. III. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. q. 1.* (anchor *Christus* → [^17]); 4 = *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* (anchor *oportuit* → [^18]). Notes **5–9** (*Vide supra a.1 q.2 et 4…*; *Ex cod. F addidimus Sacramentum…*; *Can. Retulerunt…*; *Aristot. I. Periherm…*; *Vers. 18*) belong to the FOLLOWING chunk **a2-q3** (De variatione formae) and are forwarded.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up from a2-q1:* p. 71 footer notes 3–6 (above).
- *Forwarded to a2-q3:* QUAESTIO III (*De variatione formae*) opens at raw L8559 / printed p. 73 left col (*Tertio quaeritur de variatione formae… quinque modis: mutando, addendo, corrumpendo…*). It must pick up **p. 73 footer notes 5–9** as its first footer block.

**Scholion.** Art. II has no per-question scholion for q2; the Article II scholion (parts I–III) is housed in chunk **a2-q1** (see [^18]).

**[?] flags.** None. All footer notes and body markers resolved against the printed page.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

title_alt:
De variatione formae
On the variation of the form

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 73 -->

### Quaestio III. *De variatione formae.*

Tertio quaeritur de variatione formae; quod potest fieri quinque modis: *mutando, addendo, corrumpendo, transmutando, interponendo.*

1. *Mutatio* fit, ut quando ponitur nomen pro nomine, utpote si loco *patris* dicatur *genitoris*[^5]. — Et quod hoc non impediat, videtur: quia forma baptismi non attenditur in vocibus, secundum quod voces sunt, quia tunc non esset eadem forma apud nos et Graecos, sed in vocibus secundum quod significativae: si ergo idem significat *pater* et *genitor*, idem faciet in forma unum, quod reliquum. — Et praeterea, plus conveniunt *pater* et *genitor*, quam nomen *patris* in Graeco et in Latino, cum sint eiusdem linguae.

2. *Additio* est, quando nomen, quod non est expressum in forma, superadditur, ut si dicatur *in nomine Patris omnipotentis* etc. Et quod hoc non impediat, videtur: quia, cum additur nomen, etsi nihil faciat, manet tamen totum quod faciebat Sacramentum[^6]: et si totum manet, in quo est virtus, ergo est plenum et efficax Sacramentum.

3. *Corruptio* est, quando nominis prolatio est modo minus convenienti, utpote si dicatur: *in nomine patrias et filias* etc. — Et quod hoc non impediat, videtur: quia Zacharias[^7] Bonifacio scribens dicit: «Si contingat, aliquem infringendo linguam propter ignorantiam dicere baptizando: *in nomine patria et filia,* non est rebaptizandus». Et huius ratio reddi potest, quia sanus est sensus.

4. *Transpositio* est, quando forma aliter ordinatur, utpote si dicatur primo *in nomine Filii* et post *in nomine Patris.* — Et quod hoc non impediat, videtur: quia «nomina transposita idem significant, ut si dicatur: est homo albus; est albus homo[^8]»: si ergo omnino idem est sensus et eadem fidei professio, transpositio non impedit.

5. *Interpositio* est, cum in medio cadit actus, ut sternutatio, vel verbum, ut: *in nomine Patris, et aqua ista est frigida, et Filii* etc. — Et quod hoc non impediat, videtur: quia totum est salvum, quando aliquid interponitur; et aliqui homines ita sunt obliviosi, quod semper interponunt aliquid, antequam possint complere orationem inceptam.

**Contra:** 1. Quod *mutatio* impediat, videtur: quia virtus est data illis verbis, et non aliis: ergo etc.

2. Item, quod *additio* impediat, videtur: quia, si nihil licet addere canoni Scripturae, multo fortius nec formae Sacramenti. Prima patet per illud quod dicitur Apocalypsis ultimo[^9]: *Si quis apposuerit ad haec* etc.

3. Item, quod *corruptio* impediat, videtur: quia verba corrupta aut nihil significant, aut aliud signi-
<!-- page 74 -->
ficant: ut patet, cum dicitur *patria;* sed necessaria sunt verba significantia[^10]: ergo etc.

4. Item, de *transmutatione* videtur: quia, sicut de integritate fidei est numerus personarum, ita ordo processionis[^11]: ergo sicut mutatio numeri impedit, ita et ordinis.

5. Item, de *interpositione* videtur: quia baptizare est unus actus continuus: ergo si discontinuatur, necesse est reincipi, aut non erit unus, et ita nec baptismus.

> **Conclusio.** Quaedam variatio formae impedit Sacramentum, quaedam vero non.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc voluerunt aliqui dicere, quod qualitercumque fiat variatio, dum tamen omnes personae exprimantur, integrum est Sacramentum. — Aliorum positio fuit, quod necesse est, omnimodam identitatem servari; quantulacumque enim variatio in forma facit, non esse Sacramentum.

Sed utraque istarum positionum respuenda est; quaelibet enim *excedit.* Unde dicendum, quod aliqua variatio impedit, aliqua non. Variatio enim *mutationis* impedit, sive fiat ex certa scientia, sive alio modo. *Mutatio,* inquam, *nominis,* ut si dicatur: *in nomine genitoris et geniti,* quia alius modus est exprimendi Trinitatem per nomina principalia, alius per nomina non principalia[^12]. *Mutatio* etiam *numeri* impedit, ut si dicatur: *baptizo te in nominibus,* quia alia est sententia.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod idem significant; dicendum, quod attendendus est *modus significandi,* quia data fuit virtus nominibus exprimentibus Trinitatem, et hoc principaliter secundum omnem linguam[^13]. — Quod ergo obiicit, quod magis conveniunt, quia in eadem lingua; dicendum, quod etsi magis quantum ad modum loquendi, non tamen magis quantum ad modum significandi. In nomine enim est tria considerare: *vocem, notamen* sive *expressionem,* et *significationem.* Quantum ad *primum* magis conveniunt[^14], sed quantum ad *secundum* minus, quantum ad *tertium* aequaliter. Et virtus regenerationis data est ratione *notaminis* sive quantum ad rationem innotescendi, a qua imponitur nomen; et haec est eadem apud omnes[^15].

2. De *additione* dicendum, quod aut est additio vocis *distrahens intellectum;* et haec impedit, si oppositum addatur, ut si dicatur *Patris geniti;* aut *salvans,* ut *Patris ingeniti,* et tunc non impedit, nisi velit inducere errorem. — Quod obiicitur de comminatione Apocalypsis, intelligitur de additione *distrahente*[^16].

3. Ad illud quod quaeritur de *corruptione,* dicendum, quod corruptio aut est tanta, quod nullo modo tenet sensum, et tunc omnino impedit; aut non est tanta, quin bene maneat[^17], sicut de puero balbutiente, qui intelligitur tamen; et tunc dicendum, quod non impedit. — Quod ergo obiicit, quod voces non significant; dicendum, quod etsi non significent ex *institutione,* significant tamen ex *accommodatione usus,* ut *olli* pro *illi*[^18].

4. Ad illud quod quaeritur de *transmutatione,* dicendum, quod si fiat simpliciter sine erroris dogmatizatione, non impedit. Et ratio huius est, quia ordo intelligitur in ipsis verbis, quod Filius a Patre procedit; et non sic oportet exprimere ordinem, sicut nomina personarum; et ideo patet quod obiicit.

5. Ad illud quod obiicit de *interpositione* sive *intermissione,* dicendum, quod aut est tanta intermissio, quod discontinuet intentionem et longam faciat moram: utpote si longum facit sermonem, vel vadit ad urinam faciendam[^19]; et tunc necesse est, quod reincipiat. Sed si intervenit parva morula oblivione vel sternutatione, non discontinuatur actus, nec oportet reincipere[^20].

---

english:
<!-- page 73 -->

### Question III. *On the variation of the form.*

Thirdly it is asked concerning the variation of the form; which can happen in five ways: *by changing, by adding, by corrupting, by transmuting, by interposing.*

1. *Change* occurs, as when one name is put for another, for instance if for *father* one says *begetter*[^5]. — And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because the form of baptism is not regarded in the words as the words are [mere sounds], for then it would not be the same form among us and among the Greeks, but in the words insofar as they are significative; if therefore *father* and *begetter* signify the same, the one will do the same thing in the form as the other. — And besides, *father* and *begetter* agree more than the name *father* in Greek and in Latin, since they are of the same language.

2. *Addition* is when a name not expressed in the form is added over and above, as if one says *in the name of the Father almighty,* etc. And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because, when a name is added, even if it does nothing, there nevertheless remains the whole that constituted the Sacrament[^6]: and if the whole, in which the power resides, remains, then it is a full and efficacious Sacrament.

3. *Corruption* is when the utterance of the name is in a less fitting manner, for instance if one says: *in the name of the patrias and the filias,* etc. — And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because Zachary[^7], writing to Boniface, says: «If it should happen that someone, through ignorance, in baptizing says with a broken pronunciation: *in the name of the patria and the filia,* he is not to be rebaptized». And the reason for this can be given, namely that the sense is sound.

4. *Transposition* is when the form is ordered otherwise, for instance if one says first *in the name of the Son* and afterward *in the name of the Father.* — And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because «transposed names signify the same, as if one says: *est homo albus; est albus homo*[^8]» [a man is white; white is a man]: if therefore the sense is altogether the same and the profession of faith the same, transposition does not invalidate.

5. *Interposition* is when in the middle some act intervenes, such as a sneeze, or a word, as: *in the name of the Father, and this water is cold, and of the Son,* etc. — And that this does not invalidate, seems to be the case: because the whole is preserved when something is interposed; and some men are so forgetful that they always interpose something before they can complete the utterance begun.

**On the contrary:** 1. That *change* invalidates, seems to be the case: because the power was given to those words, and not to others: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, that *addition* invalidates, seems to be the case: because, if nothing may be added to the canon of Scripture, much more strongly nothing may be added to the form of the Sacrament. The first is plain from what is said in the last [chapter] of the Apocalypse[^9]: *If anyone shall add to these things,* etc.

3. Likewise, that *corruption* invalidates, seems to be the case: because corrupt words either signify nothing or signify something else:
<!-- page 74 -->
as is plain when one says *patria;* but the words are necessary as significative[^10]: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, concerning *transmutation* it seems so: because, just as the number of persons belongs to the integrity of the faith, so does the order of procession[^11]: therefore, just as change of number invalidates, so also change of order.

5. Likewise, concerning *interposition* it seems so: because to baptize is one continuous act: therefore if it is interrupted, it is necessary to begin again, or it will not be one [act], and so neither a baptism.

> **Conclusion.** A certain variation of the form invalidates the Sacrament, but a certain other does not.

**I respond:** To this some have wished to say that, in whatever way the variation occurs, provided that all the persons are expressed, the Sacrament is whole. — The position of others was that it is necessary that complete identity be preserved; for however small a variation in the form makes it not to be a Sacrament.

But both of these positions are to be rejected; for each *goes too far.* Hence it must be said that some variation invalidates, some does not. For the variation of *change* invalidates, whether it is done from sure knowledge or in some other way. *Change,* I say, *of the name,* as if one says: *in the name of the begetter and the begotten,* because it is one mode of expressing the Trinity through the principal names, another through non-principal names[^12]. *Change* also *of number* invalidates, as if one says: *I baptize thee in the names,* because the meaning is different.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that they signify the same; it must be said that the *mode of signifying* must be attended to, because the power was given to the names expressing the Trinity, and this principally according to every language[^13]. — As for what it objects, that they agree more because they are in the same language; it must be said that, although [they agree] more as to the mode of speaking, nevertheless not more as to the mode of signifying. For in a name there are three things to consider: the *sound,* the *note* or *expression,* and the *signification.* As to the *first* they agree more[^14], but as to the *second* less, as to the *third* equally. And the power of regeneration was given by reason of the *note,* or as to the character of making known, from which the name is imposed; and this is the same among all[^15].

2. Concerning *addition* it must be said that it is either an addition of a word *distracting from the meaning;* and this invalidates, if the opposite be added, as if one says *of the Father begotten;* or one *preserving [it],* as *of the Father unbegotten,* and then it does not invalidate, unless one wishes to introduce an error. — As for what is objected concerning the threat of the Apocalypse, it is understood of an addition that *distracts*[^16].

3. To that which is asked concerning *corruption,* it must be said that corruption is either so great that it in no way holds the sense, and then it altogether invalidates; or it is not so great but that [the sense] well remains[^17], as with a stammering child, who is nevertheless understood; and then it must be said that it does not invalidate. — As for what it objects, that the words do not signify; it must be said that, although they do not signify *by institution,* they nevertheless signify *by the accommodation of usage,* as *olli* for *illi*[^18].

4. To that which is asked concerning *transmutation,* it must be said that, if it is done simply without the dogmatizing of an error, it does not invalidate. And the reason for this is that the order is understood in the words themselves, namely that the Son proceeds from the Father; and it is not necessary to express the order in the way that the names of the persons [are expressed]; and thus what it objects is plain.

5. To that which it objects concerning *interposition* or *intermission,* it must be said that either the intermission is so great that it interrupts the intention and makes a long delay: for instance if one makes a long speech, or goes to make water[^19]; and then it is necessary that he begin again. But if a slight little pause intervenes through forgetfulness or a sneeze, the act is not interrupted, nor is it necessary to begin again[^20].

---

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 2. ad 1. — Superius pro *dicatur genitoris* edd. cum pluribus codd. *ponatur genitoris.*

en: See above, a. 1, q. 2, ad 1. — Above, for *dicatur genitoris* the editions, with several codices, [read] *ponatur genitoris.*

la: Ex cod. F addidimus *Sacramentum,* qui subinde pro *et si totum manet* substituit *ergo si totum manet,* cod. Q et sic *totum illud,* codd. E M *et Sacramentum manet,* codd. H P *et et sic salvum manet,* alii codd. cum edd. *et si salvum manet.* Post *virtus* non pauci codd. cum edd. adiungunt *scilicet verbum, quo respicitur illud Augustini: Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit Sacramentum.*

en: From codex F we have added *Sacramentum,* which thereupon for *et si totum manet* substitutes *ergo si totum manet;* codex Q [reads] *et sic totum illud;* codices E M *et Sacramentum manet;* codices H P *et et sic salvum manet;* other codices with the editions *et si salvum manet.* After *virtus* not a few codices with the editions add *scilicet verbum,* whereby is regarded that saying of Augustine: *The word is joined to the element and it becomes a Sacrament.*

la: Can. *Retulerunt* (86.), de Consecrat. d. 4, ubi etiam in nota adiecta dicitur, quod pro *in nomine patria et filia* [et Spiritu sancta] alias legebatur *in nomine patrias et filias* [et Spiritus sanctias], quam lectionem exhibent etiam codd. F G l. Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. VI. c. 4. Permulti codd. omittunt *baptizando.* S. Bonav. non ipsa verba, sed sententiam rescripti profert. — Superius pro *patrias et filias* edd. *Patria et Filia.*

en: Canon *Retulerunt* (86), de Consecratione, d. 4, where also in an appended note it is said that, for *in the name of the patria and the filia* [and the Spiritu sancta], elsewhere was read *in the name of the patrias and the filias* [and the Spiritus sanctias], which reading codices F G l also exhibit. Cf. below, the text of the Master, d. VI, c. 4. Very many codices omit *baptizando.* St. Bonaventure brings forward not the words themselves but the sense of the rescript. — Above, for *patrias et filias* the editions [read] *Patria et Filia.*

la: Aristot., II. Periherm. c. 1. (c. 10.). — In initio arg. post *Transpositio* edd. adnectunt *sive transmutatio,* et post *quando* ex codd. F H (bb a secunda manu) supplevimus *forma.*

en: Aristotle, *On Interpretation* II, c. 1 (c. 10). — At the beginning of the argument, after *Transpositio* the editions append *sive transmutatio,* and after *quando,* from codices F H (bb by a second hand), we have supplied *forma.*

la: Vers. 18.

en: [Apocalypse 22,] verse 18.

la: Cod. F (bb a secunda manu) addit *et quod fides credit exprimentia.*

en: Codex F (bb by a second hand) adds *et quod fides credit exprimentia* [and expressing what faith believes].

la: Ita cod. E, alii et edd., contextu repugnante, *professionis.*

en: So codex E; others and the editions, the context resisting, [read] *professionis.*

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 27. p. 1. q. 1. — De seq. proposit. vide supra a. 1. q. 2. ad 3. et hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Cf. I Sentences, d. 27, p. 1, q. 1. — On the following proposition see above, a. 1, q. 2, ad 3, and here the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Cod. F (bb a secunda manu) supplet *Pater et genitor.* Paulo superius ex codd. F H U aa supplevimus vocem *tria* ante *considerare.*

en: Codex F (bb by a second hand) supplies *Pater et genitor.* A little above, from codices F H U aa, we have supplied the word *tria* before *considerare.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 68, nota 1. — August., de Gen. ad lit. (imperfect. lib.) c. 6. n. 26: *Omne quippe vocabulum ad distinctionem valet. Unde etiam nomen, quod rem notet, appellatum est quasi notamen. Notet autem, id est distinguat et doctitanter ad discernendum adiuvet.* Vide I. Sent. d. 22. q. 2. in corp. et ibid. pag. 390, nota 6.

en: Cf. above, p. 68, note 1. — Augustine, *On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis* (the unfinished book), c. 6, n. 26: *For every term avails for distinction. Whence even a name, which marks a thing, was called as it were a note (notamen). For let it mark, that is, distinguish, and helpfully assist in discerning.* See I Sentences, d. 22, q. 2, in the body, and ibid. p. 390, note 6.

la: Vide Sent. in Prolog. Magistri, dub. 2. — Codd. A E M R S V bb *detrahente.* Superius post *nisi velit* codd. H K aa addunt *per hoc.*

en: See [I] Sentences, in the Prologue of the Master, dub. 2. — Codices A E M R S V bb [read] *detrahente.* Above, after *nisi velit,* codices H K aa add *per hoc.*

la: Supple: *sensus.* — Mox supplevimus ex cod. H *qui intelligitur tamen,* pro *intelligitur,* codd. A G K V W bb *intelligitur tamen.* Post *non impedit* edd. addunt *nisi velit inducere errorem.*

en: Supply: *sensus* [the sense]. — Presently we have supplied, from codex H, *qui intelligitur tamen,* for *intelligitur;* codices A G K V W bb [read] *intelligitur tamen.* After *non impedit* the editions add *nisi velit inducere errorem.*

la: Cod. F glossando *usus eius; exemplum Prisciani olli pro illi.* Priscian., l. Grammat. c. 6: *I transit... in o: patris, patronus et patro verbum, olli pro illi, saxi saxosus.* — Superius post *quod voces* in cod. E secunda manus bene addidit *corruptae.*

en: Codex F, glossing, [reads] *usus eius; exemplum Prisciani olli pro illi.* Priscian, *Grammar* bk. [I], c. 6: *I passes... into o: patris, patronus and patro [from] verbum, olli for illi, saxi saxosus.* — Above, after *quod voces,* in codex E a second hand has rightly added *corruptae.*

la: Ita codd. F H P Q bb, in aliis omittitur *faciendam,* codd. G l substituunt *vineam,* codd. R S T *domum.*

en: So codices F H P Q bb; in others *faciendam* is omitted; codices G l substitute *vineam;* codices R S T [read] *domum.*

la: Vide scholion ad I. huius art. quaest.

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

la: Cfr. supra pag. 28, nota 6.

en: Cf. above, p. 28, note 6.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the PDF column bands of printed pp.73–74 (vol4 colcrop split x=1880; `pdf = printed + 20`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw L8559–8709) used for footnote-marker spacing. q3 = *De variatione formae*, the third and last question of Art. II (*De forma verbi*), Pars I. Alignment confirmed: opener *Tertio quaeritur de variatione formae… quinque modis: mutando, addendo, corrumpendo, transmutando, interponendo* (raw L8559). The quaestio ends where **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI** begins (raw L8710, p.74 foot → body on p.75).

**No standalone scholion.** Per the Art. II convention, the scholion for the whole article sits in **a2-q1**; q3 has no scholion of its own (footnote [^19] explicitly cross-refers "scholion ad I. huius art. quaest." — the scholion of this article's first question).

**Page-split / footer map.**
- **p.73** (q3 occupies the lower L-col + R-col; a2-q2 holds the top): body anchors 5–9. The page-foot footnote sequence 5–9 was **picked up** into this chunk (notes 1–4 belong to a2-q2): [^5] *dicatur genitoris*, [^6] *Sacramentum* (cod. F), [^7] Can. *Retulerunt*, [^8] Aristot. *Periherm.*, [^9] *Vers. 18.*
- **p.74** carries q3's tail (the Contra args + entire Respondeo) in BOTH columns, then the DUBIA opener at the foot. The per-page footnote sequence is **1–11**, typeset in two footer columns: left column 1–5 (= body anchors 1–5: significantia / processionis / principalia / conveniunt / omnes), right column 6–10 (= distrahente / maneat / olli-pro-illi / faciendam / reincipere). q3 = notes **1–10** (rendered here as [^10]–[^20] to keep marker IDs unique within the file).
- **Forward hand-off:** p.74 footnote **11** (*Cfr. supra pag. 28, nota 6 — Pro notificato…*, anchored at *praecise¹¹* in the Dub. I body) belongs to the **d3-p1-dubia** chunk (DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI, raw ~L8710, printed pp.74–75), along with that page's Dub.-I notes 1–5 of the *next* footer sequence on p.75.

**`[?]` flags:** none. All readings resolved against the PDF column bands; ambiguous OCR (e.g. *exprimentia*, *notamen*, the Priscian gloss) confirmed in the printed footer.

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. 3, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 76 -->

### Articulus I. *De baptismi institutione.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum Sacramentum baptismi debuerit institui in aqua.*

Primo ergo quaeritur, utrum Sacramentum baptismi debuerit institui in aqua. Et quod sic[^1], ipsum factum Domini ostendit[^3].

Sed quod non, videtur ratione:

1. Quia baptismus est signum sepulturae Christi, sicut dicitur ad Romanos sexto[^4]: *Consepulti enim estis* etc.: ergo
<!-- page 77 -->
si sepultura Christi fuit in terra, non in aqua, videtur, quod similiter debuerit baptismus institui in terra.

2. Item, Sacramenta veteris legis fuerunt signa Sacramentorum novae legis, et in illis praefigurata sunt ista; sed Sacramenta veteris legis fiebant vel in eis quae habebant ortum a terra, ut sacrificia et decimationes, vel in aliquo terreo, ut circumcisio, quae fiebat cultello petrino[^1b]: ergo si fuerunt convenientia signa horum, ergo Sacramenta novae legis, maxime baptismus, debuerunt institui in terra, non in aqua.

3. Item, si dicas, quod debet fieri in aqua propter expressam significationem gratiae; sed contra: liquor olei expressius significat gratiam[^2b] quam aqua: ergo magis debuit institui in oleo quam in aqua.

4. Item, dicitur Apocalypsis primo[^3b]: *Lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo*: ergo si in baptismo est lavatio a peccatis, et significat illam ablutionem factam per sanguinem Christi, ergo magis debuit institui in sanguine.

Item, quaeritur: quando Dominus instituit Sacramentum baptismi?

> **Conclusio.** Baptismus convenienter in aqua institutus est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Sacramentum baptismi est maxime efficax et maxime necessarium inter alia Sacramenta: efficax, quia in eo imprimitur character, qui disponit animam ad susceptionem luminis gratiae[^4b], ut transparentia vitrum ad susceptionem luminis corporalis; datur etiam gratia mundificans animam; datur etiam illi gratiae actus remittendi ardorem concupiscentiae. Sed quia haec oportuit dari in eo signo, quod sua proprietate multiplici haec omnia designaret; tale autem est aqua, quia transparet et est pervia lumini, et ideo characterem significat; et iterum abluit et mundat inter omnes liquores, et ideo significat gratiam mundantem; item infrigidat, ideo significat remissionem ardoris concupiscentiae[^5b]: conveniebat ergo maxime aqua baptismatis Sacramento ob efficaciam.

Similiter etiam propter necessitatem. Quia enim Sacramentum est, a quo nemo absolvitur, et in quo omnes communicant; necesse fuit institui in liquore, qui est communis apud omnes, et in quo abundant pauperes et divites; talis autem liquor est aqua: ideo etc.

**Ad obiecta:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod signat sepulturam; dicendum, quod non tantum signat Domini sepulturam, immo etiam gratiam, quam donat; et quia in immersione in aquam utrumque signatur, in terra autem non signatur gratia mundans, cum sit faex elementorum: ideo etc.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de lege veteri, dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Apostolus[^6b], omnes qui fuerunt in Lege, fuerunt sub maledicto usque ad adventum Christi, qui factus est pro nobis maledictum, ut a maledictione nos liberaret; et quia terra fuit maledicta homini, non aqua, Genesis tertio; in huius signum Sacramenta illa erant ex his quae sunt ex terra; non sic autem Sacramenta nova, quia ista est lex benedictionis. Praeterea, lex vetus et maxime Moysi fuit onerosa ad confringendum duros, et ideo in duris, ut in cultello petrino et in effusione sanguinis, remedium habebant; sed lex nova est suavitatis et amoris: ideo datus in aqua, quae cedit facile[^7b].

3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de oleo et sanguine, patet responsio: quia nec conveniunt significationi efficaciae, cum non mundent, nec necessitati, cum non omnes eis abundent.

Ad illud quod quaeritur ultimo: quando est institutum? ex Scriptura potest videri, quae de hoc in multis locis loquitur. Propter quod notandum, quod Dominus baptismi Sacramentum primo insinuavit instituendum, secundo instituit, tertio confirmavit institutum. Insinuavit quidem facto et verbo: facto, cum baptizatus esset a Ioanne in aqua[^8b], ostendit ceteros credentes in aqua fore baptizandos. Insinuavit verbo, cum praedixit Nicodemo, Ioannis tertio[^9b]: *Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua* etc. — Instituit autem, cum ipse baptizare coepit per discipulos, Ioannis tertio: *Post haec venit Iesus in terram Iudaeam et baptizabat*; et tunc instituit facto et verbo: quia dicitur ibidem: *baptizabat*,
<!-- page 78 -->
etsi non ipse in propria persona, tamen discipuli in sua praesentia, secundum quod ipse volebat; et rursus, discipulos misit ad praedicandum et baptizandum binos, Lucae decimo, sicut dicit Magister. — Confirmavit autem baptismum facto et verbo: facto, cum de latere eius non tantum profluxit sanguis, verum etiam aqua in ipsa passionis consummatione; verbo autem confirmavit quando post resurrectionem discipulos ad baptizandum omnes et singulos misit, Matthaei ultimo. — Et sic patet, quomodo diversimode loquitur Scriptura.

english:
### Article I. *On the institution of baptism.*
### Question I. *Whether the Sacrament of baptism ought to have been instituted in water.*

First, then, it is asked whether the Sacrament of baptism ought to have been instituted in water. And that it ought[^1], the very deed of the Lord shows[^3].

But that it ought not, seems [to follow] from reason:

1. Because baptism is a sign of Christ's burial, as it is said to the Romans, chapter six[^4]: *For you have been buried together with him* etc.: therefore
si sepultura Christi fuit in terra, non in aqua — if Christ's burial was in earth, not in water, it seems that baptism likewise ought to have been instituted in earth.

2. Likewise, the Sacraments of the old law were signs of the Sacraments of the new law, and these latter were prefigured in them; but the Sacraments of the old law were performed either in things that had their origin from earth, as sacrifices and tithes, or in something earthen, as circumcision, which was performed with a stone knife[^1b]: therefore if those were fitting signs of these, then the Sacraments of the new law, especially baptism, ought to have been instituted in earth, not in water.

3. Likewise, suppose you say that it ought to be done in water on account of the express signification of grace; but on the contrary: the liquor of oil signifies grace more expressly[^2b] than water: therefore it ought rather to have been instituted in oil than in water.

4. Likewise, it is said in the Apocalypse, chapter one[^3b]: *He washed us from our sins in his own blood*: therefore if in baptism there is a washing from sins, and it signifies that cleansing made through the blood of Christ, then it ought rather to have been instituted in blood.

Likewise, it is asked: when did the Lord institute the Sacrament of baptism?

> **Conclusion.** Baptism was fittingly instituted in water.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Sacrament of baptism is most efficacious and most necessary among the other Sacraments: efficacious, because in it the character is imprinted, which disposes the soul to the reception of the light of grace[^4b], as transparency [disposes] glass to the reception of bodily light; there is given also grace cleansing the soul; there is given also to that grace the act of remitting the ardor of concupiscence. But because these things had to be given in that sign which by its manifold property would designate all these; and such is water, because it is transparent and pervious to light, and therefore signifies the character; and again, it washes and cleanses among all liquors, and therefore signifies cleansing grace; likewise it cools, therefore it signifies the remission of the ardor of concupiscence[^5b]: water therefore was most fitting for the Sacrament of baptism on account of its efficacy.

Likewise also on account of necessity. For since it is a Sacrament from which no one is absolved, and in which all share, it was necessary that it be instituted in a liquor which is common to all, and in which both poor and rich abound; and such a liquor is water: therefore etc.

**To the objections:**

1. To that, then, which is objected, that it signifies burial; it must be said that it signifies not only the Lord's burial, but rather also the grace which it bestows; and since in the immersion into water both are signified, whereas in earth cleansing grace is not signified, since it is the dregs of the elements: therefore etc.

2. To that which is objected concerning the old law, it must be said that, as the Apostle says[^6b], all who were under the Law were under a curse until the coming of Christ, who was made a curse for us, that he might free us from the curse; and because the earth was cursed to man, not water (Genesis three); in sign of this those Sacraments were [made] from those things which are from earth; but not so the new Sacraments, because this is the law of blessing. Moreover, the old law, and especially that of Moses, was burdensome for breaking the hard-hearted, and therefore in hard things, as in the stone knife and in the shedding of blood, they had their remedy; but the new law is one of gentleness and love: therefore it was given in water, which yields easily[^7b].

3. 4. To that which is objected concerning oil and blood, the response is plain: because they suit neither the signification of the efficacy, since they do not cleanse, nor the necessity, since not all abound in them.

To that which is asked last: when was it instituted? — it can be seen from Scripture, which speaks of this in many places. On account of which it must be noted that the Lord first intimated the Sacrament of baptism as to be instituted, secondly instituted it, thirdly confirmed it once instituted. He intimated it indeed by deed and by word: by deed, when, having been baptized by John in water[^8b], he showed that the other believers were to be baptized in water. He intimated it by word, when he foretold to Nicodemus, John three[^9b]: *Unless a man be born again of water* etc. — He instituted it, however, when he himself began to baptize through his disciples, John three: *After these things Jesus came into the land of Judea and baptized*; and then he instituted [it] by deed and word: because it is said in the same place: *he baptized*,
even if not he in his own person, yet his disciples in his presence, according as he willed; and again, he sent the disciples two by two to preach and to baptize, Luke ten, as the Master says. — He confirmed baptism, however, by deed and by word: by deed, when from his side there flowed not only blood, but also water, in the very consummation of the passion; by word he confirmed it, however, when after the resurrection he sent the disciples to baptize each and all, Matthew the last [chapter]. — And so it is plain how Scripture speaks in diverse ways.

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2. in corp. et ad 1. — Pro *et ideo* codd. F H *et illud*; deinde pro *tunc* edd. *quia tunc*.

en: Cf. above, a. 2, q. 2, in the body and ad 1. — For *et ideo* ("and therefore") codices F H read *et illud* ("and that"); then for *tunc* ("then") the editions read *quia tunc* ("because then").

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.

en: Cf. here the Master's text, c. 6.

la: Vers. 4.

la: Vide supra d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. et dub. 6.

en: See above d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 3, and dub. 6.

la: Arnobius Iunior (claruit circa an. 460), in Ps. 17. ait: *Sicut lucerna corporis oculus, ita lucerna animae mens est, in qua nisi oleum gratiae suae Christus infuderit, penitus lumen habere non poterit.* Cfr. Isidor., in Exod. c. 44.

en: Arnobius the Younger (flourished around the year 460), on Ps. 17, says: «As the lamp of the body is the eye, so the lamp of the soul is the mind, into which, unless Christ has poured the oil of his grace, it cannot have light at all.» Cf. Isidore, on Exodus, c. 44.

en: Verse 5. [Apoc. 1, 5.]

la: Cfr. infra d. 6. p. I. q. 2. — Inferius post *primum* datur etiam cod. F addit *in ipso*. Subinde pro *quia* haec cod. I *quia omnia haec*, cod. X *quia haec omnia facit*.

en: Cf. below d. 6, p. I, q. 2. — Lower down, after *primum* ("first") it is also given; cod. F adds *in ipso*. Then for *quia haec* ("because these") cod. I [reads] *quia omnia haec*, cod. X *quia haec omnia facit*.

la: De prima et tertia aquae proprietate vide Aristot. II. de Anima, text. 68. (c. 7.); de Sens. et sens. c. 2. seqq.; II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 16. seqq. (c. 3. seq.). De secunda cfr. Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 14, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 6, ubi etiam de ratione *necessitatis* paulo inferius posita agitur. Cfr. etiam Tertull., de Baptismo, c. 3. — Pro *et iterum* codd. G I *et quoniam*, cod. F vero legit *item aqua est mundans*, et propter hoc significat gratiam etc.

en: On the first and third property of water see Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 68 (c. 7); *On Sense and the Sensible* c. 2 ff.; *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 16 ff. (c. 3 f.). On the second, cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. VI, c. 14, and here the Master's text, c. 6, where the account of *necessity* placed a little below is also treated. Cf. also Tertullian, *On Baptism*, c. 3. — For *et iterum* ("and again") codices G I [read] *et quoniam* ("and since"), while cod. F reads *item aqua est mundans* ("likewise water is cleansing"), and on account of this it signifies grace etc.

la: Gal. 3, 10. et 13: *Quicumque enim ex operibus Legis sunt, sub maledicto sunt... Christus nos redemit de maledicto Legis, factus pro nobis maledictum.* — Seq. textus est Gen. 3, 17: *Maledicta terra in opere tuo* etc. — Codd. A H aa *sub Lege* pro *in Lege*.

en: Gal. 3, 10 and 13: «For whoever are of the works of the Law are under a curse... Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, made a curse for us.» — The following text is Gen. 3, 17: «Cursed is the earth in thy work» etc. — Codices A H aa [read] *sub Lege* ("under the Law") for *in Lege* ("in the Law").

la: Cf. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 1. et dub. 6, nec non III. Sent. d. 40. q. 1. et 3. — Aristot., IV. Meteor. text. 45. (c. 9.): *Aqua cedit quidem, sed non secundum partem, sed contra secedit.*

en: Cf. above d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, ad 1, and dub. 6, as well as III *Sent.* d. 40, q. 1 and 3. — Aristotle, *Meteorology* IV, text 45 (c. 9): «Water yields indeed, but not in part; rather it gives way against [the pressure].»

la: Matth. 3, 13. Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 4. n. 13. seq. — Cod. F voci *cum* bene praemittit *quia*.

en: Matt. 3, 13. Cf. Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John* tr. 4, n. 13 f. — Cod. F rightly places *quia* before the word *cum*.

la: Vers. 5. — Seq. textus est Ioan. 3, 22. Cfr. ibid. 4, 1. seq.: *Iesus... baptizat... Quamquam Iesus non baptizaret, sed discipuli eius.*

en: Verse 5. — The following text is John 3, 22. Cf. ibid. 4, 1 f.: «Jesus... baptizes... Although Jesus did not baptize, but his disciples.»

latin_scholion:
**I.** Rationes probantes, aquam congruentem baptismi materiam esse, receptae sunt etiam a S. Thoma et optime paucis comprehenduntur in Breviloq. p. VI. c. 7. — Circa quaestionem incidentem, quando Christus baptisma instituit, olim putavit Alex. Hal. (S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 2. a. 3.), quem sequitur B. Albert. (hic a. 8.), formalem institutionem baptismi non esse factam ante, sed post resurrectionem Christi, quando Christus formam et praeceptum baptismi promulgavit (Matth. 28, 19.); potentialem vero sive materialem institutionem tunc, quando Christus baptizatus fuit a Ioanne. Sed communiter cum Ss. Bonav., Thoma nec non Scoto tenetur, hoc Sacramentum institutum esse iam ante passionem Christi, sed non ante ipsius baptismum. S. Thom. (S. III. q. 66. a. 2.) vult, in baptismo illo Christi hoc Sacramentum «vere institutum» fuisse; sed idem in Comment. (hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2.) dicit, tunc institutum fuisse quoad materiam, formamque aliquo modo fuisse praefiguratam. S. Bonav. et Scot. (hic q. 4. n. 2.) verisimilius esse putant, tunc proprie fuisse institutum, cum Christus discipulos miserit ad baptizandum. Ita etiam sentiunt Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 4. a. 1.) et Richard. a Med. (hic a. 3. q. 1.).

De ipsa 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 3. a. 2. § 1. — Scot., loc. cit. n. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1; S. loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

**II.** De seq. (2.) quaestione cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 3. i. et scholion; insuper Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 4. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The reasons proving that water is the fitting matter of baptism are accepted also by St. Thomas and are excellently summed up in a few words in the *Breviloquium*, p. VI, c. 7. — Concerning the incidental question, when Christ instituted baptism, Alexander of Hales (*Summa*, p. IV, q. 8, m. 2, a. 3) once held, whom B. Albert follows (here a. 8), that the formal institution of baptism was made not before but after the resurrection of Christ, when Christ promulgated the form and precept of baptism (Matt. 28, 19); but the potential or material institution then, when Christ was baptized by John. But it is commonly held, with Ss. Bonaventure, Thomas, and also Scotus, that this Sacrament was instituted already before the passion of Christ, but not before his own baptism. St. Thomas (*Summa* III, q. 66, a. 2) holds that in that baptism of Christ this Sacrament was «truly instituted»; but the same [author] in the *Commentary* (here q. 1, a. 3, little-question 2) says that it was then instituted as to the matter, and that the form was in some way prefigured. St. Bonaventure and Scotus (here q. 4, n. 2) think it more probable that it was then properly instituted, when Christ sent the disciples to baptize. So too think Peter of Tarentaise (here q. 4, a. 1) and Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 3, q. 1).

On the first question itself: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., m. 3, a. 2, § 1. — Scotus, loc. cit., n. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, little-question 1; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1, little-question 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1. — Durandus, here q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

**II.** On the following (2nd) question, cf. above d. 1, p. I, q. 3, and the scholion; moreover Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., m. 4, a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1, little-question 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
- **Rebuilt from a mislabeled skeleton (2026-06-19).** The prior skeleton body was d.4 content (auto-chunker pointed `line_start` ~10944 into d.4 — the *Utrum baptismus in digne suscipientibus deleat omnem culpam* question). This chunk is fully rebuilt from the TRUE raw range **L8908–9109** (ARTICULUS I header L8904, QUAESTIO I L8908, opener L8912; q2 begins L9107/9110). Confirmed via PDF (printed p.76 L-2 band) that the body is the water-institution question.
- **Printed pp.76–77** (PDF 96–97); body continues a few lines onto p.78 (the *quando institutum* development through "diversimode loquitur Scriptura"), with `<!-- page 78 -->` placed at the p.77→78 break.
- **Page-split / apparatus map:**
  - **p.76 footers picked up here:** note **1** (`Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2...`) anchored at *Et quod sic* / *ostendit* in q1's opener (~L8922) — this note was just removed from d3-p1-dubia where it was mis-taken; note **3** (`Cfr. hic lit. Magistri c. 6`) at *ostendit*; note **4** (`Vers. 4`, = Rom 6) at *Romanos sexto*. **Note 2** (`Hic c. 5`) belongs to the d.3 p.2 **divisio** chunk (anchors at "Magister²" in TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM) — NOT carried here.
  - **p.77 footers (q1's own series, rendered 1b–9b, in printed order):** 1b (*Vide supra d.1 p.II a.1 q.3 et dub.6*) at obj.2 *cultello petrino*; 2b (Arnobius/lucerna) at obj.3 *significat gratiam*; 3b (Apoc 1,5 — *Vers. 5*) at obj.4 *Apocalypsis primo*; 4b (oil/grace, *Cfr. infra d.6 p.I q.2*) at Respondeo *luminis gratiae*; 5b (Aristotle/Hugh on water's properties) at Respondeo *concupiscentiae*; 6b (Gal 3 / Gen 3) at ad-2 *Apostolus*; 7b (Aristotle Meteor.) at ad-2 *cedit facile*; 8b (Matt 3,13) at *baptizatus a Ioanne*; 9b (John 3) at *Nicodemo Ioannis tertio*.
- **Scholion** sits at raw **L9068–9106**, after q1's body — Article-I-level, two parts: **I** covers this q1 (and the incidental *quando institutum* question), **II** previews q2. It belongs here in q1; q2 will carry no scholion of its own.
- **Hand-off forward to d3-p2-a1-q2** (L9110, printed **p.79**): q2 = *Utrum ex institutione baptismi aliqua vis sit collata aquis* (opener *Secundo quaeritur...*, L9113). No footer migration forward from this chunk — p.77's series is fully consumed here; q2 opens a fresh page (p.79) footer series. The Article-I scholion is here, so q2 carries none.
- **No `[?]` flags** — OCR for L8908–9109 is clean ABBYY quality and was cross-checked against PDF column bands for pp.76–77 (every footer legible).


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

source_text:
<!-- page 78 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum ex institutione baptismi aliqua vis sit collata aquis.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum ex institutione baptismi in aqua collata sit aliqua vis aquis. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Lucae tertio[^3]: *Baptizato Iesu*; Glossa: « Dominus baptizatus est, non mundari indigens, sed tactu mundae carnis suae aquas mundans, ut vim abluendi habeant »: ergo si vis abluendi est aliqua vis, patet, quod aquis collata est aliqua vis.

2. Item, habetur de Consecratione, distinctione quarta[^4]: « Nunquam aquae baptismi purgare credentium peccata potuissent, nisi contactu dominici corporis sanctificata fuissent ».

3. Item, ratione videtur, quia omnis operatio egreditur a substantia mediante aliqua virtute[^5]: ergo cum aqua tangendo corpus abluat animam, hoc est ab aqua virtute aliqua mediante; sed non naturali: ergo data est aquis aliqua virtus in baptismi institutione.

**Contra:** 1. Si data est aliqua virtus aquae, quaero, quomodo data; et dicit Glossa[^6], quod « contactu carnis Domini »: si ergo per contactum carnis dominicae, ergo habent ipsam, omni alio circumscripto: ergo si quis immergeretur in aquam sine omni verbo, aqua regenerabit eum; quod falsum est. Si tu dicas, quod simul est in aqua et verbo; obiicitur tunc, quia haec differunt substantia et natura, ergo operatione et virtute[^7]: ergo non potest una virtus esse in utroque.

2. Item, si munda caro Christi contulit illam vim; sed frequenter tetigit aquas, ut quando puer lavabatur, et quando lavabat manus; et ubi eadem causa, ibi idem effectus[^8]: ergo ante contulit, quam baptizaretur.

3. Item, si contactu carnis: ergo solum illae aquae virtutem habent, quas Christi caro tetigit, non ergo omnis aqua. Si dicas, quod virtus illa derivata est in alias aquas; ergo cum derivatio a corpore in corpus non fiat nisi per continuum[^9], nullo modo poterit pervenire ad aquas illis aquis discontinuas: ergo idem inconveniens.

<!-- page 79 -->

4. Item, si virtus aliqua collata est, quaero, quid sit: quia, si bonum, aut de bonis minimis aut maximis, aut mediis. Si de minimis, illud est inferius anima: ergo non agit in ipsam. Si de mediis: ergo par est animae nec adhuc influit. Si de maximis: ergo est data aquis virtus aliqua gratuita[^1bis].

> **Conclusio.**
> Probabilis et intelligibilior est opinio, quod aquae baptismali non aliqua proprietas absoluta addita sit, sed tantum ordinatio ad hominem regenerandum.

**Respondeo:** Dicunt aliqui, quod Dominus contactu mundissimae carnis suae vim contulit aquis, quam non habebant; et vis ista fuit aliqua proprietas absoluta; et haec proprietas fuit aquae melioratio et reductio ad statum primum[^2bis], in quo erat ante hominis lapsum, quia post lapsum omnia elementa sunt deteriorata, ut habitatio congrueret habitatori deteriorato. Sed quia homo per aquae Sacramentum meliorari debebat et resurgere; ideo aqua meliorata et ad primum statum reducta est; et hanc vocant illam vim. — Sed ista positio non potest stare: primo, quia haec vis dicitur vis ad regenerandum; sed hanc non habebat aqua in statu innocentiae, quia non erat opus regeneratione; unde illa melioratio nihil facit ad rem. Praeterea, si aqua est meliorata, et non alia elementa: ergo videtur, quod ordinatio elementorum sit dissipata, cum necesse sit, quod habeant debitam proportionem.

Et propterea dicunt alii, quod collatio vis regenerativae non est aquae melioratio vel purificatio, sed alicuius virtutis supernaturalis collatio, quae non est data aquae secundum esse perfectum, quoadusque veniat verbum; sicut vis immutandi visum non est in colore perfecta, nisi superveniente lumine; et haec supra naturam data est et supra naturam ibi existit, ut effectum habeat supra naturam per voluntatem divinam.

Sed quoniam illud difficile est intelligere, quomodo aliquid absolutum sive secundum naturam sive supra naturam, sit modo in aqua, quod non erat prius; et quomodo datum sit contactu carnis etiam aquis remotis: propterea dicendum, sicut tactum fuit supra[^3bis], quod vis illa non est aliqua proprietas vel essentia absoluta, addita aquae, sed solum ordinatio eius ad hoc, quod homo regeneretur. — Prius enim omnes liquores erant indifferentes, et poterat, quantum est de se, in aliquo alio liquore baptizari ut in aqua; sed cum Dominus voluit mergi et baptizatus est in aqua, iam sola aqua habuit ordinationem ad hoc: et ideo solum in ea potuit fieri baptismus. Sed quia non instituit, baptismum fieri tantum per immersionem, immo etiam per verborum prolationem et talium verborum; similiter et verba ad hoc ordinavit. Unde et aqua, in quam mersus est, et verba, quae protulit, ulterius[^4bis] habent vim, nec unum sine altero, quia utrumque insimul ad regenerationem obtinendam ordinavit.

Et sic patent obiecta ad utramque partem, quia prima procedunt de vi, ut est ordinatio ad regenerationem; secunda autem de vi, quae est qualitas absoluta. Haec autem vis non est per transfusionem, sed per institutionem. Unde sicut Dominus non tantum verba, quae protulit, ordinavit et instituit ad regenerandum, sed etiam omnia consimilia; sic non tantum aquam, quam tetigit, sed omnem aquam specie consimilem — «est autem omnis aqua omni aquae specie consimilis[^5bis] » — ideo omni aquae contulit. — Et est simile: si rex ordinaret, quod litterae suae tantum haberent virtutem et efficaciam, quae scriberentur in pellibus caprinis et quae essent scriptae aliquibus determinatis verbis; et hoc quidem faceret manu sua, scribendo in illo genere pellis: quod rex illa manu diceretur, sua efficaciam dedit illi pergameno et omni pergameno eiusdem speciei, etiam quod futurum est usque ad multa tempora; et hoc per solam institutionem et ordinationem, non per alicuius[^6bis] collationem. Sic intelligendum in proposito: quoniam Dominus tactu carnis mundae dedit vim aquis, non quia munditia transiret a carne in aquam, sed quia, cum Dominus esset mundus, voluit ob nihil aliud in aquam mergi, nisi ut illa immersione aqua haberet istam ordinationem. Unde si aqua crearetur de novo consimilis isti in specie, credo, quod eandem haberet ordinationem et eandem diceretur habere virtutem.

Et si tu obiicias mihi: omnis relatio fundatur super aliquid absolutum, eo quod advenit[^7bis]: ergo si haec ordinatio, quae est relatio, advenit, oportuit, aliquid absolutum dari; dicendum, quod illud non habet veritatem in relationibus voluntariis, quia nummus, ut dicit Augustinus[^8bis], sine sui mutatione fit pignus, et similiter haec vox *buba* sine sui mutatione posset fieri significativa. Similiter et in proposito intelligendum. — Et licet utraque harum

<!-- page 80 -->

opinionum sit catholica et probabilis, haec tamen est magis intelligibilis et consona Sanctorum auctoritatibus. Dicuntur enim aquae mundatae et sanctificatae et virtuosae effectae[^1ter], quia ad sanctificationem animae et munditiam efficaciter sunt ordinatae, non faciendam ab ipsis, sed suscipiendam et dandam in ipsis a Deo ipsi homini baptizando; et sic exponenda sunt consimilia. Nec est intelligendum, quod aliqua actio sit ab aquis in animam. Sicut enim aquae non habent proprie virtutem, ita nec operationem; sed earum virtus et actio est efficax ordinatio vel secundum actum, vel secundum habitum. Et sic non habent calumniam quae circa haec dicuntur[^2ter].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether by the institution of baptism some power was conferred on the waters.*

Secondly it is asked whether, by the institution of baptism, some power was conferred on the waters in the water. And that it is so, seems [to be the case].

1. Luke, chapter three[^3]: *When Jesus had been baptized*; Gloss: « The Lord was baptized, not because he needed to be cleansed, but cleansing the waters by the touch of his clean flesh, so that they might have the power of washing »: therefore if the power of washing is some power, it is clear that some power was conferred on the waters.

2. Likewise, it is held in [the part] On Consecration, distinction four[^4]: « Never could the waters of baptism have purged the sins of believers, had they not been sanctified by the touch of the Lord's body ».

3. Likewise, by reason it seems [so], because every operation proceeds from a substance by means of some power[^5]: therefore since water, by touching the body, washes the soul, this is from the water by means of some power; but not by a natural one: therefore some power was given to the waters in the institution of baptism.

**On the contrary:** 1. If some power was given to the water, I ask how it was given; and the Gloss says[^6] that [it was given] « by the touch of the Lord's flesh »: if therefore [it is] by the touch of the Lord's flesh, then they [the waters] have it [the power], everything else being set aside: therefore if anyone were immersed in water without any word, the water would regenerate him; which is false. If you say that it is [given] simultaneously in the water and the word; then it is objected that these [water and word] differ in substance and nature, therefore in operation and power[^7]: therefore there cannot be one power in both.

2. Likewise, if the clean flesh of Christ conferred that power; but it frequently touched waters, as when the boy was being washed, and when he washed his hands; and where the cause is the same, there the effect is the same[^8]: therefore he conferred [it] before he was baptized.

3. Likewise, if [it is] by the touch of his flesh: therefore only those waters have the power which the flesh of Christ touched, therefore not every water. If you say that that power was derived into other waters; then since derivation from body to body does not occur except through what is continuous[^9], in no way will it be able to reach waters discontinuous from those waters: therefore the same difficulty [follows].

4. Likewise, if some power was conferred, I ask what it is: because, if [it is] a good, [it is] either of the least goods, or of the greatest, or of the middle ones. If of the least, it is inferior to the soul: therefore it does not act upon it. If of the middle ones: therefore it is equal to the soul and still does not flow in. If of the greatest: therefore some gratuitous power was given to the waters[^1bis].

> **Conclusion.**
> The more probable and more intelligible opinion is that no absolute property was added to the baptismal water, but only an ordination toward the regenerating of man.

**I respond:** Some say that the Lord, by the touch of his most clean flesh, conferred upon the waters a power which they did not have; and that this power was some absolute property; and that this property was an improvement of the water and its reduction to the first state[^2bis], in which it was before man's fall, because after the fall all the elements were made worse, so that the dwelling might match the worsened dweller. But because man, through the Sacrament of water, was to be improved and to rise again; therefore the water was improved and reduced to its first state; and this they call that power. — But this position cannot stand: first, because this power is said to be a power for regenerating; but the water did not have this in the state of innocence, because there was no need of regeneration; hence that improvement contributes nothing to the matter. Furthermore, if the water is improved, and not the other elements: then it seems that the ordination of the elements is broken up, since it is necessary that they have their due proportion.

And therefore others say that the conferral of regenerative power is not an improvement or purification of the water, but the conferral of some supernatural power, which is not given to the water according to perfect being, until the word comes; just as the power of altering sight is not perfect in color, except when light supervenes; and this is given above nature and exists there above nature, so that it may have an effect above nature through the divine will.

But since it is difficult to understand how anything absolute, whether according to nature or above nature, should now be in the water, which was not [there] before; and how it should have been given by the touch of [Christ's] flesh even to remote waters: therefore it must be said, as was touched on above[^3bis], that that power is not any absolute property or essence added to the water, but only its ordination to this, that man be regenerated. — For previously all liquids were indifferent, and one could, so far as it lies in itself, be baptized in some other liquid as in water; but when the Lord willed to be immersed and was baptized in water, now water alone had the ordination to this: and therefore baptism could be done only in it. But because he did not institute that baptism be done only through immersion, but rather also through the utterance of words and of such words; likewise he ordained the words to this. Hence both the water, in which he was immersed, and the words, which he uttered, henceforth[^4bis] have power, neither one without the other, because he ordained both together for obtaining regeneration.

And thus the objections to both sides become clear, because the first ones proceed concerning power as it is an ordination to regeneration; but the second ones [proceed] concerning power which is an absolute quality. This power, however, is not through transfusion, but through institution. Hence just as the Lord ordained and instituted not only the words which he uttered for regenerating, but also all things alike; so [he ordained] not only the water which he touched, but all water alike in species — « now all water is alike to all water in species[^5bis] » — therefore he conferred [it] on all water. — And there is a likeness: if a king should ordain that only his letters should have power and efficacy which were written on goatskins and which were written in certain determined words; and this indeed he would do with his own hand, by writing on that kind of skin: [so that] the king would be said [to do it] by that hand, [and] gave his efficacy to that parchment and to every parchment of the same species, even that which is to come for a long time hence; and this through institution and ordination alone, not through any conferral upon[^6bis] [it]. So it must be understood in the matter at hand: that the Lord, by the touch of his clean flesh, gave power to the waters, not because cleanness passed from the flesh into the water, but because, since the Lord was clean, he willed for no other reason to be immersed in the water, except that by that immersion the water might have this ordination. Hence if water were created anew like this one in species, I believe that it would have the same ordination and would be said to have the same power.

And if you object to me: every relation is founded upon something absolute, because of which it accrues[^7bis]: therefore if this ordination, which is a relation, accrues, it was necessary that something absolute be given; it must be said that this does not hold true in voluntary relations, because a coin, as Augustine says[^8bis], becomes a pledge without any change in itself, and likewise this word *buba* could become significative without any change in itself. Likewise it must be understood in the matter at hand. — And although each of these

opinions is catholic and probable, this one nevertheless is more intelligible and more consonant with the authorities of the Saints. For the waters are said to be cleansed and sanctified and made powerful[^1ter], because they are efficaciously ordained to the sanctification and cleansing of the soul, not to be done by them, but to be received and given in them by God to the very man being baptized; and similar [expressions] are to be explained in this way. Nor is it to be understood that there is any action from the waters upon the soul. For just as the waters do not properly have power, so neither [do they have] operation; but their power and action is an efficacious ordination, either according to act, or according to habit. And so they incur no censure of the things which are said concerning these matters[^2ter].

---

la: Vers. 21. — Glossa, quae est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum, sumta est ex Beda in hunc loc. Cfr. supra pag. 2, nota 3.

en: Verse 21. — The Gloss, which is the *ordinary* [gloss] in Strabus and Lyra, is taken from Bede on this passage. Cf. above, p. 2, note 3.

la: Can. 10. Verba (olim tributa Chrysostomo) sunt Chromatii, episc. Aquilei. († 407 aut 408), tr. 1. in Matth. 3. n. 1.

en: Canon 10. The words (formerly attributed to Chrysostom) are those of Chromatius, bishop of Aquileia (d. 407 or 408), tractate 1 on Matthew 3, n. 1.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. dub. 3. et p. II. a. I. q. 3. nec non d. 8. p. II. q. 2. Aristot., de Sens. et sens. c. 4. docet, nullam rem agere posse, nisi mediantibus accidentibus.

en: Cf. I Sent., d. 3, p. I, dub. 3, and p. II, a. I, q. 3, as also d. 8, p. II, q. 2. Aristotle, *On Sense and Sensibles* c. 4, teaches that no thing can act except by means of accidents.

la: In I. arg. allegata. Cfr. Gregor. Naz., Orat. 38. n. 23. et Orat. 39. n. 27; Hilar., in Matth. 3, 13. (c. 2. n. 3.); Ambros., in Luc. 3, 21. — Multi codd. dicunt *Glossae*.

en: In the first argument alleged. Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, *Oration* 38, n. 23, and *Oration* 39, n. 27; Hilary, *On Matthew* 3:13 (c. 2, n. 3); Ambrose, *On Luke* 3:21. — Many codices read *of the Gloss*.

la: Inferius pro *immergeretur*, quod habent codd. MO, alii cum edd. *immergeret*, cui cod. X addit *aliquem*. — Cfr. supra pag. 42, nota 10.

en: Below, for *immergeretur*, which codices MO have, others with the editions [read] *immergeret*, to which codex X adds *aliquem* [someone]. — Cf. above, p. 42, note 10.

la: Colligi potest ex verbis Aristot., II. de Caelo et mundo, text. 86. (c. 13.): Easdem enim eorundem necessarium est esse causas eisdem (Versio Arabico-Latina: Causae enim eaedem et consimiles sunt causatorum consimilium). — In *maiori* post *illam vim* cod. Z supplet *haec fecisset, quandocumque tetigit aquas*.

en: It can be gathered from the words of Aristotle, *On the Heavens* II, text 86 (c. 13): For it is necessary that the same causes belong to the same things (the Arabic-Latin version: For the causes of like effects are the same and alike). — In the *major* [premise], after *that power*, codex Z supplies *this it would have done, whenever it touched the waters*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 43. seqq. (c. 6. seq.), et V. Phys. text. 21. seqq. (c. 3.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 43ff. (c. 6f.), and *Physics* V, text 21ff. (c. 3).

la: Vide supra d. 1. p. I. q. 4. lateral. q. 2. arg. 2.

en: See above, d. 1, p. I, q. 4, in the lateral [gloss] q. 2, arg. 2.

la: Cod. K *pristinum*.

en: Codex K [reads] *pristinum* [original].

la: Dist. 1. p. I. q. 4. in fine.

en: Distinction 1, p. I, q. 4, at the end.

la: Cod. X *interius*.

en: Codex X [reads] *interius* [inwardly].

la: Aristot., I. Topic. c. 6. (c. 5.). Vide Tertull., de Baptismo, c. 4.

en: Aristotle, *Topics* I, c. 6 (c. 5). See Tertullian, *On Baptism*, c. 4.

la: Edd. supplent *virtutis alterius*. Superius post *quod rex* cod. bb *illam* pro *illa*. Aliquanto inferius permulti codd. *noluit* pro *voluit*.

en: The editions supply *of another power*. Above, after *that the king*, codex bb [reads] *illam* for *illa*. A little below, very many codices [read] *noluit* [he was unwilling] for *voluit* [he willed].

la: Ab Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 20. (IV. c. 15.), assignatur triplex fundamentum sive causa relationis, scil. unitas et numerus (convenientia et disconvenientia), actio et passio, mensura et mensurabile. — Vat. perperam *eo quod aliquid absolutum de novo advenit*.

en: By Aristotle, *Metaphysics* V, text 20 (IV, c. 15), a threefold foundation or cause of relation is assigned, namely unity and number (agreement and disagreement), action and passion, measure and measurable. — The Vatican edition wrongly [reads] *because something absolute accrues anew*.

la: Vide supra pag. 24, nota 5. — Petr. Hispan., Summul. tr. 1, agens de vocibus, ait: *Vox non significativa est, quae auditui nihil repraesentat, ut* bu ba baf. Codd. FH (bb a secunda manu) voci *voluntariis* praemittunt *omnino*. Inferius pro *posset fieri* edd. *potest fieri*.

en: See above, p. 24, note 5. — Peter of Spain, *Summulae* tr. 1, treating of words, says: *A word is non-significative which represents nothing to the hearing, as* bu ba baf. Codices FH (bb by a second hand) prefix *omnino* [altogether] to the word *voluntariis* [voluntary]. Below, for *posset fieri* [could become], the editions [read] *potest fieri* [can become].

la: Codd. F I *effective*. Circa finem quaest. post *in animam* edd. sic prosequuntur: *aquae enim illae non habent proprie virtutem illam, nec operationem* etc.

en: Codices F I [read] *effective* [effectively]. Near the end of the question, after *upon the soul*, the editions continue thus: *for those waters do not properly have that power, nor operation*, etc.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
- **Body provenance:** raw L9110–9270, re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR and verified against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for p.78–80 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p07{8,9},p080-*`). **The auto-chunker skeleton was mislabeled d.4 content** (*Utrum baptismus deleat omnem poenam*, running head DIST. IV. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. II., printed p.97–98) — fully discarded and rebuilt. Alignment confirmed: title L9110 *Utrum ex institutione baptismi aliqua vis sit collata aquis*; opener L9113 *Secundo quaeritur, utrum ex institutione baptismi...*; running head L9177 *DIST. III. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II. 79*.
- **Page-split map (3 printed pages, footer numbering restarts per page; 17 entries total):**
  - **p.78** (raw footer block L9147–9171, verified against PDF crops `vol4-p078-L-1/R-1/L-2/R-2`) — this question's body begins at the bottom of p.78 (after the Article-I scholion) with the printed superscripts **3, 4, 5** (args 1–3) and **6, 7, 8, 9** (*Contra* 1–3); p.78's notes 1–2 (*Hic c. 1 — Luc. 10,1*; *Ioan. 19,34*) belong to the PRIOR *Confirmatio* passage, NOT this question. Rendered `[^3]`–`[^9]` (note 9 = *Cfr. Arist., de Generat.*, anchoring *Contra* 3 *per continuum*). 7 entries.
  - **p.79** (raw footer block L9249–9258) — notes 1–8 anchor arg 4 (*gratuita*) + the Respondeo / two-opinion discussion / *Et est simile* / *Et si tu obiicias* objection (markers *gratuita*¹, *statum primum*², *tactum supra*³, *ulterius*⁴, *specie consimilis*⁵, *alicuius*⁶, *quod advenit*⁷, *Augustinus*⁸). Rendered `[^1bis]`–`[^8bis]`. 8 entries.
  - **p.80** (footer block at p.80 bottom, crop `vol4-p080-L-2.png`) — notes 1–2 anchor the *Iudicium de utraque opinione* tail (*virtuosae effectae*¹ / *haec dicuntur*²). Rendered `[^1ter]`–`[^2ter]`. 2 entries. p.80's notes 3–6 belong to the NEXT chunk (ARTICULUS II, QUAESTIO I) and are NOT carried here.
  - NOTE on marker labels: Quaracchi's per-page restart would repeat "1"; to keep `[^N]` unique for the `build-content.mjs` parser, p.79's series is suffixed *bis* and p.80's *ter*. The *La.* text of each entry is the verbatim Quaracchi footer.
- **No scholion** — the Article-I scholion (parts I + II) lives in the sibling chunk `bon-sent-IV-d3-p2-a1-q1` (committed b7b37ee); its part II (*De seq. (2.) quaestione...*) explicitly covers this q2. `has_scholion: false` here.
- **Hand-off picked up:** none needed — q1's report confirmed q2 opens a fresh p.79 footer series with no footer migration from q1 (p.77's series fully consumed in q1).
- **Hand-off forward to `d3-p2-a2-q1`:** **ARTICULUS II** (*De baptismi instituti administratione*) begins at raw **L9271**, on p.80 immediately after this question's tail (*et haec dicuntur*, L9267). The short article opener (*Quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur secundo... circa hoc duo quaeruntur: Primo... quoties oporteat mergi; Secundo, quantum*, L9276–9278) folds into **a2-q1** per the locked chunking convention (no standalone divisio chunk). Art. II's **QUAESTIO I** (*Quoties baptizandus debeat immergi*, L9283) runs **L9271–9463**; its **QUAESTIO II** (*Quantum*) begins at **L9464**, so Art. II = q1 [L9271–9463] + q2 [L9464–9557]. The p.80 footer notes 3–6 (Can. *Propter vitandum*, *Vide supra p. I huius dist.*, *Cfr. hic lit. Magistri c. 1*, *Vide tom. II pag. 334*) belong to a2-q1's body and migrate forward.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All OCR garbles in the raw range resolved against the PDF column bands (e.g. OCR `ahqua`→*aliqua*, `regenerelur`→*regeneretur*, `inana ralio`→*humana ratio* context, `OfYtewm`→*ordinaria* in [^3], `O)nnino`→*omnino* in [^8bis]).