title: Dist. 5, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 124 -->

### Articulus II. *De intensione sive efficacia potestatis baptizantibus collatae.*

Quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur consequenter de potestate baptizantium per comparationem ad effectum, et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum mali ministri, licet catholici, dent Sacramentum et rem.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum haeretici et praecisi ab Ecclesia dent rem Sacramenti, ut Catholici.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum mali ministri dent Sacramentum et rem Sacramenti.*

Et quod mali ministri dent rem Sacramenti:

1. Probatur multis auctoritatibus, quae habentur in littera[^1], maxime illa: «Si quos baptizavit ebriosus, homicida, adulter, si baptismus Christi est, Christus baptizat»; sed Christus baptizat sanctificando: ergo et malus minister similiter.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia, si baptismus mali hominis non daret gratiam, tunc salus nostra penderet ex aliena vita; quod si nefarium est dicere et iniustum, patet, quod mali ministri conferunt rem Sacramenti[^2].

3. Item, plus pertinet doctrina ad doctorem, quam baptismus ad baptizantem; sed malus doctor dat doctrinam bonam et sanam, quam Dominus prae<!-- page 125 -->cipit accipere Matthaei vigesimo tertio[^3]: ergo multo fortius ille qui baptizat, quamvis malus, potest dare bonum baptismum sive effectum baptismi.

**Contra:** 1. Malachiae secundo[^4]: *Maledicam benedictionibus vestris,* dicitur malis sacerdotibus; et Glossa Hieronymi: «Quidquid a vobis benedictum fuerit, a me maledicetur»: ergo qui baptizatur a malo sacerdote maledictus est: non ergo recipit per eius ministerium gratiam.

2. Item, Ecclesiastici trigesimo quarto[^5]: *Ab immundo quid mundabitur?* Sed sacerdos malus est immundus: ergo ab ipso vel per ipsum non confertur in baptismo gratia, quae mundat animam.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia, sicut sensus et motus fluunt a capite in membra corporalia et ab uno membro in aliud, ita et in corpore mystico: ergo si membrum aridum non defert sensum, sacerdos, qui est in mortali peccato, baptizando non confert gratiam baptizato[^6].

4. Item, oratio vitiatur ex vitio orantis, et potius meretur homo iram quam gratiam — unde Gregorius[^7]: «Cum is qui displicet, ad intercedendum mittitur, irati animus ad deteriora provocatur» — ergo baptismus vitiatur ex vitio baptizantis; aut si non vitiatur; cum Deus iudicet de operibus secundum interiora, et sacerdos sit mortuus, et opus eius mortuum, mortuus autem non vivificet: patet, quod malus sacerdos conferre non potest gratiam vivificantem.

Item, quaeritur, utrum peccet is qui accedit ad sacerdotem malum. Et videtur, quod sic: quia in Lege[^8] praeceptum erat fugere immundum corporaliter: ergo spiritualiter illud debemus observare.

Item, esto quod sacerdos petat pretium pro baptismo, nunquid est ei dandum? Si *sic,* cum emat Sacramentum, est simonia. Si *non,* aut[^9] remanebit non baptizatus, et hoc est periculum; aut baptizatus sine sacerdote praeter necessitatem.

> **Conclusio.** Malus sacerdos confert non tantum Sacramentum, sed etiam rem Sacramenti.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod malus sacerdos non tantum Sacramentum, sed etiam rem dat, non ipse, sed Deus, cuius Sacramenta sunt bona et impolluta. In baptismo enim non mundat neque interius baptizat minister, sed Deus. — Sed cum Deus lavet interius, praecedente lotione exteriori, et exterior displiceat, quia lavans displicet; quomodo consequens est, ut, lavante malo sacerdote exterius, Deus lavet interius?

Et ad illud est notandum, quod est quoddam opus, quod habet virtutem a caritate interna solum; quoddam, quod habet ab institutione divina. *Primum* opus est virtutis et vitii et a Deo pensatur secundum qualitatem voluntatis[^10]. *Secundum* est opus Sacramenti, et hoc pensatur secundum meritum et dignitatem Christi instituentis; tale semper remanet efficax et impollutum nec potest aliquo modo pollui, sicut nec meliorari. Habet enim virtutem a Christo, non a ministro; sicut semen iactum in terram aequaliter fructificat, sive sit bonus qui seminat, sive malus; et sic hic.

Ex his patent obiecta: nam Sacramenta sunt benedictiones Dei, non malorum. — Similiter patet sequens, quia immundus ibi non mundat. — Similiter ad illud quod obiicitur de simili a corporali nutrimento[^11], patet responsio, quod non est simile, quia Deus immediate dat gratiam baptizato.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum peccet qui accedit ad malum sacerdotem; dicendum, quod *non,* immo magis peccat ille qui eum recusat, credens, Sacramentum per ipsum dispensatum esse vitiatum quia facit iniuriam Sacramento[^12]. — Nec valet quod obiicit, quia illud intelligitur de tactu per imitationem et consensum in malum; non sic autem tangit qui baptismum recipit.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de simoniaco, dicunt quidam, quod *prius*[^13] debet quis se baptizari facere a laico. Sed esto quod non esset alius; dicunt, quod non potest dare pretium, ut sacrum emat, sed ut emat aquam. Sed esto, quod aqua sit consecrata: tunc dicunt, quod ante debet dimittere, parvulum mori sine baptismo, quia non sunt facienda *mala, ut eveniant bona*[^14]. — Melius tamen est dicere, quod dari potest pretium non ad emendum Sacramentum vel aquam, sed ad redimendam vexationem iuris sui[^15]. Et hoc magis videtur consonare pietati et rationi et etiam iuri.

english:
### Article II. *On the intensity or efficacy of the power conferred on those who baptize.*

As to the second article, it is asked consequently concerning the power of those who baptize, by comparison with the effect, and concerning this two things are asked.

First it is asked whether wicked ministers, although catholic, give the Sacrament and the reality.

Secondly it is asked whether heretics and those cut off from the Church give the reality of the Sacrament, as catholics [do].

### Question I. *Whether wicked ministers give the Sacrament and the reality of the Sacrament.*

And that wicked ministers do give the reality of the Sacrament:

1. It is proved by many authorities which are found in the [Master's] text[^1], especially that one: «If a drunkard, a murderer, an adulterer has baptized any, if it is the baptism of Christ, [it is] Christ [who] baptizes»; but Christ baptizes by sanctifying: therefore the wicked minister likewise.

2. Likewise, it seems [so] by *reason*: because, if the baptism of a wicked man did not give grace, then our salvation would depend on another's life; and since to say this is wicked and unjust, it is plain that wicked ministers confer the reality of the Sacrament[^2].

3. Likewise, teaching pertains more to the teacher than baptism to the one baptizing; but a wicked teacher gives good and sound teaching, which the Lord commands [us] to receive in Matthew, the twenty-third [chapter][^3]: therefore much more strongly can he who baptizes, although wicked, give a good baptism or the effect of baptism.

**On the contrary:** 1. In Malachi, the second [chapter][^4]: *I will curse your blessings,* it is said to wicked priests; and the Gloss of Jerome: «Whatever shall have been blessed by you shall be cursed by me»: therefore he who is baptized by a wicked priest is cursed: therefore he does not receive grace through his ministry.

2. Likewise, in Ecclesiasticus, the thirty-fourth [chapter][^5]: *What shall be made clean by the unclean?* But a wicked priest is unclean: therefore from him or through him there is not conferred in baptism the grace which cleanses the soul.

3. Likewise, it seems [so] by *reason*: because, just as sense and motion flow from the head into the bodily members and from one member into another, so also in the mystical body: therefore if a withered member does not convey sense, the priest who is in mortal sin, in baptizing, does not confer grace on the one baptized[^6].

4. Likewise, prayer is vitiated by the vice of the one praying, and a man rather merits wrath than grace — whence Gregory[^7]: «When he who is displeasing is sent to intercede, the mind of the angry one is provoked to worse things» — therefore baptism is vitiated by the vice of the one baptizing; or, if it is not vitiated; since God judges of works according to the inward things, and the priest is dead, and his work dead, but the dead does not give life: it is plain that a wicked priest cannot confer life-giving grace.

Likewise, it is asked whether he sins who approaches a wicked priest. And it seems that [he does]: because in the Law[^8] it was commanded to flee the unclean bodily: therefore we ought to observe that spiritually.

Likewise, suppose that the priest asks a price for the baptism, must it be given to him? If *yes,* since he buys the Sacrament, it is simony. If *no,* either[^9] he will remain unbaptized, and this is a danger; or [he will be] baptized without a priest beyond necessity.

> **Conclusion.** A wicked priest confers not only the Sacrament, but also the reality of the Sacrament.

**I respond:** It must be said that a wicked priest gives not only the Sacrament, but also the reality — not he himself, but God, whose Sacraments are good and unpolluted. For in baptism the minister does not cleanse nor baptize inwardly, but God [does]. — But since God washes inwardly, the outward washing preceding, and the outward [washing] is displeasing because the one washing is displeasing; how does it follow that, when a wicked priest washes outwardly, God washes inwardly?

And to that it must be noted that there is a certain work which has its power from inward charity alone; [and] a certain [work] which has [its power] from divine institution. The *first* work is [a work] of virtue and of vice and is weighed by God according to the quality of the will[^10]. The *second* is the work of the Sacrament, and this is weighed according to the merit and dignity of Christ who institutes it; such [a work] always remains efficacious and unpolluted, nor can it in any way be polluted, just as neither [can it] be bettered. For it has its power from Christ, not from the minister; just as seed cast into the earth bears fruit equally, whether he who sows be good or wicked; and so here.

From these things the objections are clear: for the Sacraments are blessings of God, not of the wicked. — Likewise the next [objection] is plain, because the unclean does not there cleanse. — Likewise to that which is objected from the likeness to bodily nourishment[^11], the answer is plain, that it is not alike, because God immediately gives grace to the one baptized.

To that which is asked, whether he sins who approaches a wicked priest; it must be said that [he does] *not,* nay rather he sins more who refuses him, believing that the Sacrament dispensed through him is vitiated, because he does injury to the Sacrament[^12]. — Nor is the objection valid, because that [precept] is understood of touching by way of imitation and consent in evil; but he who receives baptism does not so touch.

To that which is objected concerning the simoniac, some say that *first*[^13] one ought to have oneself baptized by a layman. But suppose there were no other; they say that he cannot give a price in order to buy the sacred thing, but in order to buy the water. But suppose the water be consecrated: then they say that he ought rather to let the little one die without baptism, because *evils* are not to be done *that goods may come* of them[^14]. — Yet it is better to say that a price can be given not to buy the Sacrament or the water, but to redeem the harassment of one's [own] right[^15]. And this seems more in accord with piety and reason and also with law.

la: Hic c. 1. — Seq. auctoritas est August., In Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 18.

en: Here, c. 1 [of the Master's text]. — The following authority is Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John,* tr. 5, n. 18.

la: Cfr. infra dub. 4.

en: Cf. below, dub. 4.

la: Vers. 3: *Omnia ergo quaecumque dixerint* [Pharisaei] *vobis, servate et facite.*

en: Verse 3 [Matt. 23]: *All things therefore whatsoever they* [the Pharisees] *shall say to you, observe and do.*

la: Vers. 2. — Verba Hieronymi, hunc sunt: *Quidquid a vobis benedicetur, me maledictum erit.*

en: Verse 2. — The words of Jerome are these: *Whatever shall be blessed by you, shall be cursed by me.*

la: Eccli. 34, 30: *Qui baptizatur a mortuo, et iterum tangit eum, quid proficit lavatio illius?*

en: Ecclus. 34, 30: *He that washeth himself after touching the dead, and toucheth him again, what doth his washing avail?*

la: Vers. 4. — In fine arg. cod. Z *quae mundat hominem vel animam.*

en: Verse 4. — At the end of the argument cod. Z [reads] *which cleanses the man* or *the soul.*

la: Regul. pastoral. p. I. c. 10. Cfr. Gratian. initium dist. 49. — Inferius respicitur I. Reg. 16, 7: *Nec iuxta intuitum hominis ego iudico... Dominus autem intuetur cor.*

en: *Pastoral Rule,* p. I, c. 10. Cf. Gratian, the beginning of dist. 49. — Lower down there is a reference to 1 Kings [1 Samuel] 16, 7: *Nor do I judge according to the look of man... but the Lord beholdeth the heart.*

la: Levit. 5, 2. seq., Num. 19, 11. seqq., ubi etiam (v. 22.) dicitur: *Quidquid tetigerit immundus, immundum faciet.*

en: Leviticus 5, 2, and following, Numbers 19, 11, and following, where also (v. 22) it is said: *Whatsoever the unclean shall touch, he shall make unclean.*

la: Codd. F H L addunt *ergo.*

en: Codices F H L add *ergo* ("therefore").

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 29. a. 1. q. 1, d. 38. a. 1. q. 1. seq. et d. 40. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Cod. Z *caritatis,* codd. K M aa bb *caritatis et voluntatis,* codd. S T U *caritatis pacis.* Superius post *a caritate* [in cod. E a secunda manu *a qualitate*] edd. subiungunt *vel voluntate.* Subinde verbis *a Deo* cod. Z praemittit *hoc.*

en: Cf. II *Sent.* d. 29, a. 1, q. 1; d. 38, a. 1, q. 1, and following; and d. 40, a. 1, q. 1, and following. — Cod. Z [reads] *caritatis* ("of charity"); codices K M aa bb *caritatis et voluntatis* ("of charity and of will"); codices S T U *caritatis pacis* ("of the charity of peace"). Above, after *a caritate* ("from charity") [in cod. E by a second hand *a qualitate,* "from the quality"] the editions add *vel voluntate* ("or from the will"). Then, before the words *a Deo* ("by God") cod. Z prefixes *hoc* ("this").

la: Ita codd. et edd. Vocabulum hoc largiori sensu intelligendum est.

en: Thus the codices and editions. This word [*nutrimento,* "nourishment"] is to be understood in a broader sense.

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 2. fundam. 2.

en: See above, a. 1, q. 2, fundamentum 2.

la: Id est *potius,* quod edd. substituunt. Inferius pro *alius* cod. C *laicus,* et pro *potest* cod. P *posset.*

en: That is, *potius* ("rather"), which the editions substitute. Lower down, for *alius* ("another") cod. C [reads] *laicus* ("a layman"), and for *potest* ("he can") cod. P [reads] *posset* ("he could").

la: Rom. 3, 8. Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XXV. c. 4. — Paulo ante pro *debet* codd. A O V *deberet.*

en: Romans 3, 8. Cf. below in the Master's text, d. XXV, c. 4. — Shortly before, for *debet* ("he ought") codices A O V [read] *deberet* ("he should").

la: Vide tom. III. pag. 833, nota 11. Cfr. de hac et seq. quaest.

en: See tome III, p. 833, note 11. Cf. on this and the following question.

latin_scholion:
<!-- page 126 -->

**I.** *Res* Sacramenti intelligitur hic gratia cum remissione peccatorum. De duabus huius articuli quaestionibus a pluribus simul tractatur. Principia iam in praecedenti art. tacta sunt. De utraque quaestione: Alex. Halens., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 6. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 1. et de casibus q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2, d. 6. q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2, d. 6. q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1, d. 6. a. 1. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys., Carth., hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The *reality* of the Sacrament is here understood as grace with the remission of sins. The two questions of this article are treated together by several [authors]. The principles have already been touched on in the preceding article. On both questions: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 8, m. 6. — Scotus, in both the *Scriptum* (here, q. 1) and the *de casibus,* q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, [and] d. 6, q. 1, a. 3, subquestion 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 2 [and] 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1, subquestion 2, [and] d. 6, q. 1, a. 1, subquestion 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1, [and] d. 6, a. 1, q. 1. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
- **Re-set from cascade-shattered raw (L14168–14341), with the short Article-II opener folded in.** The skeleton body was column-shattered (two-column IA djvu bleed). Per the Vol IV / Vol II override, the Latin was re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p12{4,5,6}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`); OCR used only as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Offset `pdf = printed + 20`. Running heads verified: p.124 = `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` (verso); p.125 = `DIST. V. ART. II. QUAEST. I.`; p.126 = `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` (verso, scholion + start of q2).
- **Alignment confirmed.** Body matches q1 (*mali ministri* — wicked ministers giving the Sacrament *and* its reality). The Article-II opener (`Quantum ad secundum articulum… circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo… mali ministri…, Secundo… haeretici et praecisi…`, *De intensione sive efficacia potestatis baptizantibus collatae*, raw L14168) folds into q1 per the chunking convention (no standalone divisio chunk). q1's opener `Et quod mali ministri dent rem Sacramenti: 1. Probatur multis auctoritatibus…` follows immediately.
- **q1/q2 boundary.** Art.II QUAESTIO II header (`QUAESTIO II. — Utrum haeretici dent rem Sacramenti`) is at raw **L14334**; q2's body opener (`Secundo quaeritur, utrum haeretici dent rem Sacramenti. Et quod non, videtur.`) begins at raw **L14342**. q1's range therefore ends at L14341 (the Article-II scholion, which covers both quaestiones, sits between the end of q1's body and the q2 header, raw L14315–14333). ARTICULUS III is at raw L14447.
- **Body span (3 printed pages).** Art.II opener + q1 header + q1 fundamenta 1–2 (and fund. 3 opening) are at the BOTTOM of p.124 (right column for the opener/header; q1 fundamenta in p.124's own two-column block). q1's main body (fund. 3 tail, Contra 1–4, the two incident questions, Conclusio, Respondeo with the *per distinctionem* solution, *solutio obiectorum,* and the solutiones to the incident questions) fills p.125 (left column then right). The Article-II scholion is at the TOP of p.126 (before QUAESTIO II begins). So the a1-q2/a2-q1 seam falls mid-page on p.124, and the q1/q2 seam falls mid-page on p.126.
- **Scholion: present, Article-II level (covers q1+q2), placed body-last here.** Quaracchi prints a single `SCHOLION` block (section **I.**) for the whole article at the top of p.126; it explicitly says *De duabus huius articuli quaestionibus a pluribus simul tractatur* and *Principia iam in praecedenti art. tacta sunt.* Per the parser rule (`### Scholion` must be the LAST subsection of each language block), it is placed after the body in both Latin and English. a2-q2 will carry NO scholion and should point here.
- **Apparatus / page-split map (15 entries).** Quaracchi restarts numbering each printed page; renumbered sequentially here:
  - **p.124 — notes 9–10 → [^1]–[^2]** (the a1-q2 hand-off): [^1] (note 9, `Hic c. 1. — Seq. auctoritas est August., In Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 18`) at fund. 1 `in littera`; [^2] (note 10, `Cfr. infra dub. 4`) at fund. 2 `rem Sacramenti`. p.124 notes 1–8 belong to a1-q2 (carried there) and notes 3–7 also there; they are NOT here.
  - **p.125 — notes 1–13 → [^3]–[^15]:** [^3] (Matt. 23, 3) at fund. 3 `Matthaei vigesimo tertio`; [^4] (Mal. 2, 2 / Jerome) at Contra 1 `Malachiae secundo`; [^5] (Ecclus. 34, 30) at Contra 2 `Ecclesiastici trigesimo quarto`; [^6] (cod. Z variant) at Contra 3 `baptizato`; [^7] (Gregory, *Reg. past.* / Gratian / 1 Sam. 16, 7) at Contra 4 `Gregorius`; [^8] (Lev. 5 / Num. 19) at incident-q. 1 `in Lege`; [^9] (codd. F H L add *ergo*) at incident-q. 2 `aut`; [^10] (II *Sent.* refs / codd. variants on *caritate*) at Respondeo `qualitatem voluntatis`; [^11] (broad sense of *nutrimento*) at *solutio obiectorum* `nutrimento`; [^12] (cross-ref a.1 q.2 fund.2) at incident-q.-1 solution `Sacramento`; [^13] (*potius* / codd. variants) at simoniac solution `prius`; [^14] (Rom. 3, 8 / d.XXV refs) at `mala, ut eveniant bona`; [^15] (tom. III p.833 cross-ref) at *solutio auctoris* `iuris sui`.
- **No `[?]` flags.** Body and all footers were legible in the PDF column bands; OCR garbles in the running prose (e.g. `baplismi`→baptismi, `vitiatnr`→vitiatur, `eflicax`→efficax, `imraundus`→immundus, `seraen`→semen, `malonim`→malorum, `imitatione`→imitationem) were resolved unambiguously against the bands.
- **Hand-off picked up from a1-q2 (prior commit):** q1's first two p.124 footers are notes **9** and **10** (note 9 = `Hic c. 1. — Seq. auctoritas est August., In Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 18`; note 10 = `Cfr. infra dub. 4`). Confirmed and carried as [^1]/[^2]. They did NOT migrate from a1-q2.
- **Hand-off forward to d5-a2-q2** (QUAESTIO II, header raw **L14334**, body opener raw **L14342**, *Utrum haeretici dent rem Sacramenti*; ARTICULUS III at raw L14447): q2's body begins at the BOTTOM of p.126 (its CONCLUSIO `Baptismus haereticorum in forma Ecclesiae collatus habet efficaciam, nisi obsit obex` and the start of its Respondeo are visible at the foot of p.126-R) and runs onto the following pages. **q2 carries NO scholion** — the Article-II scholion (covering both quaestiones) lives body-last in THIS chunk (a2-q1); q2 should cross-reference it. q2 opens a fresh p.126 footer series; the p.126 footer note(s) anchoring in q2's fundamenta begin at p.126 note 1.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 5, Art. 2, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 126 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum haeretici dent rem Sacramenti.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum haeretici dent rem Sacramenti. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Augustinus, *de Consecratione* distinctione quarta[^1]: «Ecclesia paradiso comparata indicat nobis, posse quidem foris baptismum eius recipere, sed salutem beatitudinis extra eam nec accipere nec habere».

2. Item, Augustinus[^2]: «Qui foris Ecclesiam baptizantur non sumunt baptismum ad salutem, sed ad perniciem, habentes formam baptismi, virtutem eius negantes».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia, si baptisma haereticorum facit filios Dei, dando gratiam baptismatis; videtur, quod inter haereticos extra Ecclesiam sint filii Dei; hoc autem falsum: ergo etc.

4. Item, si baptisma haereticorum facit remissionem peccatorum, et remissio fit per Spiritum sanctum; ergo inter eos est Spiritus sanctus: ergo haeretici dant Spiritum sanctum; sed hoc est falsum: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Unum est baptisma Christi, Ecclesiae et haereticorum, qui in eadem forma baptizant[^3]: ergo eandem efficaciam habent: ergo si in baptismo Ecclesiae datur gratia, et in baptismo haereticorum.

2. Item, baptisma illud est verum Sacramentum; quod patet, quia non est iterandum[^4]: ergo si non invenit obstaculum, ita confert gratiam, ut Catholicorum.

3. Item, possibile est, quod ille qui[^5] baptizat, sit haereticus, me nesciente: ergo damnum incurram de malitia aliena sine omni mea culpa.

> **Conclusio.** Baptismus haereticorum in forma Ecclesiae collatus habet efficaciam, nisi obsit obex.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod baptismus, qui datur ab haereticis in forma Ecclesiae, baptismus est et baptismus Ecclesiae, quia regenerat filios Ecclesiae, non haeresi, generat etiam filios in Christo. — Exemplum Augustini contra Donatum[^6] est: quia, sicut Iacob semen non tantum genuit per uterum liberarum, sed etiam ancillarum; sic et Christus; unde qui boni baptizantur ab haereticis, comparat eos filiis ancillarum, sed qui mali ab Ecclesia, comparat Esau. Habet igitur semper efficaciam, nisi habeat obicem in suscipiente; tunc autem habet obicem, quando ille qui baptizatur, consentit haeresi. — Et hoc potest esse tripliciter: aut quando est haereticus et favet errori; aut si non est haereticus, tamen vadit ad haereticum praecisum in contemptum Ecclesiae; aut si non est praecisus, vadit tamen ad occultum, quem scit esse haereticum, propter aliquod commodum vel favorem[^7]. Et tunc nihil accipit, quia accipit ab haeretico, ut est haereticus. — Sed tunc non consentit, quando habet impotentiam discernendi, ut parvulus; vel quando ille haereticus est occultus et creditur esse Catholicus; aut quando homo est in necessitate constitutus, solo necessitatis intuitu.

Auctoritates Augustini secundum primam viam intelliguntur. Rationes ad oppositum patent: quia quos haeretici baptizant non consentientes haeresi tamen, quia foris et extra Ecclesiam... habentes nimirum formam Sacramenti, virtutem autem eius abnegantes<!-- page 127 --> suae, etsi videantur esse de eis, tamen sunt Ecclesiae filii et intra Ecclesiam. Unde Augustinus dicit contra Donatum[^8], quod haeretici baptizant non per id quod habent repugnans Ecclesiae, sed per id quod habent communitatem cum ea et unitatem; et ideo, si ille qui baptizatur, nihil recipiat ab haereticis nisi baptisma nec in aliis conveniat, iudicandus est Catholicus, quia cum Catholicis convenit et non habet repugnans; et talis est parvulus. Et ideo, quamvis parvuli baptizentur ab haereticis, non tamen sunt intra haereticos quantum ad *meritum,* sed solum quantum ad *numerum;* et ideo non sequitur, quod sint intra haereticos, secundum quod haeretici sunt, sicut[^9] filii Dei; nec etiam, quod inter eos sit Spiritus sanctus, per quem remittuntur peccata[^10].

---

english:
<!-- page 126 -->

### Question II. *Whether heretics give the reality of the Sacrament.*

Secondly it is asked whether heretics give the reality of the Sacrament. And it seems that [they do] not.

1. Augustine, *On the Consecration,* the fourth distinction[^1]: «The Church, compared to paradise, indicates to us that one can indeed receive her baptism outside, but neither receive nor have the salvation of blessedness outside her».

2. Likewise, Augustine[^2]: «Those who are baptized outside the Church do not take up baptism unto salvation, but unto destruction, having the form of baptism, [while] denying its power».

3. Likewise, it seems [so] by *reason*: because, if the baptism of heretics makes sons of God, by giving the grace of baptism; it seems that among heretics outside the Church there are sons of God; but this is false: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if the baptism of heretics effects the remission of sins, and the remission is made through the Holy Spirit; therefore among them is the Holy Spirit: therefore heretics give the Holy Spirit; but this is false: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. The baptism of Christ, of the Church, and of heretics is one, for they baptize in the same form[^3]: therefore they have the same efficacy: therefore if in the baptism of the Church grace is given, [it is given] also in the baptism of heretics.

2. Likewise, that baptism is a true Sacrament; which is plain, because it is not to be repeated[^4]: therefore if it meets no obstacle, it confers grace just as [the baptism] of catholics [does].

3. Likewise, it is possible that he who baptizes[^5] be a heretic, without my knowing it: therefore I should incur harm from another's malice without any fault of my own.

> **Conclusion.** The baptism of heretics, conferred in the form of the Church, has efficacy, unless an obstacle stands in the way.

**I respond:** It must be said that the baptism which is given by heretics in the form of the Church is baptism, and the baptism of the Church, because it regenerates sons of the Church, not [sons] of heresy; it also begets sons in Christ. — The example of Augustine against Donatus[^6] is [this]: that, just as Jacob begot offspring not only through the womb of free women, but also of handmaids; so also Christ; whence those who, being good, are baptized by heretics, he compares to the sons of the handmaids, but those who, being wicked, [are baptized] by the Church, he compares to Esau. Therefore it always has efficacy, unless it should have an obstacle in the one receiving; and it has an obstacle when he who is baptized consents to heresy. — And this can be in three ways: either when he is a heretic and favors the error; or, if he is not a heretic, yet he goes to a heretic cut off [from the Church] in contempt of the Church; or, if he is not [going to one] cut off, yet he goes to a hidden one, whom he knows to be a heretic, on account of some advantage or favor[^7]. And then he receives nothing, because he receives from the heretic as he is a heretic. — But he does not then consent, when he has an incapacity for discerning, like a little child; or when that heretic is hidden and is believed to be a catholic; or when a man is placed in necessity, with regard only to the necessity.

The authorities of Augustine are understood according to the first way. The reasons to the contrary are plain: because those whom heretics baptize, [the heretics] not consenting to heresy — yet, because [they baptize] outside and beyond the Church... having indeed the form of the Sacrament, [while] denying its power<!-- page 127 --> [as] their own — even if [these baptized ones] seem to be of them [the heretics], nonetheless they are sons of the Church and within the Church. Whence Augustine says against Donatus[^8] that heretics baptize not through that which they have repugnant to the Church, but through that which they have in common with her and in unity [with her]; and therefore, if he who is baptized receives nothing from the heretics except baptism, and agrees [with them] in nothing else, he is to be judged a catholic, because he agrees with catholics and has nothing repugnant; and such is the little child. And therefore, although little children are baptized by heretics, nevertheless they are not within [the company of] heretics as regards *merit,* but only as regards *number;* and therefore it does not follow that they are within [the company of] heretics, according as they are heretics, like[^9] sons of God; nor either that among them is the Holy Spirit, through whom sins are remitted[^10].

---

la: Gratian. C. *Si iustus* (30.) c. 1. q. 1, in qua quasi per totam de hac re tractatur. — Can. 45. sumtum ex August., IV. *de Baptismo contra Donatistas,* c. 1. n. 1. In fine testimonii textus originalis *vel percipere vel tenere.*

en: Gratian, C. *Si iustus* (30), c. 1, q. 1, in which almost throughout this matter is treated. — Canon 45, taken from Augustine, IV *On Baptism, against the Donatists,* c. 1, n. 1. At the end of the testimony the original text [reads] *vel percipere vel tenere* ("either to receive or to hold").

la: In *Dialog. Qq. 65 ad Orosium* (inter opera August.), q. 39, et refertur C. *Quamvis* (29.), *de Consecratione,* d. 4. Textus originalis: «Quamvis enim unum baptisma sit et haereticorum, eorum scil... tamen, quia foris Ecclesiam... habentes nimirum speciem pietatis, virtutem autem eius abnegantes (II. Tim. 3, 5.)». In praemisso canone sic legitur: *Quamvis...*

en: In the *Dialogue of 65 Questions to Orosius* (among the works of Augustine), q. 39, and it is referred to [as] C. *Quamvis* (29), *On the Consecration,* d. 4. The original text [reads]: «For although the baptism even of heretics is one, namely theirs... yet, because [they are] outside the Church... having indeed the appearance of piety, but denying its power (2 Tim. 3, 5)». In the foregoing canon it is read thus: *Quamvis...*

la: Eph. 4, 5: *Unus Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma.*

en: Ephesians 4, 5: *One Lord, one faith, one baptism.*

la: Vide infra lit. Magistri, d. VI. c. 2. — Pro *illud* edd. *illorum.*

en: See below in the Master's text, d. VI, c. 2. — For *illud* ("that") the editions [read] *illorum* ("of those").

la: Cod. I *qui me.* In fine arg. ed. 1 cum pluribus codd. omittit *mea.*

en: Cod. I [reads] *qui me.* At the end of the argument ed. 1, with several codices, omits *mea* ("my").

la: Libr. I. c. 10. n. 14. — Vat. hic et circa finem corp. melius *contra Donatistas.*

en: Book I, c. 10, n. 14. — The Vatican edition, here and near the end of the body [of the article], [reads] better *contra Donatistas* ("against the Donatists").

la: Cfr. infra d. 13. dub. 4. — Mox post *nihil* codd. F H bene supplent *gratiae.*

en: Cf. below, d. 13, dub. 4. — Soon after, [after] *nihil* ("nothing") codices F H rightly supply *gratiae* ("of grace").

la: Loc. cit. in nota penultima. — Superius pro *et intra Ecclesiam* Vat. *et filii intrant Ecclesiam.* Inferius pro *conveniat et convenit* cod. N bis *communicat.*

en: The place cited in the second-to-last note. — Above, for *et intra Ecclesiam* ("and within the Church") the Vatican edition [reads] *et filii intrant Ecclesiam* ("and the sons enter the Church"). Lower down, for *conveniat* and *convenit* ("agrees") cod. N twice [reads] *communicat* ("has communion").

la: Codd. R S (F I a secunda manu) omittunt *sicut,* pro quo cod. H (F primus) *si sunt,* Vat. *sed sicut.*

en: Codices R S (F I by a second hand) omit *sicut* ("like"), for which cod. H (F first [hand]) [reads] *si sunt* ("if they are"), [and] the Vatican edition *sed sicut* ("but like").

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question [a. 2, q. 1].

translators_notes:
- **Alignment confirmed.** Body opener (raw L14342) `Secundo quaeritur, utrum haeretici dent rem Sacramenti. Et quod non, videtur.` matches q2 — *whether heretics give the reality of the Sacrament* (`title_la` *Utrum haeretici dent rem Sacramenti*). The **QUAESTIO II header** was OCR-garbled at raw L14334 as `QU.\ESTIO II.` and restored to `### Quaestio II.`
- **Re-set from cascade-shattered raw (L14342–14446).** The skeleton body was column-shattered (two-column IA djvu bleed, with the q2 fundamenta in the left column splayed against the CONCLUSIO/Respondeo of the right column). Per the Vol IV / Vol II override, the Latin was re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p12{6,7}-{L,R}-{0..3}.png`, split_x=1880, 4 bands, scale 1.4 to fit the API image cap); OCR used only as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Offset `pdf = printed + 20`. Running heads verified: p.126 = `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` (verso, scholion-top then QUAESTIO II); p.127 = `DIST. V. ART. III. QUAEST. I.` (recto — the running head already names Art. III because the Notandum/q2 tail shares p.127 with the start of Art. III).
- **Body span (2 printed pages).** QUAESTIO II header + title + fundamenta 1–4 + Contra 1–3 occupy the **left column** of p.126; the CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (with the *triplex consensus* analysis and the *Auctoritates Augustini secundum primam viam* solution) occupy the **right column** of p.126 and spill to the top of p.127. The Respondeo's tail — the `Notandum` paragraph (`...suae, etsi videantur esse de eis... per quem remittuntur peccata`) — finishes at the TOP of p.127 (left column then right), immediately before **ARTICULUS III** (raw L14447). So the q1/q2 seam falls mid-page on p.126 (scholion-top of p.126 belongs to a2-q1), and the q2/a3 seam falls mid-page on p.127.
- **q2/a2-q1 boundary.** The Article-II scholion (a single block, section **I.**, covering BOTH quaestiones of the article — `De duabus huius articuli quaestionibus a pluribus simul tractatur`) is printed at the TOP of p.126, before this QUAESTIO II begins; it lives body-last in the sibling **a2-q1** (committed 1b23975). **This chunk carries NO scholion** (`has_scholion: false`); [^10] cross-references it.
- **Marginal notes (printed, not rendered as headers).** Quaracchi prints running marginalia beside this q: `Ad oppositum.` (beside the fundamenta), `Fundamenta.` (beside the Contra), `Conclusio 1.` / `Exemplum Augustini.` / `Conclusio 2.` / `Quando consentitur haeresi.` / `Quando non consentitur.` / `Ad argg.` (beside the Respondeo), and `Notandum.` (beside the p.127 tail). These are editorial side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text, and are omitted from the body per house convention.
- **Apparatus / page-split map (10 entries).** Quaracchi restarts numbering each printed page; renumbered sequentially here:
  - **p.126 — notes 1–7 → [^1]–[^7]:** [^1] (the unnumbered Gratian *Si iustus* lead-note + note 1, Can. 45 / August. *de Baptismo c. Donatistas*) at fund. 1 `de Consecratione distinctione quarta`; [^2] (note 2, *Dialog. Qq. 65 ad Orosium* / C. *Quamvis*) at fund. 2 `Augustinus`; [^3] (note 3, Eph. 4, 5) at Contra 1 `qui in eadem forma baptizant`; [^4] (note 4, lit. Mag. d. VI / *illorum* variant) at Contra 2 `non est iterandum`; [^5] (note 5, cod. I / *mea* omission) at Contra 3 `ille qui baptizat`; [^6] (note 6, Libr. I c. 10 n. 14 / Vat. *contra Donatistas*) at Respondeo `Exemplum Augustini contra Donatum`; [^7] (note 7, *Cfr. infra d. 13 dub. 4* / *gratiae* supplement) at Respondeo `vel favorem`.
  - **p.127 — notes 1–3 → [^8]–[^10]:** [^8] (note 1, *Loc. cit. in nota penultima* / Vat. variants) at the Notandum `Unde Augustinus dicit contra Donatum`; [^9] (note 2, codd. R S omit *sicut*) at `sicut filii Dei`; [^10] (note 3, *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*) at `remittuntur peccata`. p.127 notes 4–7 (Plurimi codd. *tertio*; Vers. 33 / August. *In Ioan.*; Magister hic c. 2; Dionys. *de Caelesti Hierarch.*) gloss ARTICULUS III and are carried in **a3-q1**.
- **No `[?]` flags.** Body and all footers were legible in the PDF column bands; OCR garbles in the running prose (`Baplismus`→Baptismus, `efficaciam`/`efflcaciam`→efficaciam, `regenerat`, `Iacob`/`lacob`→Iacob, `boni`/`ijoni`→boni, `commodum`/`commoduin`→commodum, `parvulus`/`parvuli`, `meritum`/`merilum`→meritum, `numerum`) were resolved unambiguously against the bands.
- **Hand-off picked up from a2-q1 (1b23975):** q2's body begins at the foot of p.126 (right column: CONCLUSIO + Respondeo visible there); q2 opens a fresh p.126 footer series (note 1 = the Gratian/Can. 45 lead). Confirmed and carried.
- **Hand-off forward to d5-a3-q1** (ARTICULUS III, raw **L14447**; *De potestate baptizantium per comparationem ad dantem [potestatem]*; the short article opener `Quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur... circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, quae sit illa potestas...` folds into q1 per the chunking convention — no standalone divisio chunk): ARTICULUS III + its QUAESTIO I (*Quae sit illa potestas, quam Christus dare potuit ministris et non dedit*) begin in the lower portion of p.127 (raw L14458 = QUAESTIO I header). a3-q1 carries the p.127 footer notes **4–7** (rendered as that chunk's [^1]–[^4]+): note 4 *Plurimi codd. addunt tertio...*; note 5 *Vers. 33. — Verba August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 7...*; note 6 *Loc. cit. — Magister, hic c. 2.*; note 7 *Secundum Dionys., de Caelesti Hierarch. c. 3. § 2. seq.* — plus its own p.128 series. a3 carries its own scholion (this chunk's [^10] points back to a2-q1's scholion, not forward).

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. 5, Art. 3, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 127 -->

### Articulus III. *De potestate baptizantium per comparationem ad dantem illam.*

Quantum ad tertium articulum quaeritur de potestate baptizantium per comparationem ad dantem illam. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, quae sit illa potestas, quam Christus dare potuit ministris et non dedit. Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christo fuerit data potestas dimittendi peccata.

### Quaestio I. *Quae sit illa potestas, quam Christus dare potuit ministris et non dedit.*

Circa primum sic proceditur.

1. Super illud Ioannis primo[^p127-4]: *Hic est qui baptizat*, dicit Augustinus, quod Ioannes didicit[^p127-5], quod «Christus potestatem mundandi a peccatis ministris dare potuit, sed non dedit»: ergo videtur, quod illa fuerit potestas cooperationis.

2. Item, quod illam dare potuerit, sed non dedit, videtur per verbum Augustini[^p127-6] et Magistri: quia non dedit hanc potestatem, «ne homo spem poneret in homine»; sed propter nullam potentiam homo speraret in homine, nisi homo haberet potentiam dimittendi culpam et dandi gratiam: ergo de illa intelligitur.

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *ratione*, quod potuit hanc communicare, per *simile in spiritualibus*: quia Angelo superioris ordinis dedit potentiam purgandi alium, qui est inferioris ordinis[^p127-7]: ergo cum ita sit ordo in ecclesiastica hierarchia, sicut in angelica, patet etc.

4. Item, ostenditur etiam per *simile in corporalibus*: quia rebus corporalibus dedit potentiam curandi a morbo corporali: ergo animabus sanctis debuit dare potentiam curandi a morbo spirituali.

5. Item, hoc etiam probatur *a minori*[^p127-8]: quia dare potuit ministris Ecclesiae potentiam expellendi daemones: ergo multo fortius seminarium eorum, quod est peccatum.

6. Item, *a minori* videtur alio modo: quia nulla creatura nobilior est anima sancta[^p127-9]; sed gratiae dedit potentiam expellendi culpam: ergo et animae dare potuit.

**Contra:** 1. Augustinus[^p127-10]: «Maius est iustificare impium quam creare caelum et terram»; sed potentiae creandi non est capax creatura: ergo nec potentiae iustificandi sive dimittendi peccata. *Fundamenta.*

2. Item, omnis actio est per coniunctionem agentis; sed solus Deus potest illabi animae[^p127-11]: ergo solus potest purgare.

3. Item, purgatio a culpa est a superiori; sed solus Deus est supra liberum arbitrium[^p127-12]: ergo solus Deus potest culpam dimittere, quae est in libero arbitrio.

<!-- page 128 -->

4. Item, interius baptizare est gratiam infundere, et gratiam infundere est ipsam creare; sed solius Dei est creare gratiam: ergo ipsius tantum est interius baptizare sive a culpa purgare.

> **Conclusio.** Potestas, de qua loquitur Augustinus, est potestas cooperationis talis, ut homo non efficiendo, sed impetrando baptizato gratiam obtineat.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa baptismum possunt sex potestates annotari, ut videamus, quam dare potuit Dominus, et non dedit. — *Prima* est auctoritatis; haec est, qua Deus a se ipso, non aliunde, habet potestatem interius mundandi a culpa. — *Secunda* est cooperationis, ut homo, accepta divinitus potentia, in tali actu esset cooperator[^p127-1]. — *Tertia* est excellentiae, ut secundum abundantiorem gratiam existentem in baptizante maiorem conferret gratiam in baptizato. — *Quarta* est invocationis, ut homo in nomine Petri baptizari possit, sicut in nomine Christi, vel etiam Trinitatis. — *Quinta* est institutionis, ut, sicut Christus habuit potestatem instituendi baptismum in aqua, ita alius haberet in aqua, vel alibi. — *Sexta* est ministerii, qua dat[^p127-2], ut per hominem possit exterius ministrari et verbum et elementum.

Primam nec dare potuit nec dedit, ultimam dare potuit et dedit. De omnibus intermediis dicunt Magistri, quod dare potuit, sed non dedit. — Secundam enim et tertiam non dedit, ne spes in homine poneretur; quia, si unus homo posset alium sanare spiritualiter, vel suis meritis plus de gratia dare: speraret homo ab homine gratiam et veniam. Quartam vero et quintam non dedit, ne tot essent baptismi, quod baptistae; quia numeratur baptismus et denominatur ab eo, in cuius nomine fit, et ab eo qui instituit; et ideo, ne multi essent baptismi, sed unus solus, instituit, ut unus solus invocaretur. — De potestate vero cooperationis controversia est, quia Magister[^p127-3] dicit, quod illam *dare potuit*; hoc tamen communiter negatur.

Sed quia Augustinus videtur hoc dicere, propter hoc notandum, quod cooperari alii est dupliciter: vel per modum vere[^p128-4] *efficientis*, sicut natura cooperatur Deo in productione naturalium, et liberum arbitrium gratiae in faciendo opus meritorium; secundo vero per modum *disponentis*, sicut cooperatur homo Deo quantum ad gratiam, quia se disponit. Primo modo, quidquid videatur dicere Magister, Deus *dare non potuit*, quia creatura capax non fuit; nec hoc modo intellexit Augustinus. Sicut enim tactum fuit in primo libro, distinctione decima quarta[^p128-5] et per obiectiones ostensum, dare gratiam est potentiae infinitae et potentiae supra mentem humanam, quae immediate est in Deum. Secundo vero modo *dare potuit*, ut homo secundum actum interiorem baptizato gratiam obtineret, non gratiam efficiendo, sed ipsam impetrando; sicut dedit homini virtutem faciendi miracula, non quia ipse ea efficeret, sed virtute sibi a Deo data, quoties vellet, impetraret. — Sed hanc non dedit homini, scilicet ut tantum posset interius in sanando[^p128-6] animam, sicut exterius virtute miraculorum sanat corpora. Tunc enim ad eos recurreretur pro salute animae, sicut ad Deum. Dominus autem quantum ad hanc potentiam omnes fecit aequales, ut salutem animae a se solo doceat requirendam. Omnes enim aequaliter purgant, qui Sacramentum administrant; et ita non est efficacia in actu mentis[^p128-7] baptizantis, sed solum in administratione Sacramenti. — Et per hoc manifesta est solutio obiectorum.

3. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Angelus superioris ordinis purgat etc.; dicendum, quod illud est intelligendum quantum ad *cognitionem*, et hoc solum *dispositive*. Sed maius est purgare *affectivam*[^p128-8], quia magis est Deo coniuncta; praeterea, habitus, qui reformat *affectivam*, est habitus magis deiformis. — Nihilominus tamen dicit Augustinus[^p128-9] quod solus Deus est doctor, sicut solus baptizat interius. Sed in hoc non contradicit Dionysio; non enim vult excludere dispositionem doctoris exterioris, quae est per modum cuiusdam extensionis; sed vult, quod habitus a solo Deo infundatur; nec in hoc excludit cooperationem luminis naturalis. Aliqua enim sunt, quae possumus cognoscere per lumen naturaliter inditum; similiter aliqua bona sunt, ad quae possumus assuefieri per rectitudinem naturaliter insertam. Et sicut ad ea quae supra

<!-- page 129 -->

naturam sunt, solus Deus elevat *cognitivam*, infundendo habitum cognitivum, utpote illustrationem prophetiae vel fidei[^p128-1]; sic, cum gratia gratum faciens et caritas elevent *supra* naturam, non insunt ibi nisi per infusionem. Et sicut *cognitiva*, Deo cooperante, potest se perficere aliquo habitu *naturali*, utpote cognitionis naturalis, aliquo vero non, utpote *infusae*; sic ex parte *affectivae* est intelligendum quantum ad habitus *morales* et *infusos*; et quia gratia gratum faciens naturam supra se elevat, habitus est infusus, et ideo ab illo solo est, qui[^p128-2] potest illabi animae. — Quamvis autem utrumque sit a Deo, tamen in habitu *cognitionis* doctor praeparat non solum verbo exteriori, sed etiam per habitum interiorem; et ita unus est melior doctor quam alter. Ita Deus potuisset facere in baptismo, sed noluit, ut ei soli omnipotentia, honor et gloria attribuatur[^p128-3].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de medicina corporali, patet responsio, quod non est simile, quia medicinae sanitatem non *efficiunt*, sed *disponunt* adiuvando naturam. Non est etiam simile, quia corporalia *mutuo* agunt et patiuntur; non sic autem anima influit in animam; et ratio huius assignata fuit in primo libro[^p129-4].

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de expulsione daemonum, dicendum, quod illud non est maius, sed minus, quia daemon potest expelli sine melioratione et infusione gratiae, sed non culpa; daemon enim potest expelli, quia potest arctari per contrariam potestatem.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de gratia, dicendum, quod gratia expellit *informando*, non *efficiendo*[^p129-5], et quia anima non potest animam informare, ideo nec actum illum communicare; effective autem solus Deus est, qui potest gratiam dare.

Patet igitur, de qua potestate Augustinus intellexerit, scilicet de potestate cooperationis, qua dicitur aliquis cooperari, non quia simul cum illo efficit, sed quia aliquo dono sibi dato aliquid facit, quo facto Deus facit, scilicet solo nutu mentis sine actu Sacramenti. Unde sicut beatus Petrus dicitur mortuos suscitasse et infirmos curasse, et habere virtutem curandi et gratiam sanitatum, non quia ipse faceret, sed quia Deus nutu suo faciebat sine aliquo visibili Sacramento; sic diceretur aliquis purgare et purificare et Deo cooperari, si data esset ei consimilis gratia ad animas purgandas; quod noluit Deus, sicut dicit Augustinus. Ideo etiam non dedit, quod unus baptizaret melius quam alter. — Et si Magister ita intellexit, bene intellexit, et rationes inductae ad oppositum non sunt contra ipsum. Verumtamen ipse in littera[^p129-6] multum exprimit; et ideo in parte ista non est ei usquequaque consentiendum. — Et ita patet solutio obiectorum. Ad hoc problema terminandum valent quae scripta sunt de donatione gratiae, decima quarta distinctione libri primi[^p129-7].

english:
<!-- page 127 -->

### Article III. *On the power of those who baptize, by comparison with the one who gives that [power].*

As to the third article, inquiry is made concerning the power of those who baptize, by comparison with the one who gives that [power]. And concerning this two questions are asked. First it is asked, what is that power which Christ could have given to ministers but did not give. Secondly it is asked, whether to Christ was given the power of forgiving sins.

### Question I. *What is that power which Christ could have given to ministers but did not give.*

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus.

1. Upon that text of John 1[^p127-4]: *This is he who baptizes*, Augustine says that John learned[^p127-5] that «Christ could have given to His ministers the power of cleansing from sins, but did not give it»: therefore it seems that that was the power of cooperation.

2. Likewise, that He could have given it, but did not give it, seems [to follow] from the word of Augustine[^p127-6] and of the Master: for He did not give this power, «lest a man place his hope in a man»; but on account of no [other] power would a man hope in a man, unless a man were to have the power of forgiving fault and giving grace: therefore it is of that [power] that it is understood.

3. Likewise, this very thing is shown by *reason*, that He could have communicated this, by *a likeness in spiritual things*: for to an Angel of a higher order He gave the power of purging another who is of a lower order[^p127-7]: therefore since the order in the ecclesiastical hierarchy is just as in the angelic, it is clear, etc.

4. Likewise, it is shown also by *a likeness in bodily things*: for to bodily things He gave the power of curing from bodily illness: therefore to holy souls He ought to have given the power of curing from spiritual illness.

5. Likewise, this also is proved *from the lesser*[^p127-8]: for He could have given to the ministers of the Church the power of casting out demons: therefore much more strongly the seed-bed of them, which is sin.

6. Likewise, *from the lesser* it seems [to follow] in another way: for no creature is nobler than a holy soul[^p127-9]; but to grace He gave the power of casting out fault: therefore He could have given it also to the soul.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine[^p127-10]: «It is greater to justify the ungodly than to create heaven and earth»; but a creature is not capable of the power of creating: therefore neither of the power of justifying or of forgiving sins. *Foundations.*

2. Likewise, every action is through the conjunction of the agent; but God alone can enter into the soul[^p127-11]: therefore He alone can purge it.

3. Likewise, the purging from fault is from a superior; but God alone is above free will[^p127-12]: therefore God alone can forgive the fault which is in free will.

<!-- page 128 -->

4. Likewise, to baptize inwardly is to infuse grace, and to infuse grace is to create it; but to create grace belongs to God alone: therefore to baptize inwardly, or to purge from fault, belongs to Him alone.

> **Conclusion.** The power of which Augustine speaks is a power of cooperation of such a kind that a man, not by effecting but by impetrating, obtains grace for the one baptized.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning baptism six powers can be noted, that we may see which the Lord could have given, and did not give. — The *first* is of authority; this is that by which God, from Himself, not from elsewhere, has the power of inwardly cleansing from fault. — The *second* is of cooperation, that a man, having received the power divinely, might be a cooperator in such an act[^p127-1]. — The *third* is of excellence, that according to the more abundant grace existing in the one baptizing he might confer greater grace in the one baptized. — The *fourth* is of invocation, that a man might be able to be baptized in the name of Peter, just as in the name of Christ, or even of the Trinity. — The *fifth* is of institution, that, just as Christ had the power of instituting baptism in water, so another might have [the power of instituting it] in water, or elsewhere. — The *sixth* is of ministry, by which He gives[^p127-2], that through a man both word and element can be outwardly ministered.

The first He neither could give nor gave, the last He could give and did give. Concerning all the intermediate [powers] the Masters say that He could have given them, but did not give them. — For the second and the third He did not give, lest hope be placed in a man; for if one man could heal another spiritually, or by his own merits give more of grace: a man would hope from a man for grace and pardon. The fourth and the fifth He did not give, lest there be as many baptisms as baptizers; for baptism is numbered and named from him in whose name it is done, and from him who instituted it; and therefore, lest there be many baptisms, but one only, He instituted that one only be invoked. — But concerning the power of cooperation there is controversy, because the Master[^p127-3] says that He *could have given* it; this, however, is commonly denied.

But because Augustine seems to say this, on this account it must be noted that to cooperate with another is twofold: either by the mode of truly[^p128-4] *effecting*, as nature cooperates with God in the production of natural things, and free will [cooperates] with grace in doing a meritorious work; or secondly by the mode of *disposing*, as a man cooperates with God as regards grace, because he disposes himself. In the first mode, whatever the Master may seem to say, God *could not* give it, because the creature was not capable; nor did Augustine understand it in this mode. For as was touched on in the first book, distinction fourteen[^p128-5], and shown by the objections, to give grace belongs to an infinite power and to a power above the human mind, which is immediately upon God. But in the second mode He *could have* given it, that a man according to an interior act might obtain grace for the one baptized, not by effecting the grace, but by impetrating it; just as He gave to a man the power of working miracles, not because he himself effected them, but by a power given him by God, so that as often as he willed he might impetrate. — But this He did not give to a man, namely that he could so much inwardly in healing[^p128-6] the soul, as outwardly by the power of miracles He heals bodies. For then recourse would be had to them for the salvation of the soul, as to God. But the Lord, as regards this power, made all equal, that He might teach that the salvation of the soul is to be sought from Himself alone. For all who administer the Sacrament purge equally; and so there is no efficacy in the act of mind[^p128-7] of the one baptizing, but only in the administration of the Sacrament. — And by this the solution of the objections is made clear.

3. To that, therefore, which is objected, that an Angel of a higher order purges, etc.; it must be said that this is to be understood as regards *cognition*, and this only *dispositively*. But it is greater to purge the *affective* [power][^p128-8], because it is more conjoined to God; moreover, the habit which reforms the *affective* [power] is a habit more deiform. — Nevertheless Augustine[^p128-9] says that God alone is teacher, just as He alone baptizes inwardly. But in this he does not contradict Dionysius; for he does not wish to exclude the disposition of the exterior teacher, which is by the mode of a certain extension; but he wishes that the habit be infused by God alone; nor in this does he exclude the cooperation of the natural light. For there are some things which we can know by the light naturally given; likewise there are some goods to which we can become habituated by the rectitude naturally implanted. And just as for those things which are above

<!-- page 129 -->

nature, God alone elevates the *cognitive* [power], by infusing a cognitive habit, such as the illustration of prophecy or of faith[^p128-1]; so, since grace making-acceptable and charity elevate *above* nature, they are not present there except by infusion. And just as the *cognitive* [power], with God cooperating, can perfect itself by some *natural* habit, such as that of natural cognition, but by some it cannot, such as that of infused [cognition]; so on the part of the *affective* [power] it must be understood as regards *moral* and *infused* habits; and because grace making-acceptable elevates nature above itself, the habit is infused, and therefore is from Him alone who[^p128-2] can enter into the soul. — But although both are from God, nevertheless in the habit of *cognition* the teacher prepares [the soul] not only by the exterior word, but also through an interior habit; and so one is a better teacher than another. So God could have done in baptism, but He did not will [to], that to Him alone omnipotence, honor, and glory be attributed[^p128-3].

4. To that which is objected concerning bodily medicine, the response is clear, that it is not alike, because medicines do not *effect* health, but *dispose* [for it] by aiding nature. Nor is it alike either, because bodily things *mutually* act and are acted upon; but the soul does not so flow into the soul; and the ground of this was assigned in the first book[^p129-4].

5. To that which is objected concerning the casting out of demons, it must be said that this is not greater, but lesser, because a demon can be cast out without the bettering and infusion of grace, but fault [cannot]; for a demon can be cast out because it can be constrained by a contrary power.

6. To that which is objected concerning grace, it must be said that grace casts out [fault] by *informing*, not by *effecting*[^p129-5], and because the soul cannot inform [another] soul, therefore neither can it communicate that act; but effectively it is God alone who can give grace.

It is clear, therefore, of what power Augustine understood, namely of the power of cooperation, by which someone is said to cooperate, not because he effects together with Him, but because by some gift given him he does something, which being done God does [it], namely by the mere nod of the mind without the act of the Sacrament. Hence just as blessed Peter is said to have raised the dead and cured the sick, and to have the power of curing and the grace of healings, not because he himself did it, but because God by His nod did it without any visible Sacrament; so someone would be said to purge and purify and to cooperate with God, if a like grace for purging souls were given him; which God did not will, as Augustine says. For this reason also He did not give that one should baptize better than another. — And if the Master understood it thus, he understood well, and the reasons brought against [it] are not against him. Nevertheless he himself in the text[^p129-6] expresses much; and therefore in this part he is not to be agreed with in every respect. — And thus the solution of the objections is clear. For terminating this problem, the things written concerning the donation of grace, in the fourteenth distinction of the first book[^p129-7], avail.

la: Plurimi codd. addunt *tertio*, cod. H *scilicet*, codd. F Q *de tertia, scilicet.*

en: Very many codices add *tertio* ["thirdly"], codex H *scilicet* ["namely"], codices F Q *de tertia, scilicet* ["of the third, namely"].

la: Vers. 33. — Verba August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 7, sunt: *Et potuit hanc potestatem servis dare et noluit.* Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Codd. et ed. 1 omittunt *Christus.*

en: Verse 33. — The words of Augustine, *On the Gospel of John*, tractate 5, n. 7, are: *And He could have given this power to His servants and did not will [to].* Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2. — The codices and the first edition omit *Christus*.

la: Loc. cit. — Magister, hic c. 2.

en: The place cited. — The Master, here c. 2.

la: Secundum Dionys., de Caelesti Hierarch. c. 3. § 2. seq.

en: According to Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, c. 3, § 2 and following.

la: Loc. cit. in nota penultima. — Superius pro *et intra Ecclesiam* Vat. *et filii intrant Ecclesiam.* Inferius pro *conveniat et convenit* cod. N bis *communicat*; et pro *et intra et pluribus aliis locc.*, de quo vide tom. II. pag. 127, nota 2. et pag. 267, nota 4. Cfr. etiam de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 2.

en: The place cited in the penultimate note. — Above, for *et intra Ecclesiam* ["and within the Church"] the Vatican edition reads *et filii intrant Ecclesiam* ["and the sons enter the Church"]. Below, for *conveniat et convenit* codex N twice reads *communicat*; and for *et intra*, and in several other places, on which see tome II, p. 127, note 2, and p. 267, note 4. Cf. also *On the Divine Names*, c. 4, § 2.

la: Cfr. tom. I. pag. 835, nota o. Cod. bb per locum a minori, cod. W a maiori.

en: Cf. tome I, p. 835, note o. Codex bb [argues] by the place from the lesser, codex W from the greater.

la: Vide August., de Quantitate animae, c. 34. n. 78. Cfr. etiam tom. II. pag. 43, nota 5.

en: See Augustine, *On the Quantity of the Soul*, c. 34, n. 78. Cf. also tome II, p. 43, note 5.

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 72. n. 3.

en: *On the Gospel of John*, tractate 72, n. 3.

la: Ut ostensum est II. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 2. Cfr. August., I. de Ordine, c. 4. n. 10., et Bernard., Serm. in Cantic. serm. 8. n. 8. ac serm. 31. n. 6. — De maiori vide Aristot., III. Phys. text. 16. seq. (c. 2.); VII. Phys. text. 9. (c. 2.); I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 43. seq. et text. 54. (c. 6. seq.).

en: As was shown, II *Sentences*, d. 8, p. II, q. 2. Cf. Augustine, *On Order* I, c. 4, n. 10, and Bernard, *Sermons on the Canticle*, sermon 8, n. 8, and sermon 31, n. 6. — On the major [premise] see Aristotle, *Physics* III, text 16 and following (c. 2); *Physics* VII, text 9 (c. 2); *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 43 and following and text 54 (c. 6 and following).

la: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 5. a. 1: *Potestas scil. cooperationis, qua scil. homo cooperari dicitur Deo in ablutione interiori, id est in remissione peccati et infusione gratiae, sicut cooperatur homini in ablutione exteriori.* — Superius pro *a culpa* cod. K *peccata.* Inferius pro *in baptizato*, quod habent codd. F H W (bb a secunda manu) et ed. 1, alii *in baptizando* (edd. omittunt *in*), cod. K *in baptismo.*

en: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 8, m. 5, a. 1: «The power namely of cooperation, by which namely a man is said to cooperate with God in the interior cleansing, that is in the remission of sin and the infusion of grace, just as he cooperates with a man in the exterior cleansing». — Above, for *a culpa* ["from fault"] codex K reads *peccata* ["sins"]. Below, for *in baptizato* ["in the one baptized"], which codices F H W (bb in a second hand) and the first edition have, others read *in baptizando* (the editions omit *in*), codex K *in baptismo* ["in baptism"].

la: Cod. G *quae dat*, cod. Z *qua datur.*

en: Codex G [reads] *quae dat* ["which gives"], codex Z *qua datur* ["by which it is given"].

la: Hic c. 3. — Sententiam August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 7, vide hic in lit. — Aliquanto superius pro Magistri, c. 2. baptistae codd. G H *baptizantes.* Subinde non pauci codd. omittunt *in cuius nomine fit, et ab eo.*

en: Here c. 3. — The opinion of Augustine, *On the Gospel of John*, tractate 5, n. 7, see here in the text. — A little above, for the Master's [text], c. 2, [for] *baptistae* ["baptizers"] codices G H read *baptizantes* ["those baptizing"]. Thereupon not a few codices omit *in cuius nomine fit, et ab eo* ["in whose name it is done, and from him"].

la: Cod. A (H a secunda manu) *naturae.* Inferius pro *secundo vero* edd. *vel*; et post *ad gratiam* Vat. addit *recipiendam.*

en: Codex A (H in a second hand) [reads] *naturae* ["of nature"]. Below, for *secundo vero* ["but secondly"] the editions read *vel* ["or"]; and after *ad gratiam* ["as regards grace"] the Vatican edition adds *recipiendam* ["to be received"].

la: Art. 2. q. 2. — Post pauca pro *quae* cod. F *quia*, et pro *in Deum* edd. *in Deo.* Subinde pro *baptizato* codd. G K W *baptizando.*

en: Article 2, q. 2. — A little after, for *quae* codex F reads *quia*, and for *in Deum* ["upon God"] the editions read *in Deo* ["in God"]. Thereupon for *baptizato* ["the one baptized"] codices G K W read *baptizando*.

la: Ex codd. F H K substituimus *sanando* pro *salvando.*

en: From codices F H K we have substituted *sanando* ["healing"] for *salvando* ["saving"].

la: Codd. R T (P a secunda manu) *meritis*; cod. U *meriti*; sed in aliis et edd. bene *meritis.* In fine corp. voci *obiectorum* edd. praemittunt *duorum primorum.*

en: Codices R T (P in a second hand) [read] *meritis*; codex U *meriti*; but in others and in the editions correctly *meritis*. At the end of the body, to the word *obiectorum* ["of the objections"] the editions prefix *duorum primorum* ["of the first two"].

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 10. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: Cf. II *Sentences*, d. 10, a. 2, q. 1 and following.

la: Vide supra pag. 60, nota 4. — De Dionysio cfr. supra pag. 127, nota 7. — Cod. U solus *Christus est doctor interius*, sicut etc. Codd. K T V W X aa exhibent *Christus* pro *Deus.*

en: See above, p. 60, note 4. — On Dionysius cf. above, p. 127, note 7. — Codex U alone [reads] *Christ is teacher inwardly*, just as, etc. Codices K T V W X aa exhibit *Christus* for *Deus*.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 17. p. I. q. 4. — Superius pro *insertam* cod. F *insitam.* Mox post *elevent* cod. X bene supplet *affectivam.* Post pauca pro *aliquo vero non*, quod exhibetur in cod. I (a secunda manu), alii codd. perperam *aliquo modo non*, edd. *aliquo non.*

en: Cf. I *Sentences*, d. 17, p. I, q. 4. — Above, for *insertam* ["implanted"] codex F reads *insitam.* Soon after *elevent* codex X rightly supplies *affectivam* ["the affective"]. A little after, for *aliquo vero non* ["but by some not"], which is exhibited in codex I (in a second hand), other codices wrongly [read] *aliquo modo non*, the editions *aliquo non.*

la: Non pauci codd. et ed. 1 *quod.* Inferius post *et ita* cod. F addit *sicut.*

en: Not a few codices and the first edition [read] *quod.* Below, after *et ita* ["and so"] codex F adds *sicut* ["just as"].

la: Epist. I. Tim. 1, 17: *Soli Deo honor et gloria.* Cfr. Iudas 1, 25.

en: Epistle, 1 Tim. 1:17: *To God alone be honor and glory.* Cf. Jude 1:25.

la: Dist. 14. a. 2. q. 2. in solut. argg. — De prima ratione cfr. August., VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 9. n. 18. — Pro *libro* cod. N *articulo*, forsan intelligitur d. 1. p. I. q. 4.

en: Distinction 14, a. 2, q. 2, in the solution of the arguments. — On the first reason cf. Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* VIII, c. 9, n. 18. — For *libro* ["book"] codex N reads *articulo* ["article"], perhaps d. 1, p. I, q. 4 is understood.

la: Vide supra d. 1. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2, et II. Sent. d. 26. q. 2. ac q. 4. ad 5. — Inferius post *ideo* supple: *Deus*; subinde cod. F omittit *est, qui.*

en: See above, d. 1, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, ad 2, and II *Sentences*, d. 26, q. 2 and q. 4, ad 5. — Below, after *ideo* ["therefore"] supply: *Deus* ["God"]; thereupon codex F omits *est, qui* ["is, who"].

la: Hic c. 3. — Superius pro *purgandas* cod. K *purificandas*, cod. V *curandas.*

en: Here c. 3. — Above, for *purgandas* ["to be purged"] codex K reads *purificandas* ["to be purified"], codex V *curandas* ["to be cured"].

en: Article 2, q. 2.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Cum S. Augustinus (cfr. hic argg. 1. 2. ad oppos.) dixerit, Christum aliquam potestatem circa baptismum sibi retinuisse, quam tamen communicare potuerit; Magister (hic c. 3.), quaerens, quae sit talis potestas, resolvere videtur, quod minister per virtutem divinitus datam Deo possit proprie cooperari in interiore baptizati sanctificatione, sicut in bonis operibus liberum arbitrium cooperatur gratiae. Simul addit, etiam in *creando* similem cooperationem a causa secunda, Deo dante, fieri posse. — Assertio Magistri, sic intellecta, a ceteris Scholasticis improbatur (cfr. II. Sent. d. 44. dub. 3.). — S. Bonav. enumerat sex potestates circa baptismum; sed Alex. Hal. (S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 5. a. 1.) quinque tantum recenset, omittens scilicet potestatem *institutionis*. S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 1, et S. III. q. 64. a. 3. 4.) uno nomine potestatis *excellentiae*, quam tribuit Christo, comprehendit quatuor species (2. 3. 4. et 5.) hic relatas. Idem potestatem *cooperationis*, de qua est tota controversia, iterum quadrupliciter distinguit in Comment. (ibid. a. 2.): «Uno modo, sicut *adiuvans* ei cui auxilium praebet, cooperatur; alio modo, sicut *consilium praebens*; tertio modo, sicut quo mediante agens primum suum effectum inducit, sicut cooperantur *instrumenta* principali agenti; quarto modo, sicut *disponens* materiam ad effectum agentis principalis suscipiendum». Deinde dicit, quod quarto modo tum ex opere operante tum ex opere operato minister Deo in remissione peccatorum cooperari possit. Tertio vero modo, licet in aliquibus actionibus homo Deo cooperatur ut instrumentale agens, non tamen cooperatur in remissione peccatorum. In Summa vero (loc. cit. a. 3.) ipse dicit, quod Christus, «secundum quod est homo, operatur ad interiores effectus Sacramentorum meritorie et efficienter, sed instrumentaliter» (cfr. d. 1. p. I. q. 3. scholion).

**II.** De sententia Magistri praedicta et de contraria communiter sustenta, quod talis potestas cooperationis non possit ministro conferri, S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 3.) dicit, quod «utraque opinio aliquo modo sustineri potest. Cooperatur enim aliquid Deo instrumentaliter duobus modis: uno modo ita, quod per virtutem aliquam habentem esse absolutum et completum in natura operetur ad effectum aliquem producendum non solum secundarium, sed principalem... et hoc modo accipiendo cooperationem, non poterat conferri homini, ut Deo cooperaretur in interiore mundatione, quae fit per gratiam.. Alio modo aliquid cooperatur Deo non per virtutem, quae habeat esse perfectum in natura, neque ad ultimum principalem effectum [scil. gratiam] pertingendo». Deinde asserit, ultimum hunc modum pertinere ad potestatem *excellentiae*, quae fuit in Christo homine; unde, absolute loquendo, etiam aliis potuisset a Deo dari. — Hinc patet, quae sit differentia inter opinionem SS. Thomae et Bonaventurae aliorumque. — De quaestione, utrum creatura instrumentaliter concurrere possit ad *creationem*, cfr. II. Sent. d. 1. p. I. a. 2. q. 2.

**III.** De hac I. quaestione praeter locos citatos: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 1. et 2. — Scot. rem tangit IV. Sent. d. 1. q. 3. n. 5. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. 3. — Durand., hic q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2.

**IV.** De seq. (2.) quaestione cfr. III. Sent. d. 19. a. 1. q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Since St. Augustine (cf. here, arguments 1 and 2 to the opposite) had said that Christ retained to Himself a certain power concerning baptism, which nevertheless He could have communicated; the Master (here, c. 3), asking what such a power is, seems to resolve that the minister, through a power divinely given, can properly cooperate with God in the interior sanctification of the one baptized, just as in good works free will cooperates with grace. At the same time he adds that even in *creating* a similar cooperation, by a second cause, with God giving [it], could come to be. — The Master's assertion, so understood, is disproved by the other Scholastics (cf. II *Sentences*, d. 44, dub. 3). — St. Bonaventure enumerates six powers concerning baptism; but Alexander of Hales (*Summa* p. IV, q. 8, m. 5, a. 1) reckons only five, omitting namely the power of *institution*. St. Thomas (here q. 1, a. 1, and *Summa* III, q. 64, a. 3, 4), under the single name of the power of *excellence*, which he attributes to Christ, comprehends four species (2, 3, 4, and 5) here related. The same [author] again distinguishes the power of *cooperation*, about which is the whole controversy, in fourfold manner in his Commentary (ibid. a. 2): «In one way, as *one helping* him to whom he affords aid cooperates; in another way, as *one offering counsel*; in a third way, as that by the mediation of which the prime agent induces its effect, as *instruments* cooperate with the principal agent; in a fourth way, as *one disposing* the matter for receiving the effect of the principal agent». Then he says that in the fourth mode, both by the work of the worker and by the work worked, the minister can cooperate with God in the remission of sins. But in the third mode, although in some actions a man cooperates with God as an instrumental agent, nevertheless he does not cooperate in the remission of sins. But in the *Summa* (loc. cit. a. 3) he himself says that Christ, «according as He is man, works toward the interior effects of the Sacraments meritoriously and efficiently, but instrumentally» (cf. d. 1, p. I, q. 3, scholion).

**II.** Concerning the aforesaid opinion of the Master and the contrary [opinion] commonly held, that such a power of cooperation cannot be conferred on a minister, St. Thomas (here q. 1, a. 3) says that «either opinion can in some way be sustained. For something cooperates with God instrumentally in two ways: in one way thus, that through some power having an absolute and complete being in nature it works toward producing some effect not only secondary, but principal... and accepting cooperation in this mode, it could not be conferred on a man, that he might cooperate with God in the interior cleansing which comes about through grace. In another way something cooperates with God not through a power which has a perfect being in nature, nor by attaining to the ultimate principal effect [namely grace]». Then he asserts that this ultimate mode pertains to the power of *excellence*, which was in Christ as man; whence, absolutely speaking, it could have been given by God even to others. — Hence it is clear what is the difference between the opinion of SS. Thomas and Bonaventure and of others. — Concerning the question whether a creature can instrumentally concur toward *creation*, cf. II *Sentences*, d. 1, p. I, a. 2, q. 2.

**III.** Concerning this first question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 1 and 2. — Scotus touches the matter, IV *Sentences*, d. 1, q. 3, n. 5, 6. — Blessed Albert, here a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2, 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2, 3. — Durandus, here q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 2.

**IV.** Concerning the following (2nd) question, cf. III *Sentences*, d. 19, a. 1, q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance / page-split map:** Raw OCR L14447–14739 (Art. III header at L14447, q1 title at L14459, q1 body L14458–14739; q2/QUAESTIO II opens L14740). Printed pp. 127–129 (PDF 147–149). Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p{127,128,129}-{L,R}-*` at split x≈1880) because the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters this two-column region. The short Art. III opener (*Quantum ad tertium articulum… quaeruntur duo: Primo… Secundo…*) is **folded into this q1** per the Vol II/IV chunking convention. Running heads verified: p. 127 "DIST. V. ART. III. QUAEST. I." (127), p. 128 "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (128), p. 129 "DIST. V. ART. III. QUAEST. I." (129).
- **Apparatus split:** 25 entries. **p. 127 notes 4–12** (9 entries) picked up here from the **a2-q2 hand-off** (a2-q2 took p. 127 notes 1–3, which anchor at the top of the page in the close of d.5 a.2 q.2); they anchor in q1's args 1–6 + Contra 1–3. **p. 128 notes 1–9** (9 entries) anchor in the Respondeo (six potestates, *duplex cooperatio*) + Ad-3. **p. 129 notes 1–7** (7 entries) anchor in the Ad-3 tail, Ad-4/5/6, and Epilogus. The **p. 130 footer notes belong to the following chunk a3-q2** (QUAESTIO II body).
- **Scholion:** Article-III-level scholion (sections **I–IV**, covering q1 *and* q2). It begins p. 129 right column, runs across to p. 130 left column (section IV ends just before QUAESTIO II on p. 130). Placed **body-last in this q1 chunk** per the corpus convention (article scholia live in the article's q1; cf. a2-q1 for d.5 a.2). The scholion carries its references inline (parenthetical) and has no separate footnote block.
- **Hand-off forward to a3-q2** (QUAESTIO II, *Utrum Christo data sit potestas dimittendi peccata*, raw L14740, opens p. 130): the quaestio's fundamenta (1. Mt. 9 *Ut autem sciatis…* + Mt. ult. *Data est mihi omnis potestas*; 2. *ratione* — Christ redeemer/mediator; 3. human nature united to divine) + Contra (1. *Ille solus potest peccata dimittere qui potest animas vivificare*; 2.) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo begin p. 130. **p. 130 footer notes 1–8 belong to a3-q2** (1=Vers. 6; 2=lit. Magistri c. 5; 3=III. Sent. d. 6 a. 2 q. 1; 4=In Ioan. Evang. tr. 19 n. 15; 5=August. In Ioan. Evang. tr. 1 n. 13; 6=Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum; 7=Eph. 4:8 / Ps. 67:19; 8=III. Sent. d. 20 q. 5). The Art. III scholion is **already fully placed here** — a3-q2 carries no scholion.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All body bands and footer notes legible at 450 dpi; the OCR garbles (column-shatter) were resolved entirely against the PDF column bands.


title: Dist. 5, Art. 3, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 130 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Christo data sit potestas dimittendi peccata.*

Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum Christo data sit potestas dimittendi peccata. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. *Ante resurrectionem* enim dicit, Matthaei nono[^1]: *Ut autem sciatis, quia Filius hominis habet potestatem dimittendi peccata*; post resurrectionem etiam dicit, Matthaei ultimo: *Data est mihi omnis potestas* etc.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia Christus est redemptor, secundum quod homo, et mediator, sicut dicitur in libro tertio Sententiarum distinctione decima nona[^2]; sed maius est redimere genus humanum quam peccata dimittere: ergo etc.

3. Item, humana natura est unita divinae in unitate personae[^3], ergo multo fortius in unitate operationis: ergo quamvis sit Dei solius, est tamen hominis Christi etiam dimittere peccata.

**Contra:** 1. Ille solus potest peccata dimittere, qui potest animas vivificare; sed solius Dei, et non alterius, est animas vivificare, sicut dicit Augustinus[^4]: ergo etc. *Fundamenta.*

2. Item, quamvis homo ille sit Deo unitus, tamen homo est et creatura, ergo finitae potentiae; sed animam recreare, cum sit facta *nihil* per peccatum[^5], est infinitae potentiae: ergo illud non potest Christus, secundum quod homo.

> **Conclusio.** Christo, secundum quod est homo, competit potestas dimittendi peccata dispositive *sive per modum meriti*, non vero effective.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, si hoc intelligatur de potestate *effectiva* dimittendi peccata, sic solius Dei est, non hominis, quia Christus interius baptizat, non secundum quod homo, sed secundum quod Deus[^6]. Si autem de potestate *dispositiva*, utpote per modum *meriti*; sic Christus meruit nobis dimittere peccata et quantum ad *poenam* et quantum ad *culpam*. Unde quia *Deus dedit dona hominibus*[^7] et condonavit culpam; quia vero *homo innocens*, *accepit* in nobis *dona*, id est meruit, ut nos acciperemus.

Meruit autem Christus nobis remissionem culpae et relaxationem poenae sua passione, quae fuit Deo gratissima et in se fuit acerbissima, nullo modo ex delicto suo, immo propter solvenda debita nostra[^8], et in hoc habet Christus *excellere*, in quantum homo, in potestate dimittendi poenam, quia per se potest totum condonare; sicut et fecit mulieri in adulterio deprehensae, et nunc etiam potest sine clave aliqua. Alii autem homines si possunt, hoc est potestate, per quam Dominus eis commisit suae passionis thesaurum et meritum dispensandum, quasi custodibus thesauri. Ideo ampliori modo nobilitatis attribuitur Christo, etiam secundum quod homo, potestas dimittendi peccata quam aliis; non quod ipse *deleat culpam*, sicut ostendunt rationes, quia, sicut probatum est in primo libro et in praecedenti problemate, talis deletio fit per gratiae infusionem et creationem, et iste est actus potentiae infinitae: creatura autem potentiae infinitae non est capax, nec per potentiam *finitam* potest continuari potentiae agentis actu infinito: et ideo nullo modo nec unitae nec non unitae creaturae alicui convenit potestas baptizandi interius sive remittendi peccata *effective*, sed solum *dispositive*, et hoc competit merito Christi; vel tantum *formaliter*, et hoc competit gratiae, quam impetrat Christus.

<!-- page 131 -->

1. Ex his patent obiecta. Quod enim dicitur in Matthaeo, intelligitur secundum *idiomatum communicationem*, non quod, secundum quod homo, hoc possit.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de redemptione, dicendum, quod in redemptione duo sunt: est enim ibi *solutio pretii*, pro quo eramus obligati, et *donatio gratiae*, per quam sumus reconciliati. Primum quidem est minoris potentiae, secundum maioris; et ratione primi dicitur Redemptor, scilicet ratione humanitatis, ratione secundi quantum ad divinitatem; nec humanitas suffecisset, nisi Deitati unita esset.

3. Ad aliud dicendum, quod unitas operationis non sequitur unitatem *personae*, sed *naturae*. Et quia Patris et Filii una est natura, quamvis duae sint personae, ideo unam habent operationem. Quia vero humanitas et divinitas in Christo sunt diversae naturae, ideo diversas operationes habent.

english:
### Question II. *Whether the power of forgiving sins was given to Christ.*

Secondly it is asked concerning this, whether the power of forgiving sins was given to Christ. And that it was so, it seems.

1. For *before the resurrection* He says, in Matthew nine[^1]: *But that you may know that the Son of Man has the power of forgiving sins*; and after the resurrection He also says, in the last [chapter] of Matthew: *All power is given to me* etc.

2. Likewise, it seems *by reason*: because Christ is the redeemer, according as He is man, and the mediator, as is said in the third book of the *Sentences*, distinction nineteen[^2]; but it is greater to redeem the human race than to forgive sins: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, human nature is united to the divine in the unity of person[^3], therefore much more strongly in the unity of operation: therefore, although it belongs to God alone, it nevertheless belongs also to Christ the man to forgive sins.

**On the contrary:** 1. He alone can forgive sins who can vivify souls; but to vivify souls belongs to God alone, and not to another, as Augustine says[^4]: therefore etc. *Fundamenta.*

2. Likewise, although that man is united to God, nevertheless He is man and a creature, therefore of finite power; but to recreate the soul, since it has been made *nothing* through sin[^5], is [a work] of infinite power: therefore Christ cannot [do] that, according as He is man.

> **Conclusion.** To Christ, according as He is man, belongs the power of forgiving sins dispositively *or by way of merit*, but not effectively.

**I respond:** It must be said that, if this is understood of the *effective* power of forgiving sins, then it belongs to God alone, not to man, because Christ baptizes interiorly not according as He is man, but according as He is God[^6]. But if [it is understood] of the *dispositive* power, namely by way of *merit*; then Christ merited for us the forgiving of sins both as to *punishment* and as to *fault*. Hence, because *God gave gifts to men*[^7] and condoned the fault; and because [as] *innocent man* He *received* in us *gifts*, that is, He merited that we should receive [them].

Now Christ merited for us the remission of fault and the relaxation of punishment by His passion, which was most pleasing to God and in itself was most bitter, in no way from His own offense, but rather on account of debts to be paid for us[^8], and in this Christ has [the power] *to excel*, inasmuch as He is man, in the power of forgiving punishment, because by Himself He can condone the whole; just as He also did to the woman caught in adultery, and even now He can [do it] without any key. But if other men can [do it], this is by a power through which the Lord committed to them the treasure of His passion and merit to be dispensed, as it were to guardians of the treasure. Therefore the power of forgiving sins is attributed to Christ, even according as He is man, in a fuller mode of nobility than to others; not that He Himself *blots out the fault*, as the reasons show, because, as was proved in the first book and in the preceding problem, such a blotting-out comes about through the infusion of grace and through creation, and this is an act of infinite power: but a creature is not capable of infinite power, nor through *finite* power can it be made continuous with the power of an agent [acting] by an infinite act: and therefore in no way does the power of baptizing interiorly or of remitting sins *effectively* belong to any creature, whether united [to God] or not united, but only *dispositively*, and this belongs to the merit of Christ; or only *formally*, and this belongs to the grace which Christ obtains [for us].

1. From these things the objections are plain. For what is said in Matthew is understood according to the *communication of idioms*, not that, according as He is man, He could [do] this.

2. To that which is objected concerning the redemption, it must be said that in the redemption there are two things: for there is the *payment of the price* for which we were obligated, and the *gift of grace* through which we are reconciled. The first indeed is of lesser power, the second of greater; and by reason of the first He is called Redeemer, namely by reason of His humanity, by reason of the second as to His divinity; nor would the humanity have sufficed, had it not been united to the Deity.

3. To the other [it] must be said that the unity of operation does not follow the unity of *person*, but of *nature*. And because the nature of the Father and of the Son is one, although there are two persons, therefore they have one operation. But because the humanity and the divinity in Christ are diverse natures, therefore they have diverse operations.

la: Vers. 6. — Seq. textus est ibid. 28, 18.

en: [Matthew 9,] verse 6. — The following text is the same [gospel], 28, 18.

la: In lit. Magistri, c. 5. seqq. Cfr. ibid. Comment. a. 2. q. I. seq. — Post *mediator* cod. F addit *secundum quod homo*; cod. II perperam *secundum quod Deus*.

en: In the text of the Master, c. 5 and following. Cf. ibid. the Commentary, a. 2, q. I and following. — After *mediator* codex F adds *according as He is man*; codex II wrongly *according as He is God*.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 6. a. 2. q. I. — Arg. fundatur in axiomate: *Operari sequitur esse*, et: *Actiones sunt suppositorum*.

en: See III *Sentences* d. 6, a. 2, q. I. — The argument is founded on the axiom: *Acting follows being*, and: *Actions belong to supposits*.

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 19. n. 15: *Animas ergo resuscitat Deus per Christum Filium Dei, corpora suscitat Deus per eundem Christum filium hominis. Et infra n. 16: Hora nunc est, ut resurgant mortui, hora erit in fine saeculi, ut resurgant mortui; sed resurgant nunc in mente, tunc in carne; resurgant nunc in mente per Verbum Dei, Filium Dei, resurgant tunc in carne per Verbum Dei carnem factum, filium hominis.* Cfr. Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum in Ioan. 5, 25. Vide etiam August., Enarrat. in Ps. 70. serm. 2. n. 3.

en: *On the Gospel of John*, tract 19, n. 15: *God therefore raises up souls through Christ the Son of God, God raises up bodies through the same Christ the son of man.* And below, n. 16: *The hour now is, that the dead should rise, the hour will be at the end of the age, that the dead should rise; but let them rise now in the mind, then in the flesh; let them rise now in the mind through the Word of God, the Son of God, let them rise then in the flesh through the Word of God made flesh, the son of man.* Cf. the *ordinary* Gloss in Strabus and Lyra on John 5, 25. See also Augustine, *Commentary on the Psalms*, on Ps. 70, sermon 2, n. 3.

la: August., In Ioan. Evang. tr. I, n. 13: *Peccatum quidem non per ipsum [Verbum] factum est; et manifestum est, quia peccatum nihil est, et nihil fiunt homines, cum peccant.* Et de Verbis Apostoli, serm. 176. (alias 20.) c. 5. n. 5: *Nemo recreat, nisi qui creat; nemo reficit, nisi qui fecit.* Cfr. tom. II. pag. 633, nota 3.

en: Augustine, *On the Gospel of John*, tract 1, n. 13: *Sin indeed was not made through Him [the Word]; and it is manifest that sin is nothing, and men become nothing when they sin.* And *On the Words of the Apostle*, sermon 176 (otherwise 20), c. 5, n. 5: *No one recreates except him who creates; no one remakes except him who made.* Cf. tome II, p. 633, note 3.

la: Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum in Marc. 2, 10. (secundum Bedam in hunc loc.): *Solus Deus dimittit peccata; et Filius hominis habet potestatem dimittendi peccata: ergo idem Deus et filius hominis est. Ita homo Christus per divinitatem dimittit peccata, per humanitatem pro peccatoribus potest mori.*

en: The *ordinary* Gloss in Strabus on Mark 2, 10 (according to Bede on this passage): *God alone forgives sins; and the Son of Man has the power of forgiving sins: therefore the same is God and the son of man. Thus the man Christ forgives sins through His divinity, [and] through His humanity He can die for sinners.*

la: Eph. 4, 8. — Ps. 67, 19: *Accepisti dona in hominibus.*

en: Ephesians 4, 8. — Ps. 67, 19: *You have received gifts among men.*

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 5. — De muliere in adulterio deprehensa vide Ioan. 8, 3-11. — De clavibus agitur infra d. 18. p. I. per totam et d. 19. a. I. et 2. — Pro *immo* non pauci codd. *et ideo*, cod. F *sed*.

en: Cf. III *Sentences* d. 20, q. 5. — On the woman caught in adultery see John 8, 3-11. — On the keys it is treated below at d. 18, p. I throughout, and d. 19, a. I and 2. — For *immo* not a few codices [read] *et ideo*, codex F *sed*.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (Vol IV PDF-priority inversion) over the IA djvu OCR base; raw L14740–14862. Alignment confirmed: opener = *Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum Christo data sit potestas dimittendi peccata* (matches title_la). The IA OCR for this two-column page is cascade-shattered (Respondeo, Conclusio, and footers all fragmented one-token-per-line with cross-column bleed); the column-band PDF reads were authoritative throughout.
- **Page-split map:** QUAESTIO II opens p. 130 (left column, below the tail of the Art. III scholion which lives in a3-q1). Fundamenta 1–3, Contra 1–2, the CONCLUSIO, and the Respondeo all sit on p. 130 (left col = fundamenta+contra; right col = Conclusio + Respondeo). The Respondeo's tail and the three replies (*solutio oppositorum*) carry over to **p. 131 left column**, ending just before `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI`.
- **Apparatus split:** all 8 footnotes are p. 130 notes 1–8, picked up per the a3-q1 hand-off (a3-q1 captured p. 127 notes 4–12, p. 128 notes 1–9, p. 129 notes 1–7; it explicitly parked p. 130 notes 1–8 for this chunk). p. 131 carries no q2 footers — its footer block belongs to the DUBIA (Dub. I, Dub. II), verified eyes-on against the p. 131 footer band.
- **Marginal labels** present on the p. 130 right column (Quaracchi editorial side-notes, not rendered): *Conclusio 1.*, *Conclusio 2.*, *Corollarium de Christi potestate excellentiae*; and on p. 131, *Solutio oppositorum*. These are the standard Quaracchi argument-structure marginalia and are not part of the body text.
- **Scholion:** NONE in this chunk. The Article-III scholion (sections I–IV, covering q1 *and* q2) lives in **a3-q1** (committed 7f11e66), placed body-last there per the corpus convention (article scholia live in the article's q1).
- **Hand-off forward to d5-dubia** (`DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI`, raw ~L14863, p. 131): the DUBIA opens on p. 131 (Dub. I *In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram… Iustos oportet esse per baptizari*; Dub. II *Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Si quos baptizavit ebrios* …). **All of p. 131's footer notes (1–9) belong to the DUBIA chunk**, not to this q2.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All readings resolved against the p. 130–131 column bands.