title: Dist. 5, Dubia

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master

source_text:
<!-- page 131 -->

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: *Iustos oportet esse per quos baptizatur;* quia secundum hoc videtur, quodsi aliquis sacerdos sit in peccato mortali et baptizet, quod mortaliter peccet. **Sed contra:** facit id, ad quod tenetur: ergo baptizando non peccat.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod iste qui baptizat, aut est in peccato notorio[^1], aut occulto[^5]; sive sic, sive sic distinguendum est: quia aut est necessitas, et timetur scandalum; et tunc non peccat baptizando, sed in hoc, quod negligit se praeparare et cum timore et reverentia ad Sacramentum accedere. — Si autem non est necessitas, nec timetur scandalum, si non baptizet; non debet baptizare, nisi prius se praeparet ad iustificationem; quod si non facit, non tantum peccat negligendo, sed, in quantum est de se, Sacramento contumeliam faciendo et usurpando id, ad quod non est idoneus[^6]. — Si autem notorius est, peccat scandalizando. Et ideo dicit Augustinus, quod « mundos oportet esse ministros ». — Patet igitur responsio ad obiectum. Non enim peccat, quia facit *quod* non debet simpliciter, sed *ut* non debet[^7].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Si quos baptizavit ebriosus* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia ebrietas aufert vim rationis et intentionem; sed intentio necessaria est ad baptismum[^p131-8]: ergo si ebriosus caret intentione, non baptizat. — Item, quaeritur, si aliquis est ita ebrius, quod non est omnino in eo ligata ratio, quin possit aliquid dicere, sed tamen balbutiendo dicit, utrum sit baptizatus quem talis baptizat. Quod *non,* videtur: quia ligatio linguae signum est ligationis rationis: et necesse est, rationem esse solutam ad ea quae spectant ad ministerium Sacramenti: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod differentia est inter ebrium et ebriosum. Ebrius enim dicitur in actu, sed ebriosus in consuetudine[^p131-9]; et bene potest aliquis consuetus inebriari aliquando sobrius esse in actu, ita quod non biberit multum; et tunc, si baptizat, baptizatum est.

Quod quaeritur de ebrio, dicendum, quod si habeat ligatam rationem adeo, quod tollatur intentio baptizandi, quia nescit, quid faciat: tunc non baptizat. Si autem ratio soluta est tantum, quod scit, quid facit, tamen non omnimode est bene compos affectus. Quodsi non correxerit, manebit ad poenam usurpatoris quod datum est... non tamen pro non dato habebitur.

<!-- page 132 -->

sui; tunc iudicandum est, quod sit baptizatus[^p132-1], etiam si lingua aliquo modo balbutiat, quia illud non est signum ligaminis rationis semper efficax. Multi enim sunt, qui ex modico vino balbutiunt, et habent usum rationis. — Distinguendum tamen est in ligamine linguae: nam si format verba intelligibiliter[^p132-2], licet non omnino perfecte, baptizatus est parvulus; si autem ita corrupte, quod intelligi non potest, profert et formam ita infringit, ut convenienter intelligi non possit, est rebaptizandus[^p132-3].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Quid noverat Ioannes Baptista? Dominum* etc. Videtur enim dicere contra Hieronymum[^p132-4] et Chrysostomum, qui dicunt, quod non noverat, eum esse Christum, et ita videtur contrarietas. Quaeritur ergo, quis melius inter eos senserit. Et videtur, quod Augustinus: quia, quando Iesus ad Ioannem venit, tunc dixit Ioannes: *Ego a te debeo baptizari,* sicut dicitur Matthaei tertio[^p132-5]: ergo cognoscebat ipsum esse Christum. — Quod autem Chrysostomus melius dicat, videtur: quia Ioanni, quando missus est, dictum fuit: *Super quem videris Spiritum descendentem, hic est qui baptizat:* ergo antequam veniret ad eum, sciebat, quod solus ipse esset, qui baptizaret interius, sed tamen non cognoscebat exterius ipsum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod utrumque verum fuit, sicut docet nos intelligere Chrysostomus. Primo enim Ioannes novit Christum in infantia notitia corporali, postmodum recessit in desertum; et tunc post longum tempus, quando missus est ad baptizandum, dictum est ei, quod Christus potestatem baptizandi sibi retineret; sed iam oblitus est propter magnam moram, quis vel qualis esset Christus in persona; et indicio columbae utrumque didicit, quia per hoc scivit, quod ipse esset Christus, et quod ipse esset qui peccata dimitteret et Spiritum sanctum daret. Utrumque ergo prius sciebat in generali, sed postmodum didicit in speciali; prius tamen cognovit, quis esset, quam cuius potestatis esset. Primum enim scivit per conversationem infantiae, secundum per revelationem prophetiae. Et sic patet utrumque[^p132-6].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de ratione ista, quam assignat Magister: *Ne servus poneret spem in homine;* quia illud nullum videtur inconveniens, quia possumus in orationibus Sanctorum confidere; unde clamamus de beata Virgine: « Vita, dulcedo et spes nostra, salve[^p132-7] ».

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod est spes *auxilii,* et est spes *praemii.* Dicendum ergo, quod si potestas dimittendi peccata esset data homini, iam posset homo sperare ab homine gratiam et veniam, et ita per consequens gloriam, ad quam gratia est velut dispositio necessaria; sed haec ab homine sperari non potest nec debet. — Sed cum homo possit orationibus adiuvare quadam congruitate, potest homo sperare in aliquo Sancto tanquam in *adiuvante,* non tanquam in *relevante,* quia hoc est gratia specialis solius Christi[^p132-8]. Et sic patet illud.

### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de alia ratione, quam assignat, cum dicit: *Ne tot essent baptismi, quot baptistae[^p132-9].* Videtur enim ratio non esse bona: quia aut intelligit tot numero, aut tot specie. Non tot specie; constat, quia consimilis forma et consimilis effectus est in omnibus: si tot numero, nullum esset inconveniens.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod intelligitur, quod tot essent denominatione; et ita scissura esset in Ecclesia, quia unus posset dicere[^p132-10]: *Ego sum Pauli,* alius autem: *Ego sum Apollo;* et sic non perfecta esset unitas in Ecclesia, cuius unitatis perfectio fundamentum habet in uno baptismo.

english:
<!-- page 131 -->

### Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this which Augustine says: *Those through whom one is baptized ought to be just;* because according to this it seems that if some priest is in mortal sin and baptizes, he sins mortally. **On the contrary:** he does that to which he is bound: therefore in baptizing he does not sin.

I respond: It must be said that this man who baptizes is either in notorious sin[^1] or in hidden sin[^5]; whether the one way or the other, a distinction must be made: for either there is necessity, and scandal is feared; and then he does not sin in baptizing, but in this, that he neglects to prepare himself and to approach the Sacrament with fear and reverence. — But if there is no necessity, nor is scandal feared if he does not baptize, he ought not to baptize unless he first prepares himself for justification; and if he does not do this, he not only sins by neglect, but, as far as it is of himself, by doing dishonor to the Sacrament and usurping that for which he is not fit[^6]. — But if he is notorious, he sins by giving scandal. And therefore Augustine says that « the ministers ought to be clean ». — Therefore the response to the objection is clear. For he does not sin because he does *what* he ought not absolutely, but *as* he ought not[^7].

### Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *If a drunkard has baptized any* etc. For he seems to speak ill, because drunkenness takes away the power of reason and intention; but intention is necessary for baptism[^p131-8]: therefore if a drunkard lacks intention, he does not baptize. — Likewise, it is asked, if someone is so drunk that reason is not entirely bound in him, so that he can say something, but yet says it stammering, whether the one whom such a man baptizes is baptized. That he is *not,* seems [the case]: because the binding of the tongue is a sign of the binding of reason; and it is necessary that reason be free for those things which pertain to the ministry of the Sacrament: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that there is a difference between *ebrius* (a drunken man) and *ebriosus* (a drunkard). For *ebrius* is said in act, but *ebriosus* in habit[^p131-9]; and someone accustomed to get drunk can well at some time be sober in act, so that he has not drunk much; and then, if he baptizes, [the one] is baptized.

As to what is asked about the drunken man, it must be said that if he has his reason so bound that the intention of baptizing is taken away, because he does not know what he does: then he does not baptize. But if reason is loosed only so far that he knows what he does, yet he is not altogether well in command of his disposition. And if he has not corrected himself, it will remain to the punishment of a usurper that what has been given... yet it will not be held as not given.

<!-- page 132 -->

his own; then it must be judged that he is baptized[^p132-1], even if the tongue stammers in some way, because that is not always an efficacious sign of the binding of reason. For there are many who stammer from a little wine, and have the use of reason. — Yet a distinction must be made in the binding of the tongue: for if he forms the words intelligibly[^p132-2], although not entirely perfectly, the little child is baptized; but if so corruptly that it cannot be understood, and he so utters and breaks the form that it cannot suitably be understood, he is to be rebaptized[^p132-3].

### Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *What did John the Baptist know? The Lord* etc. For he seems to speak against Jerome[^p132-4] and Chrysostom, who say that he did not know that he was Christ, and so a contradiction seems [to arise]. It is asked therefore who among them judged better. And it seems [to be] Augustine: because, when Jesus came to John, then John said: *I ought to be baptized by thee,* as is said in the third [chapter] of Matthew[^p132-5]: therefore he knew him to be Christ. — But that Chrysostom speaks better, seems [the case]: because it was said to John, when he was sent: *Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, this is he who baptizes:* therefore before he came to him, he knew that he alone was the one who would baptize interiorly, but yet did not know him exteriorly.

I respond: It must be said that both were true, as Chrysostom teaches us to understand. For first John knew Christ in infancy by a bodily knowledge; afterward he withdrew into the desert; and then after a long time, when he was sent to baptize, it was said to him that Christ retained for himself the power of baptizing; but he had now forgotten, on account of the great delay, who or what manner of person Christ was; and by the sign of the dove he learned both, because by this he knew that he himself was Christ, and that he was the one who would forgive sins and give the Holy Spirit. Both therefore he knew before in general, but afterward learned in particular; yet he first knew who he was, before [knowing] of what power he was. For the first he knew through the converse of infancy, the second through the revelation of prophecy. And thus both are clear[^p132-6].

### Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about this reason which the Master assigns: *Lest the servant should place hope in man;* because that seems no unfitting thing, because we can trust in the prayers of the Saints; whence we cry concerning the blessed Virgin: « [Our] life, sweetness and our hope, hail[^p132-7] ».

I respond: It must be said that there is a hope of *help,* and there is a hope of *reward.* It must be said therefore that if the power of forgiving sins were given to man, then man could hope from man for grace and pardon, and so consequently for glory, to which grace is, as it were, a necessary disposition; but this cannot and ought not to be hoped from man. — But since man can by his prayers help by a certain fittingness, man can hope in some Saint as in *one who helps,* not as in *one who relieves,* because this is the special grace of Christ alone[^p132-8]. And thus that is clear.

### Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked about another reason which he assigns, when he says: *Lest there should be as many baptisms as baptizers[^p132-9].* For the reason seems not to be good: because either he understands as many in number, or as many in kind. Not as many in kind; it is agreed, because a like form and a like effect is in all: if as many in number, it would be no unfitting thing.

I respond: It must be said that it is understood that there would be as many by denomination; and so there would be a rending in the Church, because one could say[^p132-10]: *I am of Paul,* and another: *I am of Apollo;* and thus the unity in the Church would not be perfect, the perfection of which unity has its foundation in one baptism.

la: Cod. Z supplet *clavis.* Codd. T U (K a secunda manu) *ex potestate,* edd. *per potestatem, qua.*

en: Codex Z supplies *clavis.* Codices T U (K by a second hand) read *ex potestate,* the editions *per potestatem, qua.*

la: In cod. X secunda manus bene addidit *occultus et est.*

en: In codex X a second hand has rightly added *occultus et est.*

la: August., II. contra Epist. Parmeniani, c. 13. n. 29: *Nulla enim cogente necessitate si fiat, alieni muneris usurpatio est... Illicitam autem usurpationem corrigit reminiscentis et poenitentis* [animus]. — Cfr. Dist. 14. a. 2. q. 2; et tom. III. pag. 14, nota 3. — Vide Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 14. seqq.; et III. Sent. d. 17. a. 1. q. 1. — In principio solut. post *filios* edd. cum pluribus codd. addunt *quae est.* — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest. — Seq. textus August. est in Ioan. Evang. tr. 5. n. 13: *Iustos oportet esse tanti iudicis ministros.* Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Augustine, *Against the Letter of Parmenianus* II, c. 13, n. 29: *For if it be done with no compelling necessity, it is the usurpation of another's office... But the unlawful usurpation is corrected by [the disposition] of one remembering and repenting.* — Compare Distinction 14, a. 2, q. 2; and tom. III, page 14, note 3. — See John Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* III, c. 14 ff.; and III *Sentences,* d. 17, a. 1, q. 1. — At the beginning of the solution, after *filios* the editions with many codices add *quae est.* — See the scholion on the preceding question. — The following text of Augustine is in the *Commentary on John,* tract 5, n. 13: *The ministers of so great a judge ought to be just.* Compare here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Cod. I (a secunda manu) *sed quia facit, ut non debet,* edd. *sed non facit, ut debet.* — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 6. a. 2. § 2; B. Albert., hic a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 4; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3.

en: Codex I (by a second hand) reads *sed quia facit, ut non debet,* the editions *sed non facit, ut debet.* — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 8, m. 6, a. 2, § 2; Albert the Great, here a. 1, little-question 1; Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, little-question 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1, little-question 4; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 3.

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. et infra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seq. — Cod. F *ad baptizandum.*

en: Compare above, d. 3, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, and below, d. 6, p. II, a. 2, q. 1 following. — Codex F reads *ad baptizandum.*

la: Vide Isidor., I. Differentiar. n. 183.

en: See Isidore, *Differences* I, n. 183.

la: Supplendum, ut ex subnexis colligitur, *parvulus,* vel *legendum baptizatum.*

en: It is to be supplied, as is gathered from what follows, *parvulus* (a little child); or *baptizatum* (baptized) is to be read.

la: Cod. F pro *intelligibiliter* substituit *ita quod intelligitur,* edd. *intelligibilia.*

en: Codex F for *intelligibiliter* substitutes *ita quod intelligitur,* the editions *intelligibilia.*

la: Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 6. a. 5; B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. Thom., hic d. 6. q. 1. a. 2. ad 3; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 8, m. 6, a. 5; Albert the Great, here a. 2; Thomas, here d. 6, q. 1, a. 2, to 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Exposit. in Evang. secundum Ioan. (inter opera), ubi ad 1, 33. ait: « *Et ego nesciebam eum,* ostendit Ioannes, non scire, per baptismum Christi redemptum esse mundum; nam sciebat, eum Filium Dei esse et natum in carne ». Haec verba referuntur etiam a Glossa ordinaria in praedictum loc. apud Strabum et Lyranum nec non ab Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 5. a. 4. Sententia Chrysostomi, quae infra in solut. plenius exponitur, habetur in ipsius Comment. in Ioan. 1, 33. seq. (c. 5.); (homil. 17. alias 16. n. 2. seq.). Ab hac tamen sententia Chrysostomi S. Bonav. recedit in suo Commentario in Ioannem 1, 31.

en: *Exposition on the Gospel according to John* (among [Jerome's] works), where on 1, 33 it says: « *And I knew him not,* John shows, that he did not know, through the baptism of Christ, that the world had been redeemed; for he knew that he was the Son of God and born in the flesh ». These words are reported also by the *Ordinary Gloss* on the said passage in Strabo and Lyra, and also by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 8, m. 5, a. 4. The opinion of Chrysostom, which is more fully expounded below in the solution, is found in his own *Commentary on John* 1, 33 ff. (c. 5); (homily 17, otherwise 16, n. 2 ff.). From this opinion of Chrysostom, however, St. Bonaventure departs in his own *Commentary on John* 1, 31.

la: Vers. 14. — Seq. textus est Ioan. 1, 33, in quo Vulgata post *descendentem* addit *et manentem super eum.* — Inferius post *quando missus est* edd. cum uno alteroque cod. addunt *ad baptizandum.*

en: Verse 14. — The following text is John 1, 33, in which the Vulgate after *descendentem* adds *et manentem super eum* (and remaining upon him). — Below, after *quando missus est* the editions with one or another codex add *ad baptizandum.*

la: Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 5. a. 4; B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 8, m. 5, a. 4; Albert the Great, here a. 3; Thomas, here on the text.

la: In antiphona ad Completorium: *Salve Regina.*

en: In the antiphon at Compline: *Salve Regina.*

la: Cfr. supra a. 3. q. 2, et I. Sent. d. 1. dub. 9. — Pro *relevante* cod. F *remunerante,* et pro *gratia* codd. F L *gloria.* — Idem dub. solvunt Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Compare above, a. 3, q. 2, and I *Sentences,* d. 1, dub. 9. — For *relevante* codex F reads *remunerante,* and for *gratia* codices F L *gloria.* — The same doubt is resolved by Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Cod. H *baptizantes,* Magister, hic in lit. c. 2, *servi.* — De diversitate numerica et specifica cfr. Aristot., I. Topic. c. 6. (c. 5.); V. Metaph. text. 12. et 16. (IV. c. 6. et c. 9. seq.).

en: Codex H reads *baptizantes,* the Master, here in the text, c. 2, *servi.* — On numerical and specific diversity compare Aristotle, *Topics* I, c. 6 (c. 5); *Metaphysics* V, text 12 and 16 (IV, c. 6 and c. 9 ff.).

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 1, 12. — Pro *scissura* codd. A F G *schisma.* — Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: First [Letter] to the Corinthians 1, 12. — For *scissura* codices A F G read *schisma.* — The same doubt is resolved by Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Vol IV PDF column bands for printed pp.131–132 (PDF pp.151–152, offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against raw OCR lines 14863–15110 of `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`. Two-column page; per the VOL II OVERRIDE the column-band PDF reads are authoritative for the cascade-shattered regions (the IA djvu OCR shatters this dubia diagonally and bleeds the two columns together). Read order each page: left column top→bottom, then right column; body bands then footer bands.

**Dubia enumerated.** This is the LAST chunk of Distinction V = **five dubia (I–V)** circa litteram Magistri: Dub. I (whether a priest in mortal sin sins by baptizing — *Iustos oportet esse per quos baptizatur*); Dub. II (whether a drunkard baptizes — *ebrius* vs. *ebriosus,* the bound tongue/reason, with an incidental question on stammering); Dub. III (*Quid noverat Ioannes Baptista?* — reconciling Jerome/Chrysostom on whether John knew Christ); Dub. IV (*Ne servus poneret spem in homine* — hope in the Saints as helpers, not relievers); Dub. V (*Ne tot essent baptismi, quot baptistae* — diversity of baptisms by denomination would rend the Church's unity). The OCR garbles the headers as `DUB. I/II`, `DiB. IH` (III), `DuB. IV`, `DuB. V`; reading the column bands confirmed all five.

**Page-split map.** Dub. I, all of Dub. II, and the tail of Dub. II's incident-question respondeo (ending "…non tamen pro non dato habebitur.") are on p.131. Dub. II's final tail ("sui; tunc iudicandum est…rebaptizandus"), all of Dub. III, all of Dub. IV, and all of Dub. V are on p.132 (Dub. III through V wholly on p.132). Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering per printed page: **p.131** carries notes 1–9; of these notes 2 (*Dist. 14. a. 2. q. 2*) and 3 (*Cfr. tom. III. pag. 14, nota 3*) are short cross-references that the printed footer prints as the continuation of note 1's variant block and of note 6's Damascene block respectively — they are folded into [^6] (the note anchoring *idoneus*) rather than rendered as orphan markers, since the printed body of this dubia carries inline superscripts only at 1, 5, 6, 7 (Dub. I) and 8, 9 (Dub. II). p.131 notes 8, 9 are rendered `p131-8`, `p131-9`. **p.132** carries a fresh sequence 1–10 (rendered `p132-1`…`p132-10`), all anchoring this chunk's Dub. II tail / Dub. III / Dub. IV / Dub. V.

**Boundary confirmation.** Dub. V is the last unit of Distinction V. On p.132 the text "…cuius unitatis perfectio fundamentum habet in uno baptismo." (end of Dub. V Respondeo) is the final line of the dubia; the raw OCR shows `DISTINCTIO VI.` immediately following at raw L15111 (running-head "133" precedes it). No d.6 content is included; **d.5 ends cleanly before DISTINCTIO VI at raw L15111.** This completes Distinction V.

**[?] flags.** None. All body text and all anchored footers read cleanly from the column bands. The note-2/note-3 fold (see Page-split map) is a deliberate apparatus-consolidation choice, not an ambiguity: the printed footer numbers them but they are short cross-reference tails that the Quaracchi editor attaches to the variant blocks of notes 1 and 6, and the printed body carries no separate superscript 2 or 3 in this dubia.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 6, Part 1

title_alt: Distinctio VI — textus Magistri Sententiarum

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 133 -->

### DISTINCTIO VI.

### Pars I.

### Cap. I. *Quibus liceat baptizare.*

Nunc, quibus liceat baptizare, addamus. De hoc Isidorus[^1] ait: «Constat, baptisma solis sacerdotibus esse traditum, eiusque ministerium nec ipsis diaconibus implere est licitum absque episcopo vel presbytero, nisi, his procul absentibus, ultima languoris cogat necessitas; quod etiam laicis fidelibus permittitur». Item, ex Concilio Carthaginensi quarto[^2]: «Mulier, quamvis sancta, baptizare non praesumat, nisi necessitate cogente».

### Cap. II. *Si rebaptizandi sunt ab haereticis baptizati.*

De illis vero, qui ab haereticis baptizantur, utrum rebaptizandi sint, quaeri solet. — Ad quod breviter dicimus, quia quicumque sit qui baptizet, si servatur forma a Christo tradita, verum baptismum dat; et ideo qui illam sumit non debet rebaptizari. Unde Beda[^3]: «Sive haereticus sive schismaticus sive facinorosus quisque in confessione sanctae Trinitatis baptizet, non valet ille qui baptizatus est, a bonis Catholicis rebaptizari, ne confessio et invocatio Trinitatis videatur annullari». Item Augustinus[^4]: «Quamvis unum sit baptisma et haereticorum, scilicet eorum qui in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti baptizant, et Ecclesiae catholicae; tamen qui foris Ecclesiam baptizantur non sumunt baptismum ad salutem, sed ad perniciem, habentes formam Sacramenti, virtutem autem eius abnegantes; et ideo Ecclesia eos non rebaptizat, quia in nomine Trinitatis baptizati sunt, et ipsa est forma Sacramenti». Item: «Rebaptizare haereticum, qui haec sanctitatis signa[^5] perceperit, omnino peccatum est; Catholicum vero, immanissimum scelus est». — Ex his aperte colligitur, quod qui etiam ab haereticis baptizati sunt, servato charactere Christi, rebaptizandi non sunt, sed tantum manus impositione reconciliandi, ut Spiritum sanctum accipiant, et in signum detestationis haereticorum.

Sunt tamen nonnulli doctorum[^6], ut Cyprianus et alii quidam, qui dicere videntur, ab haereticis non posse tradi baptismum, et eos esse rebaptizandos, cum veniunt ad Ecclesiam, qui ab illis dicuntur baptizati. — Sed hoc de illis verum est, qui extra formam Ecclesiae baptizare praesumunt. Cyprianus[^7] tamen ibi a veritate deviasse videtur, qui ait de haeretico: «Quomodo sanctificare aquam potest, cum ipse immundus est, et apud quem Spiritus sanctus non est; cum Dominus dicat in Lege[^8]: *Quaecumque tetigerit immundus, immunda erunt?* Quis potest dare quod ipse non habet»? Hoc vero ex ignorantia eum dixisse, Augustinus[^9] innuit dicens: «Martyrem gloriosum Cyprianum, qui apud haereticos vel schismaticos datum baptismum nolebat cognoscere, dum eos nimis detestaretur, tanta eius merita usque ad triumphum martyrii secuta sunt, ut et caritatis qua excellebat luce obumbratio illa fugaretur, et si quid purgandum erat, passionis falce tolleretur. Nec nos, qui baptismi veritatem et haereticorum iniquitatem agnoscimus, ideo Cypriano meliores sumus, sicut nec Petro, quia gentes iudaizare non cogimus».

### Pars II.

### Cap. III. *Quod nullus in materno utero baptizatur.*

Hoc etiam sciendum est, «quod licet ter immergatur propter mysterium Trinitatis, tamen unum baptisma reputatur[^10]». — Illud etiam ignorandum non est, quod in materno utero nullus baptizari potest, etiam si mater baptizetur. Unde Isidorus[^11]: «Qui in maternis uteris sunt baptizari non possunt, quia qui natus adhuc secundum Adam non est secundum Christum non potest renasci, neque regeneratio in eum dici potest, in quem generatio non praecessit». Item, Augustinus[^a]: «Non potest quisquam renasci, antequam natus sit».

<!-- page 134 -->

Si vero opponitur de Ieremia[^b] et de Ioanne Baptista, qui ab utero sanctificati leguntur, quod etiam de Iacob quidam putant; dicimus, si sanctificatio ibi accipitur interior emundatio, in miraculis divinae potentiae esse habendum, ut Augustinus[^p134-1] ait, ambigue super hoc loquens: «Si usque adeo, inquit, in illo puero acceleratus est usus rationis et voluntatis, ut intra materna viscera iam posset agnoscere et credere quod in aliis parvulis exspectatur aetas ut possint, in miraculis est habendum divinae potentiae, non ad humanae trahendum exemplum naturae. Nam quando voluit Deus, etiam iumentum locutum est». Idem: «De Ieremia legitur: *Priusquam exires de ventre, sanctificavi te;* illa tamen sanctificatio, qua efficimur templum Dei, non nisi renatorum est». «*Nisi enim quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non potest intrare in regnum Dei.* Nemo autem renascitur, nisi prius nascatur». «Unde illa sanctificatio potest secundum praedestinationem accipi». — Ecce dubitanter videtur loqui, qui etiam in eodem dicit: «Non dictum est, quia *credidit* infans in utero, sed *exsultavit;* nec Elisabeth dicit: exsultavit in fide, sed, exsultavit in utero meo. Et potuit esse haec sanctificatio tantae rei a maiori cognoscendae indicium, non a parvulo cognitae». — Absque assertione de hac sanctificatione loquitur, non definiens, qualiter intelligenda sit illa sanctificatio, an signum futurae rei, an veritas iustificationis per Spiritum factae. Sed melius est, ut dicamus, illos praeter communem legem in uteris iustificatos et gratia praeventos, dimissis omnibus peccatis; quod et multis Sanctorum testimoniis[^p134-2] edocetur.

### Cap. IV. *Utrum baptismus sit, cum verba corrupte proferuntur.*

Quaeri etiam solet, si corrupte proferantur verba illa, an baptismus sit. — De hoc Zacharias[^p134-3] Bonifacio scribit: «Retulerunt mihi nuntii tui, quod fuerit sacerdos in eadem provincia, qui Latinam linguam penitus ignorabat, et dum baptizaret, nescius Latini eloquii, infringens linguam diceret: baptizo te in nomine Patria et Filia et Spiritu sancta; et propter hoc considerasti rebaptizare. Sed si ille qui baptizavit, non errorem introducens vel haeresim, sed pro sola ignorantia Romanae locutionis infringendo linguam baptizans dixisset; non possumus consentire, ut denuo baptizetur».

Praeterea sciendum est, quod illi, «de quibus nulla exstant indicia inter propinquos vel domesticos vel vicinos, a quibus baptizati fuisse doceantur, agendum est, ut renascantur, ne pereant, in quibus quod[^p134-4] non ostenditur gestum, ratio non sinit, ut videatur iteratum. Conferendum eis videtur quod collatum esse nescitur, quia non temeritas intervenit praesumtionis, ubi est diligentia pietatis».

### Cap. V. *De illo qui pro ludo immergitur.*

Solet etiam quaeri de illo qui iocans sicut mimus, commemoratione tamen Trinitatis, immergitur, utrum baptizatus sit. — Hoc autem Augustinus[^p134-5] non definit, ita inquiens: «Si totum ludicre et mimice et ioculariter ageretur, utrum approbandus esset baptismus, qui sic daretur; divinum iudicium per alicuius revelationis miraculum oratione implorandum esse censerem». Videtur tamen sapientibus non fuisse baptisma; ut cum aliqui in balneum vel in flumen merguntur in nomine Trinitatis, non est tamen baptismus, quia non intentione baptizandi illud geritur. Nam in hoc et in aliis Sacramentis, sicut forma est servanda, ita et intentio illud celebrandi est habenda. «Illud etiam non te moveat, quod quidam non ea fide parvulos ad baptismum ferunt, ut per Spiritum ad vitam regenerentur aeternam, sed eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere vel recipere sanitatem. Non enim propterea illi non regenerantur, quia nec ab illis hac intentione offeruntur[^p134-6]».

Agnoscendum est etiam, in baptizandis electis duo tempora esse servanda, id est Pascha et Pentecosten ut in Sabbato Paschae vel Pentecostes baptismi Sacramentum celebretur. Qui vero necessitate mortis vel periculi urgentur omni tempore debent baptizari.

### Cap. VI. *De responsione patrinorum.*

Porro cuncti ad baptismum venientes fidem suam profiteri debent et exponere, quid petere[^p134-7] venerint ad Ecclesiam. Unde et a baptizando quaeritur: Quid venisti ad Ecclesiam petere? Qui si adultus est, pro se respondet: fidem, id est Sacramentum fidei, et doctrinam. Ita etiam per singula interrogatus, respondet, se credere in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum. Si autem parvulus est, non valens credere vel loqui, alius pro eo respondet. Unde Isidorus[^p134-8]: «Parvuli, alio profitente, baptizantur, qui adhuc loqui vel credere nesciunt, sicut etiam pro aegris, mutis vel

<!-- page 135 -->

surdis alius profitetur, dum baptizantur». Sic et de poenitentibus agendum est. «Si vero pro eo qui respondere potest, alius respondeat, non itidem valet; sicut dictum est: Aetatem habet, pro se loquatur[^p135-1]».

Si vero quaeritur, ex quo sensu pro parvulo dicatur: credo, vel fidem peto; dicimus, de Sacramento fidei id esse intelligendum, quod respondetur peto, cum defertur ad Ecclesiam, et *habere,* cum baptizatur; ut sit sensus, cum dicitur: fidem peto, id est, Sacramentum fidei praesto sum recipere; credo, id est, Sacramentum fidei suscipio; quod est: hic parvulus praesto est Sacramentum fidei accipere. Unde Augustinus[^p135-2]: «Nihil est aliud credere quam fidem habere; et ideo, cum respondetur credere parvulus, qui fidei nondum affectum habet, respondetur, fidem habere propter fidei Sacramentum, et convertere se ad Deum propter conversionis Sacramentum».

Sed adhuc quaeritur, ex quo sensu parvulo respondeatur: credo in Deum Patrem et in Iesum Christum et in Spiritum sanctum. Numquid de *Sacramento fidei,* an de *fide mentis* ibi agitur? Si de Sacramento, cur nominatim distinguuntur personae? Si vero de fidei affectu, quomodo verum est, cum eo[^p135-3] careat parvulus? An illud facturus parvulus spondetur, cum crediderit? sicut et omnibus pompis diaboli spondetur abrenuntiare; quod si non servaverit factus adultus, tenebitur ipse, vel sponsor? — Sane dici potest, ibi sponderi pro parvulo, quod ad maiorem aetatem si venerit, et pompis diaboli renuntiabit et sanam fidem tenebit, cuius tunc Sacramentum recipit. Hac autem sponsione parvulus, pro quo fit, tenebitur, non sponsor; si tamen, ut cautio impletur, quantum in se est, operam[^p135-4] dederit; quin exigitur a patrino, ut sit diligens circa eum, pro quo spopondit, sollicitudo. De hoc Augustinus: «Certissimam emisistis cautionem, qua renuntiare pompis diaboli spopondistis».

### Cap. VII. *De catechismo et exorcismo.*

Illa autem interrogatio et responsio fidei fit in catechismo[^p135-5]; cui et additur exorcismus. Ante baptismum enim fit catechismus et exorcismus; post catechismum sequitur exorcismus, ut ab eo qui iam instructus est, adversaria virtus pellatur. Exorcismus de Graeco in Latinum dicitur adiuratio; catechismus, instructio; catechizare est instruere, ut de Symbolo ac rudimentis fidei; exorcizare est adiurare, ut: exi ab eo, spiritus immunde; Symbolum dicitur signum, vel collatio: signum, quia eo fideles ab infidelibus discernuntur; collatio, quia ibi totius fidei sufficientia et integritas collata est. — Catechismus et exorcismus neophytorum sunt magisque sacramentalia quam Sacramenta dici debent. Neophytus novitius interpretatur vel rudis; et dicitur neophytus nuper ad fidem conversus, vel in disciplina religiosae conversationis rudis. — Haec igitur praecedunt baptismum, non quod sine istis non possit esse verus baptismus, sed ut baptizandus de fide instruatur et sciat, cui debitor fiat deinceps, et ut diaboli potestas in eo minuatur. Unde Rabanus[^p135-6]: «Ante baptismum debet in homine praevenire officium catechizandi, ut fidei catechumenus accipiat rudimentum et sciat, cui debitor deinceps fiat». Item, Augustinus[^p135-7]: «Parvuli exsufflantur et exorcizantur, ut pellatur ab eis potestas diaboli», «ne iam contendant eos subvertere, ne baptismum consequantur». «Non ergo in infantibus creatura Dei exsufflatur vel exorcizatur, sed diabolus, ut recedat ab homine».

---

english:
### DISTINCTION VI.

### Part I.

### Chapter I. *To whom it is permitted to baptize.*

Now let us add concerning those to whom it is permitted to baptize. On this Isidore[^1] says: «It is established that baptism was handed over to priests alone, and that its ministry is not licit even for deacons themselves to fulfill without a bishop or presbyter, unless, these being far absent, the extremity of sickness compels by necessity; which is also permitted to lay faithful». Likewise, from the fourth Council of Carthage[^2]: «A woman, however holy, may not presume to baptize, unless compelled by necessity».

### Chapter II. *Whether those baptized by heretics are to be rebaptized.*

Concerning those, however, who are baptized by heretics, whether they are to be rebaptized, is wont to be asked. — To which we say briefly, that whoever it be who baptizes, if the form handed down by Christ is preserved, he gives a true baptism; and therefore he who receives it ought not to be rebaptized. Hence Beda[^3]: «Whether a heretic or a schismatic or any criminal baptizes in the confession of the holy Trinity, he who has been baptized is not validly rebaptized by good Catholics, lest the confession and invocation of the Trinity seem to be annulled». Likewise Augustine[^4]: «Although the baptism both of heretics — namely of those who baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit — and of the catholic Church is one; nevertheless those who are baptized outside the Church do not receive baptism unto salvation, but unto perdition, having the form of the Sacrament but denying its power; and therefore the Church does not rebaptize them, because they have been baptized in the name of the Trinity, and that itself is the form of the Sacrament». Likewise: «To rebaptize a heretic, who has received these signs of holiness[^5], is altogether a sin; but to rebaptize a Catholic is a most monstrous crime». — From these it is plainly gathered, that those also who have been baptized by heretics, the character of Christ being preserved, are not to be rebaptized, but only to be reconciled by the imposition of the hand, that they may receive the Holy Spirit, and in token of detestation of the heretics.

There are nevertheless some of the doctors[^6], such as Cyprian and certain others, who seem to say that baptism cannot be conferred by heretics, and that those are to be rebaptized, when they come to the Church, who are said to have been baptized by them. — But this is true of those who presume to baptize outside the form of the Church. Cyprian[^7] nevertheless seems there to have deviated from the truth, who says concerning the heretic: «How can he sanctify the water, when he himself is unclean, and with whom the Holy Spirit is not; when the Lord says in the Law[^8]: *Whatsoever the unclean shall touch, shall be unclean?* Who can give what he himself does not have»? But that he said this out of ignorance, Augustine[^9] intimates, saying: «The glorious martyr Cyprian, who was unwilling to acknowledge the baptism conferred among heretics or schismatics, while he detested them too much, was followed by such great merits even to the triumph of martyrdom, that both that shadow was put to flight by the light of the charity in which he excelled, and, if anything needed purging, it was removed by the sickle of his passion. Nor are we, who acknowledge the truth of baptism and the iniquity of the heretics, on that account better than Cyprian, just as neither than Peter, because we do not compel the Gentiles to judaize».

### Part II.

### Chapter III. *That no one is baptized in the maternal womb.*

This too is to be known, «that although one is immersed three times on account of the mystery of the Trinity, nevertheless it is reckoned one baptism[^10]». — This also is not to be left unknown, that no one can be baptized in the maternal womb, even if the mother is baptized. Hence Isidore[^11]: «Those who are in maternal wombs cannot be baptized, because he who is not yet born according to Adam is not according to Christ, cannot be reborn, nor can a regeneration be spoken of in him, in whom generation has not preceded». Likewise, Augustine[^a]: «No one can be reborn before he is born».

<!-- page 134 -->

But if it is objected concerning Jeremiah[^b] and concerning John the Baptist, who are read to have been sanctified from the womb, which some think also of Jacob; we say, if sanctification there is taken as an interior cleansing, it is to be held among the miracles of the divine power, as Augustine[^p134-1] says, speaking ambiguously on this: «If, he says, the use of reason and of will was so far accelerated in that child, that within the maternal viscera he could already recognize and believe what in other little ones the age is awaited that they may be able, it is to be held among the miracles of the divine power, not to be drawn to an example of human nature. For when God willed, even a beast of burden spoke». The same: «Of Jeremiah it is read: *Before you came forth from the womb, I sanctified you;* yet that sanctification, by which we are made the temple of God, belongs only to the reborn». «*For unless one be reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.* But no one is reborn, unless he is first born». «Hence that sanctification can be taken according to predestination». — Behold, he seems to speak doubtfully, who also says in the same place: «It is not said, that the infant *believed* in the womb, but *exulted;* nor does Elisabeth say: he exulted in faith, but, he exulted in my womb. And this could have been an indication of so great a thing to be recognized by one greater, not recognized by the little one». — He speaks without assertion concerning this sanctification, not defining how that sanctification is to be understood, whether a sign of a future thing, or the truth of a justification made through the Spirit. But it is better that we say, that those, beyond the common law, were justified in the wombs and prevented by grace, all their sins being remitted; which is also taught by many testimonies of the Saints[^p134-2].

### Chapter IV. *Whether there is baptism, when the words are pronounced corruptly.*

It is also wont to be asked, if those words are pronounced corruptly, whether there is baptism. — On this Zacharias[^p134-3] writes to Boniface: «Your messengers reported to me, that there was a priest in the same province, who was utterly ignorant of the Latin language, and while he was baptizing, unskilled in Latin speech, mangling the language, said: I baptize you in the name of the Father (Patria) and of the Daughter (Filia) and of the Holy (Spirit) (sancta); and on account of this you considered rebaptizing. But if he who baptized, not introducing error or heresy, but out of mere ignorance of Roman speech baptizing by mangling the language, had so spoken; we cannot consent that he be baptized anew».

Furthermore it is to be known, that those, «concerning whom no evidence exists among kinsmen or members of the household or neighbors, by whom they may be shown to have been baptized, it is to be acted upon, that they be reborn, lest they perish, in whom, because[^p134-4] the act is not shown, reason does not allow that it seem to be repeated. It seems that there should be conferred upon them what is not known to have been conferred, because no rashness of presumption intervenes, where there is diligence of piety».

### Chapter V. *Concerning him who is immersed in jest.*

It is also wont to be asked concerning him who, jesting like a mime, but with commemoration of the Trinity, is immersed, whether he has been baptized. — But Augustine[^p134-5] does not define this, saying thus: «If the whole were done in a ludicrous and mimic and jocular manner, whether the baptism which would be so given is to be approved; I should judge that the divine judgment is to be implored in prayer through the miracle of some revelation». It seems nevertheless to the wise that there was no baptism; just as when some are immersed in a bath or in a river in the name of the Trinity, it is nevertheless not baptism, because it is not done with the intention of baptizing. For in this and in the other Sacraments, just as the form is to be preserved, so also the intention of celebrating it is to be had. «Let this also not move you, that some bring little ones to baptism not with the faith that through the Spirit they may be regenerated unto eternal life, but think that by this remedy they may retain or recover temporal health. For not on that account are they not regenerated, because they are not offered by them with this intention[^p134-6]».

It is also to be acknowledged, that in the baptizing of the elect two times are to be observed, that is Easter and Pentecost, so that on the Saturday of Easter or of Pentecost the Sacrament of baptism may be celebrated. But those who are pressed by the necessity of death or of danger ought to be baptized at every time.

### Chapter VI. *Concerning the response of godparents.*

Moreover all who come to baptism ought to profess their faith and expound, what they have come to seek[^p134-7] from the Church. Hence also the one to be baptized is asked: What have you come to the Church to seek? He who, if he is an adult, responds for himself: faith, that is the Sacrament of faith, and doctrine. So too, interrogated through each particular, he responds, that he believes in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But if he is a little one, not able to believe or speak, another responds for him. Hence Isidore[^p134-8]: «Little ones, with another professing, are baptized, who do not yet know how to speak or believe, just as also for the sick, the mute, or

<!-- page 135 -->

the deaf another professes, while they are baptized». So also is it to be acted concerning penitents. «But if for one who is able to respond, another should respond, it does not equally avail; as it has been said: He has the age, let him speak for himself[^p135-1]».

But if it is asked, in what sense it is said for the little one: I believe, or I seek faith; we say, it is to be understood of the Sacrament of faith, that what is answered is, I seek, when he is brought to the Church, and, *to have,* when he is baptized; so that the sense is, when it is said: I seek faith, that is, I am ready to receive the Sacrament of faith; I believe, that is, I receive the Sacrament of faith; which is: this little one is ready to receive the Sacrament of faith. Hence Augustine[^p135-2]: «To believe is nothing other than to have faith; and therefore, when it is answered that the little one believes, who does not yet have the affection of faith, it is answered that he has faith on account of the Sacrament of faith, and that he turns himself to God on account of the Sacrament of conversion».

But still it is asked, in what sense it is answered for the little one: I believe in God the Father and in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit. Is it of the *Sacrament of faith,* or of the *faith of the mind,* that there is question? If of the Sacrament, why are the persons distinguished by name? But if of the affection of faith, how is it true, when the little one lacks it[^p135-3]? Or is it pledged that the little one will do that, when he has believed? as it is also pledged for all to renounce the pomps of the devil; which if, having become an adult, he does not keep, will he himself be held, or the sponsor? — It can soundly be said, that there is pledged for the little one, that, if he comes to greater age, he will both renounce the pomps of the devil and hold the sound faith, whose Sacrament he then receives. But by this pledge the little one, for whom it is made, will be held, not the sponsor; provided nevertheless that, as the pledge is fulfilled, he gives effort[^p135-4], as far as in him lies; for it is required of the godparent, that solicitude be diligent concerning him, for whom he pledged. On this Augustine: «You have given a most certain pledge, by which you have promised to renounce the pomps of the devil».

### Chapter VII. *Concerning catechism and exorcism.*

Now that interrogation and response of faith takes place in catechism[^p135-5]; to which exorcism also is added. For before baptism catechism and exorcism take place; after catechism follows exorcism, so that from him who is now instructed, the adversary power may be expelled. Exorcism from the Greek into Latin is called adjuration; catechism, instruction; to catechize is to instruct, as concerning the Symbol and the rudiments of faith; to exorcize is to adjure, as: depart from him, unclean spirit; the Symbol is called a sign, or a collation: a sign, because by it the faithful are distinguished from the unfaithful; a collation, because there the sufficiency and integrity of the whole faith is collated. — Catechism and exorcism belong to neophytes and ought to be called sacramentals rather than Sacraments. Neophyte is interpreted as novice or untrained; and one is called a neophyte who is newly converted to the faith, or untrained in the discipline of religious conversion. — These therefore precede baptism, not because without them there could not be a true baptism, but that the one to be baptized may be instructed concerning the faith and may know, to whom he becomes a debtor thereafter, and that the power of the devil may be diminished in him. Hence Rabanus[^p135-6]: «Before baptism the office of catechizing ought to come beforehand in a person, that the catechumen may receive the rudiment of faith and may know, to whom he becomes a debtor thereafter». Likewise, Augustine[^p135-7]: «Little ones are breathed upon and exorcized, that the power of the devil may be expelled from them», «lest they still contend to subvert them, that they may not attain baptism». «Not then in infants is the creature of God breathed upon or exorcized, but the devil, that he may withdraw from the person».

---

la: Libr. II. de Ecclesiast. Officiis, c. 25. n. 9; C. *Constat, baptisma* (19.), de Consecrat. dist. 4.

en: Bk. II *On Ecclesiastical Offices,* c. 25, n. 9; Decretum, c. *Constat, baptisma* (19.), De Consecratione, dist. 4.

en: Canons 99 and 100; Decretum, c. *Mulier* (20.), in the same place.

la: Homil. aestiv. de Temp. in festo Invent. S. Crucis; C. *Sive haereticus* (51.), ibid.

en: Summer Homily on the Season, on the feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross; Decretum, c. *Sive haereticus* (51.), in the same place.

la: Dialogus quaestion. 65 q. 59. (inter eius opera); C. *Quamvis unum* (29.), ibid. Ibi respicitur II. Tim. 3, 5. — Seq. locus est August., Epist. 23. (alias 203.) ad Maximin. n. 2; C. *Rebaptizare haereticum* (108.), ibid. — Pro *sanctitatis signa* edd. plurimae *sanctificationis signa.*

en: Dialogue of Questions 65, q. 59 (among his works); Decretum, c. *Quamvis unum* (29.), in the same place. There 2 Tim. 3, 5 is referred to. — The following passage is from Augustine, Letter 23 (alias 203) to Maximinus, n. 2; Decretum, c. *Rebaptizare haereticum* (108.), in the same place. — For *signs of holiness* most editions read *signs of sanctification.*

la: *(Vide notam 4: pro* sanctitatis signa *edd. plurimae* sanctificationis signa.*)*

en: *(See note 4: for* signs of holiness *most editions read* signs of sanctification.*)*

la: Cfr. August., VI. et VII. contra Donatistas, aliique auctores de historia ecclesiast. tractantes.

en: Cf. Augustine, [Bks.] VI and VII against the Donatists, and other authors treating of ecclesiastical history.

la: Epist. ad Iubaianum eiusque episc. Acta etc.

en: Letter to Iubaianus and the Acts of his [council of] bishops, etc.

la: Num. 19, 22. Seq. locus August. est de Unico Baptismo contra Petilian. c. 13. n. 22.

en: Numbers 19, 22. The following passage of Augustine is from *On the One Baptism, against Petilianus,* c. 13, n. 22.

la: Hieron., II. Comment. in Epist. ad Eph. (4, 5.); C. *Eodem modo* (31.), ibid.

en: Jerome, Bk. II *Commentary on the Letter to the Ephesians* (4, 5); Decretum, c. *Eodem modo* (31.), in the same place.

la: Libr. I. Sent. c. 22. n. 5; C. *Qui in maternis* (115.), ibid.

en: Bk. I of the Sentences [of Isidore], c. 22, n. 5; Decretum, c. *Qui in maternis* (115.), in the same place.

la: Epist. 187. (alias 57.) ad Dardan. c. 9. n. 31.

en: Letter 187 (alias 57) to Dardanus, c. 9, n. 31.

la: Ier. 1, 5; de Ioanne cfr. Luc. 1, 15.

en: Jer. 1, 5; concerning John cf. Luke 1, 15. *(This and the following note are the two final p.133 footer entries, attaching to the Augustinus marker and the Ieremia/Ioanne marker that straddle the p.133→134 break.)*

la: *(Vide notam praecedentem: Ier. 1, 5; de Ioanne cfr. Luc. 1, 15.)*

en: *(See the preceding note: Jer. 1, 5; concerning John cf. Luke 1, 15.)* ### Printed page 134

la: Epist. cit. c. 7. n. 24, ubi pro *exspectatur* edd. exceptis 1, 4, minus bene *exspectat,* refragantibus codd. et originali. De illo iumento cfr. Num. 22, 28. — Seq. locus ibid. c. 10. n. 32, ubi respiciuntur Ier. 1, 5; Ioan. 3, 5.; tertius ibid. n. 33; quartus c. 12. n. 37; ultimus c. 7. n. 23.

en: Letter cited, c. 7, n. 24, where for *is awaited* the editions, except 1 and 4, less well [read] *awaits,* against the codices and the original. Concerning that beast of burden cf. Num. 22, 28. — The following passage is in the same place, c. 10, n. 32, where Jer. 1, 5; John 3, 5 are referred to; the third in the same place, n. 33; the fourth, c. 12, n. 37; the last, c. 7, n. 23.

la: Cfr. Ambros., super Luc. libr. I. c. 1. n. 26; Beda, ibid., et Homil. in solemnit. Deiparae, quando salutavit Elisabeth; Bernard., Epist. 174. n. 3.

en: Cf. Ambrose, *On Luke,* Bk. I, c. 1, n. 26; Beda, in the same place, and the Homily on the solemnity of the Mother of God, when she greeted Elisabeth; Bernard, Letter 174, n. 3.

la: Apud Isidor. Mercatorem; C. *Retulerunt* (86.), ibid.

en: In Isidore Mercator; Decretum, c. *Retulerunt* (86.), in the same place.

la: S. Leo, Epist. 167. (alias 2.) ad Rustic. Narbonens., inquisitio 16. 17; C. *Si nulla* (113.), ibid. — Pro *a quibus* codd. A B C D et ed. 1 *quibus.*

en: St. Leo, Letter 167 (alias 2) to Rusticus of Narbonne, inquiry 16, 17; Decretum, c. *Si nulla* (113.), in the same place. — For *by whom* the codices A B C D and edition 1 [read] *whom.*

la: Libr. VII. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 53. n. 102; C. *Solet etiam quaeri* (31.), ibid. — De eo quod sequitur, cfr. Hugo de S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 13.

en: Bk. VII *On Baptism, against the Donatists,* c. 53, n. 102; Decretum, c. *Solet etiam quaeri* (31.), in the same place. — Concerning what follows, cf. Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments,* Bk. II, pt. VI, c. 13.

la: August., Epist. 98. (alias 23.) ad Bonifac. n. 5; C. *Non illud te moveat* (33.), ibid. — In hoc loco edd., excepta 1, pro *retinere vel recipere* habent *accipere,* refragantibus codd. et originali. — Quoad duo tempora baptizandi cfr. Leo, Epist. 16. ad universos episc. per Siciliam constitutos c. 3; et C. *Duo tempora* (12.), ibid.

en: Augustine, Letter 98 (alias 23) to Boniface, n. 5; Decretum, c. *Non illud te moveat* (33.), in the same place. — In this passage the editions, except 1, for *retain or recover* have *receive,* against the codices and the original. — As to the two times for baptizing cf. Leo, Letter 16 to all the bishops constituted throughout Sicily, c. 3; and Decretum, c. *Duo tempora* (12.), in the same place.

la: Val. et edd. 4, 6 *ad quid petendum,* codd. A B cum pluribus edd. *quid petendum.*

en: The Vatican [edition] and editions 4, 6 [read] *for what is to be sought,* the codices A B with most editions *what is to be sought.*

la: Libr. II. de Ecclesiast. Officiis, c. 25. n. 7; C. *Parvuli* (74.), ibid.

en: Bk. II *On Ecclesiastical Offices,* c. 25, n. 7; Decretum, c. *Parvuli* (74.), in the same place. ### Printed page 135

la: S. Leo, Epist. 167. (alias 2.) ad Rustic. Narbonens., inquisitio 16. 17; C. *Si nulla* (113.), ibid. *(Continuatio loci de responsione; cfr. p.134 not. 4.)*

en: St. Leo, Letter 167 (alias 2) to Rusticus of Narbonne, inquiry 16, 17; Decretum, c. *Si nulla* (113.), in the same place. *(Continuation of the passage on responsion; cf. p.134, note 4.)*

la: August., IV. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 24. n. 31, ubi citatur Ioan. 9, 21; C. *Cum pro parvulis* (77.), ibid.

en: Augustine, Bk. IV *On Baptism, against the Donatists,* c. 24, n. 31, where John 9, 21 is cited; Decretum, c. *Cum pro parvulis* (77.), in the same place.

la: Epist. 98. (alias 23.) ad Bonifac. episc. n. 9; C. *Nihil est aliud* (76.), ibid.

en: Letter 98 (alias 23) to Boniface the bishop, n. 9; Decretum, c. *Nihil est aliud* (76.), in the same place.

la: Ita codd. A B D E et ed. 1, in aliis non bene *ea.*

en: So the codices A B D E and edition 1; in the others, less well, *ea (those things).*

la: Codd. A B E et edd. 1, 5, 6, 9 praefigunt *et.* Circa rem cfr. Hugo, II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 12. Seq. locus sumtus est secundum sensum ex 1. Serm. ad Neophytos (inter opera August.), verbotenus ex C. *Prima igitur* (73.), ibid.

en: The codices A B E and editions 1, 5, 6, 9 prefix *et (and).* On the matter cf. Hugh, *On the Sacraments,* Bk. II, pt. VI, c. 12. The following passage is taken according to the sense from the 1st Sermon to Neophytes (among Augustine's works), word for word from the Decretum, c. *Prima igitur* (73.), in the same place.

la: Libr. I. de Institutione clericorum, c. 25. C. *Ante baptismum* (34.), ibid.

en: [Rabanus,] Bk. I *On the Instruction of Clerics,* c. 25. Decretum, c. *Ante baptismum* (34.), in the same place.

la: De Symbolo ad catechum. serm. 1. c. 1. n. 2; C. *Sicut nostis* (62.), ibid. Seq. locus est apud Ruban., ibid. c. 27; tertius est August., de Symbolo, loc. cit., ubi pro *in infantibus* codd. A E et edd., excepta 1, habent *ab infantibus,* refragante etiam originali.

en: *On the Symbol, to the Catechumens,* sermon 1, c. 1, n. 2; Decretum, c. *Sicut nostis* (62.), in the same place. The following passage is in Rabanus, in the same place, c. 27; the third is Augustine, *On the Symbol,* in the place cited, where for *in infants* the codices A E and the editions, except 1, have *from infants,* the original also being against [it].

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw lines 15111–15380) and collated column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.133–135 (`tools/colcrop.py vol4 <p> 1880`; offset pdf = printed + 20 → PDF pp.153–155). This is the heavily two-column / cascade-shattered Vol IV region, so the PDF column-band reads are authoritative throughout (Vol II/IV override); the OCR served only for marker spacing and clean prose. Printed page span confirmed by running-head TEXT (`DISTINCTIO VI. 133`, `134 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`, `DIST. VI. P. I. DIVISIO TEXTUS. 135`), not the OCR-mangled digits.

**Page-split map.**
- p.133: Cap. I (Quibus liceat baptizare) → Cap. II (Si rebaptizandi sunt) → opening of Pars II / Cap. III; footer notes 1–11.
- p.134: continuation of Cap. III (de Ieremia/Ioanne) → Cap. IV (verba corrupte) → Cap. V (pro ludo) → opening of Cap. VI (De responsione patrinorum); footer notes 1–8.
- p.135: tail of Cap. VI → Cap. VII (De catechismo et exorcismo), ending «…recedat ab homine»; footer notes 1–7.

**Marker convention.** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering per printed page, so the body carries three independent `[^1]…` sequences. To keep the Markdown anchors unique across the chunk, the two trailing p.133 entries that fall after the p.133→134 marker run are carried as `[^a]` (Ier. 1,5 / de Ioanne cf. Luc. 1,15) and a back-reference `[^b]`; all other markers use their printed per-page numbers. Note `[^5]` on p.133 and `[^b]` on p.133 are textual-variant cross-references to the substantive notes (4 and a respectively) — the printed footer carries the variant inside note 4 and the scripture cite inside note a; the marker positions in Bonaventure's printed body are preserved.

**Cross-chunk footer hand-off — FORWARDED to d6-divisio.** The littera is FOOTER-COMPLETE: all of its footnotes lie on pp.133–135 and are captured here (26 entries). The `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI.` / `DIVISIO TEXTUS` / `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` that begins at the FOOT of printed p.135 (raw L15381) is NOT part of this littera; its body and ALL of its footnotes belong to **d6-divisio**. Quaracchi restarts the divisio's footnote numbering at 1 on **printed p.136** (note 1 = `Quia supra¹ quaesitum est…`, citing `August., IV. de Baptismo… Cum pro parvulis`). The p.135 footer block read in print order is entirely the littera's notes 1–7; no divisio footnote sits on p.135. **Net: NO littera footnotes migrate forward, and d6-divisio should NOT re-claim any p.135 footer — its first footers are on p.136.**

**[?] flags.** None. The 450 dpi PDF bands for pp.133–135 were fully legible across both columns and all footers; no reading was left genuinely ambiguous.

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. 6, Part 1, Divisio Textus

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

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

source_text:
<!-- page 135 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI.

### Pars I.

### *De his quibus est collata potestas baptizandi.*

*Nunc, quibus liceat baptizare, addamus etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra ostendit Magister, quae sit potestas collata ministris. Hic secundo determinat, quibus est collata. Et habet haec pars duas partes. In prima determinat, quibus liceat baptizare, ostendens, quod omnibus in casu necessitatis. In secunda vero quaerit et determinat, utrum baptizatos ab haereticis

<!-- page 136 -->

liceat rebaptizari, ibi: *De illis vero, qui ab haereticis baptizantur.*

Et ista pars habet duas. In prima determinat veritatem. In secunda vero removet falsitatem, ibi: *Sunt tamen nonnulli doctorum* etc., ostendens, quod Cyprianus, qui dixit, baptizatos ab haereticis esse rebaptizandos, non recte sensit.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Quia supra[^1] quaesitum est de potestate baptizandi, ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur hic de iteratione baptismi. Et quia causa, quare non potest iterari baptismus, est character, quem imprimit, ideo quaeritur primo hic de charactere. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex.

Primo quaeritur de charactere, quid sit secundum essentiam.

Secundo quaeritur, ad quid sit.

Tertio, in quo sit sicut in subiecto.

Quarto quaeritur, per quid character imprimatur.

Quinto, qualiter imprimatur, utrum delebiliter an indelebiliter.

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum baptismus debeat iterari.

---

english:
<!-- page 135 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VI.

### Part I.

### *On those upon whom the power of baptizing has been conferred.*

*Now, to whom it is permitted to baptize, let us add etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master showed what is the power conferred on the ministers. Here, secondly, he determines on whom it has been conferred. And this part has two parts. In the first he determines to whom it is permitted to baptize, showing that [it is permitted] to all in a case of necessity. In the second he asks and determines whether those baptized by heretics

<!-- page 136 -->

may be permitted to be rebaptized, at: *But concerning those who are baptized by heretics.*

And this part has two [parts]. In the first he determines the truth. In the second he removes the falsehood, at: *There are nevertheless some of the doctors* etc., showing that Cyprian, who said that those baptized by heretics ought to be rebaptized, did not judge rightly.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Since above[^1] it was asked concerning the power of baptizing, for the understanding of this part it is asked here concerning the repetition of baptism. And since the cause why baptism cannot be repeated is the character which it imprints, therefore it is asked first here concerning the character. And concerning this six things are asked.

First it is asked concerning the character, what it is according to its essence.

Second it is asked, to what end it is.

Third, in what it is as in a subject.

Fourth it is asked, by what the character is imprinted.

Fifth, in what manner it is imprinted, whether erasably or inerasably.

Sixth and last it is asked, whether baptism ought to be repeated.

---

la: Dist. praeced.

en: The preceding distinction.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 15381–15451), collated column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.135–136 (PDF pp.155–156; Vol IV offset `pdf = printed + 20`) under the VOL II OVERRIDE. The OCR cascade-shatters this two-column region (body text interleaved with footer fragments and two-column bleed), so the PDF column bands are authoritative for the reflow. This is the **Distinction VI divisio** — Bonaventure's *Divisio textus* and *Tractatio quaestionum*, opening with `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI. / Pars I. / De his quibus est collata potestas baptizandi. / Nunc, quibus liceat baptizare, addamus etc.` The chunk id is `bon-sent-IV-d6-divisio` with no `pars` field (single divisio per the dispatch). Per the locked chunking convention, the `ARTICULUS UNICUS / QUAESTIO I` opener (raw L15452) that follows the *Tractatio* is folded into `d6-a1-q1` and is **not** included here. No scholion (divisio carry none).

**TRACTATIO question-count alignment (6 questions, confirmed eyes-on from p.136 bands):** the *Tractatio* lists **six** questions under the single article on the character: (1) de charactere, quid sit secundum essentiam; (2) ad quid sit; (3) in quo sit sicut in subiecto; (4) per quid character imprimatur; (5) qualiter imprimatur, utrum delebiliter an indelebiliter; (6) utrum baptismus debeat iterari. The list reflows from the bottom of p.136 left column (Primo) into the right column (Secundo through Sexto). This is a single `ARTICULUS UNICUS` (de charactere), not a pars/multi-article split.

**Page-split map (running heads verified eyes-on):**
- **p.135** (running head text confirmed on the page; PDF p.155): the centered banner **COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI.** + **Pars I.** + the littera tag *Nunc, quibus liceat baptizare, addamus etc.* + **DIVISIO TEXTUS.** + the first divisio paragraph (left col "Supra ostendit Magister…" reflowed with the right col "…determinat, quibus liceat baptizare, ostendens, quod omnibus in casu necessitatis. In secunda vero quaerit et determinat, utrum baptizatos ab haereticis"). The p.135 footer notes (1–7: *August. IV. de Baptismo*; *Epist. 98*; *Ita codd. ABDE*; *Codd. ABE et edd.*; *Ita cod. C*; *Libr. I. de Institutione clericorum*; *De Symbolo ad catechum.*) are anchored to the **littera** above (Lombard's text, markers in `d6-littera`) — NOT re-claimed here.
- **p.136** (running head "136 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; PDF p.156): the divisio body continues at the top ("liceat rebaptizari, ibi: *De illis vero…* … *Sunt tamen nonnulli doctorum* etc. … non recte sensit."), then **TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM** + the six-question list, then the **ARTICULUS UNICUS / QUAESTIO I** banner + quaestio body begin lower on the page (→ `d6-a1-q1`). Quaracchi restarts footer numbering at 1 on p.136: note 1 = *Dist. praeced.* (keyed to the *Tractatio*'s *supra*, captured here as [^1]); notes 2 (*Secundum Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 5*), 3 (*Ut docet Aristot., II. Topic. c. 2…*), 4 (*Cap. 21. n. 23…*), 5 (*Duplex hic habitus respondet duplici potentiae animae…*) anchor to the QUAESTIO I body (*Quia tria sunt in anima…*; *nihil est in genere…*; Augustinus *de Bono coniugali*) → forwarded to `d6-a1-q1`.

**Hand-off picked up from `d6-littera`.** The littera is footer-complete and forwarded that NO littera footnotes migrate to this divisio; the p.135 footers (notes 1–7) are the littera's. Confirmed eyes-on: the p.135 divisio paragraph carries no footnote markers, so none of those footers belong here. Not re-claimed.

**Cross-chunk hand-off forwarded to `bon-sent-IV-d6-a1-q1`:** (a) the `ARTICULUS UNICUS / De charactere / QUAESTIO I` banner + opener (raw L15452, printed p.136 lower → p.137) folds into a1-q1; verify the q1 opener (*Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur primo, quod character sit habitus*) aligns with *Tractatio* sub-question (1) "de charactere, quid sit secundum essentiam." (b) **p.136 footer notes 2–5 are q1's**, not the divisio's: note 2 = *Secundum Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 5*; note 3 = *Ut docet Aristot., II. Topic. c. 2 (c. 4.) et IV. c. 1… de Praedicam. c. de Quali…*; note 4 = *Cap. 21. n. 23, ubi habitum definit: «quo aliquid agitur…»*; note 5 = *Duplex hic habitus respondet duplici potentiae animae; scil. rationi et voluntati. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 24…*. They are keyed to the *Fundamenta* / *Ad oppositum* markers in the q1 body on p.136 and continue onto p.137. Only note 1 (*Dist. praeced.*) stays with this divisio.

**`[?]` flags:** none. The single body marker (¹ at *supra*) and note 1 (*Dist. praeced.*) are legible and unambiguous in the 450 dpi p.136 L/L-footer bands; the full six-question list and the divisio body reflow are legible across the p.136 L-0 and R-0 bands.


title: Dist. 6, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in distinctionem VI, Pars II — Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction VI, Part II — Division of the text and the order of questions

source_text:
<!-- page 148 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VI

### Pars II.

### *De annexis potestati baptizandi.*

*Hoc etiam sciendum est, quod licet ter immergatur etc.*[^2]

TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 133.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de potestate baptizandi: hic agit de annexis illi potestati[^3]. Et quoniam tria sunt annexa: ex parte baptizati idoneitas, ex parte baptizantis intentio, ex parte temporis opportunitas[^5]; ideo primo determinat, quis potest baptizari. Secundo, utrum intentio sit necessaria ad baptismum, ibi: *Solet quaeri de illo qui iocans* etc. Tertio de opportunitate temporis, ibi: *Cognoscendum est etiam, in baptizandis electis* etc.

Duabus partibus remanentibus indivisis, prima dividitur in duas. In prima determinat, quis baptizari possit. Secundo, quis baptizari debeat, ibi: *Quaeri etiam solet, si corrupte verba proferantur.* Prima pars dividitur in duas. In prima determinat veritatem. In secunda solvit dubitationem, ibi: *Si vero opponitur de Ieremia* etc.

Secunda similiter dividitur in duas. In prima determinat, si ille qui baptizatus est corrupta forma, debeat rebaptizari. Secundo, utrum ille, de quo nulla est certitudo, possit vel debeat baptizari. Primum, ibi: *Solet quaeri, si corrupte* etc. Secundum facit ibi: *Praeterea sciendum est, quod illi, de quibus* etc.

*Porro cuncti ad baptismum venientes.* Supra[^4] egit Magister de Sacramento baptismi. Haec est pars in qua agit de sacramentalibus, et duo principaliter sunt, scilicet catechismus et exorcismus. Ideo haec pars habet duas partes. In prima agit de catechismo, in secundo de exorcismo, ibi: *Illa autem interrogatio et responsio* etc.[^6] Prima pars habet duas partes. In prima determinat veritatem. In secunda solvit dubitationem, ibi: *Si vero quaeritur, ex quo sensu pro parvulo* etc.

<!-- page 149 -->

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis tria principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de idoneitate ex parte baptizati.

Secundo de intentione ex parte baptizantis.

Tertio vero de sacramentalibus annexis baptismo.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum aliquis possit in utero baptizari, sicut et sanctificari.

Secundo, utrum sanctificati in utero debeant baptizari.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VI

### Part II.

### *On the things annexed to the power of baptizing.*

*This too must be known, that although one be immersed three times, etc.*[^2]

FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER, SEE ABOVE, PAGE 133.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the power of baptizing: here he treats of the things annexed to that power[^3]. And since three things are annexed — on the part of the one baptized, fitness; on the part of the one baptizing, intention; on the part of the time, opportuneness[^5] — therefore he first determines who can be baptized. Second, whether intention is necessary for baptism, there: *It is wont to be asked concerning him who in jest* etc. Third, concerning the opportuneness of time, there: *It must also be known, in baptizing the elect* etc.

The two [latter] parts remaining undivided, the first is divided into two. In the first he determines who can be baptized. Second, who ought to be baptized, there: *It is also wont to be asked, if the words are uttered corruptly.* The first part is divided into two. In the first he determines the truth. In the second he resolves a doubt, there: *But if an objection is raised concerning Jeremiah* etc.

The second [part] is likewise divided into two. In the first he determines whether he who has been baptized under a corrupted form ought to be rebaptized. Second, whether he of whom there is no certainty can or ought to be baptized. The first, there: *It is wont to be asked, if corruptly* etc. He treats the second there: *Furthermore it must be known that those concerning whom* etc.

*Moreover all who come to baptism.* Above[^4] the Master treated of the Sacrament of baptism. This is the part in which he treats of the sacramentals, and there are two principally, namely catechism and exorcism. Therefore this part has two parts. In the first he treats of catechism, in the second of exorcism, there: *But that interrogation and response* etc.[^6] The first part has two parts. In the first he determines the truth. In the second he resolves a doubt, there: *But if it is asked, from what sense, for the little child* etc.

<!-- page 149 -->

### THE ORDER OF QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, three things are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning fitness on the part of the one baptized.

Second, concerning intention on the part of the one baptizing.

Third, indeed, concerning the sacramentals annexed to baptism.

Concerning the first, two things are asked.

First it is asked whether anyone can be baptized in the womb, just as he can also be sanctified.

Second, whether those sanctified in the womb ought to be baptized.

---

la: Cod. *N et eius fides.* Superius pro *quia non* cod. V *quia nondum.*

en: Codex *N and its witnesses.* Above, for *quia non* ("because not") codex V reads *quia nondum* ("because not yet").

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. in fine, ubi etiam in verbis Augustini tangitur factum Petri, de quo vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 2.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 2, at the end, where also in the words of Augustine the deed of Peter is touched upon, concerning which see above, d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 2.

la: Edd. in hac divisione textus multa mutaverunt et perperam, cum non attenderint, ultimam partem de sacramentalibus, quae incipit: *Porro cuncti*, supra d. 3, divisio textus (pag. 64) declaratam esse secundam principalem partem totius tractatus de baptismo. Edd. igitur hic sic prosequuntur: *Et dividitur haec pars in duas. In prima agit de annexis Sacramento baptismi. In secunda de sacramentalibus*, ibi: *Illa autem interrogatio* etc.

en: The editions in this division of the text changed much, and wrongly, since they did not attend to the fact that the last part on the sacramentals, which begins *Moreover all*, was declared above at d. 3, division of the text (page 64) to be the second principal part of the whole treatise on baptism. The editions therefore here proceed thus: *And this part is divided into two. In the first he treats of the things annexed to the Sacrament of baptism. In the second, of the sacramentals*, there: *But that interrogation* etc.

la: Edd., posito superius *quatuor* pro *tria* et *intentionis conformitas* pro *intentio*, hic addunt: *et ex parte levantis responsionis fidelitas*, et inferius post *electis* etc. subiungunt: *Quarto de levati responsione, ibi: Porro cuncti.*

en: The editions, having set *four* above in place of *three* and *conformity of intention* in place of *intention*, here add: *and on the part of the one lifting [from the font], fidelity of response*; and below, after *the elect* etc., they subjoin: *Fourth, concerning the response of the one lifted, there: Moreover all.*

la: Edd. legunt: Item, quarta pars habet duas. In prima determinat veritatem quantum ad baptizantis interrogationem, vel baptizandi, si adultus est, vel patrini, si parvulus est, responsionem. In secunda solvit dubitationem, ibi: *Sed adhuc quaeritur, ex quo sensu* etc. Similiter secunda pars, in qua agit de sacramentalibus, exorcismo scilicet et catechismo, habet duas. In prima ponit ordinem in exorcizando et catechizando parvulum, et horum nominum et aliorum quorundam notificationem. In secunda ponit exorcismi efficaciam, ibi: *Parvuli exsufflantur* etc.

en: The editions read: Likewise, the fourth part has two [parts]. In the first it determines the truth as regards the interrogation of the one baptizing, or the response of the one to be baptized, if he is an adult, or of the godparent, if he is a little child. In the second it resolves a doubt, there: *But still it is asked, from what sense* etc. Likewise the second part, in which he treats of the sacramentals, namely exorcism and catechism, has two [parts]. In the first it sets the order in exorcizing and catechizing the little child, and the notification of these names and of certain others. In the second it sets the efficacy of exorcism, there: *The little children are breathed upon* etc. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (vol4 pp.148–149, colcrop split x≈1880, widened to 2050 to capture the centered Pars II / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO headers), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 16889–16976) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the VOL II/IV OVERRIDE the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered *divisio textus* prose and the page-148 footers (the OCR shatters the two-column divisio into one-token-per-line fragments with column bleed, and fragments every footer). New file — the auto-chunker missed this Pars II divisio; no prior file or skeleton existed; backup dir `_backup-d6-p2-divisio-pre-promote-20260620/` created empty for symmetry.

**Page-split map.** Printed p.148 (= pdf 168): the COMMENTARIUS Pars II opener, the *Hoc etiam sciendum est* lemma, the TEXTUM-MAGISTRI cross-reference, the full DIVISIO TEXTUS (both columns), and footers nn.1–6. Printed p.149 (= pdf 169): TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (three-fold article division + the *Circa primum quaeruntur duo* sub-listing of Articulus I's two questions), then ARTICULUS I begins — EXCLUDED from this chunk. P.149 carries no footers for the divisio/tractatio region (the first p.149 footers belong to Articulus I q1's body and travel with `d6-p2-a1-q1`).

**Hand-off PICKED UP from `d6-p1-dubia`.** That chunk took only p.148 n.1 (the DUB. IV note, *Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, ubi praemissum verbum Augustini affertur contra Cyprianum…*) and explicitly forwarded p.148 nn.2–6 to this Pars II commentarius. Verified in `vol4/bon-sent-IV-d6-p1-dubia.md` (its apparatus blockquote and `transcription_status` both state "p.148 n.1 only — nn.2–6 belong to the following Pars II commentarius"). This chunk claims those five notes (rendered as [^2]–[^6]).

**Hand-off FORWARDED to `d6-p2-a1-q1`.** The ARTICULUS I body (*De idoneitate ex parte baptizati*, QUAESTIO I *Utrum aliquis possit in utero baptizari*) begins at raw L16977 / printed p.149 right column, immediately after the *Circa primum quaeruntur duo* listing. That body — its arguments, *Conclusio*, *Respondeo*, *Opinio I*, etc. (visible in the p.149 right-column band) — and ALL of p.149's footer notes (the first of which sit under the q1 Respondeo, marginal glosses *Conclusio. / De rationibus congruitatis. / Opinio 1. / Non probatur.*) belong to `d6-p2-a1-q1`, NOT here. Per the d.1 chunking convention, ART I's *Circa primum quaeruntur duo* sub-listing is duplicated at the head of q1; it is rendered HERE as the closing of the TRACTATIO and may also lead q1.

**Apparatus — full p.148 footer (verbatim, read off pdf 168 column bands):** n.1 *Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, ubi praemissum verbum Augustini affertur contra Cyprianum. — Mox pro patiatur Vat. tolleretur.* (→ belongs to `d6-p1-dubia`, not rendered here); n.2 *Cod. N et eius fides. Superius pro quia non cod. V quia nondum.*; n.3 *Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. in fine, ubi etiam in verbis Augustini tangitur factum Petri…*; n.4 *Edd. in hac divisione textus multa mutaverunt et perperam…* (the long Porro-cuncti mis-division note); n.5 *Edd., posito superius quatuor pro tria et intentionis conformitas pro intentio…*; n.6 *Edd. legunt: Item, quarta pars habet duas… Similiter secunda pars…* (one long note running both *quarta pars* and *secunda pars*). All five of this chunk's notes (nn.2–6) are accounted for; nothing lost across the dubia/divisio seam.

**Marker ordering [?] — FLAG for d.6–d.10 decade gate.** The Quaracchi superscripts are keyed to the lemmata they gloss, but the two-column footer is print-ordered by column (nn.2–4 left, nn.5–6 right) while the body lemmata interleave, and the IA djvu OCR shatters the footer one-token-per-line. The OCR preserved inline superscripts only at *potestati*, *opportunitas*, and *Porro cuncti…Supra* (rendered there as garbled `^`/`°`); nn.2 and 6 carry no OCR-attested inline marker. I therefore anchored each note by CONTENT to the lemma it glosses: [^2] (Cod. N textual variant on the Master's text) at the *Hoc etiam sciendum est* lemma; [^3] (lit. Magistri c.2) at *annexis illi potestati*; [^5] (quatuor pro tria / intentionis conformitas — directly about the three annexed) at *opportunitas*; [^4] (Edd. mis-division, *quae incipit Porro cuncti*) at *Porro cuncti…Supra*; [^6] (Edd. *quarta pars / secunda pars* sub-division) at *Illa autem interrogatio*. Markers thus run 2,3,5,4,6 in body order — defensible by content but NOT strictly ascending. **Re-verify the exact superscript-to-lemma keying against pdf 168 at 600 dpi during the decade polish gate.** No text was lost.

**No scholion.** Divisio chunks carry none.