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

source_text:
<!-- page 80 -->

### Articulus II. *De baptismi instituti administratione.*

Quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur secundo de baptismi instituti administratione, quae fit in parvuli immersione; et circa hoc duo quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, quoties oporteat mergi.

Secundo, quantum.

### Quaestio I. *Quoties baptizandus debeat immergi.*

Et quod semel tantum sit immergendum, videtur:

1. De Consecratione, distinctione quarta[^3] ex Concilio Toletano: «Propter vitandi schismatis scandalum, vel haeretici dogmatis usum, simplam teneamus baptismatis immersionem»: ergo videtur, quod haereticum sit ter mergere.

2. Item, ratione videtur, quia haec est vera per essentiam: baptismus est ablutio vel tinctio in aqua[^4]: ergo si fit triplex tinctio, triplex erit baptismus: ergo si nullo modo licet baptismum iterari, nullo modo licet ter mergi.

3. Item, ista duo sufficiunt, verbum scilicet et elementum[^5]; et si mergatur semel, et si proferatur semel, est plenum Sacramentum: ergo si amplius mergitur, superfluit: ergo non debet nisi semel mergi.

Item, quaeritur, quare magis ter quam bis. Si dicas, quod binarius est numerus infamis, quia recedit ab unitate[^6]; eadem ratione laudabilis, quia accedit maxime.

**Sed contra:**

1. Hieronymus super Epistolam ad Ephesios[^7]: «In Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum baptizamur et ter mergimur, ut Trinitatis unum appareat Sacramentum».

2. Item, Pelagius Gaudentio episcopo, de Consecratione, distinctione quarta[^8]: «Evangelicum praeceptum nos admonet, in nomine Trinitatis trina etiam immersione sanctum baptisma cuique tribuere».

3. Item, de Consecratione, distinctione quarta[^9], ex canonibus Apostolorum: «Si quis presbyter aut episcopus non trinam immersionem unius mysterii celebret, sed semel tantum mergat in baptismate, quod dari a quibusdam in morte Domini perhibetur, deponatur»: ergo necessaria est trina immersio.

### Conclusio.

> Unitas et trinitas immersionum non sunt de necessitate baptismi, sed de congruitate; magis tamen congruit trinitas secundum morem Ecclesiae Romanae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod unitas vel multitudo immersionum non est de substantia baptismi,
<!-- page 81 -->
sed solum de bene esse, quia, quotiescumque immergat, dum tamen debito modo et sine dilatione magna verba[^1bis] proferat, baptismus est et Sacramentum integrum. Etsi non sit ei de necessitate, est tamen de congruitate propter significationem, cui congruit unitas et trinitas — ut patet in fide Trinitatis, quia unitas est in essentia, sed trinitas in personis; similiter in morte Christi, quia una est in essentia, sed tribus diebus fuit in corde terrae[^2bis]; similiter gratiae, quia una est in se, sed triplex in virtutibus unitas et trinitas convenit — sed tamen magis trinitas propter expressionem maiorem; et ideo utrumque morem servat Ecclesia. Sed Romana Ecclesia tanquam praecellens trinam servat immersionem, tum propter significationem Trinitatis, tum etiam triduanae sepulturae, tum etiam triplicis concupiscentiae[^3bis], a qua anima liberatur, tum etiam propter triplicem virtutem, qua imago in anima reformatur.

Si quaeritur, quoties sit immergendum; respondeo: secundum morem Ecclesiae; qui autem propria auctoritate mutat, peccat. Et ideo dicitur[^4bis], quod deponendus est episcopus, non quia non baptizaret, sed quia propria auctoritate nova introduceret. — Rationes igitur probantes, quod ter mergendum sit, intelligendae sunt secundum morem Ecclesiae Romanae.

**Ad illud quod ad oppositum primo obiicitur,** dicendum, quod loquitur secundum morem illius Ecclesiae, in qua tantum solebat semel mergi; sed haeretici inceperunt immutare[^5bis]: ideo statuerunt tenere, ne viderentur haeresi consentire.

**Ad illud quod obiicitur 2. 3. 4.,** quod baptismus est tinctio; dicendum, quod non est per essentiam, nisi addatur forma praescripta; si tamen tinctio fiat cum invocatione Trinitatis, baptisma est. Et si in una protulit omnia verba, non debet amplius mergere, quia baptisma consummatum est. Sed quando fit trina immersio, in prima debet nominari Pater, in secunda Filius, in tertia Spiritus sanctus; et[^6bis] tunc nulla superfluit, quia non est completum Sacramentum quousque terminatum sit verbum; incipitur enim immersio cum verbo et cum illo terminatur. — Sequens patet; similiter, quare magis ter quam bis, et cetera obiecta.

english:
### Article II. *On the administration of the instituted baptism.*

As to the second article, inquiry is made secondly concerning the administration of the instituted baptism, which is done in the immersion of the infant; and concerning this two questions are raised.

First it is asked, how often one ought to be immersed.

Second, how much.

### Question I. *How often the one to be baptized ought to be immersed.*

And that one ought to be immersed only once, it seems:

1. From *On Consecration*, distinction four[^3], from the Council of Toledo: "For the sake of avoiding the scandal of schism, or the practice of heretical teaching, let us hold to a single immersion of baptism": therefore it seems that to immerse three times is heretical.

2. Likewise, it seems by reason, because this is true by essence: baptism is an ablution or dipping in water[^4]: therefore if a threefold dipping is made, there will be a threefold baptism: therefore if in no way is it permitted that baptism be repeated, in no way is it permitted to immerse three times.

3. Likewise, these two suffice, namely the word and the element[^5]; and if one be immersed once, and if it be pronounced once, the Sacrament is complete: therefore if there is further immersion, it is superfluous: therefore one ought to be immersed only once.

Likewise, it is asked why three times rather than twice. If you say that the number two is an infamous number, because it recedes from unity[^6]; by the same reasoning it is praiseworthy, because it draws nearest.

**On the contrary:**

1. Jerome on the Letter to the Ephesians[^7]: "Into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit we are baptized and immersed three times, that the one Sacrament of the Trinity may appear."

2. Likewise, Pelagius to Gaudentius the bishop, *On Consecration*, distinction four[^8]: "The evangelical precept admonishes us to confer holy baptism upon each one in the name of the Trinity and also by a threefold immersion."

3. Likewise, *On Consecration*, distinction four[^9], from the canons of the Apostles: "If any presbyter or bishop should not celebrate the threefold immersion of the one mystery, but should immerse only once in baptism — which is reported to be conferred by some in the death of the Lord — let him be deposed": therefore a threefold immersion is necessary.

### Conclusion.

> The unity and the trinity of the immersions are not of the necessity of baptism, but of fittingness; yet the trinity is more fitting according to the custom of the Roman Church.

**I respond:** It must be said that the unity or multitude of immersions is not of the substance of baptism,
but only of its well-being, because, however often one immerses, provided that one pronounces the great words[^1bis] in the due manner and without delay, it is a baptism and a complete Sacrament. Although it is not of necessity to it, it is nevertheless of fittingness on account of the signification, to which unity and trinity are fitting — as is plain in the faith of the Trinity, because the unity is in the essence, but the trinity in the persons; likewise in the death of Christ, because it is one in essence, but for three days He was in the heart of the earth[^2bis]; likewise of grace, because it is one in itself, but threefold in the virtues — unity and trinity agree, but nevertheless the trinity rather, on account of the greater expression; and therefore the Church observes both customs. But the Roman Church, as preeminent, keeps the threefold immersion, both on account of the signification of the Trinity, and also of the three-day burial, and also of the threefold concupiscence[^3bis], from which the soul is freed, and also on account of the threefold virtue by which the image in the soul is reformed.

If it is asked how often one ought to be immersed; I respond: according to the custom of the Church; but whoever changes it by his own authority, sins. And therefore it is said[^4bis] that a bishop is to be deposed, not because he would not baptize, but because by his own authority he would introduce something new. — The reasons, therefore, proving that one ought to immerse three times are to be understood according to the custom of the Roman Church.

**To that which is objected in the first place to the contrary,** it must be said that it speaks according to the custom of that Church in which it was customary to immerse only once; but heretics began to change[^5bis] it: therefore they decreed to hold to it, lest they should seem to consent to heresy.

**To that which is objected, 2, 3, 4,** that baptism is a dipping; it must be said that it is not so by essence, unless the prescribed form be added; yet if the dipping be made with the invocation of the Trinity, it is baptism. And if in one immersion one pronounced all the words, one ought not to immerse further, because the baptism is consummated. But when a threefold immersion is made, in the first the Father ought to be named, in the second the Son, in the third the Holy Spirit; and[^6bis] then none is superfluous, because the Sacrament is not complete until the word is finished; for the immersion is begun with the word and is finished with it. — What follows is plain; likewise, why three times rather than twice, and the other objections.

la: Can. *Propter vitandum schismatis* (c. 83.). Cfr. Isidor. Mercator., Collectio Decretal. Concil. Tolet. IV. n. 5.

en: The canon *Propter vitandum schismatis* (c. 83). Cf. Isidore Mercator, Collection of Decretals, Council of Toledo IV, n. 5.

la: Vide supra p. I. huius dist. a. I. q. I.

en: See above, Pars I of this distinction, a. I, q. I.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. I. — Pro *mergatur* plures codd. *immergatur*.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. I. — For *mergatur* several codices read *immergatur*.

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 334, nota 2. Pro *infamis* non pauci codd. et ed. I *informis*, Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 3. a. 1. § 3. *infaustus*. Hieronym., I. contra Iovin. n. 16. docet, «non esse bonum duplicem numerum, quia ab unione dividat et praefiguret foedera nuptiarum». Unde in arca Noe omnia animalia, quaecumque bina ingrediuntur, immunda sunt. Impar numerus est mundus». Cfr. Epist. 48. (alias 50.) n. 19, ubi praedicta defendit et affert auctores, qui de hac re scripserunt.

en: See vol. II, p. 334, note 2. For *infamis* not a few codices and ed. I read *informis*; Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 3. a. 1. § 3, *infaustus*. Jerome, Bk. I against Jovinian, n. 16, teaches that "the double number is not good, because it divides from union and prefigures the covenants of marriage." Hence in Noah's ark all the animals that enter two by two are unclean. The odd number is clean." Cf. Letter 48 (alias 50), n. 19, where he defends the foregoing and adduces the authors who have written on this matter.

la: Cap. 4, 6. Edd. *In Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto*, sed contra textum originalem et contra C. *Eodem modo* (81.), de Consecrat. d. 4, ubi tamen in nota adiecta lectio edd. recensetur. Codd. et edd. falso *Hieron. super Epistolam ad Philippenses*.

en: Chapter 4, 6. The editions read *In Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto*, but against the original text and against C. The canon *Eodem modo* (81.), *On Consecration* d. 4, where however the editions' reading is recorded in an added note. The codices and editions falsely [cite it as] *Jerome on the Letter to the Philippians*.

la: Can. *Multi sunt* (82.), qui in nomine solummodo Christi una etiam mersione se asserunt baptizare. Evangelicum vero praeceptum, ipso Deo et domino salvatore nostro Iesu Christo tradente, nos admonet... baptisma unicuique tribuere etc.

en: The canon *Multi sunt* (82.) — those who in the name of Christ only claim to baptize with a single immersion. But the evangelical precept, handed down by God Himself and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, admonishes us... to confer baptism upon each one, etc.

la: Can. *Si quis presbyter* (79.), ubi textus originalis *iubetur* pro *perhibetur*, et in nota adiecta dicitur, quod textus Graecus exhibeat *quae in mortem Domini datur*. Codd. *immergat* pro *mergat*.

en: The canon *Si quis presbyter* (79.), where the original text has *iubetur* for *perhibetur*, and in an added note it is said that the Greek text presents *quae in mortem Domini datur* ("which is conferred in the death of the Lord"). The codices read *immergat* for *mergat*.

la: Codd. omittunt *verba*, et cod. H prosequitur *perfectus baptismus est*. Post *debito modo* in cod. Y additur *facta*. Cfr. tamen infra ad 2-4, et Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 4. § 3.

en: The codices omit *verba*, and codex H continues *perfectus baptismus est*. After *debito modo* in codex Y *facta* is added. Cf. however below, on [objections] 2–4, and Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 4. § 3.

la: Matth. 12, 40: *Sicut enim fuit Ionas... sic erit Filius hominis in corde terrae tribus diebus et tribus noctibus.* Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7, et Dionys., de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 2. p. III. § 7.

en: Matthew 12:40: "For as Jonah was... so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 7, and Dionysius, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, c. 2, p. III, § 7.

la: De qua vide I. Ioan. 2, 16. — Vat. *tum etiam propter triplicis concupiscentiae minutionem*. Inferius pro *qua imago* cod. H *quae per Christum*, ed. I cum aliquot codd. *qua Christus*.

en: Concerning which see 1 John 2:16. — The Vatican edition reads *tum etiam propter triplicis concupiscentiae minutionem* ("also on account of the diminution of the threefold concupiscence"). Below, for *qua imago* codex H reads *quae per Christum*, ed. I with several codices *qua Christus*.

la: In Canone praeallegato. — Paulo inferius pro *nova* codd. D F H *novam consuetudinem*.

en: In the canon cited above. — A little below, for *nova* codices D F H read *novam consuetudinem* ("a new custom").

la: Codd. A G H K V aa *mutare*, cod. bb *hoc mutare*. Subinde pro *tenere*, quod codd. E W omittunt, plures codd., contextu repugnante, *ter*, edd. bene *semel*, cod. F legit: *ideo statuit Ecclesia ter, ne viderentur sibi consentire*.

en: Codices A G H K V aa read *mutare*, codex bb *hoc mutare*. Thereupon, for *tenere*, which codices E W omit, several codices — against the context — read *ter*, the editions rightly *semel*; codex F reads: *therefore the Church decreed [to immerse] three times, lest they should seem to agree among themselves*.

la: Edd. *quia*. Inferius post *terminatum* edd. subiungunt *non*. — Superius pro *baptismus* edd. cum aliquot codd. *baptizatus*.

en: The editions read *quia*. Below, after *terminatum* the editions add *non*. — Above, for *baptismus* the editions with several codices read *baptizatus*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Circa duas huius articuli quaestiones observandum est, quod consuetudo baptizandi per ablutionem vix ante saec. XIII. in Ecclesia Romana latius diffusa est. Magister Sententiarum solius immersionis meminit, et B. Albert. (hic a. 5. quaestiunc. 3.) de nunc recepta consuetudine ad mentem S. Bonaventurae ait: «Non mihi videtur esse laudabilis, sed immergendi consuetudo laudabilior est». Adhuc Durandus docet, congruentius baptismum fieri per trinam immersionem. Omnes autem censent, unumquemque debere consuetudinem suae Ecclesiae in ritu baptizandi observare. — Ritum ablutionis nunc in Ecclesia Latina communem esse, notissimum est.

**De utraque quaestione:** Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 1. — Scot., IV. Sent. d. 6. q. 1. n. 2. et passim. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4; S. III. q. 66. a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the two questions of this article it must be observed that the custom of baptizing by aspersion was scarcely diffused more widely in the Roman Church before the thirteenth century. The Master of the Sentences mentions immersion alone, and Blessed Albert (here a. 5, quaestiunc. 3), concerning the now-received custom, says, in agreement with the mind of St. Bonaventure: "It does not seem to me to be praiseworthy, but the custom of immersing is more praiseworthy." Further, Durandus teaches that baptism is more fittingly done by a threefold immersion. But all hold that each one ought to observe the custom of his own Church in the rite of baptizing. — That the rite of aspersion is now common in the Latin Church is most well known.

**On both questions:** Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 3. a. 1. — Scotus, IV. Sent. d. 6. q. 1. n. 2. and passim. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 4; S. III. q. 66. a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 3. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 4.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from Vol IV PDF column bands p.80 (PDF 100) + p.81 (PDF 101), with OCR raw L9271–9463 used for footnote-marker positions and footer text (PDF-priority inversion per the Vol II/IV Override; the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the two-column Respondeo/Solutio and the entire page footer here). The pre-existing skeleton body was **mislabeled d.4 content by the auto-chunker**; it was discarded and rebuilt — verified L9271 = `ARTICULUS II. De baptismi instituti administratione`, q1 `Quoties baptizandus debeat immergi`, opener `circa hoc duo quaeruntur: Primo... quoties oporteat mergi. Secundo, quantum.`

**Article structure.** Articulus II has exactly two quaestiones: q1 (this chunk, L9271–9463, pp.80–81) and q2 *Quantum baptizandus debeat immergi* (header L9464, p.81), then ARTICULUS III at L9558. The short Article-II opener (L9276–9278) is folded into this q1 per the locked chunking convention. The **scholion is Article-II-level** (covers q1 + q2 — "Circa duas huius articuli quaestiones") and is placed body-last here; q2 will carry no separate scholion.

**Page-split map.** q1 body spans p.80 (videtur args + sed contra + conclusio + start of Respondeo) → p.81 (rest of Respondeo + solutio + scholion). Page break placed at `quod unitas vel multitudo immersionum non est de substantia baptismi, / sed solum de bene esse` (the running-head DIST. III. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II. at raw L9396 / printed-page 81 marks the p.80→81 break).

**Apparatus / footer split (picked up + own).** p.80 footer notes **3–6 picked up** from this chunk's share (a1-q2 carried notes 1–2 = the *Iudicium* tail markers `effectae¹`, `dicuntur²`); q1's own p.80 notes **7–9** (rendered `[^3]`–`[^9]`); p.81 notes **1–6** (rendered `[^1bis]`–`[^6bis]`; p.81 notes 5–6 recovered from the right-column footer band R-2 — markers `immutare⁵` and `et⁶` sit in q1's Respondeo which prints in p.81's right column; p.81 notes 7–10 = q2's, left for d3-p2-a2-q2). **Total 13 entries** (p.80: 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 = 7; p.81: 1,2,3,4,5,6 = 6). Per-page numbering disambiguated by `bis` suffix per the d3-p2-a1-q2 convention; the file's two `[^N]` series stay unique for `build-content.mjs` marker pairing.

**`[?]` flags.** None outstanding. (p.81 notes 5–6 were initially deferred as right-column-cropped but were recovered from band R-2 in the same pass.) Silent OCR corrections (high confidence): `dilTusa→diffusa`, `meminit`, `imraersione→immersione`, `Cliristi→Christi`, `corcle→corde` (scholion + body garbles from the IA djvu cascade).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 81 -->

### Quaestio II. *Quantum baptizandus debeat immergi.*

Secundo quaeritur, quantum oporteat parvulum immergi ad hoc, quod sit baptismus. Et quod totum corpus, videtur:

1. Quia signum est passionis et mortis[^7]: ergo si Christus totus passus est et mortuus, totus homo necessario immergitur.

2. Item, baptismus est remedium contra concupiscentiam; sed concupiscentia est in toto corpore, quia tota caro est infecta[^8]: ergo etc.

3. Item, si sufficeret, aliquam partem mergi, cum to-pars, per quam transfusum est originale, et in qua viget concupiscentia, sint membra genitalia; magis sufficeret, illam partem immergi quam aliam[^9]; sed nullus dicit, quod sufficiat: ergo debet immergi totum.

**Contra:**

1. Apostoli baptizaverunt tria millia hominum una die[^10]; et constat, quod non mergendo, quia non haberent aquam, ergo aspergendo; sed aspergi non potest totus homo: ergo etc.

<!-- page 82 -->

2. Item, scribitur in passione beati Laurentii[^1bis], quod Romanus attulit urceum cum aqua; et tunc non fuit immersus, hoc patet: ergo etc.

3. Item, esto quod puer semivivus esset et in periculo mortis, adhuc est de foro nostro: ergo debet baptizari; sed non totus propter periculum[^2bis]: ergo etc.

4. Item, esto quod sit ita parum de aqua, quod non possit mergi nisi una pars; quaeritur, utrum possit baptizari. Quod sic, videtur, quia est ibi verbum et elementum, et elementum habet virtutem regenerativam ut similitudinem[^3bis]; ergo et efficaciam; ergo non est necesse, totum immergi.

### Conclusio.

> Baptismus potest ministrari aspergendo, convenientius autem fit immergendo.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod praesumitur, quod Apostoli baptizaverunt aspergendo, et mos ille servatur adhuc in pluribus Ecclesiis et maxime in Ecclesia Gallicana. Servari autem potest propter hoc, quod est ibi integra ratio Sacramenti; et servari debet, cum necessitas imminet, aut propter infirmitatem baptizantis, quia manus sunt debiles, vel quia rudis est, et timetur, ne laedat puerum; vel propter infirmitatem vel impotentiam baptizati, utpote si non esset totus natus; vel propter penuriam elementi, ut si sit modicum de aqua. — Mos tamen communis Ecclesiae est baptizare immergendo, secundum quod tangit Magister in littera[^4bis], et Sancti dicunt. — Et modus est iste: sacerdos enim debet puerum tenere per latera, et versa facie ad aquam debet mergere, ita quod habeat caput primo versus orientem, secundo versus aquilonem, tertio versus meridiem. Haec tamen ad solemnitatem spectant. — Potest igitur utroque modo baptizari, tamen convenientius et aptius et securius est baptizare immergendo. Et si est satis de aqua, totum corpus debet immergi; si parum, sufficit, si est tantum, quod immergi possit pars principalis, ut caput et pectus, vel caput tantum vel facies tantum, quia ibi sunt omnes sensus, et ibi maxime viget operatio animae[^5bis], et secundum illam maxime attenditur ratio imaginis secundum corpus, qualecumque sit; et ratione totalitatis sensuum significat totalitatem mortis et curationis; non sic autem est de genitalibus membris. Et sic patet totum[^6bis].

english:
### Question II. *How much the one to be baptized ought to be immersed.*

Second it is asked, how much the infant ought to be immersed in order that there be a baptism. And that the whole body [ought to be immersed], it seems:

1. Because it is a sign of the passion and death[^7]: therefore if Christ suffered wholly and died, the whole man is necessarily immersed.

2. Likewise, baptism is a remedy against concupiscence; but concupiscence is in the whole body, because the whole flesh is infected[^8]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if it sufficed that some part be immersed, since the part through which original [sin] is transmitted, and in which concupiscence is vigorous, are the genital members; it would rather suffice to immerse that part than another[^9]; but no one says that it suffices: therefore the whole ought to be immersed.

**On the contrary:**

1. The Apostles baptized three thousand men in one day[^10]; and it is established that [this was] not by immersing — because they would not have [enough] water — therefore by aspersion; but a whole man cannot be sprinkled: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it is written in the passion of blessed Lawrence[^1bis] that Romanus brought a pitcher with water; and then he was not immersed — this is plain: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, suppose a child were half-alive and in danger of death, he is still of our jurisdiction: therefore he ought to be baptized; but not wholly, on account of the danger[^2bis]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, suppose there were so little water that only one part could be immersed; it is asked whether he can be baptized. That [he can], it seems, because there is there the word and the element, and the element has a regenerative power as [it has] likeness[^3bis]; therefore also efficacy; therefore it is not necessary that the whole be immersed.

### Conclusion.

> Baptism can be administered by aspersion, but it is more fittingly done by immersion.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is presumed that the Apostles baptized by aspersion, and that custom is still observed in many Churches, and especially in the Gallican Church. And it can be observed on this account, that the entire essence of the Sacrament is there; and it ought to be observed when necessity is pressing, whether on account of the weakness of the one baptizing — because his hands are feeble, or because he is unskilled, and it is feared lest he injure the child; or on account of the infirmity or incapacity of the one baptized — as if he were not wholly born; or on account of a scarcity of the element, as if there be little water. — Yet the common custom of the Church is to baptize by immersion, as the Master touches upon in the text[^4bis], and the Saints say. — And the manner is this: for the priest ought to hold the child by the sides, and with the face turned toward the water he ought to immerse it, so that it have the head first toward the east, second toward the north, third toward the south. These things, however, pertain to solemnity. — One can therefore be baptized in either manner, yet it is more fitting and more apt and more secure to baptize by immersion. And if there is enough water, the whole body ought to be immersed; if little, it suffices, if there is [only] so much, that the principal part can be immersed — such as the head and the breast, or the head alone or the face alone — because there are all the senses, and there especially the operation of the soul is vigorous[^5bis], and according to it especially is regarded the formal character of the image with respect to the body, of whatever sort it be; and by reason of the totality of the senses it signifies the totality of death and of healing; but it is not so with the genital members. And thus the whole [matter] is plain[^6bis].

la: Scil. Christi. Cfr. quaest. praeced. — Superius pro *baptismus* edd. cum aliquot codd. *baptizatus*.

en: Namely [the passion and death] of Christ. Cf. the preceding question. — Above, for *baptismus* the editions with several codices read *baptizatus*.

en: Cf. Romans 7:23 ff.; Galatians 5:17 ff.; II Sent. d. 30. a. 2. q. I. and d. 32. a. 2. q. I.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 3.

en: See II Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 3.

la: Act. 2, 41. — Inferius post *non potest* codd. F G I addunt *omnino*.

en: Acts 2:41. — Below, after *non potest* codices F G I add *omnino* ("at all").

la: In homilia 91. (inter opera Bedae) de S. Laurentio habetur: *Et postquam [Laurentius] verberatus fuit, imperator iussit, ut mitteretur in tormentum unum, quod illi appellabant catasta... sed per voluntatem Dei quidam probus miles, nomine Romanus, de familia imperatoris, vidit Angelum unum in specie pulcherrimi iuvenis, qui stabat iuxta S. Laurentium et sanabat omnia vulnera eius... et dixit ei: Video ante te iuvenem pulcherrimum, festina me baptizare* [cfr. Breviar. Romanum, II. Noct. 2. antiph. in festo S. Laurentii], *afferens labrum cum aqua, misit ante pedes eius; et postquam baptizatus fuit, clamavit coram omnibus: Christianus ego sum. Imperator autem hoc audiens, iratus valde, iussit eum decollari, et ita martyr factus est.* — Pro *urceum* codd. L O R S T V X *vitreum*.

en: In homily 91 (among the works of Bede) on St. Lawrence it is found: "And after [Lawrence] had been scourged, the emperor ordered that he be sent to a certain torture-device which they called the *catasta*... but by the will of God a certain upright soldier, named Romanus, of the emperor's household, saw an Angel in the form of a most beautiful youth, who stood beside St. Lawrence and was healing all his wounds... and said to him: I see before you a most beautiful youth; make haste to baptize me" [cf. the Roman Breviary, II Nocturn, 2nd antiphon on the feast of St. Lawrence], "bringing a basin with water, he set it before his feet; and after he had been baptized, he cried out before all: I am a Christian. But the emperor, hearing this, being greatly enraged, ordered him to be beheaded, and thus he was made a martyr." — For *urceum* ("pitcher") codices L O R S T V X read *vitreum* ("glass vessel").

la: Cfr. C. *Nec quemquam* (127.), de Consecrat. d. 4.

en: Cf. the canon *Nec quemquam* (127.), *On Consecration* d. 4.

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 4. — In principio arg. pro *possit* non pauci codd. cum ed. I *posset*.

en: Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. I. c. 4. — At the beginning of the argument, for *possit* not a few codices, with ed. I, read *posset*.

la: Hic c. 7. Cfr. quaest. praeced. — Congruentia modi immergendi secundum Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 3, est in eo, quod oriens, aquilo et meridies designent tres virtutes, scil. fidem *illuminantem*, spem *roborantem* et caritatem *inflammantem*, quibus imago Dei in anima reformatur.

en: Here c. 7. Cf. the preceding question. — The fittingness of the manner of immersing, according to Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 4. q. 3), lies in this, that the east, the north, and the south designate the three virtues, namely faith which *illuminates*, hope which *strengthens*, and charity which *inflames*, by which the image of God in the soul is reformed.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 13. a. 2. q. I. in corp. — Inferius pro *qualecumque* cod. E a secunda manu *qualiscumque*.

en: Cf. III Sent. d. 13. a. 2. q. I. in the body [of the article]. — Below, for *qualecumque* codex E, by a second hand, reads *qualiscumque*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

latin_scholion:
**De articulo II:** scholion in a2-q1. The single Article-II scholion ("Circa duas huius articuli quaestiones observandum est...") covers both q1 and q2 and is rendered in `bon-sent-IV-d3-p2-a2-q1`. Footer note 6bis here directs: *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* ("See the scholion on the preceding question.")

---

english_scholion:
**On Article II:** scholion in a2-q1. The single Article-II scholion ("Concerning the two questions of this article it must be observed...") covers both q1 and q2 and is rendered in `bon-sent-IV-d3-p2-a2-q1`. Footer note 6bis here directs: *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* ("See the scholion on the preceding question.")

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from Vol IV PDF column bands p.81 (PDF 101) + p.82 (PDF 102), with OCR raw L9464–9557 used for footnote-marker positions and footer text (PDF-priority inversion per the Vol II/IV Override; the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the two-column args/Respondeo and the entire page footer here). The pre-existing skeleton body was **mislabeled d.4 content by the auto-chunker** in its source range note (`line_start: 9464` was correct but `transcription_status: auto-chunked`); the body was discarded and rebuilt. Verified L9464 = `QUAESTIO II. Quantum baptizandus debeat immergi`, opener `Secundo quaeritur, quantum oporteat parvulum immergi ad hoc, quod sit baptismus`. This is the immersion-AMOUNT question, NOT d.4. ARTICULUS III (*De cessatione circumcisionis*) begins at L9558.

**Article / scholion location.** Articulus II has exactly two quaestiones: q1 *Quoties... debeat immergi* (a2-q1, L9271–9463) and q2 (this chunk, L9464–9557). The **scholion is Article-II-level** ("Circa duas huius articuli quaestiones...") and lives in a2-q1, placed body-last there; this q2 carries no separate scholion, and its own footer [^6bis] explicitly cross-refers (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*).

**Page-split map.** q2 body spans p.81 (Quaestio II header + 3 args pro prima parte + first Contra arg) → p.82 (Contra args 2–4 + Conclusio + full Respondeo). Page break placed between Contra arg 1 (`...aspergi non potest totus homo: ergo etc.`, p.81 bottom) and Contra arg 2 (`Item, scribitur in passione beati Laurentii...`, p.82 top, under running head `82 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`).

**Apparatus / footer split (picked up + own).** p.81 footer notes **7–10 picked up** per the hand-off from a2-q1 (a2-q1 took p.81 notes 1–6): note 7 = `passionis et mortis⁷` (arg 1; *Scil. Christi*), note 8 = `infecta⁸` (arg 2; Rom./Gal. cites), note 9 = `aliam⁹` (arg 3; II Sent. d.31), note 10 = `die¹⁰` (Contra 1; Acts 2:41). Rendered `[^7]`–`[^10]`. q2's own **p.82 notes 1–6** rendered `[^1bis]`–`[^6bis]`: note 1 = `Laurentii¹` (Bede homily 91), note 2 = `periculum²`, note 3 = `similitudinem³`, note 4 = `littera⁴` (Respondeo), note 5 = `animae⁵`, note 6 = `totum⁶` (= scholion cross-ref). **Total 10 entries.** Per-page numbering disambiguated by `bis` suffix per the a2-q1 convention; the file's two `[^N]` series stay unique for `build-content.mjs` marker pairing. p.82 footer notes 7–8 (`Vers. 13`, `Vers. 25...`) belong to ARTICULUS III q1, not captured here.

**`[?]` flags.** None outstanding. Silent OCR corrections (high confidence): `inimergi→immergi`, `Chrislus→Christus`, `baplismus→baptismus`, `sufllceret→sufficeret`, `aham→aliam`, `miUia→millia`, `homiiium→hominum`, `Laurenlii→Laurentii`, `urceum`, `semivivus`, `virtutera→virtutem`, `efiicaciam→efficaciam`, `iminergi→immergi`, `allenditur→attenditur` (args + Respondeo garbles from the IA djvu cascade; all confirmed against the PDF column bands).

**J4 Class D/E disposition (2026-07-17):** health-scan flagged `defs=10 la=11 en=11`. Diagnosis: **not a genuine duplicate/missing-content defect** — it's the already-known "literal `[^N]` in prose steals the binding" bug (CLAUDE.md; also hit `III-d34-p2-a2-q2`/`III-d36-a1-q6` in J2). The Article-II scholion redirect note in both `## Latin` and `## English` (body-last, before `## Apparatus`) read "Footer note [^6bis] here directs: *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*" — a live-syntax `[^6bis]` mention in explanatory prose, which the health-scan regex (and the site's marker-pairing renderer) count as an extra body anchor beyond the real one already on `Et sic patet totum[^6bis]` (La.) / `the whole [matter] is plain[^6bis]` (En.). No printed page has a second superscript at that spot — it was purely a prose citation. Fixed per the corpus convention already used in `III-d36-a1-q6` (refer to the marker by bare number in prose, never bracket-caret syntax): reworded both occurrences to "Footer note 6bis here directs..." (no `[^N]` token). No Latin/English wording, apparatus prose, or def content changed — only the two prose mentions of the marker token. Verified: `defs=10 la=10 en=10`, fully healthy (no dupes/extras either language). `translated/questions/books` build count unchanged.

**Hand-off forward.** ARTICULUS III *De cessatione circumcisionis* begins at raw L9558; its short opener (`Consequenter est quaestio de tertio articulo... circa hoc quaeruntur duo: Primo... utrum circumcisio debuerit cessare. Secundo, utrum cessaverit ante promulgationem Evangelii, vel post.`, L9563–9565) folds into Art.III **q1** per the locked chunking convention. QUAESTIO I *Utrum circumcisio debuerit cessare* header at L9570; Art.III q1 = L9570–9917, q2 = L9918–10292. q1's first footers (p.82 notes 7 `Vers. 13`, 8 `Vers. 25... Gal. 5,3` — Genesis 17 / Romans args) start on p.82's right-column footer band.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


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

source_text:
<!-- page 82 -->

### Articulus III. *De cessatione circumcisionis.*

Consequenter est quaestio de tertio articulo, scilicet de cessatione circumcisionis; et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum circumcisio debuerit cessare. Secundo, utrum cessaverit ante promulgationem Evangelii, vel post.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum circumcisio debuerit cessare.*

Et quod non debuerit cessare, ostenditur:

1. *Primo* auctoritate canonis. Dicitur enim Genesis decimo septimo[^1] in donatione circumcisionis: *Erit pactum meum in carne vestra in foedus aeternum:* ergo videtur, quod circumcisio aeternaliter debeat durare; sed quod aeternaliter durat, non habet terminum: ergo etc.

2. Item, ad Romanos secundo[^2]: *Circumcisio prodest, si Legem observes:* ergo videtur, quod utile sit servantibus Legem servare circumcisionem: non ergo cessavit. Si dicas, Apostolum esse locutum pro tempore ante Evangelium; contra: ad Galatas quinto, ubi prohibet circumcisionem, dicit: *Testificor omni homini circumcidenti se, quod debitor sit universae Legis faciendae;* sed qui male agit non obligatur ad peius: ergo si circumcisus tenetur ad Legem, circumcidi non est malum: ergo circumcisio non cessavit.

<!-- page 83 -->

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione: quia Christus non tantum verbis instruxit nos, sed etiam factis — unde etiam communis auctoritas[^3] dicit, quod «omnis Christi actio nostra fuit instructio» — sed Christus fuit circumcisus, sicut dicitur Lucae secundo: ergo si membra debent assimilari capiti, tunc ergo videtur, quod necessarium sit, et nos circumcidi; videtur enim, quod sicut baptizari voluit, ut formam daret, ita etiam circumcidi.

4. Item, ratio, quare aliqua legalia cessaverunt, est, quia significatum eorum impletum est; et ratio, quare aliqua durant, est, quia significant quod semper faciendum est. Ideo remansit thurificatio[^4]; sed significatum circumcisionis non implebitur usque ad octavum resurrectionis ultimae, et iterum significat aliquid, quod semper faciendum est, sicut amotionem superfluitatum: ergo semper deberet durare.

5. Item, sicut Sacramenta legis gratiae succedunt Sacramentis legis scriptae, sic illa Sacramentis legis naturae; sed decimatio, quae fuit remedium contra originale tempore legis naturae[^5], simul mansit cum circumcisione: ergo pari ratione circumcisio cum baptismo.

Propter hoc est quaestio: qua necessitate cessavit? Cum enim non habeant repugnantiam haec duo remedia, et aliqui acceptent unum, qui non acceptant reliquum[^6], de bonitate divinae misericordiae esset, quod utrumque maneret, ut Deus haberet maiorem populum, et pluribus modis curaretur nostrum vulnus.

**Contra:**

1. Quod cessaverit, ostenditur ad Galatas quinto[^7]: *Ego Paulus dico vobis, si circumcidamini, Christus nihil vobis proderit.*

2. Item, ad Hebraeos septimo[^8]: *Translato sacerdotio, necesse est, ut Legis translatio fiat;* sed oportuit, sacerdotium transferri: ergo et Legem; et si hoc, tunc et Sacramenta legalia. Sed inter haec praecipuum et magis notabile est circumcisio tanquam aliorum fundamentum: ergo etc.

3. Item, circumcisio fuit ad distinguendum populum a populo; sed Christus lapis angularis filios Dei dispersos congregavit in unum et duos parietes iunxit; et unus pastor unum ovile habere debuit[^9]: ergo necesse est, in lege nova illud signum aboleri.

4. Item, aut baptismus datus est in remedium sufficiens, aut non. Si non: ergo Sacramenta novae legis sunt imperfecta: ergo et lex nova; quod est inconveniens. Si est perfectum remedium contra originale peccatum, et ille morbus est simpliciter non iterabilis[^10]: ergo adveniente baptismo, superflua est circumcisio. Si ergo omne superfluum a lege Dei est resecandum, patet etc.

### Conclusio

> Cum baptismus loco circumcisionis fuerit institutus, circumcisio debuit cessare.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit canon evangelicae legis[^11], non solum circumcisio, sed etiam omnia Sacramenta legalia destiterunt, advenientibus Sacramentis novae legis, eo quod Sacramenta illius temporis huic tempori non conveniebant: tum quia erant obscura quantum ad significantiam, erant enim velamen; tum etiam quia parvae virtutis quantum ad efficaciam; tum etiam quia gravia quantum ad observantiam. Et haec omnia legi illi competebant, quae erat lex figurae et oneris ad confringendam duritiam et superbiam cervicis Iudaicae.

Lex autem nova oppositas habet conditiones, quia est lex veritatis et gratiae et suavitatis. Gratia enim et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est, sicut dicitur Ioannis primo[^12]; nihilominus est onus eius onus suavitatis: iugum enim suum suave est, sicut dicitur Matthaei undecimo. Et ideo debuit habere Sacramenta expressiora ad significandum, efficaciora ad curandum et leviora ad portandum. Et ideo omnia illa Sacramenta cessaverunt, et alia sunt instituta. Unde Augustinus contra Faustum[^13]:

<!-- page 84 -->

«Prima Sacramenta, quae observabantur, praenuntiativa erant Christi venturi, quae cum suo adventu Christus implesset, ablata sunt, et alia instituta, virtute maiora, utilitate meliora, actu faciliora et numero pauciora». — Ex hoc igitur patet, quod cum Sacramentum baptismi sit institutum loco circumcisionis, quod circumcisio cessare debuit, maxime cum illud Sacramentum sit expressius in significando, efficacius in curando et levius in portando. Hoc autem totum patet respicienti conditiones et proprietates utriusque.

**Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod data sunt in foedus aeternum; dicendum, quod illud non oportet intelligi ita *aeternum*, quod careat fine. In eadem enim littera[^14] Dominus dicit, quod dabit eis terram in possessionem aeternam; et constans est, quod terram promissionis Iudaei non possident; et propter hoc distinguendum est in *aeterno*. Dicitur enim *aeternum* tripliciter: aut quantum ad *durationem*, aut quantum ad *finis indeterminationem*, aut quantum ad *significationem*. Primo modo dicitur dupliciter: aut quia caret *principio et fine*, Ecclesiastici decimo octavo[^15]: *Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul*; aut quantum ad privationem *termini*, Psalmus: *Statuit ea in aeternum* etc. — Similiter secundo modo dicitur dupliciter: aut quia non ita sit *semel*, quin oporteat fieri *pluries*, et sic dicitur[^16]:

> Serviet aeterno qui parvo nesciet uti;

aut quia non determinatur terminus, et sic dicitur sacerdotium aeternum Aaron, quia non determinavit Dominus, quando cessaret. — Tertio modo similiter dicitur dupliciter: aut quia significat aeternum, et sic est terra promissionis data in possessionem aeternam, Genesis decimo septimo[^17]; aut quia significat et ducit in cognitionem vitae aeternae, et sic dicitur circumcisio aeterna. Et isti tres ultimi modi habentur a Glossa super Genesis decimum septimum.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de hoc quod dicitur ad Romanos secundo[^18]: *Circumcisio prodest* etc; dicendum, quod hoc dicit Apostolus secundum statum illum, in quo erant Lex et circumcisio observanda. Secundum enim nullum statum profuit circumcisio sine Legis observantia; idem enim ipse, qui praecepit circumcisionem, mandavit et Legem. Si ergo quis servet circumcisionem et contemnat Legem, etiam in tempore Legis non proderat; proderat autem, si utramque servabat non tantum carnaliter, sed spiritualiter.

Quod ergo obiicitur, quod pro tempore evangelico dicit: *Testificor omni homini circumcidenti se* etc.; dicunt aliqui[^19], hoc dixisse Apostolum ad terrorem. Sed tamen illud non sufficit; ideo plus oportet dicere, quod est obligatio ex *divino praecepto*, et est obligatio ex *conscientiae dictamine*. Ex divino praecepto nemo obligatur, quia illud est revocatum; sed qui habet conscientiam, se teneri ad circumcisionem, quia adhuc stat divinum mandatum, per eandem rationem necesse est, quod habeat conscientiam observandi omnia mandata Legis. Unde Apostolus facit argumentum *per impossibile*[^20] a destructione *consequentis* sic: pseudoapostoli dicebant, quod tenebantur circumcidi, sed non debebant alia legalia observare; et Apostolus dicit, quod si tenentur ad hoc praeceptum, cum ita sint alia praecepta, tenentur ad omnia — «si enim anima Socratis est immortalis, et omnis anima[^21]» — tamen utrumque est falsum, et «uno inconvenienti posito, multa sequuntur». Unde per hoc, quod non erat tota Lex servanda, volebat Apostolus arguere, quod circumcisio non esset servanda.

<!-- page 85 -->

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Christo, quod Christus fuit circumcisus; dicendum, quod Christus omnibus operibus suis nos erudivit; sed tamen non omnia fecit ad imitationem, sicut opera miraculosa; et alia plura. Ratio autem, quare Christus voluit circumcidi, fuit triplex, scilicet in fidei argumentum, in humilitatis exemplum et in Legis complementum. In *fidei argumentum*: quia de Iudaeis[^22] erat secundum carnem, et propter ipsum specialiter de illo genere nasciturum significandum instituta est circumcisio, ne videretur dissimilis Patribus et non esse ille qui fuit promissus, et per hoc possent Iudaei suum palliare errorem: ideo debuit circumcidi. — Secundo propter *humilitatis exemplum*, propter quod subiecit se Legi et omnibus legalibus, cum tamen sub nullo esset. — Tertio fuit circumcisus in *Legis complementum*, unde sustinendo circumcisionem implevit Legem[^23], et implendo cessare fecit, quia Legem non destruxit, sed complevit, dum veritatem significatam exhibuit. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus contra Faustum[^24], quod Sacramenta veteris legis in adventu Christi impleta sunt, «et ideo ablata, quia impleta». — Et haec ratio triplex trahitur de homilia Augustini super Lucae secundum[^25] de circumcisione pueri; et sic patet, quod Christus noluit, quod alii imitarentur eum in hoc, sed quod magis ex hoc erudirentur.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod significatum eius nondum est impletum; dicendum, quod circumcisio et habebat *praesens* significatum, et hoc erat originalis deletio; et habebat *consequens*, scilicet liberationem a miseria per Christum in octava resurrectionis. Et quoniam impletum est quantum ad principale significatum in baptismo, et quantum ad consequens in capite nostro Christo, qui resurrexit die octavo; ideo debuit cessare[^26]. — Sed quod adiungit, quod debet manere, ut thurificatio; dicendum, quod thurificatio non manet solum propter hoc, quod significet quod faciendum est, sed etiam quia exterior observantia quodam modo moralis est[^27], et etiam quia facilis est; et praeterea Ecclesia non retinuit de Lege, sed instituit, quia alio modo illi thurificabant.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod circumcisio non aufert decimationem; dicendum, quod circumcisio non fuit remedium universale, sed particulare, nec omnes ad illam obligabantur[^28]; et ideo decimatio adhuc habebat locum. Sed ad baptismum omnes obligantur, et est remedium universale et sufficiens; et ideo si maneret circumcisio, plus haberet oneris quam utilitatis.

Et sic patet ultimum, quia Dominus noluit[^29], quia non competebat huic tempori tum propter poenalitatem, tum propter particularitatem, tum propter effectus modicitatem.

english:
### Article III. *On the cessation of circumcision.*

Next comes the question on the third article, namely on the cessation of circumcision; and concerning this two things are asked. First it is asked whether circumcision ought to have ceased. Second, whether it ceased before the promulgation of the Gospel, or after.

### Question I. *Whether circumcision ought to have ceased.*

And that it ought not to have ceased is shown:

1. *First*, by the authority of the canon. For it is said in Genesis 17[^1], in the giving of circumcision: *My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant:* therefore it seems that circumcision ought to endure eternally; but what endures eternally has no term: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, to the Romans 2[^2]: *Circumcision profits, if you keep the Law:* therefore it seems useful for those keeping the Law to keep circumcision: therefore it did not cease. If you say that the Apostle spoke for the time before the Gospel; on the contrary: to the Galatians 5, where he forbids circumcision, he says: *I testify to every man who circumcises himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law;* but he who acts badly is not obliged to something worse: therefore if one who is circumcised is bound to the Law, to be circumcised is not bad: therefore circumcision did not cease.

3. Likewise, this same thing is seen by reason: because Christ instructed us not only by words, but also by deeds — whence also the common authority[^3] says that «every action of Christ was our instruction» — but Christ was circumcised, as is said in Luke 2: therefore if the members ought to be made like the head, then it seems that it is necessary that we too be circumcised; for it seems that just as he willed to be baptized, in order to give a form, so also to be circumcised.

4. Likewise, the reason why some legal observances ceased is that their signification has been fulfilled; and the reason why some endure is that they signify what must always be done. Thus the burning of incense[^4] remained; but the signification of circumcision will not be fulfilled until the eighth [day] of the final resurrection, and it again signifies something which must always be done, namely the removal of superfluities: therefore it ought always to endure.

5. Likewise, just as the Sacraments of the law of grace succeed the Sacraments of the written law, so the latter succeed the Sacraments of the law of nature; but tithing, which was a remedy against original [sin] in the time of the law of nature[^5], remained together with circumcision: therefore for a like reason circumcision [should remain] with baptism.

On account of this there is a question: by what necessity did it cease? For since these two remedies have no incompatibility, and some accept one who do not accept the other[^6], it would be in keeping with the goodness of the divine mercy that both should remain, so that God might have a greater people, and our wound might be healed in more ways.

**On the contrary:**

1. That it ceased is shown to the Galatians 5[^7]: *I Paul say to you, if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.*

2. Likewise, to the Hebrews 7[^8]: *The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation of the Law also be made;* but it was fitting that the priesthood be transferred: therefore also the Law; and if this, then also the legal Sacraments. But among these the chief and most notable is circumcision, as the foundation of the others: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, circumcision was for distinguishing people from people; but Christ the cornerstone gathered together into one the dispersed sons of God and joined the two walls; and one shepherd ought to have one fold[^9]: therefore it is necessary that in the new law that sign be abolished.

4. Likewise, either baptism was given as a sufficient remedy, or not. If not: then the Sacraments of the new law are imperfect: therefore also the new law; which is unfitting. If it is a perfect remedy against original sin, and that disease is simply not repeatable[^10]: then, baptism having come, circumcision is superfluous. If therefore everything superfluous is to be cut away from the law of God, it is clear etc.

### Conclusion

> Since baptism was instituted in place of circumcision, circumcision had to cease.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the canon of the evangelical law[^11] says, not only circumcision but also all the legal Sacraments ceased upon the coming of the Sacraments of the new law, because the Sacraments of that time were not suited to this time: both because they were obscure as to signification, for they were a veil; and also because of little power as to efficacy; and also because heavy as to observance. And all these befitted that law, which was a law of figure and of burden, for breaking the hardness and pride of the Jewish neck.

But the new law has opposite conditions, for it is a law of truth and of grace and of sweetness. For grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, as is said in John 1[^12]; nevertheless its burden is a burden of sweetness: for his yoke is sweet, as is said in Matthew 11. And therefore it had to have Sacraments more expressive in signifying, more efficacious in healing, and lighter to carry. And therefore all those Sacraments ceased, and others were instituted. Whence Augustine against Faustus[^13]:

«The first Sacraments, which were observed, were foretokens of Christ who was to come; and when Christ by his coming had fulfilled them, they were taken away, and others instituted, greater in power, better in usefulness, easier in performance, and fewer in number». — From this therefore it is clear that, since the Sacrament of baptism was instituted in place of circumcision, circumcision had to cease, especially since that Sacrament is more expressive in signifying, more efficacious in healing, and lighter in carrying. And all this is clear to one who considers the conditions and properties of each.

**Replies to the arguments for the affirmative:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected, that they were given for an everlasting covenant; it must be said that this should not be understood as *eternal* in such a way that it lacks an end. For in the same passage[^14] the Lord says that he will give them the land for an everlasting possession; and it is certain that the Jews do not possess the land of promise; and on account of this a distinction must be made in *eternal*. For *eternal* is said in three ways: either as to *duration*, or as to *the indeterminateness of the end*, or as to *signification*. In the first way it is said in two ways: either because it lacks *beginning and end*, Ecclesiasticus 18[^15]: *He who lives forever created all things together*; or as to privation of *term*, the Psalm: *He has established them forever* etc. — Similarly in the second way it is said in two ways: either because it is not done *once* in such a way that it need not be done *many times*, and thus it is said[^16]:

> He will serve the eternal who knows not how to use the small;

or because the term is not determined, and thus the priesthood of Aaron is called eternal, because the Lord did not determine when it should cease. — In the third way likewise it is said in two ways: either because it signifies the eternal, and thus the land of promise was given for an everlasting possession, Genesis 17[^17]; or because it signifies and leads into the knowledge of eternal life, and thus circumcision is called eternal. And these last three ways are had from the Gloss on Genesis 17.

*To 2.* To that which is objected from what is said to the Romans 2[^18]: *Circumcision profits* etc.; it must be said that the Apostle says this according to that state, in which the Law and circumcision were to be observed. For according to no state did circumcision profit without the observance of the Law; for the same one who commanded circumcision commanded also the Law. If therefore one keeps circumcision and despises the Law, even in the time of the Law it did not profit; but it did profit, if he kept both not only carnally, but spiritually.

That which then is objected, that for the evangelical time he says: *I testify to every man who circumcises himself* etc.; some[^19] say that the Apostle said this to inspire fear. But yet that is not sufficient; therefore one must say more, namely that there is an obligation from the *divine precept*, and there is an obligation from the *dictate of conscience*. By the divine precept no one is obliged, because that has been revoked; but he who has a conscience that he is bound to circumcision, because the divine mandate still stands, by the same reasoning it is necessary that he have a conscience of observing all the mandates of the Law. Whence the Apostle makes the argument *per impossibile*[^20] from the destruction of the *consequent* thus: the false apostles said that they were bound to be circumcised, but were not bound to observe the other legal precepts; and the Apostle says that if they are bound to this precept, since there are likewise other precepts, they are bound to all — «for if the soul of Socrates is immortal, then so is every soul[^21]» — yet each is false, and «when one absurdity is posited, many follow». Whence by this, that the whole Law was not to be observed, the Apostle wished to argue that circumcision was not to be observed.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning Christ, that Christ was circumcised; it must be said that Christ educated us by all his works; but yet he did not do all things for imitation, as his miraculous works; and many others. But the reason why Christ willed to be circumcised was threefold, namely as an argument of faith, an example of humility, and a completion of the Law. As an *argument of faith*: because he was of the Jews[^22] according to the flesh, and on account of him especially, who was to be born of that race, circumcision was instituted to be signified, lest he should seem unlike the Fathers and not be the one who was promised, and through this the Jews could cloak their error: therefore he had to be circumcised. — Secondly for the *example of humility*, on account of which he subjected himself to the Law and to all the legal observances, although he was under none. — Thirdly he was circumcised for the *completion of the Law*, whence by sustaining circumcision he fulfilled the Law[^23], and by fulfilling [it] he made it cease, because he did not destroy the Law, but fulfilled it, while he exhibited the signified truth. And this is what Augustine says against Faustus[^24], that the Sacraments of the old law were fulfilled at the coming of Christ, «and therefore taken away, because fulfilled». — And this threefold reason is drawn from the homily of Augustine on Luke 2[^25] concerning the circumcision of the child; and thus it is clear that Christ did not will that others should imitate him in this, but rather that they should be instructed by it.

*To 4.* To that which is objected, that its signification is not yet fulfilled; it must be said that circumcision had both a *present* signification, and this was the deletion of original [sin]; and it had a *consequent* one, namely liberation from misery through Christ in the eighth [day] of the resurrection. And since it has been fulfilled as to the principal signification in baptism, and as to the consequent in our head Christ, who rose on the eighth day; therefore it had to cease[^26]. — But as to what is added, that it ought to remain, like the burning of incense; it must be said that the burning of incense does not remain only because it signifies what must be done, but also because the exterior observance is in some way moral[^27], and also because it is easy; and besides the Church did not retain it from the Law, but instituted it, because they burned incense in another manner.

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that circumcision does not take away tithing; it must be said that circumcision was not a universal remedy, but a particular one, nor were all obliged to it[^28]; and therefore tithing still had a place. But to baptism all are obliged, and it is a universal and sufficient remedy; and therefore if circumcision remained, it would have more of burden than of usefulness.

And thus the last point is clear, why the Lord did not will [it][^29], because it did not befit this time, both because of penalty, and because of particularity, and because of the smallness of its effect.

en: (p.82, note 7) [Genesis 17,] verse 13.

la: (p.82, nota 8) Vers. 25. — Seq. textus est Gal. 5, 3: *Testificor autem rursum omni... quoniam debitor est* etc.

en: (p.82, note 8) [Romans 2,] verse 25. — The following text is Gal. 5, 3: *And I testify again to every man... that he is a debtor* etc.

la: (p.83, nota 1) Gregor., II. Homil. in Ezech. homil. 2. n. 6, loquens de Christo ait, quod «nos exemplo suo de omnibus instruxit». Cfr. I. Homil. in Evang. homil. 17. n. 1. (et II. homil. 21. n. 1.), ubi docet, quod Christus «aliquando nos sermonibus, aliquando vero operibus admonet». Vide etiam I. Dialog. c. 9. — Seq. locus Scripturae est Luc. 2, 21.

en: (p.83, note 1) Gregory, *Homilies on Ezekiel*, Bk. II, homily 2, n. 6, speaking of Christ, says that «he instructed us in all things by his example». Cf. *Homilies on the Gospels*, Bk. I, homily 17, n. 1 (and Bk. II, homily 21, n. 1), where he teaches that Christ «admonishes us sometimes by words, sometimes by works». See also *Dialogues*, Bk. I, c. 9. — The following Scripture passage is Luke 2, 21.

la: (p.83, nota 2) Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 1. m. 9: *Idem significat* [thurificatio] *nunc et tunc, id est devotionem.* Ibid. q. 5. m. 7. a. 2: *Per thus* [significatur] *devotio, quae est in opere meritorio.* De minori vide supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 9, et Comment. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seq. nec non dub. 7. Vide etiam Rom. 2, 29.

en: (p.83, note 2) Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV, q. 1, m. 9: *The same thing is signified* [by the burning of incense] *now and then, namely devotion.* Ibid. q. 5, m. 7, a. 2: *By the incense* [is signified] *the devotion which is in meritorious work.* On the minor see above, the Master's text, d. I, c. 9, and the Commentary, p. II, a. 2, q. 1 and following, and also dub. 7. See also Rom. 2, 29.

la: (p.83, nota 3) Cfr. supra d. I. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — In *maiori* codd. cum pluribus codd. comparationem invertunt legentes: *Item Sacramenta legis gratiae sic* [*sic* omittitur in codd.] *succedunt... sicut illa*.

en: (p.83, note 3) Cf. above, d. I, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — In the *major* [premise] the codices with several manuscripts invert the comparison, reading: *Likewise the Sacraments of the law of grace thus* [*thus* is omitted in the codices] *succeed... as those.*

la: (p.83, nota 4) Scil. Christiani baptismum, Iudaei circumcisionem.

en: (p.83, note 4) Namely, Christians [accept] baptism, the Jews circumcision.

la: (p.83, nota 5) Vers. 2, ubi Vulgata *quoniam si* pro *si*, codd. FGI *quod si*.

en: (p.83, note 5) [Galatians 5,] verse 2, where the Vulgate has *quoniam si* for *si*; codices FGI *quod si*.

la: (p.83, nota 6) Vers. 12. Vulgata post *ut* addit *et*.

en: (p.83, note 6) [Hebrews 7,] verse 12. The Vulgate after *ut* adds *et*.

la: (p.83, nota 7) Respicitur Eph. 2, 14. et 20. nec non Ioan. 10, 16. — De maiori vide supra d. I. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 1.

en: (p.83, note 7) Reference is made to Eph. 2, 14 and 20, and also John 10, 16. — On the major see above, d. I, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, ad 1.

la: (p.83, nota 9) Act. 16, 3. seqq., ubi decretum Apostolorum in Concilio Ierosolym. factum exhibetur.

en: (p.83, note 9) Acts 16, 3 and following, where the decree of the Apostles made in the Council of Jerusalem is set forth.

la: (p.83, nota 10) Vers. 17. — Seq. textus est Matth. 11, 30: *Iugum enim meum suave est.* — Inferius ex cod. H substituimus *nihilominus est onus eius onus suavitatis* pro *et nihilominus omnis suavitatis*.

en: (p.83, note 10) [John 1,] verse 17. — The following text is Matth. 11, 30: *For my yoke is sweet.* — Below, from codex H, we have substituted *nihilominus est onus eius onus suavitatis* for *et nihilominus omnis suavitatis*.

la: (p.83, nota 11) Libr. XIX. c. 13. Textus originalis post *ablata sunt* addit: *et ideo ablata, quia impleta; non enim venit solvere Legem, sed adimplere.*

en: (p.83, note 11) [Against Faustus,] Bk. XIX, c. 13. The original text after *ablata sunt* adds: *and therefore taken away, because fulfilled; for he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.*

la: (p.84, nota 2) Vers. 1. — Seq. textus est Ps. 148, 6.

en: (p.84, note 2) [Ecclesiasticus 18,] verse 1. — The following text is Ps. 148, 6.

la: (p.84, nota 3) Ab Horat., Epist. 10, 41. — August., 1. Quaest. in Pentateuch. q. 31. (ex quo loco sumta est Glossa, quae in fine solut. huius obiectionis affertur), praenotato, quod nomine *aeterni* significari possit aut hoc saeculum (αἰών), aut res, qua tantum «aeternum aliquid significatur», subiungit: *An potius locutionis est Scripturarum, ut aeternum appellent, cuius rei finis non constituitur, aut non ita fit, ut deinceps non sit faciendum, quantum pertinet ad curam vel potestatem facientis; sicut ait Horatius: Serviet aeterno qui parvo nesciet uti. Non enim potest in aeternum servire, cuius ipsa vita, qua servit, aeterna esse non potest.* Cfr. Alanus ab Insul., Distinct. dictionum theolog., ubi *aeternum* hoc ultimo modo sumtum «dicitur, continuatio vitae temporalis; unde Horatius: Serviet... id est toto tempore vitae suae». — De sacerdotio aeterno Aaron vide Exod. 29, 9. et 40, 13. Cfr. August., 11. Quaest. in Pentateuch. q. 124.

en: (p.84, note 3) From Horace, *Epistles* 10, 41. — Augustine, *Questions on the Pentateuch*, Bk. I, q. 31 (from which place is taken the Gloss adduced at the end of the solution of this objection), having first noted that by the name *eternal* may be signified either this age (αἰών), or a thing by which only «something eternal is signified», adds: *Or rather it is a manner of speaking of the Scriptures, that they call eternal that whose end is not fixed, or which is not so done that thereafter it need not be done, as far as pertains to the care or power of the one doing it; as Horace says: He will serve the eternal who knows not how to use the small. For he cannot serve forever whose very life, by which he serves, cannot be eternal.* Cf. Alan of Lille, *Distinctions of theological terms*, where *eternal* taken in this last way «is said to be the continuation of temporal life; whence Horace: He will serve... that is, for the whole time of his life». — On the eternal priesthood of Aaron see Exod. 29, 9 and 40, 13. Cf. Augustine, *Questions on the Pentateuch*, Bk. II, q. 124.

la: (p.84, nota 4) Vers. 8, in quem versum est etiam Glossa (ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum) paulo inferius allegata. — Mox post *ducit* cod. U *prosequitur et praeparat ad cognitionem* etc. Subinde pro *aeterna* permulti codd. *aeternum*.

en: (p.84, note 4) [Genesis 17,] verse 8, on which verse there is also the Gloss (the Ordinary Gloss in Strabo and Lyra) cited a little below. — Soon after *ducit* codex U [reads] *prosequitur et praeparat ad cognitionem* etc. Then for *aeterna* very many codices [read] *aeternum*.

la: (p.84, nota 5) Vers. 25. Expositio Bonaventurae convenit cum Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum. — In fine solut. pro *non tantum* cod. G *non tamen*.

en: (p.84, note 5) [Romans 2,] verse 25. Bonaventure's exposition agrees with the Ordinary Gloss in Strabo. — At the end of the solution, for *non tantum* codex G [reads] *non tamen*.

la: (p.84, nota 6) Ut August., Expos. Epist. ad Gal. 5, 3. n. 41, cuius verba exhibentur etiam a Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum. — Alteram expositionem dat Hieronym., in hunc loc., contra Ebionitas, qui etiam «post Evangelium credentes in Christo circumcidendos putant», sic arguendo: *Ut aut circumcisionem faciant et cetera, quae praecipiuntur in Lege, aut si impossibile est cuncta fieri, cesset et circumcisio, quae cum ceteris quasi inutilis praetermissa est.* — Post *evangelico* cod. F (P a secunda manu) addit *quia Apostolus*.

en: (p.84, note 6) As Augustine, *Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians* 5, 3, n. 41, whose words are also set forth by the Ordinary Gloss in Strabo. — Jerome gives the other exposition, on this passage, against the Ebionites, who think that «even after the Gospel those believing in Christ are to be circumcised», arguing thus: *That either they perform circumcision and the rest which are prescribed in the Law, or, if it is impossible for all to be done, let circumcision also cease, which has been passed over with the rest as useless.* — After *evangelico* codex F (P by a second hand) adds *quia Apostolus*.

la: (p.84, nota 7) Cfr. Aristot., II. Prior. c. 14. — Inferius edd. *observari* pro *observare* et subinde post *alia praecepta* supplent *ut illud*.

en: (p.84, note 7) Cf. Aristotle, *Prior Analytics* II, c. 14. — Below the editions [read] *observari* for *observare*, and then after *alia praecepta* supply *ut illud*.

la: (p.84, nota 8) Aristot., II. Topic. 2. (c. 3.): *Non sufficit enim ad ostendendum, quod omni inest, in uno disputasse, ut si hominis anima immortalis est, propter hoc anima omnis immortalis* etc.

en: (p.84, note 8) Aristotle, *Topics* II, 2 (c. 3): *For it is not sufficient, to show that something belongs to all, to have disputed it in one [case], as if [from] the soul of man being immortal, on account of this every soul is immortal* etc.

la: (p.85, nota 1) Codd. AEZ *Iudaeus*, codd. F H K L Y aa (bb a secunda manu) post *quia* addunt *enim Christus*, et cod. H post *erat* supplet *nasciturus*. Subinde pro *et* codd. R T X substituunt *et ideo*. Paulo inferius pro *et* [edd. repetunt *ne*] *per hoc* cod. F *et propter hoc*.

en: (p.85, note 1) Codices AEZ [read] *Iudaeus*; codices F H K L Y aa (bb by a second hand) after *quia* add *enim Christus*, and codex H after *erat* supplies *nasciturus*. Then for *et* codices R T X substitute *et ideo*. A little below, for *et* [the editions repeat *ne*] *per hoc* codex F [reads] *et propter hoc*.

la: (p.85, nota 2) Matth. 5, 17: *Non veni solvere, sed adimplere.*

en: (p.85, note 2) Matth. 5, 17: *I came not to abolish, but to fulfill.*

la: (p.85, nota 3) Libr. XIX. c. 13. Cfr. supra pag. 83, nota 11.

en: (p.85, note 3) [Against Faustus,] Bk. XIX, c. 13. Cf. above, p. 83, note 11.

la: (p.85, nota 4) Vers. 21. — In operibus Augustini Homilia de circumcisione non invenitur, et circumcisio Christi tangitur tantum in Serm. 128. (nunc in appendice, alias 13. de Tempore) c. 5. n. 7. his verbis: «Dominus quidem suscepit circumcisionem, ablaturus ipsam circumcisionem; suscepit umbram, daturus lucem; suscepit figuram, impleturus veritatem». Videtur nobis pro nomine Augustini substituendum esse nomen Bernardi, qui in speciali sermone super Luc. 2, 21. (Serm. I. in Circumcisione Domini) n. 1. tanquam membra illius sermonis haec proponit: «Habens igitur hic magnum fidei documentum, habes et manifestum humilitatis exemplum». Paulo inferius (n. 2.): *Sic et circumcisio veritatem susceptae probat humanitatis... Circumciditur tanquam verus Abrahae filius, Iesus vocatur tanquam verus Filius Dei... Non est in eo magni nominis umbra sed veritas.* Cfr. Serm. in Octava Epiphaniae. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 3. m. 3. a. 2: *Sicut habetur in Homilia Circumcisionis*, sicut dicit August. in Quaest. novi et veteris Testamenti (I. q. 50. 60. et 69.).

en: (p.85, note 4) [Luke 2,] verse 21. — In the works of Augustine no Homily on the circumcision is found, and Christ's circumcision is touched only in Serm. 128 (now in the appendix, otherwise 13 *de Tempore*), c. 5, n. 7, in these words: «The Lord indeed took on circumcision, in order to take away circumcision itself; he took on the shadow, in order to give light; he took on the figure, in order to fulfill the truth». It seems to us that for the name of Augustine the name of Bernard should be substituted, who in a special sermon on Luke 2, 21 (Serm. I on the Circumcision of the Lord), n. 1, sets forth these things as the members of that sermon: «Having therefore here a great document of faith, you have also a manifest example of humility». A little below (n. 2): *Thus also circumcision proves the truth of the humanity assumed... He is circumcised as the true son of Abraham, he is called Jesus as the true Son of God... There is in him no shadow of a great name, but truth.* Cf. the Sermon on the Octave of the Epiphany. Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV, q. 3, m. 3, a. 2: *As is had in the Homily of the Circumcision*, as Augustine says in *Questions on the New and Old Testament* (I, qq. 50, 60, and 69).

la: (p.85, nota 5) Secundum August., XIX. Contra Faustum, c. 9. — Pro *die octavo* cod. Z *die tertio*, sed vide supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 9. Mox pro *debet* idem cod. Z *debuit*.

en: (p.85, note 5) According to Augustine, *Against Faustus* XIX, c. 9. — For *die octavo* codex Z [reads] *die tertio*, but see above, the Master's text, d. I, c. 9. Soon for *debet* the same codex Z [reads] *debuit*.

la: (p.85, nota 6) Cfr. supra pag. 83, nota 2. Guliel. Antissiod., S. p. IV. tr. I. c. 6. q. 4: *Circumcisio carnalis facta nihil morale continebat, sed incensum litteraliter aliquid morale habet et non est umbra alicuius futuri; et propter hoc non est simile.* — Inferius pro *et praeterea* edd. cum aliquot codd. *et propterea*.

en: (p.85, note 6) Cf. above, p. 83, note 2. William of Auxerre, S. p. IV, tr. I, c. 6, q. 4: *Carnal circumcision once performed contained nothing moral, but incense in its literal sense has something moral and is not a shadow of something future; and on account of this it is not alike.* — Below, for *et praeterea* the editions with some codices [read] *et propterea*.

la: (p.85, nota 7) Vide supra d. I. p. II. dub. 4. et ibid. a. 1. q. 3.

en: (p.85, note 7) See above, d. I, p. II, dub. 4, and there a. 1, q. 3.

la: (p.85, nota 8) Cod. H (bb a secunda manu) supplet *scilicet circumcisionem manere*.

en: (p.85, note 8) Codex H (bb by a second hand) supplies *namely that circumcision remain*. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** De cessatione legalium in genere et de cessatione circumcisionis in specie optime auctor noster in his 2 qq. disputat, quem Scot. (hic q. 4.) diffuse explicat. Scholastici communiter in hac quaestione opinioni S. Hieronymi praeferunt sententiam Augustini, quod scilicet legalia post mortem Christi quidem subito mortua, non tamen subito mortifera fuerint. — Hoc supposito, adhuc remansit dubium, utrum circumcisio ut remedium contra peccatum originale subito post Christi resurrectionem etiam fuerit *inanis et inutilis*, simulque ante sufficientem promulgationem inceperit universaliter stricta obligatio baptismi, ita ut deinceps nullum aliud remedium contra originale peccatum praeter baptismum esset efficax, licet concedendum sit, quod ignorantia invincibilis a peccato omissionis excusaverit. Schola S. Thomae cum B. Alberto hoc affirmat tanquam probabilius; sed schola Scoti cum plurimis recentioribus tenet, obligationem ad baptismum non incepisse nisi post sufficientem promulgationem, scilicet Ierosolymis in die Pentecostes, alibi autem successive, saltem usque ad excidium Ierosolymitanum. Praeter S. Bonaventuram huic sententiae favent S. Bernard., Hugo a S. Vict. (cfr. hic dub. I.), Alex. Hal., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med. aliique; pro qua opinione Scotistae afferunt etiam verba Concilii Trident. (Sess. VI. c. 4), quod iustificatio «post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest». De utraque quaestione praeter Scotum: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 2. a. 3. § 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 5. quaestiunc. 2., d. 2. q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3; S. I. II. q. 103. a. 3. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2. 3. — Durand., IV. Sent. d. 1. q. 9. — Dionys. Carth., IV. Sent. d. 2. q. 8.

> **Apparatus note.** The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. They reproduce, page by page, the Quaracchi editors' apparatus for printed pp. 82–86. The two leading entries (1–2) are p.82 footer notes 7–8, picked up at this question's opening markers (p.82 notes 1–6 belong to the preceding chunk, a.2 q.2). Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; the source note number is given inside each entry.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Our author disputes excellently in these two questions concerning the cessation of the legal observances in general and the cessation of circumcision in particular, which Scotus (here q. 4) explains at length. In this question the Scholastics commonly prefer to the opinion of St. Jerome the view of Augustine, namely that the legal observances after the death of Christ were indeed at once dead, but not at once death-dealing. — This supposed, there still remained the doubt whether circumcision as a remedy against original sin became at once *void and useless* immediately after Christ's resurrection, and whether at the same time, before sufficient promulgation, the strict obligation of baptism began universally, so that thereafter no other remedy against original sin besides baptism was efficacious — although it must be granted that invincible ignorance excused from the sin of omission. The school of St. Thomas with Blessed Albert affirms this as more probable; but the school of Scotus, with very many more recent [authors], holds that the obligation to baptism did not begin except after sufficient promulgation, namely at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, but elsewhere successively, at least up to the destruction of Jerusalem. Besides St. Bonaventure, this view is favored by St. Bernard, Hugh of St. Victor (cf. here dub. I), Alexander of Hales, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, and others; for which opinion the Scotists also adduce the words of the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, c. 4), that justification «after the Gospel has been promulgated cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the desire of it». On both questions, besides Scotus: Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV, q. 8, m. 2, a. 3, § 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 5, subq. 2; d. 2, q. 1, a. 1, subq. 3; S. I-II, q. 103, a. 3, 4. — Blessed Albert, here a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5, q. 2, 3. — Durandus, IV Sent., d. 1, q. 9. — Dionysius the Carthusian, IV Sent., d. 2, q. 8.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** raw `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L9558–9917 (ARTICULUS III header L9558; q1 opener L9570–9575; q1 body + scholion to L9912; QUAESTIO II begins L9918). Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`colcrop.py vol4 82..86 1880`), which are authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Conclusio/scholion/footer regions per the VOL II OVERRIDE; OCR is the base for clean running prose.
- **Article-III opener folded:** the short "Consequenter est quaestio de tertio articulo... quaeruntur duo" (raw L9563–9566) is placed before QUAESTIO I as the article opener (chunking convention: no standalone article-divisio chunk).
- **Per-page apparatus split map (29 entries total):**
  - p.82 footer notes **7–8** → [^1]–[^2] (PICKED UP from a.2 q.2's page; p.82 notes 1–6 belong to a.2 q.2, committed cf75964).
  - p.83 footer notes **1–11** → [^3]–[^13] (left col notes 1–4; right col notes 5–11).
  - p.84 footer notes **1–8** → [^14]–[^21] (left col notes 1–4; right col notes 5–8).
  - p.85 footer notes **1–8** → [^22]–[^29] (left col notes 1–4 = Christ triplex-ratio markers; right col notes 5–8 = replies 4–5 + answer to incidental question). The unnumbered p.85 footer addenda ("— Seq. axioma proponit Aristot., I. Phys. text. 22..." and the Bernard *Serm. in Circumcisione* discussion) are editorial scholion-source notes; they are folded into [^25] (the Bernard/Augustine homily entry) rather than given a separate marker, since they have no body superscript.
  - p.86 carries **no q1 footers** — q1's scholion finishes on p.85 right column; p.86 left column opens directly with QUAESTIO II.
- **Scholion location:** end of q1, printed p.85 right column (raw L9849–9873). It is the Article-III-level scholion ("in his 2 qq. disputat") covering both q1 and q2; per the parser requirement it is placed body-LAST in both the Latin and English `##` blocks.
- **Hand-off picked up:** p.82 footer notes 7 (*Vers. 13*) and 8 (*Vers. 25 ... Gal. 5, 3*) — led the apparatus as [^1]–[^2].
- **Hand-off forwarded to d3-p2-a3-q2:** QUAESTIO II (*Utrum circumcisio cessaverit ante promulgationem Evangelii*) begins raw L9918, printed p.86 onward. No shared p.86 footer split applies to q1 (q1 owns none of p.86's footers — its scholion closes on p.85). The next chunk's first body markers will draw on p.86's own footer series.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. OCR garbles in the footers (e.g. `iiwnis`→*inanis*, `Penleco-stes`, `excidium lerosoly-mitanum`) were resolved against the PDF column bands; all readings confident.
- **Health-scan false positive (2026-07-17, J4 Class D/E pass):** the corpus health scan flags `defs=29 la=31 en=29` — Latin appears to have 2 extra anchors (`1`, `2`) vs. defs/English. This is the documented §2 backtick/plain-text-blockquote false positive (see `manual-review/J4-CLASS-DE-HANDOFF.md` §2): the "Apparatus note" blockquote at the end of the `## Latin` section (line ~101) explains the per-page apparatus split using literal prose tokens `**[^1]–[^2]**`, which the regex-based classifier (and, per the handoff, the live renderer) count as real body anchors. No content is mislabeled or missing — the real Latin body has exactly 29 anchors (1–29), matching the 29 apparatus defs and 29 English anchors. Confirmed via the §7 duplicate-label finder: `la dupes/extras: ['1', '2']` traces to that single blockquote line, not to a real duplicate marker in the body. Nothing changed in this pass per the handoff's "confirm, document, do not fix the underlying convention" instruction.