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

source_text:
<!-- page 86 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum circumcisio cessaverit ante promulgationem Evangelii.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum circumcisio cessaverit ante promulgationem Evangelii. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Matthaei undecimo[^p86-1]: *Lex et Prophetae usque ad Ioannem* etc.; aut hoc dictum est *inclusive*, aut *exclusive*; sed quocumque modo hoc dictum est, cum defecerit Ioannes et eius baptismus ante passionem, videtur, quod Lex defecerit et Sacramenta legalia ante promulgationem Evangelii.

2. Item, ratio, quare circumcisio cessavit, fuit Legis impletio et legalium; sed haec omnia impleta sunt in passione, cum dictum est[^p86-2]: *Consummatum est, et velum templi scissum est*: ergo si hoc fuit ante Evangelii promulgationem, ante defecit — et hoc trahitur ex pluribus locis de libro Quaestionum novi et veteris Testamenti — ut Magister dicit in littera.

3. Item, specialis ratio cessationis circumcisionis fuit institutio nobilioris Sacramenti loco eius; sed baptismus est institutus ante passionem et Evangelii promulgationem[^p86-3]: ergo ante cessavit circumcisio.

4. Item, ad hoc est auctoritas Hieronymi ad Augustinum, quae ponitur in Glossa ad Galatas secundo[^p86-4]. Dicit Hieronymus: « Ego pronuntio, quod sint utique mortiferae caerimoniae Iudaeorum fidelibus; finis enim Legis Christus est ad iustitiam » etc.

**Sed contra:** 1. Post passionem Paulus circumcidit Timotheum Actuum decimo sexto[^p86-5], et in hoc non reprehenditur; et servavit votum Nazaraeorum, Actuum vigesimo primo: ergo nondum erat malum, nec circumcisio cessaverat. Si dicas, quod fecit propter vitandum scandalum[^p86-6]; *contra:* propter vitandum scandalum non est faciendum contra veritatem vitae vel doctrinae: ergo si hoc erat malum de se, nunquam ex hoc excusatur, quod non peccaverit.

2. Item, nullus obligatur ad id quod ignorat et non potest scire[^p86-7]; sed multi erant, ad quos non pervenerat institutio baptismi: ergo illi non tenebantur baptizari: ergo si Deus non reliquit eos sine remedio, adhuc post passionem circumcisio habuit effectum et statum.

3. Item, Augustinus ad Hieronymum[^p86-8]: *Circumcisio et cetera legalia non erant noxia, licet iam non essent significandis futuris necessaria; magis noxium erat ea quasi noxia prohibere.*

Est igitur hic quaestio, cum videatur hic esse multiplex contradictio, quid tenendum sit. — Nam Petrus videtur sibi contrarius, qui Actuum decimo quinto[^p86-9] dictavit, quod non erant legalia servanda, et postmodum iudaizabat, sicut dicitur ad Galatas secundo.

Item, Paulus videtur sibi contrarius, qui reprehendit Petrum, et postmodum circumcidit Timotheum et servavit votum Nazaraeorum. De primo habetur Actuum decimo sexto[^p86-10], de secundo Actuum vigesimo primo.

Item, Petrus videtur contrarius Paulo, et e converso, quia ad Galatas secundo[^p86-11] dicitur, quod Paulus restitit Petro in faciem: ergo dissensio videtur in hoc fuisse inter columnas Ecclesiae.

Item, Hieronymus videtur contrarius Augustino, sicut patet in Glossa ad Galatas secundo[^p86-12]; et quod aperte contradicant, illud apparet in eorum Epistolis, quibus sibi respondent. Unde Hieronymus in Epistola ad Augustinum: « Tu dicis legalia observare bonum, ego affirmo malum, non modo eis qui ex gentili, sed etiam qui ex Iudaico populo crediderunt ».

> **Conclusio.** Ante promulgationem Evangelii legalia non cessaverunt quantum ad observantiam nec quantum ad efficaciam universaliter, quia in distantibus probabiliter potuerunt habere efficaciam.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam aperienda est via duplex, quia praecipui doctores, scilicet

<!-- page 87 -->

Hieronymus et Augustinus, timuerunt[^p86-13] in huius quaestionis determinatione.

Et primo ad intelligendam solutionem Hieronymi sciendum est, quod beatus Hieronymus *duo tempora* intellexit in novae legis datione et Sacramentorum suorum institutione, unum scilicet tempus condendi Evangelium, quod incepit ab adventu Christi usque ad passionis consummationem; aliud fuit promulgationis Evangelii, quod incepit ab adventu Spiritus sancti usque ad finem mundi. Similiter intellexit, quod mandata legalia et caerimonialia dupliciter contingit servare: vel ex *praecepto* tanquam necessaria ad salutem, vel ex *dispensatione*, non quia bona sint, sed quia inde elicitur bonum. — Concessit ergo Hieronymus, legalia, maxime circumcisionem, servari debere, quousque veritas Evangelii promulgaretur, et institutio novae legis aperiretur, et hoc in toto[^p87-1] primo tempore. Sed illis incipientibus aperiri, illa cessabant, sicut ista innotescebant, ita ut nulli post acceptam notitiam veritatis liceret servare huiusmodi Sacramenta aliquo modo, nisi illis solum, ad quos non pervenerat praedicatio Evangelii, vel etiam ipsis Apostolis maioribus ex dispensatione et pia quadam simulatione; ceteri autem erant transgressores, qualitercumque servarent.

Et ad hoc ponendum movit eum auctoritas sacrae Scripturae et auctoritas Ecclesiae. Auctoritas sacrae Scripturae: nam omnes Apostoli consenserunt, Actuum decimo quinto[^p87-2] legalia non esse servanda. Rursus, videbat, Apostolos alicubi post illam sententiam servasse, et dicebat, primam sententiam datam esse secundum rigorem veritatis, sed observationem factam esse secundum simulationem pietatis, secundum quam dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios nono[^p87-3]: *Omnibus omnia factus sum, Iudaeis tanquam Iudaeus* etc.; et hoc pia quadam simulatione. — Auctoritas Ecclesiae movit, quia sancti Patres communiter damnaverunt haeresim Ebionis et Cerinthi, qui dixerunt, legalia cum Evangelio esse servanda; et propter hoc dicebant, pia quadam et dispensatoria simulatione esse servata propter infirmitatem Iudaeorum. Sic dixit Hieronymus, quod Petrus servabat legalia quadam simulatione, secundum quod Apostolus dicit ad Galatas secundo[^p87-4], *ita ut et Barnabas duceretur in hanc simulationem*. Et dixit etiam, quod Paulus pia quadam simulatione reprehendit Petrum, qui non peccabat; sicut Petrus condescendebat Iudaeis in legalium observatione, ita Paulus in illius observantiae reprehensione gentilibus[^p87-5]. Et ita nec Petrus peccavit in male observando, nec Paulus in procaciter reprehendendo, sicut Porphyrius haereticus Paulum arguebat, quod Apostolorum principi procaciter insultasset. — Ecce haec est positio Hieronymi et ratio positionis.

Augustinus autem alio modo solvit. Ad cuius solutionem intelligendam notandum est, quod Augustinus *triplex tempus* intellexit, scilicet tempus condendi Evangelium et promulgandi conditum et custodiendi iam promulgatum. Primum tempus fuit ab adventu Christi usque ad passionis consummationem, et in hoc tempore sunt legalia *infirmata* et in morte Christi *mortua*. Secundum tempus fuit a passione Christi usque ad divulgationem Evangelii in omnes gentes, quando potuit dici: *In omnem terram exivit*[^p87-6] etc.; et hoc tempore sunt legalia ad *tumulum deducta*. Tertium tempus fuit ab illo tempore usque ad finem, in quo legalia sunt quasi in *tumulo clausa*.

Ulterius notandum, quod triplici de causa possunt aliqua observari, scilicet propter *salutis necessitatem*, propter *honestatem*, propter *proximi infirmitatem*. — Dixit ergo Augustinus[^p87-7], quod primo tempore legalia servari potuerunt tanquam viva propter *salutis utilitatem*. Secundo tempore servari potuerunt etiam ab his qui audierunt Evangelium, propter *honestatem*, quia cum honore adducenda erat synagoga ad tumulum, non quasi idololatra statim abiicienda. Et hoc etiam tempore servari poterant propter *proximi utilitatem*, ne Iudaei a fide revocarentur. Tertio tempore nullo modo sunt servanda, quia qui iam servat non est materni corpusculi honorator, sed sepulturae impudens revelator[^p87-8].

Et ita posuit, quod Petrus et Paulus uterque servaverunt non tantum propter vitandum scandalum proximi, sed etiam ad honorem debitum matri impendendum; et quod non tantum simulatorie, sed etiam veraciter observaverunt, non propter *salutis necessitatem*, quia sciebant, ea non esse ad salutem necessaria. — Similiter posuit, quod Petrus veraciter, non simulatorie, reprehensus fuit a Paulo, non quia legalia servabat, sed quia exemplo suo gentiles iudaizare cogebat[^p87-9]. — Ratio autem sua

<!-- page 88 -->

haec fuit: nam si fuit ibi tantum *simulatio* in observatione, ergo propter scandalum proximi vitandum liceret relinquere veritatem. Et *iterum*; quare modo non similiter liceret? quod nullus diceret. *Rursus*, de reprehensione Pauli, si *simulate* tantum reprehendit Petrum, falsum ergo dixit et mentitus est, ad Galatas secundo[^p88-1], et quod non ambulabat *ad veritatem Evangelii*, et quod *reprehensibilis erat*. Sed quis audeat dicere, quod Paulus in doctrina veritatis dispensatorie sit mentitus[^p88-2]? Quod si aliquis det, patebit via haereticis, ut alia dicant simulate dicta.

Et quia ipse Augustinus, doctor egregius, verbis Hieronymi addit — nec mirum, quia non est inconveniens, quod posteriores prioribus addant — ideo modo solvendi Augustini tanquam sufficientiori adhaerent qui melius sentiunt. Unde Hugo de sancto Victore[^p88-3] dicit, quod circumcisio et alia legalia quantum ad *efficaciam* cessaverunt post passionem, sed quantum ad *observantiam* cessaverunt post Evangelii promulgationem. Et praeter rationem Augustini aliam rationem assignat, quia nec natura nec ratio sustinet repentinas immutationes; et ne videretur lex nova praecipitanter data, cum maturitate subintravit, et vetera transierunt.

Ex his patet responsio ad primum quod quaeritur. Concedo enim, sicut rationes ostendunt, quod legalia quantum ad *observantiam* non cessaverunt ante promulgationem; nec etiam quantum ad *efficaciam universaliter*, quia creditur, sicut dicit Bernardus[^p88-4], quod habuerunt efficaciam in his qui distabant et praeceptis adhuc restringi non poterant; in his autem, qui scire poterant, nullam efficaciam habebant.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod *Lex et Prophetae usque ad Ioannem* etc.; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur *inclusive*, non quia tunc statim defecerit, sed quia ex tunc legalis observantia infirmari coepit.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de impletione, dicendum, quod impletio fuit causa cessationis; sed causa ista non ponebat hunc effectum, nisi claresceret[^p88-5]; veritas enim excludit umbram tantum, dum clarificatur, quia nullus tenetur ad incognitum.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de institutione baptismi, dicendum, sicut tactum est, quod institutio erat *causa* evacuationis, sed *actu* non faciebat cessare, nisi prius pateret Sacramenti utilitas et necessitas. Sed haec non fuit indicta in aperto usque post passionem. Dominus enim dicit Nicodemo[^p88-6]: *Nisi quis renatus fuerit* etc.; sed hoc dixit quasi *consilium* in occulto.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Hieronymo, dicendum, quod Augustinus dictis Hieronymi addidit et clarius hoc vidit, et ideo eius dictis standum est. Nam et ipse Hieronymus[^p88-7] addendum et corrigendum sibi commisit.

Ex his patent repugnantiae. Nam Petrus primo dictavit, legalia non esse observanda, et ideo non esse gentibus imponenda. Sed tamen postmodum ipse servavit, ostendens, propter statum, in quo aliquando fuerant, esse honoranda. — Idem ipsum de Paulo est dicendum.

De controversia Petri et Pauli dicendum, quod idem senserunt omnino, et tamen Petrus iuste[^p88-8] reprehensus est, quia reprehensibilis erat, non quia male faceret, sed aliquantulum incaute; et ille defectus circumspectionis credo quod fuit in eo aliqua culpa, licet non esset mortalis. Et divina dispensatione hoc permissum est, ut, dum Petrus reprehensus non resisteret, clarius veritas pateret; et[^p88-9] quod Petrus exemplum imitandi in actu suo nollet dare. Unde erat *reprehensibilis*, id est utilis reprehendi et dignus, quia *ad veritatem Evangelii non ambulabat*, id est non *usquequaque*, quia ex hoc veritas conculcabatur; et ideo Paulus bene fecit et utiliter, qui coram omnibus eum reprehendit. Nec est excusandus Petrus ab una levi negligentia, ne Paulus accusetur gravius mendacii culpa. — Ad ultimam contrarietatem patet responsio ex praedictis[^p88-10].

---

english:
<!-- page 86 -->

### Question II. *Whether circumcision ceased before the promulgation of the Gospel.*

Secondly it is asked whether circumcision ceased before the promulgation of the Gospel. And that it did, it seems:

1. Matthew eleven[^p86-1]: *The Law and the Prophets were until John* etc.; either this is said *inclusively* or *exclusively*; but in whatever way this is said, since John and his baptism ceased before the passion, it seems that the Law ceased and the legal Sacraments before the promulgation of the Gospel.

2. Likewise, the reason why circumcision ceased was the fulfillment of the Law and of the legal observances; but all these were fulfilled in the passion, when it was said[^p86-2]: *It is consummated, and the veil of the temple was rent*: therefore if this took place before the promulgation of the Gospel, it ceased beforehand — and this is drawn from several places of the book of Questions on the New and Old Testament — as the Master says in the text.

3. Likewise, the special reason for the cessation of circumcision was the institution of a nobler Sacrament in its place; but baptism was instituted before the passion and the promulgation of the Gospel[^p86-3]: therefore circumcision ceased beforehand.

4. Likewise, to this there is the authority of Jerome to Augustine, which is set down in the Gloss on Galatians two[^p86-4]. Jerome says: « I pronounce that the ceremonies of the Jews are altogether deadly for the faithful; for the end of the Law is Christ unto justice » etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. After the passion Paul circumcised Timothy, Acts sixteen[^p86-5], and in this he is not reprehended; and he kept the vow of the Nazarites, Acts twenty-one: therefore it was not yet evil, nor had circumcision ceased. If you should say that he did it to avoid scandal[^p86-6]; *on the contrary:* to avoid scandal one must not act against the truth of life or of doctrine: therefore if this was evil in itself, he is never excused on this ground from not having sinned.

2. Likewise, no one is bound to that which he does not know and cannot know[^p86-7]; but there were many to whom the institution of baptism had not come: therefore they were not bound to be baptized: therefore if God did not leave them without a remedy, circumcision still had its effect and standing after the passion.

3. Likewise, Augustine to Jerome[^p86-8]: *Circumcision and the other legal observances were not harmful, although they were now no longer necessary for signifying things to come; it was more harmful to prohibit them as though harmful.*

There is therefore here a question, since there seems here to be a manifold contradiction, as to what must be held. — For Peter seems contrary to himself, who in Acts fifteen[^p86-9] declared that the legal observances were not to be kept, and afterward judaized, as is said in Galatians two.

Likewise, Paul seems contrary to himself, who reprehends Peter, and afterward circumcised Timothy and kept the vow of the Nazarites. Of the first it is had in Acts sixteen[^p86-10], of the second in Acts twenty-one.

Likewise, Peter seems contrary to Paul, and conversely, because in Galatians two[^p86-11] it is said that Paul withstood Peter to his face: therefore there seems to have been a dissension in this between the columns of the Church.

Likewise, Jerome seems contrary to Augustine, as is plain in the Gloss on Galatians two[^p86-12]; and that they openly contradict, this appears in their Letters, in which they answer one another. Hence Jerome in the Letter to Augustine: « You say that to observe the legal precepts is good, I affirm it evil, not only for those who believed from among the Gentiles, but also for those who believed from the Jewish people ».

> **Conclusion.** Before the promulgation of the Gospel the legal observances did not cease as regards observance, nor as regards efficacy universally, because among those at a distance they could probably still have efficacy.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing a twofold way must be opened, because the chief doctors, namely

<!-- page 87 -->

Jerome and Augustine, were apprehensive[^p86-13] in determining this question.

And first, for understanding the solution of Jerome, it must be known that blessed Jerome understood *two times* in the giving of the new law and the institution of its Sacraments: one, namely, the time of establishing the Gospel, which began from the coming of Christ until the consummation of the passion; the other was the time of the promulgation of the Gospel, which began from the coming of the Holy Spirit until the end of the world. Likewise he understood that the legal and ceremonial precepts can be kept in two ways: either by *precept* as necessary for salvation, or by *dispensation*, not because they are good, but because good is drawn from them. — Jerome therefore granted that the legal observances, especially circumcision, ought to be kept until the truth of the Gospel should be promulgated and the institution of the new law opened up, and this throughout[^p87-1] the whole first time. But as these things began to be opened up, those ceased, just as these became known, so that it was lawful for no one, after having received knowledge of the truth, to keep Sacraments of this kind in any way, except only for those to whom the preaching of the Gospel had not come, or even for the greater Apostles themselves by dispensation and a certain pious pretense; but the rest were transgressors, in whatever way they kept them.

And to laying this down he was moved by the authority of sacred Scripture and the authority of the Church. The authority of sacred Scripture: for all the Apostles agreed, Acts fifteen[^p87-2], that the legal observances were not to be kept. Again, he saw that the Apostles in some places after that decree had kept them, and he said that the first decree had been given according to the rigor of the truth, but that the observance had been made according to a pretense of piety, according to which the Apostle says in First Corinthians nine[^p87-3]: *I became all things to all, to the Jews as a Jew* etc.; and this by a certain pious pretense. — The authority of the Church moved him, because the holy Fathers commonly condemned the heresy of Ebion and Cerinthus, who said that the legal observances were to be kept together with the Gospel; and on this account they said that they had been kept by a certain pious and dispensatory pretense on account of the weakness of the Jews. Thus Jerome said that Peter kept the legal observances by a certain pretense, according to what the Apostle says in Galatians two[^p87-4], *so that even Barnabas was led into this pretense*. And he also said that Paul by a certain pious pretense reprehended Peter, who was not sinning; just as Peter condescended to the Jews in the observance of the legal precepts, so Paul to the Gentiles in the reprehension of that observance[^p87-5]. And thus neither did Peter sin in keeping them wrongly, nor Paul in reprehending shamelessly, as Porphyry the heretic charged against Paul, that he had shamelessly insulted the chief of the Apostles. — Behold, this is the position of Jerome and the ground of the position.

Augustine, however, resolves it in another way. For the understanding of his solution it must be noted that Augustine understood *three times*, namely the time of establishing the Gospel, of promulgating what was established, and of guarding what was already promulgated. The first time was from the coming of Christ until the consummation of the passion, and in this time the legal observances are *weakened*, and in the death of Christ *dead*. The second time was from the passion of Christ until the divulgation of the Gospel among all nations, when it could be said: *Their sound went out into all the earth*[^p87-6] etc.; and in this time the legal observances are *brought to the tomb*. The third time was from that time until the end, in which the legal observances are as it were *enclosed in the tomb*.

Further it must be noted that for a threefold cause some things can be observed, namely on account of *the necessity of salvation*, on account of *seemliness*, on account of *the weakness of a neighbor*. — Augustine therefore said[^p87-7] that in the first time the legal observances could be kept as living, on account of *the usefulness of salvation*. In the second time they could be kept even by those who had heard the Gospel, on account of *seemliness*, because the synagogue had to be brought to the tomb with honor, not cast off at once as an idolatress. And in this time too they could be kept on account of *the usefulness of the neighbor*, lest the Jews be called back from the faith. In the third time they are in no way to be kept, because he who now keeps them is not an honorer of the maternal little body, but a shameless uncoverer of the burial[^p87-8].

And so he held that Peter and Paul both kept them not only to avoid the scandal of a neighbor, but also to render the honor due to the mother; and that they observed them not only by pretense, but also truly, not on account of *the necessity of salvation*, because they knew that these were not necessary for salvation. — Likewise he held that Peter was reprehended by Paul truly, not by pretense, not because he kept the legal observances, but because by his example he was compelling the Gentiles to judaize[^p87-9]. — But his ground

<!-- page 88 -->

was this: for if there was there only *pretense* in the observance, then to avoid the scandal of a neighbor it would be lawful to abandon the truth. And *again*; why would it not likewise be lawful now? which no one would say. *Furthermore*, concerning the reprehension of Paul, if he reprehended Peter only by *pretense*, then he spoke falsely and lied, Galatians two[^p88-1], both that he did not walk *unto the truth of the Gospel*, and that he *was reprehensible*. But who would dare to say that Paul lied dispensatorily in the doctrine of truth[^p88-2]? But if anyone should grant this, the way will lie open for heretics to say that other things were said by pretense.

And because Augustine himself, an excellent doctor, adds to the words of Jerome — nor is it any wonder, since it is not unfitting that those who come later should add to those who came before — therefore those who think better adhere to Augustine's manner of solving as the more sufficient. Hence Hugh of Saint Victor[^p88-3] says that circumcision and the other legal observances ceased as regards *efficacy* after the passion, but as regards *observance* ceased after the promulgation of the Gospel. And besides Augustine's reason he assigns another reason, because neither nature nor reason endures sudden changes; and lest the new law should seem to have been given precipitately, it entered in with maturity, and the old things passed away.

From these things is plain the response to the first thing that is asked. For I concede, as the reasons show, that the legal observances did not cease as regards *observance* before the promulgation; nor even as regards *efficacy universally*, because it is believed, as Bernard says[^p88-4], that they had efficacy in those who were at a distance and could not yet be restrained by precepts; but in those who could know, they had no efficacy.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that *the Law and the Prophets were until John* etc.; it must be said that this is understood *inclusively*, not because they then ceased at once, but because from then on legal observance began to be weakened.

2. To that which is objected concerning fulfillment, it must be said that the fulfillment was the cause of cessation; but this cause did not produce this effect unless it should become clear[^p88-5]; for the truth excludes the shadow only when it is made clear, because no one is bound to what is unknown.

3. To that which is objected concerning the institution of baptism, it must be said, as has been touched upon, that the institution was the *cause* of evacuation, but in *act* did not make it cease, unless first the usefulness and necessity of the Sacrament were plain. But this was not declared openly until after the passion. For the Lord says to Nicodemus[^p88-6]: *Unless one be born again* etc.; but he said this as a *counsel* in secret.

4. To that which is objected concerning Jerome, it must be said that Augustine added to the words of Jerome and saw this more clearly, and therefore his words are to be stood by. For Jerome himself[^p88-7] entrusted it to him to add and to correct.

From these things the contradictions are plain. For Peter first declared that the legal observances were not to be observed, and therefore not to be imposed on the Gentiles. But nevertheless afterward he himself kept them, showing that, on account of the standing in which they once had been, they were to be honored. — The same is to be said of Paul.

Concerning the controversy of Peter and Paul it must be said that they thought entirely the same, and yet Peter was justly[^p88-8] reprehended, because he was reprehensible, not because he did wrong, but somewhat incautiously; and that defect of circumspection I believe to have been in him some fault, though it was not mortal. And by divine dispensation this was permitted, so that, while Peter when reprehended did not resist, the truth might be plain more clearly; and[^p88-9] that Peter might not wish to give an example to be imitated in his act. Hence he was *reprehensible*, that is, useful and worthy to be reprehended, because he *did not walk unto the truth of the Gospel*, that is, not *in every respect*, because by this the truth was being trampled; and therefore Paul did well and usefully, who reprehended him before all. Nor is Peter to be excused from one slight negligence, lest Paul be accused more gravely of the fault of lying. — To the last contrariety the response is plain from what has been said[^p88-10].

---

la: Vers. 13. — De cessatione baptismi Ioannis cfr. supra d. 2. dub. 6.

en: Verse 13. — On the cessation of John's baptism cf. above, d. 2, dub. 6.

la: Ioan. 19, 30. — Seq. textus est Matth. 27, 51. — De locis, qui pro hac re ex Quaest. veteris et novi Testam. (inter opera August.) allegari possunt, vide supra pag. 85, nota 4. in fine. Sententia Magistri continetur hic in lit. c. 8.

en: John 19, 30. — The following text is Matthew 27, 51. — On the places which can be alleged for this matter from the Questions on the Old and New Testament (among the works of Augustine), see above, p. 85, note 4, at the end. The Master's view is contained here in the text, c. 8.

la: Vide supra a. I. q. I. in fine.

en: See above, art. I, q. I, at the end.

la: Vers. 14. Glossa, quae est *ordinaria*, exhibetur a Petro Lombard. et Lyrano. In textu originali apud Hieronymum Epist. 112. (alias 89.) n. 14. plura verba adiuncta habentur. Respicitur in ipsa Rom. 10, 4, ubi Vulgata omittit *est*.

en: Verse 14. The Gloss, which is the *Ordinary* one, is given by Peter Lombard and by Lyra. In the original text in Jerome, Letter 112 (otherwise 89), n. 14, several added words are found. There is reference in it to Rom. 10, 4, where the Vulgate omits *est*.

la: Vers. 3. — Seq. locus est Act. 21, 23. seqq. — Inferius post *malum* cod. Z addit *circumcidi*.

en: Verse 3. — The following passage is Acts 21, 23 ff. — Below, after *malum* codex Z adds *circumcidi*.

la: Ut dicit Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum ex August., Epist. 82. (alias 19.) c. 2. n. 8. seqq., et I. Quaest. veteris et novi Testam. (inter opera August.) q. 60. — C. qui scandalizaverit, X. (v. tit. 41. c. 3.) de Regulis iuris. Propter scandalum evitandum veritas non est omittenda (secundum Bedam, in Marc. 9, 41.).

en: As the *Ordinary* Gloss in Strabo says, from Augustine, Letter 82 (otherwise 19), c. 2, n. 8 ff., and I, Questions on the Old and New Testament (among the works of Augustine), q. 60. — The chapter *Qui scandalizaverit*, X. (see tit. 41, c. 3) on the Rules of Law. To avoid scandal the truth is not to be omitted (according to Bede, on Mark 9, 41).

la: Regula iuris 13. in VI: Ignorantia facti, non iuris, excusat. Cfr. Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 5.

en: Rule of Law 13 in the Sixth [Book]: Ignorance of fact, not of law, excuses. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, II, p. VI, c. 5.

la: Epist. 82. (alias 19.) n. 15. Sententia, non verba Augustini afferuntur.

en: Letter 82 (otherwise 19), n. 15. The sense, not the words, of Augustine is given.

la: Vers. 10. — Seq. locus est Gal. 2, 11. seqq.

en: Verse 10. — The following passage is Gal. 2, 11 ff.

la: Vers. 3. — Alter locus est Act. 21, 23. seqq.

en: Verse 3. — The other passage is Acts 21, 23 ff.

la: Vers. 11.

en: Verse 11.

la: Vers. 11. apud Petr. Lombard. et Lyranum. — Verba Hieronymi habentur in iam allegata Epist. 112. (alias 89.) n. 16, ubi textus originalis post *malum* addit *et malum*, ac subinde cum cod. K pro *gentili* substituit *gentibus*.

en: Verse 11, in Peter Lombard and Lyra. — Jerome's words are found in the already-alleged Letter 112 (otherwise 89), n. 16, where the original text after *malum* adds *et malum*, and thereupon, with codex K, substitutes *gentibus* for *gentili*. ### Page 87

la: Vat. et aliquot codd., substituto *quam* pro *quia*, hic ponunt *tenuerunt*.

en: The Vatican edition and several codices, substituting *quam* for *quia*, here put *tenuerunt*.

la: Cod. U *et hoc est toto*. Inferius pro *acceptam* cod. F *adeptam*.

en: Codex U reads *et hoc est toto*. Below, for *acceptam* codex F reads *adeptam*.

la: Vers. 23. seqq.

en: Verse 23 ff.

la: Vers. 22. et 20. (Cfr. Epist. praeallegata Hieronym. n. 12. et 17.).

en: Verses 22 and 20. (Cf. the previously-alleged Letter of Jerome, n. 12 and 17.)

la: Vers. 13. (Vide in praenotata Epist. n. 13. et 15. seqq.).

en: Verse 13. (See in the aforenoted Letter, n. 13 and 15 ff.)

la: Ita codd. H Q (I a secunda manu), cod. P a secunda manu *gentilibus condescenderet*, Vat. *gentibus*, in aliis deest dativus. — Impudentia *Porphyrii* reprehenditur in dicta Epist. n. 11.

en: Thus codices H Q (I by a second hand), codex P by a second hand *gentilibus condescenderet*, the Vatican edition *gentibus*, in others the dative is lacking. — The impudence of *Porphyry* is reprehended in the said Letter, n. 11.

la: Psalm. 18, 5. — Cfr. August., Epist. 82. (alias 19.) n. 16. — Pro *divulgationem* codd. F G I *promulgationem*. Inferius pro *usque ad finem* Vat. *usque ad mundi finem*.

en: Psalm 18, 5. — Cf. Augustine, Letter 82 (otherwise 19), n. 16. — For *divulgationem* codices F G I read *promulgationem*. Below, for *usque ad finem* the Vatican edition reads *usque ad mundi finem*.

la: Loc. cit. — Inferius voci *utilitatem* Vat. praemittit *necessitatem vel*. Aliquanto post pro *adducenda* cod. F *deducenda*, et pro *proximi utilitatem* cod. U *proximi infirmitatem*.

en: Loc. cit. — Below, to the word *utilitatem* the Vatican edition prefixes *necessitatem vel*. Somewhat after, for *adducenda* codex F reads *deducenda*, and for *proximi utilitatem* codex U reads *proximi infirmitatem*.

la: August. loc. cit.: Non erit pius deductor vel baiulus corporis, sed impius sepulturae notator.

en: Augustine, loc. cit.: He will not be a pious leader or bearer of the body, but an impious marker of the burial.

la: Loc. cit. n. 15. Cfr. lib. contra Mendacium ad Consent. c. 12. n. 26.

en: Loc. cit. n. 15. Cf. the book Against Lying, to Consentius, c. 12, n. 26. ### Page 88

en: Verses 14 and 11.

la: Ita codd. F L (bb a secunda manu, cod. I autem *dispensatione*), quae lectio confirmatur a pluribus codd., qui habent *doctrina*, dum in aliis et edd. legitur *doctrinae veritatis dispensatione*. — De re cfr. August., loc. cit. n. 21. seq., ubi, praenotato, quod *dispensative mentiri*, si quid significet, idem sit ac *officiose mentiri*, et quod de permissione *officiosi mendacii* magna sit quaestio; docet, inconcusse tamen tenendum esse, auctores s. Scripturae in scribendo mendacium non commisisse, « ne dispensatores Christi, de quibus dictum est (I. Cor. 4, 2.) *Hic iam quaeritur inter dispensatores, ut fidelis quis inveniatur*, tanquam magnum aliquid sibi fideliter didicisse videantur, pro veritatis dispensatione mentiri, cum ipsa fides in latino sermone ab eo dicatur appellata, quia fit quod dicitur; ubi autem fit quod dicitur, mentiendi utique non est locus » etc. — De seq. proposit. vide ibid. n. 5. seq. Mox pro *det* codd. F H (Ia secunda manu) *dicat*, edd. *diceret*.

en: Thus codices F L (bb by a second hand, but codex I *dispensatione*), which reading is confirmed by several codices that have *doctrina*, while in others and in the editions is read *doctrinae veritatis dispensatione*. — On the matter cf. Augustine, loc. cit. n. 21 f., where, having premised that *to lie dispensatorily*, if it signifies anything, is the same as *to lie officiously*, and that concerning the permission of an *officious lie* there is a great question; he teaches, however, that it must be held unshakably that the authors of sacred Scripture committed no lie in writing, « lest the dispensers of Christ, of whom it is said (I Cor. 4, 2) *Here now it is sought among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful*, should seem, as though to have faithfully learned something great for themselves, to lie for the dispensation of the truth, since faith itself in the Latin tongue is so called by him because what is said is done; but where what is said is done, there is surely no place for lying » etc. — On the following proposition see ibid. n. 5 f. Soon, for *det* codices F H (I by a second hand) read *dicat*, the editions *diceret*.

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 4, ubi etiam *alia ratio* paulo inferius inducta habetur, de qua cfr. etiam August., loc. cit. n. 18: Sensim proinde atque paulatim etc.

en: On the Sacraments, Book II, p. VI, c. 4, where also *another reason* introduced a little below is found, on which cf. also Augustine, loc. cit. n. 18: Therefore gradually and by little and little etc.

la: De Baptismo, c. 1. n. 3. et c. 2. n. 6. — Codd. F H *Gregorius*.

en: On Baptism, c. 1, n. 3, and c. 2, n. 6. — Codices F H read *Gregorius*.

la: Glossa ordinaria (ex Rabano) super Iudith 8, 2: Veniente Christo et luce Evangelii clarescente in mundo, omnis illa observantia [legalium] cessit. — Ex codd. F G H I Y voci *effectum* praefiximus *hunc*.

en: The Ordinary Gloss (from Rabanus) on Judith 8, 2: With Christ coming and the light of the Gospel growing clear in the world, all that observance [of the legal precepts] ceased. — From codices F G H I Y we have prefixed *hunc* to the word *effectum*.

la: Ioan. 3, 5. Cfr. infra dub. I, et Bernard., de Baptismo, c. 1. n. 5.

en: John 3, 5. Cf. below, dub. I, and Bernard, On Baptism, c. 1, n. 5.

la: Cfr. eius Epist. 112. (alias 89.) n. 2.

en: Cf. his Letter 112 (otherwise 89), n. 2.

la: Edd. male *Petrus iste*. Mox post *sed* codd. S T U repetunt *quia*.

en: The editions wrongly read *Petrus iste*. Soon after *sed* codices S T U repeat *quia*.

la: Plurimi codd. et ed. A omittunt *et*, codd. M O substituunt *quia* pro *et quod*. Cod. O paulo superius post *ut* omittit *dum* (quod etiam plures alii codd. omittunt), subinde post *non resisteret*, pro quo edd. *desisteret*, addit *et*. Aliquanto inferius pro *non ambulabat* cod. I *non recte ambulabat*. Idem cod. I cum pluribus aliis et ed. A subinde pro *id est* substituit *et*.

en: Most codices and edition A omit *et*, codices M O substitute *quia* for *et quod*. Codex O a little above, after *ut*, omits *dum* (which also several other codices omit), then after *non resisteret*, for which the editions read *desisteret*, adds *et*. Somewhat below, for *non ambulabat* codex I reads *non recte ambulabat*. The same codex I, with several others and edition A, then substitutes *et* for *id est*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{086,087,088}-{L,R}-*.png`, extracted at 200–400 dpi, vol4 column split x≈1650–1880) cross-checked against IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw lines **L9918–10292**). English freshly translated, literal and parallel. The auto-chunked skeleton was labeled `d3-p2-a3-q2` with a stale "d.3-p2 mislabel" warning; that warning was a false alarm — the skeleton BODY is the correct circumcision-cessation-timing q2 (*Utrum circumcisio cessaverit ante promulgationem Evangelii*). Fully rebuilt to Tier 2.

**Confirmation of body identity.** Title *Utrum circumcisio cessaverit ante promulgationem Evangelii*; opener *Secundo quaeritur, utrum circumcisio cessaverit ante promulgationem Evangelii*. This is unambiguously the second (and last) question of Art. III (*De cessatione circumcisionis*).

**Page-split map** (Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page):
- **Printed p. 86** (PDF 106): question opener through *Sed contra* and the *multiplex contradictio* setup, ending mid-Respondeo at "praecipui doctores, scilicet". Footers **1–12** (12 notes), all belonging to p. 86 body anchors. Note 12 (Gal. 2, 11 Gloss / Jerome Epist. 112) closes the page.
- **Printed p. 87** (PDF 107): "Hieronymus et Augustinus, timuerunt…" through Augustine's threefold-time analysis, ending at "Ratio autem sua". Footers **1–10** (10 notes: the opening *timuerunt* variant is its own note, here rendered [^13] to keep the marker sequence unique within the file; then 1–10 of p. 87). The page's own sequence is 1–10; the *timuerunt* note sits at the top before note 1.
- **Printed p. 88** (PDF 108): "haec fuit…" (Augustine's ground) through Hugh of St. Victor, Bernard, the four replies, and the Peter/Paul controversy, ending q2 at "patet responsio ex praedictis." Footers **1–10** (10 notes). Note 10 = "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." — confirming the scholion location (see below).

**Cross-page footer attribution.** No footer crosses a page boundary; each printed page's footer block is self-contained and matches that page's body superscripts (p.86: 1–12; p.87: 1–10 + the top *timuerunt* note; p.88: 1–10). Within this single file the marker sequence is made unique by numbering p.86 as 1–12, the p.87 *timuerunt* note as 13, then p.87 1–10 and p.88 1–10 reusing low numbers (the build parser keys on the literal `[^N]` token within the file; each is unique across the file because p.87/p.88 low numbers do not collide — verified by build).

**Printed-page discrepancy (resolved, not a misalignment).** The coordinator brief listed printed pages **86–89** and placed DUBIA (DUB. I) at "~L10293, printed p.89." On reading the column bands, **q2's body fully ends on printed p. 88** ("…patet responsio ex praedictis."); **printed p. 89** (PDF 109) contains only the running head `DIST. III. P. II. DUBIA` and `DUB. I` (the start of the next chunk) — no q2 content. Frontmatter `printed_pages` is therefore set to **[86, 87, 88]** / `pdf_pages` **[106, 107, 108]** to reflect where q2's text actually lives. The "p.89" in the brief was the DUBIA page header sitting at the tail of the raw skeleton block, not q2 content. This is a pagination correction, NOT a body misalignment — the body is verified-correct q2.

**Scholion location.** No scholion in this chunk. The Art. III scholion (covering both q1 and q2) lives in **a3-q1** (committed 9252fdf); p.88 footer note 10 ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") explicitly redirects there. Frontmatter `has_scholion: false`.

**Hand-off forward.** The next chunk is **d3-p2-dubia** (the *Dubia circa litteram* of Dist. III, Pars II): **DUB. I begins at raw ~L10293, printed p. 89** (PDF 109), opener *In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Magister: Iam ergo institutus erat baptismus.* DUB. II and DUB. III follow on the same page. No q2 footer migrates into the dubia chunk; p.89's footers belong wholly to the dubia.

**`[?]` flags.** None. All readings resolved against the PDF column bands; OCR garbles (*circuracisio*, *Matlliaei*, *timuerunl*, *qaaestione*) silently corrected per CLAUDE.md OCR-cleanup rules where context was unambiguous.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 3, Part 1, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 74 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Baptismus est tinctio, id est ablutio corporis facta sub forma verborum praescripta.* Videtur enim mala esse ista notificatio: quia notificatio debet convenire notificato praecise[^11]; sed haec non est talis, quia, cum lava-

<!-- page 75 -->

tur pannus, est ablutio corporis, et potest fieri sub forma verborum praescripta, et sic esset baptismus; quod falsum est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ablutio antonomastice[^1] determinatur ad standum pro ablutione aquae; similiter *corpus* ad standum pro corpore humano, ut sit sensus, quod baptismus est ablutio corporis humani in aqua facta[^2] etc.

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *ablutio facta in elemento fit Sacramentum.* Ex hoc enim videtur, quod ablutio *passive* dicta sit Sacramentum; *contra:* Sacramentum est signum gratiae, quia «est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma[^3]»; sed gratia non est lota, sed lavans: ergo signum non est lotio *passiva,* sed *activa.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in baptismo concurrit lotio tribus modis dicta. Nam ille qui mergit, dicitur *lavare* et ideo baptizare; similiter et aqua dicitur *lavare,* et corpus *lavari:* et sic est lotio hominis lavantis et aquae lavantis et corporis loti. — Quia ergo ad baptismum haec triplex lotio necessario concurrit, per illam potissimum describitur, quae alias claudit et praesupponit; et haec est lotio *corporis passiva,* quae immediatius respicit baptizatum[^4] et praesupponit duplicem lotionem praedictam, quia facta et ab homine et ab aqua. — Quod quod obiicitur, quod non est signum gratiae; dicendum, quod haec lotio passiva signum est effectus gratiae; nec habet perfectam significationem, nisi prout coniungitur lotioni aquae et ministri; tunc enim signum est, quod anima purificatur a Deo per gratiam[^5].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *In duobus consistit Sacramentum baptismi.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia, ut dicit Ambrosius[^6] «omne Sacramentum est simplex»: ergo non consistit in duobus, quia tunc esset compositum.

**Respondeo:** Aliqui faciunt vim in hoc, quod dicitur *Sacramentum,* quia non vocat Sacramentum signum exterius, sed effectum gratiae interiorem, qui est gratia simplex[^7]. Aliqui vim faciunt in *simplicitate,* quia non dicitur simplex, quia non habet partes, sed quia non dividitur in plura Sacramenta. — Sed neutrum istorum est magnum quid dicere; ideo credo, quod vocat Sacramentum *simplex,* quia eius denominatio fit in instanti. Nam si Sacramentum remaneat imperfectum, nihil est factum, nec etiam debet dici inceptum, sed totum est reincipiendum. Et hoc patet ex verbis eius infra[^8]: «Ubi non est plenum Sacramentum baptismi, nec principium nec species aliqua baptismi aestimatur»; et ideo dicit esse simplex.

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *In nomine sanctae Trinitatis et in nomine Christi... unum et idem est.*

Notandum, quod non vult dicere quod verba eandem virtutem habeant, nec quod omnino idem sonent, sed quod modus baptizandi in Ecclesia primitiva conformis fuit modo, quem nunc tenet Ecclesia. Nam in *Christo* intellectus clauditur Trinitatis, tamen implicite et remote. — Vel, *idem est,* quia eiusdem virtutis et efficaciae; sed hoc intelligendum est pro tempore illo, in quo nondum erat nomen Christi promulgatum[^9].

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Ubi non est plenum baptismi Sacramentum, nec principium* etc.

Notandum, quod illud est dictum propter characteris impressionem; quousque enim character imprimatur, nihil de Sacramento factum est stabile[^10]. Et quoniam character imprimitur in instanti, quando factum est *aliquid, totum* perfectum est. Si ergo non est perfectum, nihil omnino factum est, non quantum ad operationem *exteriorem,* ubi est successio, sed *interiorem,* ubi est subita impressio.

<!-- page 76 -->

### Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur super hoc quod dicit Ambrosius, quod sufficit aliquam personarum exprimere.

Nota, illud esse intelligendum, non quia ibi sit plena forma — si enim crederet et negligens esset, quod credit exprimere, non sufficeret — et ideo solum in casu est credendum, ipsum locutum esse, scilicet si plena sit fides in corde, nec desit aliquid in sermone ex negligentia, sed solum impotentia; tunc supplet divina misericordia et sapientia.

english:
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first about what the Master says: *Baptism is a dipping, that is, an ablution of the body performed under a prescribed form of words.* For this description seems to be a poor one: because a description ought to fit the thing described precisely[^11]; but this one is not such, because, when a cloth is washed, it is an ablution of a body, and it can be done under a prescribed form of words, and so it would be baptism; which is false.

**I respond:** It must be said that *ablution,* by antonomasia[^1], is determined to stand for the ablution of water; likewise *body* to stand for a human body, so that the sense is that baptism is an ablution of a human body performed in water[^2], etc.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *the ablution performed in the element becomes the Sacrament.* For from this it seems that an ablution taken *passively* is the Sacrament; *on the contrary:* the Sacrament is a sign of grace, because «it is the visible form of an invisible grace[^3]»; but grace is not the thing washed, but the thing washing: therefore the sign is not the *passive* washing, but the *active.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in baptism a washing comes together, spoken of in three ways. For he who immerses is said to *wash* and therefore to baptize; likewise the water too is said to *wash,* and the body *to be washed:* and so there is the washing of the man washing, of the water washing, and of the body washed. — Since therefore this threefold washing necessarily comes together for baptism, it is described chiefly by that one which includes and presupposes the others; and this is the *passive washing of the body,* which more immediately regards the one baptized[^4] and presupposes the twofold washing aforesaid, since it is performed both by the man and by the water. — As to what is objected, that it is not a sign of grace; it must be said that this passive washing is a sign of the effect of grace; nor does it have its full signification except insofar as it is joined to the washing of the water and of the minister; for then it is a sign that the soul is purified by God through grace[^5].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *The Sacrament of baptism consists in two things.* For it seems false to say so, because, as Ambrose says[^6], «every Sacrament is simple»: therefore it does not consist in two things, since then it would be composite.

**I respond:** Some put the force in this, that it is called a *Sacrament,* because he does not call the Sacrament the exterior sign, but the interior effect of grace, which is simple grace[^7]. Some put the force in *simplicity,* because it is called simple not because it has no parts, but because it is not divided into several Sacraments. — But neither of these is anything great to say; therefore I believe that he calls the Sacrament *simple* because its denomination comes about in an instant. For if the Sacrament remains incomplete, nothing has been done, nor even ought it to be called begun, but the whole is to be begun again. And this is clear from his words below[^8]: «Where there is not the full Sacrament of baptism, neither a beginning nor any kind of baptism is reckoned»; and therefore he says it to be simple.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *In the name of the holy Trinity and in the name of Christ... it is one and the same.*

It must be noted that he does not mean to say that the words have the same power, nor that they sound altogether the same, but that the manner of baptizing in the primitive Church was conformable to the manner which the Church now holds. For in *Christ* the understanding of the Trinity is enclosed, yet implicitly and remotely. — Or, *it is the same,* because of the same power and efficacy; but this must be understood for that time in which the name of Christ had not yet been promulgated[^9].

### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *Where there is not the full Sacrament of baptism, neither a beginning* etc.

It must be noted that this is said on account of the impression of the character; for until the character is impressed, nothing of the Sacrament has been made stable[^10]. And since the character is impressed in an instant, when *something* has been made, *the whole* is complete. If therefore it is not complete, nothing at all has been done, not as regards the *exterior* operation, where there is succession, but the *interior,* where there is a sudden impression.

### Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about what Ambrose says, that it suffices to express one of the persons.

Note that this is to be understood not as though there were a full form there — for if one believed and were negligent of what he believes himself to express, it would not suffice — and therefore it is only in such a case to be believed that he has spoken, namely if there is full faith in the heart, and nothing is lacking in the speech from negligence, but only from incapacity; then the divine mercy and wisdom supplies.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 28, nota 6. — Pro *notificato,* quod cum edd. retinuimus, cod. I a secunda manu *ei cuius est.*

en: Cf. above, p. 28, note 6. — For *notificato,* which with the editions we have retained, codex I by a second hand [reads] *ei cuius est.*

la: Vide tom. III. pag. 220, nota 3. — Edd. cum aliquot codd. *falso auctoritate.*

en: See vol. III, p. 220, note 3. — The editions, with several codices, [read] *falso auctoritate.*

la: Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 1, ubi etiam de dubio seq.

en: Alexander of Hales solves the same doubt, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 8, m. 1, where also [he treats] of the following doubt.

la: Ut dicitur supra in lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 2. — Pro *contra,* quod exhibent codd. B l aa, codd. F H *et hoc videtur inconveniens, quia,* cod. U (K a secunda manu) *sed hoc non videtur, quia,* alii codd. *sed,* edd. *quod.*

en: As is said above in the text of the Master, d. 1, c. 2. — For *contra,* which codices B l aa exhibit, codices F H [read] *et hoc videtur inconveniens, quia;* codex U (K by a second hand) *sed hoc non videtur, quia;* other codices *sed;* the editions *quod.*

la: Ita permulti codd., edd. *baptismum.* Mox pro *quia facta* cod. H *quae facta est.*

en: So very many codices; the editions [read] *baptismum.* Soon, for *quia facta,* codex H [reads] *quae facta est.*

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1.

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Scholastici diversis in locis v. g. in tractatu de eucharistia, de poenitentia, hanc afferunt sententiam; sed iam S. Thom., IV. Sent. d. 16. q. 1. a. 1. ad 1, dicit: «Dubitatur de illa auctoritate, utrum sit Ambrosii». Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 2. a. 1. § 1. allegat *Dionysium,* qui (de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 3. p. 3. § 3.) de eucharistia notat, quod singulare habeat ac *simplex* compactumque principium.

en: The Scholastics in various places, e.g. in the treatise on the Eucharist, on penance, bring forward this saying; but already St. Thomas, IV Sent., d. 16, q. 1, a. 1, ad 1, says: «It is doubted of that authority, whether it be Ambrose's». Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 9, m. 2, a. 1, § 1, cites *Dionysius,* who (*On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy* c. 3, p. 3, § 3) notes of the Eucharist that it has a singular and *simple* and compact principle.

la: Ita docet Alex. Hal., loc. in nota 6. cit. — Superius pro *qui* multi codd. *quia.* Subinde pro *quia non habet* codd. F H *eo quod non habeat.*

en: So teaches Alexander of Hales, in the place cited in note 6. — Above, for *qui* many codices [read] *quia.* Thereupon, for *quia non habet,* codices F H [read] *eo quod non habeat.*

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4. Cfr. infra dub. 5.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 4. Cf. below, dub. 5.

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2. ad 3.

en: Cf. above, a. 2, q. 2, ad 3.

la: Vide infra d. 6. p. I. q. 4; cfr. etiam hic dub. 3.

en: See below, d. 6, p. I, q. 4; cf. also here, dub. 3.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`colcrop.py vol4 74/75/76 1880`), pp. 74–76, cross-checked against raw OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L8710–8853). This is the last chunk of Pars I of Distinction III; the next chunk (`d3-p2-divisio`) begins at the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III / Pars II` header on p.76 (raw ~L8855).

**Six dubia (I–VI):**
- Dub. I — whether the Master's definition of baptism (an ablution of the body) is a fitting description (opens p.74 foot, resolved p.75).
- Dub. II — whether ablution taken *passively* or *actively* is the Sacrament (the threefold washing).
- Dub. III — whether the Sacrament can "consist in two things" given Ambrose's "every Sacrament is simple."
- Dub. IV — the equivalence of baptizing "in the name of the Trinity" and "in the name of Christ."
- Dub. V — why there is no "beginning" of baptism short of the full Sacrament (the character impressed in an instant).
- Dub. VI — whether it suffices to express one of the persons (Ambrose).

**Apparatus page-split map (Quaracchi restarts numbering each printed page):**
- **p.74:** note **11** (`Cfr. supra pag. 28, nota 6…`, anchored on *praecise* in Dub. I) is the only p.74 footer belonging to this chunk; notes 1–10 of p.74 belong to the preceding quaestio a2-q3 (already captured there). Picked up here per the hand-off from the a2-q3 agent (commit c55a4d9).
- **p.75:** notes **1–10**, all belonging to Dub. I–V.
- **p.76:** note **1** (`Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2…`) was originally mis-taken here (as `[^1b]`, anchored on *sapientia*). Corrected 2026-06-19: it actually anchors in **d3-p2-a1-q1** at *ostendit* and has been removed from this chunk. p.76 notes 2, 3, 4 belong to d3-p2-divisio / a1-q1.

12 apparatus entries total.

**Hand-off forward (to `d3-p2-divisio`):** Pars II opens on p.76 right column with `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III / Pars II — De institutione baptismi`, then `DIVISIO TEXTUS` and `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` (raw ~L8855–8870). The p.76 footer notes **2, 3, 4** (`Hic c. 5.` / `Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6.` / `Vers. 4.`) belong to that next chunk's Divisio + Article I opener — pick them up there.

**[?] flags:** none. All six dubia and all twelve footers read cleanly from the 450 dpi column bands.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 3, Part 2, Dubia

source_text:
<!-- page 89 -->

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Iam ergo institutus erat baptismus.* Videtur enim ex hoc, quod cum institutio baptismi cadat sub praecepto, quod ante passionem tenebantur omnes baptizari: ergo omnes erant transgressores; quod videtur iniquum.

Ad hoc respondet Hugo de sancto Victore[^p89-1]: « Non est culpandus aliquis, nisi ex culpa sua sit ingratus consilii, aut praecepti; fuit autem Nicodemo revelatum tanquam consilium amico. Cum autem dictum est: *Ite, docete omnes gentes baptizantes* etc.; omnibus informandis expositum est praecepto. Unusquisque autem ex eo tempore debitor esse coepit, quo ad ipsum per praedicationem institutio pervenit[^p89-2] ».

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod baptismus non potest consecrari in alio liquore nisi in aqua. Quaeritur ergo, utrum in omni aqua. Et quod sic, videtur: quia « omnis aqua omni aquae est eadem specie[^p89-3] »: ergo si data est virtus speciei aquae, non huic vel illi speciali: videtur, quod in omni possit fieri baptismus.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod baptismus institutus est in elemento aquae, quia aqua per suam qualitatem repraesentat gratiam baptismalem[^p89-4]. Ad hoc ergo, quod sit baptismus, requiritur, quod salvetur proprietas et species aquae, ut sit aqua naturalis et habens aliquo modo proprietatem lavandi; et hanc etiam habet aqua turbida. Si vero aqua hoc perdat[^p89-5], vel quod miscetur cum praedominante et alterante et ducente in alias proprietates; non est dicendum, tunc in illo liquore tradi baptismatis Sacramentum. Et sic patet quod obiicitur[^p89-6].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod nec baptismus nec circumcisio aditum nobis regni aperuit. Videtur enim male dicere: quia ianuae clausio non fuit nisi per peccatum, et maxime per originale; sed baptismus et circumcisio delebant originale[^p89-7]: ergo aperiebant ianuam. — Item, de baptismo videtur dicere falsum, quia super illud Lucae tertio[^p89-8] *Apertum est caelum;* Glossa Bedae: « Dum ille Iordanis aquas subiit, nobis caeli ianuam pandit; et dum caro innoxia frigentibus aquis tangitur, opposita quondam noxiis romphaea ignea exstinguitur: nec Christus caelum tunc aperire coepit, sed his verbis ostenditur virtus baptismi ».

Quaeritur ergo, quae sit illa ianua, et quomodo sit aperta, et quando. Videtur enim aperta in passione, quia super illud ad Colossenses primo[^p89-9]: *Pacificans per sanguinem* etc; Glossa: « Patet modo introitus in caelum ». Item. — videtur, quod in resurrectione, per orationem, quam cantat Ecclesia[^p89-10]: « Deus, qui aeternitatis nobis aditum » etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod clausio ianuae spiritualis intelligitur prohibentia illa, ob quam nullus poterat ingredi ad Domini aspectum; illa autem prohibentia erat a divina iustitia iuste puniente et a peccato primi hominis promerente[^p89-11]. Merebatur originalis culpa, ut homo non compareret coram Deo propter foeditatem culpae, propter offensam Maiestatis divinae et propter *mortalitatem in carne,* quia vestitus sacco non debebat ingredi in palatium regis Assueri, sicut dicitur Esther quarto[^p89-12]. — Istam enim ianuam aperire dicitur illud quod removet ista obstacula. Obstaculum culpae amovebat baptismus; obstaculum debiti ratione offensae amovit passio, ubi fuit facta satisfactio; obstaculum mortis, Christi resurrectio. — Et ita ianuae apertio inchoari dicitur in baptismo et profectum habere in passione, sed com-

<!-- page 90 -->

plementum in resurrectione et manifestationem in ascensione. Et quoniam haec iam facta sunt, ideo virtus baptismi est ianuam aperire, non per[^p90-1] se tantum, sed etiam propter hoc, quod iam facta est oblatio hostiae verae. Ideo magis effectus apertionis ianuae attribuitur baptismo quam circumcisioni, licet utrumque Sacramentum deleat culpam. Et sic patet illud[^p90-2].

english:
### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which the Master says: *Already, therefore, baptism had been instituted.* For it seems from this, that since the institution of baptism falls under a precept, that before the Passion all were bound to be baptized: therefore all were transgressors; which seems unjust.

To this Hugh of Saint Victor responds[^p89-1]: « No one is to be blamed, unless by his own fault he is ungrateful for counsel or precept; but it was revealed to Nicodemus as counsel to a friend. But when it was said: *Go, teach all nations, baptizing them* etc., it was set forth as a precept for all who were to be instructed. Now each one began to be a debtor from that time at which the institution reached him through preaching[^p89-2] ».

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that baptism cannot be consecrated in any liquid except water. It is asked, therefore, whether in every water. And that it can, seems so: because « every water is of the same species as every water[^p89-3] »: therefore if the power has been given to the species of water, not to this or that particular kind: it seems that baptism could be performed in any.

I respond: It must be said that baptism was instituted in the element of water, because water by its quality represents baptismal grace[^p89-4]. To this end, therefore, that there be baptism, it is required that the property and species of water be preserved, so that it be natural water and having in some way the property of washing; and this even turbid water has. But if water loses this[^p89-5], or because it is mixed with something predominating and altering it and leading it into other properties; it is not to be said that in that liquid the Sacrament of baptism is conferred. And thus is clear what is objected[^p89-6].

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that neither baptism nor circumcision opened to us the entrance of the kingdom. For he seems to speak ill: because the closing of the gate was only through sin, and especially through original sin; but baptism and circumcision used to blot out original sin[^p89-7]: therefore they opened the gate. — Likewise, concerning baptism he seems to speak falsely, because upon that text of Luke, chapter three[^p89-8], *Heaven was opened;* the Gloss of Bede: « When he went down into the waters of the Jordan, he opened to us the gate of heaven; and when the innocent flesh is touched by the cold waters, the fiery sword once set against the guilty is extinguished: nor did Christ then begin to open heaven, but by these words the power of baptism is shown ».

It is asked, therefore, what that gate is, and how it is opened, and when. For it seems opened in the Passion, because upon that text of Colossians, chapter one[^p89-9]: *Making peace through the blood* etc; the Gloss: « Now the entrance into heaven lies open ». Likewise. — it seems that it was in the resurrection, through the prayer which the Church sings[^p89-10]: « God, who [has opened] to us the entrance of eternity » etc.

I respond: It must be said that the closing of the spiritual gate is understood as that prohibition on account of which no one could enter to the sight of the Lord; but that prohibition was from divine justice justly punishing and from the sin of the first man deserving it[^p89-11]. Original guilt deserved that man should not appear before God on account of the foulness of guilt, on account of the offense against the divine Majesty, and on account of *mortality in the flesh,* because one clothed in sackcloth ought not to enter into the palace of king Ahasuerus, as is said in Esther, chapter four[^p89-12]. — For that is said to open this gate which removes these obstacles. The obstacle of guilt baptism removed; the obstacle of debt by reason of the offense the Passion removed, where satisfaction was made; the obstacle of death, Christ's resurrection. — And thus the opening of the gate is said to be begun in baptism and to have its advance in the Passion, but its com-

plement in the resurrection and its manifestation in the ascension. And since these things have now been done, therefore the power of baptism is to open the gate, not by[^p90-1] itself alone, but also on account of this, that the offering of the true victim has now been made. Therefore the effect of the gate's opening is attributed to baptism rather than to circumcision, although each Sacrament blots out guilt. And thus is clear that[^p90-2].

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 5, pluribus tamen interpositis. Pro *expositum est praecepto* [cod. O *sub praecepto*] textus originalis et Vat. *expositum est praeceptum.* Locus Scripturae est Matth. 28, 19.

en: Book II of *On the Sacraments,* p. VI, c. 5, though with much interposed. For *expositum est praecepto* [codex O, *sub praecepto*] the original text and the Vatican edition read *expositum est praeceptum.* The Scripture passage is Matthew 28, 19.

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 2. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 5. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1; Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2.

en: Compare on this doubt Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 8, m. 2, a. 3; Albert the Great, here a. 3; Thomas, here q. 1, a. 5, little-question 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5, q. 2.

la: Aristot., I. Topic. c. 6. (c. 5.). — Inferius pro *speciali* codd. F H aa *specialiter.*

en: Aristotle, *Topics* I, c. 6 (c. 5). — Below, for *speciali* codices F H aa read *specialiter.*

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. — Pro *suam qualitatem* cod. II *suam naturam,* cod. G *suas proprietates.*

en: Compare above, a. 1, q. 1. — For *suam qualitatem* codex II reads *suam naturam,* codex G *suas proprietates.*

la: Codd. G I U Y (F a secunda manu) addunt *vel quia* [cod. U *sive quia*] *artificialis* [cod. F *sit aqua artificialis*]. Pro *hoc perdat* edd. *has conditiones perdat.* Mox pro *vel quod* cod. Z *vel quando.* Subinde pro *in illo liquore tradi* codd. K aa *quod in illo liquore tradi possit.*

en: Codices G I U Y (F by a second hand) add *vel quia* [codex U, *sive quia*] *artificialis* [codex F, *sit aqua artificialis*]. For *hoc perdat* the editions read *has conditiones perdat.* Soon after, for *vel quod* codex Z reads *vel quando.* Then for *in illo liquore tradi* codices K aa read *quod in illo liquore tradi possit.*

la: Idem dub. solvit B. Albert., hic a. 4; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Albert the Great, here a. 4; Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, little-question 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1, little-question 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 2.

la: Vide supra d. I. p. II. a. 2. q. I. et 3. ac infra d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. I.

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

la: Vers. 21. — Glossa est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum. In ipsa textus originalis substituit *tingitur* pro *tangitur* et pro *nec Christus caelum tunc aperire coepit* ponit *nec ibi Christo caelum aperiri coepit,* quibus verbis exprimit hanc sententiam Bedae (in hunc loc.): *Quid enim, nunquid ei tunc caelum apertum est, cuius oculi caelorum interiora cernebant?* — Non pauci codd. pro *opposita quondam* substituunt *opposita commoda,* et subinde omittunt *tunc,* cui cod. Iv praefigit *ibi.* Pro *Christus* cod. V *Christo.*

en: Verse 21. — The Gloss is the ordinary one in Strabo and Lyra. In it the original text substitutes *tingitur* for *tangitur,* and for *nec Christus caelum tunc aperire coepit* puts *nec ibi Christo caelum aperiri coepit,* by which words it expresses this opinion of Bede (on this passage): *For what — was heaven then opened to him, whose eyes beheld the interior of the heavens?* — Not a few codices for *opposita quondam* substitute *opposita commoda,* and then omit *tunc,* to which codex Iv prefixes *ibi.* For *Christus* codex V reads *Christo.*

la: Vers. 20. — Strabus et Lyranus exhibent Glossam ut ordinariam.

en: Verse 20. — Strabo and Lyra present the Gloss as the ordinary one.

la: In die Paschae, et exhibetur iam in Gregorii libr. Sacrament.

en: On the day of Easter, and it is already found in Gregory's book of Sacraments.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 18. q. [?]. — Superius pro *spiritualis* cod. U *satis bene spiritualiter,* et pro *prohibentia* Vat. bis *prohibitio.* Mox post *Merebatur* in codd. G I additur *enim.*

en: Compare III *Sentences,* d. 18, q. [?]. — Above, for *spiritualis* codex U reads *satis bene spiritualiter,* and for *prohibentia* the Vatican edition twice reads *prohibitio.* Soon after, after *Merebatur,* in codices G I is added *enim.*

la: Vers. 2: *Non enim erat licitum indutum sacco aulam regis intrare.* — Inferius pro *ratione offensae* codd. F H *id est offensae.* Subinde post *passio* cod. Z supplet *Christi,* et pro *ubi* edd. substituunt *per quam.*

en: Verse 2: *For it was not lawful to enter the king's hall clothed in sackcloth.* — Below, for *ratione offensae* codices F H read *id est offensae.* Then after *passio* codex Z supplies *Christi,* and for *ubi* the editions substitute *per quam.*

la: Codd. F H *propter.*

en: Codices F H read *propter.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. dub. 2; Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 7. a. 5. § 2. ad 1. et 2; B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Compare above, d. 1, p. II, dub. 2; Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 5, m. 7, a. 5, § 2, to 1 and 2; Albert the Great, here a. 7; Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Vol IV PDF column bands for printed pp.89–90 (PDF pp.109–110, offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against raw OCR lines 10293–10385 of `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`. This is a two-column page whose IA djvu OCR interleaved the columns; per the VOL II OVERRIDE the column-band PDF reads are authoritative for the cascade-shattered Respondeo/footer regions. Read order: p.89 left column (DUB. I + DUB. II) → p.89 right column (DUB. III opening) → p.90 (DUB. III tail). No scholion is present in this dubia chunk.

**Page-split map.** DUB. I and DUB. II are entirely on p.89 (left column). DUB. III opens on p.89 (right column) and continues onto p.90, where its final paragraph runs from "plementum in resurrectione…" through "…Et sic patet illud." Page break placed at the DUB. III continuation boundary ("…sed com-" | "plementum…"). Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering per printed page: p.89 carries notes 1–12 (left col 1–7, right col 8, '/Vers.20=9, '"/In die Paschae=10, 1'/Cfr. III. Sent.=11, '2/Vers.2=12); p.90 carries a fresh sequence whose notes 1 (*non per¹ se*) and 2 (*patet illud²*) both anchor in this chunk's DUB. III tail — note 3 on p.90 (*Vat. et edd…quod nascendo*) and notes 4–7 belong to DISTINCTIO IV and are NOT included here.

**Boundary confirmation.** DUB. III is the last unit of d.3. On p.90 the text "…Et sic patet illud." is immediately followed by the running head transition and `DISTINCTIO IV` / `Pars I` / `Cap. I` (raw L10386, OCR'd as `DISTINCTIO lY.`). No d.4 content is included; d.3 ends cleanly before DISTINCTIO IV at raw L10386. (The prior skeleton body was contaminated: it ran from raw L10294 all the way to ~L10881, sweeping in DISTINCTIO IV Cap. I–VII and the d.4 dubia; the `## Latin` body was therefore rebuilt from scratch capturing only L10293–L10385.)

**[?] flags.**
- `[^11]`: the cross-reference "Cfr. III. Sent. d. 18. q. [?]" — the OCR footer (`1' Cfr. 111. Sent. d. 18. q-`) breaks off without a legible question number, and the PDF right-column footer band is clipped at the inner margin at exactly this token. Rendered with `q. [?]` rather than guessing a number; the rest of the note (the *spiritualis*/*prohibentia*/*Merebatur* variants) is fully legible.