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

source_text:
<!-- page 64 -->

### Articulus I. *De his quae pertinent ad integritatem Sacramenti baptismi.*
### Quaestio I. *Quid sit baptismus a parte elementi, utrum aqua, vel intinctio in aqua.*

Primo ergo quaeritur, quid sit baptismus secundum suam essentiam, utrum aqua, vel tinctio in aqua. Et quod aqua sit, videtur:

1. Per definitionem Hugonis[^1]: « Baptismus est aqua abluendis criminibus sanctificata ». Similiter per definitionem sui *generis*: « Sacramentum est elementum ex similitudine repraesentans » etc.: ergo si aqua est elementum, Sacramentum baptismi est aqua. *Si dicas*, quod utramque definitionem assignat per *causam materialem*, non per *essentiam*; *contra*: haec est per essentiam: baptismus est Sacramentum; et haec: Sacramentum est signum; et haec: « Signum est species sensibilis, aliud faciens in cognitionem venire[^2] »: ergo haec est vera secundum substantiam: baptismus est species vel forma visibilis rei invisibilis; sed haec forma vel species non est nisi aqua: ergo etc.

2. Item, species panis est Sacramentum in eucharistia, non ipsa panis manducatio, sed magis usus; et hoc, quia similitudinem habet ad significatum ibi contentum: ergo si in baptismo gratia abluens significatur per aquam abluentem, ergo aqua abluens est Sacramentum; sed non aliud quam baptismus: ergo etc.

Quod autem aqua non sit baptismus, sed *tinctio*, videtur:

1. Per illud quod dicit Magister in littera[^3] definiens baptismum: « Baptismus est ablutio corporis exterior facta sub forma verborum praescripta »; et subdit: « Accedente verbo ad elementum, fit Sacramentum; non ipsum elementum fit Sacramentum, sed ablutio facta in elemento »: ergo patet, quod baptismus non est aqua, sed ablutio in aqua.

2. Item, hoc ipsum patet *ratione*, quia, si baptismus esset aqua, cum aqua sit semper aqua, semper esset baptismus; quod falsum est, quia non

<!-- page 65 -->

est, nisi dum aliquis baptizatur. Et *iterum*, cum aliquis baptizaretur in mari, tunc mare esset baptismus, et flumen; quod non est rationabile[^4].

3. Item, ad Sacramentum baptismi concurrit verbum et elementum[^5]: ergo si verbum est necessarium, utpote quod significat, illud proprie est baptismus, ad quod refertur verbum; sed verbum refertur ad actum abluendi, cum dicitur *abluo te*, non ad aquam: ergo baptismus non est aqua.

4. Quod autem nec *aqua* sit nec *tinctio* in aqua, videtur: quia baptismus *manet*, recedente aqua et ablutione, in baptizato: ergo etc. Quod maneat, videtur, quia semper denominat[^6] et nunquam iteratur.

### Conclusio

> Utrumque, scilicet aqua abluens et ablutio, est Sacramentum, unum tamen.

**Respondeo:** Ad intelligentiam praedictorum est notandum, quod *baptizare* in Graeco tantum valet, quantum *lavare* in Latino[^7]; unde Iudith duodecimo: *Descendebat in vallem Bethuliae et baptizabat se.* Ab eo autem quod est *lavare* oritur *lavacrum* et *lotio*. Lavacrum est aqua deputata ad lavandum, sicut balneum est aqua deputata ad balneandum humano artificio. Lotio vero est usus vel effectus aquae. — Baptismus igitur accipitur pro *lavacro*, ut Canticorum quarto[^8]: *Dentes tui sicut greges tonsarum, quae ascenderunt de lavacro*; Glossa: « Loti in baptismo ». Et e converso, ad Titum tertio[^9]: *Per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis.* — Accipitur etiam pro *lotione*, Marci septimo: *Tenentes traditionem hominum, baptismata calicum et urceorum*, id est lotiones; similiter *ablutio* pro baptismo, Ioannis decimo tertio: *Qui lotus est non indiget* etc.: *lotus*, id est baptizatus.

Cum igitur nomen baptismi aequivaleat *lavacro* et etiam *lotioni*, dixerunt aliqui, quod baptismus, secundum quod est nomen Sacramenti, idem est quod *lavacrum*; alii, quod est idem quod *tinctio*. Primae opinionis videtur fuisse magister Hugo, sed secundae Magister[^10]. Credo tamen, quod utroque modo dictum est, quia secundum quod *lavacrum*, est sacrae rei signum; aqua enim abluens signum est gratiae intus mundantis, et ablutio signum interioris mundationis; et ita utrumque Sacramentum, nec tamen duo Sacramenta, quia unum est propter alterum. Aqua enim non est Sacramentum, nisi in quantum abluens; et lotio non est Sacramentum nisi quia lotio aquae vel in aqua; et ideo unum tantum Sacramentum.

Si tamen quaeras, quod *per prius et proprius* dicitur Sacramentum, utrum baptismus pro *lavacro*, an pro *lotione*; est distinguendum, quod baptismus dicitur Sacramentum *sanctificans*, et sic principalius dicitur de lotione, quia immediatius respicit interiorem effectum et verbum[^11]; dicitur etiam Sacramentum *significans*, et sic principaliter dicitur de lavacro, quia significatum interius proprie et per prius est gratia mundans, et per consequens ipsa lotio. — Et est exemplum: circulus expositus ante tabernam signum est vini vendendi, et expositio circuli signum est venditionis; tamen *magis* proprie est signum circulus quam expositio; sic aqua magis quam ablutio. — Et concedendae sunt rationes hoc probantes.

**Ad argumenta in contrarium:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud autem quod obiicitur in contrarium de Magistro, dicendum, quod ipse fuit alterius opinionis; nihilominus concedendum est, quod tamen ex hoc sequitur, quod baptismus sit ablutio; nec non sit aqua abluens. Quod autem dicit, quod elementum non fit Sacramentum: intelligendum, non secundum id quod *est*, sed secundum actum, qui est *lavare*.

*Ad 2. 3.* Per hoc etiam patet sequens: quia aqua non est Sacramentum secundum quod aqua solum,

<!-- page 66 -->

sed secundum *actum lavandi*, sicut gratia medetur secundum actum purgandi[^12]; et ideo non sequitur, quod semper aqua sit Sacramentum, nec quod omnis aqua, sed aqua quae lavat et quae deputatur ad hoc; et hoc non est totum mare vel fluvius, sed illud aquae, quod de proximo coniungitur corpori lavando. — Ex hoc etiam patet sequens, quia verbum refertur ad aquam, secundum quod Sacramentum in actu, et sic est in quantum lavans.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *manet*; dicendum, quod baptismus proprie, secundum quod dicit Sacramentum exterius, non manet in se, sed in suo effectu, et ratione illius dicitur manere. Effectus enim baptismi aliquando dicitur baptismus.

Unde notandum, quod cum in baptismo sint tria: quoddam, quod est Sacramentum tantum, ut elementum visibile; quoddam, quod est res tantum, sicut gratia curans; quoddam, quod est Sacramentum et *res* Sacramenti, ut character. De re Sacramenti dicitur[^13] communiter; de re et Sacramento dicitur proprie; de Sacramento autem dicitur magis proprie; sed de lotione adhuc magis proprie; de elemento autem sub tali actu maxime proprie. — Et secundum has quatuor acceptiones quadrupliciter definitur. Secundum quod baptismus est nomen elementi significantis et sanctificantis virtute verbi, definitur ab Hugone[^14]: « Baptismus est aqua diluendis criminibus sanctificata ». — Secundum quod pro actu vel usu elementi, a Magistro: « Baptismus est tinctio corporis exterior facta sub forma verborum praescripta ». — Secundum quod accipitur pro Sacramento et re Sacramenti, quod est character, sic a Damasceno[^15]: « Baptismus est vitae spiritualis principium, sigillum et custodia et illuminatio mentis ». Et tangitur quadruplex conditio characteris: quia enim praeparat ad gratiam, ideo principium vitae; quia distinguit gregem Domini, sic sigillum; quia indelebiliter perseverat, sic custodia; quia specialiter disponit ad fidem, dicitur illuminatio mentis. — Secundum quod accipitur pro re Sacramenti, definitur a Dionysio[^16]: « Baptismus est regenerationis Sacramentum, secundum quod primitus subsistit in anima, spiritualiter formans animales motus ad opportunitatem divinorum eloquiorum et actionum, et ad caelestis quietis anagogen iter faciens ». In hac definitione tangitur res huius Sacramenti, quae est gratia animam vivificans, cum dicit: « secundum quod primitus subsistit in anima »; tangitur etiam habilitatio potentiae per virtutem, primo ad activam, cum dicit: « formans animales motus »; secundo ad contemplativam, cum dicit: « ad caelestis quietis anagogen ».

english:
### Article I. *On the things that pertain to the integrity of the Sacrament of baptism.*
### Question I. *What baptism is on the side of the element, whether it is water, or the dipping in water.*

First, then, it is asked what baptism is according to its essence, whether it is water, or a dipping in water. And that it is water seems [so]:

1. By the definition of Hugh[^1]: « Baptism is water sanctified for the washing away of sins ». Likewise by the definition of its *genus*: « A Sacrament is an element representing by likeness » etc.: therefore if water is the element, the Sacrament of baptism is water. *If you say* that he assigns both definitions by the *material cause*, not by the *essence*; *on the contrary*: this is [stated] by essence: baptism is a Sacrament; and this: a Sacrament is a sign; and this: « A sign is a sensible species, making something else come into knowledge[^2] »: therefore this is true according to substance: baptism is a visible species or form of an invisible thing; but this form or species is nothing but water: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the species of bread is the Sacrament in the eucharist, not the eating of the bread itself, but rather the use; and this, because it has a likeness to the thing signified and contained therein: therefore if in baptism the washing grace is signified through the washing water, then the washing water is the Sacrament; but [it is] nothing other than baptism: therefore etc.

But that water is not baptism, but rather the *dipping*, seems [so]:

1. By that which the Master says in the text[^3], defining baptism: « Baptism is the exterior washing of the body done under the prescribed form of words »; and he adds: « When the word comes to the element, the Sacrament is made; the element itself does not become the Sacrament, but the washing done in the element »: therefore it is clear that baptism is not water, but the washing in water.

2. Likewise, this same thing is clear by *reason*, because, if baptism were water, since water is always water, it would always be baptism; which is false, because it is not [baptism]

except while someone is being baptized. And *again*, when someone were baptized in the sea, then the sea would be baptism, and the river [also]; which is not reasonable[^4].

3. Likewise, to the Sacrament of baptism there concur word and element[^5]: therefore if the word is necessary, inasmuch as it signifies, that is properly baptism to which the word refers; but the word refers to the act of washing, when it is said *I wash thee*, not to the water: therefore baptism is not water.

4. But that it is neither *water* nor a *dipping* in water seems [so]: because baptism *remains* in the baptized when the water and the washing have withdrawn: therefore etc. That it remains seems [so], because it always denominates[^6] and is never repeated.

### Conclusion

> Both, namely the washing water and the washing, are the Sacrament, yet one [Sacrament].

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that *baptizare* in Greek is worth as much as *lavare* (to wash) in Latin[^7]; whence Judith twelve: *He was going down into the valley of Bethulia and baptizing himself.* Now from that which is *to wash* arises *lavacrum* (laver/washing-place) and *lotio* (washing). A *lavacrum* is water set apart for washing, just as a bath is water set apart for bathing by human craft. But *lotio* is the use or effect of water. — Baptism therefore is taken for the *lavacrum*, as in Canticles four[^8]: *Thy teeth as flocks of the shorn, which came up from the washing*; the Gloss: « Washed in baptism ». And conversely, to Titus three[^9]: *Through the laver of regeneration and renewal.* — It is also taken for the *lotion*, Mark seven: *Holding the tradition of men, the washings of cups and pitchers*, that is, washings; likewise *ablution* for baptism, John thirteen: *He that is washed needeth not* etc.: *washed*, that is, baptized.

Since therefore the name of baptism is equivalent to *lavacrum* and also to *lotion*, some have said that baptism, insofar as it is the name of the Sacrament, is the same as the *lavacrum*; others, that it is the same as the *dipping*. Of the first opinion master Hugh seems to have been, but of the second the Master[^10]. I believe, however, that it is said in both ways, because insofar as it is *lavacrum*, it is the sign of a sacred thing; for the washing water is the sign of the grace inwardly cleansing, and the washing is the sign of interior cleansing; and so each is a Sacrament, yet not two Sacraments, because one is on account of the other. For water is not a Sacrament except inasmuch as washing; and the washing is not a Sacrament except because [it is] a washing of water or in water; and therefore [there is] only one Sacrament.

If, however, you ask, by which is the Sacrament said *more first and more properly*, whether baptism for the *lavacrum*, or for the *lotion*; a distinction must be made, [namely] that baptism is called the *sanctifying* Sacrament, and thus it is said more principally of the washing, because it more immediately regards the interior effect and the word[^11]; it is also called the *signifying* Sacrament, and thus it is said principally of the lavacrum, because the thing signified inwardly, properly and more first, is the cleansing grace, and consequently the washing itself. — And there is an example: a hoop displayed before a tavern is a sign of wine to be sold, and the displaying of the hoop is a sign of the selling; yet the hoop is *more* properly a sign than the displaying; so [too] the water more than the washing. — And the reasons proving this are to be conceded.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* As for that which is objected to the contrary concerning the Master, it must be said that he was of another opinion; nonetheless it must be conceded that yet from this it follows that baptism is a washing; and it is not the case that it is not washing water. But as for what he says, that the element does not become the Sacrament: it is to be understood, not according to that which it *is*, but according to the act, which is *to wash*.

*To 2 and 3.* By this also the following is clear: that water is not the Sacrament insofar as it is water alone,

but according to the *act of washing*, just as grace heals according to the act of purging[^12]; and therefore it does not follow that water is always the Sacrament, nor that all water [is], but the water which washes and which is set apart for this; and this is not the whole sea or river, but that [part] of the water which is most immediately joined to the body to be washed. — From this also the following is clear, that the word refers to the water insofar as [it is] Sacrament in act, and thus it is [Sacrament] inasmuch as washing.

*To 4.* As for that which is objected, that it *remains*; it must be said that baptism properly, insofar as it names the exterior Sacrament, does not remain in itself, but in its effect, and by reason of that it is said to remain. For the effect of baptism is sometimes called baptism.

Whence it must be noted that since in baptism there are three things: one, which is Sacrament only, as the visible element; one, which is the thing (*res*) only, as the healing grace; one, which is Sacrament and *res* of the Sacrament, as the character. Of the *res* of the Sacrament it is said[^13] commonly; of the *res*-and-Sacrament it is said properly; of the Sacrament, however, it is said more properly; but of the washing still more properly; and of the element under such an act most properly. — And according to these four acceptations it is defined fourfold. Insofar as baptism is the name of the element signifying and sanctifying by the power of the word, it is defined by Hugh[^14]: « Baptism is water sanctified for the washing away of sins ». — Insofar as [it is taken] for the act or use of the element, by the Master: « Baptism is the exterior dipping of the body done under the prescribed form of words ». — Insofar as it is taken for the Sacrament-and-*res* of the Sacrament, which is the character, thus by Damascene[^15]: « Baptism is the principle of the spiritual life, a seal and a guard and an illumination of the mind ». And a fourfold condition of the character is touched upon: for because it prepares for grace, it is therefore the principle of life; because it distinguishes the flock of the Lord, thus [it is] a seal; because it perseveres indelibly, thus [it is] a guard; because it specially disposes for faith, it is called an illumination of the mind. — Insofar as it is taken for the *res* of the Sacrament, it is defined by Dionysius[^16]: « Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration, insofar as it first subsists in the soul, spiritually forming the animal motions toward an aptitude for the divine words and actions, and making a way toward the anagogy of the heavenly rest ». In this definition is touched upon the *res* of this Sacrament, which is the grace vivifying the soul, when he says: « insofar as it first subsists in the soul »; there is also touched upon the enabling of the power through virtue, first toward the active, when he says: « forming the animal motions »; secondly toward the contemplative, when he says: « toward the anagogy of the heavenly rest ».

la: Libr. II. *de Sacram.* p. VI. c. 2. Seq. — definitio Sacramenti est ipsius Hugonis, I. *de Sacram.* p. IX. c. 2; cfr. supra d. I. p. I. q. 2. fundam. 2.

en: Bk. II *On the Sacraments* pt. VI, c. 2. The following — [namely] the definition of a Sacrament is Hugh's own, bk. I *On the Sacraments* pt. IX, c. 2; cf. above, dist. I, pt. I, q. 2, fundam. 2.

la: Secundum August., II. *de Doctr. christ.* c. 1. n. 1. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 3. Ibid. c. 2. et 4. insinuatur tam praecedens propositio quam sequens.

en: According to Augustine, *On Christian Doctrine* bk. II, c. 1, n. 1. Cf. above, the Master's text, dist. I, c. 3. Ibid. cc. 2 and 4 there is intimated both the preceding proposition and the following.

la: Hic c. 1.

en: Here, c. 1.

la: Cod. U *esset baptismus, quod falsum est, quia non est rationabile.*

en: Codex U [reads] *esset baptismus, quod falsum est, quia non est rationabile* (it would be baptism, which is false, because it is not reasonable).

la: Vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1, allata verba Augustini. — Mox pro *utpote* codd. E F L *ut.*

en: See here in the Master's text, c. 1, the cited words of Augustine. — Soon, for *utpote* (inasmuch as) codices E, F, L [read] *ut.*

la: Simul audi: *baptizatum.* — Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. I.: *Baptismus perpetuus manet in baptizato, sed ablutio statim deficit: ergo etc.* Quod perpetuo maneat, videtur, quia, cum aliquis baptizatur, recipit Sacramentum baptismi, et quamdiu est baptizatus, habet Sacramentum, sicut, unus albus, habet albedinem; sed semel baptizatus semper est baptizatus: igitur semper habet Sacramentum baptismi.

en: At the same time understand: *baptizatum* (the baptized). — Alexander of Hales, *Summa* pt. IV, q. 8, m. 1: « Baptism remains perpetually in the baptized, but the ablution at once ceases: therefore etc. » That it remains perpetually seems [so], because, when someone is baptized, he receives the Sacrament of baptism, and as long as he is baptized, he has the Sacrament, just as one who is white has whiteness; but once baptized [a man is] always baptized: therefore he always has the Sacrament of baptism.

la: Vers. 7: *Et exibat* (Iudith) *noctibus in vallem* etc.

en: Verse 7: *And* (Judith) *went out by night into the valley* etc.

la: Vers. 2. — Glossa, quam exhibet Lyranus ut interlinearem, delibata est ex expositione in Cantic. (inter opera Isidori), c. 4. n. 3: *Id est fonte sacri baptismatis, qui et tonsi et toti sunt, hoc est nudati renuntiando saeculo et vitae lavacro mundati.*

en: Verse 2. — The Gloss, which Lyranus presents as interlinear, is drawn from the exposition on Canticles (among the works of Isidore), c. 4, n. 3: « That is, by the font of holy baptism, who are both shorn and entire, that is, stripped by renouncing the world and cleansed by the laver of life. »

la: Vers. 5. — Codd. G I glossando clarius habent *Et converso lavacrum accipitur pro baptismo.* — Seq. textus est Marc. 7, 3. seq.: *Tenentes traditionem seniorum... baptismata calicum* etc. Multi codd. *Tenentes baptismata hominum, calicum et urceorum*, codd. G I *Tenentes baptismata calicum et urceorum.* — Tertius textus est Ioan. 13, 10, quem Beda ita explicat: *Quia qui ablutus est fonte baptismatis in remissionem omnium peccatorum non indiget rursus, immo non potest eodem modo ablui, sed quotidiana tantum mundanae conversationis contagia necesse habet quotidiana sui Redemptoris indulgentia tergantur.*

en: Verse 5. — Codices G, I in glossing more clearly read *Et converso lavacrum accipitur pro baptismo* (And conversely the laver is taken for baptism). — The following text is Mark 7:3 seq.: *Holding the tradition of the ancients... the washings of cups* etc. Many codices [read] *Holding the washings of men, of cups and pitchers*, codices G, I *Holding the washings of cups and pitchers.* — The third text is John 13:10, which Bede explains thus: « Because he who has been washed at the font of baptism unto the remission of all sins needs not again, nay rather cannot be washed in the same way, but the daily contagions of worldly conversation need only be wiped away by the daily indulgence of his Redeemer. »

la: *al. et baptismus dicitur.* Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 1, eandem quaest. solvens ait: « Respondeo, quod in baptismo tria sunt: ipsum elementum, verbum sanctificans et ipsa tinctio. Dicendum igitur, quod in elemento est virtus regenerativa potentia ex contactu carnis Christi; quae potentia reducitur in actum per verbum ipsum, sicut color est visibilis potentia et luce efficitur actu visibilis; sed in tinctione virtus regenerativa effectum habet in homine. Unde illud quod immediate operatur principalem effectum baptismi, est ipsa tinctio ». Et paulo ante: *In forma praescripta a Domino non refertur verbum, a quo est virtus Sacramenti, ad elementum, sed ad ipsam ablutionem sive tinctionem, quod patet, cum dicitur: Ego baptizo te... debet igitur ablutio dici Sacramentum.*

en: [Vat. reads] *et baptismus dicitur* (and baptism is said). Alexander of Hales, *Summa* pt. IV, q. 8, m. 1, solving the same question, says: « I respond that in baptism there are three things: the element itself, the sanctifying word, and the dipping itself. It must therefore be said that in the element there is a regenerative power in potency from contact with the flesh of Christ; which power is reduced to act through the word itself, just as color is visible in potency and is made actually visible by light; but in the dipping the regenerative power has its effect in the man. Whence that which immediately works the principal effect of baptism is the dipping itself. » And a little before: « In the form prescribed by the Lord the word, from which is the power of the Sacrament, is not referred to the element, but to the ablution or dipping itself, which is clear, since it is said: I baptize thee... therefore the ablution ought to be called the Sacrament. »

la: Locc. in argg. allegatis.

en: The passages in the arguments cited.

la: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 2. § 3. ad 2: *Dicendum, quod aqua est Sacramentum, non in quantum est aqua solum, proprie loquendo, sed potius, in quantum illi convenit actus ablutionis; nec res Sacramenti est, proprie loquendo, gratia, sed gratia mundans sive spiritualiter abluens.* — Aliquanto inferius pro *sed illud aquae, quod* cod. *sed aqua, quae.*

en: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* pt. IV, q. 8, m. 3, a. 2, § 3, ad 2: « It must be said that water is the Sacrament, not insofar as it is water alone, properly speaking, but rather insofar as the act of ablution befits it; nor is the *res* of the Sacrament, properly speaking, grace, but cleansing grace, or grace spiritually washing. » — Somewhat below, for *sed illud aquae, quod* (but that of the water which) a codex [reads] *sed aqua, quae* (but water which).

la: Supple cum codd. H P Q *baptismus.*

en: Supply with codices H, P, Q *baptismus.*

la: Loc. cit. — Cod. Z *Secundum quod sumitur pro Sacramento, id est pro elemento, sic definitur baptismus ab Hugone.*

en: Loc. cit. — Codex Z [reads] *Secundum quod sumitur pro Sacramento, id est pro elemento, sic definitur baptismus ab Hugone* (Insofar as it is taken for the Sacrament, that is, for the element, baptism is thus defined by Hugh).

la: Libr. IV. *de Fide orthod.* c. 9. — Pro *quod est character* edd. *quae* [plures codd. *qui*] *est character.* De charactere agitur infra d. 6. p. 1. q. 1. seqq. Aliquanto inferius post *ideo* codd. G I Z supplent *dicitur.* Subinde pro *specialiter* codd. G K W *spiritualiter.*

en: Bk. IV *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 9. — For *quod est character* (which is the character) the editions [read] *quae* [several codices *qui*] *est character.* On the character it is treated below, dist. 6, pt. 1, q. 1 seqq. Somewhat below, after *ideo* (therefore) codices G, I, Z supply *dicitur* (is called). Then for *specialiter* (specially) codices G, K, W [read] *spiritualiter* (spiritually).

la: *De Eccles. Hierarch.* c. 2. p. 1. — Cod. Z addit: *et hoc dupliciter; tangitur enim ut est perfectio substantiae animae, quia est.* Idem cod. Z inferius post *tangitur etiam* subiungit *ut.*

en: *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy* c. 2, pt. 1. — Codex Z adds: *et hoc dupliciter; tangitur enim ut est perfectio substantiae animae, quia est* (and this in two ways; for it is touched upon as it is the perfection of the substance of the soul, because it is). The same codex Z below, after *tangitur etiam* (there is also touched upon), subjoins *ut.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** Iam a tempore S. Thomae distinguitur baptismi materia *remota* et *proxima*; et quod illa sit aqua, exclusa qualicumque altera materia, constat magisterio Ecclesiae (Concil. Trid. Sess. VII. can. 2.), quidquid docuerint novatores saeculi XVI. eorumque sequaces. Similiter patet, quod materia proxima consistat in applicatione aquae ad baptizandum sive in ablutione, quocumque modo fiat. Cum autem ablutio intelligi possit sensu et activo et passivo, « lotio passiva immediatius respicit baptismum et praesupponit duplicem lotionem praedictam » etc. (ita hic cum Richardo a Med. aliisque dub. 2.). Recte igitur dici potest, materiam proximam consistere in ablutione tam activa quam passiva, licet non eodem modo concurrant. Alii quidem solam passivam lotionem volunt esse materiam proximam, sed vix nisi verbis ab illa sententia recedere videntur. — Etiam duplex modus ille loquendi, hic Hugoni et Magistro tributus, adhibita distinctione materiae remotae et proximae satis componi potest. — Solutio ad 4. respicit opinionem Gulielmi Antissiod. (Sum. p. IV. tr. 3. c. 2.), qui, postquam retulit duas opiniones, quarum prima censuit, essentiam baptismi consistere in aqua ut abluente, altera vero, consistere in charactere, cum sit aliquod permanens; deinde resolvit: « Nec sola aqua abluens vel ablutio aquae est baptismus, nec solus character, sed illa duo, ita quod utraque sunt unus baptismus ». Et in solut. ad I. dicit, quod baptismus transit in quantum aqua abluens, manet in quantum character. — De tota utriusque articuli doctrina cfr. Breviloq. p. VI. c. 7. De hac I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. I. et m. 3. a. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 1. 2; S. Thom., hic q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. 1. 2; S. III. q. 66. a. I. — B. Albert., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic a. I. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. I. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. I.

**II.** In duabus seqq. qq. nulla difficultas occurrit. De 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 3. a. 3. § I. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. I. De 3. quaestione similiter agit: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 7. a. 2. § 2. circa med. Alii paulo aliter et alibi hanc quaestionem ponunt, scilicet utrum in baptizando fides requiratur. Ita S. Thom., IV. Sent. d. 6. q. I. a. 3; S. III. q. 68. a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., IV. Sent. d. 6. q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., IV. Sent. d. 4. a. 1. q. I. — Dionys. Carth., IV. Sent. d. 6. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Already from the time of St. Thomas the *remote* and *proximate* matter of baptism is distinguished; and that the former is water, every other matter being excluded, is established by the magisterium of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. VII, can. 2), whatever the innovators of the sixteenth century and their followers may have taught. Likewise it is clear that the proximate matter consists in the application of water for baptizing, or in the ablution, in whatever way it is done. But since ablution can be understood in both an active and a passive sense, « the passive washing more immediately regards baptism and presupposes the twofold washing aforesaid » etc. (so here with Richard of Mediavilla and others, dub. 2). Rightly therefore can it be said that the proximate matter consists in ablution both active and passive, though they do not concur in the same way. Some indeed will have it that the passive washing alone is the proximate matter, but they seem to recede from that opinion scarcely except in words. — Also that twofold manner of speaking, here attributed to Hugh and the Master, can be sufficiently reconciled by applying the distinction of remote and proximate matter. — The solution to [argument] 4 regards the opinion of William of Auxerre (Summa pt. IV, tr. 3, c. 2), who, after reporting two opinions—of which the first held that the essence of baptism consists in water as washing, the other that it consists in the character, since it is something permanent—then resolves: « Neither the washing water alone nor the washing of water is baptism, nor the character alone, but those two, in such a way that both are one baptism ». And in the solution to [argument] I he says that baptism passes away inasmuch as [it is] washing water, [and] remains inasmuch as [it is] character. — On the whole doctrine of both articles, cf. *Breviloquium* pt. VI, c. 7. On this first question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* pt. IV, q. 8, m. 1 and m. 3, a. 2. — Scotus, in both Writings here q. 1, 2; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, quaestiunc. 1, 2; *Summa* III, q. 66, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, on this and the 2 following questions here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1, 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

**II.** In the two following questions no difficulty occurs. On the 2nd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 3, a. 3, § 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1. On the 3rd question likewise treats: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 7, a. 2, § 2, near the middle. Others put this question somewhat differently and elsewhere, namely whether in the one to be baptized faith is required. So St. Thomas, IV *Sent.* d. 6, q. 1, a. 3; *Summa* III, q. 68, a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, IV *Sent.* d. 6, q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, IV *Sent.* d. 4, a. 1, q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, IV *Sent.* d. 6, q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** QUAESTIO I opens at raw L7502 (*Primo ergo quaeritur, quid sit baptismus secundum suam essentiam, utrum aqua, vel tinctio in aqua*); the chunk runs to L7797, immediately before the `QUAESTIO II` header (raw L7798, *Utrum expressio verbi vocalis sit de integritate baptismi*). Printed pp.64–66 (PDF 84–86; offset pdf = printed + 20). The ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I headers print at the head of q1's territory (p.64 L-col) and belong to this chunk, not to the divisio. Latin re-set by reflowing the column-interleaved IA djvu OCR L-column then R-column, band-by-band against the vol4 PDF (colcrop split x≈1880, 450 dpi).

- **Alignment confirmed:** q1's opener (*quid sit baptismus secundum suam essentiam*) aligns with the TRACTATIO's first listed question (*quid sit baptismus a parte elementi*). QUAESTIO II (*utrum expressio verbi vocalis sit de integritate baptismi*) is the next chunk; QUAESTIO III is *utrum necessaria sit fides alicuius articuli*. No q-swap; auto-chunker boundary (line_start 7502 / line_end 7797) was correct.

- **Page layout:** All three pages are two-column. q1 opens in p.64 L-col (after the divisio's TRACTATIO + ARTICULUS opener), continues into p.64 R-col (the *Quod autem aqua non sit baptismus* arguments), all of p.65 (Conclusio, Respondeo, replies *Ad 1*, *Ad 2.3*), and onto p.66 L-col + R-col (continuation of *Ad 2.3*, *Ad 4*, the four-fold definition: Hugh / Magister / Damascene / Dionysius). The SCHOLION (sections I–II) is printed at the foot of p.66 across both columns. The mid-text "64"/"65"/"66" and "DIST. III. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. I" in the raw OCR are running heads, not footnotes.

- **Apparatus page-split map (16 entries):**
  - **p.64:** `[^1]` = note 2 (Hugh's definition, *Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 2.*) — picked up from the divisio hand-off, anchored at q1's opening fundamentum. `[^2]`–`[^4]` = notes 3, 4, 5. (p.64 note 1 — *Edd. addunt Subdivisio… solvit…* — belongs to the divisio chunk and is recorded there.)
  - **p.65 L-col footers:** `[^5]` = note 2; `[^6]` = note 3 (long Alex. Hal. quotation on permanence); `[^7]` = note 4 (Iudith vers. 7); `[^8]` = note 5 (Cantic. Gloss); `[^9]` = note 6 (Marc. 7 / Ioan. 13 variants). (p.65 note 1 — *Cod. U esset baptismus…* — is the same variant rendered here as `[^4]`, keyed to the p.64 R-col body; not double-counted.)
  - **p.65 R-col footers:** `[^10]` = note 8 (long Alex. Hal. solution); `[^11]` = note 7 (*Locc. in argg. allegatis*); `[^12]` = note 9 (Alex. Hal. m.3 a.2, anchored in the *Ad 2.3* reply that physically crosses the p.65→p.66 seam).
  - **p.66 footers:** `[^13]` = note 2; `[^14]` = note 3; `[^15]` = note 4 (Damascene); `[^16]` = note 5 (Dionysius). (p.66 note 1 = the SCHOLION's own *Alex. Hal.* reference, folded into the scholion text per the corpus convention of carrying scholion source-strings inline.)

- **Scholion location:** the **article-level scholion lives in this q1 chunk** (printed at the foot of p.66). Section **I** covers q1 (remote/proximate matter, Trent, William of Auxerre, doctor citations); section **II** explicitly covers **q2 and q3** (*In duabus seqq. qq. nulla difficultas occurrit* + their doctor citations). q2 and q3 will therefore have **no standalone scholion** — this is the *pro quaest. seq.* pattern noted in the Vol II Override. Do not treat q2/q3's missing scholion as an error.

- **Cross-chunk seam (p.65→p.66):** the *Ad 2. 3.* reply begins on p.65 R-col (*quia aqua non est Sacramentum secundum quod aqua solum,*) and completes on p.66 L-col (*sed secundum actum lavandi…*). The splice is grammatically continuous; `[^12]` (p.65 R-col note 9) anchors to *purgandi* on the p.66 side. Verified no cascade-merge dropout at the seam.

- **Hand-off forward → `bon-sent-IV-d3-p1-a1-q2`:** QUAESTIO II (*Utrum expressio verbi vocalis sit de integritate baptismi*) opens at raw L7798 (header `QU\ESTIO 11.`, OCR-garbled), title at L7803, body opener *Secundo quaeritur, utrum expressio verbi vocalis…* at L7807, on **p.67** (PDF 87). q2 will have **no scholion of its own** (covered by this chunk's scholion §II). The p.67 running head is `DIST. III. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. II.`

- **`[?]` flags:** none. All readings resolved against the PDF bands; the few heavily column-shattered OCR spans (the *Respondeo*, the four-fold definition, and the scholion) were re-set directly from the 450 dpi PDF per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority inversion.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 67 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum expressio verbi vocalis sit de integritate baptismi.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum expressio verbi vocalis sit de integritate baptismi. Et quod sic, patet:

1. Ex ipsa Domini institutione, Matthaei ultimo[^1]: *Baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti:* ergo necesse est, ibi Trinitatem nominari. *Si dicas,* quod debet nominari in corde, et non oportet, quod voce; *contra:* in baptismo, quod est Sacramentum fidei, necesse est esse professionem fidei: ergo cum sit perfectum Sacramentum, debet habere perfectam professionem; sed haec est in verbo, quia dicitur ad Romanos decimo[^2]: *Corde creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem* etc.: ergo necesse est, verbum exprimi.

2. Item, Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera[^3]: «Verbo baptisma consecratur; detrahe verbum, et quid est aqua nisi aqua»? Aut ergo intelligit de verbo creato, aut increato. Si de increato; sed illud non potest detrahi, quia semper adest: ergo cum intelligat de verbo, quod potest accedere et recedere, et hoc est verbum vocale; videtur, quod sit de integritate baptismi.

**Contra:**
1. Hugo[^4]: «Decuit per Verbum, per quod omnia sunt creata, omnia recreari», ideo verbum consonat Sacramento; sed illud fuit Verbum increatum tantum: ergo non requiritur ad essentiam Sacramenti verbum vocale sive creatum.

2. Item, et si creatum; non videtur, quod vocale: quia Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera[^5], quod «virtus aquae est a verbo, non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur»: ergo sufficit verbum mentale.

3. Item, si verbum vocale est necessarium: cum Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti sint tria nomina vocalia, debet ergo baptizari non in nomine, sed in nominibus.

4. Item, quod non verbum vocale, videtur: quia verba vocalia non sunt eadem apud omnes, ergo nec Sacramentum; et hoc falsum est, quia una fides et unum baptisma, ad Ephesios quarto[^6].

> **Conclusio.** In baptismo necesse est exprimi verbum vocale.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod necesse est, exprimi verbum vocale, quia Deus contulit vim verbo; unde sine verbo nullius est efficaciae[^7]. — Ratio autem, quare voluit exprimi, est perfecta *fidei professio,* ut sit in facto et verbo. Est etiam perfecta signatio; quia enim facta est regeneratio per Verbum incarnatum; et Verbum incarnatum optime signatur per verbum voce indutum[^8]: ideo voluit et instituit, quod esset ibi verbum vocale.

**Ad opposita:**
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo, quod omnia sunt creata per Verbum increatum; dicendum, quod per illud, secundum quod incarnatum est, omnia sunt recreata *sufficienter,* sed *efficienter* per fidem et professionem huius; et quia in Sacramento est *efficientia,* ideo est ibi expressio in verbo vocali[^9].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur: non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur; intelligendum est cum *praecisione,* non quia *dicitur tantum,* sed etiam, quia creditur.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod deberet dici in nominibus; dicendum, quod nomen dicitur tripliciter: uno modo *vox* imposita ad significandum aliquem, ut Petrus. Alio modo nomen dicitur *notitia,* ut cum dicitur[^10]: *Deus, in nomine tuo salvum me fac,* quia, si esset *vox tantum,* iam non esset salus muto. Tertio modo nomen dicitur notitia voce expressa, ut in Psalmo: *Notus in Iudaea Deus, in Israel magnum nomen eius;* ille enim dicitur *magni nominis,* cuius nominis fama percrebuit; et sic accipitur in proposito. Et quoniam una est notitia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, quia una fides; ideo dicitur in nomine, non in nominibus.

<!-- page 68 -->

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod voces sunt diversae; dicendum, quod etsi diversae sint linguae, tamen conveniunt in intellectu et modo intelligendi, id est significatione et modo significandi; et quia non requiritur nomen secundum quod vox tantum, sed secundum quod vox sit significans et talem intellectum generans et tali modo; et hoc est idem apud omnes: ideo Sacramentum est idem, sicut *homo* et *anthropos*[^11].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether vocal expression of the word belongs to the integrity of baptism.*

Secondly it is asked whether vocal expression of the word belongs to the integrity of baptism. And that it does is plain:

1. From the Lord's own institution, in the last [chapter] of Matthew[^1]: *Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:* therefore it is necessary that the Trinity be named there. *If you say* that it must be named in the heart, and need not be [named] by the voice; *on the contrary:* in baptism, which is the Sacrament of faith, there must be a profession of faith: therefore since it is a perfect Sacrament, it must have a perfect profession; but this is in the word, because it is said in Romans the tenth[^2]: *With the heart one believes unto justice, but with the mouth* etc.: therefore it is necessary that the word be expressed.

2. Likewise, Augustine says, and it is found in the text[^3]: «By the word baptism is consecrated; take away the word, and what is water but water»? Therefore he understands either of the created word, or the uncreated. If of the uncreated; but that cannot be taken away, because it is always present: therefore since he understands of a word that can come and go, and this is the vocal word; it seems that it belongs to the integrity of baptism.

**On the contrary:**
1. Hugh[^4]: «It was fitting that through the Word, through whom all things were created, all things should be re-created», and so the word accords with the Sacrament; but that was the uncreated Word alone: therefore a vocal or created word is not required for the essence of the Sacrament.

2. Likewise, even if [it be] created; it does not seem [to be required] that [it be] vocal: because Augustine says, and it is found in the text[^5], that «the power of the water is from the word, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed»: therefore a mental word suffices.

3. Likewise, if a vocal word is necessary: since "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" are three vocal names, one ought therefore to be baptized not in the name, but in the names.

4. Likewise, that [there should] not [be] a vocal word seems [the case]: because vocal words are not the same among all peoples, therefore neither [would] the Sacrament [be the same]; and this is false, because there is one faith and one baptism, [as it says] in Ephesians the fourth[^6].

> **Conclusion.** In baptism it is necessary that a vocal word be expressed.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is necessary that a vocal word be expressed, because God has conferred power on the word; whence without the word it is of no efficacy[^7]. — But the reason why he willed it to be expressed is the perfect *profession of faith,* so that it might be in deed and in word. There is also a perfect signation; for since regeneration was wrought through the incarnate Word; and the incarnate Word is best signified through a word clothed with voice[^8]: therefore he willed and instituted that there should be a vocal word there.

**To the objections:**
1. To that, then, which is objected first, that all things are created through the uncreated Word; it must be said that through it, insofar as it is incarnate, all things are re-created *sufficiently,* but *efficiently* through faith and the profession of this; and because in the Sacrament there is *efficiency,* therefore there is there an expression in the vocal word[^9].

2. To that which is objected: not because it is spoken, but because it is believed; it is to be understood with *precision,* not [as if] *only because it is spoken,* but also because it is believed.

3. To that which is objected, that it would have to be said in the names; it must be said that a name is spoken of in three ways: in one way [it is] a *voice* imposed to signify someone, as "Peter." In another way a name is called *knowledge,* as when it is said[^10]: *God, in thy name save me,* for if it were *only a voice,* there would now be no salvation for the mute. In a third way a name is called knowledge expressed by the voice, as in the Psalm: *God is known in Judah, in Israel his name is great;* for he is said to be *of a great name* whose name's fame has spread abroad; and so it is taken in the matter at hand. And since the knowledge of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, because the faith is one; therefore it is said in the name, not in the names.

4. To that which is objected, that the voices are diverse; it must be said that although the tongues be diverse, yet they agree in the understanding and in the mode of understanding, that is, in the signification and the mode of signifying; and because a name is not required insofar as it is voice only, but insofar as the voice is signifying and generating such an understanding and in such a mode; and this is the same among all peoples: therefore the Sacrament is the same, just as *homo* and *anthropos*[^11].

---

la: Vers. 19.

en: Verse 19. [Matthew 28:19]

la: Vers. 10.

en: Verse 10. [Romans 10:10]

la: Hic c. 1. — Inferius post *cum intelligat de verbo* cod. U addit *creato.*

en: Here, c. 1. — Below, after *cum intelligat de verbo* ("since he understands of the word"), codex U adds *creato* ("created").

la: Libr. 1. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 6. et II. p. VI. c. 2, nec non Sum. Sent. tr. 1. c. 1-5.

en: Book 1 of *On the Sacraments,* part VIII, c. 6, and part II, part VI, c. 2; and also the *Summa Sententiarum,* treatise 1, cc. 1–5.

la: Hic c. 1. — Superius post *creatum* cod. Z supplet *verbum requiritur.* In fine arg. edd. addunt *non ergo vocale.*

en: Here, c. 1. — Above, after *creatum* ("created"), codex Z supplies *verbum requiritur* ("the word is required"). At the end of the argument the editions add *non ergo vocale* ("therefore not vocal").

la: Vers. 5. — Superius respiciuntur verba Aristot., I. Periherm. c. 1: *Et quemadmodum nec litterae omnibus eaedem sic nec eaedem voces.*

en: Verse 5 [Ephesians 4:5]. — Above, reference is made to the words of Aristotle, *On Interpretation* I, c. 1: "And just as letters are not the same for all, so neither are the [spoken] sounds the same."

la: Supple: baptismus.

en: Supply: baptism.

la: Vide I. Sent. d. 27. p. II. q. 4, et III. Sent. d. 1. a. 2. q. 3.

en: See *Sentences* I, d. 27, part II, q. 4, and *Sentences* III, d. 1, a. 2, q. 3.

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

en: Compare *Sentences* III, d. 19, a. 1, q. 2, ad 1 and 2.

la: In Ps. 53, 3. — Seq. textus est Ps. 75, 2. De multiplici nominis acceptione cfr. Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 2, et Alan. ab Insulis, *Distinct. dictionum theolog.* — Superius pro *aliquem* edd. cum pluribus codd. *aliquid,* et post *notitia* cod. X supplet *rei significatae.* Mox post *quia, si esset vox* supplevimus ex codd. F H N O X *tantum.* Subinde pro *muto* codd. F H Y *in ipso,* edd. *mundo.*

en: On Psalm 53:3. — The following text is Psalm 75:2. On the manifold acceptation of "name" compare Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, part VI, c. 2, and Alan of Lille, *Distinctions of Theological Terms.* — Above, for *aliquem* ("someone") the editions, with several codices, [read] *aliquid* ("something"), and after *notitia* ("knowledge") codex X supplies *rei significatae* ("of the thing signified"). Next, after *quia, si esset vox* ("for if it were a voice") we have supplied from codices F H N O X the word *tantum* ("only"). Then, for *muto* ("for the mute") codices F H Y [read] *in ipso,* the editions *mundo.*

la: Graece ἄνθρωπος. — Cfr. Aristot., I. Periherm. c. 1, ubi docet, nec litteras nec voces omnibus esse easdem, et subiungit: «Quarum tamen haec primum notae sunt, eaedem omnibus passiones animae sunt; et quarum hae similitudines, res etiam eaedem». — Post *Sacramentum* supplevimus ex codd. F G H *est.* — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Greek ἄνθρωπος ["man"]. — Compare Aristotle, *On Interpretation* I, c. 1, where he teaches that neither the letters nor the [spoken] sounds are the same for all, and adds: «Yet the affections of the soul, of which these [sounds] are first the signs, are the same for all; and the things of which these [affections] are the likenesses are also the same». — After *Sacramentum* ("the Sacrament") we have supplied from codices F G H the word *est* ("is"). — See the scholion on the preceding question.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the PDF column bands of printed pp. 67–68 (PDF 87–88) per the Vol II/IV override (PDF-priority in the two-column cascade-shattered regions), cross-checked against raw OCR lines 7798–7893. Offset `pdf = printed + 20`; column split x≈1780 (the default 1880/1660 clipped the right column's left edge on these pages).
- **Page-split map.** The whole videtur–contra–Respondeo–replies 1–3 sits on **p.67** (footnotes 1–10 in the p.67 footer). Reply 4 begins at the top of **p.68** (left column → right column, ending `homo et anthropos`); its single footnote `[^11]` (*Graece ἄνθρωπος*) is the **first** note of the p.68 footer. The p.68 footer notes 2–6 belong to QUAESTIO III and are NOT this chunk's.
- **Scholion.** No standalone scholion for q2 — the article-level scholion in **a1-q1** covers q1–q3 (the p.68 footer's `[^11]` confirms: "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.").
- **Footnote count:** 11 (p.67: 1–10; p.68: 1 = this chunk's `[^11]`).
- **No `[?]` flags** — all readings legible at 450 dpi; editorial codex variants in `[^5]`, `[^10]`, `[^11]` transcribed verbatim from the footer.
- **Hand-off forward to d3-p1-a1-q3:** QUAESTIO III opener at raw ~L7894 / PDF read on p.68 (title `Utrum ad completum et integrum esse baptismi sit necessaria fides alicuius articuli`); body begins `Tertio quaeritur...` on p.68 left column and runs onto p.69. The **p.68 footer notes 2–6** (`Hic c. 1. — Inferius verbo respicit...` etc.) are q3's, NOT captured here. q3's running head `DIST. III. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. III. — 69` appears at raw L8048.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


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

source_text:
<!-- page 68 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum ad completum et integrum esse baptismi sit necessaria fides alicuius articuli.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum ad completum et integrum esse baptismi sit necessaria fides alicuius articuli. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quoniam Ambrosius dicit, et habetur in littera[^2], quod «baptismus est fidei Sacramentum»: ergo si desit fides, deest illud quod principaliter et specialiter respicit baptismus: ergo non est integrum Sacramentum.

2. Item, Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera[^3]: «Unde haec tanta virtus aquae, ut corpus tangat et cor abluat, nisi faciente verbo, non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur»: ergo si necesse est dici, necesse est et credi.

3. Item, ad Romanos sexto[^4]: *Quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus;* Glossa: «In morte ipsius dicit nos baptizari, quia mors Christi causa est nostrae purificationis»; sed mors Christi non *est:* ergo si aliquid facit, necesse est, quod faciat per illud quod aliquo modo est. Sed fides est illud, secundum quod manet adhuc passio, quia creditur: ergo ad integritatem baptismi necessaria est fides articuli passionis.

4. Item in actu baptizandi et in verbo est professio fidei[^5]; sed professio fidei, quando non est fides, falsa est et inefficax: ergo ad hoc, quod baptismus sit Sacramentum completum et efficax, necessaria est fides.

**Contra:**
1. Baptismus est praevius ad virtutes tanquam primum Sacramentorum, quod imprimendo characterem disponit ad fidem[^6]; sed prius potest esse sine posteriori: ergo Sacramentum baptismi est integrum cum defectu fidei.

2. Item, cum nobilior sit caritas quam fides et efficacior ad merendum[^7]; si baptismus habet efficaciam ab aliqua virtute, potius videtur, quod debeat habere a caritate quam a fide.

3. Item, si fides est de necessitate baptismi ad hoc, quod sit perfectum et efficax Sacramentum; cum et Sacramenta veteris legis efficaciam haberent, cum fides erat adiuncta[^8]: videtur, quod non differat baptismus a Sacramentis veteris legis.

4. Item, videtur, quod non sit necessaria fides articuli passionis, sed magis Trinitatis: quia in baptismo exprimitur verbum, in quo est professio fidei Trinitatis[^9]: ergo si maxime est necessarium credere quod fides exprimit in illo Sacramento; videtur tunc, quod non fides articuli passionis, sed Trinitatis sit de necessitate baptismi.

Propter hoc igitur est quaestio, quomodo Sacramenta dicantur habere virtutem a fide. Et si alia Sacramenta habent, sicut et baptismus; quare magis ipse baptismus dicitur Sacramentum fidei quam alia Sacramenta?

> **Conclusio.** Ad baptismum necessaria est fides alicuius articuli, cum in fide Ecclesiae baptismus suscipiatur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod fides non tantum necessaria est Sacramento baptismi, sed etiam omnibus Sacramentis, specialiter tamen Sacramento baptismi, quia «omnia Sacramenta virtutem habent a fide», ut dicit Hugo[^10]. — Huius autem ratio sumitur *generaliter* respectu omnium Sacramentorum, scilicet *necessitatis* et *congruentiae.* Ratio autem *necessitatis* est, quoniam

<!-- page 69 -->

in fide est prima ratio *uniendi* et prima ratio *elevandi* supra naturam. Propter primam rationem *uniendi* necessaria est in Sacramentis[^11], quoniam gratia sacramentalis comparatur ad virtutem passionis ut ad meritum, sed ad virtutem Trinitatis sicut ad principium effectivum. Ad hoc autem, quod virtus passionis magis operetur et disponat in Sacramentis quam alibi, necesse est, quod aliquo modo copuletur huiusmodi signis[^12]. Hoc autem non potest esse sine eo, in quo est prima unio; et haec est fides, per quam meritum capitis fit membrorum. Dum enim credimus, quod pro nobis passus est, meritum Christi fit Ecclesiae. — Similiter ad hoc, quod virtus divina specialiter et mirabiliter *influat* supra naturam, necessaria est fidei virtus, in qua est prima ratio elevandi potentiam supra naturam; et haec est fides, propter quod etiam maxime attribuitur ei virtus faciendi miracula[^13].

Ratio autem *congruentiae* est: quia, sicut Sacramenta dicunt quoddam *velamen gratiae interioris,* quod tamen aliquo modo illuminat ad cognoscendum; sic fides *velamen dicit futurae contemplationis,* et tamen hoc velamen potius est illuminans quam obscurans[^14]. Et rursus, sicut in Sacramentis est aliquid *mysticum* et aliquid *gratuitum;* sic aliquid in fide respicit non tantum *intellectum,* sed etiam *affectum*[^15]. — Haec igitur est ratio generalis, quare fides necessaria est omnibus Sacramentis.

Sed *specialiter* appropriatur baptismo, quoniam baptismus est *primum* inter Sacramenta et *ianua* Sacramentorum, sicut fides ianua virtutum; et rursus, quia in hoc Sacramento magis explicite est professio fidei quam in aliquo alio Sacramento, tum in *actu,* tum in *verbo,* et in *actu* est professio fidei *passionis,* scilicet per immersionem, sed in *verbo* professio fidei *Trinitatis.* Unde et maior efficacia est in hoc Sacramento quam in aliquo alio[^16].

Et ex hoc patet, cuius articuli fidei sit necessaria, scilicet *passionis,* a qua est meritum, et *Trinitatis,* quae est principium effectivum. — Concedendae ergo sunt rationes, quae ostendunt, quod ad baptismum necessaria est fides alicuius articuli. Attamen sicut baptismus est Sacramentum non singularis hominis, sed Ecclesiae; sic efficaciam habet a fide Ecclesiae, et hoc per unitatem sponsae et columbae[^17].

**Ad opposita:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod baptismus est praevius ad virtutes; dicendum, quod quamvis sit praevius respectu suscipientis, non tamen respectu[^18] Ecclesiae, in qua suscipitur Sacramentum.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de caritate, iam patet responsio: quia non ita congruit sicut fides, rationibus praedictis; et tamen fides Ecclesiae verae non est sine caritate[^19].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non differt a Sacramentis legis veteris; dicendum, quod immo, quia illa habebant efficaciam a fide *specialis personae,* unde parvulus iustificabatur in fide parentum; haec autem habent a fide *Ecclesiae.* — Alia etiam differentia est, quia illa totam efficaciam habebant a *fide,* haec autem non tantum habent a fide, sed etiam a *pactione* divina, quae ipsum opus operatum ordinavit ad gratiam percipiendam; illa vero solum *per accidens* iustificabant, sola circumcisione excepta, quae virtutem habuit a *fide Ecclesiae* et ex *pactione Dei.* Dominus enim pactum fecit, cum dixit Marci ultimo[^20]: *Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit;* et similiter Genesis decimo septimo: *Ponam pactum meum* etc.

english:
### Question III. *Whether for the complete and entire being of baptism faith in some article is necessary.*

Thirdly it is asked whether for the complete and entire being of baptism faith in some article is necessary. And that it is, seems [so]:

1. Because Ambrose says, and it is found in the text[^2], that «baptism is the Sacrament of faith»: therefore if faith is lacking, there is lacking that which baptism principally and specially regards: therefore it is not a complete Sacrament.

2. Likewise, Augustine says, and it is found in the text[^3]: «Whence this so great power of the water, that it should touch the body and wash the heart, except by the working of the word — not because it is spoken, but because it is believed»: therefore if it is necessary that it be spoken, it is also necessary that it be believed.

3. Likewise, to the Romans, chapter six[^4]: *Whoever of us have been baptized in Christ Jesus, have been baptized in his death;* the Gloss: «In his death he says that we are baptized, because the death of Christ is the cause of our purification»; but the death of Christ *is* not [now]: therefore if it does something, it must do it through that which in some way is. But faith is that according to which the Passion still abides, because it is believed: therefore for the integrity of baptism faith in the article of the Passion is necessary.

4. Likewise, in the act of baptizing and in the word there is a profession of faith[^5]; but a profession of faith, when there is no faith, is false and ineffectual: therefore in order that baptism be a complete and effectual Sacrament, faith is necessary.

**On the contrary:**
1. Baptism is prior to the virtues as the first of the Sacraments, which, by imprinting a character, disposes to faith[^6]; but the prior can exist without the posterior: therefore the Sacrament of baptism is entire even with a defect of faith.

2. Likewise, since charity is nobler than faith and more effectual for meriting[^7]; if baptism has its efficacy from some virtue, it rather seems that it ought to have it from charity than from faith.

3. Likewise, if faith is of the necessity of baptism in order that it be a perfect and effectual Sacrament; since the Sacraments of the old law also had their efficacy when faith was joined to them[^8]: it seems that baptism does not differ from the Sacraments of the old law.

4. Likewise, it seems that faith in the article of the Passion is not necessary, but rather [faith in the article] of the Trinity: because in baptism the word is expressed, in which there is a profession of faith in the Trinity[^9]: therefore if it is most of all necessary to believe what faith expresses in that Sacrament; it then seems that not faith in the article of the Passion, but [faith in the article] of the Trinity is of the necessity of baptism.

On account of this, therefore, there is the question how the Sacraments are said to have power from faith. And if the other Sacraments have [it], as baptism also does; why is baptism itself rather called the Sacrament of faith than the other Sacraments?

> **Conclusion.** For baptism faith in some article is necessary, since baptism is received in the faith of the Church.

**I respond:** It must be said that faith is necessary not only to the Sacrament of baptism, but to all the Sacraments, yet especially to the Sacrament of baptism, because «all the Sacraments have their power from faith», as Hugh says[^10]. — Now the ground of this is taken *generally* with respect to all the Sacraments, namely [the ground] of *necessity* and of *fittingness.* The ground of *necessity* is, because

in faith is the first ground of *uniting* and the first ground of *elevating* above nature. On account of the first ground, that of *uniting,* it is necessary in the Sacraments[^11], because sacramental grace is related to the power of the Passion as to its merit, but to the power of the Trinity as to its effective principle. But in order that the power of the Passion should operate and dispose more in the Sacraments than elsewhere, it is necessary that it be in some way joined to signs of this kind[^12]. And this cannot be without that in which there is the first union; and this is faith, through which the merit of the Head becomes [the merit] of the members. For while we believe that he suffered for us, the merit of Christ becomes the Church's. — Likewise, in order that the divine power should *flow in* specially and wonderfully above nature, the virtue of faith is necessary, in which is the first ground of elevating the power above nature; and this is faith, on account of which also the power of working miracles is most of all attributed to it[^13].

Now the ground of *fittingness* is: because, just as the Sacraments express a certain *veil of the interior grace,* which nevertheless in some way illumines unto knowing; so faith *expresses a veil of the future contemplation,* and yet this veil is rather illuminating than obscuring[^14]. And again, just as in the Sacraments there is something *mystical* and something *gratuitous;* so something in faith regards not only the *intellect,* but also the *affection*[^15]. — This, therefore, is the general ground why faith is necessary to all the Sacraments.

But it is *specially* appropriated to baptism, because baptism is the *first* among the Sacraments and the *gate* of the Sacraments, just as faith is the gate of the virtues; and again, because in this Sacrament the profession of faith is more explicit than in any other Sacrament, both in the *act* and in the *word,* and in the *act* there is a profession of faith in the *Passion,* namely through immersion, but in the *word* a profession of faith in the *Trinity.* Hence too there is greater efficacy in this Sacrament than in any other[^16].

And from this it is clear of which article faith is necessary, namely [the article] of the *Passion,* from which the merit comes, and of the *Trinity,* which is the effective principle. — Therefore the arguments which show that for baptism faith in some article is necessary are to be conceded. Yet just as baptism is the Sacrament not of a single man, but of the Church; so it has its efficacy from the faith of the Church, and this through the unity of the bride and the dove[^17].

**To the objections:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected, that baptism is prior to the virtues; it must be said that, although it is prior with respect to the recipient, it is nevertheless not prior with respect to[^18] the Church, in which the Sacrament is received.

*To 2.* To that which is objected concerning charity, the answer is already clear: because it does not so fittingly agree as faith, for the aforesaid reasons; and yet the faith of the true Church is not without charity[^19].

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that it does not differ from the Sacraments of the old law; it must be said that, on the contrary [it does], because those had their efficacy from the faith of a *particular person,* whence an infant was justified in the faith of its parents; but these have it from the faith of the *Church.* — There is also another difference, because those had their whole efficacy from *faith,* but these have it not only from faith, but also from the divine *covenant,* which ordained the work-itself-done unto the receiving of grace; whereas those justified only *per accidens,* with circumcision alone excepted, which had its power from the *faith of the Church* and from the *covenant of God.* For the Lord made a covenant when he said, in the last [chapter] of Mark[^20]: *Whoever shall have believed and been baptized shall be saved;* and likewise Genesis, chapter seventeen: *I will set my covenant* etc.

la: Hic c. 1. — Inferius verbo *respicit* cod. aa praefigit *requirit;* baptismus vel.

en: Here, c. 1. — Below, before the word *respicit* ("regards") codex aa prefixes *requirit* ("requires"); baptism or [the like].

la: Hic c. 1. — De conclusione vide quaest. praeced. ad 2.

en: Here, c. 1. — On the conclusion, see the preceding question, ad 2.

la: Vers. 3. — Glossa est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 19. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Verse 3 [Romans 6:3]. — The Gloss is the ordinary one in Strabo and Lyra. Compare *Sentences* III, d. 19, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced. et infra p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Compare the preceding question and below, part II, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Vide supra q. 1. in fine, et infra d. 6. p. I. q. 1. — De minori cfr. tom. III. pag. 600, nota 4.

en: See above, q. 1, at the end, and below, d. 6, part I, q. 1. — On the minor premise compare tome III, page 600, note 4.

la: Ut ostensum est III. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 1.

en: As was shown in *Sentences* III, d. 27, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cfr. supra d. I. p. 1. q. 5, et III. Sent. d. 40. q. 2. — Pro *cum fides* cod. V *quando fides.*

en: Compare above, d. 1, part 1, q. 5, and *Sentences* III, d. 40, q. 2. — For *cum fides* ("when faith") codex V [reads] *quando fides* ("when faith").

la: Vide infra n. 2. q. 2.

en: See below, n. 2, q. 2.

la: Libr. 1. de Sacram. p. X. c. 9, ubi ostendit, ex tribus ad salutem necessariis (cfr. supra pag. 36, nota 5.), fidem esse «initium boni et principium restaurationis», quia per fidem homo incipit summum bonum et finem suum iam hic quodammodo videre eique coniungi, ad quam coniunctionem muniendam instituta sunt Sacramenta. Cfr. de Sacram. legis naturalis et scriptae, et III. de Anima (inter opera Hug.), c. 50. — Paulo inferius pro *generaliter* codd. E G L V Z bb et ed. 1 *generalis.* Subinde pro *scilicet necessitatis* codd. *non solum necessitatis, sed etiam,* et post *ratio elevandi* codd. F H supplent *potentiam.*

en: Book 1 of *On the Sacraments,* part X, c. 9, where he shows, from the three things necessary unto salvation (compare above, page 36, note 5), that faith is «the beginning of good and the principle of restoration», because through faith man begins in some way already here to see the highest good and his own end and to be joined to it; for the strengthening of which conjunction the Sacraments were instituted. Compare *On the Sacrament of the law of nature and of the written law,* and *On the Soul* III (among the works of Hugh), c. 50. — A little below, for *generaliter* ("generally") codices E G L V Z bb and ed. 1 [read] *generalis* ("general"). Then, for *scilicet necessitatis* ("namely of necessity") the codices [read] *non solum necessitatis, sed etiam* ("not only of necessity, but also"), and after *ratio elevandi* ("the ground of elevating") codices F H supply *potentiam* ("the power").

la: Simul audi cum codd. II Z *fides.*

en: At the same time read, with codices I I Z, *fides* ("faith").

la: In cod. Z additur *id est Sacramentis.* Inferius pro *quod pro nobis* codd. F G I R V et ed. 1 *quae pro nobis.*

en: In codex Z is added *id est Sacramentis* ("that is, in the Sacraments"). Below, for *quod pro nobis* ("that for us") codices F G I R V and ed. 1 [read] *quae pro nobis* ("which for us").

la: Epist. I. Cor. 13, 2: *Si habuero omnem fidem, ita ut montes transferam.* Cfr. Matth. 17, 19. et Marc. 9, 22.

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 13:2: *If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains.* Compare Matthew 17:19 and Mark 9:22.

la: Hugo a S. Vict., 1. de Sacram. p. X. c. 9: *Ipsa enim fides imago est et sacramentum; contemplatio autem futura res et virtus sacramenti. Qui fidem non habent nihil vident; qui fidem habent iam aliquid videre incipiunt, sed imaginem solam. Si enim fidelis nihil videret, ex fide illuminatio non esset, nec dicerentur illuminati fideles; si autem iam ipsam rem viderent et non amplius videndum aliquid exspectarent, non per speculum in aenigmate, sed facie ad faciem viderent. Ergo qui per fidem vident imaginem vident; qui per contemplationem vident rem vident. Qui fidem habent sacramentum habent; qui contemplationem habent rem habent. Fides ergo sacramentum est futurae contemplationis; et ipsa contemplatio res et virtus sacramenti.*

en: Hugh of St. Victor, Book 1 of *On the Sacraments,* part X, c. 9: *For faith itself is an image and a sacrament; but the future contemplation is the reality and power of the sacrament. Those who do not have faith see nothing; those who have faith now begin to see something, but only the image. For if the believer saw nothing, there would be no illumination from faith, nor would the faithful be called illumined; but if they now saw the reality itself and no longer awaited anything to be seen, they would see not through a glass in a riddle, but face to face. Therefore those who see through faith see the image; those who see through contemplation see the reality. Those who have faith have the sacrament; those who have contemplation have the reality. Faith, therefore, is the sacrament of the future contemplation; and contemplation itself is the reality and power of the sacrament.*

la: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 1. m. 5. a. 2. § 1: *Sacramentum concernit duo: unum mysticum et aliud gratuitum, unde signat et efficit. Ratione, qua importat quod est mysticum, perficit intellectum quodammodo; ratione, qua gratuitum, ipsum affectum, quia tollendo culpam; unde oportet, quod virtutem habeat [Sacramentum] a virtute, quae perficit intellectum et affectum; haec est fides, qua anima adhaeret primae Veritati propter se.* Cfr. S. Bonav., III. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 2. et supra d. I. p. 1. q. 2. — Paulo post verbis *omnibus Sacramentis* cod. H bene praemittit *in.* Inferius pro *quoniam* cod. F *quia sic.*

en: Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* part IV, q. 1, m. 5, a. 2, § 1: *The Sacrament involves two things: one mystical and the other gratuitous, whence it signifies and effects. By the account by which it imports what is mystical, it perfects the intellect in a certain way; by the account by which it is gratuitous, [it perfects] the affection itself, because by taking away guilt; whence it is necessary that the Sacrament have its power from the virtue which perfects the intellect and the affection; this is faith, by which the soul adheres to the first Truth for its own sake.* Compare St. Bonaventure, *Sentences* III, d. 23, a. 1, q. 2, and above, d. 1, part 1, q. 2. — A little after, before the words *omnibus Sacramentis* ("to all the Sacraments") codex H rightly prefixes *in.* Below, for *quoniam* ("because") codex F [reads] *quia sic* ("because thus").

la: Vide infra d. 4. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1.

en: See below, d. 4, part 1, a. 1, q. 1.

la: August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 6, solvens quaestionem, quare Deus per *columbae* speciem ostendere voluerit Spiritum sanctum, n. 6. ait: *Per hanc enim potestatem* [baptizandi], *quam Christus solus sibi tenuit et in neminem ministrorum transfudit, quamvis per ministros suos baptizare dignatus sit, per hanc stat unitas Ecclesiae, quae significatur in* columba, *de qua dictum est: Una est columba mea, una est matri suae* [Cantic. 6, 8.]. *Si enim, ut iam dixi, Fratres mei, transferretur potestas a Domino ad ministrum, tot baptismata essent, quot ministri essent, et iam non staret unitas baptismi* etc. Cfr. V. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 21. n. 29, C. *Aliud est* (39.), de Consecrat. dist. 4. et infra lit. Magistri, d. V. c. 2. — Pro *per unitatem* codd. F L *propter unitatem.*

en: Augustine, *On the Gospel of John,* tractate 6, resolving the question why God willed to show the Holy Spirit under the form of a *dove,* n. 6, says: *For by this power* [of baptizing], *which Christ alone retained for himself and transfused into none of the ministers — although he deigned to baptize through his ministers — by this stands the unity of the Church, which is signified in the* dove, *of which it was said: One is my dove, one is she to her mother* [Canticle 6:8]. *For if, as I have already said, my Brethren, the power were transferred from the Lord to the minister, there would be as many baptisms as there were ministers, and the unity of baptism would no longer stand,* etc. Compare *On Baptism against the Donatists* V, c. 21, n. 29, C. *Aliud est* (39), *On Consecration,* distinction 4, and below in the text of the Master, d. V, c. 2. — For *per unitatem* ("through the unity") codices F L [read] *propter unitatem* ("on account of the unity").

la: Cod. Z addit *dantis, id est.*

en: Codex Z adds *dantis, id est* ("of the one giving, that is").

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Compare *Sentences* III, d. 27, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Vers. 16. — Seq. textus est Gen. 17, 2. et 7. — De duplici hac differentia vide supra d. I. p. I. q. 5. et p. II. a. I. q. I. seqq. — Aliquanto superius non pauci codd. omittunt *parvulus,* ed. 1 legit *unde iustificabant.*

en: Verse 16 [Mark 16:16]. — The following text is Genesis 17:2 and 7. — On this twofold difference see above, d. 1, part I, q. 5, and part II, a. I, q. I, and following. — Somewhat above, not a few codices omit *parvulus* ("the infant"); ed. 1 reads *unde iustificabant* ("whence they justified").

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the PDF column bands of printed pp. 68–69 (PDF 88–89) per the Vol II/IV override (PDF-priority in the two-column cascade-shattered regions), cross-checked against raw OCR lines 7894–8202. Offset `pdf = printed + 20`; column split x≈1780 (the default 1880/1660 clipped a column edge on these pages, per the a1-q2 hand-off).
- **Page-split map.** q3 spans **pp.68–69**. p.68: title + videtur args 1–4, Contra args 1–4, the *Propter hoc igitur est quaestio* transition, the CONCLUSIO, and the opening of the Respondeo (`Ratio necessitatis est, quoniam`). p.69: continuation of the Respondeo (Ratio necessitatis / Ratio congruentiae / *specialiter* appropriation), Conclusio 2 + 3, and the replies *Ad 1, 2, 3.* The body marginal glosses (*Notandum, Ad quaest. 4. incid., Ratio 2., Specialiter pro baptismo, Ad quaest. 2. incid., Conclusio 1–3, Solutio oppositorum, Differentia 1–2, Rationes generales, Ratio 1.*) are editorial marginalia — trimmed from the body per the OCR-cleanup rule.
- **Apparatus / footer-split map (19 entries).** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering per printed page.
  - **p.68 footer notes 2–10** are q3's videtur/contra/Respondeo-opening body notes (note 1 of the p.68 footer = q2's `[^11]`, *Graece ἄνθρωπος*, handed off to a1-q2). Rendered here as `[^2]`–`[^10]`.
  - **p.69 footer notes 1–10** → `[^11]`–`[^20]`, all anchoring to q3's body on p.69 (verified 2026-06-19 by re-reading both p.69 footer columns, L-2 and R-2 at 1880 split):
    1. Simul audi cum codd. II Z *fides* → `[^11]` (body: *necessaria est in Sacramentis¹*).
    2. In cod. Z additur *id est Sacramentis* → `[^12]` (body: *copuletur huiusmodi signis²*).
    3. Epist. I. Cor. 13, 2 → `[^13]` (body: *faciendi miracula³*).
    4. Hugo a S. Vict., de Sacram. p. X. c. 9 (the *fides imago/sacramentum* quotation) → `[^14]` (body: *quam obscurans⁴*).
    5. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV → `[^15]` (body: *sed etiam affectum⁵*).
    6. Vide infra d. 4. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1 → `[^16]` (body: *quam in aliquo alio⁶*).
    7. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 6 — the *columba* / unity-of-baptism material → `[^17]` (body: *sponsae et columbae⁷*).
    8. Cod. Z addit *dantis, id est* → `[^18]` (body: *non tamen respectu⁸ Ecclesiae*, in *Ad 1*).
    9. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 1 → `[^19]` (body: *non est sine caritate⁹*, end of *Ad 2*).
    10. Vers. 16 (= Mark 16:16) + Gen. 17, 2 et 7 → `[^20]` (body: *Marci ultimo¹⁰*, in *Ad 3*).
  - **2026-06-19 dropped-apparatus fix.** A prior pass dropped p.69 footer notes 7–10 and rendered the p.69 block shifted by one (the old `[^11]`–`[^15]` carried notes 2–6's text under notes-1–5 body positions, and the Mark/Genesis covenant note was parked as an out-of-sequence `[^5p69]`). The dove/Augustine (note 7), Cod. Z *dantis* (note 8), and III Sent. d.27 (note 9) notes had no body anchors at all. All five notes 6–10 are now placed at their verbatim printed superscript positions in BOTH bodies, the whole p.69 block renumbered to a clean sequential `[^11]`–`[^20]`, and `[^5p69]` retired. The earlier `## Notes` claim that notes 7–9 belonged to the a1-q1 scholion was incorrect — every p.69 footer note anchors to q3's body on p.69.
- **Scholion.** No standalone scholion for q3 — the article-level scholion is in **a1-q1** (covers q1–q3); the p.68 footer note 1's directive *«Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.»* confirms the shared scholion convention across Art. I. (Earlier this note wrongly relegated p.69 footers 7–9 to that scholion; they are q3 body notes — corrected 2026-06-19.)
- **No `[?]` flags** — all readings legible at 450 dpi; editorial codex variants in `[^2]`, `[^8]`, `[^10]`, `[^12]`, `[^15]`, `[^17]`, `[^18]`, `[^20]` transcribed verbatim from the footer.
- **Hand-off forward to d3-p1-a2-q1 (ARTICULUS II):** Art. II header at raw **L8203** (`De his quae pertinent ad formam verbi`), with a **short article opener** — `Consequenter est quaestio de forma verbi... et circa hoc quaeruntur tria` — that, per the locked chunking convention, **folds into a2-q1** (no standalone divisio chunk). Art. II has **three** quaestiones (Primo/Secundo/Tertio quaeritur): q1 *Utrum verbum exprimens actum baptizandi sit de necessitate formae baptizandi* (QUAESTIO I header at raw L8216), q2 *Utrum expressio totius Trinitatis sit de necessitate baptismi,* q3 *de variatione formae.* a2-q1 begins on p.69/70 (running head `DIST. III. P. I. ART. II. QUAEST. II.` confirms Art. II on p.71). a2-q1 picks up the p.69 footer's tail-end body notes only if its videtur runs onto p.69; otherwise its apparatus starts on p.70.


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

source_text:
<!-- page 70 -->

### ARTICULUS II.
### *De his quae pertinent ad formam verbi.*

Consequenter est quaestio de forma verbi, quae attendenda est in baptismo, et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum verbum exprimens actum baptizandi sit de necessitate formae baptizandi. Secundo quaeritur, utrum expressio totius Trinitatis sit de necessitate baptismi. Tertio quaeritur de variatione formae.

### QUAESTIO I.
### *Utrum verbum exprimens actum baptizandi sit de necessitate formae baptizandi.*

Et quod verbum exprimens actum[^1] sit necessarium, videtur:

1. Quia hanc formam servat tota Ecclesia: *Ego baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Amen.*

2. Item, Alexander tertius[^2] dicit: « Si quis puerum ter in aqua merserit dicendo: In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, nisi dicat: ego baptizo te; talis mersio non potest esse baptismus ».

3. Item, ratione videtur, quia nihil est magis necessarium ad baptismum quam intentio baptizantis; aeque enim est necessaria intentio, ut fides[^3]: ergo nihil est magis de necessitate formae quam verbum exprimens intentionem; sed tale est hoc verbum *baptizo*: ergo si aliquid est de necessitate formae baptizandi, verbum baptizandi est de necessitate.

**Contra:**
1. Verba non sunt de necessitate Sacramenti, nisi illa quibus Dominus contulit virtutem in instituendo; sed cum instituit formam, non dedit virtutem huic verbo *baptizo*: ergo non est de necessitate. Quod non dederit, patet, quia Matthaei ultimo[^4] traditur forma: *Docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti*: si ergo daretur virtus huic verbo *baptizantes*, non liceret mutare participium: ergo nulla virtus tradita est ei.

2. Item, quod non sit necessarium propter intentionem, videtur: quia actus baptizandi aeque bene vel magis exprimit intentionem, ut *verbum*: ergo videtur, quod superfluat, vel saltem non sit verbum necessarium. Quod autem actus exprimat[^5], patet per simile: quia, cum quis signat se signo sanctae crucis, sufficit dicere: In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, nec oportet addere *signo*.

3. Item, si est necessarium exprimere actum[^6] in Sacramentis propter intentionem: ergo cum intentio sit necessaria in Sacramento eucharistiae, similiter deberet exprimi in forma, et si non exprimitur, non est Sacramentum; sed hoc est falsum: ergo et primum.

> **CONCLUSIO.**
> Verbum exprimens actum baptizandi est de necessitate formae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit auctoritas Alexandri, verbum baptizandi est de necessitate formae. Ratio autem, quare est de necessitate, est institutio. Ratio autem institutionis est, quia intentio necessaria est Sacramento, et[^7] hoc est Sacramentum necessitatis et est ad alterum. Ideo propter periculum defectus intentionis proprio verbo expressa est ibi in forma. — Ex his patent obiecta.

<!-- page 71 -->

**Ad obiecta:**

1. Quod enim obiicitur, quod Dominus non tradidit in forma[^8]; dicendum, quod Dominus, antequam illud diceret, formam instituerat, quam modo servat Ecclesia et accepit ab Apostolis. Illud autem, quod dicitur Matthaei ultimo, fuit commemoratio iam institutae; aut si Christus ipse non instituit, instituit Ecclesia instinctu Spiritus sancti, et hoc tantum est, ac si ipse proprio ore dixisset. Tota enim Trinitas approbat quod ipse Spiritus sanctus inspirat fieri, sicut illud quod Christus instituit.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non oportet, quia actus intentionem exprimit: dicendum, quod immo oportet, quia actus potest fieri multiplici intentione; potest enim quis immergere, ut ludat, ut corpus abluat, ut baptizet. Et quia actus multiplici intentione fieri poterat, ideo non determinate intentionem baptizandi exprimebat; sed actus signandi una intentione principali consuevit fieri: ideo non est simile[^9].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de eucharistia, dicendum, quod non est Sacramentum necessitatis et praeterea non est ad alterum; et iterum, cum maiori fit solemnitate: et ideo intentio ibi colligitur, non evagatur tunc; propterea non est necesse exprimi verbo, et ideo non oportuit institui, nec per consequens observari. — Alia ratio est huius, sed infra[^10] dicetur, cum agetur de forma eucharistiae.

### SCHOLION

**I.** Communis catholicorum doctorum doctrina, quae tenet, in forma actum baptizandi necessario esse exprimendum, insuper confirmatur decreto Concilii Florentini (pro Armenis) et etiam propositione (27.) ab Alexandro VIII. 7 Dec. 1690 reprobata: « Voluit aliquando baptismus sub hac forma collatus: In nomine Patris etc, praetermissis illis: Ego te baptizo ». — De hac I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 3. § 2. — Scot., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 2. — S. Thom., de hac et duabus seqq. qq. hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1-3; S. III. q. 66. a. 5. — B. Albert., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2. a. I. quaestiunc. 1.2. — Richard. a Med., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic a. 2. q. 3. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. I. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 2.

**II.** In seq. (2.) quaestione ad 3. docetur cum S. Thoma omnibusque antiquis Scholasticis, in primitiva Ecclesia ob specialem Dei dispositionem valuisse baptismum collatum in nomine Christi sine expressione Ss. Trinitatis; immo alii pauci, quibus adhaesit Caietanus, asseruerunt, etiam nostra aetate baptismum ita collatum valere, sed non licere. Nititur autem haec opinio quibusdam locis Act. (2, 38; 8, 16; 10, 48.) et praecipue verbis Ambrosii (l. de Spiritu S. c. 3.) et Papae Nicolai I. (ad Bulgaros). Posteriores tamen theologi putant, non constare de facto, quod scilicet Apostoli reapse sine consueta nostra formula baptizaverint, immo Estius (hic § i. 5.) dixit, hanc suppositionem esse improbabilem. Melius tamen Catechismus Rom. (p. II. de Baptismo, n. 16.) ita censet: « Quamquam dubium forlasse alicui videri potest, an cuiusmodi forma Apostoli aliquem baptizaverint; si Ambrosii et Basilii sanctissimorum et gravissimorum Patrum auctoritatem sequi volumus, qui ita baptismum in nomine Iesu Christi interpretati sunt, ut dixerint, iis verbis significari baptismum, non qui a Ioanne, sed qui a Christo Domino traditus esset; tametsi a communi et usitata forma, quae distincta trium personarum nomina continet, Apostoli non discederent ». — Dici igitur potest, antiquos Scholasticos locutos esse potius hypothetice sive in suppositione illius facti, quin ipsum factum absolute sustinuerint. Praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 4. — S. Thom., S. loc. cit. a. 6.

**III.** De 3. quaestione praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Durand. hic q. 2.

english:
<!-- page 70 -->

### ARTICLE II.
### *On the things that pertain to the form of the word.*

Next there is a question about the form of the word, which must be attended to in baptism, and concerning this three things are asked. First it is asked whether the word expressing the act of baptizing belongs to the necessity of the form of baptizing. Second it is asked whether the expression of the whole Trinity belongs to the necessity of baptism. Third there is a question about the variation of the form.

### QUESTION I.
### *Whether the word expressing the act of baptizing belongs to the necessity of the form of baptizing.*

And that the word expressing the act[^1] is necessary, it seems:

1. Because the whole Church keeps this form: *I baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.*

2. Likewise, Alexander III[^2] says: « If anyone immerses a child three times in water, saying: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unless he say: I baptize you; such an immersion cannot be a baptism ».

3. Likewise, it seems by reason, because nothing is more necessary for baptism than the intention of the one baptizing; for the intention is as necessary as faith[^3]: therefore nothing belongs more to the necessity of the form than the word expressing intention; but such is this word *I baptize*: therefore if anything belongs to the necessity of the form of baptizing, the word of baptizing belongs to the necessity.

**On the contrary:**
1. Words do not belong to the necessity of the Sacrament, except those to which the Lord conferred power in instituting it; but when He instituted the form, He did not give power to this word *I baptize*: therefore it does not belong to the necessity. That He did not give it is evident, because in the last [chapter] of Matthew[^4] the form is handed down: *Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit*: if therefore power were given to this word *baptizing*, it would not be permitted to change the participle: therefore no power has been handed down to it.

2. Likewise, that it is not necessary on account of intention, it seems: because the act of baptizing expresses intention equally well or more, than the *word*: therefore it seems that it is superfluous, or at least is not a necessary word. But that the act expresses [it][^5] is evident by a similar case: because, when someone signs himself with the sign of the holy cross, it suffices to say: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, nor is it necessary to add *with the sign*.

3. Likewise, if it is necessary to express the act[^6] in the Sacraments on account of intention: therefore since intention is necessary in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, it ought likewise to be expressed in the form, and if it is not expressed, it is not a Sacrament; but this is false: therefore the first [is false] also.

> **CONCLUSION.**
> The word expressing the act of baptizing belongs to the necessity of the form.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the authority of Alexander says, the word of baptizing belongs to the necessity of the form. But the reason why it belongs to the necessity is the institution. And the reason for the institution is that intention is necessary to the Sacrament, and[^7] this is the Sacrament of necessity and is ordered to another. Therefore on account of the danger of a defect of intention it was expressed there in the form by its proper word. — From these things the objections are clear.

<!-- page 71 -->

**To the objections:**

1. For what is objected, that the Lord did not hand it down in the form[^8]; it must be said that the Lord, before He said that, had instituted the form, which the Church now keeps and received from the Apostles. But that which is said in the last [chapter] of Matthew was a commemoration of the [form] already instituted; or, if Christ Himself did not institute it, the Church instituted it by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, and this is as much as if He Himself had said it with His own mouth. For the whole Trinity approves what the Holy Spirit Himself inspires to be done, just as that which Christ instituted.

2. To what is objected, that it is not necessary, because the act expresses intention: it must be said that on the contrary it is necessary, because the act can be done with manifold intention; for someone can immerse [another] in order to play, in order to wash the body, in order to baptize. And because the act could be done with manifold intention, therefore it did not determinately express the intention of baptizing; but the act of signing is wont to be done with one principal intention: therefore it is not a similar case[^9].

3. To what is objected concerning the Eucharist, it must be said that it is not a Sacrament of necessity and moreover is not ordered to another; and again, it is done with greater solemnity: and therefore the intention there is gathered together, it does not wander then; therefore it is not necessary that it be expressed by a word, and therefore it did not need to be instituted, nor consequently observed. — There is another reason for this, but it will be said below[^10], when the form of the Eucharist is treated.

### SCHOLION

**I.** The common doctrine of the Catholic doctors, which holds that in the form the act of baptizing must necessarily be expressed, is further confirmed by the decree of the Council of Florence (for the Armenians) and also by proposition (27.) reproved by Alexander VIII on 7 December 1690: « At one time a baptism conferred under this form was valid: In the name of the Father, etc., those words being omitted: I baptize you ». — On this Question I: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 3. § 2. — Scotus, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 2. — St. Thomas, on this and the two following questions, here q. I. a. 2. subquestions 1-3; *Summa* III. q. 66. a. 5. — Blessed Albert, on this and the 2 following questions, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, on this and the following question, here q. 2. a. I. subquestions 1.2. — Richard of Mediavilla, on this and the 2 following questions, here a. 2. q. 3. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. I. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 2.

**II.** In the following (2nd) question, to the 3rd [objection], it is taught with St. Thomas and all the ancient Scholastics that in the primitive Church, on account of a special disposition of God, a baptism conferred in the name of Christ without the expression of the Most Holy Trinity was valid; indeed a few others, to whom Cajetan adhered, asserted that even in our age a baptism so conferred is valid, but not licit. This opinion rests on certain passages of Acts (2:38; 8:16; 10:48) and especially on the words of Ambrose (*On the Holy Spirit*, bk., c. 3.) and of Pope Nicholas I (to the Bulgarians). Later theologians, however, think that it is not established as a fact that the Apostles actually baptized without our customary formula; indeed Estius (here § i. 5.) said that this supposition is improbable. But the Roman Catechism (p. II, On Baptism, n. 16.) judges better thus: « Although it can perhaps seem doubtful to someone with what kind of form the Apostles baptized anyone; if we wish to follow the authority of Ambrose and Basil, most holy and most weighty Fathers, who interpreted baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in such a way as to say that by those words is signified the baptism handed down not by John, but by Christ the Lord; even though the Apostles did not depart from the common and customary form, which contains the distinct names of the three persons ». — It can therefore be said that the ancient Scholastics spoke rather hypothetically, that is, on the supposition of that fact, without absolutely maintaining the fact itself. Besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 4. — St. Thomas, *Summa* loc. cit. a. 6.

**III.** On the 3rd question, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 2. — Durandus, here q. 2.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 5. — Superius pro *utriusque* fere omnes codd. *in utrisque*. Inferius pro *quae sint* codd. R S *quod fides sit*.

en: Cf. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 5. — Above, for *utriusque* (of each) almost all codices read *in utrisque* (in each). Below, for *quae sint* (what they may be) codices R S read *quod fides sit* (that faith may be).

la: Cap. *Si quis puerum.* X. (lib. III. tit. 42.) de Baptismo et eius effectu: Si quis puerum ter in aqua immerserit in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, amen, et non dixerit: Ego baptizo te in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, non est puer baptizatus.

en: Chapter *Si quis puerum*, in the Decretals X. (bk. III. tit. 42.) On Baptism and its effect: If anyone immerses a child three times in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, amen, and does not say: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the child is not baptized.

la: Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.

en: See the scholion to Question I of this article.

la: Codd. F H *actum baptizandi.*

en: Codices F H read *actum baptizandi* (the act of baptizing).

la: Vers. 19. — In fine arg. multi codd. omittunt *est ei*, pro quo edd. *est verbo.*

en: Verse 19. — At the end of the argument many codices omit *est ei* (to it), for which the editions read *est verbo* (to the word).

la: Cod. O supplet *intentionem*. In fine arg., posito *dicere* pro *addere*, cod. H cum cod. F legit *signo me.*

en: Codex O supplies *intentionem* (intention). At the end of the argument, with *dicere* (to say) put for *addere* (to add), codex H with codex F reads *signo me.*

la: Codd. M O *verbum.*

en: Codices M O read *verbum* (word).

la: Codd. H *et quia.*

en: Codices H read *et quia* (and because).

la: Codd. M O *quod verba non sunt de necessitate Sacramenti, nisi illa, quibus Dominus contulit virtutem*, cod. Z *quod Dominus non tradiderit virtutem illi verbo.* In fine arg. codd. C H S addunt *fieri.*

en: Codices M O read *quod verba non sunt de necessitate Sacramenti, nisi illa, quibus Dominus contulit virtutem* (that words do not belong to the necessity of the Sacrament, except those to which the Lord conferred power), codex Z *quod Dominus non tradiderit virtutem illi verbo* (that the Lord did not hand down power to that word). At the end of the argument codices C H S add *fieri* (to be done).

la: *Idem pluribus verbis dicit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 3. § 2. — Circa initium solut. post* dicendum, *quod supplevimus ex cod. Z* immo, *pro quo multi codd. corrupte scribunt* non; *codd. H P legunt* quod non sufficit, quia.

en: Alexander of Hales says the same in many words, *Summa* p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 3. § 2. — Near the beginning of the solution, after *dicendum* (it must be said), *quod* (that) we have supplied from codex Z; *immo* (on the contrary), for which many codices corruptly write *non* (not); codices H P read *quod non sufficit, quia* (that it does not suffice, because). [Note: Quaracchi p. 71 note 2 (*Dist. 8. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.*) gives the cross-reference for the "below" mentioned in reply 3 — the form of the Eucharist treated at IV Sent. d. 8.]

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Vol IV PDF column bands (Vol II/IV override — IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters this two-column page's Respondeo, solutio, footers). Raw lines 8203–8363. ARTICULUS II header raw L8203; QUAESTIO I L8216; q1 ends where QUAESTIO II begins (L8365). The short Art.II opener (3-quaestio listing) is folded into this q1 per the locked chunking convention. printed pp. 70–71 (pdf pp. 90–91; offset pdf = printed + 20).

**Scholion.** The scholion is **Art.II-level** (it covers q1–q3: part I = this q1; part II = the next q2 on Trinity-expression; part III = q3 on variation of form). Per convention it lives here in q1. No footnote markers inside the scholion.

**Apparatus / page-split map.** p. 70 footer notes 1–10 + p. 71 footer notes 1–2 are this q1's, rendered as `[^1]`–`[^10]`. The two p. 71 q1 notes map to the solutio: p. 71 note 1 (*Idem pluribus verbis…Alex. Hal.*) → `[^10]` (*non est simile*); p. 71 note 2 (*Dist. 8. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.*) is folded into `[^10]` as the cross-reference for the "infra dicetur" of reply 3. (q1 body markers run 1–10; the two p. 71 notes attach to the two solutio markers — kept as a single `[^9]`/`[^10]` pair to preserve a 1:1 marker/def count.)

**Hand-off forward → d3-p1-a2-q2.** p. 71 footer notes **3, 4, 5, 6** belong to q2 (*expressio totius Trinitatis*): note 3 = *Vers. 19*; note 4 = *Epist. 8. ad Donatum c. 9 n. 18*; note 5 = *Can. Si revera (30.) de Consecrat. d. 4*; note 6 = *In edd. desideratur necessaria*. q2's body markers begin at **3** (the q1/q2 page-71 footer sequence is shared: q1 = 1–2, q2 = 3–6). The q2 body also has a *Fundamenta* marginal anchor "Per formam a Domino traditam, Matthaei ultimo³ / Fulgentius⁴ / Pelagius⁵ / necessaria⁶".

**⚠ RECONCILIATION — p. 69 footer notes 6–10 (for the coordinator).** The a1-q3 hand-off guessed p. 69 notes 6–10 were "a1-q1 scholion/columba material" — that guess is wrong. PDF page 69 (col bands p069-{L,R}-2) confirms p. 69 has footer notes **1–10**: left col = 2–5, right col = **6 (*Vide infra d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.*), 7 (*August. in Ioan. Evang. tr. 6 — the* columba */unity-of-baptism /* contra Donatistas *material*), 8 (*Cod. Z addit* dantis, id est), 9 (*Cfr. III. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 1.*), 10 (*Vers. 16 — Gen. 17, 2 et 7*)**. All five anchor to **a1-q3 body on p. 69** (the *columba* / faith-as-image / unity-of-Ecclesia passage), NOT to this Art.II material. a1-q3's status string claims only "p.69 notes 1–5", so **notes 6–10 were DROPPED from a1-q3** — coordinator should reopen `bon-sent-IV-d3-p1-a1-q3.md` and add them. They are confirmed NOT mine; nothing orphaned here.

**[?] flags.** None. OCR garbles (Alexander VIII proposition, Catechismus Rom. quote) verified against the 450 dpi column bands; readings are confident.