title: Pars 6, Cap. 6

title_alt:
De Sacramentorum iteratione
On the iteration of the Sacraments

source_text:
<!-- page 270 -->

### Capitulum VI. *De Sacramentorum iteratione.*

De *iteratione* autem Sacramentorum hoc tenendum est, quod licet commune sit omnibus Sacramentis non iterari super eandem personam et materiam et ex eadem causa, ne fiat contumelia Sacramento[^p270-3]; specialiter tamen tria sunt Sacramenta, quae non sunt aliquatenus iteranda, scilicet *baptismus, confirmatio* et *ordo*. In his namque tribus imprimitur triplex character interior, qui non deletur; inter quos character baptismalis retinet fundamentum, nec alii possunt imprimi, nisi ille primitus imprimatur. — Unde si quis ordinatur non baptizatus, nihil prorsus efficitur, sed est totum de novo faciendum, quia « non intelligitur iteratum, quod constat non fuisse factum[^p270-4] ».

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praemissorum haec est: quia principium nostrum reparativum, Verbum scilicet incarnatum, licet ratione summae virtutis et sapientiae et bonitatis suae nihil agat *inefficaciter*, nihil *inepte*, nihil *infructuose*; potissime tamen hoc observare[^p270-5] debet in nobilissimis suis operibus, cuiusmodi sunt illa, per quae reparatur genus humanum. Quoniam ergo Sacramenta sunt de genere huiusmodi operum divinorum; hinc est, quod contumelia quodam modo fit eis, quando super eandem materiam et personam et ex eadem causa iterantur; quia ex hoc ostenditur, quod prius dispensata fuerunt *inefficacia, inepta* et *infructuosa*, contra id quod exigebat ipsius reparativi principii virtus, sapientia et bonitas summa, quae semper assistit ad operandum in illis et per illa Sacramenta.
<!-- page 271 -->

Rursus, quoniam inter haec Sacramenta reparantia, in quibus est generaliter efficacia divinae virtutis ad reparationem humani generis, quaedam sunt, quae tantum introducta sunt propter *remedia morborum*; quaedam etiam[^p271-1] non solum ad hoc, sed ad statuendum, discernendum et ordinandum in Ecclesia *hierarchicos gradus*; et *morbi* possunt variari, expelli et iterum introduci, *gradus* autem Ecclesiae debent esse firmi, solidi et inconcussi: hinc est, quod Sacramenta, quae respiciunt *morbos* iterabiles, habent effectus transeuntes, ac per hoc et iterabiles ratione novae causae. Sacramenta vero illa, quae respiciunt *gradus hierarchicos* et status fidei determinatos, necesse est, quod praeter effectus remediantes aliquos effectus tribuant permanentes ad graduum et statuum Ecclesiae distinctionem fixam et stabilem. Et quoniam hoc non potest fieri per data naturalia, vel per dona gratuita gratum facientia; necesse est, quod fiat per aliqua signa substantiae incorruptibili, scilicet animae incorruptibili, a principio incorruptibili secundum conformitatem ad incorruptibile indelebiliter et gratis impressa, quae *characteres* appellantur; qui, quoniam nunquam delentur, ideo nec iterari possunt, nec illa Sacramenta, in quibus huiusmodi characteres imprimuntur.

Postremo, quoniam triplex est status fidei, secundum quem habet fieri distinctio in populo christiano, videlicet[^p271-2] in acie ecclesiasticae hierarchiae, scilicet status fidei *genitae, roboratae* et *multiplicatae*; secundum primum fit distinctio fidelium ab incredulis, per secundum fit distinctio fortium ab infirmis et debilibus; secundum tertium fit distinctio clericorum a laicis: hinc est, quod illa Sacramenta, quae respiciunt triplicem fidei statum praedictum, characteres imprimunt, per quos indelebiliter impressos semper distinguunt, ac per hoc nunquam iterari possunt. Quoniam ergo *baptismus* respicit statum fidei *genitae*, in quo populus Dei distinguitur ab incredulis, ut Israelitae ab Aegyptiis; et *confirmatio* respicit statum fidei *roboratae*, in quo distinguitur populus fortis ab infirmis, sicut pugiles ab his qui ad pugnandum[^p271-3] non sunt idonei; et *ordo* respicit statum fidei *multiplicatae*, in quo distinguitur clerus a laicis, sicut levitae ab aliis tribubus: hinc est, quod in his tantum tribus Sacramentis characteres imprimuntur.

Quia vero distinctio populi a non-populo est prima et radicalis; hinc est, quod character baptismalis est fundamentum omnium aliorum characterum; et ideo, illo non substrato, nihil poterit superaedificari; ac per hoc oportet de novo fieri. Si autem ille substernatur, alii imprimi possunt nec unquam ulterius iterandi sunt; nec Sacramenta tria praedicta, quae hos imprimunt, ex causa aliqua iterantur, et gravis de facto iterantibus debet poena imponi[^p271-4] propter divini contumeliam Sacramenti; licet alia quatuor ex causis diversis possint sine sui contumelia iterari.

---

english:
### Chapter VI. *On the iteration of the Sacraments.*

Concerning the *iteration* of the Sacraments, moreover, this must be held: that although it is common to all the Sacraments not to be iterated upon the same person and matter and from the same cause, lest an affront be done to the Sacrament[^p270-3], nevertheless there are three Sacraments in particular which are in no wise to be iterated, namely *baptism, confirmation* and *order*. For in these three a threefold interior character is imprinted, which is not blotted out; and among these the baptismal character retains the foundation, nor can the others be imprinted unless that one be imprinted first. — Whence if anyone is ordained unbaptized, absolutely nothing is effected, but the whole is to be done anew, because « that is not accounted iterated which is established not to have been done[^p270-4] ».

Now the reason for the understanding of the premises is this: since our reparative principle, the Word namely incarnate, although by reason of his supreme power and wisdom and goodness he does nothing *inefficaciously*, nothing *ineptly*, nothing *unfruitfully*, must nevertheless observe[^p270-5] this most of all in his noblest works, of which kind are those by which the human race is repaired. Since therefore the Sacraments are of the kind of these divine works, hence it is that an affront is in a certain manner done to them when they are iterated upon the same matter and person and from the same cause; because from this it is shown that they were before dispensed *inefficacious, inept* and *unfruitful*, against that which the power, wisdom and supreme goodness of the reparative principle itself demanded, which always assists to work in them and through them, the Sacraments.
<!-- page 271 -->

Again, since among these reparative Sacraments — in which there is generally the efficacy of the divine power unto the reparation of the human race — some are which have been introduced only for the sake of *remedies of diseases*, and some also[^p271-1] not only for this, but for establishing, discerning and ordering in the Church the *hierarchic grades*; and *diseases* can be varied, expelled and introduced again, whereas the *grades* of the Church ought to be firm, solid and unshaken: hence it is that the Sacraments which regard iterable *diseases* have transient effects, and through this iterable ones by reason of a new cause. But those Sacraments which regard the *hierarchic grades* and determinate states of faith must needs, beyond their remedying effects, bestow certain permanent effects unto the fixed and stable distinction of the grades and states of the Church. And since this cannot be done through natural endowments, or through gratuitous gifts making one pleasing to God, it must needs be done through certain signs imprinted indelibly and gratuitously upon an incorruptible substance, namely upon the incorruptible soul, from an incorruptible principle, according to a conformity to the incorruptible — which signs are called *characters*; and these, since they are never blotted out, therefore neither can they be iterated, nor those Sacraments in which characters of this kind are imprinted.

Lastly, since the state of faith is threefold, according to which the distinction in the christian people has to be made, namely[^p271-2] in the battle-line of the ecclesiastical hierarchy — that is, the state of faith *begotten, strengthened* and *multiplied*; and according to the first is made the distinction of the faithful from the unbelieving, through the second is made the distinction of the strong from the infirm and weak, according to the third is made the distinction of clerics from laics: hence it is that those Sacraments which regard the aforesaid threefold state of faith imprint characters, through which, indelibly impressed, they always distinguish, and through this can never be iterated. Since therefore *baptism* regards the state of faith *begotten*, in which the people of God is distinguished from the unbelieving, as the Israelites from the Egyptians; and *confirmation* regards the state of faith *strengthened*, in which the strong people is distinguished from the infirm, as boxers from those who are not fit for fighting[^p271-3]; and *order* regards the state of faith *multiplied*, in which the clergy is distinguished from the laics, as the levites from the other tribes: hence it is that in these three Sacraments alone characters are imprinted.

But because the distinction of the people from the non-people is the first and radical one, hence it is that the baptismal character is the foundation of all the other characters; and therefore, that one not being laid underneath, nothing will be able to be built upon it, and through this it behoves that it be done anew. If, however, that one be laid underneath, the others can be imprinted and are never further to be iterated; nor are the three aforesaid Sacraments which imprint them iterated from any cause, and a grave penalty ought to be imposed on those who in fact iterate them[^p271-4], on account of the affront to the divine Sacrament; although the other four can, from diverse causes, be iterated without affront to themselves.

---

la: August., I. de Baptismo contra Donat. c. 1. n. 2: Nulli enim Sacramento iniuria facienda est.

en: Augustine, *On Baptism, against the Donatists*, I, c. 1, n. 2: "For to no Sacrament is injury to be done."

la: Innocent. III. in C. *Veniens* (3.), X. de presbytero non baptizato (lib. III. tit. 43.) et in C. *Tuae litterae* (1.), X. de clerico per saltum promoto (lib. V. tit. 29.). Primo loco cit. habetur etiam, quod « baptismus sit *fundamentum* omnium Sacramentorum », et quod « ante susceptionem baptismi non suscipiatur aliud Sacramentum, quoniam, ubi fundamentum non est, *superaedificari* non potest »; ad quae verba respicitur infra circa finem huius cap. — De hoc cap. cfr. IV. Sent. d. 6. p. I. per totam (praecipue q. 4. et 6.); d. 7. a. 3. q. 3; d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seqq.

en: Innocent III, in the decretal *Veniens* (3), X, *On a presbyter not baptized* (bk. III, tit. 43), and in the decretal *Tuae litterae* (1), X, *On a cleric promoted by a leap* (bk. V, tit. 29). In the first place cited it is also had that "baptism is the *foundation* of all the Sacraments," and that "before the reception of baptism no other Sacrament is to be received, since, where there is no foundation, there can be no *building upon* it"; to which words regard is had below, toward the end of this chapter. — On this chapter cf. IV Sent. d. 6, p. I, throughout (especially qq. 4 and 6); d. 7, a. 3, q. 3; d. 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 1 seqq.

la: Ed. 1 *servare*, quae etiam superius pro *praemissorum* cum I K L et 2 *praedictorum*. Inferius pro *ex hoc* I K L M *in hoc*.

en: Edition 1 reads *servare*, which above also, for *praemissorum*, reads with I K L and edition 2 *praedictorum*. Below, for *ex hoc*, I K L M read *in hoc*.

en: Edition 1 adds *quae*. Shortly after, following *sed*, N adds *etiam*.

la: Pro *videlicet*, quod edd. et pauci codd. omittunt, E F G H minus, aptae ponunt *et*. Inferius pro *incredulis* D P substituunt *infidelibus*.

en: For *videlicet*, which the editions and a few codices omit, E F G H less aptly put *et*. Below, for *incredulis*, D P substitute *infidelibus*.

la: Ita I K L M O edd. *pugnam*; B prosequitur *non sunt habiles nec idonei*. Inferius pro *clerus* S *clericus*, et *christiani* pro *a non-populo*.

en: So I K L M O; the editions read *pugnam*; B continues *non sunt habiles nec idonei*. Below, for *clerus*, S reads *clericus*, and *christiani* for *a non-populo*.

la: Cfr. tom. IV. pag. 146, nota 7. — Inferius pro *sui*, quod C E T omittunt, multi codd. *sua*, 2 *alia*.

en: Cf. tom. IV, p. 146, note 7. — Below, for *sui*, which C E T omit, many codices read *sua*, edition 2 *alia*. ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 270–271, AND BOTH ENDS ARE FIXED POSITIVELY FROM HEADINGS.** `CAP. VI.` with the **ONE-line** subtitle `De Sacramentorum iteratione.` stands centred in p. 270's RIGHT column about **55 %** down the leaf, immediately below Cap. V's closing `…nisi ad eandem venerint unitatem ».` — where `bon-brev-p6-c5` said it stood, and re-set here line by line off the band rather than adopted. **The title is taken from THIS heading, never from the volume index**, whose Pars VI titles are OCR-garbled throughout the block. Cap. VI fills the rest of p. 270's right column to `…in illis et per illa Sacramenta.`; crosses the leaf **AT A PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY** (p. 271's left column opens with a fresh indented `Rursus,` beside a new `Pro thesi 2.` gloss — the first clean paragraph-boundary leaf break in this stretch, against p. 269→270's subject/verb split); fills p. 271's left column entire to `…fundamentum omnium aliorum characte-`; crosses p. 271's gutter **MID-WORD AND HYPHENATED** (`characte-` / `rum; et ideo`); and closes about **40 %** down p. 271's RIGHT column at `…sine sui contumelia iterari.`

**★★ THE CLOSE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE `CAP. VII.` HEADING AND FROM NOTHING ELSE.** `CAP. VII.` with the ONE-line subtitle `De constitutione et integritate baptismi.` stands centred in p. 271's RIGHT column two lines below Cap. VI's last line, with Cap. VII's opening beneath it in the same column (`Iam nunc septimo loco restat videre de *integritate* uniuscuiusque Sacramenti…`). **The volume index's "Cap. VII on p. 271" was a hypothesis on arrival and p. 271's running head `PARS VI. C. VII. 271` was used for nothing** — it names Cap. VII while the whole left column and the top 40 % of the right are Cap. VI, the same asymmetry p. 270's running head showed one leaf back (it named Cap. VI while the entire left column was Cap. V). No inference was drawn from white space at any column foot, and the fact that Cap. VI's tail (`…sine sui contumelia iterari.`) is a grammatically complete sentence was not treated as evidence of anything — the `CAP. VII.` heading below it is.

**Gutters — one re-derived from scratch, one settled fresh with no constant.**
- **p. 270 = 1373, RE-DERIVED rather than re-used.** `colcrop.py vol5 270` with no constant returns **1374 on a 59 px run**, one pixel below the trust floor, so the three-step method was run again from the beginning. Five windows blow out and are discarded (20–40 % → 1389/**93 px** · 25–45 % → 1431/**180 px** · 60–80 % → 1271/**229 px** · 65–85 % → 1233/**305 px** · 70–89 % → 1287/**238 px**), the last three on the `CAP. VI.` heading and its subtitle set mid-right-column — **the p. 263 hazard exactly, an ordinary capitulum heading inside a column flooding one side of the window.** The eight survivors agree to 2 px: 15–35 % → 1373/62 · 30–50 % → 1372/61 · 35–55 % → 1371/62 · 40–60 % → 1371/62 · 45–65 % → 1372/64 · 50–70 % → 1372/64 · 55–75 % → 1373/63 — **runs 61–64 px**, the trustworthy profile. Step 3 was run independently and reproduced the predecessor's band edges digit for digit: over rows 35–85 % the near-zero band is **x = 1344–1402 (59 px)**, with Quaracchi's printed column rule inside it at **x = 1371–1376, peaking 573 rows on x = 1372** and a second peak of 375 on x = 1375. **Band midpoint 1373 — 1373 adopted**, and the heavy rule is precisely why the default run is pinched to 59 px. Bands regenerated at 1373 and read clean edge to edge.
- **★★ p. 271 = 1202, SETTLED FRESH WITH NO CONSTANT.** p. 271 had not been imaged; extracted at 450 dpi and profiled with no constant, `colcrop.py vol5 271` returns **1204 on a 61 px run** — inside the sound band this time, and it was still not adopted on its own showing, because the tool's default has been rejected on this quire three leaves running. **Only ONE window blows out** (15–35 % → 1271/**204 px**, on Cap. VI's `Rursus` opening and the `Pro thesi 2.` gloss); the **twelve** survivors run 20–40 % → 1200/61 · 25–45 % → 1200/61 · 30–50 % → 1200/60 · 35–55 % → 1201/61 · 40–60 % → 1201/61 · 45–65 % → 1202/64 · 50–70 % → 1203/63 · 55–75 % → 1203/63 · 60–80 % → 1203/63 · 65–85 % → 1203/62 · 70–89 % → 1204/62 · 45–92 % → 1204/61 — **a 4 px spread on runs of 60–64 px, drifting monotonically down the leaf, which is page skew and not disagreement.** The per-column ink profile settles it: over rows 35–85 % the near-zero band is **x = 1173–1232 (60 px)** and the printed column rule stands inside it at **x = 1200–1206, peaking 541 rows on x = 1202**. **Band midpoint 1202.5, rule peak 1202 — 1202 adopted.** Bands regenerated at 1202 and read clean edge to edge. ★ **This is the first leaf in this quire whose default run was NOT pinched below 60 px** — the rule inked more lightly here (541 rows against p. 269's 767 and p. 270's 573) — and it is the reason the run width, not the value, is the confidence signal.

**Apparatus source.** Vol V's IA OCR renders footnote numerals as punctuation glyphs — anchor POSITIONS survive in the raw, numbers and footer-entry openers do NOT. **All seven notes here were read off the 450 dpi footer bands**; the counts are band-derived. `audit-apparatus-count` is blind to Vol V; `tools/check-vol5-apparatus.py` is the instrument. **p. 270's total of 5 was established by `bon-brev-p6-c5` and is already in `KNOWN_TOTALS`; p. 271's total of 8 is established here and entered**, with nn. 5–8 forwarded as a legitimate PENDING.

**★★ THE INCOMING HAND-OFF WAS RE-DERIVED IN FULL AND HELD IN EVERY PARTICULAR, INCLUDING EVERY DIGIT AND SIGLUM IT FLAGGED AS UNVERIFIED — AND IT IS NOW EXTENDED WHERE IT DECLINED TO CLAIM.** `bon-brev-p6-c5` forwarded p. 270 from n. 3 onward and stated its verification level precisely: **the BLOCK positions, the VERBATIM TEXTS and the ANCHOR COLUMN (RIGHT) of nn. 3–5 read off the bands; the anchor WORDS read for n. 3 only; no anchor word claimed for nn. 4–5.** Every clause of that is correct, and its narrative summary agrees with its per-note list; **nothing had to be withdrawn.** The two things it explicitly did not claim are supplied here: **n. 4 anchors on `non fuisse factum ⁴ ».`** closing Cap. VI's *Thesis 3* quotation, and **n. 5 on `potissime tamen hoc observare ⁵ debet`** in the *Pro thesi 1.* period — both in the RIGHT column, as forwarded. Verification level of every note as established **here**:
- **p. 270 n. 3** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified here against the hand-off. Anchors on `ne fiat contumelia Sacramento ³;` in the **RIGHT** column, inside Cap. VI's *Thesis 1*. Footer entry third in the left block, complete.
- **p. 270 n. 4** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified here; **the anchor is first-read here** (the hand-off claimed none). Anchors on `non fuisse factum ⁴ ».` in the **RIGHT** column, closing *Thesis 3*. Footer entry last in the left block, **breaking off mid-quotation at `quod « baptismus sit *fundamentum* omnium` and continuing unnumbered at the head of the right block** with `Sacramentorum », et quod « ante susceptionem baptismi…`.
- **p. 270 n. 5** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified here; **the anchor is first-read here.** Anchors on `potissime tamen hoc observare ⁵ debet` in the **RIGHT** column, inside *Pro thesi 1.* Footer entry second and last in the right block, complete.
- **p. 271 n. 1** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `quaedam etiam ¹ non solum ad hoc` in the **LEFT** column, inside *Pro thesi 2*. Footer entry opens p. 271's left block, NUMBERED.
- **p. 271 n. 2** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `videlicet ² in acie ecclesiasticae hierarchiae` in the **LEFT** column, opening the *Postremo* period beside the `Character in 3 Sacramentis.` gloss. Footer entry second in the left block.
- **p. 271 n. 3** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `qui ad pugnandum ³ non sunt idonei` in the **LEFT** column, on the *confirmatio* member of the threefold application. Footer entry third in the left block.
- **p. 271 n. 4** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `debet poena imponi ⁴ propter divini contumeliam Sacramenti` in the **RIGHT** column, in Cap. VI's last sentence. Footer entry last in the left block and **complete** — the block break falls one note *above* the column break.

**★ p. 270's SPLIT MAP — the leaf is now fully consumed.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3, 4 (n. 4 breaking off mid-quotation). Right footer block: n. 4's unnumbered continuation, then n. 5. **Anchors:** nn. 1–2 in the LEFT column (both Cap. V's, `p6-c5`'s), nn. 3–5 in the RIGHT (all Cap. VI's, mine). **Total 5.** The **capitulum boundary falls INSIDE the left block, between nn. 2 and 3**, while the block break falls inside n. 4 and the column break between nn. 2 and 3 — block, column and capitulum structure agreeing at one seam and disagreeing at the other, on one leaf.

**★★ p. 271's SPLIT MAP — THE BLOCK SPLIT IS 4/4 AND THE ANCHOR SPLIT IS 3/5, AND THEY DO NOT COINCIDE. THIS IS THE THIRD LEAF IN PARS VI WITH THAT SHAPE — pp. 268, 269 and 271 — AND p. 270 LYING BETWEEN THEM DOES NOT HAVE IT** (p. 270's left block holds nn. 1–4 and its right block n. 4's continuation plus n. 5, against a 2/3 anchor split). **Three leaves out of four is a tendency, not a rule, and the one exception is the leaf in the middle.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3, 4 — all four **complete**, no straddle. Right footer block: nn. 5, 6, 7, 8. **Anchors:** nn. 1–3 in the left column, nn. 4–8 in the right; **n. 4 is the block-vs-anchor divergence — its entry closes the left block while its anchor is in the right column.** **p. 271's TOTAL IS 8, established here and entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`**; nn. 1–4 are Cap. VI's (mine), nn. 5–8 are Cap. VII's and are forwarded. **The Cap. VI / Cap. VII boundary falls exactly at the block break, between nn. 4 and 5** — which is a coincidence on this leaf and not a rule; it fell inside the left block one leaf back.

**★ SIGLA — SEVEN RUNS ACROSS THE TWO LEAVES, AND `H` IS ADMITTED ONCE, ON THE STRENGTH OF ALPHABETICAL ASCENT ALONE.**
1. **`I K L` and `I K L M` (p. 270 n. 5)** — two runs one clause apart in a single note, each strictly ascending; each opens with a **single** upright, which is `I` by the one-upright rule and never a crossbar-less `H`. The edition sigla `1` and `2` stand in the same note and print as plainly different sorts.
2. **`N` (p. 271 n. 1)** — a single unmistakable sort, in the codex slot governing the added *etiam*, against the edition siglum `1` opening the same note.
3. **`E F G H` (p. 271 n. 2)** — **the one `H` admitted on either leaf**, and it is admitted because the run is strictly alphabetical E–F–G–H and the glyph carries **two** uprights; a single upright in that slot would have had to be `I`, which would break the ascent. This is frozen rule (b) doing exactly the work it was written for.
4. **`D P` (p. 271 n. 2)** — a second run in the same note, one clause later, governing *infidelibus* against *incredulis*: the p. 228 n. 3 pattern again.
5. **`I K L M O` (p. 271 n. 3)** — five sorts, strictly ascending, opening with a single upright; the ascent excludes the volume's chronic raw `R` for `K`, and the raw confirms `I K L M 0` with only its habitual `0` for `O`.
6. **`B` and `S` (p. 271 n. 3)** — two further single sorts in the same note, each in its own clause; three siglum sets in one note, as on p. 269 n. 7.
7. **`C E T` (p. 271 n. 4)** — three ascending sorts governing the omission of *sui*, with the edition siglum `2` in the same clause printing as a different sort.

**Digits settled off the band, each with something independent agreeing** (per the frozen rule). **The `1`/`4` class dominates these two leaves, reversing the `3`/`5` bias of pp. 269–270's Cap. V portion one capitulum back** — the leaf-to-leaf swing the rule warns about, and the reason the predecessor's calibration was not carried over:
- **p. 270 n. 4's `IV. Sent.` chain — three loci, ALL of which were checked to exist AND to match the subject the note gives them.** `IV. Sent. d. 6. p. I. per totam (praecipue q. 4. et 6.)` → `bon-sent-IV-d6-p1-a1-q1` … `q6` exist, the whole *pars prima* is on the *character*, **q. 4 is *Per quid character imprimatur* and q. 6 is *Utrum baptismus possit et debeat iterari*** — the two questions Cap. VI is made of ✓ · `d. 7. a. 3. q. 3` → `bon-sent-IV-d7-a3-q3` *Utrum Sacramentum confirmationis possit dari ante baptismum*, which is the note's own point about baptism as *fundamentum* ✓ · `d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seqq.` → `bon-sent-IV-d24-p2-a1-q1` *Utrum in omnibus ordinibus imprimatur character* and `q2` *Utrum in diversis ordinibus diversi characteres imprimantur* ✓. **`praecipue q. 4.` was the one live `1`/`4` decision in the chain and it reads `4`:** the glyph carries a closed triangular counter and a crossing horizontal, against the serif `1`'s flag-and-stem, and the two forms stand **eight characters apart** in `d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.` on the next line — the cleanest side-by-side discriminator on either leaf. The raw prints `q. i.` there and `d. 6. p. I.` correctly, so **the raw is no witness at all in this class.** Note that `d. 6. p. I.` here is a **different pars** from the `d. 6. p. II.` verified one leaf back; it was re-checked from scratch.
- **p. 270 n. 4's decretal coordinates `(lib. III. tit. 43.)` and `(lib. V. tit. 29.)`** — `43` reads a true `4` (open apex) followed by a double-bowled `3`; the raw prints `i3.`, which is worthless here. Independently, **X 3.43 is *De presbytero non baptizato*, the very rubric the note names**, and X 5.29 the *per saltum* rubric it names second; `29` contains no glyph in either risk class. The parenthesised chapter numbers `(3.)` for *Veniens* and `(1.)` for *Tuae litterae* print as a double-bowled `3` and a flag-and-stem `1` respectively, the two classes four characters apart.
- **p. 270 n. 3's `c. 1. n. 2`** — flag-and-stem `1` against a plain `2`; the opening `I.` is a single upright in the BOOK slot, matching `Libr. IV. de Baptismo` in p. 270 n. 2 one entry above, and is therefore the roman numeral I, not the digit 1.
- **p. 270 n. 5's and p. 271 n. 1's `Ed. 1`** — the same flag-and-stem sort in both, and settled a second time by the fact that **Quaracchi's Breviloquium edition sigla are 1, 2, 3 and Vat.** (`Vat., 1 et 3` stood on p. 269 n. 8): there is no "edition 4" for the glyph to be.
- **p. 271 n. 4's `tom. IV. pag. 146, nota 7`** — the `1` of `146` is again flag-and-stem (raw `446`), and the reference was **checked in the corpus and matches its subject exactly**: Vol IV printed p. 146 is `bon-sent-IV-d6-p1-a1-q6` *Utrum baptismus possit et debeat iterari*, whose **note 7** is the *Canon Apostol. 46* entry ending `— De poenis scienter rebaptizatorum cfr. C. Eos quos (118.), de Consecrat. d. 4.` — the penalties for knowing rebaptizers, which is verbatim what this note's anchor (`gravis de facto iterantibus debet poena imponi`) says.

**⚠ ONE `[?]` FLAG — p. 271 n. 2, `E F G H minus, aptae ponunt et`.** The plate prints `minus,` with a comma and then `aptae` (a-p-t-a-e), read at 11× on the 450 dpi scan; the IA raw independently prints `minus,  aplae`, so **this is what the plate has, not an OCR artifact**. Quaracchi's formula in this slot is invariably the adverb *minus apte* ("less aptly"), which is the only reading the grammar allows — *aptae* agrees with nothing in the sentence. **The Latin is transcribed exactly as printed and the English renders the sense the grammar requires**; the discrepancy is a compositor's fault in the 1891 plate, and it is flagged rather than silently emended because the emendation would be ours and not the edition's.

**★ ONE SILENT PLATE REPAIR, stated openly.** p. 270's right column ends `n illis et per illa Sacramenta.` — the `i` of *in* failed to ink, and **the raw reproduces the defect (`n  illis`), confirming it is the plate and not the scan.** Set here as `in illis`, which the parallel `per illa` requires. This is a dropped sort, not a variant, and no apparatus note touches it.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order): p. 270 right column — "Thesis 1." — "Thesis 2." — "Thesis 3." — "Ratio." — "Pro thesi 1."; p. 271 left column — "Pro thesi 2." — "De characteribus." — "Character in 3 Sacramentis." — "Pro thesi 3." ★ **Nine glosses, and the form is neither Cap. IV's tidy pairing nor Cap. V's twelve-gloss sprawl: three theses answered by a `Ratio.` and three `Pro thesi 1 / 2 / 3` glosses in exact one-to-one order, plus two free topical glosses (`De characteribus.`, `Character in 3 Sacramentis.`) inserted where the argument turns to the character.** The `Thesis 1.` gloss is set beside the chapter's first line but `Thesis 2.` beside the *fifth*, well after `specialiter tamen tria sunt Sacramenta` opens the second thesis — **gloss position is not an anchor**, as p. 269 already showed. Glosses stand in the outer margin of each column — left of column 1, right of column 2 — and the raw's rendering of them (`RaMo.`, `Pro thesi i.`, `Decharacic- nbus.`, `ch,iracier … meniis.`, `Pro thesi 3r`) is unusable; all nine are band reads.

**★ THE PAGE MARKER SITS AT A PARAGRAPH BOUNDARY — the first time in this stretch.** p. 270's right column ends a paragraph at `…in illis et per illa Sacramenta.` and p. 271's left column opens the indented `Rursus,` beside a fresh gloss. **The Latin and English markers coincide.** This is worth recording only because it is the exception: pp. 268→269 split mid-word, 269→270 split a subject from its verb, and p. 271's own gutter splits `characte-`/`rum` mid-word. **A clean paragraph break at a leaf edge is not evidence of anything and was used for nothing** — the span was closed from the `CAP. VII.` heading.

**★ THE RUNNING HEADS, read and used for nothing.** p. 270's reads `270   BREVILOQUII PARS VI. C. VI.` and p. 271's reads `PARS VI. C. VII.   271`. Both name the chapter that *opens* on the leaf rather than the one that fills it — p. 270's names Cap. VI while the whole left column and 55 % of the leaf are Cap. V, and p. 271's names Cap. VII while the whole left column and 40 % of the right are Cap. VI. **Four consecutive leaves now show the asymmetry in the same direction, and it is still not evidence.** Both boundaries were set from `CAP. N.` headings on the bands.

**★ NEITHER LEAF CARRIES A PRINTER'S OR QUIRE SIGNATURE.** The last was p. 265's (`S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` with quire `34`); the next is still due around p. 273 on the eight-leaf cadence. Nothing on pp. 270–271 was mistaken for a footer entry.

**Raw-quality grade, per page and per region** (the raw was a cross-check only, never the base): **p. 270 body (right column, the Cap. VI portion) — good**, readable continuously (`nihil prprsus elTicitur`, `intelligentiain praemissorum`, `incarnatnm`, `nibil`, `ostenUitur`, `hw//?-cacia`, `n illis` — the last being the plate's own defect, not the OCR's). **p. 270 footer — sound in the sigla (`I K L`, `I K L M` both clean) but WRONG in three digits (`tit. i3.`, `(I.)`, `q. i.`), all three in the `1`/`4` class** — the exact mirror of p. 269's footer, which came through right in the sigla and wrong in four digits of the `3`/`5` class. **p. 271 body — the worst of the two columns is the left** (`Rursiis`, `intci' liaec`, `elTicacia divinac`, `renwdiu mor-bortMii`, `»io/7w,s`, `(piae`, `focientia`, `churactcrcs`, `IsraeUtae`), the right column noticeably cleaner (`su-peracdificari`, `oiwrtet`, `contiimcliam`) — **grade the columns separately on this leaf.** **p. 271 footer — good in the sigla (`E F G H`, `D P`, `I K L M 0`, `C E T` all recoverable) and right in every digit it prints (`146`, `7`, `2`), which makes it the best footer of the four leaves in Pars VI so far** — and note that it nonetheless faithfully reproduced the plate's own `minus, aplae`, which is how that flag was confirmed.

**Runover tests — THREE RUN, ONE POSITIVE, TWO NEGATIVE; all three closed from BOTH sides.**
- *p. 270's own gutter — **POSITIVE**, and logged as `p.270 n.4:gutter`.* The left block's last entry, n. 4, **breaks off mid-quotation** at `Primo loco cit. habetur etiam, quod « baptismus sit *fundamentum* omnium`, and **p. 270's right block opens UNNUMBERED** with `Sacramentorum », et quod « ante susceptionem baptismi…` — the quoted phrase *fundamentum omnium Sacramentorum* split across the gutter. Rendered joined in the `p270-4` entry. ★ **`bon-brev-p6-c5` forwarded this test UNLOGGED and declined to close it, having read only that n. 4 was not its own; it is closed here from BOTH sides, which is the only way a gutter test closes.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 270 → p. 271 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* p. 270's right block ends **complete** at n. 5's `Inferius pro *ex hoc* I K L M *in hoc*.`, and **p. 271's left block opens NUMBERED** at `¹ Ed. 1 addit *quae*. Mox post *sed* N addit *etiam*.`
- *p. 271's own gutter — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides and logged here.* p. 271's left block ends **complete** at n. 4's `…multi codd. *sua*, 2 *alia*.` and **the right block opens NUMBERED** at `⁵ C I K L M O V *cuiuslibet*.` ★ **This test is logged HERE rather than forwarded because the note at the block seam — n. 4, the left block's last — is Cap. VI's, which is the same rule under which `p6-c5` forwarded p. 270's test to this chunk.** `bon-brev-p6-c7` **must not re-log it.**
- *NOT re-logged here:* `p.269 n.4:gutter` and the p. 269 → p. 270 page-crossing test (both `bon-brev-p6-c5`); `p.268 n.4:gutter` and the p. 268 → p. 269 test (both `p6-c4`); `p.267 n.4:gutter` and the p. 267 → p. 268 test (both `p6-c3`); `p.266 n.3:gutter` and the p. 266 → p. 267 test (both `p6-c2`); p. 265's own gutter test and the p. 265 → p. 266 test (both `p6-c1`); the p. 264 → p. 265 test, p. 264's own gutter test and the p. 263 → p. 264 test (all `p5-c10`); and everything on `p6-c1`'s through `p6-c5`'s own do-not-re-log lists. Corpus-wide runover and chunk totals are **not written here** — derive them with `tools/check-vol5-census.py`.

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS TO `bon-brev-p6-c7`.** p. 270 is **fully consumed** — five notes, five anchors, nothing left. **p. 271's register was band-read IN FULL and its total of 8 is entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`**; this chunk owns nn. 1–4, and **nn. 5–8 anchor in Cap. VII in the RIGHT column and are `p6-c7`'s.** Stated with its verification level, claiming nothing more: **the BLOCK positions, the VERBATIM TEXTS and the ANCHOR COLUMN (RIGHT) of nn. 5–8 were all read off the bands; the precise anchor WORDS were read for n. 5 only** (`de *integritate* uniuscuiusque ⁵ Sacramenti;`, in Cap. VII's opening period), **and no anchor word is claimed for nn. 6–8.**
- n. **5** `C I K L M O V *cuiuslibet*. — De unoquoque septem Sacramentorum agitur specialiter capp. seqq.`
- n. **6** `Cfr. Matth. 28, 19. — Inferius pro *mersio* A H Q R S et 2 *immersio*.`
- n. **7** `De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 3-5. et d. 6. p. II. a. 3.`
- n. **8** `Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 32. (c. 4.) et III. de Anima, text. 45. (c. 9.) docet, quod Deus et natura nihil faciunt frustra neque deficiunt in necessariis.`
★ **EVERY DIGIT AND SIGLUM IN nn. 5–8 ABOVE IS UNVERIFIED** — the seven-member run `C I K L M O V`, the run `A H Q R S` (**which would be the second `H` admitted in Pars VI and must be settled by stroke count and ascent, not by this note**), the edition siglum `2`, `Matth. 28, 19`, the chain `d. 3-5. et d. 6. p. II. a. 3.`, and the Aristotle coordinates `text. 32. (c. 4.)` and `text. 45. (c. 9.)` all come off a single band pass; **the `IV. Sent.` chain is a set of live targets that must be checked to exist**, and its `3`s, `5`s and `4`s sit in the `3`/`5` and `1`/`4` risk classes alike — note especially that **the raw prints `d. 3-o.` there and `(c. i.)` for `(c. 4.)`**, so the raw is no witness. **Re-derive all of it. A hand-off is a claim to re-derive, never a fact to adopt.** `bon-brev-p6-c7` owns p. 271 from n. 5 onward, **must NOT re-log p. 271's own gutter test (closed NEGATIVE here) nor the p. 270 → p. 271 test**, owes **the p. 271 → p. 272 page-crossing test and p. 272's own gutter test**, and must extract p. 272 fresh with no constant. Cap. VII (`De constitutione et integritate baptismi`) opens ~40 % down p. 271's RIGHT column with a ONE-line subtitle and a `Thesis 1.` gloss; **its end must be set from the `Cap. VIII.` heading on the band and from nothing else.**

**Register — Pars VI's vocabulary was FOLLOWED, not re-decided, and the Vol IV settlement was CONSULTED rather than re-argued.** `p6-c1`'s sacramental core, `p6-c2`'s historical-dispensation vocabulary, `p6-c3`'s seven sacrament names off the Vol IV d.1–d.21 settlement, `p6-c4`'s institution vocabulary (*institutio / instituere* → "institution / to institute"; *statuere* → "to establish") and `p6-c5`'s dispensation-and-minister vocabulary all stand unchanged here. **The term `p6-c5` deliberately held for this chapter is now spent as planned: *iteratio / iterari / iterare* → "iteration / to be iterated / to iterate" throughout, never "repetition".** ***Character* comes off Vol IV d.6 p.I and d.24 p.II, not from coinage here** — *character* → "character" (the technical term, untranslated), *imprimi / imprimere* → "to be imprinted / to imprint", *indelebiliter* → "indelibly", *deleri* → "to be blotted out", *substerni / substrato* → "to be laid underneath", *superaedificari* → "to be built upon" (the decretal's own word, kept because n. 4 quotes it). **Fixed here** — *contumelia* → "affront" consistently for the Sacrament and for the divine Sacrament alike (not "insult", which would lose the legal register the decretals give it); *iterabilis* → "iterable" against *irreiterabilis* implied by *non sunt aliquatenus iteranda* → "in no wise to be iterated"; *inefficaciter / inepte / infructuose* → "inefficaciously / ineptly / unfruitfully", and their adjectives *inefficacia / inepta / infructuosa* rendered by the same three stems so Bonaventure's answering triad survives; *hierarchici gradus* → "hierarchic grades" and *status fidei genitae / roboratae / multiplicatae* → "the state of faith begotten / strengthened / multiplied"; *acies* → "battle-line", kept literal because the *pugiles* simile two clauses later depends on it; *dona gratuita gratum facientia* → "gratuitous gifts making one pleasing to God", the scholastic *gratia gratum faciens* unpacked rather than smoothed; *populus a non-populo* → "the people from the non-people", the hyphenated coinage preserved as the plate prints it and as n. 3's variant (*christiani pro a non-populo*) requires; *clerus / clerici / laici* → "clergy / clerics / laics". Quaracchi's em-dash articulations are preserved, and Bonaventure's *quia/cum/ideo* chains are kept as one English sentence throughout — the *Ratio autem* period, the *Rursus* period, the *Postremo* period and the closing *Quia vero* period each run as single sentences, the *Ratio* one across the page break.


site: bonaventure

collection: Breviloquium

title: Pars 6, Cap. 7

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 271 -->

### Capitulum VII. *De constitutione et integritate baptismi.*

Iam nunc septimo loco restat videre de *integritate* uniuscuiusque[^p271-5] Sacramenti; quae cum sint in numero septiformi, primo dicendum est de *integritate baptismi*, qui est ianua aliorum Sacramentorum.

De *integritate* igitur Sacramenti *baptismi* hoc tenendum est, quod ad hoc, quod aliquis baptizetur vere et plene, requiritur *expressio formae* vocalis, a Domino institutae[^p271-6], quae est haec: Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, Amen; absque omissione vocabuli et sine interpositione vocabuli, absque praeposteratione ordinis supradicti et sine commutatione nominis praenotati. — Requiritur etiam *mersio* vel ablutio per *elementum aquae* in toto corpore, vel saltem in digniori parte, ita quod *expressio* et *mersio* fiat ab uno et eodem et in eodem tempore. — Quibus concurrentibus, si non sit *fictio* in baptizando, datur ei gratia *regenerans, rectificans* et *purificans* ab omni culpa. — Quod ut efficacius fiat, *catechismus* et *exorcismus* tanquam praeparatorii praemittuntur tam in parvulis quam in adultis; ita tamen, quod in *adultis* requiritur *fides propria*, in *parvulis* autem sufficit *fides aliena*[^p271-7].

Ratio autem ad intelligentiam praedictorum haec est: quia, cum principium nostrum reparativum, Verbum scilicet incarnatum, tanquam perfectissimum et sufficientissimum principium reparare habeat genus humanum per medicamenta Sacramentorum, ita quod nihil sit in eis superfluum, nihil inordinatum, nihil etiam diminutum[^p271-8]; ita disponere debuit, quod Sacramentum baptismi et alia integrarentur, secundum quod exigebat *sua virtus, nostra salus* et etiam *noster morbus*. — Quoniam ergo *virtus* nos
<!-- page 272 -->
reparans est virtus *totius Trinitatis*, quam sancta mater Ecclesia credit in animo, confitetur in verbo et profitetur in signo, sub trium personarum distinctione et proprietate, ordine et origine naturali; est etiam virtus *passionis Christi*, qui mortuus et sepultus fuit et *die tertia resurrexit*[^p272-1]: hinc est, quod ad horum expressionem in Sacramento, quod primum omnium Sacramentorum est, et in quo primo et principaliter haec virtus operatur, debuit fieri expressio *Trinitatis* in distincta, propria et ordinata nominatione, quantum est de forma communi, licet in tempore primitivae Ecclesiae potuerit fieri *in nomine Christi*[^p272-2], in quo intellectus clauditur Trinitatis. Debuit etiam fieri propria et ordinata nominatio verbi *baptizandi* cum trina mersione ad expressionem mortis Christi et sepulturae et resurrectionis post triduum factae, quantum est *de congruitate*. Et quia simul operatur utraque virtus et in uno Christo Salvatore, utrumque horum debet fieri ab *uno* et eodem simul et in eodem tempore, propter servandam unitatem in Sacramento et significandam unitatem in nostro Mediatore[^p272-3].

Rursus, quoniam *salus nostra* requirebat inchoari per regenerationem seu renovationem in *esse* gratiae conferentis spirituale *esse*, abstergendo *immunditiam*, effugando *tenebras* et refrigerando *concupiscentiam*, quae universaliter labefactat[^p272-4] omnem hominem descendentem seminaliter ab Adam; hinc est, quod Sacramentum primum, quod est regenerativum, debuit fieri in elemento, quod haberet conformitatem ex naturali repraesentatione ad triplicem effectum praedictum gratiae inchoantis nostram salutem. Quoniam ergo aqua sua puritate *mundat*, sua pervietate *luminis est delativa*, sua frigiditate *refrigerat*; et maxime communis est omnibus inter omnia liquida: hinc est, quod Sacramentum regenerationis nostrae perfici debuit in elemento *aquae indifferenter*; quia « omnis aqua omni aquae est eadem specie[^p272-5] », et etiam, ne aliquis propter defectum elementi periculum salutis posset incurrere.

Postremo, quoniam *morbus noster*, contra quem principaliter est baptismus, est originale peccatum, quod animam privat vita gratiae et omnium virtutum rectitudine habilitante et pronam quodam modo reddit ad omne genus culpae, et traducitur aliunde et « parvulum facit concupiscibilem et adultum actu concupiscentem », redigit etiam in diabolicam servitutem et in potestatem principis tenebrarum[^p272-6]: hinc est, quod ad hoc, quod per illud Sacramentum per contrarium sufficiens adhibeatur remedii medicamentum, congruit, in eo dari gratiam *regenerantem* contra privationem vitae gratuitae, gratiam *rectificantem* in septiformi virtute contra privationem virtutis habilitativae, gratiam *purificantem* ab omni culpa contra pronitatem ad omnem deordinationem vitiosam.

Et quoniam originale peccatum trahitur aliunde et parvulum facit concupiscibilem et adultum actu concupiscentem, necessaria est *adulto fides propria* et *poenitentia*, sed *parvulo* sufficit *aliena*, quae scilicet est in universali Ecclesia. Quia vero baptismus debet eruere de servitute diaboli et de potestate principis tenebrarum[^p272-7] tam parvulos quam adultos; hinc est, quod utrique *exorcizari* debent ad expulsionem potestatis contrariae, utrique etiam *catechizari*: *adulti*, ut, expulsa caligine erroris, informentur ad fidem; *parvuli* vero, ut sciant patrini, quid eos debeant edocere, ne pro humano defectu impediatur baptismatis Sacramentum, quominus habeat finem suum.

---

english:
### Chapter VII. *On the constitution and integrity of baptism.*

Now in the seventh place it remains to see concerning the *integrity* of each[^p271-5] Sacrament; and since these are seven in number, first it must be said concerning the *integrity of baptism*, which is the gate of the other Sacraments.

Concerning the *integrity*, therefore, of the Sacrament of *baptism* this must be held: that for this, that anyone be baptized truly and fully, there is required the *expression of the vocal form* instituted by the Lord[^p271-6], which is this: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen; without the omission of a word and without the interposition of a word, without the inversion of the aforesaid order and without the alteration of the name prescribed. — There is required also *immersion* or ablution through *the element of water* upon the whole body, or at least upon the worthier part, in such wise that the *expression* and the *immersion* be done by one and the same person and at the same time. — And when these concur, if there be no *feigning* in the one being baptized, there is given to him grace *regenerating, rectifying* and *purifying* from every fault. — And that this may be done the more efficaciously, *catechism* and *exorcism* are sent before as preparatory, in infants as much as in adults; yet in such wise that in *adults* there is required *one's own faith*, whereas in *infants* the *faith of another* suffices[^p271-7].

Now the reason for the understanding of the aforesaid is this: since our reparative principle, the Word namely incarnate, as a most perfect and most sufficient principle, has to repair the human race through the medicaments of the Sacraments, in such wise that there be in them nothing superfluous, nothing disordered, nothing also diminished[^p271-8], he must needs have so disposed that the Sacrament of baptism and the others should be made entire according to what *his own power, our salvation* and also *our disease* demanded. — Since therefore the *power*
<!-- page 272 -->
repairing us is the power of *the whole Trinity*, which holy mother Church believes in mind, confesses in word and professes in sign, under the distinction and property of the three persons, under their natural order and origin; and is also the power of *the passion of Christ*, who died and was buried and *on the third day rose again*[^p272-1]: hence it is that, for the expression of these in the Sacrament which is the first of all the Sacraments, and in which first and principally this power works, there had to be made an expression of *the Trinity* in a distinct, proper and ordered naming, so far as pertains to the common form — although in the time of the primitive Church it could be done *in the name of Christ*[^p272-2], in which the understanding of the Trinity is enclosed. There had also to be made a proper and ordered naming of the word of *baptizing* with a threefold immersion, for the expression of the death of Christ and of the burial and of the resurrection made after three days, so far as pertains *to congruity*. And because both powers work at once and in the one Christ the Saviour, both of these ought to be done by *one* and the same person at once and at the same time, for the preserving of unity in the Sacrament and for the signifying of the unity in our Mediator[^p272-3].

Again, since *our salvation* required to be begun through a regeneration or renewal in the *being* of grace conferring spiritual *being*, by wiping away *uncleanness*, by putting to flight *the darknesses* and by cooling *concupiscence*, which universally weakens[^p272-4] every man descending seminally from Adam; hence it is that the first Sacrament, which is regenerative, had to be made in an element which should have a conformity, by natural representation, to the aforesaid threefold effect of the grace beginning our salvation. Since therefore water by its purity *cleanses*, by its transparency *is a bearer of light*, by its coldness *cools*; and is most of all common to all men among all liquids: hence it is that the Sacrament of our regeneration had to be accomplished in the element of *water indifferently*; because « all water is of the same species with all water[^p272-5] », and also lest anyone, on account of a defect of the element, should be able to incur peril of salvation.

Lastly, since *our disease*, against which baptism is principally directed, is original sin — which deprives the soul of the life of grace and of the enabling rectitude of all the virtues, and in a certain manner renders it prone to every kind of fault, and is drawn from elsewhere and « makes the infant concupiscible and the adult concupiscent in act », and reduces him also into diabolical servitude and into the power of the prince of darkness[^p272-6] — hence it is that, in order that through that Sacrament a sufficient medicament of remedy might be applied by way of the contrary, it was fitting that in it there be given grace *regenerating* against the privation of the gratuitous life, grace *rectifying* in the sevenfold power against the privation of the enabling virtue, grace *purifying* from every fault against the proneness to every vicious disorder.

And since original sin is drawn from elsewhere and makes the infant concupiscible and the adult concupiscent in act, *one's own faith* and *penance* are necessary *for the adult*, but for the *infant* the *faith of another* suffices, which namely is in the universal Church. But because baptism ought to draw both infants and adults out of the servitude of the devil and out of the power of the prince of darkness[^p272-7]; hence it is that both ought to be *exorcized* unto the expulsion of the contrary power, and both also *catechized*: *adults*, that, the mist of error having been driven out, they may be informed unto faith; *infants* indeed, that the godparents may know what they ought to teach them, lest through human defect the Sacrament of baptism be hindered from having its own end.

---

la: C I K L M O V *cuiuslibet*. — De unoquoque septem Sacramentorum agitur specialiter capp. seqq.

en: C, I, K, L, M, O, V read *cuiuslibet*. — Each one of the seven Sacraments is treated of specially in the following chapters.

la: Cfr. Matth. 28, 19. — Inferius pro *mersio* A H Q R S et 2 *immersio*.

en: Cf. Matthew 28:19. — Below, for *mersio*, A, H, Q, R, S and edition 2 read *immersio*.

la: De hoc cap. vide IV. Sent. d. 3-5. et d. 6. p. II. a. 3.

en: On this chapter see IV Sent. d. 3–5 and d. 6, p. II, a. 3.

la: Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 32. (c. 4.) et III. de Anima, text. 45. (c. 9.) docet, quod Deus et natura nihil faciunt frustra neque deficiunt in necessariis.

en: Aristotle, *On the Heaven and the World* I, text 32 (c. 4), and *On the Soul* III, text 45 (c. 9), teaches that God and nature do nothing in vain nor fail in things necessary.

en: Epistle I Corinthians 15:4. — Below, after *in Sacramento*, edition 1 adds *baptismi*.

la: Cfr. Act. 2, 38; 8, 12. et 16; 10, 48; 19, 5, et de opinione illa IV. Sent. d. 3. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. scholion. — Mox voci *Trinitatis* Vat., 1 et 3 praefigunt *totius*. Subinde pro *propria et ordinata nominatio* plures codd. *expressio*, et *immersione* pro *mersione*.

en: Cf. Acts 2:38; 8:12 and 16; 10:48; 19:5, and on that opinion IV Sent. d. 3, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, scholion. — Shortly after, before the word *Trinitatis*, the Vatican edition and editions 1 and 3 prefix *totius*. Thereafter, for *propria et ordinata nominatio*, many codices read *expressio*, and *immersione* for *mersione*.

la: Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 5. a. 1. q. 1. casus 3. — Plures codd. *in salvatore nostro et mediatore Christo*.

en: Cf. IV Sent. d. 5, a. 1, q. 1, case 3. — Many codices read *in salvatore nostro et mediatore Christo*.

la: Plures codd., inter quos B L M P et 2 *labefacit*, T W *labefecerat*. Superius pro *tenebras* non pauci codd. *tenebram*.

en: Many codices, among them B, L, M, P, and edition 2, read *labefacit*; T, W read *labefecerat*. Above, for *tenebras*, not a few codices read *tenebram*.

la: Aristot., I. Topic. c. 6. (c. 5.). — Superius post *pervietate*, pro quo D F *perspicuitate*, Vat., 1 et 3 addunt *seu diaphaneitate*. Mox pro *et etiam* plures codd., inter quos L M V Z, *et similiter*.

en: Aristotle, *Topics* I, c. 6 (c. 5). — Above, after *pervietate* — for which D, F read *perspicuitate* — the Vatican edition and editions 1 and 3 add *seu diaphaneitate*. Shortly after, for *et etiam*, many codices, among them L, M, V, Z, read *et similiter*.

la: Respicitur Col. 6, 12. — Praecedens sententia, quae etiam paulo inferius recurrit, est Magistri Sent., II. Sent. d. XXX. c. 9. Cfr. Hugo S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 3. c. 11. et I. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 31. — Superius pro *pronum* ex I K L O Q V substituimus *pronam*, F vero post *reddit* supplet *hominem*.

en: Reference is had to Col. 6:12. — The preceding sentence, which recurs also a little below, is the Master of the Sentences', II Sent. d. XXX, c. 9. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum*, tr. 3, c. 11, and *On the Sacraments* I, p. VII, c. 31. — Above, for *pronum*, we have substituted *pronam* from I, K, L, O, Q, V; F, however, after *reddit*, supplies *hominem*.

la: Col. 1, 13: Qui eripuit nos de potestate tenebrarum et transtulit in regnum Filii dilectionis suae.

en: Colossians 1:13: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love." ---

translators_notes:
**★★ PAGE SPAN — pp. 271–272, AND BOTH ENDS ARE FIXED POSITIVELY FROM HEADINGS.** `CAP. VII.` with the **ONE-line** subtitle `De constitutione et integritate baptismi.` stands centred in p. 271's RIGHT column about **40 %** down the leaf, two lines below Cap. VI's closing `…sine sui contumelia iterari.` — where `bon-brev-p6-c6` said it stood, and re-set here line by line off the band rather than adopted. **The title is taken from THIS heading, never from the volume index**, whose Pars VI titles are OCR-garbled throughout the block. Cap. VII fills the rest of p. 271's right column; crosses the leaf **MID-CLAUSE, splitting a pronoun from its participle** (p. 271's right column ends `— Quoniam ergo *virtus* nos` and p. 272's left column opens `reparans est virtus *totius Trinitatis*`, with the `Pro thesi 1.` gloss set beside that first line); fills p. 272's left column entire to `…et traducitur aliunde et`; crosses p. 272's gutter **AT A QUOTATION MARK** (`et traducitur aliunde et` / `« parvulum facit concupiscibilem…`); and closes about **40 %** down p. 272's RIGHT column at `…quominus habeat finem suum.`

**★★ THE CLOSE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE `CAP. VIII.` HEADING AND FROM NOTHING ELSE.** `CAP. VIII.` with the ONE-line subtitle `De integritate confirmationis.` stands centred in p. 272's RIGHT column, with Cap. VIII's opening beneath it in the same column (`De Sacramento *confirmationis* hoc tenendum est…` beside a fresh `Thesis 1.` gloss). **The volume index's "Cap. VIII on p. 272" was a hypothesis on arrival and p. 272's running head `272 BREVILOQUII PARS VI. C. VIII.` was used for nothing** — it names Cap. VIII while the whole left column and the top 40 % of the right are Cap. VII, the same asymmetry the four preceding leaves showed. **The running head has now been an unreliable witness on five consecutive leaves and it is still not evidence.** No inference was drawn from white space at any column foot, and the fact that Cap. VII's tail (`…quominus habeat finem suum.`) is a grammatically complete sentence was not treated as evidence of anything — the `CAP. VIII.` heading below it is.

**Gutters — one re-derived from the hand-off, one settled fresh with no constant.**
- **p. 271 = 1202, RE-DERIVED rather than re-used.** The hand-off forwarded 1202 as "safe to reuse," and it was measured again from the beginning anyway. `colcrop.py vol5 271` with no constant returns **1204 on a 61 px run**. Exactly **one** window blows out (15–35 % → 1271/**204 px**, on Cap. VI's `Rursus` opening and its gloss); the **twelve** survivors run 20–40 % → 1200/61 · 25–45 % → 1200/61 · 30–50 % → 1200/60 · 35–55 % → 1201/61 · 40–60 % → 1201/61 · 45–65 % → 1202/64 · 50–70 % → 1203/63 · 55–75 % → 1203/63 · 60–80 % → 1203/63 · 65–85 % → 1203/62 · 70–89 % → 1204/62 · 45–92 % → 1204/61 — **a 4 px spread on runs of 60–64 px**, drifting monotonically down the leaf, which is page skew. **This reproduces `p6-c6`'s measurement window for window and digit for digit; 1202 confirmed and adopted.** Bands regenerated at 1202 and read clean edge to edge.
- **★★ p. 272 = 1326, SETTLED FRESH WITH NO CONSTANT.** p. 272 had not been imaged; extracted at 450 dpi and profiled with no constant, `colcrop.py vol5 272` returns **1326 on a 62 px run** — inside the sound band, and it was still not adopted on its own showing. **Seven of the twelve windows blow out** (20–40 % → 1401/**223 px** · 25–45 % → 1401/**222 px** · 30–50 % → 1340/**95 px** · 35–55 % → 1333/**246 px** · 40–60 % → 1347/**106 px** · 60–80 % → 1256/**336 px** · 65–85 % → 1224/**271 px** · 70–89 % → 1224/**272 px**) — the heaviest crop of blow-outs on any leaf in Pars VI, and the reason is structural: **p. 272 carries the `Cap. VIII.` heading and its subtitle set mid-right-column at ~40 %, and its left column runs short of the right**, so windows straddling either feature flood one side. The **five** survivors agree to 4 px: 15–35 % → 1322/65 · 45–65 % → 1326/63 · 50–70 % → 1326/64 · 55–75 % → 1326/64 · 45–92 % → 1326/62 — **runs 62–65 px**, the trustworthy profile. Step 3 settles it: over rows 35–85 % the near-zero band is **x = 1296–1357 (62 px)** and Quaracchi's printed column rule stands inside it at **x = 1323–1328, peaking 220 rows on x = 1327**. **Band midpoint 1326.5, rule centre 1326 — 1326 adopted.** ★ **The rule inked LIGHTLY on this leaf (220 rows against p. 271's 541, p. 270's 573 and p. 269's 767), which is precisely why the default run was not pinched** — the second consecutive leaf where a sound default is a reading of the rule's inking and not of the gutter.

**Apparatus source.** Vol V's IA OCR renders footnote numerals as punctuation glyphs — anchor POSITIONS survive in the raw, numbers and footer-entry openers do NOT. **All eleven notes here were read off the 450 dpi footer bands**; the counts are band-derived. `audit-apparatus-count` is blind to Vol V; `tools/check-vol5-apparatus.py` is the instrument. **p. 271's total of 8 was established by `bon-brev-p6-c6` and is already in `KNOWN_TOTALS`; p. 272's total of 8 is established here and entered**, with n. 8 forwarded as a legitimate PENDING.

**★★ THE INCOMING HAND-OFF WAS RE-DERIVED IN FULL AND HELD IN EVERY PARTICULAR, INCLUDING EVERY DIGIT AND SIGLUM IT FLAGGED AS UNVERIFIED — AND IT IS NOW EXTENDED WHERE IT DECLINED TO CLAIM.** `bon-brev-p6-c6` forwarded p. 271 from n. 5 onward and stated its verification level precisely: **the BLOCK positions, the VERBATIM TEXTS and the ANCHOR COLUMN (RIGHT) of nn. 5–8 read off the bands; the anchor WORDS read for n. 5 only; no anchor word claimed for nn. 6–8.** Every clause of that is correct, and its narrative summary agrees with its per-note list; **nothing had to be withdrawn.** The three things it explicitly did not claim are supplied here: **n. 6 anchors on `a Domino institutae ⁶, quae est haec`**, **n. 7 on `sufficit *fides aliena* ⁷.`** closing *Thesis 4*, and **n. 8 on `nihil etiam diminutum ⁸; ita disponere debuit`** in the *Ratio* period — all three in the RIGHT column, as forwarded. Verification level of every note as established **here**:
- **p. 271 n. 5** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified here against the hand-off. Anchors on `de *integritate* uniuscuiusque ⁵ Sacramenti;` in the **RIGHT** column, in Cap. VII's opening period. Footer entry opens p. 271's right block, NUMBERED, and is complete.
- **p. 271 n. 6** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified here; **the anchor is first-read here** (the hand-off claimed none). Anchors on `a Domino institutae ⁶, quae est haec` in the **RIGHT** column, inside *Thesis 1*. Footer entry second in the right block, complete.
- **p. 271 n. 7** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified here; **the anchor is first-read here.** Anchors on `sufficit *fides aliena* ⁷.` in the **RIGHT** column, closing *Thesis 4*. Footer entry third in the right block, complete.
- **p. 271 n. 8** — POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified here; **the anchor is first-read here.** Anchors on `nihil etiam diminutum ⁸; ita disponere debuit` in the **RIGHT** column, inside the *Ratio* period. Footer entry last in the right block, **complete** — which is what closes the p. 271 → p. 272 test from this side.
- **p. 272 n. 1** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `et *die tertia resurrexit* ¹: hinc est` in the **LEFT** column, inside *Pro thesi 1*. Footer entry opens p. 272's left block, NUMBERED.
- **p. 272 n. 2** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `fieri *in nomine Christi* ², in quo intellectus` in the **LEFT** column. Footer entry second in the left block.
- **p. 272 n. 3** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `unitatem in nostro Mediatore ³.` in the **LEFT** column, closing *Pro thesi 1*. Footer entry third in the left block.
- **p. 272 n. 4** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `quae universaliter labefactat ⁴ omnem hominem` in the **LEFT** column, inside *Pro thesi 2*. Footer entry fourth in the left block.
- **p. 272 n. 5** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `est eadem specie ⁵ »` in the **LEFT** column, closing *Pro thesi 2*. Footer entry last in the left block and **breaks off mid-clause** at `Vat., 1 et 3 addunt *seu*`, continuing unnumbered at the head of the right block with `*diaphaneitate*. Mox pro *et etiam*…`.
- **p. 272 n. 6** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `in potestatem principis tenebrarum ⁶: hinc est` in the **RIGHT** column, in the *Postremo* period. Footer entry second in the right block. **Carries this chunk's own `[?]` flag — see below.**
- **p. 272 n. 7** — first-read here. POSITION, COLUMN and OWNERSHIP all verified: anchors on `principis tenebrarum ⁷ tam parvulos quam adultos` in the **RIGHT** column, inside *Pro thesi 4*. Footer entry third in the right block, complete.

**★ p. 271's SPLIT MAP — the leaf is now fully consumed.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3, 4, all complete. Right footer block: nn. 5, 6, 7, 8, all complete. **Anchors:** nn. 1–3 in the LEFT column, nn. 4–8 in the RIGHT. **Total 8.** nn. 1–4 are Cap. VI's (`p6-c6`'s), nn. 5–8 are mine. **The block split is 4/4 and the anchor split is 3/5, and the Cap. VI / Cap. VII boundary falls exactly at the block break, between nn. 4 and 5** — as `p6-c6` established; re-read here from the far side and confirmed.

**★★ p. 272's SPLIT MAP — THE BLOCK SPLIT IS 5/3 AND THE ANCHOR SPLIT IS 5/3, AND THEY COINCIDE — BUT THE CAPITULUM BOUNDARY DOES NOT FALL AT EITHER.** Left footer block: nn. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 — n. 5 **straddling** the gutter. Right footer block: n. 5's unnumbered continuation, then nn. 6, 7, 8. **Anchors:** nn. 1–5 in the left column, nn. 6–8 in the right. **p. 272's TOTAL IS 8, established here and entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`**; nn. 1–7 are Cap. VII's (mine), n. 8 is Cap. VIII's and is forwarded. ★ **So the block break and the column break agree at nn. 5/6 while the capitulum break falls two notes lower, inside the right block between nn. 7 and 8** — the p. 247 shape again, and the fourth distinct block-vs-anchor-vs-capitulum arrangement in Pars VI. **The 4/4-block-against-3/5-anchor pattern of pp. 268, 269 and 271 does NOT recur here**, which is the fourth time in this pars that the pattern has failed to propagate to the adjacent leaf. **Read anchors, only anchors.**

**★ SIGLA — TEN RUNS ACROSS THE TWO LEAVES, AND `H` IS ADMITTED ONCE MORE, ON STROKE COUNT AND ALPHABETICAL ASCENT TOGETHER.**
1. **`C I K L M O V` (p. 271 n. 5)** — seven sorts, strictly ascending. The second glyph is a **single** upright, which is `I` by the one-upright rule and never a crossbar-less `H`; the ascent C–I–K–L–M–O–V confirms it, since an `H` there would have to precede `C`'s successor and it does not. The raw reads `C 1 K L M 0 V`, its habitual `1` for `I` and `0` for `O`.
2. **`A H Q R S` (p. 271 n. 6)** — **the second `H` admitted in Pars VI, and it is admitted on two independent grounds**: the glyph carries **two** uprights (a single upright in that slot would have to be `I`, and `A I Q R S` would still ascend, so stroke count alone is not enough here), and the run is strictly alphabetical with `H` in the only slot between `A` and `Q` that the volume's siglum set offers. The edition siglum `2` stands in the same clause and prints as a plainly different sort. The raw reads `AHQRSet` unspaced.
3. **`B L M P` and `T W` (p. 272 n. 4)** — two runs one clause apart in a single note, each strictly ascending, with the edition siglum `2` beside the first; the p. 228 n. 3 pattern again. The raw reads both correctly.
4. **`D F` (p. 272 n. 5)** — two unmistakable sorts governing *perspicuitate*, with `Vat., 1 et 3` in the same clause: **three edition sigla and two codex sigla inside one sentence**, printing as different sorts throughout.
5. **`L M V Z` (p. 272 n. 5's continuation)** — four ascending sorts in the right block, `Z` being the last of the volume's codex series.
6. **`I K L O Q V` (p. 272 n. 6)** — six sorts, strictly ascending, opening with a single upright. **The raw reads `lULOQV`**, flattening `I K` into `lU` — a fresh corruption of the chronic raw-`K` defect, and the reason the run was settled off the band alone.
7. **`F` (p. 272 n. 6)** — a single sort in the note's last clause; **three siglum sets in one note**, as on p. 269 n. 7 and p. 271 n. 3.
8. **`E` and `A G K Q` (p. 272 n. 8, forwarded)** — read off the band while establishing the leaf's total; **the raw prints `L exigitur` where the band prints `E exigitur`, and `A G Iv Q` for `A G K Q`** — the chronic raw `Iv` for `K`. Both readings are forwarded as band reads that `p6-c8` must re-derive.

**Digits settled off the band, each with something independent agreeing** (per the frozen rule). ★ **BOTH confusion classes are live on these two leaves in roughly equal measure, so neither leaf's calibration was carried to the other** — and note that the raw was wrong in *both* classes here, so it is no witness at all:
- **p. 271 n. 6's `Matth. 28, 19`** — the `1` is flag-and-stem against the `9`'s bowl; **and the citation is confirmed by its own subject**: Matthew 28:19 is *Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti* — verbatim the trinitarian form the anchor is attached to. The raw prints `Mattli. 28, 19` correctly here.
- **p. 271 n. 7's chain `IV. Sent. d. 3-5. et d. 6. p. II. a. 3.` — every locus checked to EXIST and to match the subject the note gives it.** `d. 3-5` → `bon-sent-IV-d3-*`, `d4-*` and `d5-*` all exist and are **Lombard's and Bonaventure's baptism distinctions in sequence** ✓ · `d. 6. p. II. a. 3.` → `bon-sent-IV-d6-p2-a3-q1` *Utrum parvuli baptizandi debeant catechizari* and `q2` *Utrum exorcismus habeat aliquam efficaciam in parvulo, vel adulto* — **exactly the *catechismus et exorcismus* of this chapter's Thesis 4** ✓. **The raw prints `d. 3-o.`, which is worthless**; the plate's `3` is double-bowled and its `5` flat-topped with a single bowl, and the two stand three characters apart on one line — the cleanest side-by-side `3`/`5` discriminator on either leaf. Note that `d. 6. p. II. a. 3.` is a **third** coordinate under d. 6 (a. 2 was verified at `p6-c5`, p. I at `p6-c6`); neither earlier confirmation was allowed to transfer and it was checked from scratch.
- **p. 271 n. 8's Aristotle coordinates `text. 32. (c. 4.)` and `text. 45. (c. 9.)`** — the `4`s carry a closed triangular counter and a crossing horizontal against the serif `1`'s flag-and-stem, and a true `1` stands eight characters away in `I. de Caelo` for comparison. **The raw prints `(c. i.)` for `(c. 4.)` and `lext. 4S.` for `text. 45.`, wrong in the `1`/`4` class and unreadable in the other.** *De Caelo* I c. 4 and *De Anima* III c. 9 are both the loci of the *natura nihil facit frustra* maxim the note quotes ✓.
- **★ p. 272 n. 1's `I. Cor. 15, 4` — a `3`/`5` decision settled by the quoted text itself** (the tier-B channel of the index QA rule). The raw prints `Cor. lo, t.`; the plate's second digit is flat-topped with one bowl. **I Cor. 15:4 is *et quia sepultus est, et quia resurrexit tertia die*, which is word for word the body's `qui mortuus et sepultus fuit et die tertia resurrexit`; I Cor. 13:4 is the hymn to charity.** Decisive.
- **★ p. 272 n. 2's five Acts citations — `10, 48` is a `1`/`4` fix, and all five are confirmed by subject.** The plate's `10` reads as `40` at low magnification and the raw prints `10, 18`; **Acts has no chapter 40, and Acts 10:48 is *iussit eos in nomine Iesu Christi baptizari*** — the note's whole point. Acts 2:38, 8:12, 8:16 and 19:5 are the other four *in nomine Christi* baptisms ✓. **The chain's target was checked to exist:** `IV. Sent. d. 3. p. I. a. 2. q. 2.` → `bon-sent-IV-d3-p1-a2-q2`, whose **scholion II is precisely the discussion of baptism conferred *in nomine Christi* in the primitive Church** ✓ — the note names a scholion and the scholion is there.
- **★ p. 272 n. 3's `d. 5. a. 1. q. 1. casus 3.` — three `1`/`4` decisions in one coordinate, all settled together.** The raw prints `d. o. a. I. q. I.`. `bon-sent-IV-d5-a1-q1` *Utrum soli sacerdotes sive clerici habeant potestatem baptizandi* exists and **contains nine `casus`**, so `casus 3` has something to be; **d. 5 has no articulus 4 and no q. 4 anywhere**, so the `4`-looking glyphs cannot be `4`s. Exists, and matches the anchor's subject (one and the same person must both speak the form and immerse).
- **p. 272 n. 6's `II. Sent. d. XXX. c. 9.`, `Sum. Sent. tr. 3. c. 11.` and `I. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 31.`** — roman numerals and arabic digits mixed in one clause; the `11` is two flag-and-stem sorts and the `31` a double-bowled `3` followed by one. These are Lombard's and Hugh's own coordinates, **not corpus targets**, and no existence check applies. The raw reproduces all three correctly, which is the one region of this footer it gets right.

**⚠ TWO `[?]` FLAGS — ONE INHERITED AND DELIBERATELY LEFT STANDING, ONE RAISED HERE.**
1. **INHERITED, UNRESOLVED, FORWARDED — p. 271 n. 2, `E F G H minus, aptae ponunt et`** (owned by `bon-brev-p6-c6`, whose entry carries it). `p6-c6` transcribed the plate exactly and flagged it because grammar allows only the adverb *minus apte*. **This chunk's own band pass over p. 271's register reached the same reading and produced nothing decisive either way** — the note is in the LEFT block, which this chunk read in full while closing the leaf's split map, and the plate prints `minus,` with a comma and then `aptae`, at 11× as at 3.2×. **No disposition is recorded: it is neither resolved nor re-flagged as new. It stands as `p6-c6` left it and is forwarded to `p6-c8` unchanged.**
2. **NEW, RAISED HERE — p. 272 n. 6, `Respicitur Col. 6, 12.`** The plate prints `Col.` — the same three sorts, in the same footer, that n. 7 uses for the genuine `Col. 1, 13` two entries below — followed by `6, 12`. **Colossians has four chapters**, so the citation cannot resolve. The anchor is `redigit etiam in diabolicam servitutem et in potestatem principis tenebrarum`, and **Ephesians 6:12 is *adversus principes et potestates, adversus mundi rectores tenebrarum harum*** — which is what the sentence is quoting. **The IA raw independently prints `nospicitur Col. (i, 1 2`, so `Col.` is what the plate has, not a scan artifact.** Transcribed exactly as printed and rendered in English as the plate gives it; **flagged rather than silently emended to `Ephes.`, because the emendation would be ours and not the edition's.** ★ This is the class the index QA instrument exists to catch — an out-of-range chapter whose digits are individually legible and jointly impossible — and it is the first one in Pars VI to come from the plate rather than from a misreading.

**Marginalia** (Quaracchi editorial side-glosses, trimmed from the body per corpus convention; logged here in body order): p. 271 right column — "Thesis 1." — "Thesis 2." — "Thesis 3." — "Thesis 4." — "Ratio." — "Triplex exigentia."; p. 272 left column — "Pro thesi 1." — "Pro thesi 2." — "Pro thesi 3."; p. 272 right column — "Pro thesi 4." ★ **Ten glosses, and the form is a strict four-thesis series answered by a `Ratio.` and four `Pro thesi 1–4` glosses in exact one-to-one order, with a single free topical gloss (`Triplex exigentia.`) set where the *Ratio* names the three demands — *sua virtus, nostra salus, noster morbus*.** It is Cap. VI's shape scaled from three theses to four, and with one topical gloss instead of two; **but that is an observation after the fact and nothing was inferred from Cap. VI in advance.** `Triplex exigentia.` is set **two lines** below the clause it names and `Pro thesi 1.` sits beside the first line of p. 272 rather than beside `Quoniam ergo virtus` where the *pro thesi 1* argument actually begins on the previous leaf — **gloss position is not an anchor**, a third leaf showing it. Glosses stand in the outer margin of each column — left of column 1, right of column 2 — and the raw's rendering (`Raiio.`, `iripiei eii-gentia`, `pro ihcEi 2.`, `p™ ""esi 4.`) is unusable; all ten are band reads.

**★ NEITHER LEAF CARRIES A PRINTER'S OR QUIRE SIGNATURE.** The last was p. 265's (`S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` with quire `34`); the next is due around p. 273 on the eight-leaf cadence. Nothing on pp. 271–272 was mistaken for a footer entry.

**Raw-quality grade, per page and per region** (the raw was a cross-check only, never the base): **p. 271 body (right column, the Cap. VII portion) — good**, readable continuously with the usual ligature damage (`inlegri-late`, `ao-cabuli` for *vocabuli*, `praeposleratione`, `cutechismus`, `aiiena`, `C.\i>. VII.` for the heading, `De conslilutione et integritulc buplismi.` for the subtitle). **p. 271 footer — good in the sigla but wrong in three digits, all in the `3`/`5` and `1`/`4` classes at once** (`d. 3-o.`, `(c. i.)`, `lext. 4S.`) — the same footer `p6-c6` graded "right in every digit it prints" for nn. 1–4, so **the two halves of one register grade differently**; grade per block, not per page. **p. 272 body — the left column is the worse** (`reparaiis`, `toliu)i`, `conlitetur`, `online`, `pa-fnioni.s`, `hmc`, `iiomiiiatione`, `elfugando`, `cupisccntiain`, `guoniam`, `pervictale`, `babilitante`), the right column noticeably cleaner (`concupiscenlem`, `regencranlem`, `catcchizari`, `patrini`) — **grade the columns separately on this leaf too.** **p. 272 footer — the worst of the four blocks across both leaves**: wrong in five digits (`Cor. lo, t.`, `10, 18`, `d. o. a. I. q. I.`, `I. Topic. c. G.`, `Col. (i, 1 2`) and corrupt in two siglum runs (`lULOQV`, `A G Iv Q`), while **faithfully reproducing the plate's own out-of-range `Col.`** — which is how flag 2 above was confirmed.

**Runover tests — TWO RUN, ONE POSITIVE, ONE NEGATIVE; both closed from BOTH sides.**
- *Page-crossing, p. 271 → p. 272 — **NEGATIVE**, closed from both sides.* p. 271's right block ends **complete** at n. 8's `…neque deficiunt in necessariis.`, and **p. 272's left block opens NUMBERED** at `¹ Epist. I. Cor. 15, 4. — Inferius post *in Sacramento* 1 addit *baptismi*.`
- *p. 272's own gutter — **POSITIVE**, and logged as `p.272 n.5:gutter`.* The left block's last entry, n. 5, **breaks off mid-clause** at `Vat., 1 et 3 addunt *seu*`, and **p. 272's right block opens UNNUMBERED** with `*diaphaneitate*. Mox pro *et etiam* plures codd., inter quos L M V Z, *et similiter*.` — the single word *seu diaphaneitate* split across the gutter. Rendered joined in the `p272-5` entry. ★ **The straddling note is Cap. VII's own, so the test is closed and logged here rather than forwarded.**
- *NOT re-logged here:* **p. 271's own gutter test and the p. 270 → p. 271 page-crossing test (both `bon-brev-p6-c6`, both NEGATIVE), and `p.270 n.4:gutter` (`p6-c6`, POSITIVE)**; `p.269 n.4:gutter` and the p. 269 → p. 270 test (both `p6-c5`); `p.268 n.4:gutter` and the p. 268 → p. 269 test (both `p6-c4`); `p.267 n.4:gutter` and the p. 267 → p. 268 test (both `p6-c3`); `p.266 n.3:gutter` and the p. 266 → p. 267 test (both `p6-c2`); p. 265's own gutter test and the p. 265 → p. 266 test (both `p6-c1`); the p. 264 → p. 265 test, p. 264's own gutter test and the p. 263 → p. 264 test (all `p5-c10`); and everything on `p6-c1`'s through `p6-c6`'s own do-not-re-log lists. Corpus-wide runover and chunk totals are **not written here** — derive them with `tools/check-vol5-census.py`.

**★ WHAT THIS CHUNK FORWARDS TO `bon-brev-p6-c8`.** p. 271 is **fully consumed** — eight notes, eight anchors, nothing left. **p. 272's register was band-read IN FULL and its total of 8 is entered in `KNOWN_TOTALS`**; this chunk owns nn. 1–7, and **n. 8 anchors in Cap. VIII in the RIGHT column and is `p6-c8`'s.** Stated with its verification level, claiming nothing more: **the BLOCK position, the VERBATIM TEXT and the ANCHOR COLUMN (RIGHT) of n. 8 were read off the bands, and the anchor WORD was read too** (`audacter et publice confitendum ⁸.`, closing Cap. VIII's *Thesis 3*).
- n. **8** `Vide IV. Sent. d. 7. per totam. — Aliquanto superius pro *requiritur* E *exigitur*, et pro *communem* A G K Q *communis*. — Forma illa indicata habetur in Pontificali Romano. Post *crucis* aliqui codd. addunt *et*.`
★ **EVERY DIGIT AND SIGLUM IN n. 8 IS UNVERIFIED**, notwithstanding that it was read carefully: `d. 7.` sits in no risk class but must still be checked to exist as a target; **the siglum `E` is a live disagreement — the band prints `E exigitur` and the raw prints `L exigitur`**, and `A G K Q` comes to the band against a raw `A G Iv Q`. **Re-derive all of it. A hand-off is a claim to re-derive, never a fact to adopt** — and check the narrative summary above against the per-note list it sits beside, never the reverse. `bon-brev-p6-c8` owns p. 272 from n. 8 onward, **must NOT re-log p. 272's own gutter test (closed POSITIVE and logged here) nor the p. 271 → p. 272 test (closed NEGATIVE here)**, owes **the p. 272 → p. 273 page-crossing test and p. 273's own gutter test**, and must extract p. 273 fresh with no constant. Cap. VIII (`De integritate confirmationis`) opens ~40 % down p. 272's RIGHT column with a ONE-line subtitle and a `Thesis 1.` gloss; **its end must be set from the `Cap. IX.` heading on the band and from nothing else** — and note that the raw's rendering of p. 273's running head already reads `PARS VI. C. IX.`, which as always is evidence of nothing (and was read from the raw, not from a band, p. 273 not yet being imaged). **The inherited `[?]` on p. 271 n. 2 (`minus, aptae`) travels forward unresolved, and this chunk adds a second, `Col. 6, 12` on p. 272 n. 6.**

**Register — the baptismal vocabulary was CONSULTED from the Vol IV settlement, not coined here, and Pars VI's own vocabulary was FOLLOWED, not re-decided.** `p6-c1`'s sacramental core, `p6-c2`'s historical-dispensation vocabulary, `p6-c3`'s seven sacrament names, `p6-c4`'s institution vocabulary, `p6-c5`'s dispensation-and-minister vocabulary and `p6-c6`'s iteration-and-character vocabulary all stand unchanged. **Vol IV chunks consulted for this chapter:** `bon-sent-IV-d3-p1-a1-q1` (*Quid sit baptismus a parte elementi* — the *materia / forma*, *lavacrum / lotio*, *ablutio* and *res et sacramentum* settlement, whose own scholion cites *Breviloquium* p. VI c. 7 back at this chapter), `bon-sent-IV-d3-p1-a2-q2` (baptism *in nomine Christi*, the target of p. 272 n. 2), `bon-sent-IV-d3-p2-a1-q1`–`q2` (the institution of the element), `bon-sent-IV-d4-p2-a1-q1` (*baptismus flaminis / fluminis*), `bon-sent-IV-d5-a1-q1` (the minister and its *casus*, the target of p. 272 n. 3), `bon-sent-IV-d6-p1-a1-q6` (iteration) and `bon-sent-IV-d6-p2-a3-q1`–`q2` (*catechizari* and *exorcismus*, the target of p. 271 n. 7). **Carried from that settlement:** *ablutio* → "ablution", *immersio* → "immersion", *catechismus / catechizari* → "catechism / to be catechized", *exorcismus / exorcizari* → "exorcism / to be exorcized", *character* untranslated, *forma / materia* → "form / matter", *fides propria / fides aliena* → "one's own faith / the faith of another". **Fixed here for capp. VII–XIII, which take the seven Sacraments one at a time:** *integritas* → "integrity" and *integrari* → "to be made entire" (never "completeness", which would blur it with *perfectio*); *constitutio* → "constitution"; *expressio formae vocalis* → "the expression of the vocal form", with *expressio* held to "expression" throughout so that its second use (*ad expressionem mortis Christi*) reads the same; *mersio* → "immersion" in the body, the variant *immersio* of p. 271 n. 6 and p. 272 n. 2 left in Latin italics in the English apparatus so the variant is not flattened; *praeposteratio ordinis* → "the inversion of the order" and *commutatio nominis* → "the alteration of the name"; *fictio in baptizando* → "feigning in the one being baptized"; *patrini* → "godparents"; *parvuli / adulti* → "infants / adults" (not "children", which would lose the technical opposition the Vol IV questions turn on); *pervietas* → "transparency" against *perspicuitas* and *diaphaneitas* kept in Latin in the apparatus; *habilitans / habilitativa* → "enabling" for both, so Bonaventure's answering pair survives; *deordinatio vitiosa* → "vicious disorder". Quaracchi's em-dash articulations are preserved, and Bonaventure's *quia/cum/ideo* chains are kept as one English sentence throughout — the *Ratio* period runs as a single sentence across the page break, as do the *Rursus*, *Postremo* and *Et quoniam* periods.

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