title: Dist. 4, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 108 -->

### Quaestio II. *Quis baptismus sit dignior, utrum baptismus aquae, an sanguinis.*

Secundo quaeritur de praeeminentia istorum, et quaeritur, quis baptismus sit dignior, utrum baptismus aquae, vel sanguinis. Et quod aquae, videtur:

1. Quia Damascenus[^1] distinguit novem genera baptismatum, ascendendo gradatim, et in ultimo ponit baptismum aquae sive fluminis: ergo si gradatim ascendit, sicut patet in aliis differentiis, videtur, quod illud quod ultimo ponit, est perfectius. Sed ultimo ponit baptismum aquae: ergo etc.

2. Item, baptismus aquae habet efficaciam a passione Christi[^2], sed baptismus sanguinis a passione Martyris; sed maior et nobilior est passio Christi et eius virtus quam passio Martyris et eius virtus: ergo maior est efficacia baptismi aquae quam baptismi sanguinis: ergo baptismus aquae nobilior.

3. Item, baptismus aquae tribuit gratiam gratum facientem, per quam acquiritur *aurea*; sed baptismus sanguinis ducit ad *aureolam*, quae est accidentale praemium[^3]: ergo si praemium substantiale praecellit accidentale, ergo baptismus ordinatus ad meritum substantiale et praemium praecellit alium; et sic etc.

4. Item, remedium illud, quod plures curat et a pluribus morbis et periculosioribus sanat, melius est et utilius; sed baptismus aquae plures personas sanat et a pluribus morbis quam baptismus sanguinis, quia ab omni culpa tam mortali quam veniali[^4]: ergo est remedium melius et utilius, ergo nobilius.

**Contra:**
1. Iudicum sexto[^5] super illud: *Tolles taurum* etc.; Glossa: «Baptismus in sanguine puriores facit, quam baptismus in aqua»; sed baptismus ille est perfectior, qui facit puriorem: ergo baptismus sanguinis est perfectior et nobilior baptismo aquae.

2. Item, Damascenus[^6] dicit, quod «baptismus sanguinis est valde bonus et venerandus, quia secundis sordibus non inquinatur»; sed baptismus aquae secundis sordibus inquinatur: ergo baptismus sanguinis est perfectior et nobilior baptismo aquae.

3. Item, processus est ab imperfecto ad perfectum[^7]; sed a baptismo aquae ad baptismum sanguinis sive martyrii recto ordine proceditur et non retroceditur: ergo ille baptismus, in quo est status perfectionis, est dignior.

4. Item, quod proximius est fini et certius et efficacius et ponit in altiori gradu, illud est simpliciter nobilius et melius[^8]; et talis est baptismus sanguinis, quia statim introducit in gloriam sine impedimento, nec tantum acquirit gloriam, immo gloriam eminentem: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** Et in liberando a malo et in ordinando ad bonum baptismus sanguinis excedit intensive baptismum fluminis, sed exceditur extensive.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod dignitatis praeeminentia in his baptismatibus conspicitur ex consideratione effectuum eorundem. Utriusque autem effectus, scilicet sanguinis et fluminis, est et in liberando a malo et ordinando ad bonum; et utroque modo se habent sicut excedentia et excessa. — Nam maior effectus sive efficacia in liberando a malo potest esse vel extensive, vel intensive. Si extensive, baptismus aquae excedit, quia plures personas liberat et a pluribus morbis, quia a peccato

<!-- page 109 -->

mortali et veniali. Baptismus autem sanguinis liberat paucos, et solum a veniali liberat, a mortali non, quia praesupponit caritatem; aliter nihil valeret ad salutem[^1b]. — Similiter in ordinando ad bonum maior potest excessus attendi dupliciter: aut extensive, aut intensive. Si extensive, sic praecellit baptismus aquae, quia dat gratiam gratis datam, scilicet characterem, et gratiam gratum facientem, quae disponit ad gloriam et praemium essentiale. Baptismus autem sanguinis gratiam gratum facientem non tribuit, sed consummat; nec tribuit characterem, per quem distinguitur anima et praeparatur ad gratiam[^2b].

Utroque modorum praedictorum baptismus sanguinis excedit intensive, sicut exceditur extensive. Nam efficacius et melius liberat a malo et culpae et poenae, quia omnem resecat et secundum potentiam et secundum actum. Similiter efficacius ordinat ad bonum, quia statim introducit in gloriam et perfectionem, et gloriosiorem hoc baptismo baptizatus consequitur palmam[^3b]. Respondendum est igitur ad quaestionem praedictam, quod se habent sicut excedentia et excessa. — Si tamen quaeras, quod magis praecellat, credo, quod baptismus martyrii, sicut ostendunt rationes inductae.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod Damascenus ultimo loco ponit baptismum aquae; breviter respondendum, quod non ponit ultimo propter hoc, quod sit dignior, sed quia est in intentione tractandi principalior, et quia nomen baptismi magis proprie habet, quia mundat et interius et exterius.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod baptismus aquae habet efficaciam a passione Christi: ergo etc.; dicendum, quod argumentum illud deficit dupliciter. Primo, quia passio Christi non operatur ibi secundum totam suam virtutem. Secundo, etiam quia baptismus martyrii efficaciam habet a passione Christi; nullum enim martyrium efficax est nisi per illam. Unde Apocalypsis septimo[^4b] scribitur de Martyribus: *Hi sunt, qui venerunt ex magna tribulatione et laverunt stolas suas et dealbaverunt eas in sanguine Agni*, non tantum in suo, sed etiam Agni. — Ratio autem, quare efficaciam habet maiorem, est, quoniam in baptismo sanguinis amplior et plenior est imitatio et professio passionis Christi quam in baptismo aquae. Nam ibi est professio verbo et signo sine actu, hic autem non solum signo et actione, sed et passione. Unde in baptismo aquae mors *significatur*, hic autem *suscipitur*; unde quia expressior est ibi fidei professio, ideo efficacior. Unde Augustinus loquens ad Fortunatum[^5b] de comparatione horum baptismatum dicit: «Baptizatus confitetur fidem suam coram sacerdote, Martyr coram persecutore. Ille post professionem aspergitur aqua, hic aspergitur sanguine. Ille manus impositione Pontificis accipit Spiritum sanctum, hic templum efficitur Spiritus sancti». Et ita patet, quod illud praecellit.

3. 4. Ultima duo non probant, quod[^6b] sit efficacius simpliciter, sed quod ad plura, quia ad gratiam gratum facientem et contra mortem culpae; hic autem, quamvis non det gratiam, tamen ipsam consummat. Quamvis enim baptismus sanguinis non auferat culpam, aufert tamen omnem possibilitatem ad culpam; et hoc maioris est perfectionis, quam delere culpam et dimittere possibilitatem ad culpam, immo inclinationem[^7b].

---

english:
<!-- page 108 -->

### Question II. *Which baptism is worthier, that of water or that of blood.*

Secondly it is asked concerning the preeminence of these [baptisms], and it is asked which baptism is worthier, that of water or [that] of blood. And that [the baptism] of water [is worthier] seems [so]:

1. Because Damascene[^1] distinguishes nine kinds of baptisms, ascending by degrees, and in the last place sets the baptism of water, that is, of water [*fluminis*]: therefore if he ascends by degrees, as is clear in the other distinctions, it seems that what he sets last is more perfect. But he sets the baptism of water last: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the baptism of water has its efficacy from the Passion of Christ[^2], but the baptism of blood from the passion of a Martyr; but greater and nobler is the Passion of Christ and its power than the passion of a Martyr and its power: therefore greater is the efficacy of the baptism of water than of the baptism of blood: therefore the baptism of water is nobler.

3. Likewise, the baptism of water bestows sanctifying grace, by which the *aurea* [the essential reward] is acquired; but the baptism of blood leads to the *aureola*, which is an accidental reward[^3]: therefore if the substantial reward surpasses the accidental, then the baptism ordered to substantial merit and reward surpasses the other; and so etc.

4. Likewise, that remedy which cures more [people] and heals from more and more dangerous diseases is better and more useful; but the baptism of water heals more persons and from more diseases than the baptism of blood, because [it heals] from every fault, both mortal and venial[^4]: therefore it is a better and more useful remedy, therefore nobler.

**On the contrary:**
1. Judges, sixth [chapter][^5], on that [verse]: *You shall take the bull* etc.; the Gloss: «Baptism in blood makes [people] purer than baptism in water»; but that baptism is more perfect which makes [one] purer: therefore the baptism of blood is more perfect and nobler than the baptism of water.

2. Likewise, Damascene[^6] says that «the baptism of blood is very good and venerable, because it is not defiled by second defilements»; but the baptism of water is defiled by second defilements: therefore the baptism of blood is more perfect and nobler than the baptism of water.

3. Likewise, the progression is from the imperfect to the perfect[^7]; but from the baptism of water to the baptism of blood, that is, of martyrdom, one proceeds in right order and does not go backward: therefore that baptism, in which there is the state of perfection, is worthier.

4. Likewise, that which is nearer to the end and more certain and more efficacious and sets [one] in a higher degree, that is simply nobler and better[^8]; and such is the baptism of blood, because it at once introduces [one] into glory without impediment, nor does it merely acquire glory, but rather eminent glory: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** Both in freeing from evil and in ordering to the good, the baptism of blood exceeds the baptism of water [*fluminis*] intensively, but is exceeded extensively.

**I respond:** It must be said that the preeminence of dignity in these baptisms is discerned from the consideration of their effects. But the effect of each, namely of blood and of water, lies both in freeing from evil and in ordering to the good; and in both ways they stand as exceeding and exceeded. — For the greater effect or efficacy in freeing from evil can be either extensive or intensive. If extensive, the baptism of water exceeds, because it frees more persons and from more diseases, since [it frees] from

<!-- page 109 -->

mortal and venial sin. But the baptism of blood frees few, and frees only from venial [sin], not from mortal, because it presupposes charity; otherwise it would avail nothing for salvation[^1b]. — Likewise in ordering to the good the greater excess can be considered in two ways: either extensively or intensively. If extensively, thus the baptism of water excels, because it gives gratuitously-given grace, namely the character, and sanctifying grace, which disposes to glory and the essential reward. But the baptism of blood does not bestow sanctifying grace, but consummates it; nor does it bestow the character, by which the soul is marked off and prepared for grace[^2b].

In both of the aforesaid ways the baptism of blood exceeds intensively, just as it is exceeded extensively. For it frees from evil — both from fault and from punishment — more efficaciously and better, because it cuts off all [evil] both as to potency and as to act. Likewise it more efficaciously orders to the good, because it at once introduces [one] into glory and perfection, and the one baptized by this baptism attains a more glorious palm[^3b]. It must therefore be answered to the aforesaid question that they stand as exceeding and exceeded. — But if you ask which excels more, I believe [it is] the baptism of martyrdom, as the arguments adduced show.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected first, that Damascene sets the baptism of water in the last place; it must be briefly answered that he does not set it last on account of its being worthier, but because it is more principal in the intention of his treatment, and because it more properly bears the name of baptism, since it cleanses both inwardly and outwardly.

2. To that which is objected, that the baptism of water has its efficacy from the Passion of Christ: therefore etc.; it must be said that that argument fails in two ways. First, because the Passion of Christ does not operate there according to its whole power. Secondly, also because the baptism of martyrdom has its efficacy from the Passion of Christ; for no martyrdom is efficacious except through it. Hence in Revelation, seventh [chapter][^4b], it is written of the Martyrs: *These are they who came out of great tribulation and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb*, not only in their own [blood], but also in the Lamb's. — But the reason why it has greater efficacy is that in the baptism of blood the imitation and profession of Christ's Passion is ampler and fuller than in the baptism of water. For there [in water] the profession is by word and sign without act, but here [in blood] not only by sign and action, but also by suffering. Hence in the baptism of water death is *signified*, but here it is *undergone*; whence, because the profession of faith is there more express, therefore it is more efficacious. Hence Augustine, speaking to Fortunatus[^5b] concerning the comparison of these baptisms, says: «The baptized confesses his faith before the priest, the Martyr before the persecutor. The former, after his profession, is sprinkled with water, the latter is sprinkled with blood. The former receives the Holy Spirit by the imposition of the Pontiff's hand, the latter is made a temple of the Holy Spirit». And thus it is clear that that [baptism of blood] excels.

3. 4. The last two [arguments] do not prove that[^6b] it is more efficacious simply, but that [it is so] as to more things, because [the baptism of water leads] to sanctifying grace and against the death of fault; but this [baptism of blood], although it does not give grace, nonetheless consummates it. For although the baptism of blood does not take away fault, it nonetheless takes away every possibility for fault; and this is of greater perfection than to delete fault and to remit the possibility for fault, or rather the inclination [to it][^7b].

---

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 9. Cfr. quaest. seq. in fine, ubi etiam de ordine agimus, quo Damasc. haec baptismata proposuit. S. Bonav. sequitur Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 9. a. 1.

en: Book IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 9. Cf. the following question, at the end, where we also treat of the order in which Damascene proposed these baptisms. St. Bonaventure follows Alexander of Hales, P. IV, q. 8, m. 9, a. 1.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 20. q. 4. in fine corp.

en: Cf. *III Sent.*, d. 20, q. 4, at the end of the body [of the article].

la: De aurea et aureola vide infra d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. in corp.

en: On the *aurea* and the *aureola*, see below, d. 23, a. 2, q. 3, in the body.

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

en: Cf. above, part I of this distinction, a. I, q. I.

la: Vers. 23. — Glossa est sumta ex Origen., in Lib. Iudic. homil. 7. n. 2. — Codd. et edd. allegant Num. 7.

en: Verse 23. — The Gloss is taken from Origen, in his *Homilies on the Book of Judges*, homily 7, n. 2. — The codices and editions cite Numbers 7.

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 9.

en: Book IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 9.

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 330, nota 5. locos Aristotelis, qui etiam III. Top. c. 2. ait: *Melius autem ut plurimum quod posterius sequitur.*

en: See tome II, page 330, note 5, [for] the passages of Aristotle, who also in *Topics* III, c. 2, says: *But that is for the most part better which follows later.*

la: Aristot., III. Topic. c. 1. ait: *Duorum quod propinquius est fini* [est eligibilius et melius], et omnino quod ad vitae finem expetibilius, quam quod ad aliud aliquid, ut quod ad felicitatem contendit, quam quod ad prudentiam etc. — Vat. post *fini* prosequitur: *est certius et efficacius et quod ponit...* et tale est. Codd. F H L *sed talis est.*

en: Aristotle, *Topics* III, c. 1, says: *Of two things, that which is nearer to the end* [is more choiceworthy and better], and altogether that which is more desirable for the end of life than what is [desirable] for something else, as what strives toward happiness [is better] than what [strives] toward prudence, etc. — The Vatican [edition], after *fini*, continues: *it is more certain and more efficacious and sets [one]...* and is such. Codices F H L [read] *sed talis est* [but it is such].

la: Epist. I. Cor. 13. 3.

en: [The] Epistle, I Corinthians 13:3.

la: Vide infra dub. 3. et d. 6. p. I. q. 2. ac 4.

en: See below, *dub.* 3, and d. 6, part I, q. 2 and 4.

la: Origen., in Lib. Iudic. homil. 7. n. 2: *Illo enim* [baptismo aquae] *accepto, valde pauci sunt ita beati, qui id immaculatum usque ad exitum vitae servare potuerint; hoc vero baptismo* [sanguinis] *qui baptizatus fuerit peccare iam ultra non potest... per illud baptisma praeterita peccata purgantur, per istud vero etiam futura perimuntur. Ibi peccata dimissa sunt, hic exclusa* etc. — Aliquanto superius post *resecat* codd. G I supplent *culpam*, cod. X melius *culpam et poenam.*

en: Origen, in his *Homilies on the Book of Judges*, homily 7, n. 2: *For when that* [baptism of water] *has been received, very few are so blessed as to be able to keep it spotless to the end of life; but whoever has been baptized with this baptism* [of blood] *can no longer sin... through that baptism past sins are purged, but through this even future ones are destroyed. There sins are forgiven, here they are shut out*, etc. — A little above, after *resecat*, codices G I supply *culpam* [fault], codex X better [reads] *culpam et poenam* [fault and punishment].

la: Vers. 14.

en: Verse 14.

la: Ita allegatur etiam in *C. Catechumenum* (37.), de Conserat. d. 4; verba tamen inveniuntur in libro *de Ecclesiast. Dogmatibus* (Gennadii, inter opera August.), c. 41: *Baptizandus confitetur fidem suam coram sacerdote, et interrogatus respondet; hoc et martyr coram persecutore facit, qui et confitetur fidem suam et interrogatus respondet. Ille post confessionem vel aspergitur aqua vel intingitur, et hic vel aspergitur sanguine vel contingitur igne... hic locutorium* [mss. *habitaculum*] *efficitur Spiritus sancti, dum non est ipse qui loquitur, sed Spiritus Patris, qui loquitur in illo.*

en: It is also so cited in *C. Catechumenum* (37), of Consecration, d. 4; the words, however, are found in the book *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas* (of Gennadius, among the works of Augustine), c. 41: *The one to be baptized confesses his faith before the priest, and being questioned answers; this the martyr too does before the persecutor, who both confesses his faith and being questioned answers. The former, after his confession, is either sprinkled with water or immersed, and the latter is either sprinkled with blood or touched with fire... here he is made the speaking-place* [mss. *dwelling-place*] *of the Holy Spirit, since it is not he himself who speaks, but the Spirit of the Father, who speaks in him.*

la: Supple: baptismus aquae.

en: Supply: the baptism of water.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question [a1-q1].

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 12461–12599), collated column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.108–109 (PDF pp.128–129; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF-priority inversion in the cascade-prone Conclusio / Respondeo / Solutio / footer regions). This is **Distinction IV, Part II, Article I, Question II** — *Quis baptismus sit dignior, utrum baptismus aquae, an sanguinis*.

**QUAESTIO II header restored.** The header is OCR-garbled at raw **L12461** as `0U,\ESTIO IL` (= *QUAESTIO II.*); restored to `### Quaestio II.` and verified eyes-on at the top of p.108 R-column (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p108-R-0.png`). The title at raw L12465 (*Quis baplismus sit dignior, lUriim hwplismus ufjuac, aii sanguinis*) is OCR-mangled and re-set against the PDF to *Quis baptismus sit dignior, utrum baptismus aquae, an sanguinis*.

**Alignment confirmed.** The incipit *Secundo quaeritur de praeeminentia istorum, et quaeritur, quis baptismus sit dignior, utrum baptismus aquae, vel sanguinis* (raw L12468, verified eyes-on `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p108-L-1.png`) matches the QUAESTIO II title (water vs blood preeminence). No q-swap. The body opens with four *videtur quod aquae* arguments, four *Contra* (blood) arguments, the *Conclusio*, *Respondeo*, and a four-part *Solutio* ending at "inclinationem[^7b]" on p.109 R-column, immediately before QUAESTIO III.

**Scholion location.** This question has **NO scholion of its own.** The Article-I scholion (paragraphs I–III, covering q1–q3) is printed once at the end of **q1**'s body and lives in the committed chunk `bon-sent-IV-d4-p2-a1-q1.md` (2979bc2). Its paragraph **II** ("In solving the second question St. Bonaventure follows Alexander of Hales…") addresses this q2. The tail of that scholion (paras I–III) prints at the top of p.108 L/R-columns *above* this QUAESTIO II header (verified `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p108-{L,R}-0.png`) — it belongs to q1, not here.

**Page-split / apparatus map (15 footer entries; running heads verified eyes-on at 450 dpi):**
- **p.108** (running head "108 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; q-body running gloss "DIST. IV. P. II. ART. I."): QUAESTIO II header + title + four *videtur* args + start of *Contra* args (raw L12461–L12530 region). Body markers `[^1]`–`[^8]`. p.108 footer carries **eight** notes, all q2's (verified `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p108-L-2.png` for 1–6, `vol4-p108-R-2.png` for 7–8): 1 *Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 9…* → `[^1]`; 2 *Cfr. III. Sent. d. 20…* → `[^2]`; 3 *De aurea et aureola…* → `[^3]`; 4 *Cfr. supra huius dist. p. I…* → `[^4]`; 5 *Vers. 23. — Glossa… Origen.* → `[^5]` (Iud. 6:23); 6 *Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 9.* → `[^6]`; 7 *Vide tom. II. pag. 330… Aristot. III. Top.* → `[^7]`; 8 *Aristot., III. Topic. c. 1…* → `[^8]`.
- **p.109** (running head "DIST. IV. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. III. 109" — note the running head already advances to QUAEST. III even though q2's Respondeo/Solutio occupy the top of both columns): q2 *Contra* tail + Conclusio + Respondeo + four-part Solutio (raw L12531–L12599). Body markers `[^1b]`–`[^7b]`. p.109 footer carries **nine** notes; **q2 takes notes 1–7** (markers in q2's body), **notes 8–9 forward to q3** (their markers `tertia⁸`/`expressivum⁹` are in q3's body). Verified `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p109-L-2.png` (notes 1–5) + `vol4-p109-R-2.png` (notes 6–9): 1 *Epist. I. Cor. 13. 3.* → `[^1b]` (keys "ad salutem"); 2 *Vide infra dub. 3. et d. 6…* → `[^2b]` (keys "ad gratiam"); 3 *Origen., in Lib. Iudic. homil. 7…* → `[^3b]` (keys "palmam"); 4 *Vers. 14.* → `[^4b]` (Apoc. 7:14); 5 *Ita allegatur… C. Catechumenum… de Ecclesiast. Dogmatibus* → `[^5b]` (keys "ad Fortunatum"); 6 *Supple: baptismus aquae.* → `[^6b]` (keys "Ultima duo non probant, quod"); 7 *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* → `[^7b]` (keys "inclinationem").

**Hand-off picked up from `bon-sent-IV-d4-p2-a1-q1` (committed 2979bc2).** That chunk forwarded: (a) the QUAESTIO II header is OCR-dropped/garbled at raw L12461 — **restored here**; (b) q2 begins on printed p.108, title/incipit eyes-on verified — **confirmed**; (c) q2 has no scholion of its own (Art.-I scholion held in q1) — **confirmed, noted above**; (d) q2's own p.108 footers (Damascenus etc.) belong here — **all eight placed as `[^1]`–`[^8]`**.

**Cross-chunk hand-off forwarded to `bon-sent-IV-d4-p2-a1-q3` (QUAESTIO III, *Utrum baptismus sanguinis saltem sit Sacramentum*, raw L12600):** (a) the QUAESTIO III header is **clean** in the OCR at raw L12606 (`QUAESTIO III.`), title at L12608 — no restore needed. (b) q3 begins mid-p.109 (incipit *Tertio quaeritur de horum convenientia…*, raw L12610), running head already reads "…QUAEST. III. 109". (c) **q3 inherits p.109 footer notes 8–9**: note **8** *Cap. 6.* (keys q3's "distinctione tertia") and note **9** *Supplendum est: in Sacramento baptismi. Vide supra d. 3. p. I. a. I. q. I. — In* maiori *pro* expressivum *multi codd. cum ed. 1* expressum *.* (keys q3's "Sacramentum est signum expressivum"); both verified in `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p109-R-2.png`. (d) q3 has **no scholion of its own** — the Art.-I scholion (q1–q3) is held in a1-q1; note `scholion pro quaest. praec. (a1-q1)`, paragraph III addresses q3.

**`[?]` flags:** none. The full body — four *videtur* args, four *Contra* args, Conclusio, Respondeo, and four-part Solutio — plus all fifteen footer entries are fully legible in the 450 dpi column bands and match the OCR after mechanical de-garbling. OCR header garbles (`0U,\ESTIO IL`→QUAESTIO II, `c N C Lll s I 0`→CONCLUSIO, `Ri;si'ONDEO`→RESPONDEO) are letter-substitutions corrected against the clean PDF; not flagged. The Quaracchi marginal labels ("Ad oppositum", "Fundamenta", "Axioma", "Conclusio 1–6", "Solutio oppositorum", "Defectus duplex", "Ratio", "Notandum", "Duplex effectus") are editorial side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text, and are omitted per convention.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 4, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 109 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum baptismus sanguinis saltem sit Sacramentum.*

Tertio quaeritur de horum convenientia; et cum baptismus aquae sit baptismus et Sacramentum, quaeritur, utrum baptismus sanguinis saltem sit Sacramentum. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia supra distinctione tertia[^1] dicit Magister, quod «Sacramentum baptismi celebratur tantum in aqua, non in aliquo alio liquore»; sed sanguis non est liquor eiusdem speciei cum aqua: ergo etc.

2. Item, Sacramentum est signum expressivum[^2] eius quod fit interius; sed sanguis potius corpus inficit, quam purificet: ergo cum interius anima non

<!-- page 110 -->

inficiatur, sed purificetur, baptismus sanguinis non est Sacramentum.

3. Item, Sacramentum novae legis efficit aliquid sive confert aliquid interius aliquo modo[^3]; sed sanguis exterior et persecutio exterior non efficit interius, sed potius recipit bonitatem ab interiori: ergo etc.

4. Item, omne Sacramentum est *institutum*, quia ex institutione significat[^4]; hoc autem non est institutum: ergo non est Sacramentum.

**Contra:** 1. «Sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma[^5]»; sed hoc est in martyrio, quia est signum gratiae invisibilis in corde, et manifestatur amor Dei per sanguinis effusionem: ergo etc.

2. Item, super illud ad Romanos quinto[^6]: *Qui est forma futuri*; Glossa: «De latere Christi dormientis fluxerunt omnia Sacramenta, ex quibus formatur Ecclesia»; et hoc dicit, quia inde fluxerunt sanguis et aqua: ergo videtur, quod ita accedit ad rationem Sacramenti sanguis, sicut aqua.

3. Item, «quod participat nomen *speciei* participat nomen *generis*[^7]»; sed martyrium sive effusio sanguinis dicitur baptismus: ergo debet dici Sacramentum.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur: cum multa sint genera martyriorum, propter quid martyrium vocatur magis baptismus sanguinis quam ignis vel alterius elementi, cum his omnibus[^8] sint Sancti passi?

Et iterum, cum multa sint genera baptismatum, sicut dicit Damascenus[^9], scilicet novem, videtur, quod Magister insufficienter tangat tantum tria, scilicet baptismum *poenitentiae* et baptismum *sanguinis* et baptismum *aquae*; videtur enim, quod aut Magister diminutus est, aut Damascenus superfluus.

> ### Conclusio.
> Baptismus sanguinis non est Sacramentum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod baptismus sanguinis non est Sacramentum; quia deficiunt ei omnia, quae sunt de ratione[^10] Sacramenti, scilicet repraesentatio ex similitudine, significatio ex institutione, sanctificatio ex verbi prolatione; quorum quodlibet deficit, ut in opponendo tactum est et inspicienti patet: et ideo Sacramentum non est.

**Ad oppositum:** 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma; dicendum, quod ratio ista est truncata et supplenda est, sicut Magister supplevit supra distinctione prima[^11]: «ita quod similitudinem gerat et causa existat», quorum utrumque deficit in proposito.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Sacramenta dicuntur profluxisse, dum profluxit sanguis et aqua; dicendum, quod *sanguis* et *aqua* non significabant Sacramentum eiusdem generis, sed diversa; nam *aqua* praesignabat Sacramentum baptismi, et *sanguis* Sacramentum eucharistiae, ubi vere est sanguis Christi; et ideo non oportet, quod verum Sacramentum baptismi sit in sanguine, quia Dominus non instituit in sanguine Sacramentum purgationis, sed cibationis et refectionis, iuxta illud Matthaei vigesimo sexto[^12]: *Hic est calix sanguinis* etc.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod participat nomen speciei etc.; dicendum, quod verum est, secundum quod *baptismus* nominat *speciem Sacramenti*; et hoc quidem facit, dum accipitur pro *signo visibili*[^13]. Sed *baptismus* non tantum dicitur ablutio exterior, sed etiam purificatio interior; et haec non est species Sacramenti, quoniam haec est non tantum in baptismo *fluminis*, sed etiam *flaminis* et *sanguinis*. Unde quia uterque purificat, ideo non absurde uterque baptismus dicitur, et hoc auctoritate sacrae Scripturae; nam Lucae duodecimo[^14] de baptismo martyrii dicitur: *Baptismo habeo baptizari* etc.; et de baptismo flaminis habetur Actuum primo: *Vos autem baptizabimini Spiritu sancto non post multos hos dies.*

Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare martyrium dicitur baptismus sanguinis etc.; dici potest, quod in martyrio ponitur vita carnis, et vita illa in sanguine est, secundum quod dicitur in lege Moysi[^15]. — Vel dicendum, quod hoc dicitur, quia omne genus martyrii ibi habet finem. Nam ab omnibus aliis legimus Sanctos interdum liberatos praeterquam a poena gladii.

Si quaeratur ratio huius, potest dici, quod hoc genus poenae est a mala *voluntate* hominis immediate, sed alia genera poenarum sunt a creaturis operantibus *naturaliter*; et quoniam Martyr Deo obtemperat, congruum est, ut ei ad manifestationem divinae bonitatis et in testimonium suae virtutis ob-

<!-- page 111 -->

temperent cetera operantia per naturam. Mala autem voluntas contra Deum nititur et Domino resistere vult et iusto Dei iudicio sinitur male agere, cum vult; et ideo nec est congruum, ut Martyri subiciatur nec quod a malo prohibeatur[^16]. Ideo Deus ceteros Martyres huic poenae subiacere disposuit, ut nullus evadat; magis enim congruebat de hac quam de alia. — Vel, quia ab hac Unigenitum non eripuit, quid mirum est, si alios non eripit, ne forte servus videatur maior Domino suo[^17]? Prima tamen ratio videtur melior.

Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod Magister tantum ponit tria, et Damascenus novem; dicendum, quod Magister non agit hic nisi de baptismo, qui *purificat*; et hunc comprehendit sub triplici differentia. Damascenus autem accipit differentias baptismi et quantum ad *purificationem* et quantum ad *significationem*; ideo ponit novem[^18], quorum sic potest patere sufficientia. Nam baptismata particularia ad *significationem* fuerunt ante legem novam, in lege autem nova ad *purificationem*. — Prima quatuor sunt secundum quatuor, quae praefigurantur in baptismo. In baptismo enim est *aqua*, est *Spiritus*, est *passionis virtus*, et quarto *baptizandi actus*. Quantum ad *aquam* praecessit figura in baptismo *diluvii*, secundum quod dicitur primae Petri tertio[^19]: *Quos nunc similis formae salvos facit baptisma*. Praemiserat enim, quod in diluvio octo animae salvae factae sunt per aquam. — Quantum ad *aquam et Spiritum*, in baptismo *maris rubri*; de quo dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios decimo[^20], quod omnes baptizati sunt in nube et in mari, et nubes illa erat ignea; in quo significatur Spiritus sancti gratiae efficacia. — Quantum ad *virtutem passionis* praefiguratur in baptismo Legis, ubi erat aspersio per aquam lustrationis; et erat cinis vitulae rufae, in cuius vitulae occisione significabatur passio Christi, ut aqua lustrationis, habens vim ab illo cinere, significet, baptismum habere virtutem a passione Christi. Et de hoc baptismate habetur saepe in Lege et ad Hebraeos nono[^21]: *Cinis vitulae aspersus inquinatos sanctificabat ad emundationem.* — Quantum ad *actum baptizandi*, in baptismo *Ioannis*, ubi immergebatur quis in *nomine venturi*, in quo praecessit expressa figura quantum ad actum. De hoc baptismate dicitur Matthaei tertio[^22] et Lucae tertio, Marci primo et Ioannis primo. Et sic quantum ad *significationem* sunt quatuor.

Quatuor autem sunt quantum ad *purificationem*. Est enim purificatio a culpa, et sic baptismus *poenitentiae*; et a culpa et poena satisfactoria, et sic baptismus *aquae*; et a sequela, et sic baptismus in *linguis igneis*[^23]; et ab omni miseria, et sic baptismus *sanguinis*. — Et sic patet, quod in lege nova quatuor *purificantia*, et in lege ante novam sunt quatuor *significantia*. Et medium *iungens* haec illis fuit baptismus, quo baptizatus fuit Christus, ubi collata est vis regenerativa aquis, et Spiritus in columbae specie descendit de caelis[^24]. — Et sic patet, quod in universo sunt novem et non plura nec pauciora baptismata. Patet etiam, quare Magister tantum tria enumerat, quia solum de his loquitur, quae sunt ad baptismi efficaciam quoad *purgationem a culpa*[^25].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether baptism of blood is at least a Sacrament.*

Thirdly there is asked about the agreement of these; and since the baptism of water is both a baptism and a Sacrament, it is asked whether the baptism of blood is at least a Sacrament. And that it is not, seems [to be the case]:

1. Because above, in the third distinction[^1], the Master says that «the Sacrament of baptism is celebrated only in water, not in any other liquid»; but blood is not a liquid of the same species as water: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, a Sacrament is a sign expressive[^2] of that which is done interiorly; but blood rather infects the body than purifies [it]: therefore, since the soul is not infected interiorly,

but purified, the baptism of blood is not a Sacrament.

3. Likewise, a Sacrament of the new law effects something or confers something interiorly in some manner[^3]; but exterior blood and exterior persecution does not effect [anything] interiorly, but rather receives its goodness from the interior: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, every Sacrament is *instituted*, because it signifies by institution[^4]; but this is not instituted: therefore it is not a Sacrament.

**On the contrary:** 1. «A Sacrament is the visible form of invisible grace[^5]»; but this [is found] in martyrdom, because it is a sign of invisible grace in the heart, and the love of God is manifested through the shedding of blood: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, on that [verse] to the Romans, fifth [chapter][^6]: *Who is the figure of him that was to come*; the Gloss: «From the side of the sleeping Christ flowed all the Sacraments, from which the Church is formed»; and it says this because from there flowed blood and water: therefore it seems that blood approaches the account of a Sacrament just as water does.

3. Likewise, «that which participates in the name of the *species* participates in the name of the *genus*[^7]»; but martyrdom, that is, the shedding of blood, is called a baptism: therefore it ought to be called a Sacrament.

Along with this it is asked: since there are many kinds of martyrdoms, why is martyrdom called the baptism of blood rather than of fire or of any other element, since the Saints have suffered by all of these[^8]?

And again, since there are many kinds of baptisms, as Damascene says[^9] — namely, nine — it seems that the Master insufficiently touches on only three, namely the baptism of *penance* and the baptism of *blood* and the baptism of *water*; for it seems that either the Master is deficient or Damascene is superfluous.

> ### Conclusion.
> The baptism of blood is not a Sacrament.

**I respond:** It must be said that the baptism of blood is not a Sacrament; because there are lacking to it all the things which belong to the account[^10] of a Sacrament, namely, representation from likeness, signification from institution, sanctification from the utterance of the word; any of which is lacking, as was touched on in the objecting and is clear to one inspecting: and therefore it is not a Sacrament.

**To the contrary [arguments]:** 1. To that, then, which is objected, that it is the visible form of invisible grace; it must be said that this account is truncated and must be supplemented, just as the Master supplemented [it] above in the first distinction[^11]: «in such a way that it both bears a likeness and is a cause», both of which are lacking in the matter at hand.

2. To that which is objected, that the Sacraments are said to have flowed forth when blood and water flowed forth; it must be said that *blood* and *water* did not signify a Sacrament of the same genus, but [Sacraments] diverse [in genus]; for *water* prefigured the Sacrament of baptism, and *blood* the Sacrament of the Eucharist, where there is truly the blood of Christ; and therefore it is not necessary that the true Sacrament of baptism be in blood, because the Lord did not institute in blood the Sacrament of purgation, but of feeding and refreshment, according to that [word] of Matthew, twenty-sixth [chapter][^12]: *This is the chalice of [my] blood* etc.

3. To that which is objected, that it participates in the name of the species etc.; it must be said that it is true, insofar as *baptism* names the *species of a Sacrament*; and this indeed it does when it is taken for a *visible sign*[^13]. But *baptism* is called not only the exterior washing, but also the interior purification; and this latter is not a species of a Sacrament, since this [purification] is not only in the baptism of *flood* [*fluminis*], but also of *fire* [*flaminis*] and of *blood*. Hence, because each one purifies, therefore not absurdly is each called a baptism, and this by the authority of sacred Scripture; for in Luke, twelfth [chapter][^14], it is said of the baptism of martyrdom: *I have a baptism to be baptized with* etc.; and concerning the baptism of fire it is found in Acts, first [chapter]: *But you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.*

To that which is asked: why is martyrdom called the baptism of blood etc.; it can be said that in martyrdom the life of the flesh is laid down, and that life is in the blood, according to what is said in the law of Moses[^15]. — Or it must be said that this is said because every kind of martyrdom has its end there. For from all the others we read that the Saints were sometimes freed, except from the penalty of the sword.

If the reason for this be asked, it can be said that this kind of penalty is from the evil *will* of man immediately, but the other kinds of penalties are from creatures operating *naturally*; and since the Martyr obeys God, it is fitting that, for the manifestation of the divine goodness and in testimony of His power, the other things operating by nature should obey

him. But the evil will strives against God and wishes to resist the Lord, and by the just judgment of God it is permitted to act evilly, when it wills; and therefore it is neither fitting that it be subjected to the Martyr nor that he be protected from evil[^16]. Therefore God disposed that the other Martyrs should lie under this penalty, that none might escape; for it was more fitting [to free him] from this than from another. — Or, because from this [death] He did not snatch away His Only-begotten, what wonder is it if He does not snatch away others, lest perchance the servant should seem greater than his Lord[^17]? Yet the first reason seems better.

To that which is objected lastly, that the Master sets down only three, and Damascene nine; it must be said that the Master treats here only of baptism which *purifies*; and this he comprehends under a threefold difference. But Damascene takes the differences of baptism both as to *purification* and as to *signification*; therefore he sets down nine[^18], whose sufficiency can be made clear thus. For the particular baptisms before the new law were for *signification*, but in the new law for *purification*. — The first four are according to the four [things] which are prefigured in baptism. For in baptism there is *water*, there is the *Spirit*, there is the *power of the Passion*, and fourthly the *act of baptizing*. As to the *water*, the figure preceded in the baptism of the *flood*, according to what is said in the first [letter] of Peter, third [chapter][^19]: *Whom now baptism of like form makes safe*. For he had premised that in the flood eight souls were saved by water. — As to *water and the Spirit*, in the baptism of the *Red Sea*; concerning which the Apostle says in the first [letter] to the Corinthians, tenth [chapter][^20], that all were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, and that cloud was fiery; in which is signified the efficacy of the grace of the Holy Spirit. — As to the *power of the Passion*, it is prefigured in the baptism of the Law, where there was a sprinkling by the water of purification; and there was the ash of the red heifer, in the slaying of which heifer the Passion of Christ was signified, so that the water of purification, having power from that ash, might signify that baptism has its power from the Passion of Christ. And concerning this baptism it is often had in the Law and to the Hebrews, ninth [chapter][^21]: *The ash of the heifer, being sprinkled, sanctified the defiled unto cleansing.* — As to the *act of baptizing*, in the baptism of *John*, where one was immersed in the *name of him who was to come*, in which a clear figure preceded as to the act. Concerning this baptism it is said in Matthew, third [chapter][^22], and Luke, third, Mark, first, and John, first. And so as to *signification* there are four.

And there are four as to *purification*. For there is purification from fault, and so the baptism of *penance*; and from fault and satisfactory penalty, and so the baptism of *water*; and from the consequence [of sin], and so the baptism in *fiery tongues*[^23]; and from all misery, and so the baptism of *blood*. — And so it is clear that in the new law there are four *purifying* [baptisms], and in the law before the new there are four *signifying* [baptisms]. And the means *joining* these to those was the baptism by which Christ was baptized, where the regenerative power was conferred upon the waters, and the Spirit descended from heaven in the form of a dove[^24]. — And so it is clear that in the whole [order of things] there are nine baptisms and not more nor fewer. It is also clear why the Master enumerates only three, because he speaks only of those which pertain to the efficacy of baptism as to *purgation from fault*[^25].

---

la: Cap. 6.

en: Chapter 6. [Sc. Lombard, *Sent.* IV, d. 3, c. 6.]

la: Supplendum est: in Sacramento baptismi. Vide supra d. 3. p. I. a. I. q. I. — In *maiori* pro *expressivum* multi codd. cum ed. I *expressum*.

en: It must be supplied: in the Sacrament of baptism. See above, d. 3, p. I, a. I, q. I. — In the major [premise], for *expressivum* [expressive] many codices, with the first edition, [read] *expressum* [expressed].

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 4. seq. — De *minori*, in qua cod. aa *sed sanguinis persecutio exterior* etc., cfr. supra pag. 109, nota 1. et infra dub. 1.

en: Cf. above, d. 1, p. I, q. 4 and following. — Concerning the *minor* [premise], in which codex aa [reads] *sed sanguinis persecutio exterior* etc., cf. above, page 109, note 1, and below, dub. 1.

la: Ut monstratum est supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2.

en: As was shown above, d. 1, p. I, q. 2.

la: Sicut dicit Magister in lit. d. 1. c. 2.

en: As the Master says in the [Lombard] text, d. 1, c. 2.

la: Vers. 14. — Glossam, quae sumta est ex August. (cfr. supra pag. 2, nota 12.), exhibent Strabus et Lyranus ut *ordinariam* et in ipsa pro *formatur* substituunt *salvatur*. Inferius respicitur Ioan. 19, 34. — Finem arg. sic proponunt edd.: *ad rationem Sacramenti baptismus sanguinis sicut aquae*. Plures codd. *sanguinis* pro *sanguis*.

en: Verse 14 [Rom. 5:14]. — The Gloss, which is taken from Augustine (cf. above, page 2, note 12), Strabus and Lyra present as the *ordinary* [Gloss], and in it for *formatur* [is formed] they substitute *salvatur* [is saved]. Below, reference is made to John 19:34. — The end of the argument the editions propose thus: *to the account of a Sacrament the baptism of blood [approaches] as does that of water*. Several codices [read] *sanguinis* [of blood] for *sanguis* [blood].

la: Secundum Aristot. IV. Topic. c. 1: Species quidem participant genera, genera autem species non; nam species suscipit generis rationem, genus autem speciei non.

en: According to Aristotle, *Topics* IV, c. 1: Species indeed participate in genera, but genera do not [participate] in species; for the species takes up the account of the genus, but the genus [does] not [take up that] of the species.

la: Ita codd. F H P Q, codd. M R *in omnibus*, alii et edd. *omnibus*.

en: Thus codices F H P Q; codices M R [read] *in omnibus* [in all]; the others and the editions [read] *omnibus* [by all].

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 9. — Verba Magistri vide hic in lit. c. 4.

en: Book IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 9. — For the words of the Master see here in the [Lombard] text, c. 4.

la: Cod. K *de substantia*.

en: Codex K [reads] *de substantia* [concerning the substance].

la: Cap. 4.

en: Chapter 4. [Sc. Lombard, *Sent.* IV, d. 1, c. 4.]

la: Vers. 28. Vulgata: *Hic est enim sanguis meus* etc. Codd. legunt vel *Hic est calix sanguis* etc., vel *Hic est calix et sanguis*, vel ut cod. Z, quem sequimur, *Hic est calix sanguinis*. — Superius pro *sed diversa* cod. aa *sed diversi*.

en: Verse 28 [Matt. 26:28]. The Vulgate: *For this is my blood* etc. The codices read either *Hic est calix sanguis* etc., or *Hic est calix et sanguis*, or, as codex Z, which we follow, *Hic est calix sanguinis* [This is the chalice of blood]. — Above, for *sed diversa* codex aa [reads] *sed diversi*.

la: Sensus est: Axioma est verum, si intelligitur de baptismo sumto sensu proprio, quo est unum de septem Sacramentis.

en: The sense is: The axiom is true if it is understood of baptism taken in the proper sense, in which it is one of the seven Sacraments.

la: Vers. 50. — Seq. textus est Act. 1, 5.

en: Verse 50 [Luke 12:50]. — The following text is Acts 1:5.

la: Levit. 17, 11, et 14: Quia anima carnis in sanguine est.

en: Leviticus 17:11 and 14: For the life of the flesh is in the blood.

la: Edd. *nec quod carnifex a malo prohibeatur. Vel ideo Deus* etc. Subinde ante *quia* edd. omittunt *Vel*, mutata interpunctione.

en: The editions [read] *nor that the executioner be hindered from evil. Or for this reason God* etc. Thereafter, before *quia*, the editions omit *Vel*, with the punctuation altered.

la: Ioan. 13, 16: Non est servus maior domino suo.

en: John 13:16: The servant is not greater than his lord.

la: In textu Graeco (IV. de Fide orthod. c. 9.) haec baptismata recensentur modo aliquatenus diverso, ac sit a Scholasticis, scil.: Primum baptisma *diluvium* fuit... Secundum illud, fuit quod per *mare et nubem* factum est... Tertium *legale* erat... Quartum *Ioannis* fuit... Quintum *Domini* baptisma, quo *ipse* baptizatus fuit... Baptizamur autem et *nos* quoque perfecto Domini baptismo, per *aquam videlicet et Spiritum*. Porro Christus idcirco *igne* baptizare dicitur, quia Spiritus gratiam in sanctos Apostolos effudit (Act. 1, 5.)... vel etiam ob castigatorium ignis futuri baptismum. Sextum baptisma in *poenitentia et lacrymis* versatur... Septimum est, quod *sanguinis* profusione ac martyrio perficitur... Octavum denique et postremum illud est *[ignis infernalis]*, non iam salutiferum, verum ita malitiam auferens, quando suus iam malitiae et peccato locus non erit, ut tamen sempiternum excruciet ac puniat (ed. Migne). — Mox pro *particularia* Vat. *pertinentia*.

en: In the Greek text (*On the Orthodox Faith* IV, c. 9) these baptisms are reckoned in a manner somewhat different than [it is] by the Scholastics, namely: The first baptism was the *flood*... The second [was] that which was made through *the sea and the cloud*... The third was the *legal* [baptism]... The fourth was *John's*... The fifth, the *Lord's* baptism, by which *he himself* was baptized... And *we* too are baptized by the Lord's perfect baptism, namely through *water and the Spirit*. Furthermore Christ is therefore said to baptize *with fire*, because the Spirit poured out grace upon the holy Apostles (Acts 1:5)... or also on account of the chastising baptism of the future fire. The sixth baptism consists in *penance and tears*... The seventh is that which is accomplished by the shedding of *blood* and by martyrdom... The eighth and last is that *[of infernal fire]*, no longer salutary, but in such a way removing malice — when there will no longer be any place for its own malice and sin — yet so that it tortures and punishes eternally (ed. Migne). — Presently, for *particularia* the Vatican [edition reads] *pertinentia*.

la: Vers. 21. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 20.

en: Verse 21 [1 Pet. 3:21]. — The following text is the same place, v. 20.

la: Vers. 2: Et omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt etc. — De columna nubis et ignis vide Exod. 13, 21. seq. — Inferius pro *in quo* edd. *in qua*.

en: Verse 2 [1 Cor. 10:2]: And all were baptized in Moses etc. — Concerning the pillar of cloud and of fire see Exod. 13:21 and following. — Below, for *in quo* the editions [read] *in qua*.

la: Vers. 13, ubi Vulgata et codd. F H aa *sanctificat* pro *sanctificabat*. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 4. — Aliquanto superius ex codd. F H posuimus *ubi erat* pro *ubi est*.

en: Verse 13 [Heb. 9:13], where the Vulgate and codices F H aa [read] *sanctificat* [sanctifies] for *sanctificabat* [was sanctifying]. See above the [Lombard] text of the Master, d. I, c. 4. — Somewhat earlier, from codices F H, we have put *ubi erat* [where there was] for *ubi est* [where there is].

la: Vers. 11; Luc. 3, 16; Marc. 1, 8; Ioan. 1, 26. Cfr. supra d. 2. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. et dub. 5.

en: Verse 11 [Matt. 3:11]; Luke 3:16; Mark 1:8; John 1:26. Cf. above, d. 2, a. 2, q. 1 and following, and dub. 5.

la: Cfr. Act. 1, 5, et 2, 3. — De efficacia baptismi aquae vide supra p. I. a. 1. q. 1. seqq., et de effectu baptismi sanguinis cfr. quaest. praeced.

en: Cf. Acts 1:5 and 2:3. — Concerning the efficacy of the baptism of water see above, p. I, a. 1, q. 1 and following, and concerning the effect of the baptism of blood cf. the preceding question.

la: Matth. 3, 16. Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — Inferius pro *solum de his* cod. K *de his solis*, et subinde pro *purgationem* cod. aa *purificationem*.

en: Matthew 3:16. Cf. above, d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 2. — Below, for *solum de his* codex K [reads] *de his solis*, and thereupon for *purgationem* codex aa [reads] *purificationem*.

en: See the scholion to the first question of this article. [Sc. the Art.-I scholion is held in `bon-sent-IV-d4-p2-a1-q1`.] ---

translators_notes:
**Raw range:** `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L12600–12803 (QUAESTIO III at L12600; ARTICULUS II begins L12804). Printed pp. 109–111 (PDF 129–131). Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`. Two-column; Vol II override applied — body re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{109,110,111}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, split x=1780 on p.109 to recover the clipped right-column left margin), OCR used only for footnote-marker spacing and clean running prose.

**Alignment:** confirmed. Opener = *Tertio quaeritur de horum convenientia… utrum baptismus sanguinis saltem sit Sacramentum.* Running heads verified: p.109 `DIST. IV. P. II. ART. I. Q[III].` / `…QUAEST. III. 109`; p.110 `110 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`; p.111 `DIST. IV. P. II. ART. [II].` / `ART. II. QUAEST. I. 111` — q3's incidental *novem baptismata* discussion overflows onto p.111 ABOVE the ARTICULUS II header (the p.111 running head already reads ART. II because that article *begins* lower on the page; column reading order keeps the overflow within q3).

**Scholion:** none here. This article's scholion (covering q1–q3) lives in `bon-sent-IV-d4-p2-a1-q1` — confirmed by p.111 footer note 10 *«Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.»* (rendered as `[^25]`).

**Page-split map (25 entries):**
- **p.109** — q3's share of the shared-page footer, **picked up per hand-off from `bon-sent-IV-d4-p2-a1-q2` (committed f36c892)**: note **8** *Cap. 6.* → `[^1]` (at arg. 1, *supra distinctione tertia*); note **9** *Supplendum est: in Sacramento baptismi…* → `[^2]` (at arg. 2, *signum expressivum*). p.109 notes 1–7 belong to q2 (already placed there).
- **p.110** — notes **1–13** all q3's → `[^3]`–`[^15]`: 1 *Cfr. supra d.1 p.I q.4* → `[^3]`; 2 *Ut monstratum est… q.2* → `[^4]`; 3 *Sicut dicit Magister… c.2* → `[^5]`; 4 *Vers.14 — Glossam… August.* → `[^6]`; 5 *Secundum Aristot. IV. Topic.* → `[^7]`; 6 *Ita codd. F H P Q…* → `[^8]`; 7 *Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c.9* → `[^9]`; 8 *Cod. K de substantia* → `[^10]`; 9 *Cap. 4.* → `[^11]`; 10 *Vers.28 Vulgata: Hic est… sanguis meus* → `[^12]`; 11 *Sensus est: Axioma est verum…* → `[^13]`; 12 *Vers.50 — Act.1,5* → `[^14]`; 13 *Levit.17,11 et 14* → `[^15]`.
- **p.111** — notes **1–10** all q3's → `[^16]`–`[^25]`: 1 *Edd. nec quod carnifex…* → `[^16]`; 2 *Ioan.13,16* → `[^17]`; 3 *In textu Graeco… (Damascenus' nine baptisms)* → `[^18]`; 4 *Vers.21 (1 Pet.3:21)* → `[^19]`; 5 *Vers.2 (1 Cor.10:2)…* → `[^20]`; 6 *Vers.13 (Heb.9:13)…* → `[^21]`; 7 *Vers.11; Luc.3,16; Marc.1,8; Ioan.1,26* → `[^22]`; 8 *Cfr. Act.1,5 et 2,3…* → `[^23]`; 9 *Matth.3,16…* → `[^24]`; 10 *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.* → `[^25]`.

**Hand-off picked up** from `bon-sent-IV-d4-p2-a1-q2` (f36c892): p.109 footer notes 8 (*Cap. 6.*) and 9 (*Supplendum est: in Sacramento baptismi…*) belong at q3's body markers — **placed as `[^1]`–`[^2]`**; q3 has no scholion of its own — **confirmed**.

**Hand-off forward to `bon-sent-IV-d4-p2-a2-q1`** (ARTICULUS II at raw L12804, *De sanctificatione parvulorum in baptismo*; QUAESTIO I at L12844): (a) the short ARTICULUS II opener — *Consequenter quaeritur de sanctificatione collata parvulis per Sacramentum baptismi. Et circa hoc tria principaliter quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, utrum parvuli in baptismo recipiant sanctificationem. Secundo, utrum recipiant plene. Tertio, utrum recipiant aequaliter.* — sits at the bottom of p.111 (left col. into right col.); **fold it into a2-q1** per the locked chunking convention (no standalone divisio chunk). (b) p.111's footers are **fully consumed by q3** (notes 1–10 above) EXCEPT any note attaching to the Art. II opener — the opener carries no footnote marker on p.111, so a2-q1's first footers will be p.112's. (c) Art. II scholion location: TBD by a2-q1 (check whether its q1 holds the article-wide scholion, as a1-q1 did for Art. I).

**`[?]` flags:** none. All readings resolved against the 450 dpi PDF bands; OCR garbles (*sallem*→*saltem*, *baplismus*→*baptismus*, *Sacramenlum*→*Sacramentum*, *inQcialur*→*inficiatur*, *raenti*→*menti*, *nniverso*→*universo*) silently corrected per the OCR-cleanup rules with PDF confirmation.

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. 4, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 111 -->

### Articulus II. *De sanctificatione parvulorum in baptismo.*

Consequenter quaeritur de sanctificatione collata parvulis per Sacramentum baptismi. Et circa hoc tria principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum parvuli in baptismo recipiant sanctificationem.

Secundo, utrum recipiant plene.

Tertio, utrum recipiant aequaliter.

<!-- page 112 -->

### Quaestio I. *Utrum parvuli in baptismo recipiant sanctificationem.*

Circa primum sic proceditur. Quod parvulus non possit iustificari, videtur:

1. Quoniam Bernardus, de Libero Arbitrio[^1], dicit, quod «duo sunt ad salutem necessaria, scilicet dans et liberum arbitrium», et subiungit, quod «tam non potest esse salus nostra sine voluntate consentientis, quam non potest esse sine gratia dantis»; sed in parvulo non est usus liberi arbitrii: ergo non potest esse in eo salus.

2. Item, Augustinus[^2]: «Qui creavit te sine te, non iustificat te sine te», hoc est sine actu tuae voluntatis; sed parvulus hunc non habet: ergo non potest iustificari.

3. Item, voluntas parvuli non mutatur, ergo semper se habet uniformiter respectu gratiae; sed Deus semper paratus est dare: ergo quod modo dat, modo non, hoc est propter mutationem in voluntate suscipientis: ergo si in parvulo non mutatur voluntas, non recipit rem. Si dicas[^3], quod parvulus disponitur non actu suo, sed fide offerentium; esto quod illi essent infideles, tunc ergo parvulus damnaretur.

4. Item, in Sacramento significatio antecedit sanctificationem: ergo non existente significatione, non est sanctificatio; sed parvulo Sacramentum non significat, quia nihil facit in intellectum eius venire[^4]: ergo parvulum non sanctificat.

**Sed contra:**

1. Magis consonat rationi et pietati, quod conditio parvulorum possit ab aliquo iuvari quam laedi; sed parvuli sine suo consensu possunt trahere et trahunt[^5] culpam: ergo multo magis gratiam.

2. Item, ad Romanos quinto[^6]: *Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per unum vita*; sed non est minus potens Christus quam Adam, et gratia se magis diffundit quam culpa: ergo si Adam potuit ipsos vitiare sine consensu, multo magis salvare eos potuit Sacramentum Christi.

3. Item, omnis suscipiens Sacramentum suscipit rem, nisi habeat obstaculum; sed parvulus suscipit Sacramentum et non habet obstaculum, quia voluntas non repugnat, nec culpa potest resistere[^7]: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> Parvuli in baptismo recipiunt rem Sacramenti, qua fit remissio culpae originalis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod parvuli recipiunt rem Sacramenti, quae est remissio culpae originalis; et hoc merito passionis Christi et alienae fidei et virtute Sacramenti. — Et ratio huius est tum ratione divinae *misericordiae*, tum ratione suae *impotentiae*, tum ratione talis *culpae*. Quia enim per actum alterius fuit culpa contracta, et ipsi non poterant se adiuvare; misericors Deus congruum reputavit, eis per alium subveniri. — Quia enim pro illa culpa nullus satisfacere poterat purus homo, ideo subvenit Deus toti humano generi per passionem Christi. — Et rursus, quia passio effectum non habet nisi in his qui volunt fieri membra Christi et consentiunt; et hoc non poterat parvulus velle: ideo subvenit ei voluntas et fides aliena. — Sed quia fides subvenit profitendo, et hoc est in Sacramento, ubi est professio mortis Christi in signo[^8]; ideo subvenit per Sacramentum. — Tria igitur sunt disponentia parvulum ad salutem: et primum est passio Christi, secundum fides aliena, tertium vero et immediatum est virtus Sacramenti, quae characterem imprimit, qui ad gratiam disponit[^9]. — Et per hoc patent obiecta.

**Ad 1. 2. 3.** Nam primum intelligitur de iustificatione a culpa *acta*, non *contracta*[^10]; secundum
<!-- page 113 -->
dicitur: *Per similitudinem in minori*, id est per simile et minus, probare intendit. Sicut enim per Adam, purum hominem, peccatum est et mors, ita per Christum, hominem et Deum, potest esse iustitia et vita etc. — Tertium similiter patet, quia parvulus non disponitur secundum actum suum, sed alienum, quia divina misericordia alienam voluntatem in propriam reputat[^Adtert].

**4.** Ad quartum dicendum, quod Sacramentum, quantum est de se, semper significat et sanctificat; sed tamen in parvulo non habet effectum significandi, sed sanctificandi, quia non est capax doctrinae, est tamen capax gratiae — sicut et culpae — et hoc est ex largitate divinae misericordiae; quamvis enim non significet parvulo, tamen aliis significat gratiam, quam tribuit parvulo.

english:
### Article II. *On the sanctification of infants in baptism.*

Consequently inquiry is made concerning the sanctification conferred on infants through the Sacrament of baptism. And concerning this, three things are principally asked.

First it is asked, whether infants in baptism receive sanctification.

Second, whether they receive it fully.

Third, whether they receive it equally.

### Question I. *Whether infants in baptism receive sanctification.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus. That an infant cannot be justified, it seems:

1. Because Bernard, *On Free Choice*[^1], says that "two things are necessary for salvation, namely the one who gives and free choice," and he adds that "our salvation can no more be without the will of the one consenting than it can be without the grace of the one giving"; but in an infant there is no use of free choice: therefore there cannot be salvation in him.

2. Likewise, Augustine[^2]: "He who created you without you does not justify you without you," that is, without the act of your will; but the infant does not have this: therefore he cannot be justified.

3. Likewise, the will of the infant is not changed, therefore it always stands uniformly with respect to grace; but God is always ready to give: therefore that He gives now, and now does not, this is on account of a change in the will of the recipient: therefore if in the infant the will is not changed, he does not receive the reality. If you say[^3] that the infant is disposed not by his own act, but by the faith of those offering him; granted that they were unbelievers, then therefore the infant would be damned.

4. Likewise, in a Sacrament signification precedes sanctification: therefore, signification not existing, there is no sanctification; but the Sacrament does not signify to the infant, because it brings nothing to enter into his understanding[^4]: therefore it does not sanctify the infant.

**On the contrary:**

1. It is more consonant with reason and piety that the condition of infants can be helped by someone rather than harmed; but infants without their own consent can contract, and do contract[^5], guilt: therefore much more grace.

2. Likewise, to the Romans, fifth chapter[^6]: *Through one man sin entered into the world, and through one, life*; but Christ is not less powerful than Adam, and grace is diffused more widely than guilt: therefore if Adam could corrupt them without consent, much more could the Sacrament of Christ save them.

3. Likewise, everyone receiving a Sacrament receives the reality, unless he have an obstacle; but the infant receives the Sacrament and has no obstacle, because the will does not resist, nor can guilt resist[^7]: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> Infants in baptism receive the reality of the Sacrament, by which the remission of original guilt is effected.

**I respond:** It must be said that infants receive the reality of the Sacrament, which is the remission of original guilt; and this by the merit of the passion of Christ and by the faith of another and by the power of the Sacrament. — And the reason for this is partly by reason of the divine *mercy*, partly by reason of their *impotence*, partly by reason of such *guilt*. For because the guilt was contracted through the act of another, and they were not able to help themselves; the merciful God deemed it fitting that they be aided through another. — For because no mere man could make satisfaction for that guilt, therefore God aided the whole human race through the passion of Christ. — And again, because the passion has its effect only in those who will to become members of Christ and consent; and this the infant could not will: therefore the will and faith of another came to his aid. — But because faith aids by professing, and this is in the Sacrament, where there is a profession of the death of Christ in a sign[^8]; therefore He aids through the Sacrament. — There are therefore three things disposing the infant to salvation: and the first is the passion of Christ, the second the faith of another, but the third and immediate is the power of the Sacrament, which imprints the character that disposes to grace[^9]. — And through this the objections are plain.

**To 1, 2, 3.** For the first is understood of justification from guilt *committed*, not *contracted*[^10]; the second
is said: *By a likeness in the lesser*, that is, by what is similar and less, it intends to prove. For just as through Adam, a mere man, came sin and death, so through Christ, man and God, there can be justice and life, etc. — The third likewise is plain, because the infant is disposed not according to his own act, but another's, since the divine mercy reckons the will of another as his own[^Adtert].

**4.** To the fourth it must be said that the Sacrament, as far as it is of itself, always signifies and sanctifies; but nevertheless in the infant it does not have the effect of signifying, but of sanctifying, because he is not capable of teaching, yet is capable of grace — as also of guilt — and this is from the largesse of the divine mercy; for although it does not signify to the infant, nevertheless to others it signifies the grace which it bestows on the infant.

la: Bernard., de Libero Arbitrio. Cap. 1. n. 2: *Tolle liberum arbitrium, et non erit quod salvetur; tolle gratiam, non erit unde salvetur. Opus hoc sine duobus effici non potest: uno, a quo fit; altero, cui vel in quo fit. Deus auctor est salutis, liberum arbitrium tantum capax; nec dare illam nisi Deus, nec capere valet nisi liberum arbitrium. Quod ergo a solo Deo et soli datur libero arbitrio, tam absque consensu esse non potest accipientis quam absque gratia dantis* etc.

en: Bernard, *On Free Choice*, c. 1, n. 2: "Take away free choice, and there will be nothing that is saved; take away grace, and there will be nothing whereby it is saved. This work cannot be effected without two things: one, by which it is done; the other, for or in which it is done. God is the author of salvation, free choice merely capable [of it]; nor can [salvation] be given except by God, nor received except by free choice. That, therefore, which is given by God alone and to free choice alone, can no more be without the consent of the recipient than without the grace of the giver," etc.

la: August., Serm. 169. (alias Io. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 11. n. 13: *Qui ergo fecit te* etc.

en: Augustine, Sermon 169 (alias Bk. 10 *On the Words of the Apostle*), c. 11, n. 13: "He, therefore, who made you," etc.

la: Cfr. supra huius dist. p. I. d. 2. — Verbo *esto* edd. praemittunt *Contra*.

en: Cf. above, Pars I of this distinction, d. 2. — Before the word *esto* the editions prefix *Contra*.

la: Respicitur definitio *signi* supra in lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 3. ex Augustino allata. Cfr. de hoc arg. ibid. Comment. p. I. q. 2. arg. 3. ad oppos.

en: Reference is made to the definition of a *sign* adduced above in the text of the Master, d. I. c. 3, from Augustine. Cf. on this argument the Commentary there, Pars I, q. 2, arg. 3 to the contrary.

la: Cod. G *contrahere et contrahunt*.

en: Codex G reads *contrahere et contrahunt*.

la: Vers. 12. seqq. Cfr. Petr. Lombard. in hunc locum, ubi haec habentur. — Post *vita* in edd. additur *per Adam peccatum, per Christum vita*. Circa finem arg. pro *salvare eos*, quod in plurimis codd. desideratur, codd. G I *adiuvare*, codd. E F a secunda manu *sanctificare*.

en: Verses 12 ff. Cf. Peter Lombard on this passage, where these things are had. — After *vita* in the editions is added *per Adam peccatum, per Christum vita* ("through Adam sin, through Christ life"). Near the end of the argument, for *salvare eos* ("to save them"), which is lacking in most codices, codices G I read *adiuvare* ("to aid"), codices E F by a second hand *sanctificare* ("to sanctify").

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, et supra d. 4. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 1, and above, d. 4. Pars I. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2.

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. et p. II. a. 2. q. 2.

en: Cf. above, d. 3. Pars I. a. 1. q. 3, and Pars II. a. 2. q. 2.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 6. p. I. q. 2.

en: As is shown below, d. 6. Pars I. q. 2.

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 767, nota 6. et pag. 826, nota 4. — Paulo inferius retinuimus cum Vat. *et tertium*, quod codd. et ed. I omittunt, substituentes subinde pro *Ad quartum* falso *Ad tertium*.

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 767, note 6, and p. 826, note 4. — A little below we retained with the Vatican edition *et tertium* ("and the third"), which the codices and ed. I omit, substituting thereupon for *Ad quartum* ("To the fourth") falsely *Ad tertium* ("To the third").

la: (*Ad tertium.* In fine solut. pro *in propriam*, quod exhibet cod. F, fere omnes alii codd. cum ed. I *ibi propriam*, Vat. cum paucis codd. *sibi propriam*.)

en: (*To the third.* At the end of the solution, for *in propriam* ("as his own"), which codex F presents, almost all the other codices with ed. I read *ibi propriam* ("there as his own"), the Vatican edition with a few codices *sibi propriam* ("to itself as his own").)

latin_scholion:
**I.** *Error Anabaptistarum*, contra quem militat I. quaestio, perpetua Ecclesiae traditione et Concilii Trid. (Sess. VII. can. 13. de Bapt.) decreto reprobatus est. Sicut S. Bonav. insinuat, consentaneum est, ut qui aliena culpa cecidit etiam resurgat aliena fide, quam Ecclesia, pia mater, accommodat.

De hac I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 7. a. 1. § 1. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1; S. III. q. 68. a. 9. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

**II.** Ante Concilium Viennense nonnulli docuerunt, parvulis per baptismum remitti quidem peccatum, sed non infundi nec gratiam nec virtutes; quae opinio quoad gratiam manifeste falsa est, cum sine gratia et inhaerente iustitia (non sola imputatione iustitiae Christi) nulla possit esse iustificatio, ut declaratum est a Concil. Trid. (Sess. VI. c. 3. 4. 7. et can. 9. seqq.); ubi simul docetur, iustificationem non esse solum peccatorum remissionem, sed et «sanctificationem et renovationem interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum» (c. 7.). Quod autem haec renovatio et inhaerens iustitia fiat aliqua forma *permanente*, intrinsecus a Deo animae communicata per modum habitus, post Concil. Trid. tanquam omnino certum communissime tenetur. Controvertitur autem, utrum sit stricte de fide, renovationem illam fieri per qualitatem permanentem et creatam per modum habitus et non per motum actualem, quod respectu caritatis Magister docere videtur (cfr. I. Sent. d. 17. p. I. q. I.). — Quoad infusionem *virtutum* in baptismo parvulorum maior fuit antiquitus dubitatio; de quo videsis scholion ad III. Sent. d. 33. q. 5.

De hac 2. quaestione Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 8. a. 3. § 1. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. — S. loc. cit. q. 69. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 13. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestionem tangit. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 4.

**III.** Quoad 3. quaestionem cfr. supra p. II. a. 1. q. 3, ubi agitur de aequalitate effectus in baptismis adultorum, et notati sunt auctores ibi etiam hanc quaestionem tangentes. — Quoad parvulos S. Thom. docet, semper aequalem eis conferri effectum vi baptismi. Tamen restrictio, quam facit S. Bonav. et cum ipso etiam Petr. a Tar. per verba *quantum est de lege communi*, non videtur esse aliena a mente S. Thomae, cum hic distinguat duplicem effectum baptismi: alterum per se, alterum per accidens, scilicet a divina virtute miraculose collatum. Similiter Scot. (hic q. 7. n. 4. 5.) possibile esse dicit, etiam in parvulis inaequalem interdum fieri effectum, tum quia Deus speciali modo applicet virtutem passionis Christi, tum ob meritum de congruo ex parte offerentium. De facto autem nihil determinat; unde, teste Estio (hic § 9.), non meretur vituperationem Soti aliorumque.

Specialiter de parvulis quaestionem solvunt S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3, et Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The *error of the Anabaptists*, against which the first question militates, has been reprobated by the perpetual tradition of the Church and by the decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. VII. can. 13. on Baptism). As St. Bonaventure intimates, it is fitting that he who fell by another's guilt should also rise again by another's faith, which the Church, a devoted mother, supplies.

On this first question: Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 7. a. 1. § 1. — Scotus, in both Writings here q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 1; S. III. q. 68. a. 9. — Blessed Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

**II.** Before the Council of Vienne some taught that to infants sin was indeed remitted through baptism, but that neither grace nor virtues were infused; which opinion as regards grace is manifestly false, since without grace and inherent justice (not by the mere imputation of the justice of Christ) there can be no justification, as was declared by the Council of Trent (Sess. VI. c. 3. 4. 7. and can. 9. ff.); where at the same time it is taught that justification is not only the remission of sins, but also "the sanctification and renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of grace and gifts" (c. 7.). But that this renewal and inherent justice comes about by some *permanent* form, communicated intrinsically by God to the soul by way of a habit, is most commonly held after the Council of Trent as altogether certain. It is, however, controverted whether it is strictly of faith that that renewal comes about through a permanent and created quality by way of a habit and not through an actual motion, which with respect to charity the Master seems to teach (cf. I. Sent. d. 17. p. I. q. I.). — As regards the infusion of *virtues* in the baptism of infants there was anciently greater doubt; on which you may see the scholion at III. Sent. d. 33. q. 5.

On this second question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 8. a. 3. § 1. — Scotus, in both Writings here q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2. — S. loc. cit. q. 69. a. 6. — Blessed Albert, here a. 13. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. touches the question. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question here q. 4.

**III.** As regards the third question, cf. above, Pars II, a. 1. q. 3, where there is treated the equality of effect in the baptisms of adults, and the authors there also touching this question have been noted. — As regards infants, St. Thomas teaches that an equal effect is always conferred on them by the power of baptism. Yet the restriction which St. Bonaventure makes, and with him also Peter of Tarentaise, by the words *as far as it is of the common law*, does not seem alien to the mind of St. Thomas, since here he distinguishes a twofold effect of baptism: one per se, the other per accidens, namely conferred miraculously by the divine power. Similarly Scotus (here q. 7. n. 4. 5.) says it is possible that even in infants an unequal effect should sometimes come about, both because God applies the power of the passion of Christ in a special way, and on account of the merit of congruity on the part of those offering. But in fact he determines nothing; whence, according to Estius (here § 9.), he does not deserve the censure of Soto and others.

Specially concerning infants the question is resolved by St. Thomas, loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3, and Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from Vol IV PDF column bands p.111 (PDF 131, opener tail), p.112 (PDF 132, q1 body through start of replies) and p.113 (PDF 133, replies tail + scholion), with OCR raw L12804–13054 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 page footers here). Alignment confirmed: ARTICULUS II header raw L12804; q1 title *Utrum parvuli in baptismo recipiant sanctificationem* L12844 (printed `QUAESTIO I`); opener `Primo quaeritur, utrum parvuli in baptismo recipiant sanctificationem` matches the q1 body opener `Circa primum sic proceditur`.

**Article structure.** Articulus II (*De sanctificatione parvulorum in baptismo*) has three quaestiones — q1 (this chunk, *…recipiant sanctificationem*, L12844–13054, pp.112–113), q2 (*…recipiant plene rem Sacramenti*, header L13055, p.113) and q3 (*…recipiant aequaliter*). The short Article-II opener (raw L12806–12843, p.111 bottom) is **folded into this q1** per the locked chunking convention; it bears no footnote marker (per the a1-q3 hand-off). The **scholion is Article-II-level** (sections I/II/III cover q1/q2/q3 respectively — "De hac I./2./Quoad 3. quaestione") and is placed body-last here; q2 and q3 will carry no separate scholion.

**Page-split map.** q1 body spans p.112 (videtur args 1–4 + sed contra 1–3 + conclusio + Respondeo + start of replies through `non contracta`) → p.113 (replies tail `dicitur: Per similitudinem…` + `4. Ad quartum` + the full SCHOLION). Page break placed inside the reply section at `non contracta[^10]; secundum / dicitur: Per similitudinem in minori` (running head `DIST. IV. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II. 113` at raw L13001 marks the p.112→113 break — Quaracchi's running head anticipates the next quaestio at page foot, but the body there is still q1's reply).

**Apparatus / footer split.** All of p.112's footer notes 1–10 are q1's (left-column notes 1–6 = body args/sed-contra markers `Arbitrio¹`, `Augustinus²`, `esto³`, `venire⁴`, `trahunt⁵`, `Romanos quinto⁶`; right-column notes 7–10 = `resistere⁷`, `signo⁸`, `disponit⁹`, `contracta¹⁰`). p.113's footer carries one unnumbered prose textual note on q1's reply to the third objection (the *in propriam* / *ibi propriam* / *sibi propriam* variant, rendered `[^Adtert]`); p.113's **numbered** footer notes 1–4 belong to **q2** (its arg-citations *Vide supra d.1…*, *Libr.1 c.25…Epist.98*, etc.) and are left for d4-p2-a2-q2. The scholion bears no footnote markers. **Total 11 apparatus entries** (p.112: 10; p.113: the single *Ad tertium* textual note).

**Hand-off forward → d4-p2-a2-q2** (QUAESTIO II, *Utrum parvuli in baptismo recipiant plene rem Sacramenti*, header raw L13055, p.113): the **Article-II scholion lives in THIS q1** (body-last, covering q1+q2+q3) — q2 takes no scholion. q2's body begins at p.113 left-column foot (`Secundo quaeritur, utrum parvuli recipiant plene rem, hoc est gratiam cum habitibus virtutum`) and its footer notes are **p.113 numbered notes 1–4** (the *Ad tertium* prose note here is q1's, not q2's) plus p.114's series; watch the right-column band p113-R-2 (q2 notes 4–6: *…pag. 470 nota 8…*, *Cfr. III. Sent. d. 23…*, *Epist. 98 (alias 23.)…*).

**`[?]` flags.** None outstanding. Silent OCR corrections (high confidence, IA djvu cascade garbles): `iustificari`, `misericordiae`, `impotentiae`, `Christi`, `Anabaptistarum` (OCR `AnabiiptisWriim`), `perpetua` (`perpeltia`), `traditione` (`tradilioiie`), `insinuat` (`insi-niiat`), `resurgat` (`surgrit`), `inhaerente` (`inliaerente`), `permanente` (`permaneiite`), `effectum` (`elTectum`), `collatum` (`eollatum`), `vituperationem` (`vituperationom`).