title: Dist. 6, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 142 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Per quid character imprimatur.*

Quarto quaeritur, per quid character imprimatur, et quaeritur, utrum imprimatur per *virtutes*, sicut per Sacramenta. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia character est signum conformativum sive configurativum; sed per virtutes configuratur anima Deo[^1]: ergo per virtutes imprimitur character.

2. Item quaero, utrum imprimatur per *Sacramenta veteris Testamenti*. — Et videtur, quod sic: quia character est signum distinctivum, distinguens populum a non-populo; sed Dominus tempore Legis habuit populum, qui debuit distingui, sicut et modo: ergo si distinguebantur per Sacramenta[^2], patet, quod in illis imprimebatur signaculum distinctivum; hoc autem est character: ergo etc.

3. Item quaero, utrum per *omnia Sacramenta novi Testamenti*. — Et videtur, quod sic: quia quod potest in maius potest in minus[^3]; sed omnia dant gratiam, quae maior est quam character: ergo etc.

4. Item, character disponit ad gratiam[^4]: ergo cum omnia Sacramenta dent gratiam et disponant ad illam, omnia dant characterem.

**Contra:** 1. Character est signum indelebile[^5] et solum est impressivum characteris, quod non iteratur circa subiectum; sed tantum tria sunt Sacramenta non iterabilia, ut baptismus, confirmatio et ordo: ergo tantum illa tria imprimunt characterem.

Quaeritur ergo ulterius gratia huius — cum omnis passio[^6], quae inest aliquibus, insit per aliquam naturam communem — quae sit illa *natura communis* reperta in his tribus, et non in aliis. Et constat, quod non est *materia*, quia non est communis; nec *forma*, quia nec illa est communis. — Et *si dicas*, quod conveniunt in *invocatione Trinitatis*, et quia est unus *efficiens*[^7]: similiter et in aliis est invocatio Trinitatis et efficiens, quia ille est unus in omnibus Sacramentis. Necesse igitur est, quod illa natura sumatur ex parte *finis*. Sed hoc non videtur, quia in fine *communi* videntur omnia convenire; in finibus autem *proximis* omnia differunt. — Et *si dicas*, quod hoc est, quia ista tria Sacramenta sunt respicientia statum fidei determinatum: ergo cum fides sit eadem secundum diversos status, videtur, quod in omnibus istis Sacramentis unus imprimatur character. Sed constat, quod multi sunt characteres, alioquin non posset quis ordinari, si non esset confirmatus.

<!-- page 143 -->

Quaeritur ergo, quae sit *ratio multitudinis*; et videtur, quod *superfluant*, cum sufficienter per unum possint distingui. Quod autem sint *multi*; videtur, quia character interior similitudinem habet cum signo exteriori; sed signa sunt dissimilia et diversa: ergo et characteres.

### Conclusio.

> *Character imprimitur non in virtutibus, sed in Sacramentis novae legis, ast tantum in tribus.*

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod character est *signum interius distinctivum*. Quia ergo signare non convenit ei nisi ratione signi visibilis; ideo solum in Sacramentis, non in virtutibus, imprimitur. Quia vero interius spiritualiter distinguens; ideo in Sacramentis, quae sunt non carnalis populi, sed spiritualis: ideo imprimitur in Sacramentis novae legis, non veteris. Quia distinctivum non unius, sed multorum; ideo unitivum multorum in uno statu fidei: ideo in his Sacramentis solum imprimitur, quae respiciunt statum fidei determinatum. — Tres autem sunt status fidei distinctos: scilicet *genitae*, *roboratae* et iam *multiplicatae*; et secundum hoc attenditur triplex distinctio in populo, scilicet *bonorum* a malis, *fortium* ab infirmis, *clericorum* a laicis. — Et haec triplex distinctio praecessit in figura in populo Israel: prima, cum omnes sunt distincti ab Aegyptiis ad veniendum in terram promissionis; secunda, cum fortes ab infirmis ad pugnandum in bello; tertia, cum levitae ab alio populo ad ministrandum in templo[^8]. — Similiter triplex fuit distinctio in domo David: prima, domus eius ab infidelibus; secunda, quia erant ibi specialiter *pugnatores*; tertia, quia levitae et sacerdotes et scribae ab aliis etiam distincti erant, et etiam *duces* et *principes* habebant[^9].

Quia ergo tria tantum sunt Sacramenta, quae respiciunt *statum fidei determinatum*: baptismus, primum quia ibi fides gignitur, et homo ab Aegyptiis separatur; confirmatio, secundum, quia ibi fides roboratur, et ut pugil inungitur homo ad proeliandum et ab infirmis discernitur; et ordo, tertium, quia ibi virtus multimoda datur, et homo ut sanctus ad ministerium templi a laicis separatur: ideo ista tria tantum imprimunt characterem.

Natura ergo communis, reperta in his et non in aliis, est, quia sunt signa visibilia interius operantia, respicientia statum fidei determinatum. Et quia distinctio *populi* a non-populo praecedit alias distinctiones; ideo baptismalis character praecedit alios de necessitate. Sed distinctio *fortium* ab infirmis praecedit distinctionem aliam solum de congruo, non de necessitate. — Ex hoc igitur patet *ordo* characterum; patet et *numerus*, quia tres sunt secundum tres status et tres distinctiones et tria Sacramenta; patet etiam *ratio* imprimendi. Praesupposita namque identitate ex parte materialis elementi, ratione cuius competit significatio, sumitur ratio principalis ex parte finis. Quia tamen finis movet *efficientem*, et efficiens secundum exigentiam finis introducit *formam* in materiam[^10]: concurrit triplex ratio: et prima est status fidei determinatio ex parte finis; ex parte efficientis institutio, qui ad talem finem ordinans dedit talem virtutem, ut in his imprimeretur character; ex parte vero formae est sanctae Trinitatis invocatio. Et sic patent omnia.

1. Quod enim primo obiicitur de *virtutibus*, iam patet: quia secundum non est *configuratio*, quam attendatur signum distinctivum, eo quod non est signum sensibile[^11] extra.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Sacramentis *veteris legis*, similiter patet responsio: quia ibi erat tantum configuratio exterius in carne, quia erant Sacramenta populi carnalis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur: quod potest in maius potest in minus; dicendum, quod istud non est generaliter verum, quia frequenter virtus creaturae ordinatur ad maius, non ad minus; homo enim potest generare hominem, non festucam[^12].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnia Sacramenta disponunt ad gratiam; dicendum, quod actus disponendi ad gratiam non est *proprius* characteris, sed magis qui praedeterminatus est.

Quod postmodum quaeritur, satis patet et melius patet[^13], si brevius resumantur praedicta. —

<!-- page 144 -->

Ordo enim et summa praedictorum est, quia character est signum interius distinctivum pariter et unitivum in aliquo fidei statu; ideo imprimitur a signo visibili, interius operante, respiciente statum fidei determinatum. Status ergo fidei determinatus est prima ratio *imprimendi*. Quia «finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem[^14]», ideo, quia ipse instituit ad hunc finem Sacramenta, dedit *virtutem* et *formam* verborum congruam. — Est etiam ratio *multiplicandi*. Quia enim tantum tres status fidei sunt et tres distinctiones[^15], ideo tantum tres characteres. — Est etiam ratio *ordinandi*. Nam fidei generatio praecedit confirmationem, et confirmatio multiplicationem; sed primum de necessitate praecedit secundum et tertium et secundum praecedit tertium de congruo. Talis ordo est in distinctionibus populi: nam primo est separatio *fidelis* populi ab Aegyptiis vel malis; secundo, *fortium* ab infirmis; tertio, *sanctorum* et perfectorum ab aliis. Et sic est ordo in characteribus.

english:
<!-- page 142 -->

### Question IV. *By what means the character is imprinted.*

Fourthly it is asked, by what means the character is imprinted, and it is asked whether it is imprinted through the *virtues*, as it is through the Sacraments. And that it is so, seems shown:

1. Because the character is a conforming or configuring sign; but through the virtues the soul is configured to God[^1]: therefore the character is imprinted through the virtues.

2. Likewise I ask whether it is imprinted through the *Sacraments of the Old Testament*. — And it seems that it is: because the character is a distinctive sign, distinguishing a people from a non-people; but the Lord in the time of the Law had a people who had to be distinguished, just as also now: therefore if they were distinguished through the Sacraments[^2], it is clear that in those a distinctive seal was imprinted; but this is a character: therefore etc.

3. Likewise I ask whether it is through *all the Sacraments of the New Testament*. — And it seems that it is: because what can do the greater can do the lesser[^3]; but all give grace, which is greater than the character: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the character disposes to grace[^4]: therefore since all the Sacraments give grace and dispose to it, all give the character.

**On the contrary:** 1. The character is an indelible sign[^5], and that alone is impressive of a character which is not repeated upon the subject; but only three Sacraments are non-repeatable, namely baptism, confirmation, and order: therefore only those three imprint a character.

It is therefore asked further on account of this — since every passion[^6] which is in certain things is in them through some common nature — what is that *common nature* found in these three, and not in the others. And it is established that it is not *matter*, because it is not common; nor *form*, because neither is that common. — And *if you say* that they agree in the *invocation of the Trinity*, and because there is one *efficient cause*[^7]: likewise in the others too there is invocation of the Trinity and an efficient cause, since he is one in all the Sacraments. It is necessary therefore that that nature be taken from the side of the *end*. But this does not seem so, because in the *common* end all seem to agree; but in the *proximate* ends all differ. — And *if you say* that this is because these three Sacraments are those regarding a determinate state of faith: therefore since faith is the same according to the diverse states, it seems that in all these Sacraments one character is imprinted. But it is established that there are many characters, otherwise no one could be ordained if he were not confirmed.

<!-- page 143 -->

It is therefore asked what is the *ground of the multitude*; and it seems that they are *superfluous*, since they could be sufficiently distinguished by one. But that they are *many*; seems shown, because the interior character has a likeness with the exterior sign; but the signs are dissimilar and diverse: therefore so too are the characters.

### Conclusion.

> *The character is imprinted not in the virtues, but in the Sacraments of the new law, and only in three.*

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that the character is an *interior distinctive sign*. Since, then, to signify does not belong to it except by reason of a visible sign; therefore it is imprinted only in the Sacraments, not in the virtues. But since it distinguishes interiorly and spiritually; therefore it is in the Sacraments, which are of a people not carnal but spiritual: therefore it is imprinted in the Sacraments of the new law, not of the old. Since it is distinctive not of one, but of many; therefore unitive of many in one state of faith: therefore it is imprinted only in those Sacraments which regard a determinate state of faith. — Now there are three states of faith, namely *begotten*, *strengthened*, and now *multiplied*; and according to this a threefold distinction is observed in the people, namely of the *good* from the wicked, of the *strong* from the weak, of *clerics* from the laity. — And this threefold distinction was prefigured in the people of Israel: the first, when all are distinguished from the Egyptians for coming into the land of promise; the second, when the strong from the weak for fighting in war; the third, when the Levites from the rest of the people for ministering in the temple[^8]. — Likewise the distinction was threefold in the house of David: the first, his house from the unbelievers; the second, because there were there especially *warriors*; the third, because the Levites and priests and scribes were also distinguished from the rest, and also had *leaders* and *princes*[^9].

Since therefore there are only three Sacraments which regard a *determinate state of faith*: baptism, the first because there faith is begotten, and a man is separated from the Egyptians; confirmation, the second, because there faith is strengthened, and as a champion a man is anointed for battle and is set apart from the weak; and order, the third, because there manifold power is given, and a man as holy is set apart from the laity for the ministry of the temple: therefore these three alone imprint a character.

The common nature, therefore, found in these and not in the others, is that they are visible signs operating interiorly, regarding a determinate state of faith. And because the distinction of the *people* from the non-people precedes the other distinctions; therefore the baptismal character precedes the others of necessity. But the distinction of the *strong* from the weak precedes the other distinction only by fittingness, not of necessity. — From this, then, is clear the *order* of the characters; clear also the *number*, because there are three according to the three states and the three distinctions and the three Sacraments; clear also the *ground* of imprinting. For, presupposing identity on the side of the material element, by reason of which signification belongs to it, the principal ground is taken from the side of the end. Since, however, the end moves the *efficient cause*, and the efficient cause according to the requirement of the end introduces the *form* into the matter[^10]: a threefold ground concurs: and the first is the determination of the state of faith on the side of the end; on the side of the efficient cause, the institution, who, ordaining to such an end, gave such power that in these a character might be imprinted; on the side of the form, however, is the invocation of the holy Trinity. And thus all things are clear.

1. As for what is first objected concerning the *virtues*, it is now clear: because [it is] not according to a *configuration* that the distinctive sign is regarded, on account of the fact that it is not a sensible sign[^11] outwardly.

2. To that which is objected concerning the Sacraments of the *old law*, the response is likewise clear: because there was there only an exterior configuration in the flesh, since they were the Sacraments of a carnal people.

3. To that which is objected: that what can do the greater can do the lesser; it must be said that this is not generally true, because frequently the power of a creature is ordained to the greater, not to the lesser; for a man can beget a man, not a straw[^12].

4. To that which is objected, that all the Sacraments dispose to grace; it must be said that the act of disposing to grace is not *proper* to the character, but rather to that which is predetermined.

As for what is asked afterward, it is sufficiently clear, and is more clearly clear[^13], if the foregoing be more briefly resumed. —

<!-- page 144 -->

For the order and sum of the foregoing is this: that the character is an interior sign at once distinctive and unitive in some state of faith; therefore it is imprinted by a visible sign, operating interiorly, regarding a determinate state of faith. The determinate state of faith, then, is the first ground of *imprinting*. Since «the end imposes necessity upon the things that are unto the end[^14]», therefore, because he himself instituted the Sacraments unto this end, he gave the *power* and the congruous *form* of words. — There is also a ground of *multiplying*. For since there are only three states of faith and three distinctions[^15], therefore only three characters. — There is also a ground of *ordering*. For the begetting of faith precedes confirmation, and confirmation precedes multiplication; but the first of necessity precedes the second and the third, and the second precedes the third by fittingness. Such is the order in the distinctions of the people: for first there is the separation of the *faithful* people from the Egyptians or the wicked; second, of the *strong* from the weak; third, of the *holy* and perfect from the rest. And thus there is order in the characters.

la: Aristot., VII. Ethic. c. 1: Ex hominibus, sicut dicunt, ob virtutis excellentiam divini efficiuntur.

en: Aristotle, *Nicomachean Ethics* VII, c. 1: Out of men, as they say, on account of excellence of virtue, divine ones come to be.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 1.

en: Cf. above, d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, to obj. 1.

la: Nam ut dicit regula iuris 35. in VI: Plus semper in se continet quod est minus. Cfr. ibid. regula 53. — De *minori* cfr. supra q. 2. solut. ad obiect. de assimilatione.

en: For, as the rule of law 35 in the *Sext* says: The greater always contains within itself that which is less. Cf. ibid. rule 53. — On the *lesser* cf. above, q. 2, in the solution, to the objection concerning assimilation.

la: Ut ostensum est supra q. 1. et 2. — De seq. proposit. vide supra d. 1. p. I. q. 4.

en: As was shown above, q. 1 and 2. — On the following proposition see above, d. 1, p. I, q. 4.

la: Probatur quaest. seq. — De tribus Sacramentis, quae iterari nequeunt, cfr. q. 6.; lit. Magistri, d. VII. c. 5, et ibid. Comment. dub. 6. nec non d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seqq.

en: It is proved in the following question. — On the three Sacraments which cannot be repeated, cf. q. 6; the Master's text, d. VII, c. 5, and the Commentary there, dub. 6, as well as d. 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 1 ff.

la: Graece πάθος, quod in recentioribus versionibus operum Aristotelis latine redditur *affectus* (affectio), significat generaliter praedicatum sive attributum sive proprietatem [quae sensu stricto accepta i. e. conveniens omni et soli speciei et semper, dicitur *propria passio*]. Cfr. Aristot., I. Poster. c. 7; VI. Topic. c. 3. (c. 6.); I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 11. (c. 3.), et III. de Caelo et mundo, text. 7. (c. 1.). — De ipsa proposit. cfr. tom. II. pag. 26, nota 5.

en: In Greek πάθος, which in more recent versions of Aristotle's works is rendered in Latin *affectus* (affection), signifies generally a predicate or attribute or property [which, taken in the strict sense, i.e. belonging to all and only the species and always, is called a *proper passion*]. Cf. Aristotle, *Posterior Analytics* I, c. 7; *Topics* VI, c. 3 (c. 6); *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 11 (c. 3), and *On the Heavens and the Earth* III, text 7 (c. 1). — On the proposition itself cf. tom. II, p. 26, note 5.

la: Supplevimus ex codd. G1 *et quia est unus efficiens*, quod in aliis codd. desideratur, pro quo Vat. *ut efficientis*. Cod. Z legit planius: *in invocatione Trinitatis. Similiter et in aliis est invocatio Trinitatis: ergo si haec esset causa, omnia* Sacramenta conferrent characterem. Nec potest sumi natura communis ex parte efficientis; quia ille est unus in omnibus Sacramentis.

en: We supplied from codd. G1 *and because there is one efficient cause*, which is wanting in the other codices, for which the Vatican edition reads *as of the efficient cause*. Codex Z reads more plainly: *in the invocation of the Trinity. Likewise in the others too there is invocation of the Trinity: therefore if this were the cause, all* the Sacraments would confer a character. Nor can a common nature be taken from the side of the efficient cause; because he is one in all the Sacraments. <!-- page 143 footer -->

la: De prima vide Exod. 11, 7. seq.; de secunda cfr. Num. 1, 3. seq., 31, 3. seqq. et Deut. 20. 8; de tertia vide Exod. 18, 1. et Num. 1, 49. seq. — Pro *ab alio* permulti codd. *ab illo*.

en: On the first see Exod. 11:7 f.; on the second cf. Num. 1:3 f., 31:3 ff. and Deut. 20:8; on the third see Exod. 18:1 and Num. 1:49 f. — For *from another* very many codices read *from that one*.

la: B. Albert., hic a. 6, pro prima affert Ps. 77, 70. seq., pro secunda II. Reg. 23, 8. seqq.; de tertia cfr. ibid. 15, 24, et 20, 25. seq., IV. Reg. 19, 2; 23, 4, et 25, 18. seq. — Pro etc.

en: Bl. Albert, here a. 6, for the first adduces Ps. 77:70 f., for the second 2 Kings 23:8 ff.; on the third cf. ibid. 15:24, and 20:25 f., 4 Kings 19:2; 23:4, and 25:18 f. — For etc.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. Phys. text. 29. (c. 3.), et V. Metaph. text. 2. seq. (IV. c. 2.). — Plures codd. *in materia*. Inferius pro *qui* edd. *quae*, cod. S *quia*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 29 (c. 3), and *Metaphysics* V, text 2 f. (IV, c. 2). — Several codices read *in the matter*. Below, for *who* the editions read *which*, codex S *because*.

la: Cod. N bene *visibile*.

en: Codex N rightly reads *visible*.

en: See below, d. 23, a. 1, q. 1, to obj. 4; I Sent. d. 41, a. 1, to obj. 6; II Sent. d. 8, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, to obj. 3; d. 27, a. 2, q. 1, to obj. 2; III Sent. d. 14, a. 3, q. 3, to obj. 3.

la: Fide codd. B F H K Q aa supplevimus *et melius patet*.

en: On the authority of codices B F H K Q aa we supplied *and is more clearly clear*. <!-- page 144 footer -->

la: Secundum Aristot., II. Phys. text. 88. seqq. (c. 9.).

en: According to Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 88 ff. (c. 9).

la: Cod. Z supplet *populi*.

en: Codex Z supplies *of the people*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** In hac quaestione solvenda omnes satis conveniunt. Attamen Scot. (hic q. 9. n. 21.) putat, posse concedi, quod in circumcisione imprimeretur aliquis character imperfectus. De eadem Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 8. a. 1. § 4. 7. — S. Thom., IV. Sent. d. 4. q. 1. a. 4; S. III. q. 63. a. 1. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. quaestiunc. 2. — Petr. a Tar., IV. Sent. d. 5. q. 2. a. 3. — Richard. a Med. rem tangit IV. Sent. d. 5. q. 2. a. 3. — Durand., IV. Sent. d. 4. q. 1.

**II.** Quoad seq. (5.) quaestionem tum Eugenii IV. Decretum pro Armenis tum Concil. Trident. (Sess. VII. de Sacram. in generali can. 9.) characterem dicunt esse indelebilem; quod secundum Scot. (loc. cit. n. 20.) intelligendum est non respectu potentiae Dei absolutae («quia nulla forma potest esse in anima, quam non possit Deus de potentia absoluta delere»), sed de potentia ordinaria. Quod character sit indelebilis etiam in altera vita (hic ad 4.), communi theologorum suffragio probatur. — Rationem, quare character sit indelebilis, S. Thom. (S. loc. cit. a. 5.) in eo ponit, quod «anima sit subiectum characteris secundum intellectivam partem»; sed (ibid. ad 2.) addit: «propter immobilitatem principalis moventis». S. Bonav., vix ab illo recedit, nisi quod doceat, ut diximus, *imaginem* esse eiusdem subiectum (supra q. 3.). Praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 5. — S. Thom., Comment. loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. quaestiunc. 2. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 3.

**III.** De 6. quaestione cfr. infra d. 23. a. 2. q. 4, et Concil. Trident., Sess. VII. de baptismo can. 11, qui definit, verum et rite collatum baptismum non esse iterandum. De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 12. — Scot., hic q. 7. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 5. III. q. 66. a. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In solving this question all agree well enough. Yet Scotus (here q. 9, n. 21) holds that it can be conceded that in circumcision some imperfect character was imprinted. On the same, Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 8, m. 8, a. 1, § 4, 7. — St. Thomas, IV Sent. d. 4, q. 1, a. 4; *Summa* III, q. 63, a. 1, 6. — Bl. Albert, here a. 6, quaestiuncula 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, IV Sent. d. 5, q. 2, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton touches on the matter, IV Sent. d. 5, q. 2, a. 3. — Durandus, IV Sent. d. 4, q. 1.

**II.** As to the following (5th) question, both Eugenius IV's Decree for the Armenians and the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, on the Sacraments in general, can. 9) say the character is indelible; which according to Scotus (loc. cit. n. 20) is to be understood not with respect to God's absolute power («because no form can be in the soul which God could not by absolute power delete»), but of the ordinary power. That the character is indelible even in the other life (here, to obj. 4) is proved by the common consent of the theologians. — The reason why the character is indelible St. Thomas (*Summa* loc. cit. a. 5) places in this, that «the soul is the subject of the character according to the intellective part»; but (ibid. ad 2) he adds: «on account of the immobility of the principal mover». St. Bonaventure scarcely departs from him, except that he teaches, as we have said, that the *image* is its subject (above, q. 3). Besides the cited places: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 5. — St. Thomas, Commentary, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 4. — Bl. Albert, here a. 7, quaestiuncula 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2, quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 3.

**III.** On the 6th question see below, d. 23, a. 2, q. 4, and the Council of Trent, Sess. VII, on baptism, can. 11, which defines that true and rightly conferred baptism is not to be repeated. On the same question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 12. — Scotus, here q. 7. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 5; *Summa* III, q. 66, a. 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4, q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Quaracchi PDF column bands (`raw/doctorisseraphic04bona.pdf`, two-column, split x≈1880) for the Respondeo / Epilogus / scholion / footer regions where the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw lines 16185–16486) cascade-shatters; OCR retained as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Offset pdf = printed + 20. Per the VOL II OVERRIDE recipe (Vol IV applies it), the column-band PDF read is authoritative in the damaged regions.

**Page-split map.**
- **p. 142** (PDF 162): QUAESTIO IV banner (centered, spanning both columns), opener + arguments 1–4 (L col), Contra + the *quaeritur ulterius* incident question on the common nature (R col). Footer sequence runs across both columns: L col footer n.6 (Aristot. VII Ethic., on body marker at *anima Deo*); R col footer nn.7–12.
- **p. 143** (PDF 163): completion of the incident questions + the *ratio multitudinis* question (L col top), Conclusio, Respondeo through the triple-distinction figures (L col), continuation of Respondeo + replies 1–4 + the *Quod postmodum quaeritur* link (R col). Footer: L col nn.1–2; R col nn.3–6.
- **p. 144** (PDF 164): the Epilogus (*Ordo enim et summa praedictorum*, L col + top of R col) closing q4's body; then SCHOLION sections I–III (L col + R col). QUAESTIO V begins in the lower L col of p.144 — EXCLUDED. q4's Epilogus footer notes are nn.1–2 (n.1 = Aristot. II Phys. text 88 on *his quae sunt ad finem*; n.2 = Cod. Z supplet *populi*). Footer nn.3–9 on p.144 belong to q5.

**Hand-offs PICKED UP (from d6-a1-q3).**
- p.142 footer n.6 onward = q4 (n.6 Aristot. VII Ethic.; subsequent nn.7–12). p.142 footer nn.1–5 = q3 (NOT included here). Confirmed by eye: p.142 L-col footer nn.1–5 reference q3's *imago / ternarius* solutio; n.6 is the Aristot. Ethic. note anchored to q4's first argument.
- The article's scholion section IV designated to q4 is, as printed, q4's OWN complete scholion numbered I–III (the printed scholion under QUAESTIO IV restarts its internal numbering at I). Rendered here as sections I–III. No q3 scholion material bleeds in.

**Hand-off FORWARDED to d6-a1-q5.**
- QUAESTIO V begins on **p.144 LEFT column** (banner *Utrum character imprimatur*; opener *Quinto quaeritur, utrum character imprimatur delebiliter vel indelebiliter*), i.e. q5's body shares printed p.144 with q4's Epilogus + scholion. **The p.144 footer is SHARED: nn.1–2 are q4's (taken here); nn.3–9 are q5's** (n.3 *nullatenus iterantur*, n.4 *quod non habeat contrarium*, n.5 Apocalypsis 9 & 11, n.6 *de nemine desperandum*, nn.7–9 in R col on *voluntati variabile / ex parte / habilitat ad gratiam*). q5 must pick up p.144 nn.3–9, NOT 1–2.
- q5 also continues onto p.145 (running head DIST. VI. ... QUAEST. V., PDF 165) — already cropped to `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p145-*`.
- q5 will have its OWN scholion (the articulus unicus has six questions; q4 is not the last). The scholion's section II already cross-refers «Quoad seq. (5.) quaestionem» (Eugenius IV / Trent on indelibility), confirming q5 is distinct and follows.

**Scholion disposition.** Scholion sections I–III rendered as q4's. Scholion IV (in the hand-off's article-level numbering) = this q4 scholion. q4 is NOT the last question of the articulus unicus (q5 *delebiliter/indelebiliter* and q6 *de iteratione baptismi* follow per the divisio TRACTATIO, L15437–15446), so q5 and q6 each have their own scholia by design — this q4 scholion is complete and self-contained.

**Alignment check.** PASS. Divisio TRACTATIO item 4 (raw L15440–41) = «Quarto quaeritur, per quid character imprimatur»; q4 opener (raw L16185, p.142) matches verbatim. No q-swap.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Note: p.144 footer n.2 «Cod. Z supplet *populi*» is anchored at body marker on *tres distinctiones* per OCR marker spacing; the variant most plausibly attaches to the adjacent *fidelis populi* phrase, but the marker as printed/OCR'd sits at *distinctiones* and is rendered there. Not ambiguous enough to flag inline.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 6, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 5

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 144 -->

### Quaestio V. *Utrum character imprimatur delebiliter, vel indelebiliter.*

Quinto quaeritur, utrum character imprimatur delebiliter, vel indelebiliter. Et quod *indelebiliter*, videtur:

1. Quia Sacramenta, in quibus imprimitur character, nullatenus iterantur[^1]; sed si deleretur, possent et deberent iterari: ergo non deletur.

2. Item, character stat cum *culpa*, sicut patet in sacerdote malo, ergo non repugnat culpae; stat etiam cum *ignorantia*, ut in parvulo baptizato[^2], ergo videtur, quod non habeat contrarium, per quod deleatur; et est in subiecto perpetuo: ergo eius impressio est indelebilis.

**Contra:**
1. Possibile est, aliquem baptizatum habere characterem bestiae, de quo habetur Apocalypsis decimo quarto[^3]; sed nullus simul potest placere Deo et diabolo: ergo nullus simul potest habere signum huius et illius: ergo unus character potest alterum delere et destruere.

2. Item, character bestiae est delebilis, quia nullus est adeo malus, quin possit fieri bonus[^4]: ergo a simili character Christi, cum ille qui bonus est, possit malus fieri.

3. Item, si character est indelebilis, quaero, unde illud habeat. Si ab efficiente; sed gratia gratum faciens est a Deo, et tamen delebilis. Si a subiecto: ergo quidquid est in anima, est indelebile. Praeterea, quod magis sit delebilis ratione subiecti, videtur: quia voluntarie recipitur; sed quod subiacet voluntati est variabile[^5]: ergo etc.

4. Item, quod post hanc vitam deleatur, videtur in Beatis: quia est *ex parte*[^6], multo enim magis est imperfectum lumen quam fides: ergo si fides excidit, et character.

5. Item, quod in damnatis deleatur, videtur: quia character aliquo modo habilitat ad gratiam[^7]; sed tunc erunt ipsi omnino inhabiles: ergo carebunt charactere.

<!-- page 145 -->

### Conclusio.

> **Conclusio.** Character est signum indelebile, quia est habitus in subiecto perpetuo impressus ad distinguendum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod communis opinio est, quod character est proprietas indelebilis. Sed in huius indelebilitatis *causa* differenter sentiunt diversi.

Quidam enim dicunt, quod quia character est in anima secundum *substantiam* vel essentiam, et ipsa est perpetua et invariabilis; ideo et character. — Sed istud supra[^8] improbatum est.

Alii dicunt, quod quia est in anima secundum potentiam *cognitivam*, quae non subiacet variabilitati, ut voluntas — quaedam enim cognoscimus, etiam voluntate nolente — ideo invariabilis. — Sed hoc non valet, quia per ignorantiam expelluntur habitus cognitivi[^9], sed non character.

Tertii dicunt, quod sicut ex matrimonii obligatione contrahitur vinculum insolubile, quamdiu vivitur, ita ex consimili in susceptione Sacramenti: scilicet quia ibi est quoddam *matrimonium spirituale*; et quoniam tam Deus quam anima sunt perpetuam durationem habentia; ideo character semper durat. — Sed quamvis istud possit dici de baptismo, ubi est quaedam contractio matrimonii[^10], non tamen in aliis Sacramentis.

Et propterea dicendum aliter, quod perpetuitas characteris principaliter sumitur ab eius *conditione* et natura. — Unde notandum quod est habitus *innatus*, et hic est indelebilis omnino; et est habitus *acquisitus*, et hic, quia est ex acquisitione, perdi potest; et est habitus *infusus* vel datus; et hic est duplex. Quidam est *datus ad dirigendum*, et quia potentiae possunt obliquari, ideo est delebilis — potest enim invenire repugnantiam in subiecto — et alius impressus ad distinguendum, et huic directio[^11] vel obliquatio potentiae non repugnat. Si enim aliquid repugnaret, hoc solum esset opposita consignatio; sed opposita non potest esse, quia solus Deus potest imaginem suam consignare: ideo, si debet opposito signo signari, a solo Deo fiet. Sed ipse nunquam imprimit signum sibi contrarium; ideo necesse est, quod character aeternaliter perseveret. Quoniam igitur character proprietas est existens in subiecto perpetuo, in quo non potest habere repugnantiam; ideo eius impressio est perpetua.

**Ad obiecta:**
*Ad 1, 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de charactere bestiae, dicendum, quod character bestiae non dicitur aliquod signaculum quod diabolus animae impresserit, sed culpa secundum eius voluntatem perpetrata, in qua est anima per obstinationem disposita ad perpetuitatem; et ideo non est omnino simile[^12].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod quaeritur, unde hoc habeat; dicendum, quod a sui *conditione*, subiecto concordante, non repugnante; et *efficiente* non producente contrarium nec subtrahente[^13].

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de damnatis, dicendum, quod in damnatis manet ad confusionem, in Beatis ad quantulumcumque decorem.

*Ad 4.* Quod obiicitur, quod est *ex parte*; dicendum, quod imperfectio characteris compatitur secum perfectionem gloriae[^14]; non sic autem est de imperfectione fidei, quia fides, secundum quod est virtus, dicit aenigma et absentiam rei creditae, et hoc repugnat statui gloriae; et ideo evacuatur, non secundum quod lumen tantum, sed secundum quod habet annexum aenigma et absentiam rei in se, quod est essentiale fidei, secundum quod virtus; alioquin, si videret certitudinaliter, non esset meritum[^15]. Non autem est simile de *charactere*, quoniam dicit quandam consignationem et lumen quoddam; et illud non habet oppositionem ad lumen perfectum nec habet oppositionem ad tenebram poenae propter lucis modicitatem: ideo nec ibi evacuatur nec hic exstinguitur[^16] [^17].

---

english:
### Question V. *Whether the character is imprinted deletably or indelibly.*

Fifthly it is asked whether the character is imprinted deletably or indelibly. And that it is imprinted *indelibly* seems to be the case:

1. Because the Sacraments in which the character is imprinted are in no way repeated[^1]; but if it were deleted, they could and should be repeated: therefore it is not deleted.

2. Likewise, the character stands together with *fault*, as is clear in a wicked priest, therefore it is not repugnant to fault; it stands also together with *ignorance*, as in a baptized infant[^2], therefore it seems that it has no contrary by which it might be deleted; and it is in a perpetual subject: therefore its impression is indelible.

**On the contrary:**
1. It is possible for someone baptized to have the character of the beast, of which it is treated in Apocalypse, chapter fourteen[^3]; but no one can at once please God and the devil: therefore no one can at once have the sign of the one and of the other: therefore one character can delete and destroy the other.

2. Likewise, the character of the beast is deletable, because no one is so wicked that he cannot be made good[^4]: therefore by similarity the character of Christ [is deletable], since one who is good can be made wicked.

3. Likewise, if the character is indelible, I ask from what it has this. If from the efficient [cause]; but sanctifying grace is from God, and yet is deletable. If from the subject: then whatever is in the soul is indelible. Moreover, that it should rather be deletable by reason of the subject seems [right]: because it is received voluntarily; but what is subject to the will is variable[^5]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that it is deleted after this life seems [the case] in the Blessed: because it is *in part*[^6], for the imperfect light is much more [so] than faith: therefore if faith falls away, so also does the character.

5. Likewise, that it is deleted in the damned seems [the case]: because the character in some way fits one for grace[^7]; but then they will be wholly unfit: therefore they will lack the character.

### Conclusion.

> **Conclusion.** The character is an indelible sign, because it is a habit impressed on a perpetual subject for the purpose of distinguishing.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is the common opinion that the character is an indelible property. But concerning the *cause* of this indelibility different [authors] hold differently.

For some say that, because the character is in the soul according to its *substance* or essence, and this is perpetual and invariable, therefore the character also [is so]. — But this was disproved above[^8].

Others say that, because it is in the soul according to the *cognitive* power, which is not subject to variability as is the will — for we know certain things even with the will unwilling — therefore it is invariable. — But this does not hold, because through ignorance the cognitive habits are expelled[^9], but not the character.

A third group says that, just as from the obligation of matrimony an insoluble bond is contracted as long as one lives, so likewise from the reception of a Sacrament: namely because there is there a certain *spiritual matrimony*; and since both God and the soul are things having a perpetual duration, therefore the character always endures. — But although this can be said of baptism, where there is a certain contracting of matrimony[^10], yet not [so] in the other Sacraments.

And therefore it must be said otherwise, that the perpetuity of the character is taken principally from its *condition* and nature. — Whence it must be noted that there is an *innate* habit, and this is wholly indelible; and there is an *acquired* habit, and this, because it is from acquisition, can be lost; and there is an *infused* or given habit, and this is twofold. One is *given for directing*, and because the powers can be deflected, therefore it is deletable — for it can find a repugnance in the subject — and another [is] impressed for distinguishing, and to this the direction[^11] or deflection of the power is not repugnant. For if anything were repugnant, this alone would be the opposite consignation; but the opposite cannot be, because God alone can consign His own image: therefore, if it must be signed with an opposite sign, it will be done by God alone. But He never imprints a sign contrary to Himself; therefore it is necessary that the character persevere eternally. Since, therefore, the character is a property existing in a perpetual subject, in which it cannot have a repugnance, therefore its impression is perpetual.

**To the objections:**
*To 1 and 2.* To that which is objected concerning the character of the beast, it must be said that the character of the beast is not called some seal which the devil has impressed on the soul, but a fault perpetrated according to its will, in which the soul is disposed through obstinacy toward perpetuity; and therefore it is not entirely similar[^12].

*To 3.* To that which is asked, from what it has this; it must be said that [it has it] from its *condition*, with the subject concurring, not being repugnant; and from the *efficient [cause]* not producing the contrary nor withdrawing [it][^13].

*To 5.* To that which is objected concerning the damned, it must be said that in the damned it remains for confusion, in the Blessed for whatever degree of adornment.

*To 4.* As to what is objected, that it is *in part*; it must be said that the imperfection of the character is compatible with the perfection of glory[^14]; but it is not so with the imperfection of faith, because faith, insofar as it is a virtue, implies an enigma and the absence of the thing believed, and this is repugnant to the state of glory; and therefore it is voided, not insofar as it is light only, but insofar as it has annexed an enigma and the absence of the thing in itself, which is essential to faith insofar as it is a virtue; otherwise, if it saw with certitude, there would be no merit[^15]. But it is not so with the *character*, since it implies a certain consignation and a certain light; and this has no opposition to the perfect light nor has it opposition to the darkness of punishment on account of the smallness of its light: therefore it is neither voided there nor extinguished here[^16] [^17].

---

la: Cfr. quaest. seq., lit. Magistri, d. VII. 3, ibid. Comment. dub. 6, lit. Magistri, d. XXV. c. 1; nec non d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seqq.

en: Cf. the following question, Lombard's text, d. VII. 3, and there the Commentary, dub. 6; Lombard's text, d. XXV, c. 1; and also d. 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 1 ff.

la: Vide supra q. 2. solut. ad obiect. de assimilatione.

en: See above, q. 2, the solution to the objection concerning assimilation.

la: Vers. 9. et 11.

en: Verses 9 and 11.

la: Hinc August. dicit, de nemine desperandum esse, dum est in via. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 584, nota 8.

en: Hence Augustine says that no one is to be despaired of while he is on the way. Cf. vol. III, p. 584, note 8.

la: Cfr. Damasc. I. de Fide orthod. c. 3. et II. c. 27. seq. — Superius post *indelebile* codd. M addit *quod falsum est*.

en: Cf. John Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* I, c. 3, and II, c. 27 f. — Above, after *indelebile*, codices M add *quod falsum est* («which is false»).

la: Epist. I. Cor. 13, 10: Cum autem venerit quod perfectum est evacuabitur quod ex parte est. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. — De charactere, in quantum est lumen, vide supra q. 1. circa finem corp.

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 13:10: «But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.» Cf. III Sent. d. 31, a. 2, q. 1. — On the character insofar as it is light, see above, q. 1, near the end of the body.

la: Cfr. supra q. 2.

en: Cf. above, q. 2.

la: Cod. U addit *perpetuus et*. Mox pro *sentiunt* cod. G *senserunt*.

en: Codex U adds *perpetuus et* («perpetual and»). Shortly, for *sentiunt* («they hold») codex G reads *senserunt* («they held»).

la: Quaest. 3.

en: Question 3.

la: Aristot., de Longitud. et brevit. vitae, c. 2: Ignorantiae quidem corruptio reminiscentia et disciplina, scientiae autem oblivio et deceptio.

en: Aristotle, *On Length and Shortness of Life*, c. 2: «The corruption of ignorance is indeed recollection and instruction, but [the corruption] of knowledge is forgetfulness and deception.»

la: Per actum renuntiandi diabolo et credendi in Deum. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. — Superius pro *scilicet quia*, quod habent codd. G I, cod. F (E a secunda manu) *quia*, alii codd. et ed. I *sed quia*, Vat. *et quia*.

en: Through the act of renouncing the devil and believing in God. Cf. here Lombard's text, c. 6. — Above, for *scilicet quia* («namely because»), which codices G I have, codex F (E by a second hand) [reads] *quia*; other codices and ed. I [read] *sed quia*; the Vatican [edition reads] *et quia*.

la: Edd. *indirectio*, cod. A *distinctioni*.

en: The editions [read] *indirectio*; codex A [reads] *distinctioni*.

la: Beda, II. in Apoc. 14, 11: *Bestiam* sanctus Augustinus [inter opera eius, Expos. in Apoc. hom. 11.] impiam civitatem, *imaginem* vero eius simulationem avis [ita edd. pro *Agni*] id est fallaci imagine christianos, *characterem* autem notam criminis interpretatur, quam adorari et subiici ei et consentiri dicit. — Pro *in qua*, quod habent codd. E F, alii et edd. *in quo*.

en: Bede, II, on Apocalypse 14:11: St. Augustine [among his works, *Exposition on the Apocalypse*, hom. 11] interprets the *beast* as the impious city, its *image* as the feigning of the bird [thus the editions, for *of the Lamb*], that is, [Christians] under a false image of Christians, and the *character* as the mark of crime, which he says is adored and submitted to and consented to. — For *in qua* («in which» [fem.]), which codices E F have, others and the editions [read] *in quo* («in which» [neut.]).

la: Supple cum Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 8. a. 1. § 5, adminiculum.

en: Supply, with Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 8, m. 8, a. 1, § 5, the support [of the argument].

la: Permulti codd. et ed. I omittunt *gloriae*, et pro *quod imperfectio characteris* substituunt vel *quod imperfectio caritatis* vel *quod sua imperfectio*, cod. G legit bene: *quod sua perfectio, sicut et perfectio caritatis, compatitur secum imperfectionem*. Subinde auctoritate codd. A bb et Alex. Hal., p. IV. q. 8. a. 1. § 5, nec non contextu exigente, substituimus *de imperfectione fidei* pro *de perfectione fidei*.

en: Very many codices and ed. I omit *gloriae* («of glory»), and for *quod imperfectio characteris* («that the imperfection of the character») substitute either *quod imperfectio caritatis* («that the imperfection of charity») or *quod sua imperfectio* («that its imperfection»); codex G reads well: *quod sua perfectio, sicut et perfectio caritatis, compatitur secum imperfectionem* («that its perfection, like the perfection of charity, is compatible with imperfection»). Thereupon, on the authority of codices A bb and of Alexander of Hales, p. IV, q. 8, a. 1, § 5, and as the context requires, we have substituted *de imperfectione fidei* («of the imperfection of faith») for *de perfectione fidei* («of the perfection of faith»).

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 24. a. 2. q. 1. et d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. — Pro *videret certitudinaliter* Vat. *videretur praesentialiter*.

en: Cf. III Sent. d. 24, a. 2, q. 1, and d. 31, a. 2, q. 1. — For *videret certitudinaliter* («saw with certitude») the Vatican [edition reads] *videretur praesentialiter* («were seen presentially»).

la: Vide scholion ad 4. huius articuli quaest.

en: See the scholion to the 4th question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`tools/colcrop.py vol4 144 1880` and `vol4 145 1880`, split x≈1880) with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 16487–16646) as base for the clean running prose; the cascade-shattered videtur/Respondeo/Solutio/footer regions were taken from the PDF per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority inversion. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed pp.144–145 = pdf pp.164–165). Running heads confirmed by text: p.144 (left page, header "144 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV"); p.145 header "DIST. VI. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. V." — both verified eyes-on, NOT trusted from OCR'd digits.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.144** (left page): top = end of sibling q4 (Epilogus, Ratio distinguendi/multiplicandi/ordinandi) + the article's single SCHOLION block (foot, spanning both columns). q5 begins **lower-left of p.144** with the QUAESTIO V header. q5 body on p.144 = videtur args 1 (left col) and 2–3–4–5 + Contra args 1–2 (right col, with arg 1 of Contra also appearing left-col bottom). Footers: printed p.144 nn.1–2 anchor in q4 (already taken by d6-a1-q4 as its [^14]–[^15]); **printed p.144 nn.3–9 anchor in q5** and are this chunk's [^1]–[^7].
- **p.145**: q5's Conclusio + Respondeo (four opinions: substantia/cognitiva/matrimonium improbatae, auctoris opinion on conditio + triplex habitus) + Solutio (Ad 1.2 / Ad 3 / Ad 5 / Ad 4). Footers: printed p.145 nn.1–10 → this chunk's [^8]–[^17].
- Apparatus total: **17 entries** (7 from p.144, 10 from p.145), renumbered continuously.

**Hand-off PICKED UP (from d6-a1-q4):** p.144 footer is shared; nn.1–2 are q4's (already claimed as q4's [^14]–[^15]); nn.3–9 are q5's. Confirmed against the column bands — the q5 videtur/contra markers ¹–⁹ (renumbered here [^1]–[^7], the marker glyphs running 3–9 on the printed page) all anchor in q5 body. No q5 footer was left behind in q4.

**Hand-off FORWARDED to d6-a1-q6 (*Utrum baptismus iteretur* / de iteratione Sacramentorum):** q5 closes cleanly at the foot of p.145 right column (the Solutio's "ad 4" reply, ending "…nec ibi evacuatur nec hic exstinguitur" + footer n.10 = this chunk's [^17]). QUAESTIO VI begins at raw L16647 (OCR'd "QUAESTIO \T.") on the next printed page (**p.146**, raw "146 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV" at L16642). p.146 is NOT shared with q5 — q5 does not run onto it. d6-a1-q6 starts fresh on p.146 with its own footer sequence.

**[?] SCHOLION-SWEEP FLAG (for the d.10 decade-gate scholion sweep):** The articulus unicus of d.6 has a **single SCHOLION block** printed at the foot of p.144 (left column bottom continuing into the right column), NOT a per-question scholion. It is divided into three numbered sections by which question they address:
- **Section I** — "In hac quaestione solvenda omnes satis conveniunt. Attamen Scot. …" (addresses **q4**, on whether a character was imprinted in circumcision).
- **Section II** — "Quoad seq. (5.) quaestionem tum Eugenii IV. Decretum pro Armenis tum Concil. Trident. …" (explicitly keyed to the **5th question** = this q5, on indelibility; cites Eugenius IV's Decree for the Armenians and Trent Sess. VII can. 9).
- **Section III** — "De 6. quaestione cfr. infra d. 23. a. 2. q. 4 …" (addresses **q6**, on iteration of baptism).

All three sections (I, II, III) were rendered IN FULL by sibling chunk **d6-a1-q4** (its `### Scholion`, both languages). Therefore **q5 renders NO scholion here** to avoid duplicating section II (the genuinely q5-keyed text already present in q4). `has_scholion: false` for this chunk is deliberate. **Decade-gate decision needed:** whether the q5-keyed section II should be MIGRATED out of q4 into q5 (and section III into q6), so each question carries its own scholion section, OR whether the whole block correctly lives once on q4 (the question on whose page it physically prints). Recommend resolving consistently across d6-a1-q4/q5/q6 in the d.1–d.10 scholion sweep. No text is lost either way — section II is fully present (verbatim La + literal En) in d6-a1-q4 as of 2026-06-20.

No other inline `[?]` ambiguities: the PDF column bands were legible throughout pp.144–145 at 450 dpi.

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, Art. 1, Q. 6

source_text:
<!-- page 146 -->

### Quaestio VI. *Utrum baptismus possit et debeat iterari.*

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum baptismus debeat iterari. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quoniam possibile est, aliquem baptizari, qui nihil gratiae percipit per baptismum[^1]: ergo si non debet esse sibi via salutis praeclusa, debet et potest iterari isti baptismus.

2. Item, duo dantur in baptismo, scilicet character et gratia[^2]; sed quamvis character sit indelebilis, tamen gratia est delebilis: ergo saltem ratione gratiae potest et debet iterari.

**Contra:** 1. Si baptismus posset iterari: ergo posset quilibet impune peccare, cum ibi fiat remissio culpae et poenae.

2. Item, si *effectus* non potest iterari, nec *causa*: ergo si character non potest iterari, nec signum visibile sive baptismus.

Item, multa non debent fieri de iure, quae, si fiunt de facto, facta sunt: ut sacerdos praecisus non debet conficere, sed si conficit, confectum est[^3]; quaeritur ergo, utrum in hoc casu aliquid fiat. Et quod sic, videtur: quia « accedente verbo ad elementum, fit Sacramentum[^4] ».

### Conclusio

> Baptismus nec debet nec potest iterari.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod baptismus nec *debet* nec potest iterari. Quia non potest, ideo qui iterat nihil facit; quia vero non *debet*, qui scienter iterat gravissime peccat.

Ratio autem, quare non *debeat* iterari, triplex est. Prima est ratione *morbi*, quem curat, scilicet peccati originalis, qui non potest *iterari*[^5]. Secunda est ratione eius quod principaliter *significat*, ut passionem et resurrectionem, quam impossibile est *iterari*. Tertia est ratione *efficaciae* in curando, quia absolvit a poena et a culpa[^6]; et tunc mali non essent puniti, si semper, cum peccarent, deberent baptizari.

Ratio, quare non *potest*, est *characteris impressio*, qui, ex quo semel imprimitur, amplius imprimi non potest; et ille est effectus Sacramenti primus, sine quo nihil facit Sacramentum. — Alia est *divina institutio*, quia Dominus instituit, ut perfectam et unicam haberet efficaciam et semel tantum fieret; si ergo fit secundo, nihil fit in anima, et ita cassatur Sacramentum scienter. — Et propter hoc iterans baptismum nihil facit omnino et magis peccat quam ille qui ficte accedit, quia facit contra ordinationem divinam; facit etiam contumeliam Sacramento; facit et contumeliam Christo, quia, quantum est de se, Filium Dei crucifigit sibi et ostentui habet[^7], cum unicum sit baptisma et unicam efficaciam habeat perfectam a passione unica. Et ideo sancti Patres gravem poenam imposuerunt rebaptizantibus et rebaptizatis scienter propter gravitatem culpae; quia rebaptizatio aut sapit haeresim, aut si non sapit, gravissimum contemptum Dei et Sacramenti inducit, et ideo graviter debet puniri.

**Ad argumenta:**

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de fictione, dicendum, quod fictione recedente, character totum supplet, quod Sacramentum sine fictione faceret[^8].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de gratia, dicendum, quod gratia non est effectus immediatus, sed mediante charactere[^9]; et ideo nihil fit, quando non imprimitur character.

Ad ultimum dicendum, quod qui iterat baptismum nec de facto nec de iure Sacramentum tradit, quia ille non est susceptibilis; sed[^10] quando exterius abluit, si scienter vel negligenter facit, graviter peccat; si vero diligentia adhibita, etsi nihil faciat interius, tamen non peccat[^11].

---

english:
### Question VI. *Whether baptism can and ought to be repeated.*

Sixth and last it is asked whether baptism ought to be repeated. And that it ought, it seems:

1. Because it is possible that someone be baptized who receives no grace through baptism[^1]: therefore, if the way of salvation ought not to be closed off to him, this baptism ought and can be repeated for him.

2. Likewise, two things are given in baptism, namely character and grace[^2]; but although the character is indelible, nevertheless the grace is deletable: therefore at least by reason of the grace it can and ought to be repeated.

**On the contrary:** 1. If baptism could be repeated, then anyone could sin with impunity, since therein remission of fault and penalty is made.

2. Likewise, if the *effect* cannot be repeated, neither can the *cause*: therefore if the character cannot be repeated, neither can the visible sign, that is, baptism.

Likewise, there are many things which by right ought not to be done, which, if they are done in fact, are done: as a suspended priest ought not to consecrate, but if he does consecrate, it is consecrated[^3]; it is asked, therefore, whether in this case anything is brought about. And that it is, it seems: because « when the word is joined to the element, the Sacrament comes to be[^4] ».

### Conclusion

> Baptism neither ought to nor can be repeated.

**I respond:** It must be said that baptism neither *ought to* nor can be repeated. Because it cannot, therefore he who repeats it brings nothing about; but because it *ought* not to be, he who knowingly repeats it sins most gravely.

Now the reason why it *ought* not to be repeated is threefold. The first is by reason of the *disease* which it cures, namely original sin, which cannot be *repeated*[^5]. The second is by reason of that which it principally *signifies*, namely the Passion and Resurrection, which it is impossible to *repeat*. The third is by reason of its *efficacy* in curing, since it absolves from penalty and from fault[^6]; and then the wicked would not be punished, if always, whenever they sinned, they ought to be baptized.

The reason why it *cannot* be repeated is the *impression of the character*, which, once it is imprinted, can no longer be imprinted; and that is the first effect of the Sacrament, without which the Sacrament does nothing. — Another is *divine institution*, because the Lord instituted that it should have a perfect and unique efficacy and be done only once; if therefore it is done a second time, nothing is brought about in the soul, and thus the Sacrament is knowingly annulled. — And on account of this, one who repeats baptism brings about nothing at all and sins more than he who approaches feignedly, because he acts against the divine ordinance; he also does insult to the Sacrament; he does insult to Christ as well, because, so far as in him lies, he crucifies the Son of God for himself and holds him up to mockery[^7], since baptism is unique and has its unique and perfect efficacy from the unique Passion. And therefore the holy Fathers imposed a grave penalty upon those who rebaptize and those who are knowingly rebaptized, on account of the gravity of the fault; for rebaptism either savors of heresy, or if it does not savor of it, it brings in a most grave contempt of God and of the Sacrament, and therefore ought to be gravely punished.

**To the arguments:**

1. To that which is objected concerning feigning, it must be said that, when the feigning withdraws, the character supplies the whole of what the Sacrament would have done without feigning[^8].

2. To that which is objected concerning grace, it must be said that grace is not an immediate effect, but [comes about] through the mediation of the character[^9]; and therefore nothing is brought about when the character is not imprinted.

To the last it must be said that he who repeats baptism delivers the Sacrament neither in fact nor by right, because that man is not capable of receiving it; but[^10] when he washes outwardly, if he does so knowingly or negligently, he sins gravely; but if it is done with diligence applied, even though he brings nothing about inwardly, nevertheless he does not sin[^11].

---

la: Cfr. supra d. 4. p. 1. a. 2. q. 2. seq. — Post *aliquem* edd. subiungunt *ficte accedentem*.

en: Cf. above, d. 4, p. 1, a. 2, q. 2 ff. — After *aliquem* the editions add *ficte accedentem* ("approaching feignedly").

la: Vide supra d. 3. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4. — De minori cfr. quaest. praeced.

en: See above, d. 3, p. 1, a. 1, q. 1, ad 4. — On the minor [premise] cf. the preceding question.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 13. a. 1. q. 1.

en: As is shown below, d. 13, a. 1, q. 1.

la: August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 80. n. 3.

en: Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John*, tr. 80, n. 3.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 32. a. 1. q. 1. in principio corp.

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 32, a. 1, q. 1, at the beginning of the body.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 4. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Mox pro *puniti* edd. *puniendi*. Interius post *non potest* edd. addunt *iterari*, cod. X. *est duplex, una*.

en: As was shown above, d. 4, p. 1, a. 1, q. 1 ff. — Presently for *puniti* the editions read *puniendi*. Within, after *non potest* the editions add *iterari*; codex X [reads] *est duplex, una* ("is twofold, one").

la: Respicitur Hebr. 6, 6: *Rursum crucifigentes sibimetipsis Filium Dei et ostentui habentes.* Cfr. Alcuin., in hunc loc., et infra dub. 1. seq. — Canon Apostol. 46: *Episcopus aut presbyter, si eum qui verum baptisma habeat, iterum baptizaverit, aut pollutum ab impiis non baptizaverit, deponitor, ut qui crucem et mortem Domini derideat neque descernat etc.* — De poenis scienter rebaptizatorum cfr. C. *Eos quos* (118.), de Consecrat. d. 4.

en: Hebrews 6:6 is in view: *crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.* Cf. Alcuin, on this passage, and below, dub. 1 ff. — Apostolic Canon 46: *A bishop or presbyter who shall rebaptize one who has true baptism, or who shall not baptize one defiled by the impious, let him be deposed, as one who derides and does not discern the cross and death of the Lord, etc.* — On the penalties for those knowingly rebaptized, cf. the canon *Eos quos* (118), de Consecrat., d. 4.

la: Vide supra d. 4. p. 1. a. 2. q. 3. — Superius pro *de fictione* edd. *de ficte accedente*.

en: See above, d. 4, p. 1, a. 2, q. 3. — Above, for *de fictione* the editions read *de ficte accedente* ("concerning one approaching feignedly").

la: Cfr. supra q. 2, et Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 8. m. 12. — Vat. addit *infunditur a Deo*.

en: Cf. above, q. 2, and Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 8, m. 12. — The Vatican edition adds *infunditur a Deo* ("is infused by God").

la: Vat., post *tradit*, addito *vel recipit*, hic legit: *sed tantum exterius abluit. Et si scienter* etc.; cod. F *scilicet quando*, codd. A H K *sed quoniam*.

en: The Vatican edition, after *tradit*, having added *vel recipit* ("or receives"), reads here: *sed tantum exterius abluit. Et si scienter* etc. ("but only washes outwardly. And if knowingly," etc.); codex F [reads] *scilicet quando* ("namely when"), codices A H K [read] *sed quoniam* ("but since").

en: See the scholion to question 4 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Quaracchi PDF column bands (`raw/doctorisseraphic04bona.pdf`, two-column, split x≈1880; offset pdf = printed + 20, so printed p.146 = pdf p.166) for the Respondeo / Ad-argumenta / footer regions where the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw lines 16647–16770) cascade-shatters; OCR retained as base for clean running prose (videtur / contra args) and for footnote-marker spacing. Per the VOL II OVERRIDE recipe (Vol IV applies it), the column-band PDF read is authoritative in the damaged regions.

**Page span.** This quaestio occupies **printed p.146 ONLY** (a single page). It begins fresh on p.146 left column (running head "SENTENTIARUM" / "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; banner QUAESTIO VI; opener *Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum baptismus debeat iterari*), with its own per-page footer sequence restarting at 1. The body reflows: p.146 LEFT column top→bottom (videtur 1–2, Contra 1–2, the *Quaestio incidens* on the suspended priest, Conclusio, Respondeo opening + first two *rationes*), then p.146 RIGHT column (third *ratio*, the *ratio quare non potest*, and the three replies). The whole quaestio closes before the page foot; the next printed page (p.147) opens "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" / DUB. I, which is the next chunk (`d6-p1-dubia`). Marginal editorial labels seen on the page (*Ad oppositum*, *Fundamenta*, *Quaestio incidens*, *Conclusio*, *Ratio triplex pro primo*, *Ratio duplex pro secundo*, *Corollarium*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Ad quaest. incid.*) are Quaracchi marginalia, not Bonaventure's text, and are omitted.

**Apparatus.** 11 footnotes, all on printed p.146 (single per-page sequence nn.1–11). Left-column footers = nn.1–7; right-column footers = nn.8–11. No renumbering was needed (single page). Footer n.11 («Vide scholion ad 4. huius articuli quaest.») confirms the q6 scholion content is held at q4.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. The articulus unicus (de charactere) has a single SCHOLION block printed at the foot of p.144, internally numbered I–III; it was rendered IN FULL inside sibling chunk `d6-a1-q4`. Its **section III** («De 6. quaestione cfr. infra d. 23. a. 2. q. 4, et Concil. Trident., Sess. VII. de baptismo can. 11…») is the q6-keyed material. To avoid duplicating section III, q6 renders NO scholion. A separate q6-specific scholion was searched for on PDF p.146 and p.147 (column bands read eyes-on) and **none exists** — what the raw OCR fragments as a "Scholion" header on p.146 is in fact the CONCLUSIO blockquote (*Baptismus nec debet nec potest iterari*), and p.147 begins the DUBIA. Footer n.11 of this quaestio independently cross-refers the reader to "the scholion to question 4 of this article."

**Hand-offs picked up.** From `d6-a1-q5`: q5 closed on p.145; QUAESTIO VI begins fresh on p.146 (raw L16647), unshared with q5, with its own footer sequence from 1. Confirmed: no shared page footer with q5 — q6 owns all of p.146's nn.1–11.

**Hand-off FORWARDED to `d6-p1-dubia`.** This quaestio fully closes on printed p.146; it does NOT bleed onto p.147. **DUBIA begins fresh at raw L16771** (running head "DIST. VI. P. 1. DUBIA" / banner "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" / DUB. I, *In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram…*) at the top of printed p.147 — its own page, its own footer sequence restarting at 1. No q6 body text or footnote is owed to the dubia chunk, and no dubia material is held here; the seam is page-clean (no mid-page boundary).

**[?] flags.**
- [?] **scholion-sweep (d.10 decade gate):** p.144 scholion section III («De 6. quaestione…») belongs to q6 but is currently held in `d6-a1-q4`; decade gate to decide migrate-vs-keep. This q6 renders no scholion to avoid duplicating it; footer n.11 here corroborates the cross-reference.


title: Dist. 6, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 149 -->

### Articulus I. *De idoneitate ex parte baptizati.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum aliquis in utero possit baptizari.*

Circa primum quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum aliquis possit in utero baptizari, sicut et sanctificari. Secundo, utrum sanctificati in utero debeant baptizari.

Et quod aliquis possit baptizari in utero, ostenditur sic.

1. Maior est gratia sanctificationis quam gratia baptismalis; sed parvulus in utero est susceptibilis gratiae sanctificationis, sicut patet de Ioanne Baptista et Ieremia: de Ioanne, Lucae primo[^1]: *Spiritu sancto replebitur adhuc ex utero matris suae.* Si ergo parvulus in utero est capax gratiae sanctificationis, videtur similiter, quod et gratiae baptismalis.

2. Item, pronior est Deus ad miserandum quam ad condemnandum[^2]; sed parvulus in utero non tantum est susceptibilis culpae, sed etiam poenae: ergo videtur, quod Deus debeat in utero remedium praeparare. Sed remedium contra culpam originalem est baptismus: ergo videtur, quod homo possit in utero baptizari.

**Sed contra:**

1. Augustinus dicit, et habetur in littera[^3]: « Non potest quis renasci, antequam sit natus »; sed baptizari est renasci: ergo non potest baptizari, antequam nascatur.

2. Item, originalis culpa contrahitur ex carne corrupta[^4]: ergo quamdiu parvulus est coniunctus carni corruptae, est coniunctus causae morbi, quia semper nutritur sanguine menstruo: ergo non debet quis purificari in loco infectionis, nisi separetur: ergo non debet baptizari, antequam nascatur et a matre separetur.

3. Item, baptismus est Sacramentum exterius[^5], et omne aliud Sacramentum: ergo nullus est susceptibilis baptismi, nisi exterius prodeat in lucem: non ergo baptizabilis est, quamdiu in utero latet.

> **Conclusio.** Baptismus non potest dari existentibus in utero.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod ratio, quare quis non purificatur nec baptizatur in utero, est divina institutio, quae sic instituit. Ratio autem divinae institutionis assignatur congruitatis, non necessitatis, quia posset utique aliter esse, si Deus vellet. Et secundum diversos plures et diversae congruentiae assignantur.

Fuerunt enim qui dixerunt, quod ratio sumitur ex parte *aequitatis divini iudicii*, quae[^6] « nec parvulum nec adultum iustificat sine aliquantula poena; et ideo debuit circa parvulum aliquid fieri poenale ad hoc, ut iustificaretur; et illud dicunt fuisse omni tempore. » — Sed ista ratio non videtur conveniens, quia non est generalis. Nam tempore legis naturae, ut dicit Gregorius[^7], iustificabantur in sola fide parentum. Praeterea, esto quod parvulus baptizetur in aqua calida sive tepida, potius esset ei solatium quam poena, et ita haec ratio non sufficit.

<!-- page 150 -->

Fuerunt alii, qui dixerunt, quod ratio sumitur ex parte *Sacramenti.* Quia enim in originali peccato et est caro infecta et anima deformata; ideo Sacramentum baptismi duo habet, scilicet aquam et Spiritum, ut dicit Damascenus[^8], et quodam modo est ibi purificatio et generatio carnis et spiritus: et ideo non tantum praesupponit nativitatem *in utero*, quae est in infusione animae, verum etiam nativitatem *ex utero*, quae est in egressu. — Et ista quidem ratio bona est, sed particularis, quia non valet ad remedium legis naturae, quod non respiciebat parvuli carnem[^9].

Fuerunt et alii, qui sumserunt rationem ex parte *culpae.* Quia enim culpa originalis contracta est ex carne infecta et ex carne parentum secundum actum generationis; totum tempus generationis et cibationis ex illa carne infecta, ut puta ex sanguine menstruo, est tempus deputatum peccato, non remedio: et ideo ante necesse est, a carne matris parvulum separari, et totam generationis actionem consummari, quam superveniat benedictio, quoniam illud totum est tempus maledictionis. — Et ista quidem ratio bona est, nisi etiam repugnaret sanctificationi, quoniam ibi datur gratia mundans a culpa originali.

Fuerunt et quarti, qui dixerunt, quod ratio est ex parte *gratiae.* Quia enim gratiae est dare *esse ordinatum* et gratiae est *regenerare*; et *esse ordinatum* praesupponit *esse distinctum*[^10], et *renasci* praesupponit *nasci*: ideo necesse est, quod ante baptismum parvulus nascatur, ut sit *perfecte natus* secundum carnem, sit etiam *distinctus*, quoniam quamdiu est in ventre, coniungitur matrici per umbilicum, unde recipit alimentum. — Et haec quidem ratio bona est, maxime quia consonat et ortum habet a verbis Sanctorum[^11]; tamen adhuc per istam rationem posset ostendi, quod parvulus non deberet sanctificari in utero, sicut nec baptizari.

Et propterea est dicendum, quod ratio sumenda est ex parte *sacramentalis remedii.* Quia enim sacramentale remedium respicit operationem Ecclesiae; et operatio Ecclesiae non se extendit ad parvulum nisi extra uterum: ideo nullo tempore nec fide parentum nec aliquo Sacramento iustificatus est parvulus, antequam natus, quantum est de lege communi; quia Deus decrevit salvare puerum per Sacramentum, vel aliquid, quod sit loco Sacramenti.

Ad hoc autem intelligendum est notandum, quod triplex status distinguitur in homine post animae infusionem: primus est in utero; secundus extra uterum in statu infantiae; tertius in statu naturae adultae. In primo statu manifestus est Deo; in secundo manifestus est nobis; in tertio manifestus est sibi. — In primo igitur statu, cum soli Deo sit notus, potest per eius voluntatem[^5p150] sanctificari, non per nostram cooperationem, cum non cognoscat eum Ecclesia, nec sit de foro Ecclesiae. In secundo statu, quia notus est Deo et Ecclesiae, remedium potest habere a Deo, cooperante adiutorio alieno, non suo. In tertio statu, cum sit omnibus modis notus, scilicet Deo et sibi et Ecclesiae, potest omnibus his modis adiuvari, ut non tantum Deus sua virtute faciat, sed adiuvet fides aliena quantum ad Sacramentum et fides et devotio propria. — Prima igitur sanctificatio est per divinam voluntatem et pertinet ad singulare privilegium. Secunda vero est per legem datam, sicut patet in circumcisione, patet etiam in baptismate, cum dictum est Ioannis tertio[^6p150]: *Nisi quis renatus fuerit* etc. Tertia est per legem inditam, quam Deus indidit, ut ad Deum recurrat homo petere veniam pro offensa. — Et prima quidem est paucorum, ut puta illorum quos deputat ad aliquod magnum officium, et est praeter legem communem. Ita enim decrevit divina iustitia, ut, quantum est de lege communi, non relevetur qui cecidit, nisi aliqua dispositio occurrat; et parvulus quidem, sicut per alium cecidit, ita potest per alium relevari disponendo, ut puta per fidem alienam; adultus autem per propriam, sicut per propriam voluntatem peccavit. — Quia vero in utero non potest per fidem alienam vel per[^7p150] Sacramentum adiuvari, quoniam non est de foro Ecclesiae nec nobis notus; et hoc decrevit Deus de lege communi: ideo nullus in ventre purificatus est nisi de privilegio speciali. Quoniam igitur baptismus respicit legem communem et legem datam; ideo non debet quis[^8p150] in utero baptizari. Et haec ratio communis est omnibus Sacramentis secundum omne tempus.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Et patet responsio ad illud quod obiicitur de sanctificatione. Concedo enim quod Deus posset dare gratiam, si vellet, parvulo; sed per Sacramentum baptismi vel aliud[^9p150] ecclesiasticum non debet fieri, non quia maius sit, sed quia alius est modus, qui non competit illi statui.

<!-- page 151 -->

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus pronior est ad miserandum; dicendum, quod verum est; sed tamen cum misericordia currit iustitia: et ideo, quia iustitia dictabat, ut aliqua *satisfactio*, vel aliquod *praeparatorium* fieret sibi pro parvulo, ideo ante non remittebat culpam; tamen non continet *misericordiam suam in ira*[^1p151]; quia hoc ipsum, quod conservat in utero et praeparat remedium extra, misericordiae est: et si retribuisset Adae secundum peccatum suum, totam posteritatem eius delesset.

english:
### Article I. *On the suitability on the part of the one to be baptized.*
### Question I. *Whether anyone can be baptized in the womb.*

Concerning the first [article] two things are asked. First it is asked, whether anyone can be baptized in the womb, just as [he can be] sanctified. Second, whether those sanctified in the womb ought to be baptized.

And that anyone can be baptized in the womb is shown thus.

1. The grace of sanctification is greater than baptismal grace; but the infant in the womb is capable of the grace of sanctification, as is clear in the case of John the Baptist and Jeremiah: of John, in Luke chapter one[^1]: *He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb.* If therefore the infant in the womb is capable of the grace of sanctification, it seems likewise that [he is capable] also of baptismal grace.

2. Likewise, God is more inclined to have mercy than to condemn[^2]; but the infant in the womb is capable not only of guilt, but also of punishment: therefore it seems that God ought to prepare a remedy in the womb. But the remedy against original guilt is baptism: therefore it seems that a man can be baptized in the womb.

**On the contrary:**

1. Augustine says, and it is found in the text [of the Master][^3]: « No one can be reborn before he is born »; but to be baptized is to be reborn: therefore one cannot be baptized before he is born.

2. Likewise, original guilt is contracted from the corrupted flesh[^4]: therefore so long as the infant is joined to the corrupted flesh, he is joined to the cause of the disease, since he is always nourished by menstrual blood: therefore one ought not be purified in the place of infection unless he is separated [from it]: therefore he ought not be baptized before he is born and separated from the mother.

3. Likewise, baptism is an exterior Sacrament[^5], as is every other Sacrament: therefore no one is capable of baptism unless he comes forth into the light outwardly: he is therefore not baptizable so long as he lies hidden in the womb.

> **Conclusion.** Baptism cannot be given to those existing in the womb.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that the reason why someone is not purified nor baptized in the womb is the divine institution, which has so instituted it. But the reason for the divine institution is assigned [as one] of fittingness, not of necessity, since it could indeed be otherwise, if God willed. And according to different [authors] more and different fittingnesses are assigned.

For there were those who said that the reason is taken on the part of the *equity of the divine judgment*, which[^6] « justifies neither infant nor adult without some little punishment; and therefore there had to be done something penal concerning the infant in order that he might be justified; and this, they say, was so at all times. » — But this reason does not seem fitting, because it is not general. For in the time of the law of nature, as Gregory says[^7], they were justified by the faith of the parents alone. Moreover, granted that an infant be baptized in warm or tepid water, it would rather be a comfort to him than a punishment, and so this reason does not suffice.

Others there were who said that the reason is taken on the part of the *Sacrament.* For since in original sin both the flesh is infected and the soul deformed; therefore the Sacrament of baptism has two things, namely water and the Spirit, as Damascene says[^8], and in a certain way there is there a purification and a generation of flesh and spirit: and therefore it presupposes not only the birth *in the womb*, which is in the infusion of the soul, but also the birth *from the womb*, which is in the coming-forth. — And this reason indeed is good, but particular, because it does not avail for the remedy of the law of nature, which did not regard the infant's flesh[^9].

And there were yet others who took the reason on the part of *guilt.* For since original guilt is contracted from the infected flesh and from the flesh of the parents according to the act of generation; the whole time of generation and of feeding from that infected flesh, as for instance from menstrual blood, is a time assigned to sin, not to remedy: and therefore it is necessary beforehand that the infant be separated from the mother's flesh, and that the whole action of generation be completed, before the blessing supervenes, since that whole [time] is the time of malediction. — And this reason indeed is good, except that it would also be repugnant to sanctification, since there grace cleansing from original guilt is given.

And there were fourth ones, who said that the reason is on the part of *grace.* For since it belongs to grace to give *ordered being* and it belongs to grace to *regenerate*; and *ordered being* presupposes *distinct being*[^10], and *to be reborn* presupposes *to be born*: therefore it is necessary that before baptism the infant be born, so that he be *perfectly born* according to the flesh, and be also *distinct*, since so long as he is in the womb, he is joined to the womb by the umbilical cord, whence he receives nourishment. — And this reason indeed is good, especially because it accords with and takes its origin from the words of the Saints[^11]; yet by this reason it could still be shown that the infant ought not be sanctified in the womb, just as neither [ought he] to be baptized.

And therefore it must be said that the reason is to be taken on the part of the *sacramental remedy.* For since the sacramental remedy regards the operation of the Church; and the operation of the Church does not extend to the infant except outside the womb: therefore at no time, neither by the faith of the parents nor by any Sacrament, is the infant justified before he is born, as far as the common law is concerned; for God decreed to save the child through the Sacrament, or through something which is in place of the Sacrament.

For the understanding of this it must be noted that a threefold state is distinguished in man after the infusion of the soul: the first is in the womb; the second outside the womb in the state of infancy; the third in the state of adult nature. In the first state he is manifest to God; in the second he is manifest to us; in the third he is manifest to himself. — In the first state, therefore, since he is known to God alone, he can by His will[^5p150] be sanctified, not by our cooperation, since the Church does not know him, nor is he of the Church's forum. In the second state, since he is known to God and to the Church, he can have a remedy from God, with the cooperation of another's help, not his own. In the third state, since he is known in all ways, namely to God and to himself and to the Church, he can be aided in all these ways, so that not only God by His own power may act, but another's faith may aid as regards the Sacrament, and his own faith and devotion [may aid]. — The first sanctification, therefore, is by the divine will and pertains to a singular privilege. The second indeed is by the law given, as is clear in circumcision, and is clear also in baptism, since it was said in John chapter three[^6p150]: *Unless someone be reborn* etc. The third is by the law implanted, which God implanted, so that man might have recourse to God to ask pardon for an offense. — And the first indeed is of few, as for instance of those whom He assigns to some great office, and it is beyond the common law. For divine justice has so decreed that, as far as the common law is concerned, he who has fallen is not relieved unless some disposition occurs; and the infant indeed, just as he fell through another, so can he be relieved through another by being disposed, as for instance through another's faith; but the adult [is relieved] through his own, just as he sinned through his own will. — But since in the womb he cannot be aided through another's faith or through the[^7p150] Sacrament, since he is not of the Church's forum nor known to us; and this God decreed by the common law: therefore no one is purified in the womb except by a special privilege. Since therefore baptism regards the common law and the law given; therefore one ought not[^8p150] be baptized in the womb. And this reason is common to all the Sacraments at every time.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* And the response to that which is objected concerning sanctification is clear. For I concede that God could give grace, if He willed, to the infant; but through the Sacrament of baptism or any other[^9p150] ecclesiastical [thing] it ought not be done, not because [sanctification] is greater, but because it is another mode, which does not befit that state.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that God is more inclined to have mercy; it must be said that it is true; but nonetheless mercy runs together with justice: and therefore, because justice dictated that some *satisfaction*, or some *preparatory thing* be done for him on the infant's behalf, therefore He did not remit the guilt beforehand; yet He does not withhold *His mercy in anger*[^1p151]; for this very thing, that He preserves [him] in the womb and prepares a remedy outside, is of mercy: and if He had repaid Adam according to his sin, He would have destroyed his whole posterity.

la: Vers. 15. — Edd. post *matris suae* addunt *De Ieremia: Antequam exires de vulva, sanctificavi te* [Ier. 1, 5.].

en: Verse 15. — The editions, after *matris suae* ("of his mother's [womb]"), add *Concerning Jeremiah: Before you came forth from the womb, I sanctified you* [Jer. 1:5].

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 784, nota 6, verba Augustini. — Pro *miserandum* cod. K *miserendum.* In solut. edd. cum pluribus codd. eandem lectionem habent.

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 784, note 6, the words of Augustine. — For *miserandum* codex K [reads] *miserendum.* In the solution the editions, with several codices, have the same reading.

la: Hic c. 3.

en: Here, chapter 3.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.

en: See II Sent., d. 31, a. 2, q. 1 ff.

la: Cod. aa *visibile.* Idem cod. tam in hoc arg. quam in praecedenti plura mutat et addit, quae nullius sunt valoris.

en: Codex aa [reads] *visibile* ("visible"). The same codex, both in this argument and in the preceding one, changes and adds many things, which are of no value.

la: Codd. H Z *qua.*

en: Codices H and Z [read] *qua.*

la: Libr. IV. *Moral.* in praefat. c. 3. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 8, et Comment. ibid. p. II. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Book IV of the *Morals*, in the preface, c. 3. See above the text of the Master, d. 1, c. 8, and the Commentary there, part II, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Libr. IV. *de Fide orthod.* c. 9: *Quoniam enim duplex homo, ex anima et corpore, duplicem dedit nobis purgationem, per aquam et Spiritum: Spiritu quidem quod secundum imaginem et similitudinem est renovante, aqua autem per Spiritus gratiam corpus a peccato purgante et a corruptione liberante* etc.

en: Book IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 9: *For since man is twofold, of soul and body, He gave us a twofold purgation, by water and Spirit: by the Spirit indeed renewing that which is according to the image and likeness, but by the water, through the grace of the Spirit, purging the body from sin and freeing it from corruption*, etc.

la: Nam, ut paulo superius dictum est, sola fide parentum parvuli iustificabantur.

en: For, as was said a little above, infants were justified by the faith of the parents alone.

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 638, nota 7.

en: Cf. vol. III, p. 638, note 7.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Post *consonal* in cod. bb secunda manus addit *rationi.*

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 3. — After *consonat* in codex bb a second hand adds *rationi.*

la: Cod. Z *potestatem.*

en: Codex Z [reads] *potestatem* ("power").

la: Vers. 5. — De circumcisione cfr. Gen. 17, 10. seqq. — Pro *dictum est* edd. *dictum sit.* Eaedem edd. aliquanto superius post *sed* addunt *etiam.* Inferius post *legem communem* in cod. F subiungitur *Secunda est multorum.*

en: Verse 5. — Concerning circumcision cf. Gen. 17:10 ff. — For *dictum est* the editions [read] *dictum sit.* The same editions, somewhat above, after *sed* add *etiam.* Below, after *legem communem*, in codex F is appended *Secunda est multorum* ("The second is of many").

la: Cod. X *nec per*, codd. H K, omisso *vel per*, pro *Sacramentum* substituunt *Sacramento*, cod. T *Sacramenti.*

en: Codex X [reads] *nec per*; codices H and K, omitting *vel per*, substitute for *Sacramentum* the word *Sacramento*; codex T [reads] *Sacramenti.*

la: Plurimi codd. omittunt *quis.* Deinde post *baptizari* Vat. addit *nec potest.*

en: Most codices omit *quis.* Then after *baptizari* the Vatican [edition] adds *nec potest* ("nor can he be").

la: Cod. aa *vel aliquod Sacramentum.*

en: Codex aa [reads] *vel aliquod Sacramentum* ("or any [other] Sacrament").

la: Psalm. 76, 10: *Aut obliviscetur misereri Deus? aut continebit in ira sua misericordias suas?* — Inferius pro *peccatum* cod. aa *meritum.*

en: Psalm 76:10: *Or will God forget to be merciful? Or will He in His anger shut up His mercies?* — Below, for *peccatum* codex aa [reads] *meritum* ("merit"). [The "below" reference points to a word in Quaestio II, q.v.]

latin_scholion:
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page, so the apparatus is grouped by page (p.149: notes 1–7; p.150: notes 1–9; p.151 note 1 belongs to this quaestio's reply *Ad 2*).

**I.** Haec quaestio est de infantibus nullo modo natis. De natis secundum aliquam partem corporis consule casuistas. — Conclusio in genere constat. Etiam S. Thomas reiicit rationes a S. Bonav. reprobatas. — De sanctificatis in utero cfr. hic dub. I.

De hac I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., p. IV. q. 8. m. 7. a. 1. § 2. i. 4. — Scot., IV. Sent. d. 4. q. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. a. 1; S. III. q. 68. a. 11. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 2. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** This question is about infants in no way born. Concerning those born according to some part of the body, consult the casuists. — The conclusion is established in general. Even St. Thomas rejects the reasons reproved by St. Bonaventure. — Concerning those sanctified in the womb, see here doubt I.

On this first question: Alexander of Hales, part IV, q. 8, m. 7, a. 1, § 2, i. 4. — Scotus, IV Sent., d. 4, q. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. a. 1; Summa III, q. 68, a. 11. — Bl. Albert, on this and the following question, here a. 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, on this and the following question, here a. 2, q. 1. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from raw OCR `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L16977–17205 (base for clean running prose) with the PDF colcrop (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{149,150,151}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, split x=1880, 450 dpi) **authoritative** for the cascade-shattered Conclusio, Respondeo, the four *opiniones*, the triplex-status passage, the *Ad 1/Ad 2* replies, the scholion, and every page footer — the IA djvu OCR splices the two columns together so badly the Respondeo is unreadable in raw line order. English is a fresh literal translation. Source: Quaracchi Tomus IV, pp. 149–151 (PDF 169–171, offset +20). Page numbers verified from PDF running-head text (149 on p.149 R-0, 150 on p.150 L-0, 151 on p.151 R-0); the raw "130" at L17069 is OCR-mangled 150, and the running head "ISl" at L17172 is 151.

**Apparatus / footnote numbering.** Quaracchi restarts numbering per printed page. To keep marker ids unique within this one Markdown file, the per-page sequences are id-suffixed: p.149 = `[^1]`–`[^7]`; p.150 = `[^5p150]`–`[^9p150]` (Quaracchi notes 5–9; notes 1–4 of p.150 are footnotes to the body of the previous question's tail? no — they are p.150's own 1–4, rendered as `[^8]`,`[^9]`,`[^10]`,`[^11]` here because the body markers fall on the p.149→p.150 paragraph flow; see below); p.151 note 1 = `[^1p151]`. **Page-split of footers:** p.149 footers 1–7 → all in this chunk. p.150 footers: Quaracchi 1 (Damascene)=`[^8]`, 2 (sola fide)=`[^9]`, 3 (tom. III)=`[^10]`, 4 (lit. Magistri)=`[^11]` — these annotate body anchors that, although the body text continues onto printed p.150, all belong to this quaestio's Respondeo; Quaracchi 5–9 = `[^5p150]`–`[^9p150]`, also all this quaestio. p.151 footer 1 (`[^1p151]`, Psalm 76:10) anchors to this quaestio's *Ad 2* ("misericordiam suam in ira"); its trailing "Inferius pro *peccatum*…" half points forward into Quaestio II. Total apparatus entries rendered here: **17** (p.149 ×7, p.150 ×9, p.151 ×1).

**Page-split map (body).** p.149: Articulus/Quaestio openers + videtur args 1–2 + Sed contra 1–3 + Conclusio + Respondeo opening + opinio 1 (aequitas) [and through "non sufficit"]. p.150: opiniones 2–4 (Sacramentum / culpa / gratia) + author's resolution (*sacramentalis remedii*) + triplex-status + corollaries + *Ad 1*. p.151: *Ad 2* (mercy/justice) closes the quaestio in the right column; the SCHOLION is printed in the left column; QUAESTIO II begins immediately after on the same page (excluded).

**Hand-offs PICKED UP** (from d6-p2-divisio): the pars-II TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM ("Ad intelligentiam huius partis tria principaliter quaeruntur…") prints at the top of p.149 left column and belongs to the divisio chunk — NOT re-rendered here. Per the divisio hand-off, the divisio rendered nothing of this article's body on p.149; the Articulus I opener ("Circa primum quaeruntur duo…", p.149 right column top) and the q1 body start belong to THIS chunk, and ALL p.149 footers (1–7) belong here. Confirmed: this chunk opens grammatically clean.

**Hand-offs FORWARDED** (to d6-p2-a1-q2): **Scholion section II** — "II. De sequenti (2.) quaestione cfr. lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 6." + its citation cluster ("Item: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 6. — Scot., loc. cit. q. 6. — S. Thom., IV. Sent. d. 4. q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. — Dionys. Carth., IV. Sent. d. 4. q. 7.") explicitly serves Quaestio II and is rendered there, not here. Also forwarded: the **second half of p.151 footer 1** ("Inferius pro *peccatum* cod. aa *meritum*") whose "Inferius" anchor (*peccatum*) lands in Quaestio II's body — noted in `[^1p151]` so q2 need not re-derive it; and p.151 footers 2–9 (which annotate q2 body and the q2 Respondeo) belong to q2.

**[?] flags.** None. The PDF colcrop bands were legible for the full span; no genuinely uncertain readings remain. (OCR garbles silently corrected against the PDF: e.g. `baptismabs`→*baptismalis*, `liaptizabilis`→*baptizabilis*, `sumserunt` retained as Quaracchi's classical orthography, `congroitatis`→*congruitatis*, `nidlns`→*nullus*, `Eccksiae`→*Ecclesiae*.)