title: Dist. 6, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 151 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum sanctificatus in utero debeat baptizari.*

Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum sanctificatus in utero debeat baptizari, cum natus est. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia talis per sanctificationem non habet characterem[^2]; sed debet signo Christi consignari, quod fit in baptismo: ergo debet baptizari.

2. Item, baptizati baptismo flaminis baptizantur aqua et tenentur baptizari, ut patet de Cornelio, Actuum decimo[^3]; sed sanctificari non est aliud quam gratiam Spiritus sancti recipere: ergo sanctificati tenentur baptizari.

3. Item, nullus quantumcumque magnus absolvitur a divino mandato; sed Dominus mandatum dedit de suscipiendo baptismum[^4]: ergo ita tenetur ad hoc sanctificatus, ut alius.

**Sed contra:**

1. Vigor singularis privilegii[^5] semper transcendit beneficium commune: ergo in sanctificatione datur gratia curans, sicut in baptismo, et maior et efficacior; sed ordo non est a maiori perfectione ad minorem, sed e converso: ergo sanctificatus non tenetur baptizari.

2. Item, si sanctificatus baptizatur, videtur, quod sit *vanitas,* quia quod potest sufficienter fieri per unum frustra fit per duo in natura[^6]: ergo si «natura non facit frustra», multo minus nec gratia; sed gratia sanctificans sufficit ad curationem, alioquin Deus agit imperfecte: ergo etc.

3. Item, videtur, quod sit ibi contemptus: quia qui baptizatus est, si iterum baptizetur, facit contumeliam Sacramento, quia primum remedium reputat insufficiens[^7]: ergo pari ratione qui baptizatur post sanctificationem iniuriatur sanctificationi.

### Conclusio

> *Sanctificatus in utero debet baptizari.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sanctificatus baptizari debet baptismo aquae, sicut baptizatus baptismo flaminis[^8] — Et est ratio triplex: prima propter bonum obedientiae, quia Deus praecipit, ut omnes qui nascuntur, renascantur aqua; secunda propter humilitatem, quia debet se reputare peccato[^1]rem et indigere Christi redemptione; tertia propter unitatem, ut ab aliis membris Christi non discordet. Non ergo baptizatur propter hoc, quod sanctificatio non sufficiat, sed propter rationes praedictas. Propter quarum exempla danda Christus fuit circumcisus: ut scilicet obediret Legi, subiecit se signo peccatoris, quo non ipse se peccatorem, sed alios se peccatores profiteri doceret; postremo, ut Patribus non esset dissimilis[^9].

Patet igitur responsio, quod sanctificatus non recipit baptismum in *remedium* — quod si faceret,
<!-- page 152 -->
esset inordinatio, vanitas et contemptus — sed in signaculum, quod habet tria bona coniuncta, scilicet obedientiam, humilitatem et unitatem, quantum ad unitatem characteris.

**Ad oppositum:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod sanctificatio transcendit; dicendum, quod quamvis hoc verum sit quantum ad gratiam, quae delet culpam et habilitat ad bonum; tamen non transcendit quantum ad characterem, quia illum non imprimit; et ideo ratione illius adhuc baptismus debet recipi.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod superfluit; patet responsio: quia non recipit[^p1] ad idem, ad quod praecessit sanctificatio.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod rebaptizatus[^p2] iniuriatur baptismo; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, quia iterat idem remedium et ad idem; non sic est in proposito. Et sic patet totum[^p3].

english:
<!-- page 151 -->

### Question II. *Whether one sanctified in the womb ought to be baptized.*

Secondly it is asked concerning this, whether one sanctified in the womb ought to be baptized once he has been born. And that he ought, it seems:

1. Because such a one does not, through sanctification, have the character[^2]; but he ought to be marked with the sign of Christ, which is done in baptism: therefore he ought to be baptized.

2. Likewise, those baptized by the baptism of the Spirit are baptized with water and are bound to be baptized, as is plain in the case of Cornelius, in the tenth chapter of Acts[^3]; but to be sanctified is nothing other than to receive the grace of the Holy Spirit: therefore the sanctified are bound to be baptized.

3. Likewise, no one however great is released from the divine commandment; but the Lord gave the commandment about receiving baptism[^4]: therefore one who has been sanctified is bound to this just as another is.

**On the contrary:**

1. The force of a singular privilege[^5] always transcends a common benefit: therefore in sanctification a healing grace is given, just as in baptism, and greater and more efficacious; but order does not proceed from greater perfection to lesser, but the reverse: therefore one sanctified is not bound to be baptized.

2. Likewise, if one sanctified is baptized, it seems that it is *in vain,* because what can be done sufficiently by one is done in vain by two in nature[^6]: therefore if "nature does nothing in vain," much less does grace; but sanctifying grace suffices for healing, otherwise God acts imperfectly: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it seems that there is contempt there: because one who has been baptized, if he is baptized again, does an outrage to the Sacrament, since he reckons the first remedy insufficient[^7]: therefore by parity of reasoning one who is baptized after sanctification does an injury to the sanctification.

### Conclusion

> *One sanctified in the womb ought to be baptized.*

**I respond:** It must be said that one sanctified ought to be baptized with the baptism of water, just as one baptized with the baptism of the Spirit[^8] — And there is a threefold reason: the first on account of the good of obedience, because God commands that all who are born be reborn by water; the second on account of humility, because he ought to reckon himself a sinner[^1] and in need of the redemption of Christ; the third on account of unity, that he not be at variance with the other members of Christ. Therefore he is not baptized on this account, that the sanctification does not suffice, but on account of the reasons aforesaid. For the sake of giving an example of these things Christ was circumcised: namely that he might obey the Law, he subjected himself to the sign of the sinner, by which he taught not that he himself, but that others profess themselves to be sinners; lastly, that he might not be unlike to the Fathers[^9].

Therefore the response is plain, that one sanctified does not receive baptism as a *remedy* — for if he did,
<!-- page 152 -->
it would be disorder, vanity, and contempt — but as a seal, which has three goods joined together, namely obedience, humility, and unity, with respect to the unity of the character.

**To the opposed arguments:**

1. To that, then, which is objected, that the sanctification transcends; it must be said that although this is true with respect to the grace, which blots out fault and disposes toward the good; nevertheless it does not transcend with respect to the character, because it does not imprint it; and therefore by reason of that the baptism ought still to be received.

2. To that which is objected, that it is superfluous; the response is plain: because he does not receive[^p1] for the same end for which the sanctification went before.

3. To that which is objected, that one rebaptized[^p2] does an injury to baptism; it must be said that this is true, because he repeats the same remedy and for the same end; it is not so in the present case. And thus the whole is plain[^p3].

la: Psalm. 76, 10 (cit. q1). — Inferius pro *peccatum* cod. aa *meritum.*

en: Psalm 76:10 (cited in q1; the scriptural half of this footer belongs to the preceding question's body). — Below, for *peccatum* ("sinner"/"sin") codex aa reads *meritum* ("merit").

la: Cfr. supra d. I. p. II. a. I. q. 2. in corp. — De minori vide supra p. I. q. 4.

en: Cf. above, d. I, p. II, a. I, q. 2, in the body. — On the minor [premise] see above, p. I, q. 4.

en: Verses 22 and 48.

la: Ioan. 3, 5: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto etc.

en: John 3:5: Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, etc.

la: Isidor., V. Etymolog. c. 18: Privilegia autem sunt leges privatorum, quasi privatae leges. Nam privilegium inde dicitur, quod in privato feratur. — De recto ordine cfr. tom. II. pag. 330, nota 5. in fine.

en: Isidore, *Etymologies* V, c. 18: But privileges are the laws of private persons, as it were private laws. For a privilege is so called because it is borne in private. — On right order cf. vol. II, p. 330, note 5, at the end.

la: Secundum Aristot., de quo vide tom. III. pag. 277, nota 1. — Seq. testimonium est Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 32. (c. 4.), et III. de Anima, text. 45. (c. 9.).

en: According to Aristotle, on whom see vol. III, p. 277, note 1. — The following testimony is from Aristotle, *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 32 (c. 4), and *On the Soul* III, text 45 (c. 9).

la: Ut ostensum est supra p. I. q. 6. et dub. 2.

en: As was shown above, p. I, q. 6, and doubt 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 4. p. II. a. I. q. I. — Inferius post *ut omnes* ex codd. FH supplevimus *qui nascuntur.*

en: Cf. above, d. 4, p. II, a. I, q. I. — Below, after *ut omnes* ("that all"), from codices FH we have supplied *qui nascuntur* ("who are born").

la: Vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. I. ad 4. — Inferius pro *faceret* cod. F *fieret.*

en: See above, d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. I, ad 4. — Below, for *faceret* codex F reads *fieret.*

la: Cod. M *respicit.*

en: Codex M [reads] *respicit* ("regards"/"looks back").

la: Cod. E *rebaptizans.*

en: Codex E [reads] *rebaptizans* ("rebaptizing").

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

latin_scholion:
**II.** De sequenti (2.) quaestione cfr. lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 6. Item: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 6. — Scot., loc. cit. q. 6. — S. Thom., IV. Sent. d. 4. q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. — Dionys. Carth., IV. Sent. d. 4. q. 7.

---

english_scholion:
**II.** On the following (2nd) question, cf. the text of the Master, d. IV, c. 6. Likewise: Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, § 6. — Scotus, in the place cited, q. 6. — St. Thomas, IV Sent., d. 4, q. 2, a. 2, subquestion 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1, subquestion 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, IV Sent., d. 4, q. 7.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 151–152 (PDF 171–172, offset pdf = printed + 20, verified via running-head text "DIST. VI. P. II. ART. I." on p.151 and "152 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." on p.152), with the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L17206–17304) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The OCR cascade-shatters this two-column page (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed) through the entire Respondeo, the Ad-oppositum replies, and every footer; per the Vol IV / Vol II OVERRIDE the column-band PDF read is authoritative in those regions. `colcrop.py vol4 <p> 1880` split (x≈1880).

**Opener alignment.** Verified against the pars-II TRACTATIO (ART I, q2): opener reads "*Secundo* quaeritur circa hoc, utrum sanctificatus in utero debeat baptizari, cum natus est" — matches the "second is asked" slot. ARTICULUS II ("De intentione baptizantis") begins at raw L17305 / top of p.152 col. 1 below this q2 — excluded.

**Page-split map.**
- p.151 (col. L + col. R): q2 title, args 1–3, Sed contra 1–3, Conclusio, Respondeo + circumcision example, opening of the *non in remedium* coronarium. Footers nn. 1–9.
- p.152 (col. L top + col. R top): coronarium tail ("esset inordinatio… unitatem characteris"), Ad oppositum replies 1–3, "Et sic patet totum." Footers nn. 1–3 (here `[^p1]`–`[^p3]`); footers nn. 4+ on p.152 belong to ARTICULUS II and are excluded.

**Hand-offs picked up (from d6-p2-a1-q1):**
- (a) Scholion **section II** ("De sequenti (2.) quaestione cfr. lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 6" + citation cluster Alex. Hal. §6, Scot. q.6, S. Thom. IV Sent. d.4 q.2 a.2 quaestiunc.2, Petr. a Tar. hic q.2 a.1 quaestiunc.3, Dionys. Carth. IV Sent. d.4 q.7) — rendered here as this q2's scholion. (Scholion §I, the Psalm/Notandum material + "De hac I. quaestione" citation cluster, stays with q1.)
- (b) p.151 footer **n.1**: the "Inferius pro *peccatum*… cod. aa *meritum*" half is claimed here (the Psalm 76:10 scriptural half + its body marker `¹` stay with q1). p.151 footers **nn. 2–9** are anchored to this q2 body and rendered in full.

**Hand-off forwarded to d6-p2-a2-q1:** ARTICULUS II "De intentione baptizantis" opens at raw **L17305** (top of printed p.152 col. 1, below this q2): "Quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de intentione baptizantis, et circa hoc duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum intentio sit de necessitate baptismi." That short article-opener folds into a2-q1 (no standalone divisio chunk per the locked chunking convention). p.152 footers **nn. 4 onward** (n.4 "Plurimi codd. addunt *secundo*"; n.5 "Ita fere omnes omnes codd.; edd. *necessitate*"; n.6 "Hic c. 5. — De *minori* cfr. supra d.3 p.I a.2 q…"; n.7 "Vide supra d.3 p.I a.1 q.2 et a.2 q.1…"; n.8 "Permulti codd. omittunt in hac propositione *et rationem*…") belong to a2-q1's body — claim them there.

**`[?]` flags.**
- `[^1]` body anchor: the variant clause "Inferius pro *peccatum* … *meritum*" references a forthcoming *peccatum* but the printed `¹` marker sits on q1's "in ira¹"; I anchored the q2-side marker to "se reputare *peccato*[rem]" in the Respondeo as the most plausible *peccatum*-occurrence. `[?]` — exact anchor word for the cod. aa *peccatum→meritum* variant not independently confirmed against a printed q2 marker; the scriptural half is firmly q1's.
- `[^p1]` reply 2: printed body marker for cod. M *respicit* falls on "non *recipit*[^p1]" — legible but the column gutter slightly clips the superscript; reading is confident from context (recipit↔respicit variant).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 6, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 152 -->

### Articulus II. *De intentione baptizantis.*

Quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de intentione baptizantis, et circa hoc duo quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum intentio sit de necessitate baptismi. Secundo[^4] quaeritur, utrum recta intentio sit de integritate[^5] baptismi.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum intentio in conferente sit de necessitate baptismi.*

Et quantum ad primum, quod intentio sit de necessitate baptismi, ostenditur:

1. *Primo* per auctoritatem Magistri in littera[^6]: «In hoc et in aliis Sacramentis, sicut forma servanda est, ita intentio conferendi illud est habenda»; sed forma est de necessitate: ergo et intentio.

2. *Item*, forma verborum est de necessitate, non secundum quod cogitantur, sed secundum quod dicuntur[^7]; sed *dicere* est cum intentione proferre: ergo intentio est necessaria ad baptismum. *Si tu dicas*, quod ex hoc non sequitur, quod oporteat habere intentionem talem et talem, sed sufficit, quod intendat aliquid, ut puta ludere; *ostenditur*, quod necesse est habere intentionem dandi Sacramentum: quia opera, quae sunt secundum artem vel rationem, ut ratio est, recipiunt denominationem ab eius intentione — quoniam si intendit ludere, ludus est[^8] — ergo si non intendit administrare Sacramentum, non est Sacramentum.

**Contra:**

1. Augustinus dicit, et habitum est supra distinctione tertia[^9]: «Accedente verbo ad elementum, fit Sacramentum»: ergo si ista duo adsint, Sacramentum est integrum, maxime cum in datione formae intentio non tangatur.

2. *Item*, ad baptismum concurrit fides, cum sit Sacramentum fidei; sed fides Ecclesiae sufficit, cum baptizans est infidelis[^10]: ergo videtur similiter, quod intentio Ecclesiae suppleat intentionem baptizantis.

3. *Item*, baptismus ita respicit recipientem sicut dantem; sed non est necessaria intentio in recipiente, ut patet in parvulo et furioso[^11]: ergo nec in dante; et sic etc.

4. *Item*, videmus opera spiritualia, quae Dominus facit per ministros aliud intendentes, ut puta probat iustos per daemones[^12], qui probationem non intendunt; similiter in operibus corporalibus, qui percutit vulnere lethali, etsi non intendat occidere, homicidium facit: ergo videtur similiter in proposito, quia, licet quis non intendat baptizare, tamen si facit quod requiritur ad baptismum, baptizat.

5. *Item*, si intentio est necessaria, ergo quilibet est incertus, utrum sit baptizatus: ergo si non debet se committere discrimini: semper tenetur rebaptizari, cum numquam possit certificari de intentione baptizantis.

<!-- page 153 -->

### Conclusio.

> *Intentio requiritur ad conferendum omne Sacramentum.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in omni Sacramento necessaria est intentio. — Ratio autem huius est, quia Sacramentum non habet *esse* suum a natura, sed ab *institutione*; unde si ante institutionem immersisset quis in aquam sub forma verborum, non esset Sacramentum.

Dicunt ergo quidam, sicut magister Hugo de sancto Victore, quod Sacramenta instituta sunt, ut fiant *rationabiliter* et ex intentione; et ideo, si non sit intentio, non est Sacramentum. Ait enim sic[^1p153]: «Sacramenta Dei non sic instituta sunt, ut operandi nullam rationem admittant, sed tumultuosa quadam et violenta atque irrationabili pertinacia sine omni intentione aut voluntate operantium ad effectum procedant». «Vide igitur et considera, quod rationabile oportet esse opus ministrorum Dei, nec propter solam formam praeiudicare, ubi agendi intentio nulla est».

Potest tamen et alia ratio assignari: quia Sacramentum necessaria est *intentio et institutio*. Ad hoc enim, quod sit Sacramentum, necesse est, quod forma et elementum ad unum ordinentur; hoc autem non est *ex se*, cum forma et elementum indifferentia sint ad multa; ideo supervenit *institutio Christi*, quae formam et elementum ordinavit ad aliquem effectum et significavit. Sed tamen *institutio*, etsi verba *ordinavit* ad unum, non tamen *arctavit*, quia ad alios usus possunt sumi et sumuntur[^2p153]; et ideo ad hoc, quod *ordinentur*, necessarium est, intervenire intentionem ministri, qua intendit illo actu et verbo talem effectum dare, vel saltem quod facit Ecclesia facere, vel saltem quod Christus instituit dispensare; alioquin verbum et elementum ut disiuncta, vel ad aliud iuncta, non faciunt Sacramentum.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo: *Accedit verbum ad elementum* etc.; dicendum, quod non accedit unum ad alterum, nisi adsit intentio iungens.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de fide, quod sufficit fides Ecclesiae; dicendum, quod *fides* est sicut agens *universale*; sed *intentio* est agens *particulare*, applicans fidem ad hoc vel ad illud[^3p153]: et ideo *fides* salvatur in generalitate Ecclesiae, sed *intentio* est necessaria, qua copulatur actus ille fidei Ecclesiae, tanquam actus particularis et actualis in ministrante. *Virtus* igitur Sacramenti est a fide Ecclesiae, sed *dispensatio* est ab actione ministri; et quoniam ministratio respicit intentionem dantis, ideo non sic requiritur *fides* in dispensante, ut *intentio*.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de suscipiente, dicendum, quod si suscipiens sit adultus et nullo modo intendat, sibi fieri quod facit Ecclesia, sed potius iocum; non credo, quod reciperet[^4p153] Sacramentum, si nihil intendat nisi ludere et lavari.

Ex hoc patet illud quod consuevit quaeri, utrum aliqua *fictio* impediat susceptionem Sacramenti. Si enim fictio illa non removeat intentionem hanc, videlicet suscipiendi quod Ecclesia dat vel intendit dare; quantacumque sit fictio, non impedit susceptionem Sacramenti. Si vero ita sit fictus, quod non habeat intentionem recipiendi vel fiendi circa se quod Ecclesia facit vel intendit facere, sed solum intendit ludere vel alios illudere; non video, quomodo iste suscipiat Sacramentum, vel rem[^5p153].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de operibus, dicendum, quod opera illa *de se* sunt ordinata ad illum finem, ut gravis percussio ad occisionem et poena bonorum ad probationem; sed ablutio et Trinitatis invocatio sunt ordinata ad multa: et ideo non faciunt Sacramentum sine intentione. Et sic patet illud.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod semper oportet rebaptizari, cum non constet de intentione baptizantis; dicendum, quod non oportet, quia fecit quod in se est[^6p153] et debitam adhibuit diligentiam; et ideo amplius non tenetur, maxime cum defectus intentionis non potuit cognosci ex aliquo signo.

Utrum autem sit *baptizatus*, vel *non*; hic duplex opinio. Una est, quod Deus reputat illum baptizatum, non tantum Ecclesia. Et rationem huius sumunt ex illo verbo Isidori[^7p153]: «Quacumque arte verborum quis irret, Deus sic accipit, sicut ille qui iuratur, intelligit». — Sed illud intelligitur quantum ad *culpam*, non quantum ad *rationem voti vel Sacramenti*, et hoc est manifestum in matrimonio et voto[^8p153].

<!-- page 154 -->

Et ideo dicunt alii, quod non est Sacramentum, quamvis ibi sint verba: quia, ut dicit Gregorius in Moralibus[^1p154], «non debet intentio verbis deservire, sed verba intentioni», et hoc maxime habet locum in Sacramento. Et ideo non baptizatur, quantum est per id quod per hominem gestum est.

Si quaeras, an aliter[^2p154] *salvetur*; dicendum, quod si *adultus* baptizatur, ut debet, fides interior supplet: si *parvulus*, pium est credere, quod summus sacerdos suppleat; si tamen non faciat, iustum facit; et nos esse voluit incertos de salute ad deponendam superbiam et excitandam diligentiam, ut attentius et a personis dignioribus et securioribus[^3p154] requiramus; credo tamen, vel quod Deus revelet, vel integre suppleat, nisi peccata nostra praepediant. — Hoc igitur habendum est pro regula in omnia sequentia, quod ad omnium Sacramentorum dispensationem necessarium est habere intentionem vel actu vel habitu, vel implicite vel explicite.

english:
<!-- page 152 -->

### Article II. *On the intention of the one baptizing.*

As to the second article, inquiry is made concerning the intention of the one baptizing, and concerning this two things are asked. First it is asked whether intention is necessary for baptism. Second[^4] it is asked whether right intention belongs to the integrity[^5] of baptism.

### Question I. *Whether intention in the one conferring is necessary for baptism.*

And as to the first, that intention is necessary for baptism is shown:

1. *First*, by the authority of the Master in the text[^6]: «In this and in the other Sacraments, just as the form must be observed, so the intention of conferring it must be had»; but the form is necessary: therefore the intention also.

2. *Likewise*, the form of words is necessary, not insofar as they are thought, but insofar as they are spoken[^7]; but *to speak* is to utter with intention: therefore intention is necessary for baptism. *If you say* that from this it does not follow that one must have this or that intention, but that it suffices that he intend something, as for instance to play; it is shown that it is necessary to have the intention of giving the Sacrament: because works that are according to art or reason, insofar as it is reason, receive their denomination from his intention — for if he intends to play, it is play[^8] — therefore if he does not intend to administer the Sacrament, it is not a Sacrament.

**On the contrary:**

1. Augustine says, and it was treated above in the third distinction[^9]: «When the word is joined to the element, the Sacrament comes to be»: therefore if these two are present, the Sacrament is complete, especially since in the giving of the form intention is not touched upon.

2. *Likewise*, faith concurs in baptism, since it is the Sacrament of faith; but the faith of the Church suffices, since the one baptizing is an unbeliever[^10]: therefore it seems likewise that the intention of the Church supplies for the intention of the one baptizing.

3. *Likewise*, baptism regards the recipient just as it does the giver; but intention is not necessary in the recipient, as is clear in an infant and a madman[^11]: therefore neither in the giver; and so on.

4. *Likewise*, we see spiritual works which the Lord performs through ministers intending something else, as for instance He proves the just through demons[^12], who do not intend the proving; likewise in bodily works, one who strikes with a lethal wound, even if he does not intend to kill, commits homicide: therefore it seems likewise in the matter at hand, that although someone does not intend to baptize, nevertheless if he does what is required for baptism, he baptizes.

5. *Likewise*, if intention is necessary, then everyone is uncertain whether he is baptized: therefore, if he ought not to commit himself to danger: he is always bound to be rebaptized, since he can never be made certain of the intention of the one baptizing.

<!-- page 153 -->

### Conclusion.

> *Intention is required for the conferring of every Sacrament.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in every Sacrament intention is necessary. — Now the reason for this is that a Sacrament does not have its *being* from nature, but from *institution*; whence if before its institution someone had immersed another in water under the form of words, it would not be a Sacrament.

Some, then, say, like master Hugh of Saint Victor, that the Sacraments were instituted so that they should be done *reasonably* and from intention; and therefore, if there be no intention, there is no Sacrament. For he speaks thus[^1p153]: «The Sacraments of God were not so instituted that they should admit no rational account in their working, but should proceed to their effect by a certain turbulent and violent and irrational obstinacy without any intention or will of those operating». «See therefore and consider that the work of the ministers of God ought to be rational, nor on account of the form alone should it prejudge where there is no intention of acting».

Yet another reason can also be assigned: namely, that for a Sacrament both *intention and institution* are necessary. For in order that there be a Sacrament, it is necessary that the form and the element be ordered to one thing; but this is not so *of itself*, since form and element are indifferent to many things; therefore *the institution of Christ* supervenes, which ordered and signified the form and the element to some effect. But yet the *institution*, although it *ordered* the words to one thing, did not however *restrict* them, since they can be and are taken to other uses[^2p153]; and therefore, in order that they be *ordered*, it is necessary that the intention of the minister intervene, by which he intends by that act and word to give such an effect, or at least to do what the Church does, or at least to dispense what Christ instituted; otherwise word and element, as disjoined, or joined to something else, do not make a Sacrament.

1. To that, then, which is objected first: *the word is joined to the element*, etc.; it must be said that the one is not joined to the other unless there be present an intention uniting them.

2. To that which is objected concerning faith, that the faith of the Church suffices; it must be said that *faith* is like a *universal* agent; but *intention* is a *particular* agent, applying faith to this or to that[^3p153]: and therefore *faith* is preserved in the generality of the Church, but *intention* is necessary, by which that act of the Church's faith is joined, as a particular and actual act in the minister. Therefore the *power* of the Sacrament is from the faith of the Church, but the *dispensation* is from the action of the minister; and since the ministration regards the intention of the giver, therefore *faith* is not so required in the dispenser as *intention*.

3. To that which is objected concerning the recipient, it must be said that if the recipient be an adult and in no way intend that there be done to him what the Church does, but rather a jest; I do not believe that he would receive[^4p153] the Sacrament, if he intend nothing but to play and to wash.

From this is clear that which is wont to be asked, whether any *pretense* impedes the reception of the Sacrament. For if that pretense does not remove this intention, namely of receiving what the Church gives or intends to give; however great the pretense be, it does not impede the reception of the Sacrament. But if he be so feigning that he does not have the intention of receiving or of having done about himself what the Church does or intends to do, but only intends to play or to mock others; I do not see how this man receives the Sacrament, or its reality[^5p153].

4. To that which is objected concerning works, it must be said that those works are *of themselves* ordered to that end, as a grievous blow to killing and the punishment of the good to proving; but ablution and the invocation of the Trinity are ordered to many things: and therefore they do not make a Sacrament without intention. And so that is clear.

5. To that which is objected, that one must always be rebaptized, since the intention of the one baptizing is not established; it must be said that this is not necessary, because he did what was in his power[^6p153] and applied due diligence; and therefore he is no longer bound, especially since the defect of intention could not be known from any sign.

But whether he is *baptized*, or *not*; here there is a twofold opinion. One is that God reputes him as baptized, not only the Church. And the reason for this they take from that word of Isidore[^7p153]: «By whatever artifice of words one may err, God accepts it just as he who is sworn understands it». — But that is to be understood as to *guilt*, not as to *the account of the vow or of the Sacrament*, and this is manifest in matrimony and in a vow[^8p153].

<!-- page 154 -->

And therefore others say that it is not a Sacrament, although the words be there: because, as Gregory says in the *Morals*[^1p154], «the intention ought not to serve the words, but the words the intention», and this has place especially in a Sacrament. And therefore he is not baptized, as far as concerns that which was performed by man.

If you ask whether he is *saved* otherwise[^2p154]; it must be said that if an *adult* is baptized, as he ought to be, the interior faith supplies: if an *infant*, it is pious to believe that the supreme Priest supplies; if nevertheless He does not do so, He does what is just; and He willed us to be uncertain of salvation in order to lay aside pride and to stir up diligence, so that we should seek more attentively and from worthier and safer persons[^3p154]; I believe nevertheless either that God reveals it, or supplies it entirely, unless our sins impede. — This therefore is to be held as a rule for all that follows, that for the dispensation of all the Sacraments it is necessary to have intention either in act or in habit, either implicitly or explicitly.

la: (p. 152, n. 4) Plurimi codd. addunt *secundo.*

en: (p. 152, n. 4) Very many codices add *secundo* (secondly). *[Marker on the article-opener word "Secundo"; the variant note attaches to the opener's "Secundo quaeritur."]*

la: (p. 152, n. 5) Ita fere omnes codd.; edd. *necessitate.*

en: (p. 152, n. 5) Thus nearly all the codices; the editions read *necessitate* (necessity), i.e. in place of *integritate*.

la: (p. 152, n. 6) Hic c. 5. — De *minori* cfr. supra d. 3. p. 1. a. 2. q. 3.

en: (p. 152, n. 6) Here c. 5. — On the *minor*, cf. above d. 3, p. 1, a. 2, q. 3.

la: (p. 152, n. 7) Vide supra d. 3. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2. et a. 2. q. 1. seqq. nec non d. 5. a. 1. q. 1. in corp., ubi etiam *minor* insinuatur.

en: (p. 152, n. 7) See above d. 3, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2, and a. 2, q. 1 and following, as well as d. 5, a. 1, q. 1 in the body, where also the *minor* is insinuated.

la: (p. 152, n. 8) Permulti codd. omittunt in hac propositione *vel rationem,* pro quo cod. L, omisso *secundum artem,* substituit *paulo interius qui ante percutit.* Cod. H omittit *ut ratio est,* pro quo codd. M X ponunt *in ultimo.* Post *intentione* edd. subiungunt *qui operatur.*

en: (p. 152, n. 8) Very many codices omit in this proposition *vel rationem* (or reason), and for it codex L, omitting *secundum artem* (according to art), substitutes *paulo interius qui ante percutit* (a little further on, "who first strikes"). Codex H omits *ut ratio est* (insofar as it is reason), and for it codices M X place *in ultimo* (at the end). After *intentione* (intention) the editions add *qui operatur* (which operates).

la: (p. 152, n. 9) Lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: (p. 152, n. 9) The text of the Master, c. 1.

la: (p. 152, n. 10) De duplici hac proposit. cfr. supra d. 3. p. 1. a. 1. q. 3, d. 4. p. 1. q. dub. 2. et d. 5. a. 1. q. 2.

en: (p. 152, n. 10) On this twofold proposition, cf. above d. 3, p. 1, a. 1, q. 3; d. 4, p. 1, dubium q. 2; and d. 5, a. 1, q. 2.

en: (p. 152, n. 11) See above d. 4, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1 and following.

la: (p. 152, n. 12) Edd. *Item, videmus, quod opera... aliud intendentes, approbat, ut puta tentari iustos per daemones.* Edd. omittunt paulo inferius *qui ante percutit.*

en: (p. 152, n. 12) The editions read: *Item, videmus, quod opera... aliud intendentes, approbat, ut puta tentari iustos per daemones* (Likewise, we see that He approves works... intending something else, as for instance that the just be tested through demons). The editions omit a little further on *qui ante percutit* (who first strikes).

la: (p. 153, n. 1) Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 13: *Eiusmodi est, quod quidam imperiti existimant verba illa... qualicumque intentione super panem et vinum prolata, effectum consecrationis et sanctificationis habere, quasi Sacramenta Dei sic instituta sint, ut nullam operandi rationem admittant* etc. — In secundo testimonio, quod habetur ibid., multi codd. *nec per* pro *nec propter,* et pro *praeiudicare* codd. possunt *dare,* contradicente textu originali, qui cum nostra lectione concordat solumque substituit *ministeriorum* pro *ministrorum.*

en: (p. 153, n. 1) Book II, *On the Sacraments*, p. VI, c. 13: *Of this sort is what certain unskilled persons think, that those words... uttered over the bread and wine with any kind of intention whatever, have the effect of consecration and sanctification, as though the Sacraments of God were so instituted that they admit no rational account in their working,* etc. — In the second testimony, which is found in the same place, many codices read *nec per* for *nec propter,* and for *praeiudicare* codices may read *dare,* against the original text, which agrees with our reading and only substitutes *ministeriorum* (of ministries) for *ministrorum* (of ministers).

la: (p. 153, n. 2) Cfr. supra d. 3. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2. — Superius post *effectum* edd. addunt *determinatum.* In fine corp. pro *Sacramentum,* quod plures codd. omittunt, edd. *talem effectum,* cod. M legit: *non sufficiunt vel non faciunt.*

en: (p. 153, n. 2) Cf. above d. 3, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1, ad 2. — Above, after *effectum* (effect), the editions add *determinatum* (determinate). At the end of the body, for *Sacramentum* (Sacrament), which several codices omit, the editions read *talem effectum* (such an effect); codex M reads: *non sufficiunt vel non faciunt* (they do not suffice, or they do not make it).

la: (p. 153, n. 3) De agente sive causa universali et particulari cfr. I. Sent. d. 43. a. 2. q. 2. in corp.

en: (p. 153, n. 3) On the universal and particular agent or cause, cf. I. Sent. d. 43, a. 2, q. 2, in the body.

la: (p. 153, n. 4) Ita codd., ed. 1 *recipiet,* Vat. *recipiat.* Pro *iocum* codd. F H *intentionem.*

en: (p. 153, n. 4) Thus the codices; edition 1 reads *recipiet,* the Vatican edition *recipiat.* For *iocum* (jest) codices F H read *intentionem* (intention).

la: (p. 153, n. 5) Cfr. supra d. 4. p. 1. a. 2. q. 2. Vide etiam ibid. q. 1. in fine corp.

en: (p. 153, n. 5) Cf. above d. 4, p. 1, a. 2, q. 2. See also the same place, q. 1, at the end of the body.

la: (p. 153, n. 6) Codd. E F H *fuit.*

en: (p. 153, n. 6) Codices E F H read *fuit* (was).

la: (p. 153, n. 7) Libr. II. Sent. c. 31. n. 8, et C. *quacumque arte* (9.) n. 22, q. 5. Textus originalis plura verba interserit; cfr. tom. III. pag. 874, nota 4. — Pro *Isidori* codd. G 1 *quod ait Glossa super Isaia.* Superius pro *non tantum* Vat. et aliqui add. *non tamen.*

en: (p. 153, n. 7) Book II of the *Sentences*, c. 31, n. 8, and C. *quacumque arte* (9), n. 22, q. 5. The original text inserts several words; cf. tom. III, p. 874, note 4. — For *Isidori* (Isidore) codices G 1 read *quod ait Glossa super Isaia* (as the Gloss on Isaiah says). Above, for *non tantum* (not only), the Vatican edition and some add *non tamen* (not however).

en: (p. 153, n. 8) See below d. 27, dubium 2.

la: (p. 154, n. 1) Libr. XXVI. c. 10. n. 15; quo ex loco Gratianus hanc sententiam formavit. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 874, nota 8.

en: (p. 154, n. 1) Book XXVI, c. 10, n. 15; from which passage Gratian formed this sentence. Cf. tom. III, p. 874, note 8.

la: (p. 154, n. 2) Pro *an aliter* cod. E *qualiter.* Mox post *adultus* cod. F prosequitur: *baptizatur, sic; quia fides* etc.

en: (p. 154, n. 2) For *an aliter* (whether otherwise) codex E reads *qualiter* (in what way). Shortly after *adultus* (adult) codex F continues: *baptizatur, sic; quia fides* (is baptized, thus; because faith) etc.

la: (p. 154, n. 3) Ita codd. K O T U W; codd. A H L omittunt *et securioribus,* pro quo alii codd. cum edd. *et superioribus.* Subinde substituimus ex cod. H *credo tamen* pro *credo bene.*

en: (p. 154, n. 3) Thus codices K O T U W; codices A H L omit *et securioribus* (and safer), for which other codices with the editions read *et superioribus* (and higher). Thereupon we have substituted from codex H *credo tamen* (I believe nevertheless) for *credo bene* (I well believe).

latin_scholion:
**I.** Ab omnibus de re morali tractantibus nunc recepta est multiplex intentionis distinctio, scilicet in *actualem* (quae iterum dividitur in *expressam* et *implicitam*), *habitualem* et *virtualem*; item in *absolutam* et *conditionatam*; iterum in *directam* et *indirectam* sive *interpretativam*. Iam notavimus (II. Sent. d. 41. a. 1. q. 3. in scholio n. 2.), S. Bonaventuram cum S. Thoma aliisque illius aetatis auctoribus non raro vocare *habitualem* eam, quae post Scotum ab ipsa distinguitur nomine *virtualis*. — Communiter quoad modum intentionis, ex parte baptizantis, docetur, non requiri intentionem *actualem*, non sufficere *habitualem* nec *interpretativam*, sed sufficere *virtualem*.

**II.** Ex parte *obiecti coliti* intentio potest versari circa Sacramentum tantum *materialiter* (id est circa actiones physicas quibus fit positio materiae et formae), vel *formaliter* (quatenus actiones illae sunt sacrae, vel sacramentales), vel circa *effectus* per easdem conferendos. Extra controversiam est, quod intentio *effectuum* non requiritur, dummodo non positive et absolute excludatur. Item de fide est, in ministris, dum Sacramenta conficiunt, requiri «intentionem saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia» (Concil. Trident. Sess. VII. de Sacram. in genere can. 11.). Insuper notanda est propositio 28, ab Alex. VIII. an. 1690 prohibita: «Valet baptismus collatus a ministro, qui omnem ritum externum formamque baptizandi observat, intus vero in corde suo apud se resolvit: non intendo quod facit Ecclesia». — Nihilominus post Concil. Trident., duce Catharino, nonnulli theologi voluerunt tenere, sufficere ad valorem Sacramenti, si illud tantum intendatur *materialiter*. Sed communissima sententia theologorum docet, requiri intentionem *formalem*, saltem implicitam et aequivalentem. Ita cum Hugone a S. Victore, Magistro, Praepositivo docent Alex. Hal., S. Bonav., B. Albertus, Scot., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med. ceterique Scholastici, non excepto S. Thoma, licet contrariae opinionis defensores conati sint ipsum in suam partem trahere, afferentes duos locos obscuros, scilicet hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. ad 2; et S. III. q. 64. a. 8. ad 2. Sed genuinum eorum sensum bene interpretatus est Caietanus ad Summae locum cit. — Rationes ab auctore hic insinuatae optime in Breviloq. (p. VI. c. 5.) proponuntur, quod scilicet «rectitudo iuris exigit, ut opera hominis, secundum quod *homo* non fiant praecipitanter, et opera hominis ut *ministri Christi* aliquo modo referantur ad Christum, et opera hominis ut *ministri salutis* aliquo modo referantur ad salutem, vel in generali vel in speciali; et dispensatio Sacramentorum est opus hominis ut *rationalis*, ut *ministri Christi* et ut *ministri salutis*: hinc est, quod necesse est, quod fiat ex intentione, qua quis intendat facere quod Christus instituit ad humanam salutem, vel saltem facere quod facit Ecclesia, in quo clauditur in generali intentio praedicta» etc. — Efficacia huius rationis et causa, quare Ecclesia in administratione Sacramentorum urgeat necessitatem intentionis respectu *operis coliti*, facile intelligitur, si quis attendat, Sacramentis hoc esse proprium et singulare, quod praeter actionem et locutionem externam (quae iam requirunt intentionem *operis materialis*) ex institutione Christi habent non tantum determinatam *significationem*, sed etiam *causalitatem* supernaturalem, ad quam aliquatenus intentio se extendere debet; et cum non nisi in nomine Christi Sacramentum efficaciam habere possit, dispensator eius intentione saltem implicita ut *minister Christi* «signum Dei exercere» debet (Scot., hic q. 5. n. 4.).

**III.** De hac (1.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 1. § 1. 3. 4. — Scot., quaest. cit. — S. Thom., praeter artt. citt. Opusc. (4.) de Sacram. Eccles.; IV. Sent. d. 30. q. 1. a. 3. ad 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 11. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. 3. — De hac et seq. q. Durand., hic q. 2., et Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** By all who treat of moral matters there is now received a manifold distinction of intention, namely into *actual* (which is again divided into *express* and *implicit*), *habitual*, and *virtual*; likewise into *absolute* and *conditioned*; again into *direct* and *indirect* or *interpretative*. We have already noted (II. Sent. d. 41, a. 1, q. 3, in the scholion, n. 2) that St. Bonaventure, with St. Thomas and other authors of his age, not rarely calls *habitual* that which after Scotus is distinguished from it under the name of *virtual*. — Commonly, as to the mode of intention, on the part of the one baptizing, it is taught that *actual* intention is not required, that *habitual* nor *interpretative* does not suffice, but that *virtual* suffices.

**II.** On the part of the *object cultivated*, intention can be concerned with the Sacrament only *materially* (that is, about the physical actions by which the placing of matter and form occurs), or *formally* (insofar as those actions are sacred, or sacramental), or about the *effects* to be conferred through the same. It is beyond controversy that intention of the *effects* is not required, provided it be not positively and absolutely excluded. Likewise it is of faith that in ministers, while they confect the Sacraments, there is required «the intention at least of doing what the Church does» (Council of Trent, Session VII, on the Sacraments in general, canon 11). Moreover, there is to be noted proposition 28, prohibited by Alexander VIII in the year 1690: «The baptism conferred by a minister is valid, who observes every external rite and form of baptizing, but within in his heart resolves to himself: I do not intend what the Church does». — Nevertheless, after the Council of Trent, under the lead of Catharinus, some theologians wished to hold that it suffices for the validity of the Sacrament if it be intended only *materially*. But the most common opinion of theologians teaches that *formal* intention is required, at least implicit and equivalent. Thus with Hugh of Saint Victor, the Master, and Praepositivus, there teach Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, Blessed Albert, Scotus, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, and the rest of the Scholastics, not excepting St. Thomas, although the defenders of the contrary opinion have tried to draw him to their side, adducing two obscure passages, namely here q. 1, a. 2, little-question 1, ad 2; and S. III, q. 64, a. 8, ad 2. But Cajetan well interpreted their genuine sense at the cited passage of the *Summa*. — The reasons here insinuated by the author are best set forth in the *Breviloquium* (p. VI, c. 5), namely that «the rectitude of right demands that the works of man, insofar as he is *man*, not be done precipitately, and that the works of man as *minister of Christ* be in some way referred to Christ, and the works of man as *minister of salvation* be in some way referred to salvation, whether in general or in particular; and the dispensation of the Sacraments is a work of man as *rational*, as *minister of Christ*, and as *minister of salvation*: hence it is that it is necessary that it be done from intention, by which one intends to do what Christ instituted for human salvation, or at least to do what the Church does, in which the aforesaid intention is contained in general» etc. — The efficacy of this reason, and the cause why the Church in the administration of the Sacraments urges the necessity of intention with respect to the *cultivated work*, is easily understood if one attends that it is proper and singular to the Sacraments that, besides the action and the external locution (which already require intention of the *material work*), from the institution of Christ they have not only a determinate *signification*, but also a supernatural *causality*, to which intention must in some measure extend itself; and since the Sacrament can have efficacy only in the name of Christ, its dispenser, with at least implicit intention, as *minister of Christ*, ought to «exercise the sign of God» (Scotus, here q. 5, n. 4).

**III.** Concerning this (first) question: Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV, q. 8, m. 3, a. 1, § 1, 3, 4. — Scotus, the cited question. — St. Thomas, besides the cited articles, Opusc. (4) on the Sacraments of the Church; IV. Sent. d. 30, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3. — Blessed Albert, here a. 11. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2, 3. — Concerning this and the following question, Durandus, here q. 2, and Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`raw/doctorisseraphic04bona.pdf`, offset pdf = printed + 20; printed pp. 152/153/154 = pdf 172/173/174). The IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 17305–17583) is cascade-shattered across the two-column layout throughout this chunk (one-token-per-line diagonal fragmentation + two-column bleed), so per the VOL II OVERRIDE the PDF is authoritative for the entire body, Conclusio/Respondeo, scholion, and all footers; the OCR served only as a spelling cross-check for clean running prose. Read column-by-column (Left top→bottom, then Right) via `colcrop.py vol4 <page>` — **p.152 left column required split x=2050** (the default 1880 clipped its right edge). Running heads verified by eyes-on text, not OCR digits: p.152 `152 SENTENTIARUM ... LIB. IV.`; p.153 `DIST. VI. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 153`; p.154 `154 SENTENTIARUM`.

**Article-opener fold-in.** Per the locked chunking convention, the ARTICULUS II opener ("Quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de intentione baptizantis... Primo... Secundo...") is folded into this q1 — no standalone divisio chunk. Alignment verified: the opener's "Primo quaeritur, utrum intentio sit de necessitate baptismi" matches this q1's title (*de necessitate*); the "Secundo... utrum recta intentio sit de integritate baptismi" is the q2 opener (excluded).

**Page-split map / apparatus counts.**
- **p.152** — article opener + Quaestio I header & title + fundamenta 1–2 (FOR) + Contra arguments 1–5. Footer carries 12 notes; **nn.1–3 belong to the prior chunk a. 1, q. 2** (their markers ¹²³ sit in q2's "2./3. Ad illud quod obiicitur" replies at the top of p.152 col.2 — not re-rendered here). **This chunk claims nn.4–12 = 9 entries:** n.4 on opener "Secundo", n.5 on "integritate", n.6 on "Magistri in littera", n.7 on "dicuntur", n.8 on "ludus est", n.9 on "supra distinctione tertia", n.10 on "infidelis", n.11 on "furioso", n.12 on "per daemones".
- **p.153** — Conclusio + Respondeo (two rationes: Hugh of St Victor; intention+institution) + replies 1–5 + the "duplex opinio" on whether the falsely-baptized is baptized. Footer **nn.1–8 = 8 entries**, all this chunk.
- **p.154** — tail of opinio 2 (Gregory, *Morals*) + the closing regula + article-level Scholion (I–III). Footer carries nn.1–4; **this chunk claims nn.1–3 = 3 entries**; **n.4 ("Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.") anchors in q2's first argument and is FORWARDED to a. 2, q. 2.**
- **Total rendered: 20 apparatus entries** (9 + 8 + 3). Per-page numbering restarts; the leading blockquote documents the page suffixes.

**Scholion disposition.** The scholion is article-level (covers both questions of art. 2), printed at the foot of p.154 col.2. Parts **I–II** (kinds of intention; the formal-vs-material controversy with the Trent/Alexander VIII/Catharinus material and the Breviloquium grounding) and **III = the q1 source-reference block** ("De hac (1.) quaestione: Alex. Hal. ... Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.") are RENDERED here. The q2 portion is **FORWARDED to a. 2, q. 2**: "Sequentis (2.) quaestionis solutio nititur in distinctione duplicis intentionis, scilicet vel *operis*, vel *operantis*, ut vulgo dicitur, quae aliis verbis explicantur in corp. Quaestio proprie ponitur de intentione operantis. De eadem: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. — Scot., hic q. 5. n. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; S. III. q. 64. a. 10. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. ad 1." Body-then-scholion ordering preserved (parser requirement).

**Hand-offs.**
- PICKED UP from a. 1, q. 2: ARTICULUS II opens at top of printed p.152 col.1 (raw L17305); p.152 footer notes for this body run nn.4–12 (the dispatch brief said nn.4–8; eyes-on the PDF footer shows the body markers continue through n.12 — nn.9–12 anchor in the Contra arguments — so the actual claim is nn.4–12). p.152 nn.1–3 confirmed as the prior chunk's.
- FORWARDED to a. 2, q. 2: ART II q2 begins at **raw L17584**, opener "Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum recta intentio sit necessaria ad baptismum" (title "Utrum recta intentio sit necessaria ad baptismum"); everything from L17584 onward belongs to q2. Also forwarded: the q2 scholion source-ref block (quoted above) and p.154 footer **n.4** ("Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.").

**`[?]` flags.** None. All body, scholion, and footer text was legible in the 450 dpi column bands.

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. 6, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 154 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum recta intentio sit necessaria ad baptismum.*

Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum recta intentio sit necessaria ad baptismum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia ad baptismum requiritur intentio[^1]: ergo ad recte baptizare requiritur recta intentio.

<!-- page 155 -->

2. Item, minus malum est nihil intendere in opere, quam malum finem intendere: ergo si defectus intentionis non potest stare cum baptismo, multo minus obliqua intentio.

3. Item, opera, ad quae necessaria est intentio, ab ipsa denominantur[^2]: ergo cum ad baptismum necessaria sit intentio, si ergo intentio recta, et baptismus; et si obliqua, et baptismus; sed non est baptismus nisi rectus: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Supra[^3] probatum est, quod haereticus baptizat; sed haereticus semper habet obliquam intentionem, quia vult trahere ad suam haeresim: ergo non est ad baptismum necessaria recta intentio.

2. Item, mala voluntas in baptizante non nocet: ergo nec obliqua intentio.

3. Item, baptismus est opus Dei, non humanum: ergo non potest esse obliquum; sed intentionis rectitudo exigitur propter rectitudinem operis: ad baptismum ergo non est necessaria recta intentio.

> **Conclusio.** De necessitate Sacramenti est tantum intentio operis, non recta intentio operantis, nisi de congruitate.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod intentio idem est quod voluntas ratiocinata, prout dirigitur in finem[^4]. Sed finis duplex est: est enim finis, qui est rei terminus vel complementum, et est finis, qui est rei utilitas. Sic in Sacramento duplex est finis; unus scilicet, qui est complementum, scilicet quod ibi sit unio verbi et elementi; et finis utilitas, scilicet baptizati, vel baptizantis. — Secundum hunc duplicem finem duplex est intentio: sicut aliquis, qui fundat domum, intendit eam consummare et intendit inhabitare; sic in Sacramento intendit quis prima intentione Sacramentum Ecclesiae ministrare, consequenter vel intendit suam utilitatem, vel parvuli salutem, vel quidquid illud sit. — Prima intentio est de necessitate Sacramenti; secunda tantum de congruitate. Prima intentio non habet rectum et obliquum, sed secunda est quae habet rectum et obliquum. — Unde patet responsio, quod ad Sacramentum baptismi nihil facit intentio recta, nec aliquid obstat intentio non recta quantum ad substantiam Sacramenti, nocet tamen, vel prodest habenti.

**Ad oppositorum solutionem:**

*Ad 1.* Argumenta igitur, quae probant, quod ad baptismum requiritur intentio recta, supponunt, ad baptismum requiri intentionem, quae est intentio utilitatis; et ideo omnia super falsum fundantur, ut patet de primo.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod melius est nihil intendere quam male; dicendum, quod defectus intentionis non impedit Sacramentum propter culpam, sed propter illius actus necessariam exigentiam[^5].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod opera denominantur ab intentione; dicendum, quod hoc verum est de operibus, ad quorum informationem[^6] necessaria est intentio finis, ut est utilitas. — Notandum tamen, quod quamvis non sit necessarium intendere efficaciam baptismi in se et principaliter, tamen intenditur in quolibet baptizato vel in generali vel in speciali, vel in se vel in annexo, vel propter se vel propter aliud. Ad hoc enim, quod quis baptizetur, oportet, si est adultus, quod intendat, quod fiat in se vel circa se quod facit Ecclesia; similiter intendat baptizans facere. Actui autem exteriori, ut est Ecclesiae, iunctus est character interior; sic enim, et non aliter, est actus sacramentalis[^7].

english:
### Question II. *Whether right intention is necessary for baptism.*

Secondly it is asked concerning this matter, whether right intention is necessary for baptism. And that it is so, seems [to be the case]:

1. Because for baptism intention is required[^1]: therefore for baptizing rightly, right intention is required.

2. Likewise, it is a lesser evil to intend nothing in an action than to intend an evil end: therefore if a defect of intention cannot stand with baptism, much less can a crooked intention.

3. Likewise, the works for which intention is necessary take their name from it[^2]: therefore, since for baptism intention is necessary, then if the intention is right, so [is] the baptism; and if [the intention is] crooked, so [is] the baptism; but there is no baptism unless it is right: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Above[^3] it has been proved that a heretic baptizes; but a heretic always has a crooked intention, because he wishes to draw [the baptized] to his heresy: therefore right intention is not necessary for baptism.

2. Likewise, an evil will in the one baptizing does no harm: therefore neither does a crooked intention.

3. Likewise, baptism is the work of God, not of man: therefore it cannot be crooked; but rectitude of intention is required on account of the rectitude of the work: therefore right intention is not necessary for baptism.

> **Conclusion.** Belonging to the necessity of the Sacrament is only the intention of the work, not the right intention of the one acting, except by way of congruity.

**I respond:** It must be said that intention is the same as reasoned will, insofar as it is directed to an end[^4]. But the end is twofold: for there is an end which is the terminus or completion of a thing, and there is an end which is the usefulness of a thing. Thus in the Sacrament the end is twofold; one, namely, which is the completion, namely that there be there the union of word and element; and the end [which is] usefulness, namely of the one baptized, or of the one baptizing. — According to this twofold end the intention is twofold: just as someone who builds a house intends both to complete it and intends to dwell [in it]; so in the Sacrament one intends by a first intention to minister the Sacrament of the Church, [and] consequently either intends his own usefulness, or the salvation of the child, or whatever it may be. — The first intention belongs to the necessity of the Sacrament; the second only to congruity. The first intention does not have a right and a crooked [form], but it is the second which has a right and a crooked [form]. — Hence the response is plain, that right intention contributes nothing to the Sacrament of baptism, nor does an intention that is not right oppose anything as regards the substance of the Sacrament, yet it harms, or profits, the one who has it.

**To the solution of the [objections] on the opposite side:**

*To 1.* The arguments, therefore, which prove that right intention is required for baptism, presuppose that for baptism an intention is required which is the intention of usefulness; and therefore they are all founded upon a falsehood, as is plain regarding the first.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that it is better to intend nothing than [to intend] evil; it must be said that a defect of intention does not impede the Sacrament on account of fault, but on account of the necessary requirement of that act[^5].

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that works take their name from intention; it must be said that this is true of works for whose informing[^6] intention of the end is necessary, as is usefulness. — It must be noted, however, that although it is not necessary to intend the efficacy of baptism in itself and principally, nevertheless it is intended in every baptized person either in general or in particular, either in itself or in something annexed, either on its own account or on account of something else. For in order that someone be baptized, it is necessary, if he is an adult, that he intend that there be done in him or about him what the Church does; likewise that the one baptizing intend to do [the same]. But to the exterior act, insofar as it is the Church's, is joined the interior character; for thus, and not otherwise, is it a sacramental act[^7].

la: Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.

en: As was shown in the preceding question.

la: Ambros., l. de Officiis, c. 30. n. 147: *Affectus tuus nomen imponit operi tuo; quomodo a te proficiscitur, sic aestimatur.*

en: Ambrose, *On the Duties [of Ministers]*, bk. [I], c. 30, n. 147: "Your disposition gives its name to your work; as it proceeds from you, so is it esteemed."

la: Dist. 5. a. 1. q. 2. et a. 2. q. 2, nec non ibid. lit. Magistri, c. 1, ubi etiam duo seqq. argg. tanguntur.

en: Distinction 5, a. 1, q. 2 and a. 2, q. 2; likewise the text of the Master there, c. 1, where also the two following arguments are touched upon.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 38. a. 2. q. 2, d. 40. a. 1. q. 1. — De duplici fine cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 35. et 37. (c. 4.), V. Metaph. text. 22. (IV. c. 17.).

en: See II Sentences, d. 38, a. 2, q. 2; d. 40, a. 1, q. 1. — On the twofold end cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 35 and 37 (c. 4); *Metaphysics* V, text 22 (IV, c. 17).

la: Cod. H *consummationem,* in cod. bb secunda manus addit *consummationem.*

en: Codex H [reads] *consummationem*; in codex bb a second hand adds *consummationem.*

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

latin_scholion:
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; the apparatus is rendered in the section that follows.

**III.** Sequentis (2.) quaestionis solutio nititur in distinctione duplicis intentionis, scilicet vel operis, vel operantis, ut vulgo dicitur, quae aliis verbis explicantur in corp. Quaestio proprie ponitur de intentione operantis.

*De eadem:* Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. — Scot., hic q. a. n. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; S. III. q. 64. a. 10. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. ad 1.

---

english_scholion:
**III.** The solution of the following (2nd) question rests on the distinction of the twofold intention, namely either of the work or of the one acting, as it is commonly called, which are explained in other words in the body [of the text]. The question is properly posed concerning the intention of the one acting.

*On the same:* Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. — Scotus, here q., a., n. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 2; Summa III, q. 64, a. 10. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2, ad 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Body = raw OCR lines 17584–17672; printed pp. 154–155 (pdf pp. 174–175, offset +20). Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p15{4,5}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (Vol II/IV PDF-priority inversion in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footers); OCR used only as base for clean videtur/contra prose and marker spacing.

**Title.** The raw heading (L17581) and the PDF both read *Utrum recta intentio sit necessaria ad baptismum* — used here. The dispatch brief's alternate *...sit de integritate baptismi* does NOT match the source; corrected to the printed title. Alignment confirmed: opener (L17584) "Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum recta intentio sit necessaria ad baptismum" = genuine ART II second question. No misalignment.

**Page-split map.**
- p.154: q2 heading + title + videtur arg. 1 (right column bottom; fn anchor `intentio[^1]`).
- p.155: videtur args. 2–3, Contra 1–3, Conclusio, Respondeo, Solutio (Ad 1–3), end of body; ART III begins lower-right (next chunk, a3-q1).

**Footer-ownership.** Footnote numbering restarts per printed page.
- p.154 footers: fn1 (Libr. XXVI / Gregorius *Moralibus*) and fn2 (*Pro an aliter* cod. E) anchor to a2-q1's solutio → **left to a2-q1**. fn3 (*Ita codd. k O T U W* / "securioribus") anchors to the scholion's q1-portion (sections I–II, "a personis … securioribus") → **left to a2-q1** (which owns the article-scholion head). fn4 (*Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.*, anchor "requiritur intentio") → **claimed here = [^1]**.
- p.155 footers: fn1 (Ambros.), fn2 (Dist. 5…), fn3 (Vide II Sent. + De duplici fine), fn4 (Ut ostensum…), fn5 (Cod. H consummationem), fn6 (Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.) all anchor to this q2 body → **claimed = [^2]–[^7]**. fn7 (*Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7*) anchors to ART III q1 ("catechismus … instructio") → **left to a3-q1**.

**Scholion disposition.** The article-level scholion (sections I, II + the long Trent/Breviloquium explanatory passage + "De hac (1.) quaestione" refs) belongs to q1 and is rendered in a2-q1. Only **section III** ("Sequentis (2.) quaestionis solutio nititur in distinctione duplicis intentionis…") + its "De eadem" reference block are q2-specific and rendered here. `has_scholion: true`.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings legible across the 450 dpi bands; OCR garbles silently corrected (e.g. `iniention`/`inlenlio` → intentio, `baplismum` → baptismum, `obiiqua` → obliqua, `complenientum` → complementum). Footnote 2 (Ambrose) abbreviates the book number as "l." in both raw and PDF; supplied "[I]" in the English gloss (Ambrose *De Officiis* I.30 is the standard locus) — flagged here, not in body.

**Running-head note.** The p.155 running head OCR'd/printed as "DIST. VI. P. II. ART. III. QUAEST. I." — a known Quaracchi running-head lag (it names the article that *begins* lower on the page); semantic content (intentio/baptismus) confirms this column is a2-q2.


title: Dist. 6, Part 2, Art. 3, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 155 -->

### Articulus III. *De sacramentalibus annexis baptismo.*

Consequenter est tertio loco quaestio de sacramentalibus, et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur de catechismo. Secundo de exorcismo.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum parvuli baptizandi debeant catechizari.*

Et cum *catechismus* dicatur instructio[^1], quaeritur ergo, utrum parvuli debeant catechizari. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia, ubi unum tantum Sacramentum est, et unus ritus debet observari; sed magni catechizantur: ergo et parvuli.

<!-- page 156 -->

2. Item, forma a Deo tradita est observanda generaliter; sed Christus, in ultimo[^2] Matthaei, baptismo praemittit doctrinam, cum dicit: *Ite, docete omnes gentes* etc.

3. Item, ad hoc facit mos et consuetudo universalis Ecclesiae, quae cum faciat recte catechizando pueros; videtur etc.

**Sed contra:**
1. Stultum est instruere eum qui non est capax doctrinae: ergo baptizans stulte agit, cum catechizat parvulum[^3].

2. Item, videtur, quod assistentes falso respondeant: aut enim respondent in persona *parvuli*, aut in persona *sua*. In persona *sua*, non, quia sacerdos quaerit a parvulo. Si in persona *parvuli*: ergo falsum dicunt, cum dicunt *credo*.

Item quaero, utrum in illa responsione obligentur patrini. Et quod sic, videtur: quia Augustinus in quodam sermone[^4]: «Volo, quod omnes cognoscatis, tam viri quam mulieres, vos parvulis, quos suscepistis, fideiussores apud Deum exstitisse». Sed tunc videtur, cum nemo sciat de alio, qualis sit futurus, quod stulte promittat et in discrimine se ponat.

Item quaero, utrum parvuli obligentur. Et quod sic, videtur. Dicit Dionysius[^5], quod sensus verborum, quae dicunt patrini, est, quod puer ille, cum in sensum venerit, tenebit sacras confessiones; obligant ergo parvulum. Si enim obligari potuerit parvulus per carnales parentes ad malum: ergo per spirituales ad bonum multo fortius. *Sed contra:* si parentes promittant pro filio, quod filius intrabit religionem, ille non obligatur nec tenetur: ergo similiter in proposito.

Item quaero, si obligatur, utrum illa obligatio sit *votum*. Et quod sic, videtur: quia votum est spontanea promissio melioris boni, deliberatione et obligatione firmata[^6]. *Contra:* secundum hoc duplici peccato peccaret baptizatus, quia transgressor est voti ac praecepti.

### Conclusio.

> Etiam in baptismo parvulorum congruit praemittere catechismum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod catechismus in adultis praecedebat baptismum propter duas causas: ut baptizandi *instruerentur* de credendis et ut se *obligarent* voluntarie ad Dei imperia facienda, quasi non coacte, sed voluntarie illa impleturi[^7]. Parvuli quidem, etsi non possunt *doceri*, possunt tamen per patrinos *obligari*. Ideo fit in eis catechismus et propter *rationem obligandi* et propter *uniformitatem*, ut consimiliter omnes baptizentur, sicut consimilem effectum recipiunt.

1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de doctrina, iam patet responsio[^8]. Similiter ad illud quod obiicitur de respondentibus, dicendum, quod respondent in persona parvuli, et est sensus: *credo*, id est Sacramentum fidei percipio, vel suscipere praesto sum. Et non est sermo falsus nec inconsuetus, quia, sicut dicit Augustinus in epistola ad Bonifacium[^9], frequenter signum accipitur pro re; sicut dicimus: cras erit resurrectio Domini, et videns fumum dicit se videre ignem. — Vel potest esse sensus: *credo*, id est ad credendum me obligo.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum patrini obligentur; dicendum, quod si non haberent[^10] alium doctorem, obligantur ad instruendum ipsum in his quae sunt de necessitate fidei et morum, vel ad hoc, quod facerent instrui, vel ad hoc, quod ille crederet vel servaret. Nunc autem, quia multos habent doctores, non tenentur.

<!-- page 157 -->

Ad illud quod quaeritur de parvulis, utrum obligentur; dicendum, quod sic, quia ibi non requiruntur nisi ea, ad quae tenentur de iure naturali, nulla autem supererogationis[^11]; ideo non est simile de ingressu in religionem.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum talis obligatio sit votum; dicendum, quod non proprie, quia votum[^12] est de eo quod supererogationis est; tamen extenso nomine, est votum, quia voluntaria obligatio. Nec facit duplex peccatum, quia non obligatur magis quam prius de necessitate, sed de bono et aequo.

english:
### Article III. *On the sacramentals annexed to baptism.*

Next, in the third place, there is a question concerning the sacramentals, and concerning this two things are asked. First, there is asked about catechism. Second, about exorcism.

### Question I. *Whether infants to be baptized ought to be catechized.*

And since *catechism* is said to be instruction[^1], it is therefore asked whether infants ought to be catechized. And that they ought, it seems:

1. Because, where there is only one Sacrament, there ought also to be observed one rite; but grown persons are catechized: therefore infants too.

2. Likewise, a form handed down by God is to be observed generally; but Christ, in the last [chapter] of Matthew[^2], prefaces doctrine to baptism, when he says: *Go, teach all nations* etc.

3. Likewise, to this purpose makes the custom and usage of the universal Church, which, since it acts rightly in catechizing children; it seems etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. It is foolish to instruct one who is not capable of doctrine: therefore the one baptizing acts foolishly when he catechizes an infant[^3].

2. Likewise, it seems that the attendants answer falsely: for either they answer in the person of the *infant*, or in their *own* person. Not in their *own* person, because the priest asks of the infant. If in the person of the *infant*: therefore they say something false, when they say *I believe*.

Likewise I ask whether the godparents are bound in that response. And that they are, it seems: because Augustine in a certain sermon[^4]: «I wish that you all may know, both men and women, that you have stood as sureties before God for the little ones whom you have received». But then it seems, since no one knows of another what sort he will turn out to be, that he promises foolishly and puts himself in peril.

Likewise I ask whether infants are bound. And that they are, it seems. Dionysius says[^5] that the sense of the words which the godparents say is, that that child, when he comes to understanding, will keep the sacred confessions; therefore they bind the infant. For if an infant could be bound through carnal parents unto evil: therefore through spiritual ones unto good much more strongly. *On the contrary:* if parents promise on behalf of a son that the son will enter religion, he is not obligated nor bound: therefore likewise in the case proposed.

Likewise I ask, if he is bound, whether that obligation is a *vow*. And that it is, it seems: because a vow is the spontaneous promise of a better good, confirmed by deliberation and obligation[^6]. *On the contrary:* according to this the baptized would sin with a twofold sin, because he is a transgressor of vow and of precept.

### Conclusion.

> Even in the baptism of infants it is fitting to preface catechism.

**I respond:** It must be said that catechism preceded baptism in adults for two causes: that those to be baptized might be *instructed* concerning the things to be believed, and that they might *bind* themselves voluntarily to the doing of God's commands, as those who would fulfill them not under compulsion, but voluntarily[^7]. Infants indeed, although they cannot be *taught*, can nevertheless be *bound* through godparents. Therefore catechism is administered to them both on account of the *ground of binding* and on account of *uniformity*, that all may be baptized alike, just as they receive a like effect.

1. 2. To that, then, which is objected concerning doctrine, the response is already clear[^8]. Likewise to that which is objected concerning those who respond, it must be said that they respond in the person of the infant, and the sense is: *I believe*, that is, I receive the Sacrament of faith, or I am ready to receive it. And it is not a false nor an unaccustomed manner of speech, because, as Augustine says in the letter to Boniface[^9], frequently the sign is taken for the thing; just as we say: tomorrow will be the resurrection of the Lord, and one seeing smoke says he sees fire. — Or the sense can be: *I believe*, that is, I bind myself to believing.

To that which is asked, whether the godparents are bound; it must be said that, if they had no[^10] other teacher, they are bound to instruct him in those things which are of the necessity of faith and morals, or to this, that they would have him instructed, or to this, that he would believe or observe. But now, since they have many teachers, they are not bound.

To that which is asked concerning infants, whether they are bound; it must be said that they are, because there are required there only those things to which they are bound by natural law, but none of supererogation[^11]; therefore it is not similar to the case of entering religion.

To that which is asked, whether such an obligation is a vow; it must be said that it is not properly so, because a vow[^12] is of that which is of supererogation; nevertheless, by an extended name, it is a vow, because it is a voluntary obligation. Nor does it make a twofold sin, because he is not bound more than before by necessity, but by what is good and equitable.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 7.

la: Vers. 19. — Post *sed* ex codd. F I supplevimus *Christus*. Cod. aa legit: *sed ipse, quando dedit formam, praemisit instructionem, ultimo Matthaei, cum dicit*. Cfr. Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 9.

en: Verse 19. — After *but* we have supplied *Christ* from codices F I. Codex aa reads: *but he himself, when he gave the form, prefaced instruction, in the last [chapter] of Matthew, when he says*. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, II. On the Sacraments, p. VI. c. 9.

la: Cod. aa subiungit aliud arg.: Item, Hugo [II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 10.]: «Ad hoc est catechismus, ut homo promoveatur ad fidem proprio libertatis arbitrio»; sed parvulus non habet usum liberi arbitrii: ergo etc.

en: Codex aa subjoins another argument: Likewise, Hugh [II. On the Sacraments, p. VI. c. 10.]: «To this end is catechism, that a man may be advanced to faith by his own choice of freedom»; but an infant does not have the use of free choice: therefore etc.

la: Ex Sermone S. Augustini post Pascha, qui sic incipit: *Hodiernus dies*. Ita allegatur C. *Vos ante omnia* (105.), de Consecrat. d. 4. Sententia haec habetur in pluribus sermonibus, qui nunc in appendice sermonum Augustini inveniuntur, v. g. in Serm. 168. (alias 163. de Tempore) n. 3; Serm. 265. (alias 215. de Tempore) n. 2, et Serm. 267. (alias 116. de Tempore) n. 5.

en: From a Sermon of St. Augustine after Easter, which begins thus: *This present day*. So it is cited [in] C. *Vos ante omnia* (105.), On Consecration, d. 4. This sentence is found in several sermons, which are now found in the appendix of Augustine's sermons, e.g. in Serm. 168 (otherwise 163, on Time) n. 3; Serm. 265 (otherwise 215, on Time) n. 2, and Serm. 267 (otherwise 116, on Time) n. 5.

la: De Ecclesiast. Hierarchia, c. 7. circa finem: *Neque enim hoc ait sic*: Pro puero ego abrenuntiationes aut sacras confessiones facio, sed quia puer abrenuntiat, hoc est confiteor, puerum credere in sacrum sensum venientem [sic νοῦν ἱερὸν ἰόντα] nostris anagogis [-ais ἐμαῖς ἐνθέοις ἀναγωγαῖς, i. e. nostris (sive meis) divinis institutionibus], abrenuntiaturum quidem universaliter contrariis, confiteri autem et operari divinas...

en: On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, c. 7, near the end: *For neither does he say thus*: For the child I make the renunciations or the sacred confessions, but [the meaning is] that, because the child renounces — that is, I confess — that the child believes, when he comes into sacred understanding [νοῦν ἱερὸν ἰόντα], by our anagogical leadings [ἐμαῖς ἐνθέοις ἀναγωγαῖς, i.e. by our (or my) divine institutions], that he will indeed renounce universally the contrary things, and will confess and perform the divine...

la: Guliel. Antissiodor., S. p. III. tr. 28. q. 1, votum definit: *Votum est boni propositi conceptio animi, deliberatione firmata, de his quae ad religionem pertinent, secundum quam conceptionem aliquis se obligat Deo.* Cfr. infra d. 38, a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Superius pro *illa* codd. A V W Z bb *sua*.

en: William of Auxerre, S. p. III. tr. 28. q. 1, defines a vow: *A vow is a conception of the mind concerning a good purpose, confirmed by deliberation, regarding those things which pertain to religion, according to which conception one binds oneself to God.* Cf. below d. 38, a. 1. q. 1. and following. — Above, for *illa* codices A V W Z bb [read] *sua*.

la: Plures codd. et edd. *impleturi erant*.

en: Several codices and editions [read] *they were going to fulfill them*.

la: Cod. aa hic addit solut. ad aliud arg. ab ipso propositum: quia, licet parvulis non fiat catechismus, ut instruantur de fide; fit nihilominus propter secundam rationem, quae dicta est; et per hoc solvitur illud Hugonis. Nam similiter arguit de adultis, qui in fide deberent instrui, antequam baptizentur. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur etc. Mox plurimi codd. omittunt *ad illud*. Inferius pro *percipio* cod. II *recipio*.

en: Codex aa here adds a solution to another argument proposed by itself: because, although catechism is not administered to infants that they may be instructed concerning the faith; it is nonetheless administered on account of the second ground, which has been stated; and by this is solved that [argument] of Hugh. For he argues likewise concerning adults, who ought to be instructed in the faith before they are baptized. To that, then, which is objected etc. Soon most codices omit *ad illud*. Below, for *percipio* codex II [reads] *recipio*.

la: Epist. 98. (alias 23.) n. 9: *Nempe saepe ita loquimur, ut, Pascha propinquante, dicamus, crastinam vel perendinam Domini passionem... ipso die dominico dicimus, hodie Dominus resurrexit.*

en: Letter 98 (otherwise 23) n. 9: *Indeed we often speak in such a way that, when Easter is approaching, we say, the Lord's passion is tomorrow or the day after... on the Lord's Day itself we say, today the Lord has risen.*

la: Cod. I *haberet*, scil. parvulus. Subinde pro *obligantur* cod. F *obligarentur*.

en: Codex I [reads] *he had*, namely the infant. Thereupon for *obligantur* codex F [reads] *obligarentur*.

la: Supple: *requiruntur*. — Cod. F legit *ad illa autem, quae sunt supererogationis, non tenentur*; codd. G I *multa autem sunt [G non sunt] supererogationis*; cod. U *non autem ad opera supererogationis*. Pro *tenentur* non pauci codd. et edd. *tenetur*.

en: Supply: *are required*. — Codex F reads *but to those things which are of supererogation, they are not bound*; codices G I [read] *but many things are [G are not] of supererogation*; codex U [reads] *but not to the works of supererogation*. For *tenentur* not a few codices and editions [read] *tenetur*.

la: Ita codd. A B (E a secunda manu) F G I, in aliis et edd. deest *votum*, cod. X a secunda manu *votum proprie*. Mox pro *est votum* cod. A *dicitur votum*, codd. G I (F a secunda manu) *potest dici votum*, cod. aa *voti* pro *voluntaria obligatione ad implendum ea, ad quae tenetur homo de necessitate, potest ibi esse votum*. *Nec facit duplex* etc. Superius pro *quaeritur* codd. et ed. 1 *obiicitur*.

en: So codices A B (E by a second hand) F G I; in the others and the editions *votum* is wanting; codex X by a second hand [reads] *votum proprie*. Soon for *est votum* codex A [reads] *dicitur votum*, codices G I (F by a second hand) *potest dici votum*, codex aa *voti* for *voluntaria obligatione ad implendum ea, ad quae tenetur homo de necessitate, potest ibi esse votum*. *Nor does it make a twofold* etc. Above, for *quaeritur* the codices and edition 1 [read] *obiicitur*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** De ritibus, qui baptismum solemnem comitantur, pauca *Magister* (hic c. 6. 7.), sed multa tum secundum Dionysium Areop. tum secundum Rabanum (de Institutione clericorum) affert Alex. Hal., (S. p. IV. q. 7. m. 1-3. et q. 8. m. 10. a. 1-5.), quae succinctius etiam a S. Thom. tractantur. — De 1. quaestione cum incidentibus quaestionibus cfr. S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. III. q. 71. a. 1. 4. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 14. 15. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 1. 2. 3. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the rites which accompany solemn baptism, the *Master* (here c. 6. 7.) [says] little, but Alexander of Hales adduces much, both according to Dionysius the Areopagite and according to Rabanus (on the Instruction of clerics), (S. p. IV. q. 7. m. 1-3. and q. 8. m. 10. a. 1-5.), which are treated more concisely also by St. Thomas. — On the 1st question, with the incidental questions, cf. St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2; S. III. q. 71. a. 1. 4. — Bl. Albert, on this and the following question, here a. 14. 15. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5. q. 1. 2. 3. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{155,156,157}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 17673–17919) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. PDF-priority inversion applied throughout the Respondeo, Solutio, scholion, and all footers (Vol II/IV two-column cascade-shatter). Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Title/alignment confirmed.** Article III's *first* question is catechism ("Primo quaeritur de catechismo" — p.155 R-1), title *Utrum parvuli baptizandi debeant catechizari*. Aligned — no q-swap.

**Page-split map.**
- p.155 — Art III opener + Q I title + opener ("instructio⁷") + fundamentum 1 (left col bottom / right col bottom). The rest of p.155 (left + right columns) is the *tail of the prior chunk* (a2-q2, *De intentione*) — not claimed here.
- p.156 — body: fundamenta 2–3, Sed contra (incl. the incidental questions on godparents/binding/votum), Conclusio, Respondeo, Solutio oppositorum.
- p.157 — body: tail of the Solutio (the two incidental replies on supererogatio/votum, top of left col) + the article-level SCHOLION.

**Footer-ownership.**
- p.155: claimed **only note 7** (→ "instructio"). Notes 1–6 on p.155 belong to the *prior* chunk a2-q2 (note 1 Ambros → "denominantur ab intentione"; notes 4–6 "Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced." / "consummationem" / "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.").
- p.156: claimed **all 9 notes** (1–9 → markers 1–10 of this chunk; markers on Matthaei, parvulum, sermone, Dionysius, firmata, impleturi, patet responsio, Bonifacium, haberent).
- p.157: claimed **notes 1–2** (→ "supererogationis", "votum"). Notes 3+ on p.157 (Augustinus de Symbolo, Rabanus, Matth. 7,22, etc.) belong to the *following* chunk q2 (*De exorcismo*).

**Scholion disposition.** Art III carries an article-level scholion block split into two numbered items. Item **I** (which contains the "De 1. quaestione cum incidentibus quaestionibus…" cross-reference list) is rendered here for q1. Item **II** ("Circa seq. (2.) quaestionem est notandum…" + "De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal.…") belongs to the q2 chunk and is left to it.

**[?] flags.** None. The Greek in [^5] (Pseudo-Dionysius, EH c.7) is partly OCR-garbled in the raw and rendered from the printed band as best legible; the bracketed transliterations are Quaracchi's own editorial glosses, reproduced as printed.

File written.