title: Dist. 5

title_alt: Distinctio V — textus Magistri Sententiarum

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

source_text:
<!-- page 118 -->

### DISTINCTIO V.

### Cap. I. *Quod baptismus aeque bonus est, a bono vel a malo datus.*

Post haec sciendum est, Sacramentum baptismi a bonis et a malis ministris dari, sicut a bonis et malis sumitur. Nec melior est baptismus, qui per meliorem datur; nec minus bonus qui per minus bonum datur; nec malus qui per malum datur; nec maius munus datur in baptismo a bono dato, nec minus in baptismo dato a malo, sed aequale; quia non est hominis, sed Dei munus. Quod totum subditis declaratur testimoniis. Augustinus[^1] ait: «Baptismus talis est, qualis est ille, in cuius potestate datur, non qualis est ille, per cuius ministerium datur». Item: «Prorsus fieri potest, ut aliqui verum habeant baptismum, et non habeant veram fidem». Item: «Si inter bonos ministros, cum sit alius alio melior, non est melior baptismus, qui per meliorem datur; nullo modo malus est qui etiam per malum datur, quia idem baptismus datur. Et ideo per ministros dispares Dei munus aequale est, quia non illorum, sed eius est». Idem: «Cum baptizat malus, illud quod datum est, unum est nec impar propter impares ministros, sed par et aequale propter hoc: Hic est qui baptizat»[^2]. Item: «Ego dico, et nos dicimus omnes, quia iustos oportet esse per quos baptizatur, iustos oportet esse tanti iudicis ministros. Sint ministri iusti, si volunt; si autem noluerint esse iusti qui sedent in cathedra Moysi, securum me fecit magister meus, de quo Spiritus sanctus dicit: Hic est qui baptizat». Item: «Quos baptizavit Iudas, Christus baptizavit. Si quos ergo baptizavit ebriosus, homicida, adulter; si baptismus Christi erat, Christus baptizavit. Non timeo adulterum, ebriosum, non homicidam, quia columbam attendo, per quam mihi dicitur: Hic est qui baptizat». Item: «Homicida dedit baptismum Christi; quod Sacramentum tam sanctum est, ut nec homicida ministrante polluatur».

<!-- page 119 -->

Item[^3]: «Si in haeresi quacumque vel schismate quisquam in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti baptismi Sacramentum acceperit, integrum Sacramentum accepit; sed salutem, quae virtus est Sacramenti, non habebit, si extra catholicam Ecclesiam ipsum Sacramentum habuerit. Debet igitur ad Ecclesiam redire, non ut Sacramentum baptismi iterum accipiat, quod nemo debet in aliquo repetere, sed ut in societate catholica vitam accipiat. Baptismus enim extra Ecclesiam nequit prodesse. Ibi enim cuique prodesse potest baptismus, ubi potest prodesse eleemosyna, scilicet in Ecclesia». Item Isidorus[^4]: «Romanus Pontifex non hominem iudicat, qui baptizat, sed Spiritum Dei subministrare gratiam baptismi, licet paganus sit qui baptizat». In his perspicue cernis, baptismum verum bonis et malis dari a bonis et a malis; et ipsum tamen aeque sanctum esse, et munus eius aequale in bonis, sive a bonis sive a malis baptizentur:

### Cap. II. *De potestate baptismi et ministerio.*

Quia ministerium tantum habent, non potestatem baptismi; potestatem enim sibi retinuit. Quod novit Ioannes, cum vidit columbam descendentem super Christum. Unde Augustinus[^5]: «Quid noverat Ioannes Baptista? Dominum. Quid non noverat? potestatem dominici baptismi in nullum hominem a Domino transituram, sed ministerium plane transiturum: potestatem a Domino in neminem, sed ministerium in bonos et malos. Non exhorreat columba ministerium malorum, respiciat Domini potestatem. Quid facit tibi minister malus, ubi bonus est Dominus»? «Neque qui plantat, neque qui rigat est aliquid, sed qui incrementum dat, Deus. Si superbus fuerit minister, cum diabolo computatur; sed non contaminatur donum Christi, quod per illum fluit purum est. Per lapideum canalem transit aqua ad areolas; in canali lapideo nil generatur, sed hortus fructus plurimos affert». — Habent igitur non modo boni, sed et mali ministerium baptizandi, sed neutri potestatem baptismi. «Ministerium enim dedit Christus servis, sed potestatem sibi retinuit, quam si vellet, poterat servis dare, ut servus daret baptismum suum tanquam vice sua. Et potestatem suam poterat constituere in aliquo, vel in aliquibus servis suis, ut tanta vis esset in baptismo servi, quanta est in baptismo Domini; sed noluit, ne servus in servo spem poneret. Baptizat servus ut minister, baptizat Dominus tanquam potestatem habens, quam si daret servis, ut scilicet ipsorum esset quod Domini erat, tot essent baptismi, quot servi, ut, sicut dictus est baptismus Ioannis, sic diceretur baptismus Petri vel Pauli. Quod ne fieret, tenuit sibi Dominus potestatem baptismi, servis ministerium dedit. Si ergo servus dicit, se baptizare; recte dicit, sed tanquam minister baptizat; et ideo non differt, sive bonus sive malus baptizet». «Inde etiam nemo dicit baptismus meus, cum tamen dicat Evangelium meum, prudentia mea, licet haec sint a Deo. In quibus differentia est: alius enim alio melius operatur in evangelizando, et alius alio prudentior est; alius autem alio magis minusve baptizatus, sive ab inferiore sive a maiore baptizetur, dici non potest[^6]».

### Cap. III. *Quae fuit potestas baptismi, quam Christus potuit dare servis et non dedit.*

Hic quaeritur, quae sit illa potestas baptismi, quam Christus sibi retinuit et potuit dare servis. — Haec est, ut plurimi volunt, potestas dimittendi peccata in baptismo. — Sed potestas dimittendi peccata, quae est in Deo, Deus est. Ideo alii dicunt, hanc potestatem non potuisse dare alicui servorum, quia nulli potuit dare, ut esset quod ipse est, vel ut haberet essentiam, quam ipse habet, cui hoc est esse quod posse. Dicunt etiam: si hanc potentiam alicui dare potuit, potuit ei dare creaturas creare, quia non est hoc maioris potentiae quam illud[^7]. — Ad quod dici potest, quia potuit eis dare potentiam dimittendi peccata, non ipsam eandem, qua ipse potens est, sed potentiam creatam, qua servus posset dimittere peccata, non tamen ut auctor remissionis, sed ut minister, nec tamen sine Deo auctore; ut, sicut in ministerio habet exterius sanctificare, ita in ministerio haberet interius[^8] mundare; et sicut illud fecit, Deo auctore, qui cum eo et in eo operatur illud exterius, ita mundaret interius, Deo auctore, qui eius verbo velut quodam ministerio uteretur. Ita etiam posset Deus per aliquem creare aliqua, non per eum tanquam auctorem, sed ministrum, cum quo et in quo operaretur; sicut in bonis operibus nostris ipse operatur, et nos: nec ipse tantum, nec nos tantum, sed ipse nobiscum et in nobis, et tamen in illis agendis ministri eius sumus, non sumus auctores. Ita ergo potuit dare servo potestatem dimittendi peccata in baptismo, id est, ut in mundatione interiori servus cum Domino operaretur; non servus sine Domino, nec Dominus sine servo; sed Dominus cum servo et in servo, sicut in exteriori ministerio Dominus operatur cum servo et in

<!-- page 120 -->

servo. Unde et Dominus dicitur sanctificare et servus; sed Dominus invisibili gratia, servus visibili Sacramento. Unde Augustinus super Leviticum[^9]: «Dominus ait: Ego Dominus, qui sanctifico; de Moyse etiam dictum est: Et sanctificabis eum. Sed Moyses sanctificat visibilibus Sacramentis per ministerium, Dominus autem invisibili gratia per Spiritum, ubi est totus fructus visibilium Sacramentorum. Sine hac sanctificatione visibilia Sacramenta nihil prosunt». — Si quis hoc melius aperire poterit, non invideo[^10].

english:
### DISTINCTION V.

### Chap. I. *That baptism is equally good, given by a good or by a bad [minister].*

After these things it must be known that the Sacrament of baptism is given by good and by bad ministers, just as it is received by the good and the bad. Nor is the baptism better which is given through a better [minister]; nor less good which is given through a less good one; nor bad which is given through a bad one; nor is a greater gift given in a baptism given by a good [minister], nor a lesser in a baptism given by a bad one, but an equal one; because it is not man's, but God's gift. All of which is shown by the testimonies set below. Augustine[^1] says: «Baptism is such as is he in whose power it is given, not such as is he through whose ministry it is given». Likewise: «It can altogether happen that some have true baptism, and do not have true faith». Likewise: «If among good ministers, since one is better than another, the baptism is not better which is given through a better one; in no way is it bad which is given even through a bad one, because the same baptism is given. And therefore through unequal ministers God's gift is equal, because it is not theirs, but his». The same: «When a bad man baptizes, that which is given is one and not unequal on account of unequal ministers, but par and equal on account of this: He it is who baptizes»[^2]. Likewise: «I say, and we all say, that they ought to be just through whom one is baptized, the ministers of so great a judge ought to be just. Let the ministers be just, if they will; but if those who sit in the chair of Moses are unwilling to be just, my master has made me secure, of whom the Holy Spirit says: He it is who baptizes». Likewise: «Those whom Judas baptized, Christ baptized. If then those whom a drunkard, a murderer, an adulterer baptized — if it was the baptism of Christ, Christ baptized. I do not fear the adulterer, the drunkard, not the murderer, because I attend to the dove, through which it is said to me: He it is who baptizes». Likewise: «A murderer gave the baptism of Christ; which Sacrament is so holy that it is not polluted by a murderer ministering it».

Likewise[^3]: «If in any heresy whatever or schism anyone has received the Sacrament of baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he has received an entire Sacrament; but he will not have salvation, which is the virtue of the Sacrament, if he has had the Sacrament itself outside the catholic Church. He must therefore return to the Church, not that he may receive the Sacrament of baptism again — which no one ought to repeat in any one — but that he may receive life in the catholic society. For baptism outside the Church cannot profit. For there can baptism profit anyone where alms can profit, namely in the Church». Likewise Isidore[^4]: «The Roman Pontiff judges that it is not the man who baptizes, but the Spirit of God who supplies the grace of baptism, although it be a pagan who baptizes». In these things you clearly perceive that true baptism is given to good and bad by good and by bad; and that it is nonetheless equally holy, and its gift equal in the good, whether they be baptized by the good or by the bad:

### Chap. II. *On the power of baptism and the ministry.*

Since they have only the ministry, not the power of baptism; for he retained the power to himself. Which John knew, when he saw the dove descending upon Christ. Whence Augustine[^5]: «What did John the Baptist know? The Lord. What did he not know? that the power of the Lord's baptism would pass from the Lord to no man, but that the ministry plainly would pass: the power from the Lord to no one, but the ministry to good and bad. Let not the dove abhor the ministry of the bad, let it look to the power of the Lord. What does a bad minister do to you, where the Lord is good»? «Neither he that planteth, nor he that watereth is anything, but he that giveth the increase, God. If the minister be proud, he is reckoned with the devil; but the gift of Christ is not contaminated, which flows pure through him. Through a stone channel the water passes to the garden-beds; in the stone channel nothing is generated, but the garden brings forth very many fruits». — They have therefore, not only the good, but also the bad, the ministry of baptizing, but neither the power of baptism. «For Christ gave the ministry to servants, but retained the power to himself, which, if he willed, he could give to servants, that the servant might give his baptism as in his stead. And he could set his power in some one, or in some of his servants, so that there might be as great force in the baptism of the servant as there is in the baptism of the Lord; but he was unwilling, lest the servant should place his hope in a servant. The servant baptizes as a minister, the Lord baptizes as having the power, which if he gave to servants, so that that which was the Lord's might be theirs, there would be as many baptisms as servants, so that, just as it is said the baptism of John, so it would be called the baptism of Peter or of Paul. That this might not happen, the Lord held the power of baptism to himself, and gave the ministry to servants. If then a servant says that he baptizes; he says rightly, but he baptizes as a minister; and therefore it makes no difference whether a good or a bad man baptizes». «Hence also no one says my baptism, although he says my Gospel, my prudence, although these are from God. In which there is a difference: for one works better than another in evangelizing, and one is more prudent than another; but that one is more or less baptized than another, whether he be baptized by a lesser or by a greater, cannot be said[^6]».

### Chap. III. *What was the power of baptism, which Christ could have given to servants and did not give.*

Here it is asked what that power of baptism is, which Christ retained to himself and could have given to servants. — It is, as very many will have it, the power of remitting sins in baptism. — But the power of remitting sins, which is in God, is God. Therefore others say that this power could not be given to any of the servants, because to none could it be given that he should be what He is, or that he should have the essence which He has, to whom this to-be is the same as to-be-able. They say also: if he could give this power to anyone, he could give him to create creatures, because this is not of greater power than that[^7]. — To which it can be said that he could give to them the power of remitting sins, not the very same by which He Himself is powerful, but a created power, by which a servant might remit sins, yet not as the author of the remission, but as a minister, nor yet without God as author; so that, as in the ministry he has to sanctify outwardly, so in the ministry he would have inwardly[^8] to cleanse; and as he did that, God being author, who with him and in him works that outward thing, so he would cleanse inwardly, God being author, who would use his word as a kind of ministry. So too God could create some things through someone, not through him as author, but as minister, with whom and in whom he would work; just as in our good works he himself works, and we: neither he alone, nor we alone, but he with us and in us, and yet in performing those things we are his ministers, we are not authors. So therefore he could give to a servant the power of remitting sins in baptism, that is, that in the inward cleansing the servant might work with the Lord; not the servant without the Lord, nor the Lord without the servant; but the Lord with the servant and in the servant, just as in the outward ministry the Lord works with the servant and in

the servant. Whence both the Lord is said to sanctify and the servant; but the Lord by invisible grace, the servant by the visible Sacrament. Whence Augustine on Leviticus[^9]: «The Lord says: I am the Lord, who sanctify; of Moses also it is said: And thou shalt sanctify him. But Moses sanctifies by the visible Sacraments through the ministry, but the Lord by invisible grace through the Spirit, where is the whole fruit of the visible Sacraments. Without this sanctification the visible Sacraments profit nothing». — If anyone can open this better, I do not begrudge it[^10].

---

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 6, et C. *Baptismus talis* (26.), de Consecrat. dist. 4. — Seq. locus est in eiusdem libro de Unico Baptismo contra Petilian. c. 11. n. 18. Tertius est III. contra Cresconium Donatistam, c. 6. n. 6. circa finem, et C. *Si inter bonos* (25.), ibid.

en: [Augustine,] *On the Gospel of John* tract 5, n. 6, and canon *Baptismus talis* (26), *de Consecratione* dist. 4. — The following passage is in his book *On the One Baptism against Petilian* c. 11, n. 18. The third is in bk. III *against Cresconius the Donatist*, c. 6, n. 6, near the end, and canon *Si inter bonos* (25), ibid.

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 6. n. 8, et C. *Cum baptizat malus* (27.), de Consecrat. dist. 4; et respicitur Ioan. 1, 33. — Seq. locus ibid. tr. 5. n. 15, et C. *Baptismus talis* (26.), ibid. § 3.

en: [Augustine,] *On the Gospel of John* tract 6, n. 8, and canon *Cum baptizat malus* (27), *de Consecratione* dist. 4; and John 1:33 is regarded. — The following passage is ibid. tract 5, n. 15, and canon *Baptismus talis* (26), ibid. § 3. — The third [passage] is ibid. n. 18, and canon *Dedit Baptismum* (46), c. 1, q. 1, § 1. The fourth is ibid. n. 19, and in the same canon § 2. — Tertius ibid. n. 18, et C. *Dedit Baptismum* (46.), c. 1. q. 1. § 1. Quartus ibid. n. 19. et in eodem canone § 2.

la: De fide ad Petr. (auctore Fulgentio) c. 3. n. 43. (interpolate). Infra pro *ubi potest* codd. A B C D et ed. 1 *cui potest.*

en: *On the faith, to Peter* (Fulgentius being the author) c. 3, n. 43 (with interpolation). Below, for *ubi potest* (where it can), codices A, B, C, D and edition 1 read *cui potest* (to whom it can).

la: Can. *Romanus pontifex* (23.), de Consecrat. dist. 4. Sed locus a multis quaesitus in *Isidoro* non potuit inveniri; legitur tamen apud Egbertum Ebor. l. Poenitent. p. 1. c. 7, et Algerum, III. de Sacramento c. 6. — Inferius notandum, quod ultima capituli propositio divisione capitulorum incisa est.

en: Canon *Romanus pontifex* (23), *de Consecratione* dist. 4. But the passage, sought by many in *Isidore*, could not be found; it is read however in Egbert of York, *Penitential* pt. 1, c. 7, and in Alger, *On the Sacrament* bk. III, c. 6. — Note below that the last proposition of the chapter has been cut off by the division of the chapters.

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 11, et C. *Baptismus talis* (26.), de Consecrat. dist. 4. § 1. Immediate ante respicitur Ioan. 1, 33. — Seq. locus est August., ibid. n. 15, et C. *Si iustus* (30.), c. 1. q. 1, ubi citatur I. Cor. 3, 7. Tertius locus est ibid. n. 7, plurimis a Magistro omissis; in quo pro *tenuit sibi* edd., excepta 1, *retinuit sibi*, refragantibus codd. et originali.

en: [Augustine,] *On the Gospel of John* tract 5, n. 11, and canon *Baptismus talis* (26), *de Consecratione* dist. 4, § 1. Immediately before, John 1:33 is regarded. — The following passage is Augustine's, ibid. n. 15, and canon *Si iustus* (30), c. 1, q. 1, where 1 Cor. 3:7 is cited. The third passage is ibid. n. 7, with very many things omitted by the Master; in which, for *tenuit sibi* (held to himself), the editions, except 1, read *retinuit sibi* (retained to himself), against the codices and the original.

la: August., V. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 14. n. 16, et C. *Cum tantum* (47.), de Consecrat. dist. 4. § 1.

en: Augustine, *On Baptism against the Donatists* bk. V, c. 14, n. 16, and canon *Cum tantum* (47), *de Consecratione* dist. 4, § 1.

la: Cfr. Glossa apud Lyranum Ioan. 14, 12. Superius pro *Dicunt etiam* edd., excepta 1, *Dicunt enim*, refragantibus codd.

en: Cf. the Gloss in Lyra on John 14:12. Above, for *Dicunt etiam* (they say also), the editions, except 1, read *Dicunt enim* (for they say), against the codices.

la: Codd. A B E et ed. 1 *intus.*

en: Codices A, B, E and edition 1 read *intus* (within).

la: Libr. III. Quaestion. in Pentateuch. q. 84. Loci Scripturae Levit. 21, 15; Exod. 29, 24. — Pro *Moyses sanctificat* edd., excepta 1, *sanctificabat*, refragante etiam originali, ubi legitur: Quomodo ergo et Moyses sanctificat et Dominus?

en: [Augustine,] bk. III *Questions on the Pentateuch* q. 84. The scriptural places are Lev. 21:15; Exod. 29:24. — For *Moyses sanctificat* (Moses sanctifies) the editions, except 1, read *sanctificabat* (was sanctifying), against the original also, where is read: How then do both Moses and the Lord sanctify?

la: De hac Magistri sententia communiter non recepta cfr. Comment. a. 3.

en: On this opinion of the Master, commonly not received, cf. the Commentary, art. 3.

translators_notes:
**Skeleton REBUILT (not merely re-set).** The auto-chunked skeleton was both mislabeled and incomplete: its `line_start` was 13613 (mid-Cap. I, printed p.119), so it **dropped the entire distinction opening** on p.118 (DISTINCTIO V heading + Cap. I title + the "Post haec sciendum est…sed Dei munus…non est melior ba-" opening, with the littera's first two footnotes), and it **bled past the littera's end** into the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM V` / `DIVISIO TEXTUS` boundary (raw L13742+, p.120–121), which belongs to the separate `d5-divisio` chunk. The body was fully rebuilt from raw L13556–13741 collated against the 450 dpi PDF column bands.

**What d.5 is about.** Distinction V treats baptism *by comparison to those who give it* (the ministers) — `De baptismo per comparationem ad dantes` (the COMMENTARIUS subtitle). The Master's three chapters argue: (Cap. I) baptism is equally good whether given by a good or a bad minister, because it is God's gift, not the minister's; (Cap. II) ministers (good and bad alike) have only the *ministry* of baptizing, never the *power* (`potestas`), which Christ retained to himself lest anyone place hope in a servant; (Cap. III) what that retained power was — the power of remitting sins — and the disputed question whether Christ could have given it to servants (the Master holds he could, as a created, ministerial power working *with* God as author, never *as* author).

**Littera chapter count + topics.** Three capitula: **Cap. I** *Quod baptismus aeque bonus est, a bono vel a malo datus* (equal goodness regardless of minister; Augustine *In Ioannem*, *de Fide ad Petrum*/Fulgentius, *Romanus pontifex* canon); **Cap. II** *De potestate baptismi et ministerio* (ministry vs. retained power; the dove, the stone channel, "Hic est qui baptizat"); **Cap. III** *Quae fuit potestas baptismi, quam Christus potuit dare servis et non dedit* (the power of remitting sins; minister-not-author; Augustine on Leviticus).

**Raw range + printed pages.** Raw L13556–13741; printed pp.118–120 (PDF pp.138–140, Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`). NB: the prompt anticipated pp.119–120, but eyes-on the PDF the distinction **opens lower on p.118** (the DISTINCTIO V heading + Cap. I title + the Cap. I opening begin in the p.118 L-column after d.4's Dub. VI/VII, and the littera's first two footnotes print in the p.118 **right-column** footer under the rubric "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM"), so the chunk honestly records pp.118–120.

**Apparatus count + page-split map (10 entries) — KEY footer-split finding:** the p.118 page carries TWO footer blocks. The p.118 **left-column** footer (the "Cod. X a secunda manu in ipsis adultis…", "Libr. II. Sent. d. 33…", "Ex codd. F H P supplevimus spiritus…" notes) is **d.4's Dub. VI/VII apparatus** and is NOT this littera's — it was the auto-chunker's mis-count trap (it would inflate d.5 to "5 p.118 notes"). Only the p.118 **right-column** footer, headed `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM`, is the littera's.
- **p.118 R-column footer** (2 littera notes): `[^1]` Augustinus *Baptismus talis* (In Ioan. tr. 5 n. 6 + de Unico Baptismo + contra Cresconium); `[^2]` *Cum baptizat malus* (In Ioan. tr. 6 n. 8) with its wrapped "Tertius… Quartus" tail (Dedit Baptismum canon) that physically continues at the head of the p.119 footer.
- **p.119 footer** (6 notes): `[^3]` *De fide ad Petr.*/Fulgentius ("Si in haeresi…" + *ubi/cui potest* variant); `[^4]` *Romanus pontifex* canon (Isidoro non inveniri; Egbert/Alger; chapter-cut note); `[^5]` In Ioan. tr. 5 n. 11 (Augustinus "Quid noverat Ioannes" — Ioan. 1,33 + *Si iustus* + *tenuit/retinuit sibi* variant; one note whose tail wraps p.119 L→R); `[^6]` *Cum tantum* / de Baptismo contra Donat. V ("dici non potest"); `[^7]` Glossa apud Lyranum + *Dicunt etiam/enim* variant ("quam illud"); `[^8]` *intus* codd. variant ("interius").
- **p.120 footer** (2 littera notes): `[^9]` Augustinus super Leviticum (Quaest. in Pentateuch. q. 84; *sanctificat/sanctificabat* variant); `[^10]` *non invideo* (De hac Magistri sententia… cfr. Comment. a. 3). The p.120 footer is split: only these two littera notes belong here; everything from `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM V` / `DIVISIO TEXTUS` downward (and its divisio footnotes) belongs to `d5-divisio`.

**`[?]` flags.**
- `[^2]` / `[^5]`: two littera footers wrap across a page or column boundary in the OCR, which cascade-merged the regions. The "Tertius ibid. n. 18… Quartus ibid. n. 19" tail was printed at the head of the p.119 footer block but documents the 3rd/4th Augustine quotations of Cap. I (p.118 body), so it is folded into `[^2]`; and note `[^5]` (In Ioan. tr. 5 n. 11) wraps from the p.119 L-column foot into the R-column foot ("Immediate ante… Si iustus… tenuit sibi"). Both reconstructions are eyes-on against the 450 dpi PDF footer bands (p.118-R-2, p.119-L-2, p.119-R-2) but the exact note-to-note cuts are the editors' running citation-chain boilerplate — `[?]` low-risk; re-confirm at 600 dpi in the d.1–d.10 polish pass.

**Cross-chunk hand-off forwarded to `d5-divisio` (to be promoted next):**
1. The littera ends at raw L13741 ("…non invideo²"). **`COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM V`** begins at raw L13742 (printed p.120 L-column, subtitle *De baptismo per comparationem ad dantes*), with the lemma *Post haec sciendum est, Sacramentum baptismi etc.* and then **`DIVISIO TEXTUS`** (raw ~L13742+, printed p.120 R-column → p.121). That entire block is the `d5-divisio` chunk, **not** this littera.
2. The DIVISIO opener reads: *Supra determinavit Magister de baptismo in se… hic tertio agit de ipso per comparationem ad dantes; et hi sunt quibus collata est potestas baptizandi. Et dividitur haec pars in duas partes. In prima… In secunda vero determinat, quibus est collata, ibi: «Nunc quibus liceat baptizare». Prima pars habet tres partes…* — the divisio agent should read the p.120 R-column + p.121 PDF bands directly (OCR is cascade-fragmented here) and not trust OCR ordering for the divisio footnotes.
3. The divisio's own footnotes ("NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM" / divisio apparatus) print at the foot of p.120 R and p.121 — they are the divisio's, not this littera's.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 5, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem V — Divisio textus et Tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction V — Division of the text and Treatment of the questions

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 120 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM V.

### *De baptismo per comparationem ad dantes.*

*Post haec sciendum est, Sacramentum baptismi etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra determinavit Magister de baptismo in se et per comparationem ad suscipientes[^1]; hic tertio agit de ipso per comparationem ad dantes; et hi sunt quibus collata est potestas baptizandi. Et dividitur haec pars in duas partes. In prima agit de potestate collata. In secunda agit de his quae hanc potestatem expediunt, vel impediunt, infra distinctione sequenti circa medium, ibi: *Hoc etiam sciendum est, quod licet ter* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima ostendit Magister, quae sit illa potestas, quae ministris est collata. In secunda vero determinat, quibus est collata, ibi[^2]: *Nunc quibus liceat baptizare.* Prima pars habet tres partes. In prima parte ostendit, quod potestas baptizandi aequaliter est efficax in omnibus ministris. In secunda vero ostendit, quae sit illa potestas, quoniam est solius ministerii exterioris, ibi: *Quia ministerium tantum habent.* In tertia vero parte ostendit, quae sit illa potestas, quam Dominus potuit dare ministris, sed non dedit, ibi: *Hic quaeritur, quae sit illa potestas,* ubi dicit, quod est potestas cooperationis.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam eorum quae dicuntur in praesenti distinctione, tria principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de potestate collata baptizaturis sive baptizantibus quantum ad extensionem.

Secundo de ipsa quantum ad intensionem sive efficaciam.

Tertio quaeritur de ipsa potestate baptizantium per comparationem ad dantem illam.

Circa primum breviter quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum soli sacerdotes sive clerici habeant potestatem baptizandi.

Secundo, dato quod etiam laici[^3], quaeritur, utrum haeretici in potestate illa communicent cum catholicis.

---

english:
<!-- page 120 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION V.

### *On baptism by comparison to those who give it.*

*After these things it must be known, the Sacrament of baptism etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master determined concerning baptism in itself and by comparison to those who receive it[^1]; here, thirdly, he treats of it by comparison to those who give it; and these are they to whom the power of baptizing has been conferred. And this part is divided into two parts. In the first he treats of the power conferred. In the second he treats of the things which further this power, or hinder it, below in the following distinction near the middle, at: *This too must be known, that although three times* etc.

The first part has two [parts]. In the first the Master shows what that power is which has been conferred on the ministers. In the second he determines on whom it has been conferred, at[^2]: *Now to whom it is permitted to baptize.* The first part has three parts. In the first part he shows that the power of baptizing is equally efficacious in all ministers. In the second he shows what that power is, since it is of the outward ministry alone, at: *Because they have only the ministry.* In the third part he shows what that power is which the Lord could have given to the ministers, but did not give, at: *Here it is asked what that power is,* where he says that it is a power of cooperation.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of the things which are said in the present distinction, three things are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning the power conferred on those about to baptize, or on those baptizing, as to its extension.

Second, concerning it as to its intension or efficacy.

Third it is asked concerning the very power of those baptizing by comparison to him who gives it.

Concerning the first, two things are briefly asked.

First it is asked whether priests alone or clerics have the power of baptizing.

Second, granted that laymen also [have it][^3], it is asked whether heretics share in that power together with catholics.

---

la: Dist. III. et IV. — Edd. omittunt *in se et,* pro quo codd. HQ *in se,* determinavit etiam de baptismo.

en: Distinctions III and IV. — The editions omit *in se et* (in itself and), in place of which codices H, Q read *in se,* [he] determined also concerning baptism.

la: In principio d. VI.

en: At the beginning of distinction VI.

la: Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. VI. c. 2. — Superius post *laici* edd. supplent *possint baptizare.*

en: Compare below the text of the Master, distinction VI, chapter 2. — Above, after *laici* (laymen), the editions supply *possint baptizare* (may be able to baptize).

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 13736–13779), collated column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed p.120 (PDF p.140; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE. The column split was widened to x≈2050 because the default 1880 clipped the right edge of the left column (the centered banner headers `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM V.`, `DIVISIO TEXTUS.`, `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.`, `ARTICULUS I.` span both columns). This is the **Distinction V divisio** — Bonaventure's *Divisio textus* and *Tractatio quaestionum*, opening with `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM V. / De baptismo per comparationem ad dantes. / Post haec sciendum est, Sacramentum baptismi etc.` Distinction V has **no pars split** (a single article block of three articles follows), so the chunk id is `bon-sent-IV-d5-divisio` with no `pars` field. Per the locked chunking convention, the `ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I` opener (raw L13780) that follows the *Tractatio* is folded into a1-q1 and is **not** included here. No scholion (divisio carry none).

**TRACTATIO question-count alignment (3 articles, 2 quaestiones each — confirmed from raw):** the *Tractatio* lists **three principal questions**, which become the three articles: (I) de potestate collata baptizantibus quantum ad extensionem; (II) de ipsa quantum ad intensionem sive efficaciam; (III) de potestate baptizantium per comparationem ad dantem illam. The *Tractatio* then subdivides **Articulus I** — "**Circa primum breviter quaeruntur duo**": (q1) utrum soli sacerdotes sive clerici habeant potestatem baptizandi; (q2) dato quod etiam laici, utrum haeretici in potestate illa communicent cum catholicis. The Art. II and Art. III sub-divisions are not given here in the *Tractatio* — they open at each article in the raw: **Art. II** opener (raw L14173): *Quantum ad secundum articulum… quaeruntur duo: Primo utrum mali ministri…, Secundo utrum haeretici et praecisi…*; **Art. III** opener (raw L14458/L14740): *…quaeruntur duo: Primo quae sit illa potestas, Secundo utrum Christo fuerit data potestas dimittendi peccata.* Article/quaestio raw anchors: Art.I q1 L13784, q2 L14081; Art.II q1 L14173, q2; Art.III q1 L14458, q2 L14740.

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p.120** (running head "120 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." at raw L13722): the littera tail (Augustine on *sanctificare*) fills the upper page; immediately below, the centered banner **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM V.** and the entire *Divisio textus* + *Tractatio quaestionum* (both columns) sit on p.120 (raw L13736–13779). At the foot of p.120 the **ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I** banner + body begins (raw L13780) → folded into `d5-a1-q1`.
- The p.120 footer has two note-series. The **left-column** series (1 = *Libr. III. Quaestion. in Pentateuch. q. 84*…; 2 = *De hac Magistri sententia communiter non recepta cfr. Comment. a. 3*) is keyed to the littera's tail (Augustine/Moyses markers) — handled by the littera (already committed, 1a47ff7). The **right-column** "NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM" series (notes 1–3) is this divisio's: note 1 = [^1] (*in se et* variant at *suscipientes*); note 2 = [^2] (*In principio d. VI.* at *ibi*); note 3 = [^3] (*Superius post laici…* at the Tractatio's *laici*).

**Hand-off picked up from `d5-littera` (committed 1a47ff7).** The littera forwarded that the p.120 R-column "NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM" footers belong to THIS divisio, not the littera (OCR cascade-fragmented). Captured by reading `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p120-R-2.png` directly: all three NOTAE notes legibly keyed to the divisio/tractatio markers above. The littera took p.118–120 left-column footers up through the littera body.

**Cross-chunk hand-off forwarded to `bon-sent-IV-d5-a1-q1`:** (a) the `ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I` banner + opener (raw L13780/L13784, printed pp.120–121) folds into a1-q1 — title `Utrum soli sacerdotes sive clerici habeant potestatem baptizandi`, sub-title banner `De extensione potestatis collatae baptizantibus`; verify the q1 opener aligns with Art. I sub-question (i) above. (b) a1-q1's body and its footer notes belong to that chunk — the q1 body begins at the foot of p.120 R-column (*Et quod non tantum sacerdotes, sed etiam laici…*; *Fundamenta* marker 1 at *non rebaptizatur¹*) and continues onto p.121 (running head "DIST. V. ART. I. QUAEST. I. … 121" at raw L13811). The p.120 q1 footer note (*¹ Libr. III. Quaestion. in Pentateuch.* — already attributed above to the littera by anchor) and the p.121 footers are q1's.

**`[?]` flags:** none. The three NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM notes and both body markers (¹ at *suscipientes*, ² at *ibi*) are legible and unambiguous in the 450 dpi R-column band; note 3 is unmarked in the body and is anchored to the *Tractatio*'s *laici* per its own text ("Superius post *laici*…").

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


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

source_text:
<!-- page 120 -->

### Articulus I. *De extensione potestatis collata baptizantibus.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum soli sacerdotes sive clerici habeant potestatem baptizandi.*

Et quod non tantum sacerdotes, sed etiam laici, ostenditur sic.

1. Si baptizaret vetula, servata forma verborum, ille quem baptizat, non rebaptizatur[^1]: ergo est baptizatus; sed vetula non baptizaret, nisi haberet potestatem: ergo etc.

2. Item, alia *ratione* videtur: baptismus, quia est Sacramentum necessitatis, ideo institutum est in
<!-- page 121 -->
elemento omnibus communi[^2]; sed elementum non sufficit, nisi adsit qui possit baptizare: ergo potestas baptizandi omnibus debuit conferri, tam clericis quam laicis.

3. Item, Ioannis quarto[^3] dicitur, quod Dominus non baptizabat, sed discipuli; sed discipulis nondum erat collata potestas sacerdotalis: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Isidorus[^4]: «Constat, baptismum solis sacerdotibus traditum esse, nec ipsis diaconibus eius ministerium esse permissum».

2. Item, baptismus est Sacramentum Ecclesiae; sed ordo est in ecclesiastica hierarchia: ergo ab his solis potest tradi, qui ad hoc in Ecclesia sunt ordinati. Sed illi soli sunt, qui habent ordinis Sacramentum: ergo etc.

3. Item, si propter necessitatem solam confertur omnibus: ergo cum Sacramentum poenitentiae sit Sacramentum necessitatis, videtur, quod in casu illo debeat quilibet absolvere, etiam laicus.

4. Item, si in casu necessitatis indultum est, videtur, quod si aliquis laicus baptizet praeter necessitatem, debet rebaptizari.

> **Conclusio.** Non soli sacerdotes, sed etiam laici non muti neque manci possunt et in casu necessitatis debent baptizare.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Sacramentum baptismi est Sacramentum ecclesiasticum, necessarium et primum. Quia ecclesiasticum, ideo eius administratio primo et principaliter est commissa clericis et inter hos sacerdotibus. Quia vero necessarium, et sacerdos non semper adest; ideo eius administratio se extendit etiam ad laicos, divina misericordia faciente, quae neminem vult perire[^5]. Quia vero primum, ideo a nullo alio Sacramento dependet; et ideo huius ministerii potestas se extendit ad omnes qui possunt facere ea quae sunt de integritate Sacramenti; et quicumque illa faciat, baptizatum est: ille ergo solus excluditur, qui non potest.

Propter quod notandum, quod baptismus, sicut alia Sacramenta, est Sacramentum, et Sacramentum unum et verum et integrum. Quia Sacramentum, ideo est signum visibile, et ideo debet habere dispensatorem visibilem, ut hominem, non spiritum. Quia vero unum, ideo debet tradi ab uno dispensatore, non a pluribus. Quia verum, ideo non debet idem esse baptizans et baptizatus, sed alius, quia in forma duplex persona exprimitur, cum dicitur: *baptizo te.* Quia vero integrum, ideo concurrunt in eo necessario duo, scilicet elementum et verbum. Verbum autem debet *dici;* et quia *dicere* est cum intentione proferre[^6]: ideo necesse est, quod baptizans habeat *discretionem* et non sit stultus, et oportet, quod habeat *locutionem* et non sit mutus. Quia vero in *elementum* debet mergere, oportet, quod non sit mancus. Omnis talis potest baptizare[^7] et in casu necessitatis *debet,* etiam si non habet ordinem; praeter casum necessitatis solus sacerdos debet baptizare, et si alius facit, quamvis baptizet, graviter peccat.

**Ad obiecta:**

1. 2. Patent igitur obiecta, quia Isidorus loquitur secundum *congruitatem* exsequendi, non secundum *potestatem.* — Et similiter patet aliud, quia, etsi sit ecclesiasticum, tamen est necessarium et primum, et ideo etiam secundum rectam ordinationem Ecclesiae competit eius administratio omnibus eis qui possunt exercere quae sunt de integritate Sacramenti.

3. Ad illud de poenitentia dicendum, quod etsi sit necessarium, non tamen primum, sed eorum qui iam sunt de Ecclesia. *Praeterea,* hoc Sacramentum est tantum adultorum, qui possunt adire sacerdotem interiorem, cum carent exteriori; sed non sic baptismus, quia est remedium parvulorum.

4. Ad ultimum dicendum, quod potestas non tantum *data* est in casu necessitatis, sed tunc *imposita,* ut, si alias fecerit, peccet; tunc vero non peccat, si facit, immo peccat, si non facit; nihilominus tamen si fecerit, factum est. Et sic patet responsio ad illud.

Ex praedictis patent aliqui casus, qui circa potestatem baptizantium possunt quaeri. — Solet enim quaeri, utrum in articulo necessitatis possit aliquis a sathana baptizari, esto quod se transfiguret in *angelum lucis*[^8]. Et quod sic, videtur: quia omnia verba potest dicere et omnem actum facere, quem alius potest.

Et ad hoc patet responsio, quod *non,* quia ipsi non competit administratio Sacramenti sensibilis. — Potest autem huius triplex ratio reddi. Prima est, quia spiritus est; administratio autem sive dispensatio Sacramentorum per Christum — hominem instituta est per homines ad salutem hominum dispensandam[^9]. — Secunda ratio est, quia spiritus est ita praecisus ab Ecclesia, quod nec est membrum actu nec potentia; et ideo administratio et potestas, quae descendit a capite Christo, non pervenit ad
<!-- page 122 -->
ipsum. — Tertia ratio est, quia in omnibus sinistram habet intentionem. «Sicut enim Christus omnia bene fecit, ita diabolus omnia male[^10]»; et ideo, etiam si faceret actum et diceret verbum, non intenderet baptizare, sed potius deludere. — Et sic patet, quod non potest baptizare. Prima tamen ratio melius valet[^11].

Solet etiam quaeri, utrum aliquis in articulo necessitatis positus possit baptizare se ipsum. Videtur enim, quod sic, propter statum necessitatis, cum possit se mergere et verbum dicere. Et hoc ipsum videtur Innocentius in quadam decretali[^12] dicere, quod «si Iudaeus aliquis aspergat se aqua, utens forma baptismi, non habens qui ei Sacramentum tribuat; evolat et inter fideles computandus est», ut dicit.

Et ad hoc patet responsio, quod nullus potest sibi administrare Sacramentum baptismi[^13]. — Et prima quidem ratio tacta est, quia non salvatur veritas formae, cum in forma duplex persona exprimatur; cum dicitur: *baptizo te.* — Secunda vero est, quia baptizans pater est spiritualis baptizati: si ergo nemo est filius suus, nemo se ipsum potest baptizare. — Postremo, deficit ibi ratio significationis: quia enim significatur ibi mundans et mundatus spiritualiter, et hic non potest esse idem, sed alius; ita necesse est etiam, quod sit in Sacramento. — Prima tamen ratio potior[^14] est.

Solet etiam poni talis casus: esto quod aliquis habeat consortium muti et manci. Alter non potest baptizare, quia deficit ei verbum, alter non potest, quia deficit ei actus; videtur ergo, quod ambo simul possint totum supplere et baptizare propter necessitatem.

Et ad hoc patet responsio, quod non possunt. Aut enim dicit mancus ille *baptizamus,* aut *baptizo.* Si dicat *baptizamus,* mutat formam. Si dicat *baptizo,* falsum dicit, quia, cum sit mancus, non mergit; et ita non potest ibi salvari quod est de integritate Sacramenti. — Si autem duo baptizent, quorum uterque mergit et verbum dicit; si dicunt ambo *baptizamus,* neuter baptizat, quia formam mutat[^15]; si vero dicunt *baptizo,* alter eum baptizat, scilicet qui prius loquitur et complet, alter vero omnino nihil facit.

Solet etiam quaeri: si plures sint in extrema necessitate, utrum possint simul baptizari. Et quod sic, videtur: quia propter necessitatem indultum est omnibus: ergo videtur, quod unus possit baptizare plures, ubi est periculum mortis.

Et ad hoc aliter respondetur quam ad praedicta[^16], quod *potest;* et si baptizaret ita: *baptizo vos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti;* baptizatum est. — Et si tu obiicias, quod mutat formam, si dicatur: *nos baptizamus;* dicendum, quod in hoc est mutatio formae. Nam, sicut dicit Priscianus[^17], nos non geminat singulare suum, ut dicatur *ego et ego,* sed *ego et tu,* vel *ego et ille;* et ideo, si dicatur: *nos baptizamus,* aliquid dicitur a forma extraneum, et forma mutatur. — Sed cum dicitur: *baptizo vos,* sensus est: *baptizo te et te;* et ideo non est formae mutatio, sed geminatio, nec hic introducitur persona alia nisi baptizans et baptizata; non sic est in forma alia, cum dicitur: *nos baptizamus.*

Attendendum tamen, quod si per pluralem numerum non fiat vis aliqua, nisi quae sit secundum cursum solitum loquendi, secundum quod Papa de se unico dicit: *nos dicimus,* et in vulgari hoc utimur linguagio[^18]; non dicerem, tunc formam mutari nec corruptam esse. Sed si istud serio diceretur et cum pondere sui sensus, alium generaret intellectum; et ideo non esset baptismus, quia, sicut praedeterminatum est[^19], mutatio formae aufert baptismum. — Ex praedictis igitur patet, quod unus potest simul baptizare plures, non plures unum; et ratio est mutatio formae in uno, et non in alio.
<!-- page 123 -->
Potest nihilominus alia ratio assignari, quia non est necesse quod simul duo baptizent, si uterque potest verbum dicere et mergere. Sed necessitas et utilitas est, quod simul duo baptizentur, quando sunt in articulo mortis. — Alia tamen ratio est, quia baptizans minister significat Christum; unde sicut in hoc, quod unus habeat plures uxores, salvari potuit ratio Sacramenti aliquo modo[^20], quia Christus est sponsus multarum animarum, sed non e converso; sic in proposito est intelligendum, quia unus est baptizans interius, scilicet Christus Dominus, a quo est unitas in Sacramento baptismi[^21].

english:
### Article I. *On the extension of the power conferred on those baptizing.*
### Question I. *Whether only priests or clerics have the power to baptize.*

And that not only priests but also laics [have it] is shown thus.

1. If an old woman should baptize, the form of the words being observed, he whom she baptizes is not rebaptized[^1]: therefore he is baptized; but the old woman would not baptize unless she had the power: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, by another *reason* it seems [so]: baptism, because it is a Sacrament of necessity, was therefore instituted in
<!-- page 121 -->
an element common to all[^2]; but the element does not suffice unless there be present one who can baptize: therefore the power of baptizing ought to have been conferred on all, on clerics as well as on laics.

3. Likewise, in John, chapter four[^3], it is said that the Lord did not baptize, but his disciples; but on the disciples the priestly power had not yet been conferred: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Isidore[^4]: «It is established that baptism was handed over to priests alone, nor was its ministry permitted even to deacons themselves».

2. Likewise, baptism is a Sacrament of the Church; but order is in the ecclesiastical hierarchy: therefore it can be handed over only by those who are ordained for this in the Church. But those alone are [such] who have the Sacrament of order: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if it is conferred on all on account of necessity alone: therefore, since the Sacrament of penance is a Sacrament of necessity, it seems that in that case anyone, even a layman, ought to absolve.

4. Likewise, if it is granted in the case of necessity, it seems that if some layman should baptize apart from necessity, he ought to be rebaptized.

> **Conclusion.** Not only priests, but also laics who are not mute nor maimed, can — and in the case of necessity ought to — baptize.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Sacrament of baptism is a Sacrament ecclesiastical, necessary, and first. Because it is ecclesiastical, therefore its administration is first and principally committed to clerics, and among these to priests. But because it is necessary, and a priest is not always present; therefore its administration extends also to laics, divine mercy bringing it about, which wills no one to perish[^5]. But because it is first, therefore it depends on no other Sacrament; and therefore the power of this ministry extends to all who can do those things which belong to the integrity of the Sacrament; and whoever does them, he is baptized: that one therefore alone is excluded who cannot.

On account of which it must be noted that baptism, like the other Sacraments, is a Sacrament, and a Sacrament one and true and entire. Because it is a Sacrament, therefore it is a visible sign, and therefore it must have a visible dispenser, namely a man, not a spirit. But because it is one, therefore it must be handed over by one dispenser, not by several. Because it is true, therefore the one baptizing and the one baptized must not be the same, but another, since in the form a twofold person is expressed, when it is said: *I baptize thee.* But because it is entire, therefore there necessarily concur in it two things, namely the element and the word. Now the word must be *spoken;* and because *to speak* is to utter with intention[^6]: therefore it is necessary that the one baptizing have *discretion* and not be a fool, and it is required that he have *speech* and not be mute. But because he must immerse into the *element,* it is required that he not be maimed. Every such one can baptize[^7] and in the case of necessity *ought to,* even if he does not have order; apart from the case of necessity only a priest ought to baptize, and if another does it, although he baptizes, he sins gravely.

**To the objections:**

1. 2. The objections, then, are plain, since Isidore speaks according to the *fittingness* of carrying out, not according to *power.* — And likewise the other is plain, since, although it is ecclesiastical, nevertheless it is necessary and first, and therefore even according to the right ordination of the Church its administration belongs to all those who can exercise the things which belong to the integrity of the Sacrament.

3. To that about penance it must be said that, although it is necessary, it is nevertheless not first, but of those who are already of the Church. *Moreover,* this Sacrament is only of adults, who can approach the interior priest when they lack the exterior one; but not so baptism, since it is the remedy of little children.

4. To the last it must be said that the power is not only *given* in the case of necessity, but then *imposed,* so that, if he should do otherwise, he sins; but then he does not sin if he does it, nay rather he sins if he does not do it; nevertheless, if he does it, it is done. And so the response to that is plain.

From the foregoing there appear certain cases which can be asked concerning the power of those baptizing. — For it is wont to be asked whether, in the moment of necessity, anyone can be baptized by Satan, supposing that he transfigure himself into an *angel of light*[^8]. And that [he can], it seems: because he can say all the words and do every act which another can.

And to this the response is plain, that [he can]*not,* because the administration of a sensible Sacrament does not belong to him. — Now a threefold reason of this can be given. The first is that he is a spirit; but the administration or dispensation of the Sacraments through Christ — [who is] man — was instituted [to be done] through men for the dispensing of salvation to men[^9]. — The second reason is that the spirit is so cut off from the Church that he is a member neither in act nor in potency; and therefore the administration and power which descends from the head, Christ, does not reach
<!-- page 122 -->
him. — The third reason is that in all things he has a sinister intention. «For as Christ did all things well, so the devil [does] all things ill[^10]»; and therefore, even if he were to do the act and say the word, he would not intend to baptize, but rather to mock. — And so it is plain that he cannot baptize. The first reason, however, holds better[^11].

It is also wont to be asked whether anyone placed in the moment of necessity can baptize himself. For it seems that [he can], on account of the state of necessity, since he can immerse himself and say the word. And this same thing Innocent seems to say in a certain decretal[^12], that «if some Jew should sprinkle himself with water, using the form of baptism, not having one to confer the Sacrament on him; he flies off [to heaven] and is to be counted among the faithful», as he says.

And to this the response is plain, that no one can administer to himself the Sacrament of baptism[^13]. — And the first reason has indeed been touched on, that the truth of the form is not preserved, since in the form a twofold person is expressed; when it is said: *I baptize thee.* — But the second is that the one baptizing is the spiritual father of the one baptized: if therefore no one is his own son, no one can baptize himself. — Lastly, the account of signification is lacking there: for since the one cleansing and the one cleansed spiritually are signified there, and here it cannot be the same, but another; so it is necessary also that it be [so] in the Sacrament. — The first reason, however, is the stronger[^14].

It is also wont to be put forward such a case: suppose someone has the company of a mute and a maimed man. The one cannot baptize, because the word is lacking to him; the other cannot, because the act is lacking to him; it seems therefore that the two together could supply the whole and baptize on account of necessity.

And to this the response is plain, that they cannot. For either the maimed one says *we baptize,* or *I baptize.* If he says *we baptize,* he changes the form. If he says *I baptize,* he says what is false, since, being maimed, he does not immerse; and so there cannot be preserved there that which belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament. — But if two should baptize, of whom each immerses and says the word; if both say *we baptize,* neither baptizes, because he changes the form[^15]; but if they say *I baptize,* one of them baptizes him, namely he who speaks first and completes [it], while the other does nothing at all.

It is also wont to be asked: if several should be in extreme necessity, whether they can be baptized at once. And that [they can], it seems: because on account of necessity it is granted to all: therefore it seems that one could baptize several, where there is danger of death.

And to this the response is otherwise than to the foregoing[^16], that [one] *can;* and if he were to baptize thus: *I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit;* it is baptized. — And if you object that he changes the form, if it be said: *we baptize;* it must be said that in this there is a changing of the form. For, as Priscian says[^17], *nos* ("we") does not double its singular, so that it be said *I and I,* but *I and thou,* or *I and he;* and therefore, if it be said: *we baptize,* something foreign to the form is said, and the form is changed. — But when it is said: *I baptize you,* the sense is: *I baptize thee and thee;* and therefore there is not a changing of the form, but a doubling, nor is there here introduced another person except the one baptizing and the one baptized; not so is it in the other form, when it is said: *we baptize.*

It must be noted, however, that if by the plural number no force is made except such as is according to the usual course of speaking — according as the Pope, of himself alone, says: *we say,* and in the vernacular we use this idiom[^18] — I would not say that the form is then changed nor [is it] corrupted. But if that were said in earnest and with the weight of its sense, it would generate another meaning; and therefore it would not be baptism, since, as has been predetermined[^19], a changing of the form takes away baptism. — From the foregoing, then, it is plain that one can baptize several at once, [but] not several [baptize] one; and the reason is the changing of the form in the one [case] and not in the other.
<!-- page 123 -->
There can nevertheless another reason be assigned, that it is not necessary that two baptize at once, if each can say the word and immerse. But it is a necessity and a usefulness that two be baptized at once, when they are in the moment of death. — Yet another reason is that the baptizing minister signifies Christ; whence just as in this, that one [man] should have several wives, the account of the Sacrament could be preserved in some way[^20], because Christ is the spouse of many souls, but not conversely; so in the case at hand it must be understood that one is the one baptizing interiorly, namely Christ the Lord, from whom is the unity in the Sacrament of baptism[^21].

en: Cf. below in the Master's text, d. VI, c. 2. — Above, after *laici* ("laics") the editions supply *possint baptizare* ("may baptize").

la: De quo vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Concerning which see above d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Vers. 2.

en: Verse 2 [John 4, 2].

la: Libr. II. de Ecclesiast. offic. c. 23. n. 9. Vide infra lit. Magistri, d. VI. c. 1.

en: Book II *On the Ecclesiastical Offices,* c. 23, n. 9. See below in the Master's text, d. VI, c. 1.

la: Cfr. C. *In necessitate* (21.), de Consecrat. d. 4. — Pro *faciente* codd. T U *favente.*

en: Cf. the canon *In necessitate* (21), *On the Consecration,* d. 4. — For *faciente* ("bringing about") codices T U [read] *favente* ("favoring").

la: Vide I. Sent. d. 27. p. II. q. 1, et II. Sent. d. 10. a. 3. q. 1.

en: See I *Sent.* d. 27, p. II, q. 1, and II *Sent.* d. 10, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Vat. glossando: *omnis ergo talis, qui potest exercere ea quae sunt de integritate Sacramenti, potest baptizare.*

en: The Vatican edition, glossing: *omnis ergo talis, qui potest exercere ea quae sunt de integritate Sacramenti, potest baptizare* ("every such one, therefore, who can exercise the things which belong to the integrity of the Sacrament, can baptize").

la: Epist. II. Cor. 11, 14. — Inferius edd. omittunt *quod non.*

en: [Paul's] letter, II Cor. 11, 14. — Lower down the editions omit *quod non* ("that... not").

la: Cfr. Matth. 18, 18. et 28. 19. Vide etiam supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 5. et d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. I. in fine. — De secunda ratione, in qua voci *spiritus* cod. P praemittit *ipse malus* (cod. Z addit *malus,* cod. bb *ille*), cfr. III. Sent. d. 13. a. 2. q. I-3.

en: Cf. Matt. 18, 18 and 28, 19. See also above d. 1, p. I, q. 2, ad 5, and d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. I, at the end. — On the second reason, in which before the word *spiritus* ("spirit") cod. P prefixes *ipse malus* ("the evil one himself") (cod. Z adds *malus,* cod. bb *ille*), cf. III *Sent.* d. 13, a. 2, q. I–3.

la: Secundum Glossam ordinariam in Matth. 12, 35. et II. Cor. 6, 15. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 493, nota 1. Edd. *facit* pro *fecit,* quae etiam paulo inferius inter verba *non intenderet* interserunt *tamen.*

en: According to the Ordinary Gloss on Matt. 12, 35 and II Cor. 6, 15. Cf. tome III, p. 493, note 1. The editions [read] *facit* ("does") for *fecit* ("did"), and they also insert *tamen* ("yet") a little below, between the words *non intenderet* ("would not intend").

la: Vide Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 6. a. 4.

en: See Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 8, m. 6, a. 4.

la: Cap. *Debitum* (1.). X. (lib. III. tit. 42.), de Baptismo et eius effectu. Notamus, quod S. Bonav., sicut et Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 6. a. 8, ad formandam obiectionem quasdam tantum propositiones praemissi capituli selegerunt. Nam ibidem ipse Innocentius urget, quod baptizans et baptizatus debent esse distincti, et aliam veramque rationem, cur ille evolasset, subiungit, scilicet quod «protinus evolasset, propter Sacramenti fidem, etsi non propter fidei Sacramentum».

en: The chapter *Debitum* (1), in the *Decretals* (book III, title 42), *On Baptism and its Effect.* We note that St. Bonaventure, like Alexander of Hales (*Summa* p. IV, q. 8, m. 6, a. 8), in framing the objection selected only certain propositions of the foregoing chapter. For there Innocent himself urges that the one baptizing and the one baptized must be distinct, and he subjoins another, and true, reason why that one would have flown off [to heaven], namely that «he would forthwith have flown off, on account of his faith in the Sacrament, even if not on account of the Sacrament of the faith».

la: In codd. F Q additur: *Ad illud Innocentii, quod si Iudaeus se aspergat etc.; dicendum, quod ipse non est baptizatus, quia non servat formam; sed si fecit quod potuit, creditur salvari per baptismum flaminis. Quod autem talis non sit baptizatus, triplex ratio assignatur.* — Pro *sibi* cod. II *sibi ipsi.*

en: In codices F Q there is added: *To that [text] of Innocent, that if a Jew sprinkle himself etc.; it must be said that he is not baptized, because he does not preserve the form; but if he did what he could, he is believed to be saved by the baptism of the Spirit. But that such a one is not baptized, a threefold reason is assigned.* — For *sibi* ("to himself") cod. II [reads] *sibi ipsi.*

la: Codd. F H Q *efficacior.*

en: Codices F H Q [read] *efficacior* ("more efficacious").

la: Ita codd. H K *mutant,* cod. F legit *non baptizant, quia formam mutant,* edd. *forma mutatur.* Superius pro *baptizent* codd. A G R W *baptizarent.*

en: Thus codices H K [read] *mutant* ("they change"), cod. F reads *non baptizant, quia formam mutant* ("they do not baptize, because they change the form"), the editions *forma mutatur* ("the form is changed"). Above, for *baptizent* ("should baptize") codices A G R W [read] *baptizarent.*

la: Codd. M O U addunt *et dicitur.* Superius post *necessitate* codd. R S addunt *positi.* Subinde pro *baptizaret plures* codd. *baptizet,* et pro *baptizatum est* cod. II *baptizati sunt.*

en: Codices M O U add *et dicitur* ("and it is said"). Above, after *necessitate* ("necessity") codices R S add *positi* ("placed"). Then for *baptizaret plures* ("should baptize several") the codices [read] *baptizet,* and for *baptizatum est* ("it is baptized") cod. II [reads] *baptizati sunt* ("they are baptized").

la: Verba Prisciani, ex quibus hoc colligi potest, haec sunt. Libr. V. Grammat. c. 9. numerum singularem describens ait: «*Singularis* quoque numerus bene dicitur, quod ipse geminatus et multiplicatus facit omnes numeros», Libr. XII. c. 3. exponens hanc dictionem *nos fecimus* dicit: «Unusquisque enim loquentium conceptionem facit eorum qui una secum loquuntur; quippe cum unusquisque pars est totius, qui, si velit ceteros indicare secum loquentes, necessario secundae [tu] vel tertiae [ille] eos attribuit personae». Libr. XVII. c. 16. et 19. ponuntur haec exempla: *Ego et tu legimus, ego et ille legimus.* — Edd. verbis *est mutatio formae* cum aliquot codd. praemittunt *non,* quae lectio non contradicit nostrae, cum referri possit ad superius positam propositionem: *Baptizo vos.*

en: The words of Priscian, from which this can be gathered, are these. In Book V of the *Grammar,* c. 9, describing the singular number, he says: «The *singular* number too is well [so] called, because, doubled and multiplied, it makes all the numbers»; in Book XII, c. 3, expounding this expression *nos fecimus* ("we did"), he says: «For each of those speaking forms the conception of those who speak together with him; since indeed each is part of a whole, who, if he wishes to indicate the others speaking with him, necessarily assigns them to the second [thou] or third [he] person». In Book XVII, c. 16 and 19, these examples are put forward: *Ego et tu legimus, ego et ille legimus* ("I and thou read, I and he read"). — The editions, with several codices, prefix *non* to the words *est mutatio formae* ("there is a changing of the form"), which reading does not contradict ours, since it can be referred to the proposition put above: *Baptizo vos* ("I baptize you").

la: *Linguagium,* secundum Du Cange, *Glossarium* etc., idem significat ac *idioma,* sicut italicum *linguaggio.* — Mox pro *istud,* cui manus secunda in cod. II addit *verbum,* codd. F L substituunt *verbum,* edd. *sermo iste.*

en: *Linguagium,* according to Du Cange, *Glossarium* etc., means the same as *idioma* ("idiom"), like the Italian *linguaggio.* — Soon, for *istud* ("that"), to which a second hand in cod. II adds *verbum,* codices F L substitute *verbum,* the editions *sermo iste* ("that speech").

la: Dist. 3. p. I. a. 2. q. 3. — Pro *aufert* codd. A K *auferret.* Inferius post *ratio est* cod. aa addit *quia est.*

en: Distinction 3, p. I, a. 2, q. 3. — For *aufert* ("takes away") codices A K [read] *auferret.* Lower down, after *ratio est* ("the reason is") cod. aa adds *quia est.*

la: Cfr. infra d. 33. a. 1. q. 2. et dub. 5. — Superius pro *minister* cod. F *qui ministrat,* et pro *habeat* Vat. *habebat.*

en: Cf. below d. 33, a. 1, q. 2, and dub. 5. — Above, for *minister* ("minister") cod. F [reads] *qui ministrat* ("who ministers"), and for *habeat* the Vatican edition [reads] *habebat.*

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et infra dub. 5.

en: See here the Master's text, c. 2, and below dub. 5.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Circa 1. et 2. articulum huius dist., scilicet de valore baptismi a malis et haereticis collati, emanarunt multa Ecclesiae decreta. Sufficiat notare decretum Stephani I, qui contra errorem S. Cypriani defendit traditionem Ecclesiae, quod baptizati ab haereticis non sint rebaptizandi; et quoad malos ministros Bullam Martini V, quae in art. 22. errorem a Wikleff et Huss sparsum damnat et docet «quod malus sacerdos cum debita materia et forma, et cum intentione faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, vere conficiat, vere absolvat, vere baptizet, vere conferat alia sacramenta». Idem definivit Concil. Trid. (Sess. VII. de Sacram. in genere, can. 12.). — Etiam in solvendis adiunctis casibus Scholastici satis conveniunt; qui tamen de eis vel in hac vel in seq. dist. agunt. De I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 6. a. 1. 4. et de adiunctis casibus a. 4-8. — Scot., in utroque Scripto IV. Sent. d. 6. q. I. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. et 3; S. III. q. 67. a. 3. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1-4. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

**II.** De seq. (2.) quaestione alii Commentores Lombardi solent agere in seq. dist.: cfr. Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 3. — S. Thom., d. 6. q. I. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. 3; S. loc. cit. q. 64. a. 9. — B. Albert., d. 6. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., d. 6. q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. I. — Richard. a Med., d. 6. a. 1. q. I. — Dionys. Carth., d. 6. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the 1st and 2nd articles of this distinction, namely on the validity of baptism conferred by the wicked and by heretics, many decrees of the Church have issued. Let it suffice to note the decree of Stephen I, who against the error of St. Cyprian defended the tradition of the Church, that those baptized by heretics are not to be rebaptized; and, as regards wicked ministers, the Bull of Martin V, which in article 22 condemns the error scattered by Wyclif and Huss and teaches «that a wicked priest, with the due matter and form, and with the intention of doing what the Church does, truly consecrates, truly absolves, truly baptizes, truly confers the other sacraments». The same was defined by the Council of Trent (Session VII, *On the Sacraments in general,* can. 12). — Also in solving the attendant cases the Scholastics sufficiently agree; who, however, treat of them either in this or in the following distinction. On the 1st question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 8, m. 6, a. 1, 4, and on the attendant cases a. 4–8. — Scotus, in both writings on IV *Sent.* d. 6, q. I. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1 and 3; *Summa* III, q. 67, a. 3, 4. — B. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 1–4. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

**II.** On the following (2nd) question other Commentators of Lombard are wont to treat in the following distinction: cf. Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 3. — St. Thomas, d. 6, q. I, a. 3, little-question 2, 3; *Summa* loc. cit. q. 64, a. 9. — B. Albert, d. 6, a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, d. 6, q. I, a. I, little-question I. — Richard of Mediavilla, d. 6, a. 1, q. I. — Dionysius the Carthusian, d. 6, q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
- **Re-set from cascade-shattered raw (L13784–14080).** This chunk's q1 region is heavily two-column-shattered in the IA djvu OCR. Per the Vol IV / Vol II override, the Latin was re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p12{0,1,2,3}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the OCR used as base only for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Offset `pdf = printed + 20`. Running heads verified: p.120/121 = `DIST. V. ART. I. QUAEST. I.`; p.122 = `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` (verso); the `QUAEST. II.` head appears at the top of p.123.
- **Article-opener fold.** Per the chunking convention, the short Article-I opener (ARTICULUS I + *De extensione potestatis collata baptizantibus* + the QUAESTIO I header) is folded into the top of this q1 chunk. The pars-level DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM that print in the p.120 left column belong to a separate d.5 divisio chunk, NOT here.
- **Alignment confirmed (held).** Opener `Et quod non tantum sacerdotes, sed etiam laici, ostenditur sic` = whether only priests/clerics have the power to baptize (matches title). QUAESTIO II (*Utrum possint baptizare haeretici*, opener `Secundo dato, quod clerici et laici possint baptizare, quaeritur, si possint baptizare haeretici`) begins on p.123-L after this q1's scholion.
- **Body span:** q1 opens at the foot of printed p.120 (right column: opener + fund. 1 set in the left-column foot, predicate in the right column), runs through pp.121–122, and its appended *casus* series (the "duo / plures baptizent" rationes) overruns onto the TOP of p.123-L (Ratio 2, Ratio 3) before the scholion. So three of this chunk's footnotes/text physically sit on printed p.123, even though q1's main pages are 120–122.
- **Apparatus / page-split map (21 entries).** Quaracchi restarts numbering each printed page; renumbered sequentially here:
  - **p.120 — 1 note carried (this chunk's [^1]):** the p.120 right-column NOTAE block has notes 1–3, but notes 1 (*Dist. III. et IV. … determinavit etiam de baptismo*) and 2 (*In principio d. VI.*) anchor in the DIVISIO text and belong to the d.5 divisio chunk. Only p.120 note 3 (*Cfr. infra lit. Magistri d. VI c. 2 … Superius post laici edd. supplent possint baptizare*) anchors at q1 (fund. 1 `rebaptizatur³` + the opener variant `laici`) and is carried here as **[^1]**.
  - **p.121 — notes 1–9 → [^2]–[^9] (plus the carried [^1] is p.120):** [^2] (d.3 p.II a.1 q.1) at fund. 2 `omnibus communi`; [^3] (Vers. 2 = John 4) at fund. 3 `Ioannis quarto`; [^4] (Isidore, *de Eccl. offic.*) at Contra 1 `Isidorus`; [^5] (*In necessitate*) at Respondeo `neminem vult perire`; [^6] (I/II *Sent.* refs) at `cum intentione proferre`; [^7] (Vat. gloss) at `Omnis talis potest baptizare`; [^8] (II Cor. 11, 14) at casus `angelum lucis`; [^9] (Matt. 18/28) at `ad salutem hominum dispensandam`.
  - **p.122 — notes 1–10 → [^10]–[^19]:** [^10] (Gloss ord., Matt. 12) at `diabolus omnia male`; [^11] (Alex. Hal.) at `Prima tamen ratio melius valet`; [^12] (*Debitum* decretal / Innocent) at casus 2 `Innocentius in quadam decretali`; [^13] (codd. F Q addition) at `sibi administrare Sacramentum baptismi`; [^14] (codd. F H Q efficacior) at `Prima tamen ratio potior`; [^15] (codd. H K mutant) at `formam mutat`; [^16] (codd. M O U) at `respondetur quam ad praedicta`; [^17] (Priscian) at `sicut dicit Priscianus`; [^18] (Du Cange, *Linguagium*) at `in vulgari hoc utimur linguagio`; [^19] (Dist. 3 p.I a.2 q.3) at `sicut praedeterminatum est`.
  - **p.123 — 2 notes carried (q1 casus-tail) → [^20]–[^21]:** p.123 footer notes 1 (*Cfr. infra d. 33 … Superius pro minister cod. F qui ministrat, et pro habeat Vat. habebat*) and 2 (*Vide hic lit. Magistri c. 2 et infra dub. 5*) anchor in q1's casus-tail on p.123-L/R (`aliquo modo` / `unitas in Sacramento baptismi`) and are carried here as **[^20]/[^21]**. All **other** p.123 footer notes (3+: Bedae, Augustine in Ioan., haeresis, etc.) belong to QUAESTIO II's body and are NOT carried here.
- **Scholion placement.** The Article-I-level SCHOLION (raw ~L14060+, printed p.123, after q1's casus-tail and before QUAESTIO II) has two parts: **I** = decrees on the validity of baptism by the wicked/heretics (Stephen I, Martin V Bull, Trent) + commentator cross-refs for q1; **II** = "De seq. (2.) quaestione" commentator cross-refs previewing q2. It covers both q1 and q2 of the article; per the parser rule (`### Scholion` must be the LAST subsection of each language block) it is parked body-last in THIS q1 chunk. q2 carries no scholion of its own.
- **No `[?]` flags.** Every footer note and the scholion were legible in the PDF column bands; the few OCR garbles in the running prose (e.g. `sacerdoles`→sacerdotes, `baptizaliis`→baptizatus, `Mallhi`→Matth., `Wikleff`/`Huss`) were resolved unambiguously against the bands.
- **Hand-off forward to d5-a1-q2** (raw L14081, printed p.123-L onward): q2 = *Utrum possint baptizare haeretici* (opener `Secundo dato, quod clerici et laici possint baptizare, quaeritur, si possint baptizare haeretici. Et quod sic, ostenditur`). q2 opens a fresh p.123 footer series — its notes are the p.123 footers numbered **3 and up** (note 3 = `Comment. in Ioan. 3, 4`; note 4 = `Libr. I. de Baptismo contra Donatistas`; note 5 = `August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 80`; note 6 = `Cfr. hic lit. Magistri c. 1 … Inferius voci haereticus edd. praemittunt schismaticus vel`, etc.) — none of these migrate from this q1 chunk. q2 carries NO scholion (the Article-I scholion I–II is fully here). NOTE for the next agent: p.123 footer notes 1 and 2 do NOT belong to q2 — they were claimed by q1's casus-tail above.


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

title_alt: Utrum haeretici in potestate illa communicent cum catholicis

title_alt: Whether heretics share that power [of baptizing] with catholics

source_text:
<!-- page 123 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum possint baptizare haeretici.*

Secundo dato, quod clerici et laici possint baptizare, quaeritur, si possint baptizare haeretici. Et quod sic, ostenditur:

1. Primo auctoritate Bedae[^1]: «Sive haereticus sive schismaticus in nomine sanctae Trinitatis baptizat, non valet ille qui baptizatus est, a catholicis baptizari».

2. Item, Augustinus[^2]: «Nulli Sacramento est iniuriandum»; illi autem iniuriantur, qui dicunt, ea pollui per pollutionem ministrorum: ergo haeretici, quamvis polluti, possunt baptizare.

3. Item, «accedente verbo ad elementum, fit Sacramentum[^3]»; sed haereticus dicit verbum et habet elementum: ergo potest conferre Sacramentum.

4. Item, potestas baptizandi non est donum gratiae gratum facientis, sed tantum gratis datae, quia constat, quod mali sacerdotes baptizant[^4]: ergo esto quod aliquis sacerdos catholicus fiat haereticus; cum propter hoc non amittat gratiam gratis datam, videtur, quod possit baptizare.

**Contra:** 1. Cum traditur forma baptismi, praemittuntur duo, scilicet doctrina et fides, Matthaei ultimo[^5]: *Docete eos baptizantes in nomine Patris* etc.; et rursus: *Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit;* sed doctrina haereticorum non est scientia, sed insipientia, et fides eorum est error, non fides: ergo nec baptismus eorum est baptismus.

2. Item, baptismus est Sacramentum fidei: ergo ubi deficit fides, deficit baptismus. *Probatio primae.* Augustinus[^6]: «Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit Sacramentum, non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur»; ergo si non creditur, non est Sacramentum: cum ergo haereticus non credat, non confert Sacramentum.

3. Item, ad baptismum requiritur intentio; sed haereticus non habet intentionem, quia non habet fidem, «quae intentionem dirigit», ut dicit Ambrosius[^7]: ergo non potest baptizare.

4. Item, haeresis non est Ecclesia, ergo baptismus haeresis non est baptismus Ecclesiae; sed solus baptismus Ecclesiae est baptismus: haereti<!-- page 124 -->corum[^8] igitur, qui non sunt de Ecclesia, non est baptismus.

> **Conclusio.** Haereticus, observatis observandis, valide baptizat.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, sicut dictum est[^9], quod ista tria sunt de integritate baptismi, scilicet immersio in aquam, prolatio verbi et intentio faciendi quod facit Ecclesia; et quia haereticus, manens haereticus, potest ista tria habere; potest baptizare et baptizat, quando aliquod istorum non deficit; operatur enim tunc non ut haereticus, sed ut catholicus.

1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de doctrina et fide, dicendum, quod illa non sunt necessitatis, sed *congruitatis,* fides, inquam, baptizantis; nam fides Ecclesiae necessaria est, et haec non deficit[^10]. — Et per hoc patet sequens.

3. Similiter ad illud quod obiicitur de intentione, dicendum, quod, sicut patebit infra[^11], intentio potest esse respectu operis, non respectu finis; et sic potest esse recta etiam sine fide.

4. Ad ultimum dicendum, quod illud argumentum non valet; et fert Augustinus[^12] instantiam: Aegyptus non est paradisus: ergo fluvius Aegypti non est fluvius paradisi. Et est fallacia *consequentis* — homo non est asinus: ergo genus hominis non est genus asini — possunt enim Ecclesia et haeresis in aliquo communicare, quamvis multum differant.

Ex his patet casus, qui posset quaeri de haeretico, qui credit, quod Ecclesia nihil faciat; videtur enim, quod cum talis nihil intendat facere, non baptizet.

Et ad hoc dicendum, quod haereticus bene intendit aliquando facere quod facit Ecclesia, et tamen credit[^13], quod Ecclesia nihil faciat, quia respectu alterius est intentio et credulitas. Nam credulitas est respectu effectus, et ipse credit, quod nullus effectus subsit illi operi; tamen nihilominus intendit facere illud opus, non tantum, ut est actus ablutionis corporis, verum etiam, prout est actus quidam consuetus fieri ab Ecclesia; et hoc intendendo facere, quamvis principaliter non intendat effectum, intendit tamen ex consequenti, sicut supra[^14] tactum est de eo qui voluntarie se subiicit operi exteriori, per consequens voluntarie se subiicit characteri. Et sic patet totum[^15].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether heretics can baptize.*

Granted secondly that clerics and laics can baptize, it is asked whether heretics can baptize. And that [they can], it is shown:

1. First, by the authority of Bede[^1]: «Whether a heretic or a schismatic baptizes in the name of the holy Trinity, he who is baptized cannot be baptized [again] by catholics».

2. Likewise, Augustine[^2]: «No injury is to be done to any Sacrament»; but those do injury to it who say that they are polluted by the pollution of the ministers: therefore heretics, although polluted, can baptize.

3. Likewise, «when the word is joined to the element, the Sacrament comes to be[^3]»; but the heretic says the word and has the element: therefore he can confer the Sacrament.

4. Likewise, the power of baptizing is not a gift of grace making [one] pleasing [to God], but only of grace gratuitously given, since it is established that wicked priests baptize[^4]: therefore suppose that some catholic priest become a heretic; since on account of this he does not lose the gratuitously given grace, it seems that he can baptize.

**On the contrary:** 1. When the form of baptism is handed over, two things are set before it, namely teaching and faith, in Matthew, the last [chapter][^5]: *Teach them, baptizing in the name of the Father* etc.; and again: *He who shall have believed and been baptized;* but the teaching of heretics is not knowledge, but folly, and their faith is error, not faith: therefore neither is their baptism a baptism.

2. Likewise, baptism is a Sacrament of faith: therefore where faith is lacking, baptism is lacking. *Proof of the first.* Augustine[^6]: «The word is joined to the element, and the Sacrament comes to be, not because it is said, but because it is believed»; therefore if it is not believed, it is not a Sacrament: since therefore the heretic does not believe, he does not confer the Sacrament.

3. Likewise, intention is required for baptism; but the heretic does not have intention, because he does not have faith, «which directs the intention», as Ambrose says[^7]: therefore he cannot baptize.

4. Likewise, heresy is not the Church, therefore the baptism of heresy is not the baptism of the Church; but only the baptism of the Church is baptism: therefore of heretics[^8], who are not of the Church, there is no baptism.

> **Conclusion.** A heretic, the things to be observed being observed, validly baptizes.

**I respond:** It must be said, as has been said[^9], that these three things belong to the integrity of baptism, namely immersion in water, the utterance of the word, and the intention of doing what the Church does; and since a heretic, remaining a heretic, can have these three; he can baptize and does baptize, when none of these is lacking; for then he acts not as a heretic, but as a catholic.

1. 2. To that, then, which is objected concerning teaching and faith, it must be said that those are not of necessity, but of *fittingness* — the faith, I mean, of the one baptizing; for the faith of the Church is necessary, and this is not lacking[^10]. — And by this the following [point] is plain.

3. Likewise, to that which is objected concerning intention, it must be said that, as will appear below[^11], the intention can be with respect to the work, not with respect to the end; and so it can be right even without faith.

4. To the last it must be said that that argument is not valid; and Augustine[^12] brings a counter-instance: Egypt is not paradise: therefore the river of Egypt is not the river of paradise. And it is the fallacy of the *consequent* — man is not an ass: therefore the genus of man is not the genus of the ass — for the Church and heresy can share in something, although they differ much.

From these things there appears a case which could be asked concerning a heretic who believes that the Church does nothing; for it seems that, since such a one intends to do nothing, he does not baptize.

And to this it must be said that the heretic does sometimes well intend to do what the Church does, and yet believes[^13] that the Church does nothing, because the intention and the belief are with respect to different things. For the belief is with respect to the effect, and he believes that no effect underlies that work; nevertheless he intends to do that work, not only as it is an act of bodily washing, but also as it is a certain act customarily done by the Church; and by intending to do this, although he does not principally intend the effect, he intends it nevertheless as a consequence, just as above[^14] it was touched on concerning him who voluntarily subjects himself to the exterior work, [and] consequently voluntarily subjects himself to the character. And so the whole is plain[^15].

---

la: Comment. in Ioan. 3, 4. Vide infra lit. Magistri, d. VI. c. 2.

en: Commentary on John 3, 4. See below in the Master's text, d. VI, c. 2.

la: Libr. I. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 1. n. 2.

en: Book I *On Baptism against the Donatists,* c. 1, n. 2.

la: August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 80. n. 3. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 1.

en: Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John,* tr. 80, n. 3. See above in the Master's text, d. III, c. 1.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, et infra a. 2. q. 1. — Pro *quia constat, quod* codd. A G V W *quod constat, quia.* Inferius voci *haereticus* edd. praemittunt *schismaticus vel.*

en: Cf. here the Master's text, c. 1, and below a. 2, q. 1. — For *quia constat, quod* ("since it is established that") codices A G V W [read] *quod constat, quia.* Lower down, before the word *haereticus* ("heretic") the editions prefix *schismaticus vel* ("a schismatic or").

la: Vers. 19. Cfr. Glossa ordinaria et interlinearis in hunc locum. — Seq. textus est Marc. 16, 16. — De minori vide III. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4. et q. 2. ad 4.

en: Verse 19 [Matt. 28]. Cf. the Ordinary and Interlinear Gloss on this passage. — The following text is Mark 16, 16. — On the minor [premise] see III *Sent.* d. 23, a. 2, q. 1, ad 4, and q. 2, ad 4.

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 80. n. 3. — Superius pro *ubi* codd. F Z *si.*

en: *Tractates on the Gospel of John,* tr. 80, n. 3. — Above, for *ubi* ("where") codices F Z [read] *si* ("if").

la: Error videtur irrepsisse in codd. et edd.; verba siquidem haec non sunt Ambrosii, sed August., Enarrat. in Ps. 31. enarrat. 2. n. 4. Cfr. II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XL, ubi tam Ambrosii quam Augustini verba proferuntur. — De maiori vide infra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: An error seems to have crept into the codices and editions; for these words are not Ambrose's, but Augustine's, *Expositions of the Psalms,* on Ps. 31, exposition 2, n. 4. Cf. II *Sent.* the Master's text, d. XL, where both Ambrose's and Augustine's words are set forth. — On the major [premise] see below d. 6, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, and following.

la: Codd. M O U supplent *baptismus.* Initium arg. cod. O exhibet sic: *Item, haereticus non est de Ecclesia, ergo baptismus haeretici non est* etc.

en: Codices M O U supply *baptismus* ("baptism"). Cod. O presents the beginning of the argument thus: *Item, haereticus non est de Ecclesia, ergo baptismus haeretici non est* ("Likewise, the heretic is not of the Church, therefore the baptism of the heretic is not [baptism]") etc.

la: Quaest. praeced. in corp. et supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. seq., a. 2. q. 1. seqq. ac p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Inferius pro *verbi* cod. F *verborum.*

en: The preceding question in the body, and above d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, and following, a. 2, q. 1, and following, and p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — Lower down, for *verbi* ("of the word") cod. F [reads] *verborum* ("of the words").

la: Vide supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. et d. 4. p. I. dub. 2.

en: See above d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 3, and d. 4, p. I, dub. 2.

la: Dist. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: Distinction 6, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, and following.

la: Libr. IV. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 1. n. 1. — De fallacia *consequentis* vide tom. I. pag. 628, nota 1. et pag. 691, nota 5. — Inferius post *consequentis* Vat. addit *sicut hic.*

en: Book IV *On Baptism against the Donatists,* c. 1, n. 1. — On the fallacy of the *consequent* see tome I, p. 628, note 1, and p. 691, note 5. — Lower down, after *consequentis* ("of the consequent") the Vatican edition adds *sicut hic* ("as here").

la: Ita codd. K aa, in aliis et edd. *intendit.*

en: Thus codices K aa; in the others and in the editions *intendit* ("he intends").

la: Dist. 4. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. in fine corp.

en: Distinction 4, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, at the end of the body.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question [i.e. the Article-I scholion carried in q1].

translators_notes:
- **Re-set from cascade-shattered raw (L14081–14167).** The skeleton body was column-shattered (two-column bleed in the IA djvu OCR). Per the Vol IV / Vol II override, the Latin was re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p12{3,4}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), OCR used only as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Offset `pdf = printed + 20`. Running heads verified: p.123 = `DIST. V. ART. I. QUAEST. II.`; p.124 = `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` (verso).
- **Alignment confirmed.** Opener `Secundo dato, quod clerici et laici possint baptizare, quaeritur, si possint baptizare haeretici` matches q2 (*Utrum possint baptizare haeretici* / per the divisio, whether heretics share that power with catholics). q2 begins lower on p.123-L (after q1's casus-tail + the Article-I scholion at the top of p.123) and runs onto p.124. ARTICULUS II (*De intensione sive efficacia potestatis baptizantibus collatae*, raw L14168, p.124-R) begins immediately after q2's `patet totum`.
- **Body span.** q2 opens p.123 lower-left, fills the rest of p.123 (videtur args 1–4 left column, Contra 1–4 right column), and continues onto the TOP of p.124 (obj 4's tail `haereticorum…non est baptismus`, then CONCLUSIO, Respondeo, solutiones 1.2/3/4, and the appended *casus* of the heretic who believes the Church does nothing), ending at `patet totum⁸` on p.124. So the q1/q2 seam falls mid-page (p.123) and the q2/a2 seam falls mid-page (p.124).
- **Scholion: NONE here.** The Article-I scholion (covering both q1 and q2) lives body-last in **a1-q1** (committed 14a77ff); q2's [^15] (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) points there.
- **Apparatus / page-split map (15 entries).** Quaracchi restarts numbering each printed page; renumbered sequentially here:
  - **p.123 — notes 3–9 → [^1]–[^7]:** p.123 notes 1–2 anchor in q1's casus-tail and were carried in q1 (as q1's [^20]/[^21]); they are NOT here. q2's series begins at note 3. [^1] (Bede, *Comment. in Ioan.*) at fund. 1 `Bedae`; [^2] (Augustine, *de Baptismo c. Donat.* I) at fund. 2 `Augustinus`; [^3] (Augustine, *in Ioan.* tr. 80) at fund. 3 `fit Sacramentum`; [^4] (Master's text / codd. variant) at fund. 4 `mali sacerdotes baptizant`; [^5] (Matt. 28, 19 / Mark 16, 16) at Contra 1 `Matthaei ultimo`; [^6] (Augustine, *in Ioan.* tr. 80) at Contra 2 *Probatio* `Augustinus`; [^7] (mis-attributed "Ambrose" = Augustine *Enarr. in Ps. 31*) at Contra 3 `Ambrosius`.
  - **p.124 — notes 1–8 → [^8]–[^15]:** [^8] (codd. M O U *baptismus* / cod. O variant) at Contra 4's tail `haereticorum`; [^9] (preceding quaest. + d.3 refs) at Respondeo `sicut dictum est`; [^10] (d.3/d.4 refs) at solutio 1.2 `haec non deficit`; [^11] (d.6 p.II) at solutio 3 `sicut patebit infra`; [^12] (Augustine, *de Bapt. c. Donat.* IV / fallacy-of-consequent refs) at solutio 4 `fert Augustinus`; [^13] (codd. K aa *intendit*) at *casus*-solutio `tamen credit`; [^14] (d.4 p.I a.2 q.1) at `sicut supra tactum est`; [^15] (cross-ref to the preceding question's scholion) at `patet totum`. p.124 notes 9 (`Hic c. 1 … August. in Ioan. tr. 5`) and 10 (`Cfr. infra dub. 4`) anchor in ARTICULUS II's body (a2-q1 fundamenta `in littera⁹` / `rem Sacramenti¹⁰`) and are NOT carried here.
- **No `[?]` flags.** Every footer note and the body were legible in the PDF column bands; OCR garbles in the running prose (e.g. `baplismi`→baptismi, `iniuriandum`, `Donalistas`→Donatistas, `intenlio`→intentio, `Aegyptus`, `consequentis`) were resolved unambiguously against the bands.
- **Hand-off picked up from a1-q1 (14a77ff):** q2 opens a fresh p.123 footer series — its footers are p.123 notes **3 and up**; p.123 notes 1–2 (q1's casus-tail) were NOT migrated into q2. Confirmed and applied.
- **Hand-off forward to d5-a2-q1** (ARTICULUS II, raw L14168, p.124-R onward): the SHORT article opener (`Quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur consequenter de potestate baptizantium per comparationem ad effectum, et circa hoc quaeruntur duo` — *De intensione sive efficacia potestatis baptizantibus collatae*) **folds into a2-q1** per the chunking convention (no standalone divisio chunk). q1 = *Utrum mali ministri dent Sacramentum et rem Sacramenti* (opener `Et quod mali ministri dent rem Sacramenti: 1. Probatur multis auctoritatibus…`). a2-q1's first two p.124 footers are **notes 9 and 10** (note 9 = `Hic c. 1. — Seq. auctoritas est August., In Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 18`; note 10 = `Cfr. infra dub. 4`) — these do NOT migrate from this q2 chunk; they were left for a2. q2 carries NO scholion (Article-I scholion is in a1-q1).