title: Dist. 2, Dubia

title_alt:
Dubia circa litteram Magistri
Doubts on the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 59 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit, quod *alia in remedium sunt contra peccatum*. Videtur enim male *dividere* haec[^1] Sacramenta ab invicem, quia omnia Sacramenta sunt in remedium contra peccatum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Magister non dicit *simpliciter*, quod quaedam sunt in remedium; sed dicit, quaedam sunt in remedium *contra peccatum*; et talia sunt quae gratiam conferunt et ornant animam.

Ex hac autem divisione, quam ponit hic Magister, innuitur *sufficientia* Sacramentorum. Quaedam enim est medicina *praeservativa*, quae cavet[^2] a morbo, sed non liberat; et talis est matrimonium. — Quaedam est *curativa*, et ista liberat per gratiam; et haec variatur secundum triplicem gratiam, scilicet *baptismalem*, et sic baptismus; *poenitentialem*, et sic poenitentia; *finalem*, et sic unctio extrema. — Quaedam autem est medicina *confortativa*. Duplici autem ex causa indiget homo confortari: vel propter *difficultatem pugnae*, et sic confirmatio; vel propter *lassitudinem itineris*, et sic viaticum eucharistiae[^3]; ordo autem est ad ministrandum utrumque et ad confortandum modo utroque. — Vel sic: *confortatio* et fulcimentum est tripliciter: aut *confortatione virtutis*, et sic confirmatio; aut *subministratione cibi*, et sic eucharistia; aut *fulcimento alicuius subsidii*, et sic est ordo. — Et sic patet, quod divisio Magistri est recta, et patet etiam ex hoc divisio Sacramentorum. Differt iste modus assignandi sufficientiam a praeassignato, quoniam ille accipitur penes *morbos*, hic vero penes *modos curandi*.

Item, quaeritur: quare Magister[^4] sic *ordinat*? Videtur enim, quod ratio sua contradicat enumerationi quantum ad *ordinem*. Si enim matrimonium est medicina praeservativa et prius etiam est institutum, videtur, quod deberet primo de ipso agere. Similiter contra alia potest obiici.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Magister bene ordinat; et ratio sui ordinis patet sic. Sacramenta enim quaedam respiciunt *communiter omnes*, et sic sunt quinque praecedentia; aut *aliquos specialiter*, et sic sunt duo sequentia, scilicet ordo et coniugium; et sicut commune ante speciale[^5], sic prima quinque ante duo ultima. Ordo enim in quinque primis patet ex se. Baptismus enim est ad vulnerum curationem, confirmatio ad curationis habitae conservationem, eucharistia ad curationis habitae et conservatae promotionem; et quia non omnes qui recipiunt, conservant semper, ideo est poenitentia ad reparationem; quintum est unctio extrema ad ipsius consummationem. Et ex hoc patet ordo et sufficientia illorum quinque, quae respiciunt communiter omnes. — Quae autem respiciunt *speciales status*, duo sunt: aut enim respiciunt *perfectos*, et sic est ordo; aut *infirmos* secundum congruentiam, et sic est matrimonium; praeponitur autem[^6] ordo propter Sacramenti dignitatem. — Vel, ordo est personarum generantium spiritualiter, matrimonium vero personarum generantium corporaliter; et utraque necessaria est Ecclesiae, sed prima est de principali intentione, secunda ex consequenti. Et ita patet ordo[^7].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod haec Sacramenta non debuerunt ante institui, *quia ex ipsius morte et passione virtutem sortita sunt*. Videtur enim male dicere, quia Sacramenta veteris legis et fides totam virtutem iustificandi habebant ex morte Christi[^8]. — Item, videtur, quod magis ex resurrectione, quia ad Romanos quarto[^9] dicitur: *Resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Sacramenta novae legis magnam habent virtutem, quia eam habent a

<!-- page 60 -->

passione, non tantum promissa, sed etiam persoluta; et persoluta astringit divinam misericordiam, ut liberalius praebeat; et hoc non fuit nisi post mortem.

Quod obiicitur de resurrectione, dicendum, quod meritum principaliter fuit in passione, sed significatio nostrae iustificationis a peccato significatur in morte et resurrectione, ut destruatur homo vetus et fiat novus[^10].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Baptismum Christi Ioannes suo baptismo praenuntiavit*; quae necessitas fuerit huiusmodi praenuntiationis. Si dicas, ut assuefaceret; quaero similiter: quare alia Sacramenta non habuerunt assuefactoria[^11]? Si dicas, quod baptismus difficilior est ad credendum; hoc non solvit, quia eucharistia magnae difficultatis est et magnae efficaciae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod baptismus congrue habuit praeambulum; et ratio huius est, quia est Sacramentum *primum* et *necessarium*: quia enim necessarium, oportebat omnes suscipere; quia primum, ne homines inhabiles essent et imparati, oportebat, quod praecederet aliquid simile. Non sic autem est in aliis Sacramentis. Baptismus enim susceptus disponit ad cetera alia; et ideo non indigent alia[^12], immo assuefactorium baptismi per consequens ad alia assuefacit.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *hominis dictus est, quia nihil ibi agebatur, quod non ageret homo*. Videtur enim, quod ratio illa nulla sit: quia dicitur Evangelium hominis, ut Ioannis et Matthaei, et tamen in Evangelio aliquid agitur, quod non agit homo. Si dicas, quod Evangelium dicitur nuntium et dicit quid exterius, et hoc est ipsius nuntiantis, non tantum mandantis[^13]; obiicitur de doctrina, quae dicitur esse docentis; et tamen, ut dicit Augustinus[^14], « solus Deus docet intus ».

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod doctrina dicitur Petri, non quia Petrus totum agat effective, quod ibi fit, sed quia nihil ibi fit, quod Petrus non faciat vel effective, sicut verbum exterius, vel dispositive, sicut est eruditio interior. Melius enim docet bonus clericus quam malus; non sic melius baptizat bonus quam malus[^15].

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Baptismus Ioannis in nomine venturi tradebatur*. Videtur enim falsum, quia Ioannes sciebat, iam Christum venisse, cum baptizavit ipsum[^16]: ergo non in nomine venturi, sed eius qui venit, potius baptizavit, vel baptizare debuit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Dominus venisse dicitur quantum ad *assumtionem* carnis; sed utilitas vel finis adventus determinatur quantum ad humani generis redemptionem et ipsius manifestationem; et quoniam, licet Christus tunc assumsisset carnem[^17], tamen, quia nondum erat manifestatus, baptizabat in nomine venturi de futuro; et ideo, quando Dominus se coepit per mirabilia manifestare, baptismus eius debuit cessare. Unde et Ioannes in carcere existens, volens ostendere discipulis suis, suum ministerium impletum esse, et baptismum cessasse, misit eos ad Christum, Matthaei undecimo[^18]: *Tu es qui venturus es*? ut per verba Domini cognoscant discipuli, illum, in cuius nomine venisse baptizaverat Ioannes, et ideo, cum iam amplius non debeat dici venturus, Sacramentum eius cessasse. — Et haec est ratio, quare Ioannes magis baptizavit in nomine venturi quam Christi, ut ostenderet baptismum suum ad tempus esse. Nam Christus semper Christus est, sed non semper venturus; et ideo baptisma Christi, quod debuit semper durare, fuit in nomine Christi, vel Trinitatis, sed baptisma Ioannis in nomine venturi.

---

english:
## DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this which he says, that *others are in remedy against sin*. For it seems wrong to *divide* these[^1] Sacraments from one another, since all the Sacraments are in remedy against sin.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master does not say *without qualification* that some are in remedy; rather he says that some are in remedy *against sin*; and such are those which confer grace and adorn the soul.

But from this division, which the Master here sets down, is suggested the *sufficiency* of the Sacraments. For a certain one is *preservative* medicine, which guards[^2] against disease but does not free from it; and such is matrimony. — A certain one is *curative*, and this frees through grace; and it is varied according to the threefold grace, namely the *baptismal*, and thus baptism; the *penitential*, and thus penance; the *final*, and thus extreme unction. — But a certain one is *strengthening* medicine. Now man needs to be strengthened from a twofold cause: either on account of the *difficulty of the struggle*, and thus confirmation; or on account of the *weariness of the journey*, and thus the viaticum of the Eucharist[^3]; but order is for administering both and for strengthening in either way. — Or thus: *strengthening* and support is in three ways: either by the *strengthening of power*, and thus confirmation; or by the *furnishing of food*, and thus the Eucharist; or by the *support of some aid*, and thus is order. — And thus it is clear that the division of the Master is correct, and from this the division of the Sacraments is also clear. This manner of assigning sufficiency differs from the one previously assigned, since that is taken with respect to *diseases*, but this with respect to *modes of curing*.

Likewise it is asked: why does the Master[^4] *order* them thus? For it seems that his reasoning contradicts the enumeration as regards the *order*. For if matrimony is preservative medicine and is also instituted earlier, it seems that he ought to have treated of it first. Similarly it can be objected against the others.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master orders them well; and the ground of his order is clear thus. For certain Sacraments regard *all in common*, and thus are the five preceding ones; or *some specially*, and thus are the two following ones, namely order and marriage; and just as the common comes before the special[^5], so the first five come before the last two. For the order among the first five is clear of itself. For baptism is for the curing of wounds, confirmation for the conservation of the cure once obtained, the Eucharist for the advancement of the cure obtained and conserved; and because not all who receive always conserve, therefore there is penance for the repairing; the fifth is extreme unction for its consummation. And from this is clear the order and sufficiency of those five which regard all in common. — But those which regard *special states* are two: for they regard either the *perfect*, and thus is order; or the *infirm* according to fittingness, and thus is matrimony; but order is set before[^6] on account of the dignity of the Sacrament. — Or, order is of persons generating spiritually, but matrimony of persons generating corporeally; and each is necessary to the Church, but the first is of the principal intention, the second by consequence. And thus the order is clear[^7].

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that these Sacraments ought not to have been instituted before, *because they obtained their power from his death and passion*. For it seems wrong to say this, since the Sacraments of the old law and faith had the whole power of justifying from the death of Christ[^8]. — Likewise, it seems rather from the resurrection, because in Romans, chapter four[^9], it is said: *He rose again for our justification*.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Sacraments of the new law have great power, because they have it from

<!-- page 60 -->

the passion, not merely promised, but also fully paid; and the payment binds the divine mercy to bestow more liberally; and this was not so except after the death.

As to what is objected concerning the resurrection, it must be said that the merit was principally in the passion, but the signification of our justification from sin is signified in the death and resurrection, so that the old man may be destroyed and a new one be made[^10].

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *John foreannounced the baptism of Christ by his own baptism*; what necessity there was for such a foreannouncement. If you say, in order to accustom [men to it]; I ask likewise: why did the other Sacraments not have things to accustom [men to them][^11]? If you say that baptism is more difficult to believe; this does not solve it, because the Eucharist is of great difficulty and of great efficacy.

**I respond:** It must be said that baptism fittingly had a preamble; and the ground of this is that it is the *first* and *necessary* Sacrament: for because necessary, it behooved all to receive it; because first, lest men be unfit and unprepared, it behooved that something similar should precede. But it is not so in the other Sacraments. For baptism, once received, disposes to all the rest; and therefore the others do not need it[^12]; indeed, the accustoming of baptism, by consequence, accustoms [men] to the others.

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *it was called [the Gospel] of man, because nothing was there done which man would not do*. For it seems that this reasoning is null: because it is called the Gospel of a man, as of John and Matthew, and yet in the Gospel something is done which man does not do. If you say that the Gospel is called a tidings and tells something outwardly, and this belongs to the one announcing, not only to the one commanding[^13]; it is objected concerning doctrine, which is said to be of the one teaching; and yet, as Augustine says[^14], « God alone teaches within ».

**I respond:** It must be said that the doctrine is called Peter's, not because Peter does the whole of what is there done effectively, but because nothing is there done which Peter does not do, either effectively, as the outward word, or dispositively, as is the inner instruction. For a good cleric teaches better than a bad one; not so does a good one baptize better than a bad one[^15].

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *The baptism of John was handed on in the name of the one to come*. For it seems false, because John knew that Christ had already come, since he baptized him[^16]: therefore he baptized, or ought to have baptized, not in the name of the one to come, but rather of the one who had come.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Lord is said to have come as regards the *assumption* of flesh; but the usefulness or the end of his coming is determined as regards the redemption of the human race and his manifestation; and since, although Christ had then assumed flesh[^17], yet, because he had not yet been manifested, [John] baptized in the name of the one to come, as of the future; and therefore, when the Lord began to manifest himself through wonders, his baptism had to cease. Whence also John, being in prison, wishing to show his disciples that his ministry was fulfilled and that his baptism had ceased, sent them to Christ, in Matthew chapter eleven[^18]: *Art thou he that is to come*? so that through the words of the Lord the disciples might recognize him, in whose name John had baptized as the one to come, and therefore, since he ought no longer be called the one to come, that his Sacrament had ceased. — And this is the reason why John baptized rather in the name of the one to come than of Christ, to show that his baptism was for a time. For Christ is always Christ, but not always the one to come; and therefore the baptism of Christ, which had to last forever, was in the name of Christ, or of the Trinity, but the baptism of John in the name of the one to come.

---

la: Ita codd. A E (K a secunda manu), codd. G I W Z *hic* Sacramenta, in aliis tantum *haec*. Mox edd. omittunt *contra peccatum*.

en: Thus codices A E (K by a second hand); codices G I W Z read here *Sacramenta*, in others only *haec*. Soon the editions omit *contra peccatum* (against sin).

la: Ita codd. A K, alii codd. *curat*, cod. B *curat vel caret*, edd. *excusat*. Paulo superius pro *ornant* cod. K *curant*, et codd. F H *innuit sufficientiam* pro *innuitur sufficientia*.

en: Thus codices A K; other codices read *curat*; codex B *curat vel caret*; the editions *excusat*. A little above, for *ornant* codex K reads *curant*, and codices F H *innuit sufficientiam* for *innuitur sufficientia*.

la: Cfr. infra d. 8. p. 1. dub. 2. et 3. — Edd. *id est eucharistia*. Mox pro *ministrandum* codd. H aa *administrandum*. Inferius pro *tripliciter* codd. F G I aa *triplex*, et cod. aa *alieni* pro *alicuius*.

en: Compare below, d. 8, p. 1, dubia 2 and 3. — The editions read *id est eucharistia* (that is, the Eucharist). Soon, for *ministrandum* codices H aa read *administrandum*. Below, for *tripliciter* codices F G I aa read *triplex*, and codex aa *alieni* for *alicuius*.

la: Edd. *magis*. Inferius pro *contra alia* codd. F H (K a secunda manu) *et circa alia*, alii codd. *circa alia*.

en: The editions read *magis*. Below, for *contra alia* codices F H (K by a second hand) read *et circa alia*, other codices *circa alia*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. *de Simul*, I. Phys. text. 57. (c. 7.) et III. text. 2. (c. 1.). — Edd. *et sic aut commune aut speciale. Si respiciunt communiter omnes, sic sunt prima quinque. Ordo enim trium ex quinque prius patet ex se. In-*

en: Compare Aristotle, *Categories*, the chapter *On the Simultaneous*; *Physics* I, text 57 (c. 7) and III, text 2 (c. 1). — The editions read *and thus either the common or the special. If they regard all in common, thus are the first five. For the order of three out of the five is first clear of itself. In-*

la: Ita cod. O, cuius lectio confirmari videtur incongrua lectione multorum codd. *principaliter autem*; codd. G I satis bene praemittitur *autem*; codd. K Z aa *praecedit autem*; sed Vat. perperam sic habet: *matrimonium principaliter, aut est ordo* etc.

en: Thus codex O, whose reading seems confirmed by the incongruous reading of many codices *principaliter autem*; in codices G I *autem* is rather well prefixed; codices K Z aa *praecedit autem*; but the Vatican edition wrongly has thus: *matrimonium principaliter, aut est ordo*, etc.

la: Subinde pro *Vel ordo* codd. G I *Item ordo*; post *matrimonium* vero edd. cum pluribus codd. omittunt *personarum*, et post *utraque* cod. F (a secunda manu) supplet *generatio*.

en: Thereupon, for *Vel ordo* codices G I read *Item ordo*; but after *matrimonium* the editions, with several codices, omit *personarum*, and after *utraque* codex F (by a second hand) supplies *generatio*.

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2.

en: Compare above, a. 1, q. 3. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2.

la: Vers. 25. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 400, nota 9.

en: Verse 25. Compare tome III, page 400, note 9.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 19. a. 1. q. 1. et d. 20. q. 4. in fine corp.; Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 3. a. 5. § 7.

en: Compare III Sent., d. 19, a. 1, q. 1, and d. 20, q. 4, at the end of the body; Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 5, m. 3, a. 5, § 7.

la: Vat. supplet *assuefactorio*. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 6. m. 1; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: The Vatican edition supplies *assuefactorio*. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 6, m. 1; St. Thomas, here on the text.

la: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 6. m. 3. ad ult.: *Evangelium idem est quod bonum nuntium; nuntium relationem ad dominum habet mandantem et nuntium denuntiantem; unde Evangelium ad utrumque habet respectum, propter quod dicitur esse et Christi et Ioannis*. — Cod. F *et dicitur quasi exterius*.

en: Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 6, m. 3, at the end: *"Gospel" is the same as "good tidings"; a tidings has relation to the lord who commands and to the messenger who announces; hence the Gospel has respect to both, on account of which it is said to be both of Christ and of John.* — Codex F reads *et dicitur quasi exterius*.

la: De Magistro, c. 11. n. 38. seqq.; V. de Gen. ad lit. c. 13. n. 30; in Epist. Ioan. tr. 3. n. 13; Enarrat. in Ps. 118. serm. 18. n. 4. et in Ps. 139. n. 15. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 690, nota 1.

en: [Augustine,] *On the Teacher*, c. 11, n. 38 ff.; *On Genesis according to the Letter* V, c. 13, n. 30; *On the Epistle of John*, tract 3, n. 13; *Expositions on Psalm 118*, sermon 18, n. 4, and on Psalm 139, n. 15. Compare tome II, page 690, note 1.

la: Vide supra a. 2. q. 1. in corp.; infra d. 8. a. 2. q. 1. — Edd. cum aliquot codd. omittunt *et hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — non sic melius... quam malus.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 6. m. 5. ad ult., ubi ait: *Aliter operatur Deus in Evangelio, aliter in baptismo. In Evangelio sive doctrina evangelica Deus infudit veritatem in mentem Evangelistae, qui postea eam transfudit in mentes audientium; ipsa igitur veri-*

en: See above, a. 2, q. 1, in the body; below, d. 8, a. 2, q. 1. — The editions, with several codices, omit *et hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — non sic melius... quam malus.* — Compare on this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 6, m. 5, at the end, where he says: *God works in one way in the Gospel, in another in baptism. In the Gospel, or evangelical doctrine, God infused truth into the mind of the Evangelist, who afterward transfused it into the minds of the hearers; therefore that very truth*

la: [*…continued from preceding note*] *evangelica, quia a Deo erat in mente Evangelistae, dicitur ibi esse ipsius Dei; quia denuntiatur ab ipso Evangelista in mentes audientium, dicitur esse Evangelistae. Non est sic in baptismo; non enim transfunditur munditia primo a Deo in baptizantem et postea ab eo in baptizatum, immo immediate gratia primo et per se purgans transfunditur sive infunditur a Deo. Quia igitur illud quod principale est in baptismo est a Christo immediate, ideo dicitur baptisma Christi, non Petri vel Pauli.* — B. Albert., hic a. 5; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3.

en: [*…continued*] *evangelical, because it was from God in the mind of the Evangelist, is there said to be God's own; because it is announced by the Evangelist himself into the minds of the hearers, it is said to be the Evangelist's. It is not so in baptism; for cleanness is not transfused first from God into the baptizer and afterward from him into the baptized, but rather the grace that cleanses immediately, first and through itself, is transfused or infused by God. Therefore, because that which is principal in baptism is from Christ immediately, it is therefore called the baptism of Christ, not of Peter or of Paul.* — Blessed Albert, here a. 5; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1, little-question 3.

la: Cfr. Ioan. 1, 32. seqq. — Mox post *sed* codd. F H repetunt *in nomine*.

en: Compare John 1, 32 ff. — Soon, after *sed*, codices F H repeat *in nomine*.

la: In edd. desunt verba *sed utilitas... assumsisset carnem.* — In hac propositione vel *quoniam*, vel *quia* abundat. — Post pauca verbis *de futuro* cod. F praemittit *et*. Subinde pro *mirabilia* cod. K *miracula*, et pro *existens* cod. R *positus*.

en: In the editions the words *sed utilitas... assumsisset carnem* are lacking. — In this proposition either *quoniam* or *quia* is superfluous. — After a few [words], to the words *de futuro* codex F prefixes *et*. Thereupon, for *mirabilia* codex K reads *miracula*, and for *existens* codex R *positus*.

la: Vers. 3. Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 4. n. 14. — Infra pro *cessasse* cod. K *cessare*, codd. M aa *cessare debuit*, codd. R S T X *dicitur cessasse*, edd. *cessavit.* — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 6. m. 3. a. 1. et m. 9; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2.

en: Verse 3. Compare Augustine, *On the Gospel of John*, tract 4, n. 14. — Below, for *cessasse* codex K reads *cessare*, codices M aa *cessare debuit*, codices R S T X *dicitur cessasse*, the editions *cessavit.* — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 6, m. 3, a. 1, and m. 9; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1, little-question 2.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the vol4 PDF column bands for printed pp. 59–60 (PDF 79–80, offset +20), reading left column then right column on each page, per the Vol II PDF-priority inversion (the IA djvu OCR, raw L6898–7152, cascade-fragments the two-column Respondeo blocks and all footers). English is a fresh literal translation.

**Structure.** Five dubia (DUB. I–V) on Lombard's text: (I) why "in remedy *against sin*" divides the Sacraments rightly, plus the sufficiency and *ordering* of the seven Sacraments; (II) why the Sacraments could not be instituted before Christ's death/passion (vs. resurrection); (III) the necessity of John's baptism foreannouncing Christ's; (IV) why the act is called "of man" though God works within (the Gospel/doctrine analogy); (V) why John baptized "in the name of the one to come." No scholion — this is a dubia chunk.

**Page-split map.** DUB. I and the opening of DUB. II are on p.59 (left col: DUB. I body; right col: DUB. I Respondeo on ordering + DUB. II objections + start of Respondeo). The page break falls inside DUB. II's Respondeo: p.59 R col ends "...magnam habent virtutem, quia eam habent a" → p.60 L col resumes "passione, non tantum promissa...". DUB. III, IV, V are wholly on p.60.

**Apparatus split.** 18 footnotes total. Page 59 carries notes 1–9 (left-col footers 1–5, right-col footers 6–9). Page 60 carries notes 1–9, renumbered here as [^10]–[^18] (left-col footers 1–5 → [^10]–[^14]; right-col footers 6–9 → [^15]–[^18]). Note that p.60 footer note 5 (the Alex. Hal. quotation about the Gospel) runs across the column bottoms and is here joined to its body anchor as [^14]+[^15]: the marker for [^14] (Augustine "solus Deus docet intus") and the marker for [^15] (the bonus/malus clause) are adjacent in the body; the long Alexander quotation that physically begins under [^14]'s number continues into the right-column footer, so it is rendered as the continuation tail of [^15] to keep the body anchors paired.

**Boundary confirmation.** d.2 ends cleanly at the end of DUB. V on p.60 right column ("...sed baptisma Ioannis in nomine venturi", with footer note 9 = [^18]). Printed page 61 (PDF 81) is entirely DISTINCTIO III (Cap. I–III, *Quid sit baptismus*); the raw OCR's `DISTINCTIO lll.` at L7153 and `DISTINCTIO III.` at L7158 are the p.61 running head and the d.3 opener. **No cross-chunk footer hand-off at the d.2/d.3 boundary** — DUB. V and its footnotes all close on p.60; d.3 opens fresh on p.61 with its own footer sequence. The prior a2-q3 chunk owns p.58 and the top of p.59; this chunk owns all of p.59's footers (q3 closed mid-p.58, DUBIA opens clean at top of p.59), so no inbound hand-off either.

**[?] flags.** None. All five dubia, both Respondeo blocks, and all 18 footers read cleanly from the column bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 3

title_alt: Distinctio III — textus Magistri Sententiarum

title_alt: Distinction III — text of the Master of the Sentences

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 61 -->

### DISTINCTIO III.

#### Pars I.

### Cap. I. *Quid sit baptismus.*

Post haec videndum est, quid sit baptismus, et quae sit forma, et quando institutus, et causa institutionis. — Baptismus dicitur intinctio, id est ablutio corporis exterior facta sub forma verborum praescripta. Si enim fiat ablutio sine verbo, non est ibi Sacramentum, sed accedente verbo ad elementum fit Sacramentum; non utique ipsum elementum fit Sacramentum, sed ablutio facta in elemento. Unde Augustinus[^1]: «Verbo baptisma consecratur; detrahe verbum, et quid est aqua nisi aqua? accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit Sacramentum. Unde est haec tanta virtus aquae, ut corpus tangat et cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo? non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur. Nam et in ipso verbo aliud est sonus transiens, aliud est virtus manens». In duobus ergo consistit Sacramentum baptismi, scilicet verbo et elemento. Ergo etsi alia desint, quae ad decorem Sacramenti instituta sunt, non ideo minus est verum Sacramentum et sanctum, si verbum sit ibi et elementum. Nam et in hoc Sacramento et in aliis quaedam solent fieri ad decorem et honestatem Sacramenti, quaedam ad substantiam et causam Sacramenti pertinentia. De substantia huius Sacramenti sunt verbum et elementum, cetera ad solemnitatem eius pertinent.

### Cap. II. *De forma baptismi.*

Sed quod est illud verbum, quo accedente ad elementum, fit Sacramentum? Veritas[^2] te docet, quae huius Sacramenti formam tradens ait discipulis: *Ite, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti.* Invocatio igitur Trinitatis verbum dicitur, quo baptisma consecratur; et haec est forma verborum, sub qua traditur baptismus. Unde Bonifacio episcopo Zacharias papa[^3] ait: «Firmissime praeceptum est in Synodo Anglorum, ut quicumque sine invocatione Trinitatis mersus fuisset, quod Sacramentum regenerationis non haberet»; quod omnino verum est, quod si mersus in fonte baptismi quis fuerit sine invocatione Trinitatis, perfectus Christianus non est, nisi in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti fuerit baptizatus».

### Cap. III. *Quod Apostoli in Christi nomine baptizaverunt.*

Legitur tamen in Actibus Apostolorum, Apostolos baptizasse in nomine Christi; sed in hoc nomine, ut exponit Ambrosius, tota Trinitas intelligitur: «Intelligitur enim, cum Christum dicis, et Pater, a quo unctus est, et ipse qui unctus est, et Spiritus sanctus, per quem unctus est». Unde Nicolaus papa ad consulta Bulgarorum[^4]: «A quodam Iudaeo multos baptizatos asseritis; et quid inde agendum sit, consulitis. Hi profecto, si in nomine sanctae Trinitatis, vel in nomine Christi, sicut in Actibus Apostolorum legimus, baptizentur, baptizati sunt; unum enim idemque est, ut sanctus exponit Ambrosius».

### Cap. IV. *Si in nomine Patris, vel Spiritus sancti possit tradi baptismus.*

Hic quaeritur, an baptismus esset verus, si diceretur in nomine Patris tantum, vel Spiritus sancti, ut cum dicitur in nomine Christi. Ambrosius[^5] videtur dicere, si fide mysterium Trinitatis teneatur, et una persona tantum nominetur, plenum esse Sacramentum; et e converso, si tres nominentur, et non recte de aliquo illorum sentiatur, vacuum fieri mysterium. Ait enim sic: «Ubi non est plenum baptismi Sacramentum, nec principium nec species aliqua baptismi aestimatur. Plenum autem est, si Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum fatearis. Si unum neges, totum subrues. Et sicut 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; ita etiam, licet Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum dicas, et Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti minuas potestatem, vacuum est omne mysterium». «Cum dicitur in nomine Christi, per unitatem nominis impletum est mysterium; nec a Christi baptismate Spiritus separatur, quia Christus baptizavit in Spiritu[^6]».

<!-- page 62 -->

«Nunc consideremus, utrum, sicut in Christi nomine legimus baptismi plenum esse Sacramentum, ita etiam, Spiritu sancto tantum nuncupato, nihil desit ad mysterii plenitudinem. Rationem sequamur: qui unum dixerit, Trinitatem significavit; si Christum dicas, et Patrem, a quo unctus est Filius, et ipsum qui unctus est Filium, et Spiritum, quo unctus est, designasti. Scriptum est enim[^1b]: *Hunc Iesum a Nazareth, quem unxit Deus Spiritu sancto.* Et si Patrem dicas, Filium eius et Spiritum oris eius pariter indicas, si tamen id etiam corde comprehendas. Et si Spiritum dicas, Deum Patrem, a quo procedit, et Filium, cuius est Spiritus, nuncupasti. Unde, ut rationi copuletur auctoritas, Dominus dicit: *Vos autem baptizabimini in Spiritu sancto.* Ex quo indicat, nos recte posse baptizari in Spiritu sancto».

Ex his aperte intellexisti, in nomine Christi verum baptisma tradi; ubi[^2b] nihilominus insinuari videtur, verum baptisma dari posse in nomine Patris tantum, vel Spiritus sancti, si tamen ille qui baptizat, fidem Trinitatis teneat, quae Trinitas in quolibet horum nominum intelligitur. Si autem aliquis, perverse credens et errorem inducere intendens, unum de tribus tantum nuncupet, non implevit mysterium. Quod vero ait, nominatis tribus, vacuum esse mysterium, si baptizans minuat potestatem Patris vel Filii vel Spiritus sancti, id est, male sentiat de potentia alicuius horum, non credens unam potentiam trium; intelligendum est hoc super eum qui non intendit nec credit baptizare, qui non tantum caret fide, sed etiam intentionem baptizandi non habet. — Qui ergo baptizat in nomine Christi, baptizat in nomine Trinitatis, quae ibi intelligitur. Tutius est tamen, tres personas ibi nominare, ut dicatur: in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti; non in nominibus, sed in nomine, id est in invocatione vel in confessione Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti; invocatur enim ibi tota[^3b] Trinitas, ut invisibiliter ibi operetur per se, sicut extra visibiliter per ministrum. Si autem dicatur in nominibus, non est ibi Sacramentum, quia non servatur forma baptismi.

#### Pars II.

### Cap. V. *De institutione baptismi.*

De institutione baptismi, quando coeperit, variae sunt aestimationes. Alii dicunt, baptismum tunc esse institutum, cum Nicodemo Christus ait[^4b]: *Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto* etc. Alii dicunt institutionem baptismi factam, cum Apostolis dixit[^5b]: *Ite, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti.* Sed hoc dixit eis post resurrectionem, praecipiens eis de vocatione gentium, quos ante passionem binos et binos miserat ad praedicandum in Iudaea et ad baptizandum, dicens: *In viam gentium ne abieritis.* Iam ergo institutus erat baptismus, quia baptizabant simul et praedicabant. Si vero quaeritur, in qua forma tunc baptizaverunt; sane dici potest: in nomine Trinitatis, scilicet in ea forma, in qua baptizaverunt postea gentes; quae ante passionem potest intelligi fuisse tradita, licet non sit scriptum. Non ergo tunc illam formam Christus prius tradidit, cum ad evangelizandum gentibus misit; sed quam ante tradiderat, mittens eos in Iudaeam, post iteravit, cum ad gentes misit. — Commodius ergo dicitur institutio facta, quando Christus a Ioanne baptizatus est in Iordane; quod dispensavit, non quia mundari voluerit[^6b], cum sine peccato fuerit, sed quia «contactu mundae carnis suae vim regenerativam contulit aquis», ut qui postea immergeretur, invocato nomine Trinitatis, a peccatis purgaretur. Tunc igitur institutus est baptismus Christi, in quo Trinitas, cuius mysterium ibi innotuit, interius hominem baptizat.

### Cap. VI. *Quare in aqua tantum fiat.*

Celebratur autem hoc Sacramentum tantum in aqua, non in alio liquore, ut Christus ait: *Nisi quis renatus ex aqua* etc. Ideoque uniformiter id fieri in aqua praecipitur, ut intelligatur, quod «sicut aqua sordes corporis ac vestes abluit, ita baptismus maculas animae sordesque vitiorum emundando abstergit[^7b]». Vel ideo, ut nullum inopia excusaret; quod posset fieri, si in vino et oleo fieret, et ut communis materia baptizandi inveniretur apud omnes. Quod aqua signavit, quae de latere Christi manavit, sicut sanguis alterius Sacramenti signum fuit. Non igitur in alio liquore potest consecrari baptismus nisi in aqua.

### Cap. VII. *De immersione, quoties fieri debeat.*

De immersione vero si quaeritur quomodo fieri debeat praecise; respondemus: vel semel, vel tertio[^8b], pro vario more Ecclesiae.

<!-- page 63 -->

Unde Gregorius: «De trina immersione baptismi nil verius responderi potest, quam quod vos ipsi sensistis; quia in una fide nihil officit Ecclesiae sanctae consuetudo diversa. Quia enim in tribus subsistentiis una substantia est, reprehensibile esse nullatenus potest, infantem in baptismo vel ter, vel semel immergere, quia et in tribus mersionibus personarum Trinitas, et in una potest Divinitatis singularitas designari. Nos vero, qui tertio mergimus, etiam triduanae sepulturae sacramentum signamus». — Secundum hoc licet non modo ter, sed etiam semel tantum mergere. Ibi tamen dumtaxat semel mergere licet, ubi consuetudo Ecclesiae talis existit. Si quis vero id facere incipiat, ubi consuetudo talis non est, vel semel tantum mergendum esse asserat, reprehensibilem se constituit. Unde Haymo: «In suo sensu abundabat Cyprianus, cum semel mergebat in baptismo parvulos; qui quod intelligebat studiose implebat, bonis operibus abundando, licet in hoc nescius delinqueret. Sed quia bonis operibus abundabat, postea, correptus a Deo, abundavit altiori sensu, ter illos mergendo». — Ecce habes, quia deliquit qui semel mersit; sed hoc ideo, quia aliter se habebat illius Ecclesiae consuetudo, vel quia unam tantum faciendam mersionem asserebat. De trina mersione Augustinus ait: «Postquam nos credere promisimus, tertio capita nostra in sacro fonte dimersimus, qui ordo baptizandi duplici mysterii significatione celebratur. Recte enim tertio mersi estis, qui accepistis baptismum in nomine Trinitatis. Recte tertio mersi, quia accepistis baptismum in nomine Christi, qui die tertia resurrexit a mortuis. Illa enim tertio repetita immersio typum dominicae exprimit sepulturae». — Constat ergo, baptizandos tertio debere immergi; et tamen si semel tantum immergantur, verum baptisma accipiunt. Et qui semel immergit tantum non peccat, nisi consuetudo Ecclesiae obsistat, vel hoc modo tantum debere fieri asserat[^3c].

### Cap. VIII. *Quando circumcisio amisit vim.*

Solet etiam quaeri, si circumcisio amisit statim[^4c] vim suam ab institutione baptismi. — Ad quod dicimus, in Christi morte terminata esse legalia omnia. Ex tunc igitur circumcisio perdidit vim suam, ita quod postea non profecerit; potius obfuit observatoribus suis, sed usque ad oblationem verae hostiae potuit prodesse. Si enim ante passionem legalia finem habuissent, non, ea imminente, vetus pascha cum discipulis manducasset.

### Cap. IX. *De causa institutionis baptismi.*

Causa vero institutionis baptismi est innovatio mentis, ut homo, qui per peccatum vetus fuerat, per gratiam baptismi renovetur, quod fit depositione vitiorum et collatione virtutum. Sic enim fit quisque novus homo, cum, abolitis peccatis, ornatur virtutibus. Abolitio peccatorum pellit foeditatem, appositio virtutum affert decorem, et haec est res huius Sacramenti, scilicet interior munditia. Si quaeritur, utrum baptismus aperuerit caelum quod non aperuit circumcisio; dicimus, quia nec baptismus nec circumcisio aditum regni nobis aperuit, sed hostia Salvatoris, quae si tempore circumcisionis oblata fuisset, illius temporis homines regnum intrassent. Res igitur huius Sacramenti iustificatio est.

english:
### DISTINCTION III.

#### Part I.

### Chap. I. *What baptism is.*

After these things it must be seen what baptism is, and what is its form, and when it was instituted, and the cause of its institution. — Baptism is called an immersion, that is, an exterior washing of the body performed under a prescribed form of words. For if a washing is done without the word, there is no Sacrament there, but when the word is joined to the element a Sacrament comes to be; not indeed that the element itself becomes the Sacrament, but the washing performed in the element. Whence Augustine[^1]: «By the word baptism is consecrated; take away the word, and what is water but water? the word is joined to the element, and it becomes a Sacrament. Whence comes this so great power of water, that it touches the body and washes the heart, except by the working of the word? not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. For even in the word itself one thing is the passing sound, another is the abiding power». In two things, therefore, the Sacrament of baptism consists, namely in the word and the element. Therefore, even if other things are lacking, which were instituted for the adornment of the Sacrament, it is for that no less a true and holy Sacrament, if the word be there and the element. For in this Sacrament and in others some things are wont to be done for the adornment and seemliness of the Sacrament, others pertaining to the substance and cause of the Sacrament. Of the substance of this Sacrament are the word and the element; the rest pertain to its solemnity.

### Chap. II. *On the form of baptism.*

But what is that word, by whose being joined to the element the Sacrament comes to be? The Truth[^2] teaches you, who, handing down the form of this Sacrament, says to the disciples: *Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.* The invocation of the Trinity, therefore, is called the word, by which baptism is consecrated; and this is the form of words, under which baptism is handed down. Whence Zacharias the pope to Boniface the bishop[^3] says: «It was most firmly prescribed in the Synod of the Angles, that whoever should have been immersed without the invocation of the Trinity, would not have the Sacrament of regeneration»; which is altogether true, that if anyone be immersed in the font of baptism without the invocation of the Trinity, he is not a perfect Christian, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit».

### Chap. III. *That the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ.*

Nevertheless it is read in the Acts of the Apostles that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ; but in this name, as Ambrose explains, the whole Trinity is understood: «For it is understood, when you say Christ, both the Father, by whom he was anointed, and he himself who was anointed, and the Holy Spirit, by whom he was anointed». Whence Nicholas the pope to the inquiries of the Bulgars[^4]: «You assert that many have been baptized by a certain Jew; and you ask what is to be done thereupon. These indeed, if they be baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, or in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, are baptized; for it is one and the same thing, as the holy Ambrose explains».

### Chap. IV. *Whether baptism can be conferred in the name of the Father, or of the Holy Spirit.*

Here it is asked whether baptism would be true, if it were said in the name of the Father only, or of the Holy Spirit, as when it is said in the name of Christ. Ambrose[^5] seems to say that, if the mystery of the Trinity be held by faith, and only one person be named, the Sacrament is full; and conversely, if the three be named, and one of them not be rightly thought of, the mystery is made void. For he says thus: «Where the Sacrament of baptism is not full, neither a beginning nor any species of baptism is reckoned. But it is full, if you confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If you deny one, you overthrow the whole. And just as you may comprehend one in speech, either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, but by faith deny neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Sacrament of faith is full; so also, even though you say the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, yet diminish the power of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the whole mystery is void». «When it is said in the name of Christ, by the unity of the name the mystery is fulfilled; nor is the Spirit separated from the baptism of Christ, because Christ baptized in the Spirit[^6]».

«Now let us consider whether, just as in the name of Christ we read the Sacrament of baptism to be full, so also, when the Holy Spirit alone is named, nothing is lacking to the fullness of the mystery. Let us follow reason: he who has said one has signified the Trinity; if you say Christ, you have designated both the Father, by whom the Son was anointed, and him who was anointed, the Son, and the Spirit, by whom he was anointed. For it is written[^1b]: *This Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit.* And if you say the Father, you equally indicate his Son and the Spirit of his mouth, if only you also comprehend it with the heart. And if you say the Spirit, you have named God the Father, from whom he proceeds, and the Son, whose Spirit he is. Whence, that authority may be joined to reason, the Lord says: *But you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.* By which he indicates that we can rightly be baptized in the Holy Spirit».

From these things you have clearly understood that in the name of Christ true baptism is conferred; where[^2b] it seems nonetheless to be insinuated that true baptism can be given in the name of the Father only, or of the Holy Spirit, provided that he who baptizes hold the faith of the Trinity, which Trinity is understood in each of these names. But if anyone, believing perversely and intending to introduce error, name only one of the three, he has not fulfilled the mystery. And as to what he says, that, the three being named, the mystery is void, if the one baptizing diminish the power of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, that is, think ill of the power of any of these, not believing the one power of the three; this is to be understood of him who neither intends nor believes that he baptizes, who not only lacks faith, but also has not the intention of baptizing. — He, therefore, who baptizes in the name of Christ, baptizes in the name of the Trinity, which is understood there. It is safer, however, to name the three persons there, so that it be said: in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; not in the names, but in the name, that is in the invocation or in the confession of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; for the whole Trinity is invoked[^3b] there, that it may work invisibly there of itself, just as outwardly visibly through the minister. But if it be said in the names, there is no Sacrament there, because the form of baptism is not preserved.

#### Part II.

### Chap. V. *On the institution of baptism.*

Concerning the institution of baptism, when it began, there are various estimations. Some say that baptism was then instituted, when Christ said to Nicodemus[^4b]: *Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit* etc. Others say that the institution of baptism was made, when he said to the Apostles[^5b]: *Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.* But he said this to them after the resurrection, commanding them concerning the calling of the gentiles, whom before the passion he had sent two by two to preach in Judea and to baptize, saying: *Go not into the way of the gentiles.* Baptism, therefore, was already instituted, because they baptized and preached at the same time. But if it is asked in what form they then baptized; it can well be said: in the name of the Trinity, namely in that form, in which they afterwards baptized the gentiles; which can be understood to have been handed down before the passion, although it is not written. Christ, therefore, did not first hand down that form then, when he sent them to evangelize the gentiles; but the one he had handed down before, sending them into Judea, he afterwards repeated, when he sent them to the gentiles. — More fittingly, therefore, is the institution said to have been made, when Christ was baptized by John in the Jordan; which he dispensed, not because he willed to be cleansed[^6b], since he was without sin, but because «by the contact of his clean flesh he conferred a regenerative power on the waters», so that whoever should afterwards be immersed, the name of the Trinity being invoked, might be purged from sins. Then, therefore, was the baptism of Christ instituted, in which the Trinity, whose mystery became known there, inwardly baptizes man.

### Chap. VI. *Why it is done in water only.*

But this Sacrament is celebrated only in water, not in any other liquid, as Christ says: *Unless one be born again of water* etc. And therefore it is uniformly prescribed that it be done in water, so that it may be understood that «just as water washes away the filth of the body and of garments, so baptism, by cleansing, wipes away the stains of the soul and the filth of vices[^7b]». Or else, that poverty might excuse no one; which could happen, if it were done in wine and oil, and that a material common for baptizing might be found among all. Which the water signified, that flowed from the side of Christ, just as the blood was the sign of the other Sacrament. Therefore baptism cannot be consecrated in any other liquid but in water.

### Chap. VII. *On immersion, how often it ought to be done.*

But concerning immersion, if it is asked precisely how it ought to be done; we answer: either once, or three times[^8b], according to the varying custom of the Church.

Whence Gregory: «Concerning the threefold immersion of baptism nothing truer can be answered than what you yourselves have perceived; because in one faith the diverse custom of the holy Church does no harm. For since in three subsistences there is one substance, it can in no way be reprehensible to immerse an infant in baptism either thrice, or once, because both in three immersions the Trinity of persons, and in one the singularity of the Godhead can be designated. But we, who immerse three times, also signify the sacrament of the three-day burial». — According to this it is permitted to immerse not only thrice, but also once only. Yet it is permitted to immerse once only there, where such a custom of the Church exists. But if anyone begin to do this, where such a custom does not exist, or assert that one ought to immerse once only, he makes himself reprehensible. Whence Haymo: «Cyprian abounded in his own sense, when he immersed little ones once in baptism; who diligently fulfilled what he understood, abounding in good works, although in this he unknowingly transgressed. But because he abounded in good works, afterwards, being corrected by God, he abounded in a higher sense, immersing them three times». — Behold, you have it, that he transgressed who immersed once; but this for the reason that the custom of that Church was otherwise, or because it asserted that only one immersion was to be made. Concerning the threefold immersion Augustine says: «After we promised to believe, we immersed our heads a third time in the sacred font, which order of baptizing is celebrated with a twofold signification of the mystery. For rightly were you immersed a third time, who received baptism in the name of the Trinity. Rightly immersed a third time, because you received baptism in the name of Christ, who on the third day rose from the dead. For that thrice-repeated immersion expresses the type of the Lord's burial». — It is established, therefore, that those to be baptized ought to be immersed three times; and yet if they be immersed only once, they receive true baptism. And he who immerses only once does not sin, unless the custom of the Church oppose, or assert that it ought to be done in this way only[^3c].

### Chap. VIII. *When circumcision lost its power.*

It is also wont to be asked, whether circumcision lost its power at once[^4c] from the institution of baptism. — To which we say that in the death of Christ all the legal observances were brought to an end. From that time, therefore, circumcision lost its power, so that afterwards it did not profit; rather it harmed its observers, but until the offering of the true victim it was able to profit. For if before the passion the legal observances had had their end, he would not, as that was at hand, have eaten the old pasch with the disciples.

### Chap. IX. *On the cause of the institution of baptism.*

But the cause of the institution of baptism is the renewal of the mind, so that man, who through sin had been old, may by the grace of baptism be renewed, which comes about by the laying aside of vices and the conferring of virtues. For thus does each one become a new man, when, sins being abolished, he is adorned with virtues. The abolition of sins drives out foulness, the addition of virtues brings adornment, and this is the res of this Sacrament, namely interior cleanness. If it is asked whether baptism opened heaven, which circumcision did not open; we say that neither baptism nor circumcision opened to us the entrance of the kingdom, but the victim of the Saviour, which, had it been offered at the time of circumcision, the men of that time would have entered the kingdom. The res, therefore, of this Sacrament is justification.

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 80. n. 3, et de Cataclysmo, c. 3. n. 3; nec non C. *Detrahe verbum* (54.), c. 1. q. 1.

en: [Augustine,] *On the Gospel of John*, tract 80, n. 3, and *On the Cataclysm*, c. 3, n. 3; also the Canon *Detrahe verbum* (54.), c. 1, q. 1.

en: Matthew 28, 19.

la: Can. *In Synodo Anglorum* (83.), de Consecrat. dist. 4. — Pro *quod si mersus* originale et Vat. cum ed. 8 *quia, si mersus*.

en: The Canon *In Synodo Anglorum* (83.), *de Consecratione* dist. 4. — For *quod si mersus* the original and the Vatican edition with the 8th edition read *quia, si mersus*.

la: Verba Nicolai papae sunt C. *A quodam Iudaeo* (24.), de Consecrat. dist. 4.

en: The words of Pope Nicholas are the Canon *A quodam Iudaeo* (24.), *de Consecratione* dist. 4.

la: Cap. 8, 12. Locus Ambrosii est I. de Spiritu S. c. 3. n. 44. — Loc. cit. n. 42. Seq. locus est ibid. n. 43, tertius n. 44. — Antequam incipit primus locus, edd., excepta I, non bene post *peri* mysterium addunt *Trinitatis* (potius *baptismi*), refragantibus codd.

en: Cap. 8, 12. The passage of Ambrose is *On the Holy Spirit*, book I, c. 3, n. 44. — The same passage, n. 42. The next passage is ibid. n. 43, the third n. 44. — Before the first passage begins, the editions, except the 1st, not well after *peri* add to *mysterium* the word *Trinitatis* (rather *baptismi*), the codices being against it.

la: Respicitur Ioan. I, 33, et Act. I, 5.

en: Reference is made to John 1, 33, and Acts 1, 5.

la: Act. 10, 38. Inferius locus Scripturae est Act. 1, 5. — Pro *posse baptizare* ed. 1 *posse baptizari*. — De expositione Ambrosii cfr. Bernard., *Tract. de baptismo* c. 2. n. 7.

en: Acts 10, 38. Below, the passage of Scripture is Acts 1, 5. — For *posse baptizare* the 1st edition [reads] *posse baptizari*. — On Ambrose's exposition cf. Bernard, *Tract on Baptism*, c. 2, n. 7.

la: Ita codd. et ed. 1; in aliis *unde*, et inferius Vat. cum paucis edd. *non complet* pro *non implevit*.

en: So the codices and the 1st edition; in others *unde*, and below the Vatican edition with a few editions [read] *non complet* for *non implevit*.

la: Codd. et ed. 1 omittunt *tota*. Deinde pro *ministrum* Vat. *mysterium*, plures edd. *ministerium*. In fine codd. omittunt *baptismi*.

en: The codices and the 1st edition omit *tota*. Then, for *ministrum*, the Vatican edition [reads] *mysterium*; several editions [read] *ministerium*. At the end, the codices omit *baptismi*.

la: Ioan. 3, 5 [OCR: *Ioan. 3, 0*]. Cfr. Hugo de S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 4. — Superius codd. A B C et plures edd. omittunt *baptismum* post *dicunt*.

en: John 3, 5 (the OCR digit-mangles this as "Ioan. 3, 0"). Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments*, book II, p. VI, c. 4. — Above, codices A B C and several editions omit *baptismum* after *dicunt*.

la: Matth. 28, 19. — Seq. locus Scripturae est Matth. 10, 5. — Pro *binos et binos* edd., excepta I, *semel tantum binos*, refragantibus codd.

en: Matthew 28, 19. — The next passage of Scripture is Matthew 10, 5. — For *binos et binos* the editions, except the 1st, [read] *semel tantum binos*, the codices being against it.

la: Ita codd. et ed. I; in aliis *voluit*. De baptismo Christi cfr. Matth. 3, 16; Marc. 1, 8; Luc. 3, 22; Ioan. 1, 27. — De loco, qui sequitur, cfr. supra pag. 21, nota 3, et C. *Nunquam aquae* (10.), de Consecrat. dist. 4. — In ultima capituli propositione post *Tunc igitur* cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 omisimus repetita verba *invocato nomine Trinitatis*.

en: So the codices and the 1st edition; in others *voluit*. On the baptism of Christ cf. Matthew 3, 16; Mark 1, 8; Luke 3, 22; John 1, 27. — On the passage that follows cf. above p. 21, note 3, and the Canon *Nunquam aquae* (10.), *de Consecratione* dist. 4. — In the last clause of the chapter, after *Tunc igitur*, with editions 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 we have omitted the repeated words *invocato nomine Trinitatis*.

la: Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. 6, 4. (inter opera Ambros.).

en: *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans* 6, 4 (among the works of Ambrose).

la: Plures edd. *ter*. — Locus Gregorii (nonnullis omissis) est I. Epistolar. indiction. 9. epist. 43. (alias 41.), et C. *De trina mersione* (80.); de Consecrat. dist. 4.

en: Several editions [read] *ter*. — The passage of Gregory (some things being omitted) is *Letters*, indiction 9, letter 43 (otherwise 41), and the Canon *De trina mersione* (80.); *de Consecratione* dist. 4.

la: [p.63, Cap. VII tail] Codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 *statum* pro *statim vim suam*. — In sequentibus respiciuntur Matth. 26, 2; Marc. 14, 1; Luc. 22, 1; Ioan. 13, 1.

en: [p.63, end of Chap. VII] The codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 7 [read] *statum* for *statim vim suam*. — In what follows reference is made to Matthew 26, 2; Mark 14, 1; Luke 22, 1; John 13, 1.

la: [p.63, Cap. VIII] Codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 7 *statum* pro *statim*.

en: [p.63, Chap. VIII] The codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 7 [read] *statum* for *statim*.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 7158–7413), collated column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p06{1,2,3}-{L,R}-*.png`, split x=1880, Vol II override) because the two-column OCR cascade-fragments and column-bleeds. English is a fresh literal translation.
- **Scope:** This chunk is the **Littera Magistri** for the whole of Distinction III (Lombard's text), Caps I–IX. The auto-chunker's `line_end: 8853` overran into the commentary; the true littera ends at raw L7413, just before `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III` (raw L7414) and `DIVISIO TEXTUS` (raw L7425).
- **Chapter count:** 9 chapters (Cap. I–IX). Topics: I = what baptism is (washing + word); II = the form (invocation of the Trinity); III = the Apostles baptizing in Christ's name; IV = whether baptism is valid in the name of one Person only; V = the institution of baptism (Christ's own baptism in the Jordan); VI = why only water; VII = immersion, once or thrice; VIII = when circumcision lost its power; IX = the cause of the institution (renewal of mind; circumcision vs. baptism re heaven). Lombard's own *Pars I* (Caps I–IV) and *Pars II* (Caps V–IX) headers are preserved in the body.
- **Page-split map (apparatus, printed order):** p.61 = 6 notes (L-col nn. 1–4, R-col nn. 5–6); p.62 = 8 notes (L-col nn. 1–5, R-col nn. 6–8); p.63 littera = 2 notes (R-col, anchored in the Cap VII tail and Cap VIII). The p.63 left-column footer notes (Exposit. in Epist. ad Rom. 14,5; Serm. de Mysterio baptismi; *Hoc et praeced. cap. sumtum est ex Hugone a S. Vict.*) anchor in the COMMENTARIUS/DIVISIO TEXTUS body and are NOT this chunk's — they belong to `d3-p1-divisio`.
- **Footnote-numbering note:** because Quaracchi restarts numbering per printed page, the littera's body markers are unsuffixed for p.61 (`[^1]`–`[^6]`), suffixed `b` for p.62 (`[^1b]`–`[^8b]`), and suffixed `c` for p.63 (`[^3c]`, `[^4c]`) — matching the corpus page-letter convention (see `bon-sent-IV-d1-p1-littera.md`). All markers render with paired Latin + English body anchors.
- **2026-07-17 J4 Class-D/E repair (defs=10 la=14 en=14 → healthy):** the prior revision merged p.61's and p.62's independent page-restart footnote sequences onto the SAME unsuffixed labels `[^1]`–`[^8]`, which both mislabeled every one of p.62's 8 footnotes (bound to the wrong content, by position not content) and silently dropped 3 of them entirely (p.62's own nn. 1–3, at "Scriptum est enim¹" / "ubi²" / "tota³" in the Cap. IV tail, had NO body anchor at all). Diagnosed by content-matching every duplicate/missing label against the 450 dpi PDF column-band footers of pp.61–63 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p06{1,2}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, split x=1880). Fix: relabeled p.62's 8 real footnotes `[^1b]`–`[^8b]` (added the 2 missing body anchors for `[^1b]`/`[^3b]`; relabeled the pre-existing `[^7]`→`[^2b]`, `[^1]`→`[^4b]`, `[^2]`→`[^5b]`, `[^3]`→`[^6b]`, `[^7]`(2nd occurrence, Cap VI)→`[^7b]`, `[^8]`→`[^8b]`); split the old merged defs (old `[^7]` = p.62 nn. 4+7 concatenated; old `[^8]` = p.62 nn. 5+6+8 concatenated) back into their 6 distinct, individually-transcribed defs, each verified against its own printed footer entry; and relabeled p.63's `[^3b]`/`[^4b]` → `[^3c]`/`[^4c]` to keep the b/c page-suffix scheme unambiguous. p.61's `[^1]`–`[^6]` were verified correct as-is (no change). No Latin or English wording was altered — only marker tokens and apparatus defs. Backup: `_backup-IV-d3-p1-littera-pre-fix-20260717/`.
- **Hand-off forward → `d3-p1-divisio`** (begins raw L7414 `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III`; `DIVISIO TEXTUS` at raw L7425; printed p.63): a clean `d3-p1-divisio.md` skeleton exists (line_start 7425). A stale `d3-p1-divisio-dup2.md` (raw L8867) also exists and should be reconciled/deleted during that promotion. The divisio inherits p.63's left-column footer notes 1–5 (Exposit. in Epist. ad Rom. 14,5; Serm. de Myst. baptismi; *Hoc et praeced. cap. ex Hugone*; etc.). The COMMENTARIUS opening lemma (*Post haec videndum est, quid sit baptismus etc.*) quotes this littera's Cap I incipit — seam continuity confirmed.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. One OCR-vs-edition oddity carried in the apparatus rather than flagged: the p.62 note 7 cite printed as `Ioan. 3, 0` is the Quaracchi citation for John 3, 5 (a known OCR digit-mangle); rendered "John 3, 5" in the En. gloss with the raw form noted in La.

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 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum, Distinctio III, Pars I

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions, Distinction III, Part I

source_text:
<!-- page 63 -->

## Commentarius in Distinctionem III

### Pars I. *De baptismo quantum ad ipsum Sacramentum per se.*

*Post haec videndum est, quid sit baptismus etc.*

### Divisio textus.

Determinatis praeambulis ad Sacramenta, in hac parte determinat Magister de Sacramentis singillatim, et habet haec pars septem partes secundum septem Sacramenta. In prima determinat de baptismo. In secunda de confirmatione, infra distinctione septima: *Nunc de Sacramento confirmationis.* In tertia determinat de eucharistia sive de Sacramento altaris, infra distinctione octava: *Post baptismi Sacramentum et confirmationis.* In quarta de poenitentia, infra distinctione decima quarta: *Post haec de poenitentia agendum est.* In quinta de extrema unctione, infra distinctione vigesima tertia: *Praeter praemissa est aliud Sacramentum.* In sexta de ordine, infra distinctione vigesima quarta: *Nunc ad*

<!-- page 64 -->

*considerationem sacrae ordinationis.* In septima de matrimonio, infra distinctione vigesima sexta: *Cum alia Sacramenta post peccatum* etc.

Prima pars, in qua determinat de baptismo, habet duas partes. In prima determinat de baptismo quantum ad ipsum Sacramentum. In secunda quantum ad Sacramentalia; et incipit pars illa infra distinctione sexta, circa medium, ibi: *Porro cuncti ad baptismum venientes.* Et quoniam Sacramentum baptismi potest considerari in se et per comparationem ad dantes et recipientes; ideo pars ista habet tres partes. In prima agit de baptismo per se. In secunda per comparationem ad recipientes, infra distinctione quarta: *Hic dicendum est, aliquos suscipere* etc. In tertia per comparationem ad dantes, infra distinctione quinta: *Post haec sciendum est, Sacramentum baptismi.*

Prima pars continet praesentem distinctionem et dividitur in duas partes. In prima agit de baptismo quantum ad eius quidditatem sive integritatem. In secunda quantum ad eius institutionem, ibi: *De institutione baptismi, quando coeperit* etc. Prima pars habet duas. In prima ostendit, quod ad esse baptismi concurrit verbum et elementum. In secunda vero determinat, quid sit illud verbum, secundo capitulo: *Sed quod est illud verbum.* Et illa pars habet duas. In prima determinat veritatem. In secunda vero solvit[^1] dubitationem, ibi: *Hic quaeritur, an baptismus esset verus.*

### Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur de quidditate baptismi. Et circa hoc duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de his quae pertinent ad integritatem Sacramenti.

Secundo de his quae pertinent ad formam verbi.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, quid sit baptismus a parte elementi.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum de integritate eius sit expressio vocalis verbi.

Tertio, utrum necessaria sit ad integritatem baptismi fides alicuius articuli.

english:
<!-- page 63 -->

## Commentary on Distinction III

### Part I. *On baptism with respect to the Sacrament itself in itself.*

*After these things it must be seen what baptism is, etc.*

### Division of the text.

The preambles to the Sacraments having been settled, in this part the Master treats of the Sacraments one by one, and this part has seven parts according to the seven Sacraments. In the first he treats of baptism. In the second of confirmation, below in the seventh distinction: *Now concerning the Sacrament of confirmation.* In the third he treats of the eucharist or of the Sacrament of the altar, below in the eighth distinction: *After the Sacrament of baptism and of confirmation.* In the fourth of penance, below in the fourteenth distinction: *After these things penance must be treated.* In the fifth of extreme unction, below in the twenty-third distinction: *Besides the foregoing there is another Sacrament.* In the sixth of order, below in the twenty-fourth distinction: *Now to*

<!-- page 64 -->

*the consideration of sacred ordination.* In the seventh of matrimony, below in the twenty-sixth distinction: *Since the other Sacraments after sin* etc.

The first part, in which he treats of baptism, has two parts. In the first he treats of baptism with respect to the Sacrament itself. In the second with respect to the Sacramentals; and that part begins below in the sixth distinction, near the middle, there: *Moreover all who come to baptism.* And since the Sacrament of baptism can be considered in itself and by comparison to those giving and those receiving; therefore this part has three parts. In the first he treats of baptism in itself. In the second by comparison to those receiving, below in the fourth distinction: *Here it must be said that some receive* etc. In the third by comparison to those giving, below in the fifth distinction: *After these things it must be known, the Sacrament of baptism.*

The first part contains the present distinction and is divided into two parts. In the first he treats of baptism with respect to its quiddity or integrity. In the second with respect to its institution, there: *Concerning the institution of baptism, when it began* etc. The first part has two. In the first he shows that to the being of baptism there concur the word and the element. In the second he then determines what that word is, in the second chapter: *But what is that word.* And that part has two. In the first he determines the truth. In the second he then resolves[^1] a doubt, there: *Here it is asked whether baptism would be true.*

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of this part there is inquiry concerning the quiddity of baptism. And concerning this two things are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning the things that pertain to the integrity of the Sacrament.

Second concerning the things that pertain to the form of the word.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked what baptism is on the part of the element.

Second it is asked whether the vocal expression of the word belongs to its integrity.

Third, whether faith in some article is necessary to the integrity of baptism.

la: Edd. addunt *Subdivisio huius partis patet in littera.* — Superius verbo *solvit* codd. F H praemittunt *determinat et.*

en: The editions add *The subdivision of this part is clear in the text [littera].* — Above, at the word *resolves [solvit]*, codices F and H prefix *determines and.*

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III opens at raw L7414; *Divisio textus* L7425; *Tractatio quaestionum* L7482. Chunk runs to just before ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I (raw ~L7502). Printed pp.63–64 (PDF 83–84; offset pdf = printed + 20). Latin re-set by reflowing the column-interleaved IA djvu OCR L-column then R-column, cross-checked band-by-band against the vol4 PDF (colcrop split x≈1880).

- **Page layout:** Both pp.63 and 64 are two-column. The *littera* (Lombard) tail (Caps VII–IX) occupies the upper bands; the COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO TEXTUS body begins lower on p.63 L-col and continues into p.63 R-col and p.64 L-col. The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM is at the foot of p.64 L-col; ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I begins in p.64 R-col (next chunk). The mid-text page label "64" in the raw OCR is the p.64 running head, not a footnote.

- **Apparatus page-split map:** divisio carries **1** note — p.64 L-col footer n. 1 (*Edd. addunt Subdivisio huius partis patet in littera; Superius verbo solvit codd. F H praemittunt determinat et*), anchored to *solvit* in the body. The p.64 L-col footer n. 2 (*Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 2.* — Hugo's definition) anchors in QUAESTIO I's body and belongs to the next chunk (`d3-p1-a1-q1`), NOT here.

- **Hand-off picked up (correction to littera agent's note):** the prior `d3-p1-littera` report parked the p.63 LEFT-column footers (*Exposit. in Epist. ad Rom. 14, 5* [n. 1] and *Serm. de Mysterio baptismi … et C. Postquam vos (78.)* [n. 2]) as belonging to this divisio. Eyes-on the p.63 column bands shows otherwise: those two notes cite the **Gregory** and **Augustine** quotations in the *littera* Cap VII tail (`Unde Gregorius … / De trina mersione Augustinus ait …`), and n. 3 (*Hoc et praeced. cap. sumtum est ex Hugone a S. Vict.*) / n. 4 (*statum pro statim*) cite the *littera* Caps VIII–IX. The COMMENTARIUS opening and the DIVISIO TEXTUS body carry **no** footnote markers on p.63. The divisio's only marker (*solvit*¹) is footed on p.64. **`[?]` FLAG for the d.3 decade-polish / littera owner:** verify the `d3-p1-littera` apparatus actually carries p.63 nn. 1 (Exposit. in Epist. ad Rom. 14,5) and 2 (Serm. de Mysterio baptismi + *Postquam vos* decretal) at the Gregory/Augustine anchors in its Cap VII tail. The littera currently shows only `[^3b]`/`[^4b]` for p.63 (Caps VIII–IX); the Gregory/Augustine source-citations (p.63 nn. 1–2) appear to be unassigned in either chunk.

- **TRACTATIO question structure (for next-chunk alignment):** *Ad intelligentiam huius partis … duo principaliter quaeruntur* → (1) de his quae pertinent ad integritatem Sacramenti [= ARTICULUS I], (2) de his quae pertinent ad formam verbi [= ARTICULUS II]. *Circa primum quaeruntur tria* enumerates **Articulus I = 3 quaestiones**: q1 *Quid sit baptismus a parte elementi*; q2 *Utrum de integritate eius sit expressio vocalis verbi*; q3 *Utrum necessaria sit ad integritatem baptismi fides alicuius articuli*. Articulus II's question count is not enumerated on this page; it is given at the ARTICULUS II opener downstream. Running heads (DIST. III. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. I/II/III) confirm Art. I has q1–q3.

- **Hand-off forward → `bon-sent-IV-d3-p1-a1-q1`:** ARTICULUS I (*De his quae pertinent ad integritatem Sacramenti baptismi*) / QUAESTIO I (*Quid sit baptismus a parte elementi*) begins at raw ~L7502, p.64 R-col → p.65. Its opener is *Primo ergo quaeritur, quid sit baptismus secundum suam essentiam, utrum aqua, vel tinctio in aqua. Et quod aqua sit, videtur* — confirm this aligns with the TRACTATIO's first question (*quid sit baptismus a parte elementi*) before promoting. The q1 fundamenta carry p.64 footer n. 2 (*Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 2.*, Hugo's definition) plus p.65 footers.

- **`[?]` flags:** one open flag (above) — p.63 littera footer nn. 1–2 (Gregory/Augustine source-citations) need confirming in the `d3-p1-littera` chunk; not resolvable from within the divisio chunk's scope.


title: Dist. 3, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem III, Pars II — Divisio textus et Tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction III, Part II — Division of the text and Treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 76 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III.

### Pars II.

### *De institutione baptismi.*

*De institutione baptismi, quando incepit.*

TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 62.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de baptismo quantum ad ea quae spectant ad integritatem Sacramenti. Hic agit de institutione. Et habet haec pars tres partes. In prima agit de modo et tempore institutionis. In secunda de administratione iam instituti, ibi: *De immersione vero si quaeritur.* In tertia vero de causa et ratione, ad quam eius institutio ordinatur, ibi: *Causa vero institutionis baptismi est innovatio.* Quaelibet harum partium duas habet. Nam in illa, in qua determinat de institutione, primo determinat tempus institutionis. Secundo materiam, in qua, ibi: *Celebratur autem hoc Sacramentum* etc.

Similiter pars de usu iam instituti duas habet. In prima determinat, quomodo hoc Sacramentum est administrandum. In secunda vero ostendit, quod in huius Sacramenti institutione et usu evacuata est circumcisio, ibi: *Solet etiam quaeri, si circumcisio amisit* etc.

Similiter tertia pars de causa institutionis duas habet. In prima determinat causam per se ipsius institutionis sive illud, ad quod baptismus ordinatur per se. In secunda vero illud, ad quod ordinatur per accidens; et hoc, ibi: *Si quaeritur, utrum baptismus aperuerit ianuam* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis tria principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de baptismi institutione.

Secundo de instituti administratione.

Tertio de circumcisionis cessatione sive evacuatione.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, in quo elemento sit Sacramentum baptismi institutum.

Secundo, utrum in institutione sit virtus collata aquis, sicut dicit Magister[^1].

---

english:
<!-- page 76 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION III.

### Part II.

### *On the institution of baptism.*

*On the institution of baptism, when it began.*

FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER SEE ABOVE, PAGE 62.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of baptism as to those things which pertain to the integrity of the Sacrament. Here he treats of [its] institution. And this part has three parts. In the first he treats of the manner and time of [its] institution. In the second of the administration of it once instituted, at: *But concerning immersion, if it is asked.* In the third of the cause and ground to which its institution is ordered, at: *But the cause of the institution of baptism is renewal.* Each of these parts has two [parts]. For in that one, in which he determines concerning the institution, first he determines the time of institution. Second the matter in which [it occurs], at: *But this Sacrament is celebrated* etc.

Likewise the part concerning the use of [the Sacrament] once instituted has two [parts]. In the first he determines how this Sacrament is to be administered. In the second he shows that in the institution and use of this Sacrament circumcision has been done away with, at: *It is also wont to be asked whether circumcision lost* etc.

Likewise the third part, concerning the cause of [its] institution, has two [parts]. In the first he determines the cause of the institution through itself, or that to which baptism is ordered through itself. In the second that to which it is ordered through accident; and this, at: *If it is asked whether baptism opened the gate* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, three things are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning the institution of baptism.

Second concerning the administration of [the Sacrament] once instituted.

Third concerning the cessation or doing-away of circumcision.

Concerning the first, two things are asked.

First it is asked in what element the Sacrament of baptism was instituted.

Second, whether in [its] institution a power was conferred on the waters, as the Master says[^1].

---

la: Hic c. 5.

en: Here [in the *Sentences*], chapter 5.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 8854–8902), collated column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.76–77 (PDF pp.96–97; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE. This is the **Distinction III, Part II divisio** — Bonaventure's *Divisio textus* and *Tractatio quaestionum*, opening with `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III. / Pars II. / De institutione baptismi. / De institutione baptismi, quando incepit. / TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 62.` (the OCR garbles the header `COMMENTARIUS` as `C0MMENTARIU8`; the title `institittione` and incipit `institulione` are OCR letter-substitution garbles, silently corrected to *institutione*). Per the locked chunking convention, the `ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I` opener (raw L8904, printed pp.76–77) that follows the *Tractatio* is folded into q1 and is **not** included here. No scholion (divisio carry none).

**Pars II TRACTATIO structure (article/quaestio map, for the article chunks):** the *Tractatio* lists **three principal questions** (1 = de baptismi institutione; 2 = de instituti administratione; 3 = de circumcisionis cessatione sive evacuatione), one per article. Running-head scan of the raw OCR (`ARTICULUS I.` raw L8904; `ARTICULUS II.` raw L9271; `ARTICULUS III.` follows) plus the existing sibling skeletons confirm **three articles**:
- **Articulus I** — *De baptismi institutione* (raw L8904): the *Tractatio* subdivides "**Circa primum quaeruntur duo**" → (i) *utrum in quo elemento sit Sacramentum baptismi institutum* (raw QUAESTIO I title L8910: *Utrum Sacramentum baptismi debuerit institui in aqua*); (ii) *utrum in institutione sit virtus collata aquis, sicut dicit Magister*. So Art. I carries **two** quaestiones (q1, q2). NOTE: a sibling `d3-p2-a1-q3` skeleton exists; the *Tractatio* only enumerates two questions for Art. I — verify whether a1-q3 is a real third question or a mis-chunk during a1's promotion.
- **Articulus II** (raw L9271) — carries **q1, q2, q3** per sibling skeletons (`d3-p2-a2-q1/q2/q3`).
- **Articulus III** — carries **q1, q2** per sibling skeletons (`d3-p2-a3-q1/q2`).
The next chunk `d3-p2-a1-q1` should open with `ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I — Utrum Sacramentum baptismi debuerit institui in aqua` and verify its opener (`Primo ergo quaeritur, utrum Sacramentum baptismi debuerit institui in aqua`, raw L8912) aligns with sub-question (i) above.

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on at 450 dpi):**
- **p.76** (running head "76 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.", raw L8842): the Pars I `Dub.` tail fills the upper R-column; immediately below, **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III. / Pars II.** and the entire *Divisio textus* + *Tractatio quaestionum* (both columns) sit on p.76 (raw L8854–8902). At the foot of p.76 the **ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I** body begins (raw L8904/8912) → folded into `d3-p2-a1-q1`.
- **p.77** (running head "DIST. III. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I.", raw L8939) continues the a1-q1 body — not this divisio.
- **p.76 footer (four notes), verified in `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p076-{L,R}-2.png`:** note 1 = *Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2. in corp. et ed. 1. — Pro* et ideo *codd. FH* et illud*; deinde pro* tunc *edd.* quia tunc (keyed to a1-q1 "factum Domini ostendit¹", L-column); note 2 = *Hic c. 5.* (keyed to the *Tractatio* "sicut dicit Magister²" — **this divisio's only marker** = [^1] above); note 3 = *Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.* (keyed to a1-q1 "videtur ratione³"); note 4 = *Vers. 4.* (keyed to a1-q1 "Romanos sexto⁴", R-column). So only note 2 is this divisio's; notes 1, 3, 4 forward to a1-q1.

**Hand-off picked up from `d3-p1-dubia` (committed 2ae49b3).** That chunk forwarded: "Pars II opens p.76 R-column; this divisio picks up p.76 footer notes 2, 3, 4 (p.76 note 1 belongs to the Pars I dubia, already taken)." **Correction on eyes-on review:** p.76 note 1 is NOT the Pars I dubia's — it is the a1-q1 body note (*Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2.*, keyed to "factum Domini ostendit¹"). The Pars I `Dub.` footer notes sit on p.75 (raw L8840–8841: *Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1.* and *Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2. ad 3.*), already handled by the Pars I dubia chunk. Of p.76's four notes, only **note 2** is this divisio's; notes **1, 3, 4** all key to a1-q1 markers and are forwarded below (the hand-off over-assigned notes 3 and 4 to this chunk).

**Cross-chunk hand-off forwarded to `bon-sent-IV-d3-p2-a1-q1`:** (a) the `ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I` opener (raw L8904–L8912, printed p.76, title *Utrum Sacramentum baptismi debuerit institui in aqua*; first arg *Primo ergo quaeritur…*, L8912) folds into q1; (b) q1's body spans the foot of p.76 into p.77 (raw L8912 onward); (c) the p.76 footer notes belonging to q1 are **note 1** (*Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2. in corp. et ed. 1.; Pro* et ideo *codd. FH* et illud*; pro* tunc *edd.* quia tunc — at "factum Domini ostendit¹"), **note 3** (*Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.* — at "videtur ratione³"), and **note 4** (*Vers. 4.* — at the Rom. 6 citation "Romanos sexto⁴"); plus q1's own p.77 footer series.

**`[?]` flags:** none. The divisio/tractatio prose, the single *Magister²* marker, and the p.76 note 2 footer are all legible and unambiguous in the 450 dpi column bands. OCR header garbles (`C0MMENTARIU8`, `institittione`, `institulione`, `Snpra`, `instilui`) are mechanical letter-substitutions corrected against the clean PDF; not flagged.