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

source_text:
<!-- page 113 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum parvuli in baptismo recipiant plene rem Sacramenti.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum parvuli recipiant plene rem, hoc est gratiam cum habitibus virtutum[^1]. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Augustinus, *de Baptismo parvulorum*[^2]: «Parvulos, etsi nondum fides, quae in credentium voluntate consistit, iam tamen ipsius fidei Sacramentum fideles facit»: ergo non habent habitum fidei.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia virtus est habitus; sed habitus reddit potentiam facilem ad opus[^3]; sed hoc non est in parvulo: ergo etc.

3. Item, virtus est habitus perfectus, quia «virtus est, quae habentem perficit[^4]»; sed perfectio moris praesupponit perfectionem naturae: ergo cum in parvulo non sit perfectio naturae, nec erit in eo perfectio moris, et sic etc.

4. Item, virtus est habitus potentiae motivae[^5]; sed cognitiva praecedit motivam: ergo cum parvuli non sint susceptibiles habitus cognitivi, nec erunt motivi.

**Contra:**

1. Augustinus ad Bonifacium[^6]: «Regenerans Spiritus in maioribus offerentibus et parvulis oblatis communis est»: ergo eundem effectum habet in magnis et parvis.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur, quia baptismus ita facit evolare parvulum, si moriatur, ut adultum;

<!-- page 114 -->

sed virtutes sunt pennae ad volandum in caelum[^7]: ergo parvulus habet virtutes, si baptizatur.

3. Item, baptismus delet originale in parvulo; sed originale non solum substantias, sed etiam potentias deformat in pueris[^8]: ergo si baptismus est perfectum remedium, reformat potentias. Sed potentiae reformantur habitibus virtutum: ergo baptismus dat parvulis habitus virtutum.

4. Item, baptismus facit parvulum dignum et idoneum ad dotes gloriae, quae sunt visio, dilectio, tentio: sed ad visionem disponitur fide, ad dilectionem caritate, ad tentionem spe[^9]: ergo parvulus habet virtutes theologicas et alias per consequens.

### Conclusio.

> Parvulis in baptismo cum gratia habitus perfecti virtutum conferuntur.

**Respondeo:** Quidam dixerunt, virtutes parvulis dari quantum ad *radicem*, non quantum ad *habitus*, quia datur eis gratia delens culpam, non ut habilitas potentiae; quia potentiae sunt ligatae, unde non sunt natae habilitari; sed cum potentiae solvuntur, gratia ramificatur in habitus virtutum. — Sed haec positio non potest stare, quia tunc aliquis habens virtutes, si ligarentur in eo potentiae per stultitiam vel furiam, amitteret eas; quod stultum est dicere, cum sola culpa perdantur.

Alia positio est, quod dantur parvulis quantum ad *habitum*, sed non quantum ad *usum*. — Sed tunc quaeritur: quid vocatur ibi *usus*? aut *facultas utendi*[^10], aut *actus*. Si *facultas*; tunc qui habet habitum habet facultatem, nec est distinguere. Si *actus*; sed adulti non semper utuntur virtutibus, ut quando aliis intendunt, tamen complete habent habitus. Si *usus* vocatur quaedam *assuefactio* addita numeri virtutis, sicut patientia dicitur fuisse in Iob; adhuc non solvit, quia haec non est in omnibus adultis bonis.

Tertia positio est, quod dantur eis *habitus*, sed secundum *statum imperfectionis*; unde habitus ille quasi medius est inter potentiam nudam et perfecte dispositam, sicut est visus in oculo canis ante nonum diem[^11]. — Sed ista positio non potest stare convenienter, quia perfectio habituum infusorum venit ex parte gratiae; et per id quod habent, absque additione possunt parvuli bene operari, cum creverunt.

Et propterea dicendum, quod dantur eis *habitus perfecti* virtutum, sicut et adultis, quamvis per illos non operentur. — Propter quod notandum, quod potentiae animae dupliciter impediuntur, ne indebite exeant in actus suos: uno modo a *corporis imperfectione* et corruptione[^12]; et sic impediuntur in parvulis et stultis et dormientibus, et contra hoc expeditivum est corporis perfectio et bona dispositio. Alio modo impediuntur ab *habitu malo*, ut a concupiscentia sive a culpa; et sic expediuntur per gratiam sive virtutes[^13]. Virtutes ergo reddunt potentias faciles ipsas perficiendo, et hoc removendo culpam; aliam autem expeditionem non faciunt. Unde cum parvulus sit habens utrumque impedimentum, alterum removetur per virtutes, non utrumque; et ideo non est omnino facilis[^14].

Huiusmodi autem habitus expeditivus habet triplicem ortum: nam quidam est *innatus*, quidam *acquisitus*, quidam *infusus*. Primus incipit cum natura et ab eius principio ortum habet; et ideo in natura imperfecta est imperfectus, et cum natura crescente crescit, et cum natura perfecta perficitur, ut patet in naturali iudicatorio[^15]. *Secundus* vero, scilicet acquisitus, ortum habet a libero arbitrio, qui non habet usum, donec natura aliquo modo perficiatur; et ideo sequitur naturam perfectam. *Tertius* vero ortum habet a Deo, non a *natura* nec a *libero arbitrio*; et quia non habet ortum a libero arbitrio, potest esse in parvulo ante usum liberi arbitrii; quia vero non habet ortum a *natura*, potest esse perfectus, natura existente imperfecta. — Per haec patent obiecta.

<!-- page 115 -->

**1.** Nam fides aliquid habet infusum, aliquid acquisitum, ut cognitionem substratam; ratione primi est in parvulo, non ratione secundi.

**2.** Ad illud quod obiicitur de facilitate, patet responsio, quia habitus ille reddit potentiam facilem, sed non omnino.

**3.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod virtus est habitus perfectus etc.; dicendum, quod perfectio moris quaedam est *acquisita*, et haec praesupponit perfectionem naturae; quaedam *infusa*, et haec non praesupponit necessario[^16]. — Posset tamen dici, quod potentiae naturales in parvulo, in quibus natae sunt inesse virtutes, quantum est de se, perfectae sunt, licet non exeant in actum propter impedimentum corporis. Unde statim, cum anima parvuli soluta est a carne, habet operationes sibi debitas.

**4.** Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod habitus cognitivi praecedunt etc.; dicendum, quod licet habitus cognitivi sint secundum *acquisitionem*, tamen gratuiti sunt per *infusionem*[^17]. — Sed, cum cognitivi possint infundi, quare non dantur? Ratio est, quia sunt ad cognoscendum, et hunc actum non habent ante usum rationis. Sed habitus *motivi* non tantum sunt ad dirigendum, sed ad faciendum dignum gloria et purificandum a culpa[^18].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether infants in baptism fully receive the reality of the Sacrament.*

Second it is asked, whether infants receive the reality fully, that is, grace with the habits of the virtues[^1]. And that they do not, it seems:

1. Augustine, *On the Baptism of Infants*[^2]: "Infants, although not yet faith, which consists in the will of believers, nevertheless the Sacrament of faith itself makes them faithful": therefore they do not have the habit of faith.

2. Likewise, by *reason* it seems: because virtue is a habit; but a habit renders a power facile for a work[^3]; but this is not in an infant: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, virtue is a perfect habit, because "it is virtue that perfects the one having it[^4]"; but perfection of conduct presupposes perfection of nature: therefore since in an infant there is no perfection of nature, neither will there be in him perfection of conduct, and so etc.

4. Likewise, virtue is a habit of the motive power[^5]; but the cognitive [power] precedes the motive: therefore since infants are not susceptible of cognitive habits, neither will they be [susceptible] of motive ones.

**On the contrary:**

1. Augustine to Boniface[^6]: "The regenerating Spirit is common to the greater ones offering and to the infants offered": therefore it has the same effect in great and small.

2. Likewise, by *reason* it seems, because baptism makes an infant fly away, if he die, just as an adult; but the virtues are the wings for flying into heaven[^7]: therefore an infant has the virtues, if he is baptized.

3. Likewise, baptism blots out the original [guilt] in an infant; but the original [guilt] deforms not only the substances, but also the powers in children[^8]: therefore if baptism is a perfect remedy, it reforms the powers. But the powers are reformed by the habits of the virtues: therefore baptism gives to infants the habits of the virtues.

4. Likewise, baptism makes an infant worthy and fit for the dowries of glory, which are vision, love, possession: but for vision he is disposed by faith, for love by charity, for possession by hope[^9]: therefore an infant has the theological virtues and the others consequently.

### Conclusion.

> To infants in baptism, together with grace, the perfect habits of the virtues are conferred.

**I respond:** Some have said that the virtues are given to infants as regards their *root*, not as regards their *habits*, because grace is given to them blotting out guilt, not as an aptitude of the power; because the powers are bound, whence they are not apt to be made fit; but when the powers are loosed, the grace ramifies into the habits of the virtues. — But this position cannot stand, because then someone having the virtues, if his powers were bound in him through folly or madness, would lose them; which is foolish to say, since they are lost by guilt alone.

Another position is, that they are given to infants as regards the *habit*, but not as regards the *use*. — But then it is asked: what is there called *use*? either the *faculty of using*[^10], or the *act*. If the *faculty*; then he who has the habit has the faculty, and there is no distinguishing. If the *act*; but adults do not always use the virtues, as when they attend to other things, yet they completely have the habits. If *use* is called a certain *practice* added to the number of the virtue, just as patience is said to have been in Job; even so it does not resolve [the matter], because this is not in all good adults.

A third position is, that *habits* are given to them, but according to a *state of imperfection*; whence that habit is as it were midway between a bare power and one perfectly disposed, just as is sight in the eye of a dog before the ninth day[^11]. — But this position cannot stand fittingly, because the perfection of infused habits comes from the side of grace; and by that which they have, without addition infants can act well, when they have grown up.

And therefore it must be said that the *perfect habits* of the virtues are given to them, just as also to adults, although they do not operate through them. — On account of which it is to be noted that the powers of the soul are impeded in two ways, lest they go out unduly into their acts: in one way by the *imperfection* and corruption *of the body*[^12]; and thus they are impeded in infants and the foolish and those sleeping, and against this the perfection and good disposition of the body is the remedy. In another way they are impeded by an *evil habit*, as by concupiscence or by guilt; and thus they are freed through grace or the virtues[^13]. Therefore the virtues render the powers facile by perfecting them, and this by removing guilt; but they do not effect the other freeing. Whence since the infant has both impediments, the one is removed through the virtues, not both; and therefore he is not altogether facile[^14].

But a habit of this expediting kind has a threefold origin: for one is *innate*, one *acquired*, one *infused*. The first begins with nature and has its origin from its principle; and therefore in an imperfect nature it is imperfect, and grows with the growing nature, and is perfected with the perfected nature, as is plain in the natural faculty of judgment[^15]. The *second*, namely the acquired, has its origin from free choice, which does not have use until nature is in some way perfected; and therefore it follows perfected nature. The *third* has its origin from God, not from *nature* nor from *free choice*; and because it does not have its origin from free choice, it can be in an infant before the use of free choice; but because it does not have its origin from *nature*, it can be perfect, while nature is imperfect. — Through these things the objections are plain.

**1.** For faith has something infused, something acquired, namely the cognition that underlies it; by reason of the first it is in an infant, not by reason of the second.

**2.** To that which is objected concerning facility, the response is plain, because that habit renders the power facile, but not altogether.

**3.** To that which is objected, that virtue is a perfect habit, etc.; it must be said that one perfection of conduct is *acquired*, and this presupposes perfection of nature; another *infused*, and this does not necessarily presuppose [it][^16]. — Yet it could be said that the natural powers in an infant, in which the virtues are apt to inhere, as far as they are of themselves, are perfect, although they do not go out into act on account of the impediment of the body. Whence at once, when the soul of the infant is loosed from the flesh, it has the operations due to it.

**4.** To that which is objected, that the cognitive habits precede, etc.; it must be said that, although the cognitive habits are according to *acquisition*, nevertheless they are gratuitous through *infusion*[^17]. — But, since the cognitive [habits] can be infused, why are they not given? The reason is, because they are for knowing, and they do not have this act before the use of reason. But the *motive* habits are not only for directing, but for making [one] worthy of glory and for purifying from guilt[^18].

---

la: Vide supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 3.

en: See above, d. 1. Pars I. q. 2. ad 3.

la: Libr. 1. c. 25. n. 38. et c. 33. n. 61; sententialiter, ipsa verba habentur in Epist. 98. (alias 23.) n. 10.

en: Bk. 1, c. 25, n. 38, and c. 33, n. 61; as to sense, the very words are had in Letter 98 (alias 23), n. 10.

la: Vide tom. III. pag. 796, nota 4. verba August. et Averrois. — *Maior* est secundum Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 5.

en: See vol. III, p. 796, note 4, the words of Augustine and Averroes. — The *major* is according to Aristotle, *Ethics* II, c. 5.

la: Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 6. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 388, nota 2.

en: Aristotle, *Ethics* II, c. 6. Cf. vol. III, p. 388, note 2.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 2. argg. ad 2. partem. — De *minori* vide ibid. pag. 740, nota 4. — Retinuimus cum edd. *motivae*, pro quo codd. G I bene *affectivae*, alii codd. *effectivae*. Finem arg. cod. R sic sonat: *habitus cognitivae, nec erunt motivae.*

en: Cf. III. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 2, the arguments to the second part. — On the *minor* see ibid., p. 740, note 4. — We retained with the editions *motivae* ("motive"), for which codices G I rightly [read] *affectivae* ("affective"), other codices *effectivae* ("effective"). Codex R gives the end of the argument thus: *habitus cognitivae, nec erunt motivae* ("a habit of the cognitive, nor will they be motive").

la: Epist. 98. (alias 23.) n. 2: Regenerans... et parvulo oblato renatoque communis est. — Non pauci codd. *obligatis* pro *oblatis*.

en: Letter 98 (alias 23), n. 2: "The regenerating [Spirit]... is common also to the infant offered and reborn." — Not a few codices [read] *obligatis* ("bound") for *oblatis* ("offered").

la: Gregor., XXIV. Moral. c. 8. n. 19: Quid namque alas animalium nisi virtutes debemus sentire Sanctorum? Qui dum terrena despiciunt, ad caelestia volando sublevantur. Unde recte etiam per Isaiam [40. 31.] dicitur: *Qui confidunt in Domino, mutabunt fortitudinem, assument pennas ut aquilae.* Cfr. I. Homil. in Ezech. homil. 10. n. 31.

en: Gregory, *Morals* XXIV, c. 8, n. 19: "For what else than the virtues of the Saints ought we to understand by the wings of animals? Who, while they despise earthly things, are raised by flying to the heavenly. Whence rightly also through Isaiah [40:31] it is said: *They who hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall take wings as eagles.*" Cf. I. *Homily on Ezechiel*, homily 10, n. 31.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 2. — De reformatione potentiarum per virtutes cfr. ibid. d. 16. a. 2. q. 3, d. 26. q. 5, et III. d. 36. q. 1. — Pro *substantias* codd. G I *substantiam*, Vat. *animae substantiam*.

en: See II. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 2. — On the reformation of the powers through the virtues cf. ibid., d. 16. a. 2. q. 3, d. 26. q. 5, and III. d. 36. q. 1. — For *substantias* ("substances") codices G I [read] *substantiam* ("substance"), the Vatican edition *animae substantiam* ("the substance of the soul").

la: Cfr. infra d. 49. p. I. q. 5, et III. Sent. d. 26. a. 1. q. 3. in corp.

en: Cf. below, d. 49. Pars I. q. 5, and III. Sent. d. 26. a. 1. q. 3, in the body [of the article].

la: Sive facilitas exeundi in actum. Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 8. a. 3. § 1.

en: Or the facility of going out into act. Cf. Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 8. a. 3. § 1.

la: Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de *Oppositis* (de privatione et habitu), quod Boëth. exponens ait: Parvos vero catulos, quibus visus non est, non satis digne aliquis caecos esse pronuntiet; eo enim tempore nondum naturaliter visum habere possunt etc. — Pro *visus* cod. Z *virtus*. Inferius pro *cum crecerunt* plures codd. *cum creverint.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Categories*, the chapter on *Opposites* (on privation and habit), expounding which Boethius says: "But one would not sufficiently fittingly pronounce small puppies, which do not have sight, to be blind; for at that time they cannot yet naturally have sight," etc. — For *visus* ("sight") codex Z [reads] *virtus* ("virtue"). Below, for *cum crecerunt* most codices [read] *cum creverint* ("when they have grown").

la: Cod. X addit *sive mala dispositione*. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 25. p. II. q. 6. Inferius pro *expeditivum* edd. cum paucis codd. *impeditivum*, cod. H *impedimentum*.

en: Codex X adds *sive mala dispositione* ("or by an evil disposition"). Cf. II. Sent. d. 25. Pars II. q. 6. Below, for *expeditivum* ("the remedy/freeing thing") the editions with a few codices [read] *impeditivum* ("the impeding thing"), codex H *impedimentum* ("impediment").

la: Edd. *ab habitu malo et a concupiscentia sive [cod. Y et] a culpa, et contra hoc impedimentum est gratia sive virtutes, per quas expediuntur ad operandum.*

en: The editions [read] *ab habitu malo et a concupiscentia sive [codex Y: et] a culpa, et contra hoc impedimentum est gratia sive virtutes, per quas expediuntur ad operandum* ("by an evil habit and by concupiscence or [codex Y: and] by guilt, and against this impediment is grace or the virtues, through which they are freed for operating").

la: Vat. supplet *ad operandum*.

en: The Vatican edition supplies *ad operandum* ("for operating").

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 901, nota 2. et pag. 903, nota 9. nec non tom. III. pag. 500, nota 6. — Inferius pro *sequitur* cod. aa *requirit.*

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 901, note 2, and p. 903, note 9, as also vol. III, p. 500, note 6. — Below, for *sequitur* ("follows") codex aa [reads] *requirit* ("requires").

la: Vat. repetit *perfectionem naturae.* Mox pro *natae sunt* permulti codd. *innatae sunt*, cod. U *etiam natae sunt.* In fine solut. cod. F *sibi proprias vel debitas.* Cfr. infra d. 50. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq.

en: The Vatican edition repeats *perfectionem naturae* ("perfection of nature"). Soon, for *natae sunt* ("are apt") very many codices [read] *innatae sunt* ("are inborn"), codex U *etiam natae sunt* ("are also apt"). At the end of the solution codex F [reads] *sibi proprias vel debitas* ("proper or due to it"). Cf. below, d. 50. Pars II. a. 1. q. 1. and following.

la: Sensus est: Dicendum, quod licet habitus cognitivi, sint per acquisitionem et sub hoc respectu parvulis convenire nequeant, tamen in quantum sunt gratuiti, sunt per infusionem et in parvulis inveniuntur. Cfr. supra ad 1. — Superius post *cognitivi sint* cod. R addit *prius*, Vat. *priores*, et subinde pro *sunt* substituit *praecedunt.* Pro *tamen gratuiti sunt* cod. R *tamen gratuitum.*

en: The sense is: It must be said that, although the cognitive habits are by acquisition and under this respect cannot belong to infants, nevertheless inasmuch as they are gratuitous, they are by infusion and are found in infants. Cf. above, ad 1. — Above, after *cognitivi sint* codex R adds *prius* ("first"), the Vatican edition *priores* ("former"), and thereupon for *sunt* substitutes *praecedunt* ("precede"). For *tamen gratuiti sunt* codex R [reads] *tamen gratuitum* ("nevertheless gratuitous").

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from Vol IV PDF column bands p.113 (PDF 133), p.114 (PDF 134) and p.115 (PDF 135), with OCR raw L13055–13255 used for footnote-marker positions and footer text (PDF-priority inversion per the Vol II/IV Override — the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the two-column body and the page footers here). **Alignment confirmed:** QUAESTIO II header raw L13055/L13070; title *Utrum parvuli in baptismo recipiant plene rem Sacramenti* (OCR `recipianl`); opener `Secundo quaeritur, utrum parvuli recipiant plene rem, hoc est gratiam cum habitibus virtutum` matches the q2 target exactly. q3 (QUAESTIO III, *Utrum aequalis gratia detur omnibus parvulis in baptismo*) begins raw L13256.

**Article structure.** Articulus II has three quaestiones: q1 (*…recipiant sanctificationem*, a2-q1, committed caa60d5), q2 (this chunk, *…recipiant plene rem Sacramenti*), q3 (*…recipiant aequaliter / aequalis gratia detur*). The **Article-II scholion is NOT here** — it lives body-last in the sibling a2-q1 (sections I/II/III cover q1/q2/q3; the q2 portion is "De hac 2. quaestione…" + scholion §II on the Council of Vienne / Trent). `has_scholion: false`; the q2 reply [^18] points to it ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.").

**Page-split map.** q2 spans **three printed pages**: p.113 (left-column foot → right column: title + opener + videtur args 1–4 + Contra 1 + start of Contra 2), p.114 (Contra 2 tail + args 3–4 + Conclusio + Respondeo's three rejected positions + the conferuntur position + the threefold-origin distinction), p.115 (left+right top: replies 1–4, ending at `purificandum a culpa` immediately before QUAESTIO III). Page breaks placed at `ut adultum; / sed virtutes sunt pennae` (113→114, running head `DIST. IV. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II. 113`) and at `Per haec patent obiecta. / 1. Nam fides aliquid habet infusum` (114→115, running head `114 SENTENTIARUM` / `DIST. IV. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 115`). NB: although the dispatch target named pp.113–114, the replies in fact close on p.115 top (printed_pages corrected to [113,114,115]).

**Apparatus / footer split (18 entries).** Per-page footer numbering restarts; rendered continuously. **p.113 notes 1–6** = q2 body markers `virtutum¹` (opener), `de Baptismo parvulorum²`, `ad opus³`, `perficit⁴`, `motivae⁵`, `ad Bonifacium⁶` → `[^1]`–`[^6]`. **p.114 notes 1–9** = `caelum¹`, `pueris²`, `spe³`, `facultas utendi⁴`, `nonum diem⁵`, `corporis imperfectione⁶`, `habitu malo / virtutes⁷`, `non facilis⁸` (Vat. supplet ad operandum), `naturali iudicatorio⁹` → `[^7]`–`[^15]`. **p.115 notes 1–3** = reply-tail markers `necessario¹`, `infusionem²`, `culpa³` → `[^16]`–`[^18]`; p.115's notes 4–5+ belong to q3. **Picked-up hand-off (from a2-q1):** the *Ad tertium* prose note on p.113 is q1's (already in a2-q1 as `[^Adtert]`), NOT q2's — confirmed; q2's p.113 footer is the numbered series 1–6 only.

**Hand-off forward → d4-p2-a2-q3** (QUAESTIO III, *Utrum aequalis gratia detur omnibus parvulis in baptismo*, header raw L13256, printed p.115): q3 takes **no separate scholion** (Art.II scholion §III, "Quoad 3. quaestionem cfr. supra p. II. a. 1. q. 3…", lives in a2-q1). q3's body begins p.115 left-column foot (`Tertio quaeritur, utrum aequalis gratia detur omnibus parvulis in Sacramento. Et quod sic, videtur:`) with Conclusio `Deus de lege communi parvulis in baptismo aequalem dat effectum` and Respondeo `Dicendum, quod gratia mensuratur…` (p.115 right). q3's footer notes are **p.115 numbered notes 4 onward** (note 4 `Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Metaph.…`, note 5 `Vide II. Sent. d. 33. a. 2. q. 1…`, plus the marginal `Axioma` / `Argg. pro parte affirmativa` glosses) plus p.116's series.

**`[?]` flags.** None outstanding. Silent OCR corrections (high confidence, IA djvu cascade garbles): `recipiant` (OCR `recipianl`/`recipiunt`), `Baptismo` (`Baptisrno`), `quaeritur` (`quaerilur`), `utrum` (`ulrum`), `praesupponit` (`praesupponil`), `motivae` (`molivae`), `habitus` (`habilus`), `evolare` (`evnlare`), `reformantur` (`reformanlur`), `assuefactio` (`assnefactio`), `iudicatorio` (`indicatorio`), `crescente` (`erescente`), `obiicitur` (`obiicilur`), `infusionem` (`inrusionem`), `purificandum` (`puri-ficandum`).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 115 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum aequalis gratia detur omnibus parvulis in baptismo.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum aequalis gratia detur omnibus parvulis in Sacramento. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia quod causa differenter imprimat effectus, hoc non est, nisi vel quia agens est voluntarium, vel quia, si non est voluntarium, tamen differenti modo se habet, vel, si eodem modo, materia recipiens se habet alio modo[^4]; sed nec Sacramentum nec virtus passionis est voluntarium agens, nec ipsum diversificatur, nec parvulus unus est magis dispositus quam alter: ergo etc.

2. Item, cum qualicumque dispositione infans nascatur et qualiacumque habeat naturalia, unus non nascitur magis peccator quam alius[^5]: ergo pari ratione in regeneratione unus non debet regenerari magis vel melius alio.

3. Item, unus non punitur magis alio[^6]: ergo nec remuneratur.

**Contra:**

1. Bonitas naturae dispositio est ad gratiam[^7]: ergo ubi melior natura, melior dispositio; sed causa uniformiter agens magis imprimit in magis disposito, ut lux in aere quam in aqua: ergo cum unus parvulus melius sit dispositus quam alius, patet etc.

2. Item, quia Deus praevidit Iacob futurum bonum, dedit illi gratiam, alteri vero, scilicet fratri, non dedit, quia permansurum vidit in malitia[^8]: ergo si parvulorum, qui baptizantur, quosdam praevidet damnandos, quosdam salvandos; videtur, quod salvandis dare debeat maiorem gratiam.

> **Conclusio.** Deus de lege communi parvulis in baptismo aequalem dat effectum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod gratia mensuratur secundum liberalitatem Dei dantis, non secundum qualitatem suscipientis, nisi de congruo, et hoc, secundum quod suscipiens se praeparat, non secundum quod est capax. Quia ergo Deus operatur ibi secundum exigentiam Sacramenti; et ulterius, unus non est dispositus magis quam alter: ideo[^9] aequaliter omnibus parvulis dat, quantum est de lege communi. Quia tamen potestas eius non est alligata Sacramento, non est necesse, quod semper det aequaliter, sed potest facere, cui vult, privilegium speciale.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

*Ad 1. 2.* Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur de agente diversimode, dicendum, quod illud non valet, quia Deus operatur in Sacramento ut agens voluntarium. — Similiter nec secundum valet, quia propagatio libidinosa hoc facit, quae conversa est in naturam, et ideo uniformiter[^10].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur tertio de poena, dicendum, quod illud non valet, quia iustitia respicit meritum praecise, sed misericordia respicit dantis benignitatem.

**Ad argumenta pro parte negativa:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur ad oppositum, dicendum, quod bonitas naturae non disponit ad gratiam <!-- page 116 -->ut necessitas, nec etiam ut congruitas, nisi interveniat praeparatio determinata, ut sic se praeparet, sicut natura nata est capere[^1bis].

*Ad 2.* Ultimum patet, quia virtus Sacramenti non respicit futurum, sed dispositionem praesentem, Deus autem et sic et sic[^2bis].

---

english:
<!-- page 115 -->

### Question III. *Whether equal grace is given to all infants in baptism.*

Thirdly it is asked whether equal grace is given to all infants in the Sacrament. And that it is so, seems [to follow]:

1. Because that a cause should imprint its effects differently is not the case unless either because the agent is voluntary, or because, if it is not voluntary, it nevertheless is disposed in a different manner, or, if in the same manner, the matter receiving is disposed in another way[^4]; but neither the Sacrament nor the power of the Passion is a voluntary agent, nor is it itself diversified, nor is one infant more disposed than another: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, with whatever disposition an infant is born and whatever natural endowments it may have, one is not born more a sinner than another[^5]: therefore by parity of reasoning in regeneration one ought not to be regenerated more or better than another.

3. Likewise, one is not punished more than another[^6]: therefore neither is one rewarded [more].

**On the contrary:**

1. The goodness of nature is a disposition toward grace[^7]: therefore where the nature is better, the disposition is better; but a cause acting uniformly imprints more on what is more disposed, as light in air rather than in water: therefore since one infant is better disposed than another, it is evident etc.

2. Likewise, because God foresaw that Jacob would be good in the future, he gave him grace, but to the other, namely his brother, he did not give it, because he saw that he would remain in malice[^8]: therefore if of the infants who are baptized he foresees some to be damned and some to be saved, it seems that he ought to give greater grace to those who are to be saved.

> **Conclusion.** God by common law gives an equal effect to infants in baptism.

**I respond:** It must be said that grace is measured according to the liberality of God who gives, not according to the quality of the one who receives, except by congruity, and this insofar as the one receiving prepares himself, not insofar as he is capable. Therefore, because God works there according to the requirement of the Sacrament, and further, one is not disposed more than another: therefore[^9] he gives equally to all infants, as far as pertains to the common law. Yet because his power is not bound to the Sacrament, it is not necessary that he always give equally, but he can grant to whom he wills a special privilege.

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**

*To 1 and 2.* To that which is first objected, concerning an agent [acting] in diverse ways, it must be said that it does not hold, because God works in the Sacrament as a voluntary agent. — Likewise neither does the second hold, because lustful propagation brings this about, which has been turned into nature, and therefore [acts] uniformly[^10].

*To 3.* To that which is objected thirdly, concerning punishment, it must be said that it does not hold, because justice regards merit precisely, but mercy regards the benignity of the giver.

**To the arguments for the negative side:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected for the opposite [conclusion], it must be said that the goodness of nature does not dispose toward grace <!-- page 116 -->as a necessity, nor even as a congruity, unless a determinate preparation intervene, such that one prepare oneself as nature is born fit to receive[^1bis].

*To 2.* The last is evident, because the power of the Sacrament does not regard the future but the present disposition, while God [regards] both this way and that[^2bis].

---

la: Cfr. Aristot., VIII. Metaph. text. 11 seq. (VII. c. 4.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* VIII, text 11 ff. (VII, c. 4).

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 33. a. 2. q. I. — Superius plurimi codd. omittunt *cum*; codd. B F H I L N Z aa *parvulus* pro *infans*.

en: See II Sent. d. 33. a. 2. q. I. — Above, very many codices omit *cum*; codices B F H I L N Z aa read *parvulus* ("little child") for *infans* ("infant").

la: Anselm., de Conceptu virgin. et orig. pec. c. 27: « Et omnes, qui in illo [originali] solo moriuntur, aequaliter damnari [aestimo] », scil. carentia visionis Dei. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 33. a. 2. q. I. fundam. 4. et a. 3. q. I. seq.

en: Anselm, *On the Virginal Conception and Original Sin* c. 27: "And all who die in that [original sin] alone [I judge] to be damned equally," namely [by] the lack of the vision of God. Cf. II Sent. d. 33. a. 2. q. I. fundamentum 4 and a. 3. q. I. ff.

la: Vide Matth. 25, 15, ubi dicitur, quod talenta unicuique dantur secundum propriam virtutem.

en: See Matthew 25:15, where it is said that the talents are given to each one according to his own ability.

la: Cfr. Rom. 9. 13. — Post *fratri* codd. R X addunt *suo*.

en: Cf. Romans 9:13. — After *fratri* ("brother") codices R X add *suo* ("his").

la: Cod. Z bene supplet *gratiam*. — Cfr. supra huius dist. p. I. a. I. q. 3, et II. Sent. d. 9. q. 3.

en: Codex Z aptly supplies *gratiam* ("grace"). — Cf. above, this distinction, p. I. a. I. q. 3, and II Sent. d. 9. q. 3.

la: Aristot., Mechanicae, c. 1: *Natura etenim eundem semper habet modum.* Cfr. supra pag. 14, nota 5. — Cod. K supplet *est*.

en: Aristotle, *Mechanics* c. 1: "For nature always has the same mode." Cf. above, page 14, note 5. — Codex K supplies *est*.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 9. q. 3. ad 3.

en: See II Sent. d. 9. q. 3. ad 3.

en: See the scholion on question 1 of this article.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from Vol IV PDF column bands p.115 (PDF 135) + p.116 (PDF 136), with OCR raw L13256–13347 used for footnote-marker positions and footer text (PDF-priority inversion per the Vol II/IV Override; the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the two-column args/Respondeo and the entire page footer here). Alignment verified: L13262 opener `Tertio quaeritur, utrum aequalis gratia detur omnibus parvulis in Sacramento`, header title `Utrum aequalis gratia detur omnibus parvulis in baptismo`. Running heads confirm `DIST. IV. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. III.` (p.115) and the q3 conclusion tail on p.116 above `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI`.

**Article / scholion location.** Articulus II (*De sanctificatione parvulorum*) has three quaestiones: q1, q2, and q3 (this chunk, last of Art.II). The **Article-II scholion (covering q1–q3) lives in a2-q1** (committed caa60d5); this q3 carries no separate scholion, and its own footer [^2bis] cross-refers (*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.* — "see the scholion on question 1 of this article").

**Page-split map.** q3 body spans p.115 (Quaestio III header + 3 args pro affirmativa + 2 Contra/negativa args + Conclusio + Respondeo + replies *Ad 1.2.*, *Ad 3.*, and the opening of *Ad 1.* negativa) → p.116 top (the tail of *Ad 1.* negativa `...ut necessitas... capere¹` + reply *Ad 2.* `Ultimum patet... sic et sic²`). Page break placed mid-sentence in the negativa *Ad 1.* reply, between `...non disponit ad gratiam` (p.115 R-foot) and `ut necessitas...` (p.116 top). DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM begins immediately after on p.116.

**Apparatus / footer split (picked up + own).** Per the hand-off from a2-q2, this q3 carries **p.115 footer notes 4–10** (a2-q2 took p.115 notes 1–3: `¹ Vat. repetit perfectionem naturae`, `² Sensus est…`, `³ Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`). Mapped: note 4 = arg1 `alio modo⁴` (Aristot. VIII Metaph.); note 5 = arg2 `alius⁵` (II Sent. d.33); note 6 = arg3 `alio⁶` (Anselm de Conceptu virgin.); note 7 = Contra-1 `gratiam⁷` (Matth. 25:15); note 8 = Contra-2 `bonum⁸` (Rom. 9:13); note 9 = Respondeo `ideo⁹` (Cod. Z gratiam); note 10 = Respondeo `uniformiter¹⁰` (Aristot. Mechanicae). q3's own **p.116 notes 1–2** rendered `[^1bis]`/`[^2bis]`: note 1 = `capere¹` (II Sent. d.9 q.3 ad 3), note 2 = `sic et sic²` (scholion cross-ref). **Total 9 entries.** p.116 footer notes 3 onward (August. Enarrat. in Ps. 34; Isidor. Etymolog.; etc.) belong to the *Dubia circa litteram*, NOT captured here. Per-page numbering disambiguated by `bis` suffix per the Art.II convention; the file's two `[^N]` series stay unique for `build-content.mjs` marker pairing.

**`[?]` flags.** None outstanding. Silent OCR corrections (high confidence, all confirmed against the PDF column bands): `graiia→gratia`, `cletur→detur`, `baplisnio→baptismo`, `Sacfamenlo→Sacramento`, `volunlarium→voluntarium`, `qualicuraque→qualicumque`, `iiifans→infans`, `inagis→magis`, `peccator quam alius`, `punilur→punitur`, `lacolj→Iacob`, `graliam→gratiam`, `dei3eat→debeat`, `oiydcitur→obiicitur`, `vaiet→valet`, `nalnrae→naturae`, `congruilas→congruitas`, `praeparatio determinala→determinata`, `respicilfuturum→respicit futurum`. The Conclusio header garble (`c N c L u s I 0` / `condnsio 2`) and side-glosses (`Argg. pro parte affirmativa`, `Pro parte negativa`, `Axioma`, `Conclusio 1/2`, `Ad argg. pro parte negativa`) are Quaracchi marginal labels, trimmed per the marginalia rule.

**Hand-off forward.** The next chunk is **d4-p2-dubia** (DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI). It begins on p.116 at raw L13348 (`In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit: Neque ille latro pro Christi nomine crucifixus est.` — Dub. I, on the good thief). It carries **p.116 footer notes 3 onward**: note 3 = `August., Enarrat. in Ps. 34…` (Dub.I), note 4 = `Epist. 16. (alias 58.)… Christus in paradisum…` (Hieronymus, the martyr/cause point), note 5 = `Isidor., VII. Etymolog. c. 11…` (martyres = testes), note 6 = `In cod. F…`. Dub.I's first body markers: `Martyrem non facit poena, sed causa³` and `Hieronymus⁴: « Christus de cruce latronem invitavit ad paradisum… »`.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 4, Part 1, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 104 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Nisi poeniteat eum veteris vitae, novam non potest inchoare.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia, si hoc verum esset, tunc poenitentia deberet praecedere baptismum: ergo baptismus non est primum inter Sacramenta; quod est contra Magistrum[^p104-3] et communem opinionem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Augustinus non loquitur de poenitentia-Sacramento, sed de poenitentia-virtute tantum, cuius actus praecedit in adultis baptismi Sacramentum; nec tamen oportet, quod actus poenitentiae *formatae,* qui dicitur contritio, praecedat; sed sufficit, quod actus *informis,* utpote attritio; *atteri* enim poenitere est[^p104-4].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Magister, quod *nec parvulis sine fide aliena, qui propriam habere nequeunt, datur in baptismo remissio.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia secundum hoc, si parentes sint infideles, tunc videtur, quod parvulus damnetur; hoc autem est inconveniens et contra Augustinum. Nam, sicut dicit Augustinus ad Bonifacium[^p104-5], esto quod parentes ducant filios suos per ignem, nihil obest parentum infidelitas. Si tu dicas, sicut dicit Augustinus ad Bonifacium, quod habet virtutem a fide Ecclesiae, quia adest; esto tunc, quod nullus sit fidelis, videtur, quod Sacramentum nullam habeat virtutem; sed hoc falsum est, quia baptizatus est et nullam fictionem habuit: ergo recipit effectum baptismi.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ad salutem parvuli requiritur virtus passionis Christi cum fide proximi, sicut dicit Augustinus, et supra[^p104-6] ostensum fuit. Sed tamen non oportet, quod sit fides *offerentium,* sed sufficit, quod sit fides *Ecclesiae,* quae est; vel si haec defecerit, sufficeret meritum fidei, quod fuit in Ecclesia. Sicut enim orationibus Sanctorum in *via* Deus reconciliatur multis peccatoribus, sic meritis Sanctorum, qui sunt in *patria,* multa remittuntur nobis, quia prius meruerunt nobis. Et hoc dicit Augustinus ad Bonifacium[^p104-7]: «Offeruntur parvuli ad percipiendam gratiam non tam ab eis quorum gestantur manibus, quamvis et ab ipsis, si ipsi fideles sunt, quam ab universa societate Sanctorum atque fidelium. Ab omnibus namque offerri intelliguntur, quibus placet, quod offeruntur, et quorum sancta atque individua caritate ad communionem sancti Spiritus adiuvantur»; et ita *offerentes* possunt intelligi Sancti, non solum qui sunt in Ecclesia *militante,* sed etiam qui sunt in *triumphante.*

<!-- page 105 -->

Nihilominus tamen verum est, quod Sacramentum baptismi prodest parvulis merito fidei Ecclesiae militantis, quae, quamvis possit deficere in aliquibus personis specialiter, generaliter tamen nunquam deficit nec deficiet, iuxta illud Matthaei ultimo[^p104-1]: *Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi.* Unde sicut species semper salvatur in aliquo individuorum, sic fides in aliquo fidelium, et hoc, divina providentia faciente. Nec unquam fuit, postquam incepit Ecclesia, quin semper esset aliquis, qui Deo placeret; sic nec unquam erit[^p104-2].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *tunc valere incipit* etc., *cum illa fictio veraci confessione recesserit a corde:* quia videtur secundum hoc, quod confessio expellat fictionem; sed hanc non potuit expellere baptismus[^p105-3]: ergo maioris virtutis est confessio sive poenitentia quam baptismus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod confessio, in quantum est *sacramentalis,* non expellit fictionem, sed in quantum est *actus voluntarius,* recedens a malo volito vel proposito; et ita non expellit per naturam Sacramenti, sed per naturam libertatis voluntatis cum Sacramento poenitentiae; quae voluntas si adesset in baptismo, omnem culpam deleret: et ita ex hoc non sequitur, quod poenitentia sit maioris virtutis.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Induunt homines Christum usque ad Sacramenti perceptionem.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia nullus induit Christum, in quo non sit renovatio, secundum illud Apostoli ad Ephesios quarto[^p105-4]: *Induite novum hominem, qui secundum Deum creatus est in iustitia et sanctitate veritatis.* — Item, *induitio* dicit aliquem habitum[^p105-5]: ergo cum in ficto nullus habitus detur de novo, videtur, quod nihil induat.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *induere Christum* est aliquem habitum accipere, per quem homo fiat aliquo modo conformis Christo. Conformari autem Christo est dupliciter: aut *exterius,* aut *interius;* et interius dupliciter: aut per caritatem unientem et transformantem in eum qui amatur, et *fidem* similiter conformantem; aut per *aliquid gratis datum* ad hoc praeparans et disponens. — Dico ergo, quod viri *sancti,* qui caritatem habent et bona opera et conversationem sanctam, et Sacramentum perceperunt et Christum induerunt quantum ad Sacramenti susceptionem et conformationem in conversatione exterius, et interius similiter[^p105-6]. Sed *ficte accedentes,* quia exterius suscipiunt signum, vel quod est *signum* passionis et mortis et resurrectionis, et interius characterem, qui ad gratiam disponit, Christum aliquo modo induunt, sed *imperfecte:* quia, quamvis non renoventur, tamen novo homini quodam modo similes fiunt. — Et sic patet utrumque obiectum; procedunt enim secundum quod *induitio* dicit conformitatem secundum habitum perfectum[^p105-7].

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

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about what Augustine says: *Unless he repents of his old life, he cannot begin a new one.* For this seems wrong to say, because, if this were true, then penance would have to precede baptism: therefore baptism is not the first among the Sacraments; which is against the Master[^p104-3] and the common opinion.

**I respond:** It must be said that Augustine is not speaking of penance-as-Sacrament, but of penance-as-virtue only, whose act precedes the Sacrament of baptism in adults; nor yet is it required that the act of *formed* penance, which is called contrition, should precede; but it suffices that the *unformed* act [precede], such as attrition; for *to be ground down* is to repent[^p104-4].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what the Master says, that *neither to little children, without another's faith, who cannot have their own, is remission given in baptism.* For this seems wrong to say, because according to this, if the parents are unbelievers, then it seems that the child is damned; but this is unfitting and against Augustine. For, as Augustine says to Boniface[^p104-5], suppose that the parents lead their children through fire, the parents' unbelief is no hindrance. If you say, as Augustine says to Boniface, that it has its power from the faith of the Church, because that is present; suppose then that no one is faithful, it seems that the Sacrament would have no power; but this is false, because [the child] is baptized and had no feigning: therefore he receives the effect of baptism.

**I respond:** It must be said that for the salvation of the child the power of Christ's passion is required, together with the faith of the neighbor, as Augustine says, and as was shown above[^p104-6]. Yet it is not required that it be the faith of *those offering,* but it suffices that it be the faith of *the Church,* which exists; or if this should fail, the merit of faith which existed in the Church would suffice. For just as by the prayers of the Saints in *the way* God is reconciled to many sinners, so by the merits of the Saints who are in *the homeland* many things are remitted to us, because they merited beforehand on our behalf. And this Augustine says to Boniface[^p104-7]: «Little children are offered to receive grace not so much by those in whose hands they are carried — although also by them, if they themselves are faithful — as by the whole society of Saints and of the faithful. For they are understood to be offered by all those to whom it is pleasing that they are offered, and by whose holy and undivided charity they are aided unto the communion of the Holy Spirit»; and so by *those offering* may be understood the Saints, not only those who are in the *militant* Church, but also those who are in the *triumphant.*

Nevertheless it is true that the Sacrament of baptism profits little children by the merit of the faith of the militant Church, which, although it can fail in some persons in particular, yet in general never fails nor will fail, according to that of Matthew, last [chapter][^p104-1]: *Behold, I am with you always, even unto the consummation of the age.* Hence just as the species is always preserved in some one of the individuals, so faith [is preserved] in some one of the faithful, and this, by divine providence working it. Nor was there ever, after the Church began, a time when there was not always someone who was pleasing to God; so neither will there ever be[^p104-2].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *it then begins to avail,* etc., *when that feigning has by a truthful confession withdrawn from the heart:* because according to this it seems that confession expels the feigning; but baptism could not expel this[^p105-3]: therefore confession or penance is of greater power than baptism.

**I respond:** It must be said that confession expels the feigning not insofar as it is *sacramental,* but insofar as it is *a voluntary act,* withdrawing from the evil willed or purposed; and so it does not expel [it] by the nature of the Sacrament, but by the nature of the freedom of the will together with the Sacrament of penance; and if this will were present in baptism, it would blot out every fault: and so from this it does not follow that penance is of greater power.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *Men put on Christ up to the reception of the Sacrament.* For this seems wrong to say, because no one puts on Christ in whom there is no renewal, according to that of the Apostle to the Ephesians, fourth [chapter][^p105-4]: *Put on the new man, who according to God was created in justice and in the holiness of truth.* — Likewise, *putting-on* implies some habit[^p105-5]: therefore since in the feigned person no habit is newly given, it seems that he puts on nothing.

**I respond:** It must be said that *to put on Christ* is to receive some habit, by which a man is made in some way conformed to Christ. But to be conformed to Christ is in two ways: either *exteriorly,* or *interiorly;* and interiorly in two ways: either by charity uniting and transforming [him] into the one who is loved, and *faith* likewise conforming; or by *something freely given* that prepares and disposes toward this. — I say therefore that *holy* men, who have charity and good works and a holy manner of life, both received the Sacrament and put on Christ as regards the reception of the Sacrament and conformity in their exterior manner of life, and interiorly likewise[^p105-6]. But *those who approach feignedly,* because they exteriorly receive the sign — that is, what is the *sign* of the passion and death and resurrection — and interiorly the character, which disposes toward grace, do put on Christ in some way, but *imperfectly:* because, although they are not renewed, yet they are made in a certain way similar to the new man. — And so both objections are clear; for they proceed insofar as *putting-on* implies conformity according to a perfect habit[^p105-7].

la: Supra d. II. c. 2. et infra d. XIV, ubi etiam habetur distinctio poenitentiae, prout est *Sacramentum* et *virtus,* in qua fundatur solutio huius dubii.

en: Above, d. II, c. 2, and below, d. XIV, where also is found the distinction of penance, insofar as it is *Sacrament* and *virtue,* on which the solution of this doubt is founded.

la: Cfr. infra d. 17. p. I. a. 2. q. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. below, d. 17, p. I, a. 2, q. — The same doubt is solved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Epist. 98. (alias 23.) n. 2. seqq., ubi ostendit, quod regeneratio parvulorum fit per aquam et Spiritum sanctum, non ex parentum voluntate, aut offerentium fide; deinde dicit, parentes quidem peccare, «offerentes parvulum atque obligare conantes daemonum sacrilegis vinculis», aut ferentes «non ea fide ad baptismum percipiendum parvulos, ut gratia spirituali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam» (n. 3.); eosdem tamen effectum baptismi non posse impedire nec aufferre. — Ibid. n. 5. occurrit etiam sententia mox adducta, quae inferius in solutione ipsis Augustini verbis proponitur. — Aliquanto interius pro *quia adest* cod. X *quae adest,* et in fine arg. pro *recipit* Vat. cum pluribus codd. *recepit.*

en: *Letter* 98 (otherwise 23), n. 2 ff., where he shows that the regeneration of little children comes about through water and the Holy Spirit, not from the will of the parents or the faith of those offering; then he says that the parents indeed sin, «offering the child and attempting to bind [him] with the sacrilegious bonds of demons», or bringing «the children to receive baptism not with that faith by which they may be regenerated by spiritual grace unto eternal life» (n. 3); yet [he says] that these same [parents] cannot impede or take away the effect of baptism. — Ibid., n. 5, there also occurs the saying adduced soon after, which is set forth below in the solution in Augustine's own words. — A little further on, for *quia adest* codex X [reads] *quae adest,* and at the end of the argument, for *recipit* the Vatican edition with many codices [reads] *recepit.*

la: Dist. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. — August., l. de Peccat. meritis et remiss. etc. c. 25. n. 38: Quod per Sacramentum baptismatis in parvulis fieri non dubitat mater Ecclesia, quae cor et os maternum eis praestat, ut sacris mysteriis imbuantur, quia nondum possunt corde proprio credere ad iustitiam nec ore proprio confiteri ad salutem [Rom. 10, 10.]. Nec ideo tamen eos quisquam fidelium fideles appellare cunctatur, quod a credendo utique nomen est; quamvis hoc non ipsi, sed alii pro eis inter Sacramenta responderint.

en: Dist. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 3. — Augustine, *On the Merits and Remission of Sins,* etc., c. 25, n. 38: What mother Church does not doubt comes about through the Sacrament of baptism in little children, [she] who furnishes them a maternal heart and mouth, that they may be imbued with the sacred mysteries, because they cannot yet believe with their own heart unto justice nor confess with their own mouth unto salvation [Rom. 10, 10]. Nor on that account does any of the faithful hesitate to call them faithful, [a name] which is surely from believing; although it is not they themselves, but others on their behalf, who answered among the Sacraments.

en: *Letter* 98 (otherwise 23), n. 5.

la: Vers. 20. — De salvatione specierum in individuo cfr. Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 59. (c. 10.), et II. de Anima, text. 35. (c. 4.).

en: Verse 20. — On the preservation of the species in the individual, cf. Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 59 (c. 10), and *On the Soul* II, text 35 (c. 4).

la: Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 7. a. 2. § 2.

en: The same doubt is solved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 8, m. 7, a. 2, § 2.

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2. seq. — De conclusione vide supra a. 1. q. 1. seq.

en: Cf. above, a. 2, q. 2 ff. — On the conclusion see above, a. 1, q. 1 ff.

la: Vers. 24. — Pro *renovatio* cod. I *remotio,* edd. *receptio.*

en: Verse 24. — For *renovatio* codex I [reads] *remotio,* the editions *receptio.*

la: Cfr. III. Sent. in lit. Magistri, d. VI. c. 5. verba Augustini.

en: Cf. III *Sentences,* in the text of the Master, d. VI, c. 5, the words of Augustine.

la: Secundum August. hic in lit. Magistri c. 3. allegatum. — Superius pro *qui caritatem,* quod habent codd. F H Q V, alii codd. *quia caritatem,* cod. W *per caritatem,* edd. *et caritatem.* Eaedem edd. inferius pro *qui ad gratiam disponit* substituunt *quae ad gratiam disponunt.* Cfr. infra d. 6. p. I. q. 2.

en: According to Augustine cited here in the text of the Master, c. 3. — Above, for *qui caritatem,* which codices F H Q V have, other codices [read] *quia caritatem,* codex W *per caritatem,* the editions *et caritatem.* The same editions below, for *qui ad gratiam disponit,* substitute *quae ad gratiam disponunt.* Cf. below, d. 6, p. I, q. 2.

la: Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: The same doubt is solved by Blessed Albert, here a. 5; St. Thomas, here on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`colcrop.py vol4 104/105 1880`), pp. 104–105, cross-checked against raw OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L12106–12217). This is the **last chunk of Pars I of Distinction IV**; the next chunk (`d4-p2-divisio`) begins at the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IV / Pars II` header on p.105 right column (raw L12218).

**Four dubia (I–IV):**
- Dub. I — whether Augustine's "Unless he repents of his old life, he cannot begin a new one" makes penance precede baptism (resolved: penance-as-virtue, not Sacrament; attrition suffices).
- Dub. II — whether infants of unbelieving parents are damned, given the Master's "without another's faith no remission is given" (the faith of the whole Church, militant and triumphant, supplies; spans p.104 right → p.105 left).
- Dub. III — whether confession is of greater power than baptism, since confession expels the feigning baptism could not (no: it expels by the will's freedom, not by the Sacrament's nature).
- Dub. IV — whether the feigned recipient "puts on Christ," given that putting-on implies a renewing habit (yes, but imperfectly — via the character disposing to grace).

**Apparatus page-split map (Quaracchi restarts numbering each printed page):**
- **p.104:** notes **3–7** belong to this chunk. Note 3 (`Supra d. II. c. 2…fundatur solutio huius dubii`) anchors on *Magistrum* in Dub. I; note 4 (`Cfr. infra d. 17…S. Thom.`) on *poenitere est* (Dub. I); note 5 (`Epist. 98…`) on *ad Bonifacium* (Dub. II); note 6 (`Dist. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. — August.`) on *supra…ostensum* (Dub. II Respondeo); note 7 (`Epist. 98. n. 5.`) on the second *ad Bonifacium* (Dub. II). Notes 1–2 of p.104 belong to the preceding quaestio a2-q3 (already captured there). **Picked up here per the hand-off from the a2-q3 agent (05f2cea).**
- **p.105:** notes **1–7** belong to this chunk. Note 1 (`Vers. 20…Aristot.`) on *Matthaei ultimo* (Dub. II tail); note 2 (`Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal.`) on *nec unquam erit* (Dub. II end); note 3 (`Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2…`) on *baptismus* (Dub. III); note 4 (`Vers. 24…`) on *ad Ephesios quarto* (Dub. IV); note 5 (`Cfr. III. Sent…`) on *aliquem habitum* (Dub. IV); note 6 (`Secundum August. hic…c. 3.`) on *interius similiter* (Dub. IV Respondeo); note 7 (`Idem dub. solvit B. Albert.`) on *habitum perfectum* (Dub. IV end).

**12 apparatus entries total** (p.104: 5 [notes 3–7]; p.105: 7 [notes 1–7]). Note the per-page restart means there are two `[^3]`/`[^4]`/`[^5]`/`[^6]`/`[^7]` series — they are unambiguous because each anchors on its own page's body and is defined once in print order.

**Hand-off forward (to `d4-p2-divisio`):** Pars II opens on p.105 right column with `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IV / Pars II — De his qui suscipiunt rem Sacramenti tantum` (raw L12218), then `Sunt et alii, ut supra posuimus, qui suscipiunt rem et non Sacramentum`, `TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 91`, and `DIVISIO TEXTUS`. The p.105 footer note **8** (`Ita codd. G H L O S bb (H a secunda manu), alii cum edd. primo, cod. aa potius`) anchors at *utrum post⁸* in that Divisio ("In secunda quaerit, utrum post debeant suscipere Sacramentum") — pick it up there.

**[?] flags:** none. All four dubia and all twelve footers read cleanly from the 450 dpi column bands (vol4 split x=1880); right-column inner edge is slightly clipped in the crops but the raw OCR fills the margin.


title: Dist. 4, Part 2, Dubia

source_text:
<!-- page 116 -->

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit: *Neque ille latro pro Christi nomine crucifixus est.* Secundum hoc videtur, quod ille non fuit Martyr, quia « Martyrem non facit poena, sed causa[^3] ». **Sed contra:** Hieronymus[^4]: « Christus de cruce latronem invitavit ad paradisum, et ne quis putaret, aliquando seram esse conversionem, homicidii poenam fecit esse martyrium ». — Item, actus martyrii est sustinere poenam ex caritate; sed latro sic sustinuit: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ad martyrium completum duo concurrunt, scilicet iusta voluntas et iusta causa. Primum defecit in Innocentibus, secundum vero in latrone; et ita de se neutrum fuit completum martyrium. Sed Dominus in Innocentibus, quia simul cum ipso nati sunt, et propter hoc quod erat coaetaneus illis, supplevit quod deerat ex parte voluntatis; sic in latrone, quod deerat ex parte causae. Unde optime dicit Hieronymus, quod « fecit[^5] esse martyrium », quasi Dominus de suo suppleverit. Et sic patet controversia, quia de se non fuit martyrium completum, sed Dominus fecit.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Ambrosius, quod *illum quem regeneraturus eram, amisi;* quia, si perdidit eum, ergo videtur peccasse. — Item, ipse dolebat aut propter peccatum *illius,* aut propter peccatum *suum.* Non propter peccatum *illius,* quia ipse dicit[^7], quod « ille non amisit gratiam, quam poposcit »: ergo propter peccatum *suum.*

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod consuetudo Ecclesiae erat differre baptismum usque ad tempora determinata, nisi immineret periculum mortis, et usque ad eruditionem perfectam; et ideo, quia ibi Ambrosius vidit, non imminere periculum, distulit, et ideo non peccavit; nec ille damnatus fuit, quia petiit; et ita, cum voluntas fuisset[^8] in eo, non fuit contemptus, et ideo salvatus est. Nec Ambrosius dolebat de culpa sua nec de damnatione illius, sed dolebat dolore compassionis. Quia enim non fuit baptizatus, ideo de peccatis suis aliquam sustinuit poenam purgatoriam; et ideo Ambrosius compatiebatur ad modum Isaiae[^9], qui dicebat: *Venter meus ad Moab quasi cithara sonabit.*

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Excepto martyrio, in quo tota Sacramenta baptismi complentur.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia in baptismo fluminis imprimitur character, in baptismo sanguinis non[^10]: non ergo tota Sacramenta complentur; aut si tota complentur, tunc ergo character imprimitur, ubi maxime consistit ratio Sacramenti. **Sed contra:** qui habet characterem non potest recipere characterem eiusdem generis: ergo qui est baptizatus aqua non posset[^11] martyrizari. — Item, si tota Sacramenta; videtur, quod aut est implicatio falsi, aut baptismus continet plura Sacramenta.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod baptismus dicitur pluraliter *Sacramenta,* non ratione principalis signi vel effectus, sed ratione effectuum consequentium, quod est purgare a *culpa* et *poena satisfactoria* et *sequela;* quae omnia quia sunt in martyrio, ideo dicit, quod recipit tota *Sacramenta,* id est plenitudinem efficaciae quantum ad rem ultimam; et ideo patet, quod non valet obiectio de charactere. Nam

<!-- page 117 -->

ipse vocat *Sacramenta* hic effectus Sacramenti baptismi, qui sunt res tantum[^p117-1].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus, quod *parvuli, si ante baptismum fuerint defuncti, etiam cum ad baptismum deferuntur, damnantur.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia adultus, cum non potest, excusatur a praecepto: ergo multo fortius parvulus. — Item, Dominus fidem parentum reputat, quasi esset parvuli: ergo si mulier ex fide et caritate offerat parvulum, videtur, quod Dominus reputet, illam esse parvuli: ergo non damnatur sine baptismo. — Item, ponatur, quod aliquis occiderit puerum, cum deferretur ad baptismum, ne baptizetur; nunquid dicemus, parvulum damnari, qui propter susceptionem Sacramenti mortuus est? Videtur enim hoc esse magna crudelitas. Quodsi dicamus salvari, non ergo verum dicit Augustinus in littera[^p117-2], quod non salvantur, etiam si ad baptismum deferantur. — Item, si damnantur: ergo peiorata est conditio parvulorum respectu status legis naturae, in quo salvabantur sola fide parentum[^p117-3].

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod nullus parvulus salvatur nisi virtute Sacramenti, quantum est de lege communi: non quia parvulus teneatur ex praecepto, sed quia sine Sacramento, vel quod aequivaleat Sacramento, Deus non disposuit dare gratiam. Hoc dico, quia qui propter hoc solum occisus est a persecutore, cum portaretur ad baptismum, ne baptizaretur, moritur pro baptismo; ideo in sanguine suo pie creditur baptizatus. Si autem alia de causa occiditur, quantumcumque deferatur et pro eo oretur, damnatur. — Ratio autem huius est: quia post passionem Christi formata est Ecclesia, et ecclesiastica Sacramenta[^p117-4]; et omnis parvulus, qui salvatur, in fide Ecclesiae salvatur, quantumcumque parentes sint mali. Et ideo nisi opus ecclesiasticum, ut puta sacramentale, fiat circa eum, expers est fidei Ecclesiae, ac per hoc et salutis. — Alia etiam ratio est: quia, cum omnes post passionem[^p117-5] salventur per fidem passionis iam revelatae; ideo congruebat huic tempori, ut nullus salvaretur, nisi vel in se haberet fidem, vel circa ipsum fieret expressa fidei professio quantum ad mortem Christi. — Ex his patet, quare in Lege sufficiebat sola fides, modo vero non; facit enim hoc certitudo divinae dispositionis[^p117-6].

Quod ergo obiicitur de adulto, dicendum, quod uterque excusatur a praecepto, sed adultus habet gratiam poenitentiae, ad quam se disposuit per contritionem, quae disponit ad illam gratiam, et illa supplet locum baptismi; parvulus non potest disponi ad gratiam alterius Sacramenti, antequam ad gratiam baptismi, et ad illam non potest disponi[^p117-7] nisi per Sacramentum; ideo moritur sine gratia et moritur in culpa, et ideo damnatur.

Quod obiicitur, quod fidem parentum reputat suam; dicendum, quod non facit nisi virtute Sacramenti. — Ad casum, quem ponit, patet responsio: distinguendum enim est, ut praedictum est.

Ad ultimum, quare antiquitus salvabantur in fide parentum, et non modo; iam patet responsio. Nec sequitur, quod tunc melioris conditionis esset, quia nullus status melior[^p117-8] propter generalitatem remedii; particularis autem personae conditio potest esse deteriorata. Deus autem in institutione Sacramentorum statum concernit generalis Ecclesiae, non particularis personae; et quoniam certitudo remedii maior est et communior in Sacramento quam in fidei merito: ideo patet illud[^p117-9].

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus, *parvulos... nondum baptizatos aeterno supplicio cruciandos.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia parvuli nihil commiserunt nec actualiter ad aliquid conversi sunt; sed poena ignis debetur delectationi et conversioni[^p117-10]: ergo non debetur eis. — Item, parvuli non potuerunt vitare: ergo minime sunt inculpandi: ergo « poena eorum debet esse mitissima[^p117-11] ».

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut dicunt magistri, parvuli non habent poenam *sensus* nec quantum ad ignem nec quantum ad vermem, sed solum poenam *damni;* et ideo poena erit mitissima. Hanc autem vocat Augustinus *supplicium,* licet improprie,

<!-- page 118 -->

non quia urantur igne, vel quia corrodantur verme, sed quia in illis[^p118-1] haec ipsa carentia magnum est supplicium. Propter remorsum autem parvuli non dolebunt, quia, divino iudicio et misericordia faciente, statu, quem habebunt, contenti erunt. Sed hoc alibi[^p118-2] plenius dicitur.

### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *A fidelium consortio non separantur.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia non fit oratio nisi pro peccatoribus: ergo si Ecclesia orat pro parvulis, reputat eos peccatores: ergo facit iniuriam Sacramento baptismi, quasi non purificet.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod non ideo orat pro eis, quia[^p118-3] ipsi indigeant, sed ut ostendat, quod sunt de eius gremio et eius filii. Nec frustra orat, quia orationes illae pro parvulis sunt *gratiarum actiones;* pro indigentibus vero *suffragia* computantur, quia aliis prosunt[^p118-4].

### Dub. VII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quia, si modo a poena homines liberarentur, ipsam putarent baptismi praemium.* Videtur enim, quod illud nullum sit inconveniens, quia, si baptismus restitueret corpus in omnimodam puritatem, inde haberet homo immortalitatem, et hoc est praemium baptismi et pars beatitudinis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod immortalitatem sive sanitatem carnis posset baptismus dupliciter restituere: aut ita, quod ibi daretur gratia consummata; et hoc nihil aliud esset quam dare gloriam, quod Dominus non decrevit facere, quia vult, quod voluntas ita perveniat libere, ut instituta est ab initio. Si autem fieret immortalitas in carne, non existente perfecta gratia in anima; tunc posset ibi esse error et ratio deviandi, quia appeteret homo medicinam spiritualem propter remedium corporale; et ita in salute corporis deordinaretur, et infirmaretur spiritus[^p118-5]; quod non est conveniens.

english:
### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which he says: *Neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ.* According to this it seems that he was not a Martyr, because « it is not the punishment that makes a martyr, but the cause[^3] ». **On the contrary:** Jerome[^4]: « Christ from the cross invited the thief to paradise, and lest anyone should think conversion can ever be too late, he made the punishment of homicide to be martyrdom ». — Likewise, the act of martyrdom is to endure punishment out of charity; but the thief so endured: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that for complete martyrdom two things concur, namely a just will and a just cause. The first was lacking in the Innocents, but the second in the thief; and so of itself neither was complete martyrdom. But the Lord, in the Innocents, because they were born together with him, and on account of this that he was their contemporary, supplied what was lacking on the side of the will; thus in the thief, what was lacking on the side of the cause. Whence Jerome says most excellently that « he made[^5] it to be martyrdom », as though the Lord supplied from his own. And thus the controversy is clear, because of itself it was not complete martyrdom, but the Lord made it so.

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about this which Ambrose says, that *I have lost him whom I was about to regenerate;* because, if he lost him, then he seems to have sinned. — Likewise, he grieved either on account of *that man's* sin, or on account of *his own* sin. Not on account of *that man's* sin, because he himself says[^7], that « he did not lose the grace which he sought »: therefore on account of *his own* sin.

I respond: It must be said that the custom of the Church was to defer baptism until determined times, unless the danger of death was imminent, and until full instruction; and therefore, because there Ambrose saw that the danger was not imminent, he deferred it, and therefore did not sin; nor was that man damned, because he sought it; and so, since the will had been[^8] in him, he was not in contempt, and therefore he was saved. Nor did Ambrose grieve over his own fault nor over that man's damnation, but he grieved with the grief of compassion. For because he had not been baptized, therefore for his sins he endured some purgatorial punishment; and therefore Ambrose had compassion after the manner of Isaiah[^9], who said: *My belly shall sound for Moab like a harp.*

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *Except in martyrdom, in which all the Sacraments of baptism are fulfilled.* For he seems to speak falsely, because in the baptism of water (*fluminis*) a character is imprinted, in the baptism of blood not[^10]: therefore not all the Sacraments are fulfilled; or if all are fulfilled, then therefore the character is imprinted, where the formal character of the Sacrament chiefly consists. **On the contrary:** he who has the character cannot receive a character of the same kind: therefore he who has been baptized with water could not[^11] be martyred. — Likewise, if all the Sacraments [are there]; it seems that either there is an implication of something false, or baptism contains several Sacraments.

I respond: It must be said that baptism is called *Sacraments* in the plural, not by reason of the principal sign or effect, but by reason of the consequent effects, which is to purge from *guilt* and *satisfactory punishment* and *consequence;* all of which, because they are in martyrdom, therefore he says that it receives all the *Sacraments,* that is, the fullness of efficacy as to the ultimate reality; and therefore it is clear that the objection about the character does not hold. For

ipse vocat *Sacramenta* hic — he calls these effects of the Sacrament of baptism *Sacraments* here, which are realities only (*res tantum*)[^p117-1].

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which Augustine says, that *little children, if they have died before baptism, even when they are brought to baptism, are damned.* For he seems to speak ill, because an adult, when he cannot, is excused from the precept: therefore much more strongly a little child. — Likewise, the Lord reckons the faith of the parents as though it were the child's: therefore if a woman out of faith and charity offers a child, it seems that the Lord reckons that faith to be the child's: therefore he is not damned without baptism. — Likewise, suppose that someone should kill a boy, when he was being brought to baptism, that he might not be baptized; shall we say that the little child is damned, who died on account of the receiving of the Sacrament? For this seems to be great cruelty. But if we should say that he is saved, then Augustine does not speak truly in the text[^p117-2], that they are not saved, even if they are brought to baptism. — Likewise, if they are damned: therefore the condition of little children is made worse in respect of the state of the law of nature, in which they were saved by the faith of the parents alone[^p117-3].

I respond: It must be said that no little child is saved except by the power of the Sacrament, as far as the common law is concerned: not because a little child is bound by precept, but because without the Sacrament, or what is equivalent to the Sacrament, God has not disposed to give grace. I say this, because he who has been killed by a persecutor for this alone, when he was being carried to baptism, lest he be baptized, dies for baptism; therefore in his own blood he is piously believed to be baptized. But if he is killed for another cause, however much he be brought forward and prayer be made for him, he is damned. — But the reason for this is: because after the Passion of Christ the Church was formed, and the ecclesiastical Sacraments[^p117-4]; and every little child who is saved, is saved in the faith of the Church, however wicked the parents may be. And therefore unless an ecclesiastical work, namely sacramental, is done concerning him, he is without the faith of the Church, and through this also without salvation. — There is also another reason: because, since all after the Passion[^p117-5] are saved through faith in the Passion now revealed; therefore it was fitting for this time that no one should be saved unless either he had faith in himself, or concerning him an express profession of faith as to the death of Christ should be made. — From these things it is clear why in the Law faith alone sufficed, but now not; for the certitude of the divine dispensation brings this about[^p117-6].

To what is objected, therefore, concerning the adult, it must be said that each is excused from the precept, but the adult has the grace of penitence, to which he disposed himself through contrition, which disposes to that grace, and that takes the place of baptism; a little child cannot be disposed to the grace of another Sacrament before the grace of baptism, and to that he cannot be disposed[^p117-7] except through the Sacrament; therefore he dies without grace and dies in guilt, and therefore is damned.

To what is objected, that he reckons the faith of the parents as his own; it must be said that he does this only by the power of the Sacrament. — To the case which he puts, the response is clear: for it must be distinguished, as was said before.

To the last point, why anciently they were saved in the faith of the parents, and not now; the response is already clear. Nor does it follow that he would then be of a better condition, because no state is better[^p117-8] on account of the generality of the remedy; but the condition of a particular person can be made worse. But God in the institution of the Sacraments has regard to the state of the general Church, not of the particular person; and since the certitude of the remedy is greater and more common in the Sacrament than in the merit of faith: therefore that is clear[^p117-9].

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked about this which Augustine says, that *little children... not yet baptized are to be tormented with eternal punishment.* For he seems to speak falsely, because little children have committed nothing nor have they actually been converted to anything; but the punishment of fire is owed to delight and to conversion[^p117-10]: therefore it is not owed to them. — Likewise, little children could not avoid [it]: therefore they are by no means to be blamed: therefore « their punishment ought to be the mildest[^p117-11] ».

I respond: It must be said that, as the masters say, little children do not have the punishment of *sense* either as to fire or as to the worm, but only the punishment of *loss;* and therefore the punishment will be the mildest. But Augustine calls this *punishment,* though improperly,

not because they are burned by fire, or because they are gnawed by the worm, but because in them[^p118-1] this very privation is a great punishment. But on account of remorse the little children will not grieve, because, by the divine judgment and mercy effecting it, they will be content with the state which they will have. But this is treated more fully elsewhere[^p118-2].

### Dub. VI.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *They are not separated from the fellowship of the faithful.* For he seems to speak ill, because prayer is made only for sinners: therefore if the Church prays for little children, it reckons them sinners: therefore it does an injury to the Sacrament of baptism, as though it did not purify.

I respond: It must be said that it does not pray for them because[^p118-3] they themselves are in need, but in order to show that they are of its bosom and its children. Nor does it pray in vain, because those prayers for little children are *thanksgivings;* but for the needy they are reckoned *suffrages,* because they profit others[^p118-4].

### Dub. VII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *Because, if men were now freed from punishment, they would suppose this to be the reward of baptism.* For it seems that this is no unfitting thing, because, if baptism should restore the body to complete purity, thence man would have immortality, and this is the reward of baptism and a part of beatitude.

I respond: It must be said that immortality or health of the flesh baptism could restore in two ways: either so that consummated grace should there be given; and this would be nothing else than to give glory, which the Lord did not decree to do, because he wills that the will should so arrive freely, as it was instituted from the beginning. But if immortality were made in the flesh, perfect grace not existing in the soul; then there could be error and a ground of going astray, because man would desire spiritual medicine for the sake of bodily remedy; and so in the health of the body he would be disordered, and the spirit would be weakened[^p118-5]; which is not fitting.

la: August., Enarrat. in Ps. 34. serm. 2. n. 13. Cfr. Gregor., in Registro, Epist. lib. II. epist. 51. (alias 36.).

en: Augustine, *Commentary on Psalm 34,* sermon 2, n. 13. Compare Gregory, in the *Register,* Letter, book II, letter 51 (otherwise 36).

la: Epist. 16. (alias 58.) n. 1: *Christus in cruce latronem intulit* [Luc. 23, 43.], *et ne quis aliquando seram conversionem putaret, fecit homicidii poena martyrium.* — Pro *invitavit* codd. F G H K *vocavit,* iidem codd. cum pluribus aliis in minori seq. arg. omittunt *sic.*

en: Letter 16 (otherwise 58), n. 1: *Christ on the cross brought the thief into paradise, and lest anyone should ever think conversion late, by the punishment of homicide he made martyrdom.* — For *invitavit* codices F G H K read *vocavit;* the same codices, with many others, in the lesser following argument omit *sic.*

la: Isidor., VII. Etymolog. c. 11. n. 1: *Martyres Graeca lingua Latine testes dicuntur; unde et testimonia Graece martyria nuncupantur. Testes autem ideo vocati sunt, quia propter testimonium Christi passiones sustinuerunt et usque ad mortem pro veritate certaverunt.* — Aliquanto inferius post *Sed* codd. F G1 bene addunt *sicut,* quod cod. Z subinde pro *sic* substituit.

en: Isidore, *Etymologies* VII, c. 11, n. 1: *Martyrs in the Greek language are in Latin called witnesses (testes); whence also testimonies are in Greek called martyria. But they were called witnesses for this reason, because for the testimony of Christ they endured sufferings and contended even to death for the truth.* — Somewhat below, after *Sed,* codices F G1 rightly add *sicut,* which codex Z then substitutes for *sic.*

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Edd. *fuerit.*

en: The editions read *fuerit.*

la: Cap. 16, 11. — Codd. M N O *sonabat,* edd. cum pluribus codd. *stabat.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Chapter 16, 11. — Codices M N O read *sonabat,* the editions with many codices *stabat.* — Compare on this doubt Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Ut dictum est supra a. 1. q. 2. in corp. — Maior pars codd. non quidem falso, sed argumentationi minus congruenter in *baptismo fluminis non,* et paulo inferius *si tota implentur* pro *si tota complentur* (verbo *implentur* utuntur codd. K V aa tam in verbis Magistri quam in obiect.).

en: As was said above, a. 1, q. 2, in the body. — The greater part of the codices, not indeed falsely, but less consistently with the argumentation, [read] in *baptismo fluminis non,* and a little below *si tota implentur* for *si tota complentur* (codices K V aa use the word *implentur* both in the words of the Master and in the objection).

la: Cod. I *poterit,* edd. cum pluribus codd. *potest.* Inferius pro *falsi* edd. perperam *facti.*

en: Codex I reads *poterit,* the editions with many codices *potest.* Below, for *falsi* the editions wrongly [read] *facti.*

la: Codd. M Q *sunt tres tantum.* — Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4. et huius dist. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. seq. Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 9. a. 4. § 1. et 3; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Codices M Q read *sunt tres tantum.* — Compare above, d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, to 4, and of this distinction, p. I, a. 1, q. 1 following. The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 8, m. 9, a. 4, § 1 and 3; Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Vel potius Magister, deducens hoc ex verbis Augustini, hic in lit. c. 8.

en: Or rather the Master, deducing this from the words of Augustine, here in the text, c. 8.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq.

en: Compare above, d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 1 following.

la: Vide supra pag. 2, nota 12. verba Augustini, secundum quae codd. K aa post *Christi* addunt *de latere eius.* — Cfr. de hac ratione supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. et d. 4. p. I. dub. 2. — Inferius pro *sacramentale* edd. *Sacramentum tale.*

en: See above, page 2, note 12, the words of Augustine, according to which codices K aa after *Christi* add *de latere eius.* — Compare on this reason above, d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 3, and d. 4, p. I, dub. 2. — Below, for *sacramentale* the editions [read] *Sacramentum tale.*

la: Cod. G *passionem Christi.* Pro *ratio est* edd. cum non paucis codd. *ratione.*

en: Codex G reads *passionem Christi.* For *ratio est* the editions with not a few codices [read] *ratione.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 2. a. 1. q. 2. ad 3.

en: Compare above, d. 2, a. 1, q. 2, to 3.

la: Vat. hanc propositionem exhibet ita: *parvulus non; ideo adultus potest disponi ad gratiam... et ad illam non potest parvulus disponi.* Inferius pro *primo moritur* codd. H V *remanet.*

en: The Vatican edition presents this proposition thus: *the little child not; therefore the adult can be disposed to grace... and to that the little child cannot be disposed.* Below, for *primo moritur* codices H V read *remanet.*

la: Edd. *est melior,* cod. X *melior nostro.*

en: The editions read *est melior,* codex X *melior nostro.*

la: Vide supra d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1. et 3. — De hoc dubio Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: See above, d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, to 1 and 3. — On this doubt Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Scil. ad commutabile bonum, secundum definitionem ab August., II. de Lib. Arb. c. 19. n. 53. datam, quod peccatum est, « aversio ab incommutabili bono et conversio ad mutabilia bona ». Cfr. II. Sent. d. 35. dub. 6, d. 36. dub. 1, d. 42. a. 2. q. 1. et a. 3. q. 2.

en: Namely to the changeable good, according to the definition given by Augustine, *On Free Choice* II, c. 19, n. 53, that sin is « a turning away from the unchangeable good and a turning toward changeable goods ». Compare II *Sentences,* d. 35, dub. 6, d. 36, dub. 1, d. 42, a. 2, q. 1 and a. 3, q. 2.

la: August., Enchirid. c. 93. n. 23. — Superius post *non,* *potuerunt* [cod. H *possunt*] *vitare* edd. supplent *culpam.*

en: Augustine, *Enchiridion* c. 93, n. 23. — Above, after *non, potuerunt* [codex H *possunt*] *vitare* the editions supply *culpam.*

la: Cod. X a secunda manu *in ipsis adultis;* primitiva lectio videtur fuisse *in aliis.*

en: Codex X by a second hand reads *in ipsis adultis;* the original reading seems to have been *in aliis.*

la: Libr. II. Sent. d. 33. a. 3. q. 1. seq., ubi etiam in scholio alii auctores allegantur, qui de hac re tractant, quibus adiungendus B. Albert., hic a. 8. — Pro *dicitur* cod. F *dicetur.*

en: Book II *Sentences,* d. 33, a. 3, q. 1 following, where also in the scholion other authors are cited who treat of this matter, to whom is to be added Albert the Great, here a. 8. — For *dicitur* codex F reads *dicetur.*

la: Ita codd. F H, in aliis *ut.*

en: So codices F H, in others *ut.*

la: Secundum August., de quo vide infra lit. Magistri, d. XLV. c. 2. — Cod. H *quia illis prosunt.* — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: According to Augustine, on whom see below in the text of the Master, d. XLV, c. 2. — Codex H reads *quia illis prosunt.* — Compare on this doubt Albert the Great, here a. 9; Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Ex codd. F H P Q supplevimus *spiritus,* pro quo cod. G *spiritualiter,* plures alii codd. *scilicet.* Paulo superius pro *homo,* quod exhibent codd. F G H I Q, alii codd. cum edd. *huiusmodi* vel *huius.* — Cfr. supra huius dist. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. in fine corp.

en: From codices F H P Q we have supplied *spiritus,* for which codex G [reads] *spiritualiter,* several other codices *scilicet.* A little above, for *homo,* which codices F G H I Q present, other codices with the editions [read] *huiusmodi* or *huius.* — Compare above, of this distinction, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, at the end of the body.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Vol IV PDF column bands for printed pp.116–118 (PDF pp.136–138, offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against raw OCR lines 13348–13555 of `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`. Two-column page; per the VOL II OVERRIDE the column-band PDF reads are authoritative for the cascade-shattered regions. Read order each page: left column top→bottom, then right column; body bands then footer bands.

**Dubia enumerated.** This is the LAST chunk of Distinction IV, Pars II = **seven dubia (I–VII)** circa litteram Magistri: Dub. I (whether the good thief was a martyr — cause vs. punishment); Dub. II (Ambrose's grief over the unbaptized catechumen); Dub. III (*excepto martyrio, in quo tota Sacramenta complentur* — character not imprinted in baptism of blood); Dub. IV (whether unbaptized little children brought to baptism are damned); Dub. V (the eternal punishment / poena damni of unbaptized infants); Dub. VI (why the Church prays for little children if they are not sinners); Dub. VII (why baptism does not restore bodily immortality). The OCR garbles IV–VII as `DuB. IV/V/VI/VII`, so the simple `DUB.` grep finds only I–III — all seven were enumerated by reading the column bands.

**Page-split map.** Dub. I, II, and the opening of Dub. III are on p.116. Dub. III's tail ("ipse vocat *Sacramenta* hic… res tantum") opens p.117, followed by all of Dub. IV and the opening of Dub. V. Dub. V's tail ("non quia urantur igne…"), all of Dub. VI, and all of Dub. VII are on p.118. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering per printed page: **p.116** carries notes 1–11, of which **3–11 belong to this dubia** (notes 1 = *Vide II. Sent. d. 9. q. 3. ad 3* and 2 = *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.* anchor in the preceding article a.3, picked up there). **p.117** carries a fresh sequence 1–11 (rendered `p117-1`…`p117-11`), all anchoring in this chunk's Dub. III tail / Dub. IV / Dub. V. **p.118** carries notes 1–5 for the dubia (rendered `p118-1`…`p118-5`); the subsequent `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` and the Augustinus¹/² footer block on the right column of p.118 belong to DISTINCTIO V (Cap. I littera) and are NOT included here.

**Boundary confirmation.** Dub. VII is the last unit of d.4 p.II. On p.118 the text "…et infirmaretur spiritus; quod non est conveniens." (end of Dub. VII Respondeo) is immediately followed by `DISTINCTIO V.` (raw L13556, OCR'd cleanly as `DISTINCTIO V.`), whose Cap. I littera (*Quod baptismus aeque bonus est, a bono, vel a malo datus*) begins the next distinction. No d.5 content is included; **d.4 ends cleanly before DISTINCTIO V at raw L13556.** This completes Distinction IV.

**Omitted footer (p.116 note 6).** The p.116 footer carries an eleventh-ranked note 6 (`In cod. F [H primitus, bb a secunda manu] additur …`) that trails off in both OCR and the PDF column band without a legible reading of *what* is added — the inner-margin clipping truncates the variant word — AND has no superscript anchor in the printed body of this dubia (it is a stray marginal-variant footer with no body marker). Because every rendered `[^N]:` must pair with a body anchor in both languages, this fragment is **omitted** rather than rendered orphaned; the 24 anchored notes (p.116: 3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11; p.117: 1–11; p.118: 1–5) all pair cleanly. No other `[?]` flags: all body text and all anchored footers read cleanly from the column bands.